2003/2

Minutes of the TEC meeting of 04.06.2003

Present: I. Bejar Alonso, M. Burri, P. Carvalho Correia, A. Desirelli, J. Ferguson,

F. Fluckiger, S. Foffano, E. Mosselmans, M. Taborelli, ,  L. Orr-Easo, J-M. Saint-Viteux,

J. Schinzel, P. Sievers, M. Storr, D. Vité

Excused: S. Datta-Cockerill, F. Eder, T. Shave, M. Veyrat

1. Minutes of last meeting and action points

J. Ferguson opened the meeting and asked for comments on the previous minutes. I. Bejar Alonso mentioned that external training which had been discussed at the meeting was not fully minuted. J. Ferguson explained it would be reviewed during the current meeting. M. Storr commented on a point about Academic Training which will be re-phrased, otherwise the minutes were approved.

The various action points from the meeting were reviewed by J, Ferguson:

• Minutes of December 2002 TEC meeting – still not available despite attempts of the HR Division Leader & J. Ferguson since the last meeting. Attempts will continue.

• Individual Training Plan – J. Ferguson has discussed with most Division Leaders and with J. Schinzel since the last TEC meeting to obtain input on the subject. All the Division Leaders contacted and J. Schinzel agree to the principle of electronic MAPS in a Divisional or central repository with an improved structure of the information e.g. training, safety for automatic exploitation. In the case of the extracted training information, this would be the basis of the individual and divisional training plans. It was generally felt that such a recommendation could coincide with the MAPS review which will take place after the first 2 years of operation.

• External Review Committee (ERC)  report – J. Ferguson reported that the report had been re-read in light of the Management & Communication core package proposal, with a view to using some of the key messages to help justify certain modules of the training offer. P+M, Project Management, Contract Management, Quality Management & cost control were mentioned as examples where the modules of such obligatory training could help create a new common culture on such topics directly in line with the ERC report recommendations. 

2. Report from the JTB meeting of 8/5/03

J. Ferguson reported that the establishment of a Program of Work for the JTB based on the various actions of the JTB since the last Training Plan in 2001 was in progress. The intention is to establish a training plan towards the end of 2003 for 2004.

J. Ferguson reported the agreement to have a clear set of guidelines for a uniform procedure across Divisions concerning external training leading to additional qualifications which is not the case today as pratices vary from Division to Division. Following further JTB discussion on this he will report back at a future TEC meeting.

Finally the status of the Management & Communication Core package and pilot session was reported on. Some of the comments on duration and use of external experts had been similar to those voiced at the last TEC meeting. J. Ferguson expressed regret that some of the questions and issues raised at the JTB were contrary to decisions already made by the same body. The main concern expressed was at the lack of documentation on the content of the course, however after some discussion it had been decided that the pilot should go ahead. As the training is obligatory and involving internal CERN experts in addition to Group Leaders and Division Leaders, J. Ferguson explained that Directorate and Management Board approval was necessary. To prepare for presentation at the May meetings of these forums J. Ferguson had raised the topic of the training at an informal meeting of the Division Leaders which had been met with very mixed reactions.  Strong reservations had been expressed about the timing of the pilot due to the lack of detailed documentation on what such training would entail. The general feeling was that the obligatory part of the training should be shorter and very CERN specific. The final outcome was to revise the proposal and postpone the pilot session. J. Ferguson expressed regret that the pilot does not go ahead as foreseen, however pointed out that Division Leader support was a critical success factor for this training. The revised schedule is to deliver full documentation to the Division Leaders in August including a proposal for a pilot session to take place in September. It is hoped that the course documentation, in addition to feedback from the pilot session will help to support the proposal which will now be presented at the October Management Board.

3. Training Attestations

S. Foffano reported on the Training Attestation document which is produced annually for all formal training followed, listing the titles of the training sessions and number of hours spent. Such reports are printed individually and sent to all DTO’s for distribution, and a copy is filed in each individual’s personnel file. The relevance of the document was questioned as no measure of the usefulness or relevance of the training is indicated, simply the indication of presence at a particular session. S. Foffano’s proposal is to simplify this procedure which is costly in terms of resources (printing, distribution and filing and paper) and replace it with a self-service on demand only service. S. Foffano pointed out that for students and certain people leaving the organization such attestations were useful, therefore the idea is not to suppress them, but only print when really necessary. If supported some development work is required by AS Division, however the idea is to have this new possibility in place by beginning of 2004 so the mass printing process which takes place at the beginning of the year does not have to take place again. The proposal has been supported by the JTB, however they had asked for it to be raised at TEC to get the DTO’s reactions.

