Agenda for meeting in Academic Council, 4. April 2014 (3 hours)

Transkript

1 Agenda for meeting in Academic Council, 4. April 2014 (3 hours) Time DIR 1. Approval of Agenda 2 9:00 Research Integrity. Briefing and discussion. Alan 3 9:30 Announcement of VIP positions. Discussion and recommendation. 4 10:00 Research publication analysis. New Initiatives. Briefing, discussion and recommendation. 5 11:00 Recommendation from the national Quality Committee (Kvalitetsudvalg). Briefing and discussion. Alan Alan Per 6 11:15 Budget and Campus Peter J 7 11:30 Misc: a) Evaluation of the University Act participation og staff and students b) Development Contract. Process. c) Institutional Accreditation d) Appointment of new deans. Process. e) The Political landscape f) Copenhagen Science Region

2 Agenda for meeting in Academic Council, 4. April 2014 (3 hours) Time DIR Appendix 1. Approval of Agenda 2. 9:00 A national Code of Integrity in Research. Briefing and discussion. Alan/ Lotte Background: FIVU and dkuni have established a national working group with representatives from the Danish universities. The purpose is to develop a national code for integrity in research. HoD Lotte Jensen, LPF represents CBS in the working group. Role of Academic Council: According to CBS bylaws it is the role of the Academic Council to ensure that the provisions re academic freedom and integrity in research are followed. Lotte Jensen will brief the Council on the recommendation in the draft report (attached), and the future process. The Council is invited to comment on the briefing and the preliminary report. Next Step: The report will be sent to the universities for comments. When the final report has been finished, the Academic Council will have a preliminary discussion on which initiatives to initiate, possibly set up a group to prepare proposals for implementation. Appendix: The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Draft. 28 March. Duration: 30 minutes Attendance: Lotte Jensen and Carsten Yssing 3. 9:30 Announcement of VIP positions. Discussion and recommendation. Alan Background: The Academic Council in January discussed the new CBS Bylaws. It was decided that the Academic Council should approve the principles for announcement of VIP positions but not the actual announcements but that the Council should play an important part in the implementation of these principles. In June 2012 the Academic Council approved the principles for announcement of VIP positions, specifically:

3 CBS announcements must follow these general principles: VIP positions must be announced within a broad subject area. The dean of research can approve exceptions. VIP positions at and above the level of associate professor must be announced internationally In order to get the best qualified applicants for positions at CBS, announcements of VIP positions must have a long application deadline (at least 4 weeks). The dean of research can approve exceptions. It was also decided that the Academic Council should discuss the justification of possible exceptions from the general principles, and if it was necessary to take additional action at regular intervals - twice a year was suggested. A central issue has been whether announcements were too narrow. Role of Academic Council: Lise Peitersen, HR has prepared a list of announcements in 2013 as a first try to accommodate the needs of the Academic Council. The Academic Council is invited to comment on the list, including the format of the list. Next step: HR will prepare a list of announcements once a year or twice a year. Appendix: VIP Announcements 2013 Duration: 30 minutes Attendance: Lise Peitersen 4. 10:00 Research publication analysis. New Initiatives. Briefing, discussion and recommendation. Alan Background: The CBS President held a seminar on research publication analysis and publication strategy January 14 th, The seminar was also attended by members of the Academic Council. As a follow up and inspired by the seminar DIR is inclined to look into an extension of research performance measurements and methods at CBS. To this end DIR has decided to take part in an EFMD pilot project on research performance measurement to assess if the monitoring tool CWTS Monitor is suitable in this respect. The tool will not only permit research performance measurement internally, but also enable comparisons of CBS externally (benchmarking). 2

4 Leif Hansen will brief the Council about DIRs plan, the purpose of the pilot project and the implications for CBS research performance measurements. Role of Academic Council: The Academic Council is invited to comment on the briefing, and to suggest issues to be addressed in the pilot project in order to influence the monitoring tool, the bibliometric analysis and future research performance measurements at CBS. Next step: Based on participation in the pilot project internal discussions with Academic Council and department heads will address how to further develop CBS use of bibliometric analysis to support CBS strategic development Appendix: a) Suggestions for renewed Research Performance Measurement at CBS, 2014 b) Note: The seminar: Research evaluation, research quality and social impact of January 2014 c) About the EFMD pilot on research performance management March-May 2014 d) Overview: Current research performance measurements at CBS Duration: 30 minutes Attendance: Leif Hansen and Jessie Tvillinggaard 5. 11:00 Recommendation from the national Quality Committee (Kvalitetsudvalg). Briefing and discussion. Per Background: In the autumn of 2013 the minister set up a committee to prepare recommendations regarding quality, relevance and coherence in higher education in Denmark. The first of 2 reports is expected to be published April 3 rd Role of Academic Council: Per Holten-Andersen will brief the Council about the recommendations. The Academic Council is invited to comment on the briefing. Appendix: Kommissorium for udvalg for kvalitet, relevans og sammenhæng i de videregående uddannelser The Report from the committee will be sent to the Council late April 3 rd if possible. 3

5 Duration: 15 minutes 6. 11:15 Budget and Campus Peter J Background: Peter Jonasson will brief the Council about Campus and the budget for 2014, including financing of PhD students. Role of Academic Council: The Academic Council is invited to comment on the briefing Appendix: Revised Financing model for PhDs Duration: 15 minutes 7. 11:30 Misc: Attendance: Peter Jonasson Per Holten-Andersen, Alan Irwin and Jan Molin will brief the Council regarding: a) Evaluation of the University Act participation of staff and students. Appendix: Evaluering af Universitetsloven b) Development Contract. Process. No appendix c) Institutional Accreditation. Appendix: Self evaluation report. d) Appointment of new deans. Process. No appendix. e) The political landscape. Appendix: Rektorkollegiets politikpapir om optag og beskæftigelse; Handlingsplan færre studiepladser på uddannelser med særlig stor ledighed. f) Copenhagen Science Region. No appendix 4

6 DRAFT 28 March 2014 The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 1

7 DRAFT 28 March 2014 Content Foreword... 3 I. Principles of Research Integrity... 5 This chapter presents three central principles that are fundamental in ensuring the trustworthiness of all research endeavors: 1. Honesty 2. Transparency 3. Accountability II. Responsible Conduct of Research... 6 This chapter presents six basic standards for conducting responsible research from the planning phase to the dissemination of results: 1. Research planning and conduct 2. Data management 3. Publication and communication 4. Authorship 5. Collaborative research 6. Conflicts of interest III. Research integrity teaching, training, and supervision This chapter outlines the basic platform for research integrity teaching, training, and supervision. Specific teaching on research integrity as well as ongoing training and supervision in the responsible conduct of research are key elements for fostering a culture of research integrity. IV. Research misconduct and breaches of responsible conduct of research This chapter explains the importance of having a system in place for handling research misconduct and breaches of the responsible conduct of research. The basic platform for institutional systems is outlined here. Appendix 1 Members of the working group on the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity Appendix 2 Bibliography

8 DRAFT 28 March 2014 Foreword Research and research-based education is of central and increasing importance in developing society s knowledge base, increasing welfare and providing informed answers to local and global challenges. Together this helps guide the decisions that shape society. This is why we invest heavily in high-quality research and education and why we have an extensive production of research. All this happens in a continually more complex and demanding interdisciplinary and internationalised research community. To ensure high-quality research we must ensure that research is trustworthy by respecting the principles of research integrity. At the same time we must respect the basic principle of freedom of research to ensure that new views and understandings are put forward. Freedom of research implies the right to freely choose and develop theories, gather empirical material and employ methods according to the research chosen. Honesty, transparency, and accountability should have a solid presence in all phases of the research process, as failure to respect these basic principles jeopardises the integrity of research to an extent that may threaten the freedom of research. Researchers and institutions should be aware of their responsibilities to the research community, to the funders of research activities and to society at large. Over the past few years international guidelines and recommendations aimed at promoting research integrity have been developed. Three widely acknowledged documents are of particular importance: - The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (developed at the 2 nd World Conference on Research Integrity in 2010) - The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (developed at the 3 rd World Conference on Research Integrity in 2013) - The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (developed by the European Science Foundation and All European Academies in 2011) These international guidelines recommend that all research institutions continuously ensure the integrity of their research. We must do the same in Denmark by promoting research integrity at the national and institutional level. The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity provides the research community with a solid framework to ensure that our research respects commonly agreed principles and standards. The Code of Conduct aims to create a common understanding and common culture of research integrity in Denmark. This means that collaborative research projects involving researchers from different institutions can refer to a common set of guidelines on research integrity. On the background of three basic principles of research integrity, i.e. honesty, transparency, and accountability, the Code presents a set of standards on responsible conduct of research, a set of guidelines on teaching, training, and supervision, and, finally, a set of guidelines on how to respond to breaches of responsible conduct of research. These elements are intended as guidance tools for researchers in their day-to-day work. Furthermore, the Code provides a common foundation upon which institutions should further develop policies and procedures for promoting research integrity within each research discipline. 3

9 DRAFT 28 March 2014 The Code has been developed to embrace all fields of research. Accordingly, it does not include an exhaustive list of how to conduct research in every detail, but provides institutions with a basic set of principles and standards to be implemented and to which the institutions can add more detailed guidelines for their field of research.. The Code was drafted by a working group established in 2013 by the Ministry of Higher Education and Science and the organisation Universities Denmark. The working group comprised representatives from the eight Danish universities, the Sector Research Institutes of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research and the Danish Council for Strategic Research. As part of the development of the Code, it was sent to public consultation and discussed at a conference in May After final drafting, the code was adopted by the Ministry of Higher Education and Science and Universities Denmark on [date] 4

10 DRAFT 28 March 2014 I. Principles of Research Integrity Adhering to the principles of research integrity ensures that research is trustworthy. The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity rests on three basic principles that should have a solid presence in all phases of research. 1. Honesty To ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of research, researchers should be honest when reporting research goals and intentions, methods applied, and data used. This requires precise and balanced reporting when: presenting and interpreting research making claims based on findings acknowledging the work of other researchers reviewing the work of other researchers applying for research funding 2. Transparency To ensure credibility of the scientific reasoning and to ensure that academic reflection is consistent with practice in the relevant field of research, transparency should be maintained in all phases of a research project. This requires openness when reporting: all conflicts of interests planning of research methods applied collection, analysis and interpretation of data results and conclusions 3. Accountability To ensure that research and communication about research and its results are carried out in accordance with responsible conduct of research, all parties accountable for ensuring the integrity of the research must live up to their responsibilities. This requires that researchers and institutions accept responsibility for the research they are conducting, in terms of: accuracy and reliability of research results adherence to all relevant regulations fostering and maintaining a culture of research integrity through teaching, training, and supervision taking appropriate measures when dealing with breaches of responsible conduct of research 5

11 DRAFT 28 March 2014 II. Responsible Conduct of Research Responsible conduct of research requires that everyone involved in the research process follows high standards for conducting research. These standards cover a wide variety of subjects from proper management of data to the dissemination of research results. The standards for responsible conduct of research outlined here are intended to help researchers and institutions to ensure the integrity of their research. Widespread adoption of the standards should establish common ground for how responsible research should be carried out in Denmark. The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity covers six broad aspects of research that comprise the basic standards for responsible conduct of research: 1. Research planning and conduct 2. Data management 3. Publication and communication 4. Authorship 5. Collaborative research 6. Conflicts of interest In addition to these six areas, supplementary standards should, where appropriate, be specified at the institutional level. Researchers and institutions should also be aware of existing regulations that impact on research, e.g. regulation on treatment of personal data, intellectual property rights, ethical reviews, etc. 6

12 DRAFT 28 March Research planning and conduct Conscientious planning and conduct of research are essential prerequisites for responsible conduct of research, and consequently fundamental to ensuring transparent and credible research. This applies to all fields of research, regardless of the fact that research methods are as varied as the subjects of research. Responsible conduct of research applies throughout the research process, from planning of research to reporting of results. Definitions Research strategies, plans and protocols are planning tools for how a research project is carried out. The form, content and implementation of these tools are decided by the field of research in question and thus may vary across different disciplines Responsibilities i. The design and conduct of the intended research should be outlined in a research strategy, plan or protocol, developed in accordance with current standards applicable to the field of research in question. ii. iii. Throughout the duration of the research project, records, logbooks or journals should be kept if possible with dates and entries by the person(s) responsible for the conduct of the research. To the extent possible, records, logbooks and journals should be formulated in a way that allows the research to be examined and when applicable reproduced. When applicable, reporting of research should include details about procedures, hypotheses and assumptions to the extent that they are necessary for understanding and assessing the research Division of responsibilities i. Researchers are responsible for planning and conducting their research projects. ii. iii. iv. Throughout the research project, researchers should conduct assessments to determine if there are particular issues requiring permits, approvals, etc., e.g. approval from an ethics committee or an institutional review board. Researchers should not enter into agreements (e.g. with funders and others) that limit their access to all data and their ability to analyse data independently, unless such access limitations can be justified by the specific circumstances. Within each field of research, institutions should maintain policies for the proper management of research plans and protocols, experimental records, logbooks, journals, etc., and should maintain policies for the procedures regarding necessary approvals and permits. 7

13 DRAFT 28 March Data management Responsible conduct of research includes proper management of primary materials and data. The key purpose of data management is to guarantee credible and transparent research. Definitions Primary material is any material (e.g. biological material, notes, interviews, texts and literature, or recordings) that form the basis of the research. Data are detailed records of the primary materials that comprise the basis for the analysis that generates the results Responsibilities i. Data and primary materials should be retained, stored and managed in a clear and accurate form that allows the result to be assessed, the procedures to be retraced and when applicable the research to be reproduced. ii. iii. iv. Data should be kept for a period of at least five years from the date of publication. However, the recommended period for retaining data should always be determined by the current standards applicable to the specific field of research. Primary materials should be stored for a period determined by the current standards applicable to the specific field of research. The data records should enable identification of persons having conducted the actual research and persons or institutions with final ownership of the data, primary materials, and research results. Any changes to the data or primary materials stored should be clearly accounted for in a way that allows clear identification of the changes made. v. Results should be kept irrespective of whether or not they were published, and should contain a precise and traceable reference to the source. vi. vii. To the extent possible, research data and primary materials should be stored in the department of the researcher, or another appropriate institutional repository. Arrangements for storage of data and primary materials in other locations should be documented. Data and primary material should be retained in a way that makes them available for use by other researchers, except when this is in conflict with current regulations on for example ethical, privacy, or confidentiality matters or intellectual property rights Division of responsibilities i. Researchers are responsible for storing their data and primary materials. 8

14 DRAFT 28 March 2014 ii. iii. Researchers are unless otherwise regulated responsible for deciding the extent to which primary material should be retained. When deciding this, researchers should consider the value of the primary materials for assessing the results of the research and take account of the physical and technical possibility of storage at the institution. Institutions should maintain a policy on the retention of data and primary materials that includes information on: o o o o Storage of research data and primary materials Secure and safe disposal of research data and primary materials after the retention period Ownership and access to research data and primary materials Data retention, accessibility and ownership when researchers leave the institution iv. Institutions are responsible for providing secure data storage facilities that are consistent with confidentiality requirements, rules about privacy, legal requirements, and applicable regulations and guidelines. v. Institutions are responsible for ensuring that research data and primary materials can be traced to the relevant researchers, and should allow access to the stored data and primary materials, except when this is in conflict with current regulations on for example ethical, privacy, or confidentiality matters or intellectual property rights. vi. Institutions are responsible for informing their research staff about the policies and procedures that are in place at the institution for data management. 9

15 DRAFT 28 March Publication and communication Publication and communication is essential for enabling the research community to scrutinize and discuss research results. Thus, researchers have a duty to publish their results to the research community, to professional practitioners, and to society at large. Research can be communicated through various channels and fora ranging from strictly professional contexts aimed at peers to more popular research communication aimed at a broader audience. Although form, expression and level of detail may differ according to channels employed and audiences addressed, the standards for responsible conduct of research should always be respected when communicating research. Definitions Publication is the process of reporting research and research results to the research community through articles, reports, etc. in periodicals, journals or other academic media. Communication is the broad concept of conveying information to society at large in any form of media Responsibilities i. Research results should be published in an honest, transparent, and accurate manner as early as possible in the scientific process. ii. iii. iv. Research results should not be broken down (fragmentized) into least publishable units to maximize the quantity of publications. Submission of research reports to more than one potential publisher at any given time (i.e. duplicate submission), or publishing findings in more than one publication without disclosure and appropriate acknowledgement of any previous publication (i.e. duplicate publication) is unacceptable except in particular and clearly explained circumstances, such as review articles, anthologies or collections. When using primary materials, data or results from previous publications, clear information on the origin and to the extent possible previous use of the primary materials, data, or results should be provided in the current publication. v. Information on ownership of research results should be available. vi. If access to and analysis of all data are subject to limitations, this should be declared in a clear manner to the readers of the publication. Detailed information about the role of the study sponsor concerning research design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, and publication decisions should be provided in the manuscript. 10

16 DRAFT 28 March 2014 vii. viii. ix. When using the work of other researchers in a publication, appropriate and accurate references to such work should be provided. The use of the work of other researchers without appropriate reference is not acceptable. The right of researchers to unrestricted publication of their research should be respected. However, publication may be subject to limitations when reasonably justified by specific circumstances such as legal requirements, e.g. intellectual property rights. Comments on the importance and practical applicability of research findings should always be made with caution when communicating with the public, and when disseminating information about research findings. Researchers should be aware of the potential impact of their comments when communicating as an expert in the media Division of responsibilities i. Researchers are responsible for disseminating their research. ii. iii. iv. Researchers are responsible for ensuring adequate reference to the work of others. Researchers are responsible for ensuring that omission of research results is justified and documented, that data used in the publication are reliable and that the methods employed are pertinent to the data acquired. Researchers should take account of any restrictions relating to intellectual property rights concerning data in their publication activities. v. Researchers acting as peer reviewers and editors should carry out their editorial and review obligations in an honest and unbiased manner. This includes assessing all manuscripts submitted for publication on equal terms and with respect for ownership of ideas. vi. vii. viii. ix. Institutions should promote and maintain an environment that supports honesty, transparency, and accuracy when disseminating research findings, e.g. through policies and training relating to publication and communication. Institutions should ensure that sponsors and other funders of research fully respect the duty of researchers to publish research and research results honestly, transparently, and accurately. Institutions are responsible for protecting confidentiality and for ensuring that all parties involved in the research are aware of the nature and scope of confidentiality agreements. Institutions are responsible for managing intellectual property rights and informing researchers of legal and contractual arrangements that may restrict, delay, or limit publication. 11

