Dare to question

Our society, including universities, is increasingly confronted with a growing complexity of rules, which limits the space for creativity, flexibility and effectiveness. This can hamper innovation and initiative, often losing the opportunity to come up with new ideas and improve processes. Instead of blindly following all processes, we should ask ourselves whether each rule, procedure or working, consultation or sounding board group actually contributes to the realisation of our common goals. A simplification of processes urges itself.

We also have to dare to question procedures and structures within our organisation. The three groups are a tailor-made solution for a large organisation like KU Leuven. The appropriate scale of each group and an assigned vice-rector per group with great autonomy in terms of policy allow the necessary flexibility. The more we work at group level, the less coordination effort is needed between central services and decentralised entities. However, it is important to bring together certain services and competences within each of the groups, such as communication, personnel management or human resources (HR), finance and information and communication technology (ICT).

In addition to this optimisation, we need to be mindful of cybersecurity. Figures show that the number of cyber attacks in academia has increased, often because of interesting personal and research data, or because some research systems are less secure. It is certainly not only the less organised institutions that become victims.  Moreover, a cyber-attack can cost the university very much, both in terms of material damage and reputation. Therefore, robust risk management is urgent.

1. We want to give confidence to people, giving them room to innovate, experiment and, in some cases, even fail. We question processes, regulations and ways of working, where it can lead to greater efficiency, greater employee engagement, or a more innovative working environment. We must dare to take a flexible approach to regulation.
2. At the same time, we need to apply adequate risk management. This applies not only to traditional risks, but also to the new challenges of our digital world such as data protection and cyber security. KU Leuven and UZ Leuven are currently going through a European NIS 2 (Network Information Security Directive) accreditation process to maximise data protection for our university and university hospital. UZ Leuven must (compulsorily) meet the highest “essential”-level accreditation while KU Leuven is working out a plan of action with a view to an “important”-level accreditation.
3. We apply subsidiarity in a deliberate way, by taking decisions and actions at the appropriate level as much as possible. This supports the autonomy of different parts of the university. Essentially, we work towards effective policy implementation rather than mere perception. For example, a certain degree of autonomy and freedom of faculties, departments and campuses must be guarded: they must be able to set their own emphases in teaching and research within a well-defined framework. However, the individuality should focus on the content: administrative and support processes should be standardised as much as possible. Only then will we have the means to innovate in terms of content. We also have to accept that sometimes we won’t get out of it through consultation: rather than organising another round of consultations, the manager(s) must dare to take a decision at that point. Naturally, this decision must be substantiated and evaluated after a while. But we must avoid a situation where continuous consultation leads to de facto stagnation.
4. Within our own organisation, we are evaluating the governance of KU Leuven. For example, the functioning of the Academic Council (AR) should be reviewed. The AR is chaired by the rector, and has as members the vice-rectors, the deans, the general manager, the academic administrators, staff and student representatives. According to KU Leuven organic regulations , the AR takes policy decisions to implement the university’s strategy. However, today this AR is too little involved in strategic reflection and is rather an endorsing body, for the most part a formality in the decision-making process. In itself, this should not be a problem: it shows that governance works, with the AC as the end point of a path along working groups, group boards, advisory councils such as the Education Council, the Research Council, the Council for International Policy (RIB) and then the Common Bureau (CFU). But there is more potential in the AC and its members, especially the actual reflecting, discussing and deciding of strategy. To this end, above all, sufficient time is needed that allows more than 50 people to actually debate important issues and strategic choices. Formalities that are purely for info or ratification only need to be discussed if there are questions. The 2-3 topics that are discussed in the remaining time can then mainly serve as input or guidance for further policy development. The size of the AR may be a hurdle as it is difficult to guarantee the seclusion and discretion required for this. But it is essential to do this exercise. There are initiatives at KU Leuven that show it can be done: for example, at the extended group S&T meeting, most strategic themes are discussed with all department chairs, campus chairs, deans and members of the group board. This has certainly led to better decision-making but, at least as importantly, to greater engagement and interaction between all these entities.
5. We are putting together a policy team that actively speaks to policymakers at European and national levelwith the aim of accelerating the valorisation of results of innovative research to increase impact. The EU imposes strict regulation on AI. However, it is important not to miss the boat on AI. After all, an immense digital transformation is taking place worldwide and we as KU Leuven/UZ Leuven absolutely cannot be left behind. Currently, we are digitally dependent on third countries  above average.  Thus,  we import more than three quarters of our digital technology (mainly hardware), despite the fact that there is enough innovation and talent to develop this at a high level in Europe and also within our university. In times of political instability, it is crucial to reflect on this technological dependency. In any case, we as a university are not alone in this. The EU has recently introduced several new regulatory frameworks that allow us to use digital technologies in a responsible and controlled way. Nevertheless, each time, it is regulations that come on top of them (such as Clinical Trial Regulation (CTR), Medical Device Regulation (MDR), In vitro diagnostics Regulation (IVDR) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)) that prevent us from marketing and implementing new technologies. As a university, we should therefore enter into dialogue with European policy bodies to underline the importance that these regulatory frameworks should not hinder but facilitate researchers and developers. Only then can innovative initiatives be launched, and used at a reasonable cost.
6. We want to be a service organisation for our employees, creating an efficient and customer-friendly atmosphere within our organisation, at every level and for every member within the university community. We want to help everyone apply the rules and procedures and, where necessary, simplify these procedures. We are thinking, for example, of the procedures surrounding the preparation of vacancies and recruitment or the preparation of cooperation agreements and material transfer agreements (MTAs).