Presentation department Design and Construction Towards a dynamic CEG 26-11-2009

Presentation departmentDesign and ConstructionTowards a dynamic CEG

26-11-2009

2Inspiring Creativity

Contents

1. Why the renewal?2. Committees3. CEG Renewal Plan: mission, vision and position4. Changes at Design and Construction: strategy,

conditions, principles and aims5. Main changes per research group6. Follow-Up Process


1.Why the renewal?


Increase in production

intake new Bachelor's and Master's students

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

year

num

ber

Why the renewal?

development of faculty research output

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008year

BTA

-poin

ts

baten

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

year

M€ 2e/3e geldstroom

1e geldstroom

Reduction in government funding


Unchanged policy forecast versus 2008

Development of result

Faculty loss increases from• -2.6m in 2008 to -8.5m in 2011 due to:• Further decrease in government funding• Increase in staff costs and • Increase in other costs

To achieve a healthy financial basis, the department needs a:

• Turnaround of 9.5m


• Reduction overall rental Stevin II Laboratory 600k• Reduction Research & Education (O&O) lab staff 500k • Reduction secretarial department 200k• Reduction Design and Construction Processes staff 200k• Reduction SBE staff 550k• Reduction other sections 450k• Cooperation with Architecture 200k • Reduction external hiring 100k• Reduction other (SA, travel budget, ed. procurement) 250k• Subtotal 3050k

Design and Construction Department

Cost reduction


Renewal is necessary

Substantive choices are necessary based on:• changing society and our own strengths• stronger theme-driven profile• new initiatives for research programmes and

knowledge centres• greater participation by the sector• change in culture (academic entrepreneurship)• organisational adjustment


2.Committees


CEG Faculty

Committees

• end of 2008 external Advisory Committee (‘Stuip’), advice start of 2009

• mid-term review, report December 2008• creation of ‘Van Binsbergen’ Committee (Transport),

report January 2009• creation of ‘Rots’ Committee (synergy with

Architecture), reports January and June 2009• creation of ‘Van der Horst’ Committee (future Design

and Construction Department), report June 2009• external Geotechnology Committee (Van Riel), report

June 2009• Compact Construction Laboratory Committee

(Bijlaard), report June 2009


CEG Faculty

Committee findings in outline

• CEG remains as important as ever for society• CE lacks a clear profile, too little dynamism• Improve profile by making it theme-driven • Laboratories can be downsized, but remain necessary• Overall joined-up approach to design and construction

is vital


CEG Faculty

Committee findings in outline

• Cooperation with Architecture is vital• Market is prepared to support renewal with funding,

but ‘put your house in order first’• Besides strategy reorientation and sharpened focus, a

change in corporate culture is also vital


3.CEG Renewal Plan: mission, vision

and position


Changing environmentTrends

• Growing international urgency of social issues: quality of life in delta regions, safety, water supply, sanitation, mobility, energy supply, scarcity of resources

• Aggravated by climate change with focus on mitigation and adaptation

• Role of engineer is changing: process-based approach in broad multidisciplinary context, with explicit attention for sustainability

• Strong national/international competition in education and research

• Decrease in government funding and increase in importance of other (European) sources of funding

• Increasing role of customers and public private partnerships


CEG Mission Excel, inspire, innovate

•Achieve global excellence in research in delta technology, water technology, civil infrastructure, transport and geo-energy.

•Offer international students and staff an inspiring learning and working environment via state-of-the-art (research) facilities and research-driven education programmes.

•Pursue innovative solutions for our society in cooperation with partners.


CEG Vision Excel, inspire, innovate

•Work to maintain and improve quality of life, safety and accessibility in a changing society

•Set up partnerships with business, government and top universities to work on solutions that meet the demands of the society of the future

•With its years of experience, excellent facilities and excellent research and education programmes, the faculty and its alumni are a rich source of innovative solutions


required at all levels:

• internal – promoted via theme-driven approach• at chair/project level to the wider world• at departmental level to the wider world• at faculty level (support campaign)

Cooperation


Delta Technology

Marcel Stive

Geo-energy

Stefan Luthi /

Jan Dirk Jansen

Civil infrastructure

Jan Rots

Water Technology

Hans van Dijk / Jules van Lier

Transport & Planning

Bart van Arem /

Serge Hoogendoorn

5 themesRaise CEG profile and promote cooperation

Energy

InfrastructuresInfrastructures

Environment


Strengthen management and facilities

Management• promote cooperation between

departments/faculties• culture of accountability / academic

entrepreneurship• renewal driven by departmental directors• new partnerships with the sector

Facilities• upgrade building and efficiency of offices• improve efficiency of departmental laboratories


4.Process


Preparation

Preparatory Working Group for Design and Construction Reorganisation

• Louis de Quelerij• Frans Bijlaard• Jan Rots• Marijanne Mulder• Stijn van Boxmeer• Nathalie van Benthem• Martijn van Laarhoven• Martin Buis• Jaap Meijer


Working Method

• old organisation serves as basis• based on 2010 allocation model, budgeted

indirect/commercial funding 2010, budgeted expenditures 2010

• itemised right down to chair level• taking account of permissible permanent FTE number• result of permanent FTE plan incl. old-new comparison• result is leaner organisation• realignment of chairs to match new structure follows, in line

with departmental strategy, no further staffing consequences


Design and Construction Dept. - Reorganisation Process • start after summer recess• substantive principles and aims• core team for detailing of building blocks (dean,

departmental director, departmental secretary, HRM, F&C, ABO)