17 DRAFT 28 March Authorship Authorship has important academic, social, and financial implications as it plays an important part in the recognition and status of research and researchers in the research community. Correct attribution of authorship and appropriate acknowledgement of contributions that do not meet the criteria for authorship contributes to the transparency and credibility of research, and is thus a key requirement in upholding responsible conduct of research. Definitions An author is anyone listed as an originator of a research publication. Authors with specialist roles are persons who apply their particular area of expertise in the research publication, e.g. an expert in a certain scientific method applied in the publication. Authors with leading roles are persons who have an overall coordinating role and decision-making authority in the process leading to the publication, e.g. this person will often be the lead (or first) author, the senior (or last) author, or the corresponding author Responsibilities i. Attribution of authorship should in general be based on the criteria below adopted from the Vancouver rules 1, and all those who meet these criteria should be recognised as authors: a. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work, and b. drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and c. final approval of the version to be published, and d. agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. ii. iii. These criteria for authorship should not be used to exclude persons who otherwise meet authorship criteria, and therefore persons who meet criterion #a should be given the opportunity to meet criteria #b-d. Important work and intellectual contributions of others that have influenced the reported research but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be appropriately acknowledged. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding, in the collection of data, or in general supervision of the research group does not justify authorship. 1 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, Updated December

18 DRAFT 28 March 2014 iv. If authorship is by a group name, all members of the group should fully meet the criteria for claiming authorship. v. Guest authorship (i.e. listing authors who do not qualify as such) or ghost authorship (i.e. omitting individuals who should have been listed as authors) is not acceptable. vi. vii. viii. Decisions concerning publication and authorship should be agreed on jointly and should be communicated to all members of the research team. Any alterations to manuscripts after submission should be approved by all authors. All authors are responsible for the content of the publication. However, the responsibility of each author should be assessed subject to their individual role in the research project. An author may have a special responsibility to ensure the integrity of the publication or specific parts of the publication depending on whether the author has a leading or specialist role. Authors with leading roles in the publication have a wider responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the reported research, including ensuring that all aspects are carried out in accordance with responsible conduct of research Division of responsibilities i. Researchers with leading author roles are responsible for ensuring that all persons named as authors qualify as such, cf. the requirements for authorship as set out above. ii. iii. iv. Researchers with leading author roles are responsible for appropriate acknowledgement of contributions that do not meet the criteria for authorship. Researchers should address issues relating to authorship especially the roles of all collaborators and contributors at an early stage of the design of a project while recognising that, subject to legal and ethical requirements, roles and contributions may change during the time span of the research. Institutions should maintain a policy on the attribution of authorship and on how to handle authorship disputes. 13

19 DRAFT 28 March Collaborative research Research is increasingly a collaborative endeavour involving researchers from different disciplines, institutions, and countries. Such collaboration presents challenges for responsible conduct of research, as research cultures and perceptions of research integrity may differ across disciplines, institutions and countries. The key purpose of establishing guidelines for collaborative research is to ensure a common understanding of and framework for the application of responsible conduct of research. Definitions Collaborative research is research involving two or more collaborating partners. Collaborating partners are all parties involved with the collaborative research, including researchers, students, technical personnel, administrative personnel and institutions Responsibilities i. All collaborating partners should to the extent possible take responsibility for the integrity of the collaborative research. ii. iii. Collaborating partners should when feasible and preferably as early as possible establish agreements on all relevant areas of the research project, and specify how responsible conduct of research will be applied throughout the collaborative research. 2 Where appropriate, common agreements should in addition to standard agreements on the practical implementation of the project be established on the following: a. Intellectual property rights b. Procedures for addressing conflicting laws, regulations, practices, etc. c. Procedures for resolution of conflicts between collaborating partners d. Publication issues e. Use, sharing, ownership and management of data f. Confidentiality g. Conflicts of interest h. Procedures for handling breaches of responsible conduct of research, including research misconduct 2 When entering into international collaborative research, the boilerplate text from the OECD Global Science Forum Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects A Practical Guide (2009) may serve as inspiration for the collaborating partners. 14

20 DRAFT 28 March Division of responsibilities i. Researchers should identify areas in the collaborative research where common agreements may be necessary. ii. Institutions are responsible for providing their collaborating partners with the tools and support necessary for establishing agreements as specified above. 15

21 DRAFT 28 March Conflicts of interest Responsible conduct of research includes disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest. This allows financial or other interests to be assessed on an informed basis in order to evaluate possible bias of professional judgement. Definitions A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other interests have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgement Responsibilities i. All parties involved with the research in question, including all assessors of research and research proposals (e.g. editors, reviewers, research councils, etc.) should disclose any conflicts of interest. ii. iii. Assessors of research and research proposals who have a conflict of interest should withdraw from any involvement in the process. All parties involved with the research in question should address conflicts of interest, i.e. institutions and researchers have a joint responsibility for handling issues relating to conflicts of interest Division of responsibilities i. Researchers are responsible for disclosing all conflicts of interest related to the research they are involved with. ii. Institutions are responsible for addressing issues of conflicts of interest, and for ensuring that all conflicts of interest are handled adequately. In this context institutions should have a policy for handling conflicts of interest, which includes information on: a. Situations that constitute a conflict of interest b. Disclosure of conflicts of interest, including how to handle confidentiality issues 16

22 DRAFT 28 March 2014 III. Research integrity teaching, training, and supervision The Danish Code of Conduct on Research Integrity outlines the basic platform for research integrity teaching, training and supervision at the institutional level. Fostering a culture of research integrity is a key element for ensuring high integrity in research. In this context teaching, training, and supervision are essential for developing and sustaining a culture of research integrity and for establishing and sustaining basic knowledge on research integrity among those involved in research. It is important that institutions take responsibility for ensuring that researchers under their auspices receive relevant teaching, training, and supervision in the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research. The main purpose is to incorporate the elements of research integrity into the day-today work of researchers, and to maintain a mind-set that promotes research integrity. A fundamental part of sustaining and developing a culture of research integrity is the role of supervisors and senior researchers acting as mentors and role models. Thus, it is important that supervisors and senior researchers engage in research integrity teaching, training, and supervision. 17

23 DRAFT 28 March Teaching, training, and supervision in the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research The purpose of research integrity teaching, training, and supervision is to promote a research culture in Denmark that is governed by the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research. Teaching, training, and supervision are of pivotal importance in raising awareness of research integrity because they provide a proactive and positive approach to promoting research integrity as central to the research mission. Research leaders and supervisors have particularly important roles in research integrity teaching, training, and supervision. Definitions Research leaders are individuals with the overall professional academic responsibility for the research carried out. Supervisors are experienced researchers providing guidance for less experienced colleagues, e.g. PhD students Responsibilities i. The principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research should be an element of all research endeavours and educational curricula, and should be seen as fundamental to the research process not as a separate component. ii. iii. All involved in the research process should promote and maintain an environment that fosters research integrity where the fundamental values of research integrity are emphasized and practised as a matter of routine. In accordance with national and international best practice, research integrity teaching, training, and supervision should include: a. Principles of research integrity b. Responsible conduct of research c. Research misconduct and breaches of responsible conduct of research, including the procedures for handling suspicions d. Relevant regulations iv. Undergraduate (bachelor) and graduate (master) educations should include an introduction to the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research. v. PhD and postdoctoral programmes should include specific research integrity teaching and training. In this context, supervision of PhD students and postdocs should include guidance on research integrity. 18

24 DRAFT 28 March 2014 vi. Research leaders and supervisors should receive specific research integrity teaching and training to support their mentoring roles in fostering a culture of research integrity Division of responsibilities i. Research leaders and supervisors should act as role models, and manage research under their auspices in accordance with the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research. ii. iii. iv. Research leaders and supervisors are responsible for nurturing a culture of research integrity and mutual respect in accordance with the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that the research carried out by researchers, research trainees, and students under their supervision is conducted in observance of the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research. Institutions are responsible for ensuring that all staff (including guest researchers) and students involved in research have thorough knowledge of and understand the importance of the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research. 19

25 DRAFT 28 March 2014 IV. Research misconduct and breaches of responsible conduct of research It is important to have a system in place for handling breaches of the responsible conduct of research. This includes situations of direct research misconduct (cf. the definition used by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty below) as well as situations that do not reach the threshold of research misconduct. In this regard, institutions and researchers share a responsibility for ensuring that suspicions of research misconduct as well as other breaches of responsible conduct of research are brought forward and dealt with appropriately. The Danish Code of Conduct outlines the basic platform for institutions to deal with suspicions of research misconduct and breaches of responsible conduct of research. The institutional systems are intended to coexist with the central national body, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. Thus, the code of conduct lays out basic guidelines for the institutional systems for dealing with such suspicions, whereas the implementation of specific processes is the responsibility of the individual institution. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) form a central national body tasked with handling allegations on research misconduct based on complaints brought before the committees by individuals or institutions. The DCSD is an independent body established by an Act of Parliament under the Ministry of Higher Education and Science. The DCSD s mandate is limited to allegations concerning research misconduct (referred to as scientific dishonesty in the Act) as defined in Consolidated Act no of 6 September 2010 on the research advisory system, etc., as amended, section 2 (3): Scientific dishonesty shall mean: Falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other serious violation of good scientific practice committed wilfully or grossly negligent on planning, performance or reporting of research results. Thus, the DCSD cannot deal with cases solely concerning breaches of responsible conduct of research, if these breaches do not represent research misconduct as described above. More information on the mandate and structure of the DCSD is available here: The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty's website 20

26 DRAFT 28 March Response to suspicions of breaches of responsible conduct of research A prompt and effective response to suspicions of breaches of responsible conduct of research is required in order to maintain public confidence in research endeavours, and ensure observance of the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research. Definitions Breaches of responsible conduct of research are breaches of current standards on responsible conduct of research, including those of the national code of conduct, and other generally respected and applicable institutional, national and international practices and guidelines on research integrity. If serious enough, a breach of responsible conduct of research may also represent research misconduct, cf. the definition used by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty Responsibilities i. All parties involved in the research endeavour share responsibility for ensuring that reasonable suspicions of research misconduct or breaches of responsible conduct of research are addressed adequately. ii. Institutional systems for addressing these matters should be clearly described and easily accessible. Institutional procedures should comprise at least the following elements in order to ensure coherent and effective handling of suspicions of breaches of responsible conduct of research at the institutional level: a. Preliminary advice concerning a suspicion of a potential breach Anyone with a reasonable suspicion that a breach of responsible conduct of research has been committed should have the opportunity to request preliminary advice concerning the suspicion, e.g. through a named person or similar. If there are qualified grounds for the suspicion, the case should be submitted for further investigation in accordance with institutional procedures and the parties to the case should be informed immediately. b. Investigation of a reasonable suspicion When addressing and investigating suspicions of breaches of responsible conduct of research, the following principles should be observed: the persons involved in addressing the suspicion and handling the investigation should be impartial the investigators should possess professional competences within the specific case s field of research and thorough knowledge of responsible conduct of research. Preferably, one or more investigators should have prior experience with cases concerning research misconduct and/or breaches of responsible conduct of research 21

27 DRAFT 28 March 2014 the parties to the case should be highly involved in processing the case by being allowed to comment on the investigational material and by being continually informed of the status of the case the parties to the case should be protected to the extent possible so that o persons bringing forward suspicions in good faith ( whistle-blowers ) are protected from reprisals o complaints strictly brought forward as harassment (in bad faith) may in themselves be considered a breach of responsible conduct of research o the identities of the parties are kept confidential to the extent possible. similar cases/situations should be treated similarly investigation procedures should be made public cases should be concluded efficiently, so that no person is part of an investigation longer than strictly necessary The investigation ends with an ascertainment of whether a breach of responsible conduct of research has occurred. If there is a qualified suspicion of research misconduct, the institution may choose to refer the case to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. c. Conclusion of the investigation/sanctions If the investigation concludes that a breach of responsible conduct of research has taken place, it is the responsibility of the institution(s) where the research has been carried out and/or where the researcher is employed to impose relevant sanctions. iii. Institutional systems for addressing suspicions of breaches of responsible conduct of research coexist with the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. Thus, institutional systems do not limit researchers or others from putting forward their suspicions of research misconduct directly to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty Division of responsibilities i. Researchers and institutions are responsible for creating and maintaining an environment where it is acceptable to bring forward reasonable suspicions of breaches of responsible conduct of research. ii. iii. iv. Researchers are responsible for bringing forward reasonable suspicions of breaches of responsible conduct of research and for supporting the handling of such suspicions. Institutions are responsible for ensuring that a system for addressing reasonable suspicions of breaches of responsible conduct of research is in place at the institutional level. Institutions should have a policy which describes their system for addressing suspicions of research misconduct and breaches of responsible conduct of research, including: Where and to whom (e.g. named person or similar) a person can turn to for advice on a suspicion of a breach of responsible conduct of research The step-by-step procedure for addressing such suspicions The possible outcomes of an investigation The sanctions that may be imposed 22

28 DRAFT 28 March 2014 Other relevant information v. Institutions should have procedures in place to deal with suspicions that involve research or staff from other institutions, including institutions abroad. 23

29 DRAFT 28 March 2014 Appendix 1 Members of the working group on the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity The Ministry of Higher Education and Science Hans Müller Pedersen (chair) Director General The Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation Members nominated by Universities Denmark Sven Frøkjær Vice-Dean, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences University of Copenhagen Lise Wogensen Bach Vice-Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences Aarhus University Elisabeth Vestergaard Director and Head of Department of Border region Studies University of Southern Denmark Claus Vesterager Pedersen Library Director Roskilde University Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld Dean, Faculty of Humanities Aalborg University Henrik C. Wegener Provost Technical University of Denmark Lotte Jensen Head of Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy Copenhagen Business School Jørgen Staunstrup Provost IT University of Copenhagen Member nominated by the Union of Directors of the Sector Research Institutes of Denmark Jens Morten Hansen Secretary for the Union of Directors of the Sector Research Institutes of Denmark Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland 24

30 DRAFT 28 March 2014 Member nominated by the Danish Council for Independent Research Lene Koch Professor, Department of Public Health University of Copenhagen Member nominated by the Danish Council for Strategic Research Kim Krogsgaard Director Grete Lundbeck European Brain Research Foundation Secretariat Charlotte Elverdam Head of Legal Division The Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation Thomas Nørgaard Head of section, Legal Division The Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation Mathias Willumsen Head of section, Legal Division The Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation 25

31 DRAFT 28 March 2014 Appendix 2 Bibliography The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity was developed with inspiration from the following sources [SKAL UDFYLDES MED DE DOKUMENTER ARBEJDSGRUPPEN HAR HENTET INSPIRATION FRA] 26

32 VIP announcements 2013 (including PhD) VIP no. Title Job category Dept Date of announcement Closing date VIP 372 Assistant Professor in Marketing and Pricing Adjunkt AØ VIP 413 Assistant Professorship in Marketing and Consumer and Culture Adjunkt AØ VIP 395 Associate Professor in Branding and Brand Management Lektor AØ VIP 348 PhD scholarship in Marketing / Consumer Neuroscience & Neuroeconomics PhD Stipendiat AØ VIP 360 Professorship in Marketing, Economic Methodology Professor AØ VIP 411 Professorship with special responsibilities within International Marketing, Consumer and Touri Professor MSO AØ VIP 338 Videnskabelig assistent Videnskabelig assistent AØ VIP 352 Videnskabelig assistent i marketing & visuel identitet Videnskabelig assistent AØ VIP 344 ekstern Assistant Professor in Economic Sociology and Social Theory Adjunkt DBP VIP 347 ekstern Assistant Professor in Economic Sociology and Social Theory Adjunkt DBP VIP 363 ekstern 2 PhD scholarships within Institutional Transformation in European Political Economy PhD Stipendiat DBP VIP 368 ekstern Ph.d. stipendium i måling af værdiskabelse med særlig henblik på trivselsfremme og socialt entphd Stipendiat DBP VIP 391 ekstern Postdoc in Measuring Shared Value Creation Postdoc DBP VIP 340 Assistant Professorships in Applied Economics Adjunkt (tenure) ECON VIP 379 Associate Professorship in Labor Economics Lektor ECON VIP 414 PhD scholarships in Economics PhD Stipendiat ECON VIP 380 Professorship in Operations Research Professor ECON VIP 381 Professorship with special responsibilities in Time Series Econometrics (mso) Professor MSO ECON VIP 424 Seniorrådgivere/Analysemedarbejdere Seniorrådgiver ECON VIP 354 Assistant Professorship in Finance Adjunkt (tenure) FI VIP 341 Associate Professorship in Finance Lektor FI VIP 357 PhD scholarships in Finance PhD Stipendiat FI VIP 392 Videnskabelig assistent i Finansiering Videnskabelig assistent FI VIP 393 Videnskabelig assistent i Finansiering Videnskabelig assistent FI VIP 385 Videnskabelig assistent i Statistik Videnskabelig assistent FI/CST VIP 364 Assistant Professorship in Organizational Communication Adjunkt IBC VIP 365 Assistant / Associate Professorship in Corporate Language and Intercultural Encounters Adjunkt/Lektor IBC VIP 412 Associate Professorship in Organizational Communication Lektor IBC VIP 422 Videnskabelig assistent til sprogforskning Videnskabelig assistent IBC VIP 410 Associate Professor in CSR and Organisational Communication Lektor IKL VIP 421 ekstern Post.doc in Sustainable Consumption Research Postdoc IKL VIP 384 Professorship in Consumer Science Professor IKL VIP 389 Professorshop in Management and Organisation Studies Professor IKL VIP 387 Teaching Assistant Professorship (studieadjunkt) in Strategic Communication Studieadjunkt IKL VIP 388 Teaching Associate Professorship (studielektorat) in British American Studies Studielektor IKL VIP 353 Videnskabelig assistent Videnskabelig assistent IKL VIP 394 Videnskabelig koordinator til CBS Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility (cbscsr) Videnskabelig assistent IKL VIP 401 Videnskabelig assistent Videnskabelig assistent IKL

