Development of the School of Electrical Engineering

• University Review material in ELEC Staff SharePoint (2020 onwards)
• Current strategic plan of the School of Electrical Engineering

Participants raised concerns about the complexity, unreliability, and unoptimised user interfaces of various systems, including MyCourses, Workday and Salesforce. The applicability of the Workday system to MyDialogue was criticised. It was suggested that Salesforce should store personal information and there was a desire for better event registration systems. Participants suggested streamlining processes, improving user-support, and implementing features such as a combined calendar for different apps. They also wished that tools were developed further based on user-cases.  

The issue of heavy workload and difficulty in prioritizing tasks was mentioned frequently. There was a desire for clear guidelines on tasks and their output, better task automation. The need for full professors to attend different committees raised concerns about overloading those eligible to participate. The lack of academic-side involvement in program development meetings due to heavy workload was raised. Streamlining TT recruitments’ site visits was suggested.

Emphasis was put on the need for personal prioritization skills, regular breaks, maintaining good work-life balance, and understanding individual mental and physical requirements to increase performance and satisfaction at work. The idea of introducing time management courses and understanding 'good enough' outcomes were considered important. 

There were complaints regarding bureaucratic procedures, specifically concerning HR processes (e.g. work contracts and visitor screening protocols). People involved in preparing agreements and other documents need clear insight about the guidelines. 

In many cases self-service was considered inefficient and the participants preferred having support-staff.  Also improving information exchange between service functions and between the service personnel and the research personnel was underlined. Issues were raised regarding periodical large workload in service functions and the need for flexible resourcing (for example, allocating more personnel for handling applications to MSc programmes and doctoral education pilots). 

Teaching is highlighted as an overloaded area in need of better resource allocation (see also Program development and resource allocation). Questions on different support resources for teaching between the departments were raised.

A strong request was made for a more organized and user-friendly intranet where relevant information could be found easily. There were criticisms related to excessive and potentially outdated information on Aalto's website. Improving information accessibility and the effective use of communication tools such as Teams, Slack, and email, were highlighted, but the number of various channels was also criticised. 

Some of the concrete issues raised were the lack of awareness about travel and transport benefits as well as early reimbursement on conference fees using Aalto credit card, and creating an easier access to support functions for the teaching staff. Difficulty in finding trainings was mentioned, along with the difficult interfaces of aalto.fi and Workday learning.

Queries were made regarding where to find meeting agendas and minutes at the department, school, and university level.Questions were raised about the visibility and accessibility to ELEC's strategic plan, also indicating the need for simplified access to school-specific guidelines.

The Aalto strategy is deemed broad with a lack of concrete direction and prioritisations. A desire for concrete examples regarding strategy details and mechanisms to locate them were expressed. A suggestion was made to challenge some Aalto level mentalities and policies that seem to present obstacles to opportunities.The large number of university level development projects is questioned.

Comments regarding Aalto strategy (see Clarity and details of Aalto strategy) also apply to the ELEC strategic plan. Suggestions were made to identify strategic levers like hires, funding etc., and to ensure alignment of needs and resource allocation.

Participants suggested that a system should be implemented for collecting initiatives and feedback. The system should also allow tracking of the actions taken in response to the feedback and the decisions made based on it. Participants felt that justifications for decisions are sometimes lacking, and feelings of being unheard and of suggestions disappearing into a "black box" were described. 

Clear and transparent communication processes when making decisions that impact planned or ongoing projects were emphasized. The importance of knowing decision-makers, communal decision-making, and opportunities for different ELEC groups to meet and discuss were underlined.

Questions were raised about the representation of academic and service personnel, besides professors, in decision-making groups. The decision-making hierarchy was discussed, and questions were asked about the possibility of making decisions about smaller issues at lower levels. There was a concern that a part of the staff does not feel empowered or that their voice is heard. Strategies to encourage voice and influence were requested. See also Feedback and decision making transparency.

There are insufficient bicycle parking spaces, poor shower and changing room facilities (particularly at Maarintie 8), and a general lack of support for sustainable commuting options like cycling. Additionally, parking policies are problematic, with reduced spaces and unclear fee structures, causing inconvenience for staff and visitors.

There were mixed views on the balance between remote work and campus work. Some suggested that more flexibility can improve efficiency, while others believe that researchers should spend more time on campus to foster innovation and collaboration, and to mentor younger academics.

There is a need for better prediction and management of student numbers to ensure adequate lecture and study spaces. Currently, there are not enough suitable lecture halls to accommodate large groups, and group work spaces for students are often overcrowded.

Opinions on restroom facilities were divided, with some advocating for all restrooms to be unisex while others raised problems with cleanliness and concerns about cultural sensitivities related to this change.

