Vice Dean: We must dare to tackle complexity

By Tina Ellehuus Larsen, tila@sdu.dk, 6/9/2022

This has been done through the co-creation of first of all timetable planning, and now it is time to look at the work processes relating to course descriptions and programme regulations.

– I very much like the idea that co-creation helps as many perspectives as possible to be heard through interviews with key people.

This is according to Vice Dean Poul Nielsen, who sees co-creation as a very important way to initiate change in complex areas:

– In this way, we are together tackling a task that would otherwise be difficult to solve. So now we are faced with looking at course descriptions and programme regulations, and I really believe that this is an area where we can do a lot for our study programmes and our own workload if we dare to address the complexity involved.

Dean Marianne Holmer explains the background for the co-creation method:

– In recent years, we in the faculty management have experienced that many members of staff have been frustrated by the various study administration tasks. As Dean, I really want to get to the heart of those frustrations so that we can do something about it.

The work with co-creation began three years ago and has already had an impact on the Faculty’s timetable planning.

– In 2019, together with SDU HR, we set out to learn more about the study administration area, and in the wake of that we launched the first round of co-creation regarding timetable planning. That work has made a big difference to the Faculty’s timetabling and to our students, and I expect this new round to open our eyes to new good solutions too.

The co-creation of NAT’s timetable planning has brought about various changes in this area. Read more about the new principles for timtable planning.

Interviews with key people

In the spring of 2022, Project Manager Gitte Toftgaard Jørgensen from the Science Faculty Administration conducted a major round of interviews about the work with programme regulations and course descriptions. She talked to degree programme directors, lecturers, departmental degree programme secretaries, the faculty student administration team, the Vice Dean and the Head of Studies, and she is also speaking to some students.

She says that the interviews have clearly revolved around five particular themes in which the Faculty could usefully take action:

– It has been quite clear that many people experience frustrations in relation to

1. the content of course descriptions
2. the process and deadlines for course descriptions
3. unclear responsibilities
4. insufficient communication and information
5. the technical part of ODIN.

– So we're very spread out, and it is by no means a straightforward area to enter. I have appreciated the broadness of the interviews as it has given me a very good insight into the reality of each stakeholder.

Degree Programme Director at IMADA, Luís Cruz-Filipe, has also found it interesting to be interviewed in connection with co-creation.

– It’s great to have the opportunity to bring the teachers’ perspective into the process and talk about our challenges in working with course descriptions and programme regulations. I’m confident that we will end up with a better process for everyone involved in this area of study administration when the co-creation initiative is over in the autumn.

– Gitte Toftgaard Jørgensen also says that she has found many dilemmas in her survey, since much depends on the perspective and thus the lens through which an interviewee sees the world.

If you look at the example of “changes in course descriptions” from the survey, on the one hand you have teachers and degree programme directors who make change to their courses in order to make them better. So, perfectly legitimate, logical and good arguments for change. On the other hand, you have the sum of many, many changes that puts a lot of pressure on the administrative system, as one change often gives rise to a larger number of other changes due to joint classes and minor subject programmes. This is detrimental to the overview of the degree programmes. So, also legitimate and good arguments for holding back on making changes.

Co-creation can help to find the best place to meet so that both sides of a dilemma are accommodated as far as possible.

– The dilemma thus raises questions such as “can we improve the degree programmes without changing the course descriptions?”, “can we shape course descriptions to better accommodate these improvements?” And in this way, there are several dilemmas in the themes from my survey, points out Gitte Toftgaard Jørgensen.

There has been a particular focus on talking to relatively new faculty lecturers. The overall message from this group has been that it is difficult to be new to student administration tasks, and it is hard to know what the expectations are.

Next step

In conclusion, Gitte Toftgaard Jørgensen says that the Faculty of Science must now make a serious start on co-creation and together decide what changes we want to make in the area.

– The task now is to present the extensive material to key people at the Faculty, who will then decide together what will happen next. It has actually surprised me how complex this area is, so I don’t see that there are any obvious and easy solutions. But we’ll see. As project manager, I think the most important thing is that we make a decision on an informed basis, and that the solution is seen in the light of our desire to reduce staff frustration and workload. I’m certainly looking forward to seeing where we end up.

The degree programme directors have a key role in co-creation, along with degree programme secretaries, the faculty student administration team and the education and teaching committees. It is expected that one or two meetings of this group will be held in the autumn to address the dilemmas before the Faculty management makes final decisions about changes later in the year.

Read the faculty's strategy for people and organisation, where co-creation is an area of focus.