33 VIP 390 Assistant professorship in the economics and management of innovation and entrepreneurshipadjunkt (tenure) INO VIP 403 Associate professorship in the management of innovation Lektor INO VIP 405 Professorship in the economics and management of inventive processes Professor, deltid INO VIP 416 ekstern Videnskabelig assistent til projekt om vækstiværksættere Videnskabelig assistent INO/CSE VIP 373 Research Assistant, Career counsellor for PhD and MBA students Videnskabelig assistent INO/MBA VIP 349 Teaching Associate professorship in Chinese Studielektor INT VIP 400 Associate Professorship in International Business Lektor INT VIP 375 PHd Scholarship in Industrial Foundations PhD Stipendiat INT VIP 374 Postdoc in Industrial Foundations Postdoc INT VIP 398 Professorship in India Studies Professor INT VIP 399 Professorship with special responsibilities in Corporate Governance and Executive Behavior Professor MSO INT VIP 404 Teaching Associate Professor in Japanese Studielektor INT VIP 346 Scientific Assistant to manage 2 academic journals Videnskabelig assistent INT VIP 342 Associate Professorship in Public Management and Innovation Lektor IOA VIP 343 PhD Scholarship in Organizational Studies PhD Stipendiat IOA VIP 366 Professorship in Institutional Change and Organization Professor IOA VIP 396 Professorship with special responsibilities in Organization, Identity and Health Professor MSO IOA VIP 420 Professorship with special responsibilities in Technologies of Organizational Analysis Professor MSO IOA VIP 359 Assistant Professorship in Information Technology Management Adjunkt (tenure) ITM VIP 408 PhD scholarships in IT Management PhD Stipendiat ITM VIP 418 Research assistant in organizational communication and IT management Videnskabelig assistent ITM VIP 337 Assistant Professorship in Business Law with emphasis on Danish and International Tax Law Adjunkt JUR VIP 356 Assistant Professorship in Contract and Finance Law with emphasis on Maritime Law Adjunkt JUR VIP 409 Phd stipendium i Erhvervsret PhD Stipendiat JUR VIP 376 PhD Scholarship in Organization, Media Theory and Digital Cultures PhD Stipendiat LPF VIP 378 PhD scholarship in organization theory/social entrepreneurship and political theory/internationphd Stipendiat LPF VIP 383 PhD Scholarship in Entrepreneurship and Innovation studies PhD Stipendiat LPF VIP 386 PhD Scholarship in the sociology of financial markets PhD Stipendiat LPF VIP 419 Ph.d. stipendium i ledelse af folkeskolen PhD Stipendiat MPP VIP 350 Videnskabelig Assistent/Project Manager til Entrepreneurship BiS Platform Videnskabelig assistent LPF VIP 351 Videnskabelig assistent ved CSE Videnskabelig assistent LPF VIP 358 Research Assistant in Studio Pedagogy Videnskabelig assistent LPF VIP 382 Videnskabelig assistent til CSE Videnskabelig assistent LPF VIP 406 Assistant Professor in Supply Chain Management Adjunkt PEØ VIP 415 Assistant Professorship in Performance Management Adjunkt PEØ VIP 367 PhD Scholarship in Operations and Innovation Management PhD Stipendiat PEØ VIP 417 Professor MSO in Operations Management Professor MSO PEØ VIP 369 Videnskabelig Assistent/Project Manager Videnskabelig assistent PEØ ViP 402 Videnskabelig Assistent i Managerial Economics Videnskabelig assistent PEØ VIP 355 Assistant Professorship in Accounting Adjunkt RR VIP 362 Assistant Professorship in Auditing Adjunkt RR VIP 407 Professorship MSO in Financial Reporting and Auditing Professor MSO RR

34 VIP 339 Assistant Professorship in Strategic and International Management Adjunkt SMG VIP 345 Associate Professorship in Strategic and International Management Lektor SMG VIP 377 Professorship in Strategic and International Management Professor SMG VIP 423 Professorship with Special Responsibilities in Strategic and International Management Professor MSO SMG

35 Suggestions for Renewed Research Performance Measurement at CBS, 2014 March 6, 2014 JTV/LH/GP/CY/AI Page 1 / 6 Introduction This note suggests how to proceed working with a strategic use of evaluative metrics at CBS as a follow up on the early 2014 seminar on publication analysis and publication strategy at CBS. The purpose of the seminar was to bring in expertise on evaluative bibliometrics for a discussion among CBS decision makers and further initiate an internal discussion on how to further develop CBS use of bibliometric analysis to support CBS further strategic development. Please keep in mind that the main goal for CBS to engage strategically in further bibliometric analysis is to raise research quality. The analysis must take into account the broad coverage of our business university and allow compliance with both the national quality assessment systems as well as international benchmarking with relevant business schools. The recommendations are developed in line with the external advice given, including clear purpose of each indicator, continuity of indicators used to compare over time, a variety of indicators and several levels of analysis. The recommendations are developed from a CBS perspective to define indicators of research quality that work in a broader context. Appendices: Note The Seminar: Research evaluation, research quality and social impact of January 2014 Note to Alan Irwin re EFMD pilot project Webinar, November 2013 About the EFMD pilot on research performance management March May 2014, including benefits for CBS and estimated costs Overview current research performance measurements at CBS

36 Recommendations The following measures are suggested for performance analysis (monitoring and evaluation purposes) at CBS, annual accounts. Indicator(s) Level Purpose External/Internal Use 1 CBS research CBS/ Registration of total E/I statistics Department research production 2 BFI points CBS/ Department National political model Broad coverage, including books and book chapters Output E/I 3 BFI points, level 2 CBS/ Department 4 Basic bibliometric Indicator model, cf. CWTS model (up to 9 indicators) CBS National political model Broad coverage (from 2014 including books) Output Raise quality International benchmark CBS to determine coverage (used journal lists) Output and scientific impact Raise quality 5 UTD CBS International ranking by publication in core management journals 6 FT45 CBS/ Department International benchmark Relatively broad coverage, (journals) Output Raise quality 7? Department Raise quality I Research strength analysis 8? Research group Scientific collaboration I Research strength analysis *the indicators 2,3 and 6 can be calculated as productivity measures per department. E/I E/I E E/I Side 2 / 6 The indicators 1 6 are measures of past performance, while indicator 7 and 8 are potential, however not yet defined measures to address potential future performance, thus with a primarily developmental and forward looking purpose. Page 4 5 of this note describes the details behind the above indicators/recommendations. Further, it is recommended that the quantitative measures are concurrently supplemented by qualitative assessments.

37 What do we need to do (different) to provide an evidence based ground for knowledge enhancement and quality development in research performance measurement at CBS? A. Participation in the EFMD pilot on research performance measurement. CBS is invited to join a select group of business schools to pilot a project on research performance measurement with the objective to refine its features so that it can potentially be offered to the EFMD membership. Side 3 / 6 The main arguments for participation in the pilot project are: To get access to the used performance statistics and see how CBS s performance is measured by it To test the tool (the CWTS Monitor) and assess its usefulness as a management tool To allow us to follow the development in respect to the EFMDs considerations regarding revision of the EQUISS standards for research quality A separate note describes the pilot, incl. benefits and estimated costs.

38 Further details re the recommendations on research performance measurement at CBS Ad 1 CBS research statistics Annual account of the number of research publications registered in PURE, by 11 publication categories. The categories: PhD dissertations, doctor dissertations, scientific books/anthologies, contributions to scientific books/anthologies, peer reviewed journal article, non peer reviewed journal article, editorials/letters/commentaries, reviews, peer reviewed conference papers, non peer reviewed conference papers and working papers. All registered as published in Nordic or Foreign Languages. Side 4 / 6 It is recommended to maintain a full account of the total annual research publications for both internal and external use. Ad 2 3 BFI Institutional level and departmental level The BFI model is measuring the volume of points released by the research publications (two levels) for a certain period of time, per institution. The BFI model is implemented as the national system within which CBS can measure itself institutionally and within the area of the social science. Thus, the BFI measure at the institutional level seems adequate for external use, including the Board The advantage of the BFI model is its broad coverage including both books, contributions to books and journals, broadly across CBS fields of research. The BFI indicator is considered an indicator to nuance other indicators based on more narrow databases like Scopus or Web of Science. The BFI indicator must thus be balanced out by other quantitative and qualitative measures. It is doable in a meaningful way to use the BFI measure internally, broken down to the departmental level. It is recommended that the BFI model is used as a permanent research performance indicator with a specific and increased weight on growth in level 2 publishing. Calculations on an annual basis on the CBS level and the departmental level, including the related productivity measure per research man year (BFI/FÅV)

39 Ad 4 Basic bibliometric (impact) indicators for CBS Institutional level The basic bibliometric indicators could include: p (number of publications) tcs (total normalized impact) mcs (mean citation score) mncs (mean normalized citation score) mnjs (mean journal citation score) mncs/mnjs (the impact of a research unit s publications, compared to the average citation rate of the research unit s journals) Proportional self citations Proportional top 10 publications Internal coverage Side 5 / 6 For explanation of the various indicators, see appendix: Note The Seminar: Research evaluation, research quality and social impact of January 2014 or Evaluation Background Report No 6.pdf, page 7 and It is recommended that CBS implements a regular monitoring of research performance at the institutional level inspired by the above listed indicators. The monitoring based on Web of Science will allow a broader coverage of the research output than what is captured by the presented CBS selected journal ranking lists and thus to a larger extent measure the total production of our scholars. WoS covers approximately 45% of the annual CBS research production in peer reviewed articles. Further, it adds measures of scientific impact of the CBS publications. Such monitoring will provide a better basis for international comparison of CBS. In this respect participation in the EFMD pilot project on research performance measurement seems relevant for CBS, see separate note. Ad 5 6 Journal Rankings and Indices of Research Productivity Institutional level and departmental level For the period CBS has identified three partly overlapping international journal rankings as indicators for research productivity, including the UT Dallas list, the FT45 and the ABS 4/4* list. The UTD ranking is an institutional ranking based on the share of journal articles per institution, while the FT45 and the ABS 4/4* measure is an account of journal articles published in the respective 45 and 94 journals of the list over a 2 year period.

40 It is recommended to maintain monitoring the performance on the selected shared journal lists across CBS. Ad 6 Refinement of the departmental publication strategies The CBS top management has indicated that each department has the opportunity to identify own lists of preferred journals and publishing houses supplementing the shared CBS journal lists and supporting the department s publishing strategy to further increase the quality of publications. Side 6 / 6 The CBS departments formulation and refinement of their publishing strategies are most proper based on a mapping of the departments publishing track record. During 2012 and 2013 Leif Hansen has provided several of the departments with a bibliometric analysis and mapping of their department s track record including output and distribution on outlets. This was done as a basis for formulating departmental publishing strategies as part of the department strategies It is recommended that the departments own refined lists are to be considered as seconding the shared CBS lists and that the departments publication strategies, including preferred list for publication are explicitly disclosed in each department s strategy. Ad 7 Research strength analysis including mapping of each CBS department s/research groups publishing track record publications and patterns of international research collaboration To balance the competitive measure on impact by more developmental measures it is recommended in due time to include measures of scientific collaboration, thus providing a systematic knowledge into CBS scholars co authorship networks by e.g. organizations, countries and industrial partners. Further, in due time research performance measures at CBS might include bibliometric analysis of select research groups, e.g. the CBS WCRE and analysis of research collaboration. Another valuable benchmark for CBS s international standing is to monitor international conducted field analysis of Business School publishing, like the 2013 work on research productivity of academic institutions and faculty members within the areas of International Business.

41 Memo The Seminar: Research evaluation, research quality and social impact of January 2014 March 5, 2014 jtv Page 1 / 4 Introduction Early 2014 CBS hosted a seminar on publication analysis and publication strategy organized by former CBS librarian Leif Hansen together with the CBS Library, the Dean of Research and the Universiteit Leiden. The initiative was initiated by the President. Invited participants included department heads and by them appointed senior researchers, academic members of Academic Council, the research directors of the WCREs and the BiS platform directors. This note summarizes the purpose of the seminar and key advice from the invited Dutch STS scholars. Recommendations for how to proceed at CBS is presented in a separate note. Purpose of the seminar The purpose of the seminar was to bring in expertise on evaluative bibliometrics for a discussion among CBS decision makers and further initiate an internal discussion on how to develop CBS use of bibliometric analysis to support CBS further strategic development. The senior researchers Thed van Leuwen and Paul Wouters from the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Universiteit Leiden addressed the following topics: How to develop a model for quality assessment of research in social science and the humanities? Which targets and indicators are relevant in the CBS context for the institution, for the departments, for the research groups and for the individuals? Which indicators can be used in the assessment of the social impact of research? The key note speakers were as STS scholars asked to present a nuanced perspective on research evaluation, research quality and social impact of research and thus not a bibliometric analysis of CBS per se. Their presentations are attached.

42 The presentations included: Background and references: CWTS Applying bibliometrics in Business and Management Indicators what to avoid Coverage in bibliometric studies A case study on how bibliometrics could be applied Societal impact as a new phenomenon in research evaluation Experimenting with Google Scholar Side 2 / 4 Individual level bibliometrics: a portfolio approach Key messages from the seminar Basic bibliometric indicators Institutional level Some basic bibliometric scores of the CBS were presented, thus presenting an overview of a way to provide a basis for some international level of comparison on scientific impact at the institutional level. The basic bibliometric indicators included: p (number of publications) tcs (total citation score) mcs (mean citation score) The average number of citations of the publications of a university mncs (mean normalized citation score). The average number of citations of the publications of a university/research unit, normalized for field differences in the subfields in which the research unit is active and for publication year. A mncs value of 1 means that on average the publications of a university are cited equally frequently as all publications worldwide in the same field and in the same publication year. A mncs value of 1,2 means that on average the publications of a university are cited 20% more frequently than what would be expected based on all publications worldwide in the same subfield and in the same publication year. mnjs (mean normalized journal citation score) The average number of citations (or the impact) of the journals in which a research unit has published (the research unit s journal selection), compared to the world citation average in the subfields covered by these journals. If mnjs is above 1.0 the citation score of the journal set in which the research unit has published exceeds the citation score of all papers published in the subfield(s) to which the journals belong. In this case, one can conclude that the research unit publishes in journals with a relatively high impact.

43 mncs/mnjs (the impact of a research unit s publications, compared to the average citation rate of the research unit s journals) If the ratio mncs/mnjs is above 1.0, the impact of a research unit's papers exceeds the impact of all articles published in the journals in which the particular research unit has published its papers (the research unit's journal set). Proportional self citations Proportional top 10 publications The proportion of the publications of a university that compared with other publications in the same field and in the same year belong to the top10% most frequently cited Internal coverage The proportion of the publications of a university covered by Web of Science (WoS) Side 3 / 4 A regular monitoring of research performance at the institutional level will allow a broader coverage of the research output than what is captured by selected journal ranking lists. Such monitoring will also allow for international comparison, thus going beyond the Danish BFI model. Basic bibliometric scores of CBS show rapid increase in output, impact fluctuations, tendency to more output appearance in journals with a higher impact The Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM) has a longstanding experience of monitoring its research output. However ERIM s strategic goals have moved from research driven to more impact driven thinking meaning that they are not only focusing on getting it published in the journals but also on the yield of the work in the academic and business community. Keep in mind what you want to investigate and for what purpose the purpose of each indicator is more important than the indicator Always use a variety of indicators, use indicators that behave as proper indicators (e.g. distinguish between the citation impact of a journal and of an article in that same journal), distinguish between internal and external use of an indicator Choose different levels of monitoring/analysis Keep some kind of continuity of indicators to compare over time Metrics cannot stand alone, but must continue to go along qualitative judgement to avoid evaluation being equal bibliometrics Measures must consider both the quality of research output and impact of research No matter how thorough and strategic performance measurement project we define we do not measure the production, but only part of it

44 Initial summarizing remarks by the Dean of Research The main goal for CBS to engage strategic in further bibliometric analysis is to raise research quality and the aim will be to define indicators of research quality that works in a broader context. The analysis must take into account the broad coverage of our business university and allow compliance with both the national quality assessment systems as well as international benchmarking with relevant business schools. Side 4 / 4

45 27. March, 2014 jtv The EFMD pilot is about: Trying out the logic of the platform for EFMD accreditation process Q1: Is the platform scalable enough to produce an economy of scale solution for EFMD by providing global standards for quality publishing and citation impact performance measurement of schools? CBS is specifically asked to make a setup of points crucial for the assessment of the platform from a BSchool perspective to be shared with the all partners. The platform A system, that allows measurement of the research productivity of an institution. The system offers: detailed statistics (based on Web of Science) on research collaboration and on research citation at the institutional and individual researcher level a method to know how a School is actually performing in relation to journal rankings standards a method to benchmark itself against other (self elected) institutions as its basis a categorization in subject areas (defined by Web of Science s categorization of journals as belonging to subject areas) It can be used in strategic partnerships, to evaluate how good a potential partner is performing and if there is an actual fit in terms of recent profile. The pilot will cover: The complete ERIM platform (publications) / (citations) Used journal lists: o UTD (24 journals) o FT45 (45 journals) o ERIM journal list (103 journals) o Core NL list (118 management journals) o The expanded list (459 journals business, business/finance, industrial relations & labor, management, operations research& management science) Bibliometric indicators (publication output & citation impact) o Publication output (P). The number of WoS indexed publications o Mean normalized citation score (MNCS) o Total normalized citation score (TNCS) o Percentage of top 10% publications (PPtop 10%) o Number of top 10% publications (Ptop 10%) Why should CBS participate in the EFMD pilot? Live access to the used performance statistics Test the tool and assess its usefulness as a management tool Identity the system s blind spots and influence the refinement of the tool to improve its attractiveness Different journal rankings standards used by Schools can be added to the system Improve coverage of the research space by the system beyond WoS (not in 2014) and present regional coverage Further refinement of the system to improve coverage in the social sciences beyond the management field management Specific follow up on the Leiden seminar Provide input to EFMD re potential revision of the EQUIS standards for research quality

46 27. March, 2014 jtv Potential benefits for CBS: Identify a way to differentiate (compare) CBS in view of rankings (attractiveness to staff and students) Further develop how research performance is monitored at CBS Understand the scientific and societal impact of CBS research Provide an evidence based ground to discuss how to raise output and quality as compared to the input Time line pilot, 2014 March and April April 22 nd or May 21 st Platform available 2 nd Web session wrap up Implications re participation We need a contact person to facilitate CBS participating in the pilot, including acting as the contact person between ERIM and CBS. The CBS Library would be the obvious responsible unit together with the Dean of Research, however due to Lars Nondals s illness a dedicated resource from the Library is not available at present. Leif Hansen is willing to take on this task. Leif will do the pilot and be committed to it on behalf of CBS this spring, including any internal clarification process (information to department heads, Academic Council and involvement of AI and PHA). The process must ensure that the relevant knowledge and experience gained from the pilot will be available for the CBS Library in order to facilitate a relevant use of the Monitor in case CBS decides to engage in using the platform as research (quality publishing and citation impact) performance measurement of CBS.