Safety and infrastructure concerns included the slippery and icy conditions in Otaniemi during winter, poor acoustics in certain buildings, and the need for more private spaces like phone booths for confidential discussions. The improvement of emergency exits in guild rooms was suggested.

There were ideas for enhancing workplace well-being with sports equipment in common rooms, gaming rooms for unwinding, and sharing information on common ELEC sport activities.

Teachers need support and clear guidelines for using AI tools in teaching and for managing pedagogical issues, individual study arrangements, and integrating EDI considerations into teaching practices.

Graduation times have not decreased significantly despite the national higher education goals. Concerns about the effect of shorter graduation times on the quality of learning and the possibility of personal growth are prevalent in the feedback. Mental health issues, including the impact of restricted study periods, require attention and potentially early intervention models to support students better.

There was a concern that the language guidelines increase the workload of Finnish-proficient teachers. Enhancing the language skills of non-Finnish-proficient teachers was seen important.

Concerns were raised about insufficient teaching resources. Effective programme development and resource assessment were seen necessary to optimize teaching and learning. Courses should be checked for overlapping content to avoid duplication of work. Open-door events for programme development were suggested.

It was suggested that international students lack sufficient knowledge of Finnish companies, impacting thesis work and employment. Therefore, there's a call for the school to provide more support for international students.

Participants expressed concerns about the university's financial affairs and the distribution of funding, as well as the impacts of budget changes and its effect on ELEC. Criticism was also expressed regarding the transparency of funding—both at a general level and specifically in relation to the allocation of lecturer funding and KPI funding at the departments. There were mentions that funding strategies are not consistent across different departments, suggesting potential inequality.

It was suggested that the Dean should have more funding for potential strategic openings. There were criticisms about the lack of current rewarding culture, seen as deflating motivation and commitment to the organization's values and objectives.

Participants voiced the need for professors with similar interests to be given the opportunity to form a "thematic team".

Were were concerns over the management and communication regarding available infrastructures and resources. Participants highlighted the need for equal and transparent practices across different infrastructures, even if the team members come from various organizations. There were calls for more information sharing and better marketing of infrastructure to all stakeholders, including presenting available equipment online. It was suggested that high-cost infra investments should be discussed openly, and a flexible market for lab spaces was proposed. Suggestions were made to expedite the renewal speed of infrastructures and unused materials could potentially be sold off to industry as a means to increase infra renewal rate.

Comments were related to improving lab practices and addressing the lack of technical support. Participants mentioned the need for introduction and instructions to use labs (e.g. mechanical workshop), and the need for more technical support personnel for research infrastructures. Some participants suggested learning from best practices in places like Design Factory.

The recommendation to make smaller joint projects between schools a "thing" and encouraging interactions between schools were emphasized. There was a suggestion to provide seed funding for MSc thesis students from different schools to work on common projects. The desire for increased incentives and time for collaboration was emphasized. Suggestions were made for improved collaboration with Nanotalo and Micronova.

It was suggested that international faculty lack sufficient connections with Finnish companies, and also with research collaborators in Aalto. Therefore, there was a call for the school to provide more support for international personnel.

Comments were related to improving the allure of academic careers and addressing the issue of low salaries compared to the private sector. The participants expressed concerns about the limited career planning available for doctoral students and postdocs and proposed including career development for junior researchers in the performance indicators for professors.

Participants suggested providing better support, such as coaching for exploring possibilities and connections with industry, and creating other pathways to retain postdocs within the university as researchers or lecturers. Lack of teaching opportunities was mentioned, as well as the uncertainty caused by short-term contracts.

Participants voiced dissatisfaction with current metrics and KPIs, arguing that an overemphasis on quantity (such as the number of papers published) may distract from the broader impacts of research. They suggested that a better balance achieved through the inclusion of qualitative evaluations and the recognition of diverse career paths might incentivize meaningful research efforts.

Participants expressed concerns about the difficulties in finding career progression, even at a horizontal level, particularly in service roles. They described Aalto as rigid and slow, hindering its ability to adapt and provide career advancement opportunities.

The feedback indicates that strengthening the feeling of community requires regular, inclusive events that promote interaction between different groups.Both recreational and work-related events are needed and social and professional elements could be combined. Providing guidelines for organizing events and loosening "refreshment guidelines" could make events more appealing. 

School level events to celebrate achievements and holidays could be redesigned, for example, by combining some of the current events. It was considered important to ensure participation and minimize no-shows due to the high cost of events. There were mixed opinions on the food served at events (vegetarian/vegan vs. non-vegetarian).

Building a stronger feeling of research community beyond research groups was seen essential. Efforts should be made to encourage cross-research group interactions and informal meetings. For example, departmental seminars, technology lunches, winter research days, research pitching competitions and even regular coffee breaks were suggested to foster collaboration. Also,creating short introductory videos of the faculty was suggested to foster collaboration.