So says Nature. Actually, this is one occasion where we actually found out first through internal channels, a couple of weeks ago.
It seems a bit random to me. I would say that anything that has the potential to replace JAMSTEC's bureaucracy could only be a good thing, but given the scale of this proposed merger, it may be more likely to just add another layer at the top of the pyramid.
It seems a bit random to me. I would say that anything that has the potential to replace JAMSTEC's bureaucracy could only be a good thing, but given the scale of this proposed merger, it may be more likely to just add another layer at the top of the pyramid.
The quote about "slashing wasteful spending" is either hamming it up for the public, or shows a minister rather out of touch with reality. After working here for a decade, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that our primary purpose is simply to disburse Govt spending into the wider economy. They half-heartedly dress it up with the pretence of accountable and competitive bidding for research funds, but that is mostly for the sake of appearances.
It is notable in the above table that the cost per person is markedly higher at JAMSTEC than anywhere else - presumably, this is the effect of having a fleet of hugely expensive boats to maintain. There is another one on its way, in fact - the "austerity" budget having limited this investment to a single ship (and it certainly won't be a dingy or sailboard), when they were hoping for 2.
At this point, it seems like nothing more than a vague plan, and a few of them have come and gone in the past few years anyway (like cutting back on the new "K" supercomputer). So this one might also come to naught. Well, it all makes work for the working bureaucrat to do. How would we cope without them?
7 comments:
Here's one for your office bulletin board then:
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~reedsj/petronius.html
This looks worth watching for when the season comes 'round:
http://digitalphoto.cocolog-nifty.com/digitalphoto/cat4164851/index.html
Fireflies are fun, but the only place I know that has a high density of them also has crowds of people watching them :-)
I don't think the reorganisation is a response to any specific new situation, just the routine churn of bureaucrats who have to think of things to do. We have had 3 institute names already during my time here, and my official work webpage address refers to an organisational structure that has not existed for several years...
It's pointless to complain about the inherent properties of any element, most especially administratium.
Eli HATES table like that where the can't put all of the entries in the same unit (scientists, staff, scientists and staff). It produces useless gibberish
Yes, and we probably all have different ways of stratifying the roles, so that alone will generate endless memos, meetings and working groups while the bureaucrats thrash out how we should be labelled.
I want to propose that the merged body should have a structure somewhat like the Research Councils of UK. What aspects of RCUK do you recommend to follow, and what aspects you do not?
Well, I'm not that well up on exactly how the RCUK runs, or indeed how successful or well-regarded it is. I do get the impression that the management there is much more science-driven than bureaucracy-driven, when compared to the Japanese situation. There simply isn't any serious scientific oversight or review here, as far as I can tell. But I don't know how much of that (if any) can be attributed to the structure of the bodies.
Additionally, in the UK, the workforce is regarded as having a stake in the processes both of research and management, which is primarily managed though officially-recognised unions. Here, we consider ourselves lucky if we are actually told of any changes to the rules that are being imposed.
Post a Comment