47 Current Research performance measurement at CBS March 6, 2014 Page 1 / 3 Overview of the current CBS research performance measures Key performance measures A. International Ranking BS Ranking UTD top 100 The share of journal articles in the 24 management journals of the list, per institution Purpose: International ranking & systematic measurement of research quality, institutional level Usage: Institutional World Ranking, including Development Contract Goal (CBS position on the UTD list in Europe) + Business Intelligence (share of articles per department) B. The Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BFI) The volume of points released by the research publications (two levels) for a certain period of time, per institution Purpose: Compliance with the national system Usage: Development Contract Goal (productivity measure, national comparison within the social sciences) + Business Intelligence (productivity measure at the departmental level) C. The FT45 and the ABS 4/4* Journal Ranking lists The volume of journal articles published in the lists respective 45 and 94 journals over a 2 year period Purpose: International benchmark & systematic measurement of research quality Usage: Development Contract Goal Business Intelligence (departmental contributions) D. CBS Research statistics, annual The number of research publications registered in PURE distributed on 11 publication categories Purpose: Registration of total production of research publications Usage: EQUISS, AACSB E. Department (publication) strategies Preferred publication lists for individual departments exist.

48 Some departments have been assisted with bibliometric analysis and mapping of their department track record including output and distribution on outlets by Leif Hansen. However, conversion of past performance scholarly publishing into departmental publication strategies based on a clear baseline and explicit targets are to be further developed in almost all departments. Purpose: Transparency re the departments shared ambitions regarding the aimed for quality in research performance Usage: Underpinning the institutional goal to raise research quality. Side 2 / 3 Key performance measures including qualitative assessments F. EQUISS standards for research quality Indicators: Total number of publications, hereof peer reviewed, mapping of journals with at least 3 CBS publications in a 5 year period, mapping of the number of CBS publications in ABS articles in a 5 year period. Purpose: International accreditation G. AACSB Indicators: Total number of publications, hereof peer reviewed by six categories distributed by department, mapping of journals with at least 3 CBS publications in a 5 year period, mapping of the number of CBS publications in ABS/4 articles in a 5 year period. Purpose: International accreditation H. Research evaluation of CBS departments On a recurrent basis CBS has since 1993 conducted departmental research evaluations, thus each department is being assessed approximately every 5 7 years. Purpose: Developmental and forward looking evaluation (external peer review) based on self assessment to facilitate and encourage our research efforts. Usage: Revisit the departmental strategies re research and interface between research and education and plans for implementation I. Mid term evaluation of the 6 World Class Research Environments 2011/2012 An international peer review of each environment based on a selfassessment report and a site visit Purpose: Obtain external assessment of the research environments international standing and progress half way through their operation. Usage: Reporting to the CBS Board on the CBS Transformational Initiative + experience gathering

49 Benchmark projects A. Select benchmark pilot projects department(s) The CBS Library has in 2013 dedicated time to work out a benchmark study of ECON with 13 peer economic departments from European business schools. Purpose: Assessment of the department s publication performance (volume and quality) compared to European peer departments Usage: For departmental considerations about publication strategy and choice of publication targets Side 3 / 3

50 Kommissorium Oktober 2013 Udvalg for kvalitet og relevans i de videregående uddannelser Med målsætningerne om, at 95 pct. af en ungdomsårgang skal gennemføre en ungdomsuddannelse og 60 pct. en videregående uddannelse, heraf 25 pct. en lang videregående uddannelse, har regeringen sat konkrete mål for visionen om at skabe den bedst uddannede generation i danmarkshistorien. Hvert år bruges ca. 14 mia. kr. på taxametertilskud mv. på de videregående uddannelser. Den massive strategiske og økonomiske satsning på at øge antallet af studerende, der gennemfører en videregående uddannelse, kan dog ikke stå alene. Det er vigtigt, at de offentlige investeringer i de videregående uddannelser anvendes målrettet og effektivt til at sikre høj faglig kvalitet i uddannelserne og relevante uddannelser i forhold til efterfølgende beskæftigelse, så de videregående uddannelser bidrager aktivt til vækst, produktivitet og velstand i Danmark. Der er stor variation i andelen af dimittender fra de videregående uddannelser, der kommer i relevant beskæftigelse, det samfundsøkonomiske afkast af uddannelserne samt frafald og gennemførelsestider mv. ved de videregående uddannelser. Endvidere er andelen af højtuddannede i private virksomheder lavere i Danmark end i øvrige OECD-lande. Rigsrevisionen har påpeget, at de studerende på nogle videregående uddannelser har for få undervisningstimer eller for lav samlet arbejdsbelastning til, at det svarer til et heltidsstudium. Samtidig er det afgørende, at den faglige kvalitet i uddannelsesforløbene og udbyttet af eventuelle praktik- og praksisforløb er høj. Med henblik på at styrke dimittendernes kompetencer og afkastet for samfundet og den enkelte ønsker regeringen derfor at rette fokus på kvalitet og relevans bredt set i de videregående uddannelser. Det handler både om unges uddannelsesvalg, uddannelsesinstitutionernes udbud af uddannelser og den faglige kvalitet i selve uddannelserne samt samspillet med efterspørgslen efter kompetencer på arbejdsmarkedet. Målet er, at ikke ét job i Danmark må gå tabt, fordi vi ikke uddanner dimittender med de efterspurgte kompetencer og med færdighederne til at omsætte en solid faglighed til ideer, innovation og vækst. Regeringen ønsker derfor, at der med afsæt i den danske velfærdsmodel tages initiativer til forbedring af kvalitet, relevans og sammenhæng i de videregående uddannelser med afsæt i følgende overordnede politiske målsætninger:

51 Side 2 af 3 1. Kvalitet: De videregående uddannelser skal have højere kvalitet i undervisning og uddannelsesforløb, og alle studerende skal udfordres til at nå deres højeste potentiale. 2. Relevans: Fokus for de videregående uddannelser skal i højere grad flyttes fra sidste eksamen til første job, så (a) flere får job i den private sektor, og (b) alle studerende tilegner sig kompetencer, der kan omsættes i relevant beskæftigelse uanset på hvilket videregående uddannelsesniveau. 3. Sammenhæng. Der skal skabes bedre sammenhæng i de videregående uddannelser, så der undgås overlap i uddannelsessystemet, spildtid og dobbeltuddannelse. Udvalg for kvalitet og relevans i de videregående uddannelser har til opgave at udarbejde konkrete anbefalinger til forbedringer af kvalitet og relevans inden for en række overordnede temaer, herunder: Sikring af høj faglig kvalitet i undervisningen og intensive uddannelsesforløb, der kan udfordre den enkelte til at indfri sit højeste potentiale. Forslag til frigørelse af mere tid til undervisning bl.a. i lyset af Rigsrevisionens beretning om undervisningen på universiteterne. Sikring af uddannelsesforløb, der gør de studerende klar til arbejdsmarkedet. Understøttelse af kvalitet og relevans i taxameter- og bevillingssystemet på tværs af de videregående uddannelser. Større og mere systematisk åbenhed om uddannelsernes resultater, herunder deres evner til at få dimittenderne i relevant beskæftigelse efterfølgende. Øget ressourceeffektivitet og sammenhæng i det videregående uddannelsessystem. Forbedring af det samfundsøkonomiske afkast af videregående uddannelser. Til grundlag for arbejdet skal udvalget (1) definere kvalitet og relevans i de videregående uddannelser med afsæt i national og international viden på uddannelsesområdet, (2) kortlægge udfordringens karakter og omfang bl.a. med afsæt i et 360-graders eftersyn af de videregående uddannelser på baggrund af dialog med aktører og interessenter samt internationale erfaringer, og (3) udarbejde anbefalinger til at imødegå udfordringerne. Udvalgets 360-graders eftersyn skal tage afsæt i dialog med aktører og interessenter på de videregående uddannelser, herunder: Studerende Ledelsesrepræsentanter på de videregående uddannelser Undervisere Aftagere repræsentanter for erhvervslivet Arbejdsmarkedets parter offentlige og private. Der kan endvidere iværksættes yderligere analyser for at kortlægge udfordringsbilledet og belyse kvalitets- og relevansudfordringer på de videregående uddannelser i internationalt perspektiv herunder med inddragelse af ekstern bistand.

52 Side 3 af 3 Udvalgets anbefalinger skal tage udgangspunkt i national og international viden på uddannelsesområdet og et solidt data- og analysegrundlag, herunder beskæftigelseseffekter og samfundsøkonomisk afkast af videregående uddannelser samt inddrage relevante anbefalinger fra Produktivitetskommissionen. Desuden skal udvalget så vidt muligt komme med forslag til kvantificerbare kvalitetsog relevansindikatorer, der kan fastsætte politiske målsætninger for udviklingen og bruges i den løbende opfølgning på resultaterne af indsatsen. Det er endvidere en forudsætning for arbejdet i udvalget, at midlerne til de videregående uddannelser i en tid med stigende uddannelsesoptag og pressede offentlige budgetter anvendes ressourceeffektivt. Udvalget skal udarbejde to selvstændige delrapporter i henholdsvis marts og oktober 2014: Delrapport 1: Det primære fokus skal være et eftersyn af den overordnede struktur og de lovgivningsmæssige rammer samt anbefalinger til konkrete tiltag, der kan styrke rammebetingelserne for kvalitet, relevans og sammenhæng i det videregående uddannelsessystem. Delrapport 2: Det primære fokus skal være institutionerne og uddannelsernes indhold med henblik på fastsættelsen af mål for kvalitet og relevans på institutionerne samt anbefalinger til at styrke arbejdet med faglig kvalitet og relevans i de enkelte uddannelser. Udvalget afslutter arbejdet med en samlet afrapportering til regeringen ultimo Udvalgets sammensætning Udvalget sammensættes med syv uafhængige eksperter med stor indsigt i de videregående uddannelser, herunder samfundsøkonomisk analyse og effektvurdering, uddannelseskvalitet, uddannelsernes relevans i forhold arbejdsmarkedet og unges uddannelsesvalg. Udvalget sekretariatsbetjenes af et sekretariat med medarbejdere fra relevante ministerier. Økonomi: De stramme offentlige finanser nødvendiggør nytænkning på alle områder, hvilket også vil sætte rammen for arbejdet i udvalget. Udvalget skal komme med anbefalinger, som kan finansieres inden for Uddannelsesministeriets eksisterende økonomiske ramme.

53 Ulla Lykke Jørgensen Fra: Peter Jonasson Pedersen Sendt: 28. marts :32 Til: Institutledere Cc: Institutsekretariatsledergruppen; Camilla Schreiner Andersen; Karina Bech Sørensen; Afrodita Jeftic; Ulla Lykke Jørgensen Emne: Revised financing model for the centrally allocated PhD stipend Dear Colleagues, DIR announced before Christmas that for all centrally financed departmental PhD stipends that haven t been announced as of December 10 th 2013 CBS will only fund half of each stipend centrally. The remaining 50% should be supported by external funding. As discussed at the HoD DIR seminar DIR has decided that the remaining 50 % can be supported from both external and internal sources including departmental saving. If a stipend is financed from the departmental saving a special account can be provided to set money aside for this financing. This account will not be subject to the 1 mio. kr. limit on the use of departmental saving without prior approval rule. This also means that all centrally allocated stipends must be filled within a reasonable timeframe. What constitute a reasonable timeframe is left to the individual HoD to decide. DIR will be informed about the overall status of the centrally allocated stipends each year. The revised financing model for PhDs will, as discussed at the HOD DIR seminar, be evaluated in connection with the PhD strategy which will be presented in September/October Best wishes, Peter Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, PETER JONASSON Universitetsdirektør / University director COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Kilevej 14a, DK-2000 Frederiksberg Tel.: pjp.ls@cbs.dk 1

54 21. februar 2014 Kære universitetsdirektører Som I ved er det aftalt med rektorerne, at universiteterne skal spille en aktiv rolle i forbindelse med arbejdet med medbestemmelse og medinddragelse, som foregår frem til sommeren Arbejdet er organiseret i en teknisk arbejdsgruppe med deltagelse af AC, DSF, DKuni og UDS, der skal sikre, at opfølgningen sker i en bred og åben proces. Opfølgningen på lovændringen er aftalt til at bestå af en konference og en kortlægning, som bl.a. indeholder en spørgeskemaundersøgelse. Det fremgår af materialet, som DK-uni har formidlet til universitetsdirektørkredsen, at universiteterne især spiller en særlig rolle i forbindelse med indsamling af data til kortlægningen og ved deltagelse i konferencen. Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser Bredgade København K Telefon Telefax E-post ui@ui.dk Netsted CVR-nr Ref.-nr. 14/ Vi har allerede nu modtaget gode input fra nogle universiteter i forhold til konferencen, og derudover har en del universiteter tilkendegivet, at de kommer med yderligere bidrag i forhold til konferencen. Jeres input vil naturligvis indgå i det videre arbejde med konferencen i den tekniske arbejdsgruppe. Den 7. februar 2014 holdt UDU s forretningsudvalg og UDS møde. Ministeriets opfølgning på medbestemmelse og medinddragelse blev drøftet under eventuelt. På mødet blev det dels drøftet, at opfølgningen bl.a. vil vise, at universiteterne har fundet mange forskellige måder at sikre medbestemmelse og medinddragelse på. Dels blev der drøftet, at det er centralt, at universiteterne medvirker aktivt til at sikre en god opfølgningsproces. Et element heri kan fx være, at universiteterne gennem intranet, universitetsaviserne eller lign. opfordrer medarbejdere og studerende til at deltage spørgeskemaundersøgelsen. En særlig gruppe, der skal opfordres til at deltage i undersøgelsen, er de medarbejdere og studerende, der sidder i de kollegiale organer. I forlængelse af mødet lovede UDS yderligere at udfolde rammerne for universiteternes bidrag til kortlægningen i forlængelse af notatet Indsamling af data i forbindelse med kortlægningen af medbestemmelse og medinddragelse (Ref.-nr. 14/ ), som Danske Universiteter har videreformidlet til universiteterne. UDS anmoder således om universiteternes bidrag til: Side 1/3

55 1. Indsamling af materiale fra universiteterne bemærk særligt præciseringen i fht. universiteternes overvejelser i forhold til rationalet bag organiseringen af medbestemmelse og medinddragelse, herunder en synliggørelse af disse overvejelser. jf. bilag 2 og Praktisk og teknisk information jf. bilag 1. Ad. 1 Præcisering i fht. notatet materiale fra universiteterne Som beskrevet i Styrelsens notat Indsamling af data i forbindelse med kortlægningen af medbestemmelse og medinddragelse består universiteternes bidrag til kortlægningen af to typer bidrag: Faktuelle bidrag og en indholdsmæssig beskrivelse af universitetets rationale for organiseringen af medbestemmelsen og medinddragelsen. Det er i det følgende kort uddybet, hvad styrelsens ønsker er til bidragene. A. De faktuelle bidrag består af: Hvis det er muligt information om valgdeltagelse/stemmeprocent ellers antal valg og fredsvalg for perioden a. Universitets standard/kodeks for god ledelse og b. processer/handlemuligheder for studerende og medarbejdere, hvis de oplever, at den nærmeste leder ikke følger vedtægtsbestemmelserne om medbestemmelse og medinddragelse eller standarderne for god ledelse, jf. lovbemærkningerne, hvor der står: Det forudsættes i den forbindelse, at universitetet udarbejder nærmere standarder for, hvad universitetet betragter som god ledelse, samt for, hvilke handlemuligheder studerende og medarbejdere har, hvis de oplever, at den nærmeste leder ikke følger vedtægtsbestemmelserne om medbestemmelse og medinddragelse eller standarderne for god ledelse. Procedurerne og de organisatoriske mekanismer for medbestemmelse og medinddragelse skal fastsættes med respekt for den enstrengede ledelse. Universitetets konkrete handlingsplaner og strategier eller lignende for medbestemmelse og medinddragelse. Evt. organigrammer over medbestemmelse og medinddragelse. Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser B. For at tydeliggøre det ønskede indholdsmæssige bidrag, er der udarbejdet de vedhæftede notater: a) Bilag 2 Tilbageblik på medbestemmelse og medinddragelse. b) Bilag 3 Indholdsmæssige bidrag om medbestemmelse og medinddragelse Tanken er, at universiteterne kan beskrive rationalet i fht. medbestemmelse og medinddragelse ved hjælp af skitsen i bilag 3, men det enkelte universitet kan også vælge en anden disposition. Derudover bedes universiteterne overveje om universiteterne har yderligere materiale, der kan være med til at tegne et aktuelt billede af medbestemmelse og medinddragelse. I så fald anmodes universiteterne også om at fremsende dette materiale. Kontaktpersoner og frister Da tidsplanen for opfølgningen er stram, vil styrelsen gerne have mulighed for at kunne kommunikere direkte med kontaktpersoner på de enkelte universiteter og i forhold til de enkelte delprocesser. Side 2/3