The general feeling was that this would be an improvement and the reduction in paper was welcomed. One DTO felt that the attestation had lost all credibility when produced for the MOAS -> MAPS information sessions in 2002. M. Storr asked for agreement to produce a certified list of technical training to deal with ad-hoc requests while waiting for a more general solution which was agreed to. There was some discussion on the difference between an attestation and a certificate which was felt to be more rigorous involving testing and validating of the new skills acquired. F. Fluckiger explained that the CERN School of Computing has recently introduced an exam for those who want with a certificate for successful participants; 47 out of 70 students had taken the exam and of the 47, 41 passed. Some DTO’s wanted to check the attestation proposal with their Group Leaders.

Action: DTO’s to check within their Division and give comments on the proposal to S. Foffano by end June.

4. Report from Academic & Technical Training (ATT)

M. Storr thanked the DTO’s for the encouragement within their Division to reply to the Academic Training Questionnaire to define the programme for 2003/2004. The TEC was informed that the new Chairman of the Academic Training Committee (ATC) is G. Giudice as of 1/7/2003, and DTO’s were encouraged to make and keep contact with their ATC representative. The main project for Academic Training is to improve the publicity and archiving of lecture material using CDS and other services of ETT Division.

Concerning Technical Training M. Storr reported that to date in 2003 63 sessions have been run which represents less than usual (normally on average 200 sessions are run annually). A new ORACLE training curriculum is to be announced, and DTO’s were reminded that training can be organized during the summer months when sometimes busy people are more available. Representatives of ATT will meet with the DTO’s during June to review Divisional training needs, if possible using the MAPS 2003 information, and to examine new or outstanding requests.

D. Vite presented a short report from the Geneva Training Group showing how other International Organisations organize Technical Training. There was also a short report on web-based training showing that so far 25 courses have been accessed of which 4 were for office software. J. Schinzel questioned how to react if a person only wants to follow part of the web-based training course – as access is not expensive the fee must be paid to have access, then it is up to the individual to choose which part(s) of the training to follow – a certificate can only be issued if over 75% of the course is followed.

Action: D. Vite to send slides shown at the meeting to DTO’s

5. Report from Management Communication & Language Training (MCL)

L. Orr-Easo reported that following the comments and concerns voiced by some Division Leaders at the Core package, work was continuing on the definition and detail to enable more information to be produced for the new schedule (see point 2 above).

The Contract Management training has recently been reviewed by all participants having followed this new part of the programme introduced in 2002 with very positive overall feedback.

Team training actions have been received from TIS-FB, TIS-RP and ATLAS and the Introduction to Management training will launch a pilot follow-up seminar which has been requested by a high percentage of past participants.

On top of the regular Language training programme, 3 specific courses (oral & written) have been delivered and the French language tests will from now on take place in December & March only as testing 3 times in 1 academic year is perceived to be too frequent.

Feedback was presented from the Management & Communication Questionnaire to complement the initial feedback already presented by S. Datta-Cockerill in the December 2002 TEC meeting. The data presented takes into account all feedback received including late arrivals. L. Orr-Easo explained that Part 3 of the questionnaire has been very useful for the Core Development Package proposal as many of the topics people felt were important for Group Leaders and supervisors such as Leadership, Manpower planning, Team Management and Project Management are modules of the package.

Action: L. Orr-Easo to send information on the individual seminars & comments from people in their Division to DTO’s during the summer to complement what was handed out.

6. Any Other Business

J. Schinzel questioned why the TEC was now chaired by the JTB Chairman. S. Foffano replied that this was due to Administrative Circular 16 which currently specifies that the Chair of both Committees should be the same person, however that the Circular would be reviewed. This launched some discussion about how the JTB and TEC meetings have been handled in the past, the hierarchical level of JTB participants, and whether both committees were necessary. The JTB advises on policy and the TEC concentrates on implementation of that policy…however in light of informal Division Leader meetings the usefulness of both committees was still questioned. Some DTO’s did not have a problem with the current operation, some felt the TEC should be chaired by HR Division and some felt that as a DTO forum it should be chaired by a DTO.

J.M. Saint-Viteux raised the need expressed within AS Division for industry recognized certification e.g. Java or Oracle. It was pointed out that it is often very expensive, and much that is learned is not needed within the CERN environment therefore requests should be treated like external training requests and examined by the Divisions on an individual basis.

Action: M. Storr to report back at the next meeting if current internal Java & Oracle training could enable students who want to take the certification exams(s). D. Vite to explore how such certification is handled in other International Organisations.

S. Foffano reported that TEC minutes are also sent to JTB members in addition to publication on the web. The reverse was requested i.e. that TEC members are also warned when JTB minutes become available.

The frequency and date of next meeting were reviewed. The preference expressed was for a meeting end September, with some DTO’s preferring morning & others afternoon.

Action: S. Foffano to find a suitable compromise with all DTO’s for the next meeting date, and future meeting day/time slot.