• education government funding according to allocation model

• research government funding extrapolated• research indirect/commercial funding extrapolated• effect of 2008 discounted after calculation• breakeven in 2012 with 2010 price level• support campaign to raise funding for renewal


Reorganisation Process

• intensive consultation with the Personnel Committee (OdC), with Chairman of Works Council attending as a guest

• 90% of draft version of proposed decision worked well

• consultation of departmental director with section leaders in 2 or 3 rounds

• plan seems practicable and feasible• communication plan with all employees of the

department• consultation from 24 November via Executive Board

–Works Council


5.Changes at Design and

Construction: strategy and aims


Ambition

Robust, budget-neutral department with:

• trend-setting education geared to current needs, with technical depth + increasing design & construct dynamics

• research portfolio with scientifically excellent components + increasingly unified departmental profile, visibility, social themes, sector-wide support

• healthy balance between science, engineering and design


Strategy

• Consolidate international scientific reputation of mechanics & materials

• Reinforce national engineering position in concrete, steel, roads and railways with sector-wide support and expertise centre

• Focus applications on integrated and constructive design of civil infrastructure (civil and hydraulic engineering) and on constructive design of buildings (Residential and Non-Residential Construction)

• Incorporate external trends such as performance-based building, integrated construction cycle thinking (design, construct, maintenance, re-use), sustainability (less materials-intensive, less nuisance) into research, education and chair profiles, see e.g. Vd Horst Committee


Approach

• Step 1: create ‘lean and mean’ zero situation (Vd Horst Committee), ‘house in order’ (Stuip Committee)

• Objectively quantify current tasks for BSc, MSc, PhD+research and translate this into permissible permanent FTE structure

• Criteria with step 1: quantity of education (incl. student numbers, popularity and indirect quality), quantity of research (bta, PhD graduations, indirect/commercial funding), quality of research (VSNU: Association of Universities in the Netherlands)

• Dissect down to the lowest level, chair/specialisation: entrepreneurship, incentives and required solidarity are made transparent and open for discussion

• New education and research initiatives and professor succession in conformity with strategy, earnings growth


Other principles and aims

• Culture more important than structure• Structure follows tasks, to be elaborated on basis of strategy• Energetic and dynamic, compact, shared macrolab• Elaborate synergy with Architecture (combined chairs, MSc-

track, Res. & Non-Res vs. Civ. Eng., technology and process, also TPM, OTB)

• Lots of bottom-up acquisition initiatives + horizontal top-level acquisition for expertise centre, support campaign vis-à-vis sector + education initiatives (e.g. renewed BSc, new working methods, minors)


6.Main changes per section


• negative result• wind down research in design and construction process

and building informatics• procure education in the above fields elsewhere• reduce permanent research staff• reinforce integrated design: grow research, improve

earning capacity• strengthen cooperation with Architecture, TPM, OTB

Design and Construction Processes


• strongly negative result• better balance necessary between education income and

costs• reinforce cooperation with Architecture (structural

design, buildings, MSc-track)• reinforce research through cooperation with TNO Applied

Research and Ministry of Waterways and Public Works (Roads and Constructions Expertise Centre) and supply industry

• reduce permanent research staff

Structural and Building Engineering


• slightly positive result• limited education component compared to research• large indirect/commercial funding (positive, but also a risk)• reinforce research through cooperation with TNO Applied

Research and Ministry of Waterways and Public Works (Roads and Constructions Expertise Centre)

• slight reduction of permanent staff

Road and Railway Engineering


• slightly positive result• good balance between education and research• a relatively large support component• dynamics & reliability phases out on basis of natural

attrition, transfer of educational tasks to other chairs• reduce support

Structural Mechanics


• negative result:• relaunch research lines, investment, start-up costs new

chairs• Microlab

• emphasis on research and PhDs• position of Separation Technology• slight reduction in permanent staff

Materials & Environment


• negative result• unique facilities for research and education• co-use by TNO Applied Research (Built Environment &

Geosciences) and Architecture or disposal of accommodation

• reduction to limited permanent staff:• high and broad knowledge level• flexible employment

• variable staff (secondment on yearly basis)• extra external hiring (duration of project) depending on

indirect/commercial funding

Macrolab


• increase efficiency by combining tasks in a single departmental secretarial department

• divided over two locations (Stevin II, 6th floor)• reduction in secretarial support through

• flexible employment• development of fields of expertise

Secretarial support


• critical review of other support in the department• reduction of non-department-specific positions• possible shift to University Corporate Office must be

explored

Non-department-specific staff


• large number of student teaching assistants• frequently used for projects, design and structural

building and engineering education• reduction• Use permanent staff first, review teaching formats and

course content• Use PhDs where possible

Student teaching assistants and external hiring


6.Follow-up Process


Renewal Plan Process

• discussion of Renewal Plan in Executive Board (EB) on 23 June

• EB agreement in outline in June• detailed reorganisation plan to EB 20 November• consultation with EB 24 November• consultation EB with Works Council 10 December• definite EB decision expected mid-February• closure of old organisation – transition to new

organisation expected in April 2010• restructuring on basis of plan content


Individual legal position

• consultation with Works Council is followed by EB decision (= adoption of Reorganisation Plan)• after EB’s decision individual interviews• employees receive letter informing them of intended placement, redundancy or elimination of the position• the employee can give his/her opinion on the decision• employees receive letter with decision on placement, redundancy or elimination of the position• employee has 6 weeks to appeal the decision


• start date new organisation:• employee transfers 1 on 1 to old position• employee starts new position• employee is eligible for social plan• employee remains in temporary position until end of

appointment

Individual legal position

Documents

Presentation department Design and Construction Towards a dynamic CEG 26-11-2009