56 Hvis I ikke allerede har sendt Styrelsen disse oplysninger, skal vi anmode om kontaktoplysninger i forhold til henholdsvis indsamling af s til spørgeskemaundersøgelsen og kortlægningen. Disse oplysninger sendes til specialkonsulent Mette Mikkelsen (memi@uds.dk) De frister, vi arbejder efter for at komme i mål med spørgeskemaet, kortlægningen og konferencen er: Snarest indmelding af kontaktpersoner til UDS Snarest input til konferencen jf. Indsamling af data i forbindelse med kortlægningen af medbestemmelse og medinddragelse (Ref.-nr.14/ ) 26. februar 2014 indlevering af s til UDS 1. februar 2014 white listing jf. bilag 1 om praktisk information 17. marts 2014 faktuelle og indholdsmæssige bidrag fra universiteterne jf. bilag 2 og 3 Hvis I har spørgsmål eller kommentarer, er I velkomne til at kontakte mig eller specialkonsulent Mette Mikkelsen (memi@uds.dk / ) og fuldmægtig Zacharias Balslev-Clausen (zbc@uds.dk / ). Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser Med venlig hilsen Pernille Ulrich Kontorchef Side 3/3

57 Notat Modtager(e): Klik her for at angive tekst. Kopi: Bilag 2 Tilbageblik på medbestemmelse og medinddragelse Universitetsreformen i 2003 gjorde universiteterne til selvejende institutioner inden for den offentlige forvaltning. Ledelsesstrukturen blev ændret fra en kollegialt valgt ledelse til en professionel ledelse, hvor alle ledere fra rektor til institutleder er ansatte. Der blev indført bestyrelser med udefra kommende flertal. Det lå i reformen, at medbestemmelsen og medinddragelsen for de ansatte og studerendes fortsat skulle sikres. I 2009 blev der på baggrund af en folketingsbeslutning gennemført en universitetsevaluering. Formålet med evalueringen var at undersøge, hvor langt man var nået med at opfylde formålene med universitetssammenlægningerne i Derudover skulle evalueringen bl.a. belyse medarbejdernes og de studerendes medbestemmelse på universiteterne. På baggrund af arbejdet kom evalueringspanelet bl.a. med anbefalinger til, hvordan man kan forbedre den danske universitetssektor i forhold til de to overordnede områder governance (medbestemmelse m.v.) og sammenlægningerne. 18. februar 2014 Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser Bredgade København K Telefon Telefax E-post ui@ui.dk Netsted CVR-nr Sagsbehandler Mette Mikkelsen Telefon E-post memi@ui.dk Ref.-nr. 14/ Evalueringspanelet fandt, at universitetsloven fra 2003 som udgangspunkt var en god ramme for medbestemmelse og medinddragelse på universiteterne. Panelet konstaterede også, at universiteterne ikke i tilstrækkelig grad havde sikret medbestemmelse og medinddragelse og løftet udfordringen med at udvikle en ny ledelseskultur. Anbefalingerne om medbestemmelse og medinddragelse rettede sig primært mod universiteterne, der bør udvikle procedurer og rammer, som sikrer en højere grad af medbestemmelse og medinddragelse, fastsætte klarere procedurer for ansættelse af ledere og udpegning af eksterne bestyrelsesmedlemmer samt igangsætte ledelsesuddannelsesprogrammer. Panelet anbefalede samtidig, at der blev indsat en generel bestemmelse i universitetsloven, der gav universiteternes bestyrelser ansvaret for at sikre medbestemmelse og medinddragelse på universiteterne. Blandt andet som opfølgning på universitetsevalueringen blev universitetsloven ændret i 2011, herunder bestemmelserne om medbestemmelse og medinddragelse. Lovændringen betød, at det blev tydeliggjort, at medbestemmelse og medinddragelse nu er bestyrelsernes ansvar, og at universiteternes organisering af medbestemmelse og medinddragelse skal beskrives i universiteternes vedtægter. Det fremgår også af lovbemærkningerne, at det fortsat forventes, at den effektive inddragelse af medarbejdere og studerende sker på alle organisatoriske niveauer. Side 1/2

58 På baggrund af lovændringen udarbejdede universiteterne nye vedtægter. Uddannelsesministeren og universiteterne underskrev de nye vedtægter i juni Vedtægterne skal blandt andet sikre, at universiteterne opfylder det politiske krav om, at studerende og medarbejdere skal have indflydelse på deres hverdag og de beslutninger, der træffes på universitetet. I bemærkningerne til lovændringen i 2011 står der desuden: Senest 3 år efter lovens ikrafttræden følges der op på, om universiteterne i tilstrækkeligt omfang har sikret medbestemmelse og medinddragelse for medarbejdere og studerende. Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser Side 2/2

59 Notat Modtager(e): Universitetsdirektørerne Kopi: Bilag 3 Indholdsmæssigt bidrag om medbestemmelse og medinddragelse UDS har indsamlet den formelle viden om organisering af medbestemmelse og medinddragelse fra de enkelte universiteters vedtægter. Den information, der efterspørges i forbindelse med kortlægningen, er information om universitetet rationale og overvejelser i forhold til den konkrete organisering af, herunder formelle og uformelle processer som understøtter medbestemmelse og medinddragelse på universitetet. Evalueringspanelet fandt i 2009, at universitetsloven fra 2003 som udgangspunkt var en god ramme for medbestemmelse og medinddragelse på universiteterne. Panelet konstaterede også, at universiteterne ikke i tilstrækkelig grad havde sikret medbestemmelse og medinddragelse og løftet udfordringen med at udvikle en ny ledelseskultur. UDS beder om en redegørelse i forhold til de overvejelser, universiteterne har gjort sig i fht. til medbestemmelse og medinddragelse. Redegørelse kunne tage udgangspunkt i følgende spørgsmål: 18. februar 2014 Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser Bredgade København K Telefon Telefax E-post ui@ui.dk Netsted CVR-nr Sagsbehandler Mette Mikkelsen Telefon E-post memi@ui.dk Ref.-nr. 14/ A. Hvordan medbestemmelse og medinddragelse er blevet omsat i praksis? Herunder hvordan rammerne medbestemmelse og medinddragelse bruges og om der er etableret supplerende formelle og eller uformelle fora, som understøtter medbestemmelse?? B. Hvad har universitetet konkret gjort for i tilstrækkelig grad at sikre medbestemmelse og medinddragelse? C. Hvad har universitetet konkret gjort for at løfte udfordringen med at udvikle en ny ledelseskultur. D. Hvordan har universitet forholdt sig til panelets anbefalinger om, at universiteterne bør udvikle procedurer og rammer, som sikrer en højere grad af medbestemmelse og medinddragelse og igangsætte ledelsesuddannelsesprogrammer. E. Hvilke muligheder og dilemmaer/udfordringerne oplever universitetet i forhold til medbestemmelse og medinddragelse? Side 1/1

60 Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser Att Specialkonsulent Mette Mikkelsen Via marts 2014 Copenhagen Business School Ledelsessekretariatet Kilevej Frederiksberg FAKTUELT OG INDHODMÆSSIGT BIDRAG TIL STYRELSENS OPFØLGNING PÅ UNIVERSITETSLOVEN 2011 (MEDBESTEMMELSE OG MEDINDDRAGELSE) Med henvisning til Pernille Ulrichs brev til universitetsdirektørerne d. 21. februar 2014 skal CBS hermed forsøge at give svar på de udbedte oplysninger. A. Faktuelle bidrag Hvis det er muligt information om valgdeltagelse/stemmeprocent ellers antal valg og fredsvalg for perioden Anders Jonas Rønn Pedersen Specialkonsulent Tlf.: Mob.: Side 1 / 5 I bilag 1-5 findes valgresultater for ordinære valg afholdt å CBS Det skal bemærkes, at det årlige valg består af en lang række delvalg, hvorfor det kan være misvisende kun at se på den samlede valgdeltagelse. Der er på tværs af studienævn og valggrupper stor forskel på valgdeltagelsen små studier har typisk større valgdeltagelse blandt studerende end større studier, på CBS er der tradition for fredsvalg blandt VIP til studienævn til gengæld er der relativ stor valgdeltagelse blandt VIP og TAP til akademisk råd og bestyrelsen. I bilagene fremgår stemmeprocent og antal stemmer for hvert enkelt delvalg, samt om der har været kamp- eller fredsvalg (og i nogle tilfælde ikke-valg ). a. Universitets standard/kodeks for god ledelse og b. processer/handlemuligheder for studerende og medarbejdere, hvis de oplever, at den nærmeste leder ikke følger vedtægtsbestemmelserne om medbestemmelse og medinddragelse eller standarderne for god ledelse CBS har udviklet to ledelseskodeks ét for ansatte og ét for studerende. Grunden hertil er, at der tale om to vidt forskellige befolkningsgrupper på universitetet med vidt forskellige behov ift. medinddragelse. Universitet kan fx ikke lede de studerende, da de ikke har ansættelsesforhold på CBS (derimod kan CBS muligvis udvise lederskab overfor de studerende). De to kodeks er vedlagt som bilag 6 og 7.

61 CBS har ikke nedfældet specifikke retningslinjer for medarbejdere, hvis de oplever, at den nærmeste leder ikke følger vedtægtsbestemmelserne om medbestemmelse og medinddragelse eller standarderne for god ledelse (studerende har ikke nogen nærmeste leder). CBS har dog en forventning om medarbejdere i sådanne situationer ligesom i andre konfliktsituationer tager problemstillingen op med enten sin tillidsrepræsentant eller ledelsesniveauet over nærmeste leder. Universitetets konkrete handlingsplaner og strategier eller lignende for medbestemmelse og medinddragelse. CBS har ikke udarbejdet specifikke handlingsplaner eller strategier for området. Det fremgår dog af CBS overordnede strategi fra 2011, at Dialogue in the university og Partnership with our students identificeres som såkaldte Management Quality Essentials. Nedenfor bringes uddrag fra strategien (også vedlagt som bilag 8): 17. marts 2014 Copenhagen Business School Ledelsessekretariatet Kilevej Frederiksberg Anders Jonas Rønn Pedersen Specialkonsulent Tlf.: Mob.: ajp.ls@cbs.dk Side 2 / 5

62 17. marts 2014 Copenhagen Business School Ledelsessekretariatet Kilevej Frederiksberg Anders Jonas Rønn Pedersen Specialkonsulent Tlf.: Mob.: Side 3 / 5 Bestyrelsen fulgte op på strategien i efteråret 2013, i den forbindelse rapporterede direktionen følgende til bestyrelsen: 2.3 Management Quality Essentials Management Quality Essentials-initiativerne (se nedenstående tabel) kan i dag betragtes som et tidsbillede af CBS situation i MQE erne er kort sagt en række fundamentale forudsætninger, der skulle på plads, for at CBS kunne muliggøre strategisk udvikling. Direktionen har efterfølgende udmøntet MQE s i egentlige tiltag og stort set alle af de i 2011 anviste handlingspunkter er i dag gennemført og afsluttet kun den endelige implementering af det studieadministrative system, STADS, udestår. Større indsatser, som fx organisationsforandringer og omlægninger, rekrutteringsindsats, kvalitet i uddannelserne, forbedret økonomistyring, forbedret dialog mm. er afrapporteret løbende til bestyrelsen. Research and Education Essentials High quality research High quality education Active dissemination Organisational and Governance Essentials Accreditation and ranking

63 Dialogue in the university Academic organisation (research and education) Partnership with our students Staff development and leadership Administrative service and efficiency Recruitment Financial management Direktionen betragter stadig ovenstående initiativ-overskrifter som relevante for den måde, CBS skal drives på som universitet. Eksempelvis skal CBS naturligvis fortsat og løbende have fokus på kvaliteten i uddannelse og forskning, den administrative service og effektivitet, partnerskab og inddragelse af de studerende, medarbejderudvikling, rekruttering, økonomistyring etc. Det er trods alt grundlæggende elementer i ledelsen af et universitet. Evt. organigrammer over medbestemmelse og medinddragelse. CBS har ikke organigrammer over medbestemmelse og medinddragelse. 17. marts 2014 Copenhagen Business School Ledelsessekretariatet Kilevej Frederiksberg Anders Jonas Rønn Pedersen Specialkonsulent Tlf.: Mob.: ajp.ls@cbs.dk B. indholdsmæssig beskrivelse af universitetets rationale og overvejelser for organiseringen af medbestemmelsen og medinddragelsen. Side 4 / 5 CBS har valgt følgende disposition for besvarelsen: 1) De konkrete overvejelser i forbindelse med at omsætte 2011-loven i vedtægter og praksis, herunder eksempler på uformelle fora 2) Udvikling af ledelseskultur og lederudviklingsprogrammer Ad 1. De konkrete overvejelser i forbindelse med at omsætte 2011-loven i vedtægter og praksis, herunder eksempler på uformelle fora De konkrete overvejelser og rationalet bag organiseringen af medbestemmelsen fremgår af bestyrelsen behandling af vedtægtsrevisionen i 2012 som følge af 2011-loven. I bilag 9 er samlet dokumenter desangående. Udmøntningen af ledelseskodeks fremgår af de tidligere omtalte bilag 6 og 7. CBS har i øvrigt valgt at holde fast i en kultur og praksis, der lægger vægt på inddragelse og dialog som grundlag for udvikling af institutionen og etablering af bedst mulige grundlag for beslutninger. Der henvises til de ovenfor citerede passager fra CBS strategi og det vedlagte ledelseskodeks, hvor rationalet bag denne kultur og praksis er nærmere udfoldet/beskrevet. Denne kultur betyder, at der med tiden opstår og forgår uformelle fora både på mere eller mindre stående basis og ad-hoc. Af aktuelle eksempler kan nævnes: 14-dages møder mellem institutledere og direktionen

64 Jævnlige møder mellem universitetsdirektøren og funktionschefer på TAP-området Teknologiudvalg (med deltagelse af ledelse og medarbejdere) Kaffemøder ml. hhv. fælles-tillidsrepræsentanter (VIP) og dekanerne, og fælles-tillidsrepræsentanter (TAP) og universitetsdirektøren Halvårlige seminarer for samtlige ledere på CBS og direktionen Udvalg vedr. udvikling og indretning af Campus Udvalg/fora vedr. implementering af fremdriftsreform (ledelse, medarbejdere, studerende) Ad 2. Udvikling af ledelseskultur og lederudviklingsprogrammer Det noget luftige begreb ledelseskultur er søgt udviklet/beskrevet i fx ledelseskodeks. Derudover har CBS i de seneste år fokuseret på udvikling og inddragelse af særligt institutledergruppen, da denne ledergruppe står med et enormt og direkte ansvar for universitets udvikling, eftersom de 15 institutledere har det direkte ledelsesansvar for de ca. 700 VIP, der udfører den forskning og uddannelse som CBS er sat i verden for at levere. Aktuelt arbejdes der således med udvikling af et fælles lederudviklingsprogram for direktion og institutledere. 17. marts 2014 Copenhagen Business School Ledelsessekretariatet Kilevej Frederiksberg Anders Jonas Rønn Pedersen Specialkonsulent Tlf.: Mob.: ajp.ls@cbs.dk Side 5 / 5 På TAP-siden er lederudvikling et centralt tema i de årlige LUS-samtaler med ledere i administrationen. Der er ikke udviklet et fælles TAPlederudviklingsprogram, men ledere tilbydes udvikling i det omfang det skønnes nødvendigt (fx i AEU regi). CBS ledelseskodeks anvendes i øvrigt ved rekruttering af ledere; dels linkes der til det i opslag, of dels bedes ansøgere forholde sig til kodekset i jobsamtaler. Venlig hilsen Anders Jonas Rønn Pedersen Specialkonsulent

65 B Pkt. 2 Bilag 2.2 Bestyrelsen Fremsendelsesbrev: Forslag til CBS vedtægt Bestyrelsen nedsatte på sit møde d. 7. oktober en arbejdsgruppe der fik til formål at udarbejde forslag til nye vedtægter. 24. januar 2012 AJP/PL Arbejdsgruppens mandat og sammensætning er beskrevet i tidligere notater til bestyrelsen, men er også vedlagt som bilag. Arbejdsgruppens forslag til ny vedtægt fremgår af bilag 2.3. Første kolonne indeholder gældende vedtægt. Anden kolonne indeholder bemærkninger og henvisninger til universitetsloven i de tilfælde, hvor bestemmelsen følger direkte af universitetsloven. Det er ligeledes i midterste kolonne angivet med rød skrift, hvis en bestemmelse foreslås at udgå. Tredje kolonne indeholder forslag til ny vedtægt. Rød skrift markerer ændringer i forhold til gældende vedtægt. Gul overstregning markerer, at teksten er substantielt identisk med formuleringen i universitetsloven. Bilag 2.1 er et brev fra UBST (nu UI), der fastsætter, hvad der som minimum skal foretages af ændringer i vedtægten. Arbejdsgruppen vil i nærværende fremsendelsesbrev kort redegøre for de væsentligste ændringsforslag, samt de input og diskussioner, der har været i den netop afsluttede interne høringsfase. Konsekvensrettelser som følge af nye formuleringer i loven, der ikke har yderligere konsekvenser og bestemmelser, der er direkte overført fra loven er ikke medtaget i nedenstående oversigt. Høringsfasen blev gennemført fra d januar. Høringen var oprindeligt planlagt tidligere og af længere varighed, men arbejdsgruppen besluttede, at en ny rektor burde have god mulighed for at sætte sig ind i vedtægten og ændringsforslagene inden den gik i høring. Der har i høringsfasen været gennemført høringsmøder med Institutlederkredsen, HSU og Akademisk Råd, hvor også direktionen har deltaget. Derudover har der været mulighed for at afgive individuelle bemærkninger til arbejdsgruppen, men bortset fra spørgsmål af teknisk karakter er der ikke indkommet sådanne bemærkninger.

66 Kommentarer til ændringsforslag (tematisk organiseret) Indledningsvis skal det bemærkes, at det med vedtægtsforslaget søges kodificeret, at vi hedder Copenhagen Business School Handelshøjskolen (i daglig tale CBS), således som vi også skriver i logo, brevpapir mm. 1. Vedr. bestyrelsen Der er i forslaget indført mulighed for at ansætte en prorektor (ny 2, stk. 2, nr. 6) efter samme procedure som universitetsdirektøren. Det har ikke været kommenteret i høringerne bortset fra at rektor har pointeret, at der ikke er planer om sådan ansættelse. Bestemmelsen er indsat på baggrund af opdragets ønske om en fleksibel vedtægt. For så vidt angår bestyrelsens opgaver foreslås det, at rektor fremover skal fremlægge planer for oprettelse og nedlæggelse af institutter, samt udbydelse af uddannelser for Akademisk Råd i stedet for bestyrelsen, dvs. nuværende 2, stk. 2 nr. 5 og 6 udgår. Akademisk Råd får ikke ret til at blokere forslag (i modsætning til bestyrelsens nuværende godkendelseskompetence), men formålet er det samme, nemlig at rektor ikke umiddelbart kan træffe sådanne beslutninger uden at fremlægge planerne i et åbent forum. Forslaget har fået generel opbakning i høringsfasen. Endelig er der spørgsmålet om bestyrelsesmedlemmernes kompetence og udpegelsen af nye udefrakommende bestyrelsesmedlemmer som også blev diskuteret i bestyrelsen i december. Hvad angår bestyrelsesmedlemmernes kompetencer ( 5, stk. 2) har arbejdsgruppen, efter råd fra formandsskabet, ladet sig inspirere af universitetslovens originale forarbejder og indarbejdet formuleringer fra disse. Formuleringerne om, at der bør være erfaring med universitetsledelse gerne med et internationalt perspektiv - har fået fuld opbakning gennem høringen. Hvad angår bestemmelserne om udpegning af udefrakommende bestyrelsesmedlemmer ( 5, stk. 3 og 4) er disse blevet reformuleret efter drøftelsen på bestyrelsesmødet i december. Høringen har ikke givet anledning til substantielle ændringer. De studerende i Akademisk Råd har forespurgt, om det var muligt, at sikre studerende en plads i et af de to organer. Arbejdsgruppen vurderer, at dette ville åbne op for en diskussion om udvidelse af de to organer, og har valgt ikke at imødekomme ønsket. 2. Vedr. rektor ( 6) Det foreslås, at rektor skal fastsætte et kodeks for god ledelse (stk. 3, nr. 2). Dette kodeks skal dække al ledelse på CBS, også på ikke-akademiske områder. Bestemmelsen honorerer et specifikt krav fra bemærkningerne til den nye universitetslov. Forslaget har fået fuld opbakning gennem høringen. På de studerendes foranledning er der indført en bestemmelse i (stk. 3, nr. 12), der giver de studerende en vedtægtsbestemt adgang til møder med rektor. Det forventes, at rektor og den øvrige ledelse aftaler en fast mødestruktur med de studerende. Forslaget har fået fuld opbakning gennem høringen. 2

67 Da den interne organsering af universitetet i ændrede universitetslov er helt overladt til universitetet selv og fakulteter og institutter derfor ikke er nævnt i loven, er disses ledere heller ikke beskrevet i loven. Derfor er det nødvendigt at tydeliggøre i vedtægten ( 6, stk. 5, samt flere andre steder), at deres bemyndigelse stammer fra rektor som skal uddelegere kompetence til dem. Alle andre ledere end rektor er så at sige født uden kompetence og skal tildeles kompetence (bemyndiges) af rektor. Dette har ikke været genstand for debat under høringen. 3. Vedr. intern organisering Loven kræver, at universitets interne organisering beskrives i vedtægterne. Forslaget fastholder CBS nuværende interne organisering (ingen fakulteter, forskning ved institutter, bibliotek som særlig enhed). Arbejdsgruppen har efter høringsrunden fundet det betimeligt at skrive centre ud af vedtægten. Det betyder ikke, at CBS ikke fortsat kan have centre, men da centre efter strategiprocessen er underlagt institutter og ikke har ledelser med personaleansvar, findes det overflødigt at nævne dem i vedtægterne. CBS har i øvrigt andre organisatorisk enheder, som heller ikke nævnes, såsom BiS-platforme og WCRE er. Dette forslag har ikke givet anledning til bemærkninger på høringerne. Arbejdsgruppen har fastholdt beskrivelsen af CBS bibliotek i vedtægtens 8. Dette har været genstand for en del drøftelse i høringen. Direktionen har fremført det synspunkt, at man fandt at det var en anomali, at biblioteket var beskrevet i vedtægten, men ikke øvrige stabs-/supportfunktioner, og at det derudover var uhensigtsmæssigt, at rektor ifølge vedtægten ansætter biblioteksdirektøren, når denne i praksis referer til universitetsdirektøren. Det har dog ikke været et principielt spørgsmål fra direktionens side eller fra andre parter i høringen. Arbejdsgruppen har efter høringen valgt at fastholde 8, idet biblioteket har en særlig status som støttefunktion for både studerende og vip er, og i øvrigt har en forpligtigelse til at betjene offentligheden. Denne løsning har generelt fået opbakning på høringerne, idet det er blevet understreget, at biblioteket er en del af universitetets identitet. Arbejdsgruppen har tilføjet en bestemmelse om aftagerpaneler efter krav i universitetsloven, 22A. Dette har ikke været genstand for debat under høringen. 3. Akademisk Råd Akademisk Råds ( 9-10) rolle foreslås generelt mere specificeret. Rådet må derfor forventes at få indsigt i og dermed medindflydelse på flere beslutninger end i dag. Dette foreslås ud fra en betragtning om, at Akademisk Råd er det væsentligste organ for medindflydelse for vip erne og de studerende på institutionsniveau. Arbejdsgruppen har derfor søgt at tydeliggøre denne rolle for Akademisk Råd ved at kodificere nuværende praksisser i Akademisk Råd og at give Rådet større indsigt i og indflydelse på ledelsens beslutninger vedr. særligt allokering og opslag af videnskabelige stillinger. Som allerede ovenfor nævnt ekspliciteres Akademisk Råds udtaleret på institutstruktur og uddannelsesudbud. 3

68 Følgende bestemmelser har modtaget fuld opbakning eller har ikke været genstand for drøftelse i høringerne: - indført formålsbeskrivelse for Akademisk Råd for at præcisere Rådets rolle ( 9, stk. 1) - Akademisk organisering, herunder institutter og uddannelser ( 9, stk. 2, nr. 4) - Forskningsfrihed, videnskabsetik og god videnskabelig praksis ( 9, stk. 2, nr. 6 og 7). Rådet pålægges at påse, at CBS lever op til kravet om forskningsfrihed og videnskabsetik. Det sker for at sikre, at disse emner bringes til diskussion på CBS og for at sikre et beredskab til at håndtere eventuelle sager. - Udtalelse ifbm. sammensætning af komite ved kaldelser ( 9, stk. 2, nr. 9) - Indstilling af komite ved udnævnelse af adjungerede professorer ( 9, stk. 2, nr. 12) - Orientering om bestyrelsesdagsordener ( 9, stk. 4) - Årlig beretning fra Akademisk Råd til bestyrelsen ( 9, stk. 5). Bestemmelsen skal fremme dialogen mellem bestyrelsen og medarbejderne. - Åbenhed om Akademisk Råds arbejde ( 9A). Der er indsat bestemmelser om åbenhed omkring Rådets arbejde, helt parallelt til bestemmelserne omkring Bestyrelsen. - Valgperioden er nedsat fra 4 til 3 år for at undgå for mange indsuppleringer og i øvrigt at fastholde opmærksomheden omkring Rådets arbejde blandt medarbejderne ( 10, stk. 2). - Valgte TAP-observatører ( 10, stk. 3). Det foreslås, at TAPmedarbejderne kan vælge to observatører til Rådet, således at arbejdet i Rådet kan komme til tap-medarbejdernes kendskab ved selvsyn. Bestemmelserne om allokering og opslag af videnskabelige stillinger er de bestemmelser, der har påkaldt sig mest opmærksomhed i høringerne, specielt naturligvis fra Direktionen og fra Akademisk Råd. Forslaget er nu, at Akademisk Råd: - udtaler sig til rektor om den interne fordeling af bevillinger herunder om den deri indeholdte allokering af videnskabelige stillinger til institutter ( 9, stk. 2, nr. 1) - udtaler sig til rektor om principper for den interne allokering af videnskabelige stillinger til institutter ( 9, stk. 2, nr. 2) 4

69 - godkender principper for stillingsopslag ( 9, stk. 2, nr. 8) Bestemmelserne sikrer, at Akademisk Råd ikke skal behandle enkeltsager om allokering, men har mulighed for at udtale sig om allokeringen af universitetets ressourcer. Akademisk Råd skal altså som hidtil udtale sig om den interne fordeling af midler, men det præciseres, at denne udtaleret omfatter allokeringen af faste vip-stillinger, ligesom Rådet tillægges ret til at udtale sig om principperne for denne allokering. Formålet er at skabe transparens og legitimitet i disse beslutninger Det pålægges samtidig indirekte direktionen at udarbejde principper for stillingsopslag til godkendelse i Akademisk Råd, hvoraf følger at Akademisk Råd kan påtale, hvis Rådet observerer at principperne ikke følges. Det forventes, at denne kompetence vil føre til større klarhed om centrale emner som kvalifikationskrav, åbenhed, ligeret, mangfoldighed mm. Arbejdsgruppen finder, at de ovenstående bestemmelser giver Akademisk Råd større mulighed for medbestemmelse uden at risikere en bureaukratisering af beslutningsprocesserne og heller ikke eksempelvis giver Akademisk Råd mulighed for at blokere konkrete rekrutteringer. 4. Medbestemmelse på institutniveau Det følger af universitetsloven, at vedtægten skal beskrive, hvorledes der sker medinddragelse på alle organisatoriske niveauer. Arbejdsgruppen har derfor indført en ny 13A, der forsøger at balancere mellem sikring af medinddragelse og organisatorisk fleksibilitet omkring samme. Det foreslås, at medarbejderne på institutterne får mulighed for at mødes med institutlederen i enten en såkaldt medarbejderforsamling eller i såkaldte institutfora. Denne bestemmelse er indsat for at imødekomme det massive pres for inddragelse af medarbejderne i beslutningerne på lokalt niveau (altså også for professoren på gulvet ), der opstod med universitetsloven af 2003, og som nu er reflekteret i både den reviderede lov og bemærkningerne hertil. Som led i imødekommelsen af ønskerne om medbestemmelse foreslås det, at give medarbejderne mulighed for selv at vælge mellem disse to typer organer, hvilket som sidegevinst giver CBS mulighed for at eksperimentere med organiseringen af medinddragelsen. Det har i høringerne, specielt fra HR-afdelingen og direktionenen, været fremført, at institutfora kan komme i konflikt med SU-systemet (samarbejdsudvalg). Denne bekymring kan være berettiget, da der kan være overlap mellem opgaverne for institut-baserede SU og de foreslåede institutfora fx omkring budgetinformation. Imidlertid er det en klar forventning i universitetssektoren, at der vil blive indført organer som institutfora på alle universiteter, idet selve hensigten med lovrevisionen er at tildele medarbejderne indflydelse ud over den høringsret, som SU-systemet sikrer. Hvis medarbejderne således ikke tilbydes muligheden for institutfora, må vedtægterne indeholde andre styrkelser af deres muligheder for medbestemmelse. 5

70 Arbejdsgruppen vurderer således, at en kombination af udelukkende medarbejderforsamling og samarbejdsudvalg ikke vil tilfredsstille lovgivers intention om øget medarbejderinddragelse på dette organisatoriske niveau. 5. Studienævn For at styrke de studerendes muligheder for medbestemmelse er indført en bestemmelse ( 16, stk. 1, nr. 6) om, at studienævnene skal holde årlige møder med de institutter, der leverer undervisning til studienævnets uddannelser. Baggrunden er, at det på grund uddannelsernes organisering i institut-uafhængige enheder ikke altid er tilfældet, at de fagansvarlige institutter er repræsenteret i studienævnet for en given uddannelse. Dette har ikke været genstand for større debat under høringen, bortset fra at de studerende har bakket opom forslaget. 6. Ansættelses- og afskedigelsesprocedurer for ledere (bilag til vedtægten) Arbejdsgruppen foreslår ændrede sammensætninger/udpegelser af ansættelsesudvalg vedr. universitetsdirektør (pkt. 3.4), dekaner (pkt. 4.4) og institutledere (pkt. 6.4). Dette har ikke været genstand for debat under høringen. Arbejdsgruppen har ligeledes foreslået, at der ved forlængelse af åremålsansættelser nedsættes et udvalg svarende til ansættelsesudvalget for den pågældende stilling, der afgiver en udtalelse om, hvorvidt en forlængelse kan anbefales, idet en forlængelse kan betragtes som en ny ansættelse. Arbejdsgruppen ser det som en institutionalisering af en uformel praksis (i hvert fald for institutledere), som er en naturlig forlængelse af statens regler om ansættelsesudvalg og lovens skærpede krav om medbestemmelse. En lignende bestemmelse kunne være indeholdt i det kommende kodeks for god ledelse, men da universitetsloven kræver, at ansættelses- og afskedigelsesprocedurer beskrives i vedtægterne, skal en sådan procedure også medtages i vedtægterne. Dette har været genstand for drøftelse under høringen. Direktionen har således foreslået, at denne bestemmelse ikke indskrives i vedtægterne, da den vil øge usikkerheden ved ansættelse i åremålsstillinger. Arbejdsgruppen har efter høringen ændret sit forslag således, at universitetsdirektøren ikke er underlagt denne bestemmelse, da denne ligesom rektor - har et ansættelses- og instruktionsforhold ift. bestyrelsen, men har fastholdt forslaget for dekaner, biblioteksdirektør og institutledere. Venlig hilsen Bestyrelsens arbejdsgruppe vedr. nyt vedtægtforslag 6

71 Bilag 1: Arbejdsgruppen består af: Peter Lotz (formand) institutleder (udpeget af bestyrelsen) Finn Valentin professor (udpeget af Akademisk Råd) Leif Hansen konsulent biblioteket (udpeget af HSU) Thomas Edvardsen bestyrelsesformand for CBS Students (2011) Emil Fuglsang bestyrelsesnæstformand for CBS Students (2011) Herudover deltager Thomas Werner Hansen Martin Kramer-Jørgensen Anders Jonas Pedersen konsulent, dekansekretariatet for uddannelse, som særligt sagkyndig leder af legal office med sekretariatsbistand ledelsessekretariatet med sekretariatsbistand Arbejdsgruppens mandat fra Bestyrelsen fremgår af nedenstående boks. 1. Arbejdsgruppen skal udarbejde oplæg til, hvorledes den ny universitetslovs bestemmelser kan indarbejdes i CBS vedtægter. 2. Arbejdsgruppen skal samtidig udsætte CBS vedtægt for et generelt serviceeftersyn, således at uhensigtsmæssige, forældede og/eller overflødige bestemmelser også revideres (og der tilføjes nye efter behov) 3. Arbejdsgruppen skal have særligt fokus på universitetslovens 10, stk. 6 (medbestemmelse og medinddragelse). 4. Arbejdsgruppen skal udfærdige skal udfærdige sit oplæg ud fra den forudsætning, at den enstrengede ledelsesmodel fastholdes. 5. Arbejdsgruppen skal udfærdige skal udfærdige sit oplæg ud fra den forudsætning, at der ønskes en fleksibel vedtægt, som i det omfang det er muligt ikke pålægger CBS unødige begrænsninger i udførelsen af sit virke. 6. Arbejdsgruppen udarbejder mere detaljeret tidsplan for sit arbejde. Boks 1: Arbejdsgruppens kommissorium 7

72 Bestyrelsen Skriftlig høring: Vedtægter 2012 På bestyrelsesmødet d. 3. februar 2012 blev forslag til ny vedtægt næsten endeligt fastlagt. Der var dog et par enkelte udeståender, hvor bestyrelsen udbad sig forslag til nye formuleringer på baggrund af bestyrelsens kommentarer ved drøftelsen. 19. februar 2012 AJP Anders Jonas Pedersen Vedtægtsarbejdsgruppen har revideret forslaget til nye vedtægter efter bestyrelsens anvisninger, og sat det op i det format, der skal afleveres til ministeren (vedhæftet): - Ændringer og tilføjelser til eksisterende tekst er markeret med gult - Slettet tekst fremgår ikke af vedhæftede Vedtægtsarbejdsgruppen har også udarbejdet forslag til nye formuleringer de steder, hvor bestyrelsen ønskede det. Det drejer sig om: 1. 9, stk.2 vedr. Akademisk Råds opgaver (SN på institutionsniveau): Bestyrelsen ønskede, jf. referat af bestyrelsesmødet; Akademisk Råd skal som kollegialt organ på institutionsniveau også udtale sig til rektor om kvaliteten i den samlede uddannelsesportefølje. Dette vil efter bestyrelsens opfattelse styrke rådets rådgivende rolle vedr. centrale akademiske spørgsmål. Forslag: ny 9, stk. 2, nr. 8: Akademisk råd udtaler sig til rektor om kvalitet og relevans i CBS samlede uddannelsesportefølje 2. 9, stk.2 vedr. Akademisk Råds opgaver (stillingsopslag) Bestyrelsen ønskede, jf. referat af bestyrelsesmødet; I stedet for at godkende principper for stillingsopslag (VIP) skal Akademisk Råd evaluere foretagne stillingsbesættelser, fx to gange årligt. Evalueringen skal ikke blot forholde sig til, hvorledes stillingsopslag har været formuleret, men skal også vurdere rekruttering ud fra andre kriterier (interne/eksterne ansættelser, stillingskategorier, udenlandske/danske, køn etc.). Akademisk Råds evaluering skal være vejledende for fremtidige stillingsbesættelser. Akademisk Råd kan vælge at specificere dette i et årshjul eller i rådets forretningsorden. Forslag: Arbejdsgruppens forslag om godkendelse af principper for opslag udgår af vedtægten, i stedet overlades det til rektor og Akademisk Råd, at

73 indarbejde ovenstående praksis i Akademisk Råds arbejde (fx via forretningsorden) A vedr. medinddragelse på institutniveau (model 3½-plus) Bestyrelsen ønskede, jf. referat af bestyrelsesmødet; Bestemmelsen om medarbejderforsamling og/eller institutfora på institutter udgår. I stedet fastsættes det i vedtægten, at Institutlederen har pligt til at inddrage medarbejderne om spørgsmål af central betydning for instituttets udvikling og drift, samt herefter en bestemmelse om, at der på instituttet skal etableres en fast organisatorisk samarbejdsform (fx udvalg, fora, forsamling, komite e.l.) og at de nærmere bestemmelser om etablering og sammensætning mv. fastsættes i en forretningsorden for instituttet. Rektor påtog sig at få udarbejdet et paradigme for institutforretningsorden. Bestyrelsen fandt, at det oprindelige forslag var for detaljeret, og dermed potentielt kunne virke begrænsende for, at det enkelte institut kunne etablere løsninger, der var tilpasset instituttets situation. Arbejdsgruppen fandt det uhensigtsmæssigt at operere med en forretningsorden for institutter. Da forretningsordenener typisk fastsætter de interne procedurer for organers virkemåde ville det skabe begrebsforvirring at indføre forretningsordener for organisatoriske enheder (som institutter) såvel som organer. Derfor har arbejdsgruppen i samråd med rektor valgt en formulering, hvor det påhviler rektor at sørge for at de nærmere bestemmelser om samarbejdsorganer på institutter bliver udarbejdet. Forslag: ny 15: Institutlederen har pligt til at inddrage medarbejderne i spørgsmål af central betydning for instituttets udvikling og drift. Stk. 2. For at fremme dialog og medinddragelse, jf. stk. 1, og 14, stk. 1, skal der på instituttet etableres et eller flere faste samarbejdsorganer med deltagelse af institutlederen og medarbejdere på instituttet. Rektor har ansvar for at fastsætte de nærmere bestemmelser om samarbejdsorganets (eller - organernes) opgaver, etablering og sammensætning, jf. 6, stk. 3, nr. 12). Det indstilles, at bestyrelsen: 1. Godkender de nye ændringsforslag, jf. 1-3, ovenfor. 2. Godkender vedtægten i øvrigt med de ændringer, der er foretaget efter bestyrelsesmødet. Venlig hilsen Anders Jonas Pedersen 2

74 Bestyrelsen Referat af skriftlig høring: vedtægter 2012 Ved en skriftlig høring, jf. bestyrelsens forretningsorden, gennemført fra d. 20. til d. 24. februar 2012, har bestyrelsen godkendt forslag til reviderede vedtægter for CBS. Bestyrelsen godkendte det udsendte forslag med følgende tilføjelser: 28. februar 2012 AJP Anders Jonas Pedersen I 5, stk. 6 er det blevet tilføjet at medlemmer af udpegnings- og indstillingsorganer kun kan genudpeges én gang (på samme vis som eksterne medlemmer af bestyrelsen). Bestemmelsen lyder nu: Stk. 6. De udpegede medlemmer af indstillings- og udpegningsorganet udpeges for en periode på 4 år. Genudpegning kan finde sted én gang. Bestyrelsen fastsætter i sin forretningsorden procedurer for nedsættelsen af de to organer. I bilaget til vedtægten (om ansættelsesprocedurer) er i nr. 7.4 tilføjet en bestemmelse om, at rektor skal fastsætte procedurer for, hvorledes medarbejdere på institutter udpeges til at indgå i ansættelsesudvalg vedr. institutleder. Bestemmelsen lyder nu: Rektor nedsætter et ansættelsesudvalg, der består af repræsentanter for de videnskabelige og teknisk-administrative medarbejdere ved instituttet, en institutleder fra et andet institut samt en studenterrepræsentant. Repræsentanterne for de videnskabelige og teknisk-administrative medarbejdere udpeges af medarbejderne på instituttet, efter en procedure fastsat af rektor. Institutlederen udpeges af rektor. Den studerende udpeges af de studerende i Akademisk Råd. Venlig hilsen Anders Jonas Pedersen

75 Copenhagen Business School Application for Institutional Accreditation Self Evaluation Report January 2014 Samlet ansøgning, side 3 af 287

76 Table of Contents Copenhagen Business School Self Evaluation Report 1 Introduction, Position and Strategy CBS Position in Denmark CBS International Position CBS International Ranking Results CBS Strategy CBS Quality Assurance System Documentation Introduction the Quality System Elements and Processes Governance of Danish Universities The Matrix Structure The Program Regulatory Framework Elements of CBS Quality Assurance System... 9 Program information Dean of Education and Program Directors Annual Development Cycle CBS Quality System and the Five Criteria of Accreditation Continuing and Executive Education Leadership Reflections on CBS Quality Assurance System CBS Quality Assurance A Multi Level Approach Reflections Strengths, Weaknesses, and New Developments CBS Program Portfolio Development, Potential, and Challenges Key Performance Indicators Regarding CBS Provision of Programs Appendix Documents Samlet ansøgning, side 4 af 287

77 Copenhagen Business School Self Evaluation Report 1 Introduction, Position and Strategy Founded in 1917, CBS is one of 8 public universities in Denmark. Five of these are comprehensive universities, while 3 are specialized, mono faculty institutions; one in Computer Science and Informatics, one in Engineering and Science, and one in Business (CBS). By the end of 2012, as reported in Facts and Figures 2013, Copenhagen Business School has more than 20,000 students of which 3100 are international, and annually around 1,200 incoming exchange students. With this number of students, 690 full-time academic staff of which one third are international, 258 PhD students, 730 part time teachers, and 549 administrative staff, CBS is one of the largest business schools in Europe. Details of CBS organization, research, program portfolio, students, facilities, partners, and international position can be found in the brochure Facts and Figures which is available on the CBS website: CBS Position in Denmark CBS is by far the largest supplier of business and management education in Denmark, with competitors from 3-4 of the other universities (mainly within bachelor and pre-career master programs). In the relevant bachelor area, CBS has a market share of more than 50 % of the domestic market, and in the pre-career master of business segment the market share is even higher. CBS has one program with the highest admission GPA of all university programs across all disciplines in Denmark (B.Sc. in International Business) and is the only Danish university which enforces admission restrictions to all programs. In the MBA and executive MBA market CBS considers itself the dominant player in Denmark, but with increasing competition from other Danish Universities who offer executive MBAs under various formats. CBS competitive position is strong due to our broad program portfolio, strong research base, international faculty, and our international position in terms of ranking and accreditations. Graduates from CBS face low unemployment and high salaries compared to other social science graduates. Overall, CBS has a very high rate of student satisfaction (94 % of all bachelor students would select CBS again according to a recent study). CBS has by far the largest international program offering (teaching delivered in English and student exchange with international universities). This may attribute to the acceptable rankings CBS has received over the years. 1.2 CBS International Position 2013 The last three decades have been characterized by transformation of CBS from a national, good quality, local teaching provider into an international, globally visible, research-driven institution in the league of the European top quality business schools. In many ways, CBS today is in a unique position to envisage a position as a globally significant player in business education and thus meet the government s goal of being a world class university. The following facts support this argument: 1 Samlet ansøgning, side 5 af 287

78 CBS is an autonomous institution, not part of a larger university which has made it agile in moving fast when opportunities appear in terms of new programs, new research initiatives, new recruitments, and new partnerships. CBS is among the world s largest suppliers in an increasing market for pre-career masters. CBS has demonstrably been able to handle both elite and mass education, which is a distinctive feature compared to many business schools around the world. CBS portfolio of programs is distinctive in being among the broadest in the business school area globally, since CBS, like no other, has succeeded in integrating new disciplines in the portfolio. CBS is the Danish member of the Global Alliance in Management Education (CEMS) and the Partnership of International Management (PIM); two prestigious international business school networks with membership by invitation only. CBS has more than 330 international academic partners, among those some of the 500 most significant schools in the world, e.g. Melbourne Business School, Tsinghua University, HEC - Paris; Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad; Keio University; Singapore Management University, ESADE, and London School of Economics. CBS has developed student learning and personal development into a strong, distinctive feature of its programs, based on an explicit learning strategy and clear learning goals aligned with the European Qualification Framework (EQF). CBS has a strong reputation of quality assurance and was the Nordic winner in quality assurance among Nordic universities in a review by the Nordic Quality Assurance Association (NOQA) in CBS is a founding member of EABIS - the Academy of Business in Society, an alliance of business schools, corporations and other institutions, established in 2001, committed to putting business in society issues at the heart of management theory and practice. CBS is a signatory of and participant in PRME, the Global Compact Program of Responsible Management Education. CBS is a member of the Global Business School Network. GBSN is an international non-profit organization working to strengthen management education for emerging markets through a unique global network of business schools. CBS is member of SCANCOR, Scandinavian Consortium for Organizational Research, a research institute located at Stanford University. In addition to CBS the members count a number of Scandinavian universities. 1.3 CBS International Ranking Results CBS research in general was ranked 93 rd worldwide, 26th outside USA, and 11th in Europe in 2008 (Long Range Planning number 41). In 2013, University of Texas at Dallas Top 100 Business School Research Rankings ranked CBS research as 81th in the World and 6th in Europe, next to INSEAD, LBS, Tilburg University, RSM, HEC Paris). CBS focus on Corporate Social Responsibility was ranked 43 rd worldwide and 8th in Europe by Aspen Institute in In 2013 a new Green MBA ranking placed CBS Full Time MBA as no 10 worldwide in terms of integrating CSR in the program In 2009, CBS Full-Time MBA was ranked 12th in the World among accelerated programs by Wall Street Journal. The CEMS Master in Management program (offered as a joint venture between CBS and 26 other world-class academic institutions), was ranked 7th worldwide by Financial Times in CBS has acceptable Financial Times 2013 rankings in M.Sc. (40th worldwide) and EMBA programs (79th worldwide and 27th in Europe), as well as in the European Business School Ranking (34th in 2013). In 2008, CBS reputation was ranked 2nd worldwide, next to Harvard, and 1st in Western Europe (over INSEAD and London Business School) by EDUNIVERSAL (based on recommendations from 1,000 business school deans). In 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 CBS was ranked 3rd worldwide, next to Harvard and LBS. Webometrics ranks business schools based on access to knowledge via the web (knowledge dissemination). In 2013 CBS was ranked 2nd worldwide, next to Wharton, and with Harvard Business School 3rd. In 2010, QS Top Business Schools ranked CBS 17th in Europe the only business school in the Nordic countries to appear on this list. In 2011 CBS advanced to no 11 in Europe on this list, and maintained this position in In 2013, CBS was listed 9th in Europe by QS. 2 Samlet ansøgning, side 6 af 287

79 1.4 CBS Strategy CBS strategy, titled Business in Society, is available on the CBS website: The mission of CBS is expressed in the two first elements of the strategy: Identity and Direction. In terms of Identity, the strategy states the following: With the distinctiveness of its diversity, Copenhagen Business School aims to become a world-leading business university with teaching and research excellence in classical management disciplines (including finance and economics, accounting and operations management, marketing, strategic management and organisation) and in disciplines that place business in a wider social, political and cultural context. CBS has a particular responsibility to bring knowledge and new ideas to companies and business organisations, to the next generation of business leaders, and to society as a whole. Specifically, and drawing upon our North European background and history, we will play a major role in the discussion of innovative and entrepreneurial business models, sustainable organisational forms and economic practices within the perspective of responsible management and leadership. We will nurture an entrepreneurial spirit within our University, encouraging to new ideas, open to local initiative, and flexible in the face of new possibilities. The CBS Business in Society strategy recognises the vital role of business in shaping society and the equally important manner in which business practices and processes are shaped by society. Our major contribution takes the form of research-based education. Accordingly, investment in research and scholarship provides the foundation for our future development. In terms of Direction, the strategy states the following: CBS s direction can be expressed in terms of two dimensions. First: global versus local mindset. Our aim is to develop our global mindset for the benefit of the local and regional business communities. In that way, we see no contradiction between international standards of excellence and service to the local and regional community. As a state-funded institution, we have a special responsibility to our home nation but should also offer leadership and business support on a larger scale (i.e. on a national, regional and global level). Second: tightly-focused business school vs. full university. Our aim is to build on our identity as a business university. CBS is not a conventional business school nor is it a full university. We combine elements of both - but always with a business (and a business-in society) focus and a commitment to research-based education. It is not our intention to broaden our research and educational profile further but to strengthen (and as appropriate consolidate) our existing range of academic activities. CBS will move forward with its long-term internationalisation strategy. Without this, we cannot claim to be world-leading, the quality of our teaching and research activities will decline (since we will not be able to recruit students and staff at the highest level), we will not be able to benefit from many sources of external funding and our accreditations will be at risk. For us, internationalisation means benchmarking ourselves against the highest standards of excellence, attracting the best-qualified and most talented staff, and working across national and intellectual borders. We can claim considerable success in this area but there is more to do and we should not jeopardise what has been gained over many years of effort. Central to the CBS business-in-society strategy is the notion that research and education must make a positive difference through our students, our research and our dissemination activities. Our global engagement should therefore benefit the local and regional business communities. At the core of our future development will be the training of students capable of taking on meaningful and high-quality employment and the creation of research which is both academically excellent and socially significant. We will therefore maintain a constant focus on the relevance and impact of our education and research. Impact for us is not simply about communicating our insights but establishing open, two-way and developing relations with our students, collaborators and stakeholders. 3 Samlet ansøgning, side 7 af 287

80 2 CBS Quality Assurance System Documentation 2.1 Introduction the Quality System Elements and Processes CBS Quality assurance system consists of a number of elements, each of which is made public on our website. However, in order to understand how our QA works in practice it is necessary to understand how the different elements are used, how they interact, and how the standards and procedures are integrated in the regular analyses and decision processes made by the many stakeholders, who together conduct the continuous quality assurance and program development. Three central issues are necessary to properly understand our QA system: 1) Governance of Danish universities, and in particular CBS, as regulated in the Act on Universities, 2) CBS Matrix approach to organizing the interaction between research and teaching, and 3) The program regulatory framework of higher education in Denmark. Each of these elements will be described briefly prior to the presentation of our quality system. 2.2 Governance of Danish Universities External Governance According to the Act on Universities, the external governance of a Danish University must consist of a Board of Directors, the majority of which are appointed and external to the institution, while the rest is elected among faculty, staff and students of the university. The Chairman of the Board refers to the Minister of Education. The external members of the Board represent close connections to the business community and the Danish society. CBS board of directors consist of 11 persons, 6 of which (including the chairman) are external to the school, 2 are elected among the faculty members, 1 is elected among the professional staff, and 2 are elected among the students. The formal dialogue between the Board and the minister is regulated by a Development Contract, indicating the overall goals and KPIs agreed with the university for the contract period. The progress of the Development Contract is reported as part of the annual report, and the Contract is updated regularly, normally every two years. The current Development Contract can be seen here: The Board s main formal tasks are to recruit the president, approve the budget and the annual report, and sign the development contract with the minister. In practice, however, the Board at CBS is deeply engaged in all strategic decisions, including campus development, and in defining policies in all important areas, including ethical and social responsibility guidelines. However, there is a clear division of labor between the Board and the university management who makes the day to day decisions based on the guidelines from the Board. Internal Governance Since CBS is a mono faculty institution, the senior management consists of the president, a dean of research, a dean of education, and a university director, who is responsible for the shared central services, and the library. The organizational chart is presented in Figure 1. The (part time) vice president for international affairs is not member of the senior management, but has special responsibility to nurture and 4 Samlet ansøgning, side 8 af 287

81 develop CBS strong international partner network, including the CEMS partnership. She attends senior management meetings on regular basis. Figure 1 CBS Management Organization CBS faculty is organized in 15 research departments, each led by a head of department. The dean of research is responsible for the quality of the research, conducted by the departments. In addition to conducting research, the departments also deliver teaching within their relevant discipline(s). All core faculty at CBS are obliged to conduct both research and teaching. In addition to the core faculty, CBS employs a large number of professionally qualified part time teachers, mainly coming from the corporate world, but also a smaller number who have their main occupation as researchers at other universities. All part time teachers are affiliated with a department, who oversees their qualifications and the quality of their teaching. The Academic Council The Academic Council (required by law) consists of the president (chair), 9 elected members of faculty, 2 elected members of the professional staff, and 3 elected students. The deans are delegate members of the Council. The Academic Council advises the President and the Deans on strategy, research and educational issues. The Council also advises the senior management on the establishment of new programs. Although the Council has no decisive power, the practice has been that the president and the management team pays great attention to the arguments put forward by the Council, and in reality the Academic Council has great influence on research and education strategy, and on faculty policy. As seen from Figure 1 there is a clear division of responsibility between the departments and the programs. All programs, each led by a program director, refer to the dean of education, who has the overall responsibility for the program quality. This organization, which is special to CBS, is a central element in 5 Samlet ansøgning, side 9 af 287

82 understanding our quality system, and the construction, called the matrix structure, is outlined in the following section. 2.3 The Matrix Structure The way interaction between programs and departments at CBS is organized different from most universities. At many universities, both in Denmark and abroad, programs are imbedded in the departments, meaning that the department is responsible both for the quality of the research and for the quality of their programs, and most of the teaching is delivered by faculty from the respective department. At CBS it is different. The program quality rests with the dean of education, who operates the programs via program directors. The programs have their own budgets, and buy teaching from the departments, who are responsible for delivering high quality teaching by their faculty. Most programs buy teaching from several departments. The principle is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2 Matrix Model In practice, the departments appoint faculty members to serve as course coordinators, who are responsible for each course. The course coordinator has dialogue with the program director on course learning objectives, course content, curriculum, mode of assessment, and length of the course. The model has a number of advantages in terms of flexibility and innovation of new programs. In particular, the obvious advantage in terms of quality is the fact that there exists an internal market for delivery of teaching, which assures that there is continuous attention to the quality of each course. At the same time there exist and organizational structure to take responsibility for the entire program. Of course the model also has some challenges in terms of coordination and administrative costs. This is further discussed in Chapter 3. 6 Samlet ansøgning, side 10 af 287

83 2.4 The Program Regulatory Framework In addition to the legal regulations of university governance, and CBS matrix model for organizing interaction between research and education, it is necessary in order to understand CBS quality model to be familiar with the comprehensive regulatory framework on higher education which exists in Denmark. Probably the most comprehensive set of regulations found anywhere in the world. The elements of this legal framework are briefly outlined in this section, and at the same time it is described how CBS has chosen to operate within this framework. Program Regulations All degree programs must be based on a legal document, the Program Regulations, specifying in detail the level and length of the program, learning goals and competence profile, course structure and content, teaching and exams, and rules for admittance, progression and graduation. Needless to say, CBS many Program Regulations follow a standard structure, dependent on the academic level. In terms of program portfolio CBS offers the following program levels: Pre-career bachelors, pre-career masters, PhD, experience based Graduate Diplomas, experience based specialized masters, and MBAs. The program regulations for all programs are made public on the CBS e-campus, a special website for students. At e-campus students can find all relevant information concerning student life and study at CBS. The Bologna and National Qualification Framework All CBS programs are fully aligned with the Bologna framework, i.e. 3 year (180 ECTS) bachelor, 2 year (120 ECTS) Master, 3 year (180 ECTS) PhD, 1-2 year (60 ECTS) experience based Master/MBA (either full time or part time), and 2 year part time (60 ECTS) Graduate Diploma. All degree programs must comply with the National Danish Qualification Framework, which specifies which knowledge, skills and competences must be realized at different program levels. Thus in terms of learning goals all CBS programs at a certain level meet the same generic learning goals. The learning goals of each of CBS programs are specified so that they both comply with the qualification framework while at the same time emphasize the unique profile of that particular program. Program Directors Each program must be led by an academic program director or associate dean, appointed by the Dean. At CBS the program directors all refer to the dean of education. This organization assures that the overall program responsibility is anchored at CBS senior management. Study Boards The study board (SB) required by law has the overall responsibility of the content and quality of the program. It must comprise an equal number of members of the academic staff and students. All members of the SBs are elected. Normally, but not necessarily, the program director is chairman of the SB. A student acts as Vice chairman. At CBS all SBs are chaired by the program director. The law doesn t require that each program has its own SB. At CBS we have chosen to do so, except in cases where there is a natural and direct link between a bachelor program and a master program. In such cases there is one study board covering both programs. More details on the functioning of the study boards at CBS can be found in section Samlet ansøgning, side 11 af 287

84 Regulations of Grading and Assessment All exams at CBS and other Danish Universities must be conducted according to the Executive Order on Grading Scales and Other Forms of Assessment (the Grading Scale Order) and in detailed national examination regulations. These regulations specify guidelines for examination objectives, legal examination types, assessment procedures, procedures for conducting tests, number of examination attempts, curriculum requirements, program certificates, examination appeals, rules concerning students intellectual property rights, principles of uniform and fair treatment of students, etc. Grading must be absolute, and based on assessment of the degree to which the student s performance comply with the learning goals for the subject/subject element specified in the Program Regulations. External Examiners/Censors The Danish university grading system has a quite unique characteristic, not known in any other country. By law in Denmark, all students taking degree giving exams are subject to evaluation from a separate External Examiner ( Censor ) Institution (external to the institution and appointed by the government), who participates at the grading of both oral and written exams. The universities are required to use censors (appointed by the ministry) for at least one third of all exams in each program. This unique system guarantees that independent perspectives are represented at the final grading, but it also secures that the same scholarly quality level is maintained across Danish universities offering similar degrees. Censors are requested to hand in evaluation forms at the end of the examination, reporting any observation that needs attention by the Study Board/ Program Director. In this way, a systematic feedback system from external stakeholders on quality, attainment of learning outcomes, and market relevance is built into the Danish university exam system. Advisory Boards/employer Panels Since 2007 it has been required by law that all Study Boards must have advisory boards/employer panels with representatives from industry, alumni and business associations to get market feedback on the programs and students employability. CBS has 29 advisory boards with a total of 241 members. A list of AB members is included as appendix. In addition, CBS corporate and career partners are important sources of information on how to improve overall Program quality. National Program Accreditation According to the Order on the Accreditation Institution of 2007, all Danish University Programs must pass a national accreditation once every 5 years. The Danish Accreditation Institution, ACE Denmark, established 2007, is an independent Governmental Institution overseeing that all programs (existing and new ones) are meeting the Danish Accreditation Criteria, which are the following: 1. Demand for the study program in the labor market 2. The study program is based on research and connected with an active research environment of high quality 3. Academic profile of the study program and learning outcome targets 4. Structure and organization of the study program 5. Continuous internal quality assurance of the study program 8 Samlet ansøgning, side 12 af 287

85 The accreditation of all Danish university programs is a continuing process and the first round has not yet been completed. At present, the majority of CBS programs have been accredited with a positive outcome. Please see Tables 4 and 5 in Section 3.2 for an overview of the results of CBS program accreditations. As of July 2013, this system has been replaced by national institutional accreditation, and the program accreditation system will be terminated for institutions being granted institutional accreditation. PhD committees In 2008 it was required by law to establish PhD schools. CBS has 3 PhD Programs organized in 3 PhD schools. Each PhD school has its own PhD committee which consists of an equal number of elected members of the academic staff and PhD students. The PhD committees function much the same way as study boards for degree programs, and similar quality assurance systems apply. Danish PhD programs are governed by a comprehensive national set of regulations in terms of admission, progression, organization, learning objectives, supervision, and assessment. CBS follows these rules and regulations carefully. However, since PhD students in Denmark are considered junior faculty rather than students, the QA system of our PhD program is not pursued further in this report. At present CBS PhD schools are subject to an international evaluation. Results are expected in the summer Summary As evidenced by this overview, there exist at national/government level in Denmark a number of systems to secure quality and coherence across Danish university programs, including the program portfolio offered by CBS. All our programs have strong student demand, good study progress, and favorable career prospects. This forms the foundation of CBS quality assurance system, outlined in the next section. 2.5 Elements of CBS Quality Assurance System Student Admission One important element in program quality is the quality of the students. CBS uses actively the number of available seats at each program as a quality parameter. As the only Danish university, CBS has no vacant seats, and most programs only enroll students having CBS as their first priority as place of study. The majority of students admitted to CBS programs have a reasonable high GPA from high school. An overview of entry GPA for each program is included in the data section, Chapter 4. CBS Program Quality Policy In order to assure uniformly high quality across all CBS programs, while maintaining a highly decentralized program governance, two important elements are needed: 1) policy documents to secure that the same standards are adopted across the many different programs, and 2) processes and procedures for decision and communication processes that specify division of tasks and responsibilities among the individual stakeholders as well as institutionalized networks for knowledge exchange, benchmarking, and collaboration across programs. Each of these elements will be described in the next two sections Policy Documents CBS has formulated general principles, outlining CBS concept of program quality. The principles are made public on the CBS website: 9 Samlet ansøgning, side 13 af 287

86 The document Quality in CBS education sets the overall ambitions and identifies the dimensions with which all programs at CBS must comply. The document, formulated by the dean of education, should be seen as a framework within which the program director and the study board must operate when designing and developing their program. The document can be found here: The practical work with quality assurance is formulated in a special document, CBS Program Quality Policy. The policy is structured along four columns: Quality Assurance, Knowledge Sharing, Evaluation, and Learning, each covering a number specific activities and policy papers associated with that particular column. In particular, the Program Quality Policy outlines the way the quality work is organized, identifies the decision makers, their tasks and responsibilities, and the networks for dialogue which are institutionalized in order to facilitate mutual learning and continuous program quality improvement. The final section of the policy document describes the different sources of information which are formalized in order to monitor the program performance and stakeholders perceptions of program quality. The Program Quality Policy is made public on the website and in a brochure: The individual elements of the Program Quality Policy are described in more detail in CBS Program Quality Handbook: This document contains detailed guidelines for each of the elements in the quality policy, including purpose, activities, outcomes, use of the results, and responsibility for each activity. The Program Quality Policy and the Quality Handbook outlines processes and procedures in the ongoing quality work that takes place on an annual basis by the program directors and the study boards, including the regular, and scheduled, networking activities for benchmarking and knowledge sharing across programs. Recurrent Program Peer Review In addition to the continuous quality work CBS has since 2012 introduced recurrent program peer reviews of all degree programs. The purpose of these reviews are, every 4th year, to make a comprehensive x-ray assessment of each program and assess its quality based on all available information. These reviews follow a well defined and parsimonious concept that has proved to work well. At present, all CBS bachelor programs and most of the M.Sc. programs have been reviewed based on this model. More details of the concept are presented on the website: The model used for recurrent program peer reviews is described in a special brochure and presented on the website: Quality in Teaching and Learning An important element in program quality is of course teaching and learning. More details on this issue can be found on the following website: 10 Samlet ansøgning, side 14 af 287

87 A number of policy documents are providing guidelines for various dimensions of teaching and learning. One document, CBS Student Learning Strategy, describes the principles of teaching and the CBS learning philosophy and concept of student learning, including a list of characteristics of an ideal graduate from CBS. In order to maintain focus on quality development the dean of education has decided that all study boards must establish a Quality Board, i.e. a forum for discussion of quality issues in broad terms. Quality boards consist of 10 to 20 student representatives across the entire program and their purpose is to facilitate a broader discussion with the study board on quality from the students who directly follow the teaching. The quality boards meet several times per year and are thus a faster and more direct channel of information than the student evaluations. CBS has also established rules for planning of teaching activities, including guidelines for the number of contact hours per week, and other elements in planning and delivering teaching at CBS. In the same context, a policy paper establishing definitions and guidelines for research based teaching has been developed and presented on the CBS website. Another important dimension of quality of a business program is the practice dimension. This topic has also been outlined in a separate policy paper: The Practice Dimension of Higher Education at CBS Finally, a policy paper, CBS Talent Policy, outlines the ambitions and examples of CBS attempt to offer special and additional options for particularly talented students. In addition to the policy papers outlining the concept of program quality as defined by CBS, the school has also clear principles for establishing of new programs and for discontinuation of programs not performing to CBS standards. This document, Establishment and Discontinuation of Programs is also available on the CBS website. Student Evaluation Policy CBS has a long-lasting tradition for teaching evaluations, both at program level and at individual course level. In addition, CBS conducts regular graduate surveys and assessments of the learning environment. A special website presents CBS evaluation policy: More details are found on the special page dedicated to evaluations: where also course evaluation forms and annual evaluation forms are presented. 11 Samlet ansøgning, side 15 af 287

88 Student surveys of perceived quality of teaching and course content are mandatory in all courses. The standardized questionnaire asks essentially the same general questions, regardless of the specific degree program or course in question. The aim of this type of evaluation is to get comparable feedback on a range of criteria. The criteria are related to: The course as a whole The student workload The extent to which students engage in course-related activities The course content, curriculum, pedagogy, and teaching material The students own contribution to the learning environment The rating of teachers This type of feedback is very useful to teaching staff as well as course coordinators, who report to the study board on the results of the evaluations and make adjustments to content and pedagogy accordingly. In addition to standardized surveys, tailor-made questionnaires are used regularly in order to reflect specific characteristics or certain focus areas of a particular course or program. Scope of student evaluations Common to all programs at CBS are the following 3 evaluation elements: 1. All courses at CBS are as a minimum evaluated by a standard questionnaire at the end of the course. In addition, teachers are encouraged to conduct mid-term evaluations of their courses in order to adjust teaching according to the students feedback, if necessary. 2. All teachers who have delivered more than 2 lectures in a given course are evaluated individually. 3. At the end of each study year the overall set of study activities (courses, seminars, assignments, etc.) are evaluated for coherence, alignment and progression by a standard questionnaire. In addition to these 3 elements a study board, a course coordinator, a teacher, or a head of department may conduct additional ad hoc evaluations if needed. Who receives the evaluation results? 1. The study board receives reports of all evaluation results. The board is responsible that the results are being discussed and that action is taken if needed, based on the results. 2. The course coordinator receives reports of the evaluation results of his course. If the results indicate so he can suggest changes of the course to the Study board. 3. The teachers receive reports of the evaluation results of their own courses and individual reports of evaluations of their own teaching. For courses with more than 2 parallel classes the teachers also receive averages of all teacher evaluations for comparison. 4. The head of department receives a copy of all evaluation reports of courses and teachers from his department. Results are discussed at the annual appraisal interview with the faculty member. 5. The dean of education receives evaluation reports of all annual program evaluations both at bachelor and master level. Analyses and Reports from the most recent evaluations are published on the website and can be found by following this link: 12 Samlet ansøgning, side 16 af 287

89 CBS Strategy Business in Society In addition to the many dimensions outlined in the quality assurance system, CBS Strategy Business in Society, adopted by the CBS board of directors in 2011, includes important statements on CBS perception of quality, both in terms of research, education, and organizational performance (finances, infrastructure). In terms of quality of education the CBS Strategy states: High quality education Our students represent the most important means by which we can achieve impact. CBS has a special responsibility to train and develop the next generation of business and societal leaders. The quality of our education requires appropriate levels of accreditation, skilled teaching staff and a willingness to review and develop our activities on a regular basis. Input from students and teachers is important to improve our programs on a continuous basis, therefore we need the close involvement of study boards. Our teaching portfolio should be subjected to regular review both in terms of subject range but also the levels of programs (e.g. executive, Masters, bachelor). Our fulltime and part time faculty will be offered continuous competence development and aid in expanding their pedagogical repertoire CBS will sustain and develop its present network of partner universities with whom we share doubledegrees, and exchange programs for in- and outbound students. In terms of inclusion of students in the learning process the CBS Strategy states: Partnership with our students CBS has a long tradition of student participation both in formal meeting and in everyday informal contacts and discussions about the institution. CBS is a strong supporter of students extra-curricular activities through management and faculty involvement and resource allocation Throughout CBS history we have pursued an integrated perspective which regards students as a fundamental resource and partner in the constant efforts to develop the University Processes and Procedures After the presentation of policy documents on various dimensions of quality at CBS in section this section presents an overview of the decision making structures that are established to secure that all CBS degree programs are under regular scrutiny in order to continuously improve quality and learning outcomes. Study Boards and Course Coordinators Study boards are the most important element in ongoing quality assurance. The study board has the overall responsibility for the program quality. Thus the study board decides the program structure, curriculum, teaching and learning objectives, pedagogical methods and examination requirements. The study boards 13 Samlet ansøgning, side 17 af 287

90 have dialogue with heads of department and faculty responsible for each course, course coordinators, in order to continuously improve program quality. Study boards give feedback to the dean of education on overall quality and issues that need attention. The study board structure is a guarantee that student voices are heard in the continuous development of the programs. Students have a 50% vote on all aspects of quality, and student representatives make a significant effort to gather formal and informal information from the student cohorts from which they are elected. Study boards have, depending on the size of the program, 4-10 members. The guidelines for quality assurance made by the study board is regulated in the policy documents presented in section The study boards meet 5-6 times a year, and meetings must adhere to the Standard Rules of Procedure of the Study Boards at Copenhagen Business School, including guidelines for notice of meetings, rules of procedure, presentation of matters for discussion and decision, voting, committees, and minutes of the meetings. The document is available on CBS intranet. CBS has chosen to organize program governance highly decentralized, meaning that each program has its own study board, program director, and administrative support. The only exception is the programs where there is a natural connection between bachelor and master, as is the case for CBS combination programs. This means that the number of decision makers is quite large, and also that a number of CBS wide policies and guidelines have been established in order to assure that the same standards apply across programs, in order to avoid local cultures or traditions to appear. In addition, the system is more costly than a more centralized program organization. However, we find that the advantages of our decentralized governance structure strongly outweigh the shortcomings. First of all, our structure develops a strong local commitment and ownership among the teachers and students at the program. The large number of people involved in program governance also helps to develop and support a common quality culture across CBS. The many units stimulate innovation, local responsibility to maintain and develop quality, and create opportunities to do benchmarking and to identify best practices across programs. Besides, the model has fostered important employer dialogue at program level. In addition, the decentralized model has demonstrably made CBS one of the most innovative business schools in terms of innovating and developing new and untraditional program profiles. During the last 10 years CBS has developed 14 new programs, most of which have been broadly accepted by the relevant student target groups. Furthermore, they have all produced graduates with high employability. Program information Systematic improvement of program quality must be based on regular collection and analysis of data on program performance. Special data packages have been designed to offer to program directors and study boards updated and relevant information as basis for decisions on program development. Once a year CBS Business Intelligence Unit deliver data packages with time series of key performance indicators: Number of applicants, admission qualifications (GPA), enrolment and total number students by gender and nationality, student exchange, number of graduates, drop-out rates, completion time, and study efficiency in terms of courses passed. In addition to the data package, the study board and program director receives results of student evaluations, feedback from employer panel, alumni, and employment statistics. 14 Samlet ansøgning, side 18 af 287

91 Dean of Education and Program Directors Each study board is headed by an academic program director/associate dean who is appointed by the dean of education. The program director is responsible for the program s budget, and for implementing the decisions made by the study board. The program director refers to the dean of education and involves the dean in major revisions of the program, and informs the dean of the program s overall quality and of all issues that need senior management attention. In an annual report to the dean of education, each program director must report on major challenges based on unexpected changes in performance indicators, and explain how the study board has chosen to react on such changes in order to improve the situation. In addition, program directors are expected to report on any new information that may lead to program improvement opportunities in the future. As follow up on the annual report, the dean of education visits each study board to give feedback. At separate meetings the program director and the office of the dean of education discuss annual budgets for the program, including additional funding for program development. Annual Development Cycle A visual presentation of the interaction between the different elements of the quality system, different internal and external sources of program review information and feedback, and the processes of decisions and continuous improvement based on the feedback is presented below: Figure 3 Program Reviews and Decision processes for continuous program development Each year, several sources of information on performance and goal attainment are collected from various sources students, recruiters, teachers, censors, program managers and administrators, and CBS business 15 Samlet ansøgning, side 19 af 287