EPSO_PRE-SELECTION TRAINING : WEBINAR IN ENGLISH organised by R&D
TRAINING FOR EPSO OPEN COMPETITION
For the preparation of the open competition EPSO AST-SC/10/20 SECRETARIES (SC 1/SC 2) R&D and its team of highly qualified trainers will offer a preparatory training session in English.
The session will focus on the pre-selection tests - PROFESSIONAL SKILLS
Please find the details below:
|
Date |
Time |
Topics |
Trainer |
Location |
|
20.10.2020 |
17:30 – 19:00 |
·
Accuracy & Precision ·
Prioritising &
Organising |
Frédéric Maillet |
Webinar |
TO REGISTER…
We invite you to register for the training session by sending an e-mail to :
JRC-RD-ISPRA@ec.europa.eu - by 12.10.2020 noon.
Our trainings are FREE for R&D members and those who wish to join us.
If you are not yet a member and wish to benefit from our trainings and other services, we will be glad to welcome you. Join our Union, Become a Member
All registered participants will receive a confirmation and details to access the webinar!
Questions or comments? Don't hesitate to contact us via e-mail at JRC-RD-ISPRA@ec.europa.eu or call our office : Ext. 9645 (Monday to Friday 9:00 - 13:00)
Your R&D Team
Reply from Mr Quest dated 19/08/2020 to the R&D Note "JERB -Nutcracker or Sledgehammer""
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
The Director-General
Brussels, 19/08/2020
JRC/SQ
Dear Mr Tirendi, dear Mr Kenny,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the upcoming launch of the JRC Editorial Review Board.
When I was first briefed about the introduction of a clear editorial review policy in the JRC with the newly created editorial board, I felt that my predecessors had taken an important and well thought through initiative. As a result, we now have an authorisation process with all steps necessary to be able to take full responsibility, as an organisation, for the science and knowledge that we produce. That is a professional approach appropriate for a Commission service.
My predecessor reacted to most of your questions in an earlier letter and I fully agree with her arguments. The editorial review streamlines the JRC’s publication procedure for scientific manuscripts. It is a tailor-made process, well-documented, transparent with the same criteria across the whole organisation and the shortest possible delay.
That said, I understand that some concerns persist as regards issues have been raised in the past, for instance during the JRC Scientific Integrity Road Show in 2018/2019.We are therefore going to make an additional effort to clarify all questions raised through the planned communication campaign, so as to ensure that the finer points of the editorial review are fully understood by everyone.
From September, the Editorial Board - Koen Jonkers and his team - will continue with a series of meetings with directorates and units where they will discuss the details of the new process. They have already launched their website on Connected, which also deals with frequently asked questions, such as for example the review for articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Our objective remains for the editorial review to start immediately after the September campaign. We believe that it has been designed in a way to fit well with our work, but will of course keep it under careful review in the initial phase. We will also ensure that the process is evaluated in due course, so as to assess its performance, costs, benefits and any potential adjustment needs.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen QUEST
c.c.: B. Magenhann, D. Al Khudhairy, M. Landabaso Alvarez, P. Szymanski, G. De Santi, D. Chirondojan, G. Van den Eede, M. Betti, P. Duponteil, K. Maruszewski, X. Troussard.
NOTE SENT BY R&D TO MR QUEST, DG JRC ON 29/07/2020 - JERB - NUTCRACKER OR SLEDGEHAMMER?
JERB - Nutcracker or Sledgehammer? - Note to the attention of Mr S. Quest - DG of JRC
Ispra, 29th July 2020
NOTE TO THE ATTENTION OF
MR S. QUEST – DIRECTOR GENERAL OF JRC
Subject: JERB - Nutcracker or Sledgehammer ?
Dear Mr Quest,
We read with some perplexity your recent message launching the Editorial Review Board and the ensuing Call for Reviewers.
While in favour of reasonable measures to ensure the JRC's publications are of the highest quality, we continue to have a number of concerns (c.f. our previous communications (1) ). We also wish to reiterate our professional respect for the Editor-in-Chief and the members of the JERB who are working in good faith to implement a system in accordance with the Terms of Reference (ToR) that they were provided with. You will have found already that the JRC staff that you lead are always enthusiastic and dedicated in the performance of their functions.
First and foremost it has not been demonstrated to the staff that there is a clear issue with quality that required such an overarching board. Relying on hearsay isn’t enough, and the staff would welcome clear evidence of what issues needed to be dealt with, and whether they were confined to particular sources, or involved particular categories of publication.
If your answer to the above is affirmative, then we would also respectfully ask the senior and middle management who have just adopted this new policy (2) what have they been doing approving year-on-year in Pubsy publications of such low quality? The JERB cannot resolve this abrogation of responsibility since the review process is within the Pubsy workflow, and we presume that final decisions regarding publication remain with the HoU and Director responsible. We expect that you will remind these actors that the JERB does not absolve them of the delegated responsibility to oversee the quality of the scientific output as some appear to believe.
Furthermore, any publication, be it a technical report, a science for policy report, or a peer reviewed journal article, is merely the last step of a typically multi-annual process, involving project planning and approval, execution, and final assembly into a coherent document. All these steps must be followed closely to ensure quality output, not just the final step. If we do indeed have a quality issue with our publications, a conversation may be needed regarding the quality control of the entire process, not just at the end when the time and resources have already been spent.
Some specific comments regarding the review process (other suggestions may be found in Connected):
* We welcome the fact that the JERB has decided to implement the new review process within the existing publication structure and not opted for the creation of an ex-novo system as had been an option within the ToR (c.f. ‘The JERB manages the reviewing electronically, for instance in Pubsy’). Possible improvements to Pubsy in the frame of simplification are left to another conversation.
* Has a cost-benefit analysis of the new system been performed? if so, we would appreciate if you would share its conclusions with the staff.
* Why have certain categories, such as peer-reviewed articles, been included from the beginning (c.f. Section 4 of the JERB Rules of Procedure)? There are two reasons why these articles should have been excluded. Firstly, this category already undergoes an external review process, and secondly, rather than start with a sledgehammer, surely it would have been prudent to initiate a new process with a limited number of categories - such as, say, Science for Policy Reports, that are of especially high visibility, and see how the system works in practise.
* We remain concerned that the ToR continues to refer to possible political sensitivity. As mentioned above, the management has the responsibility here, and the JERB should not be used as a means of splitting - and hence removing or diluting - responsibility, or of enforcing censorship on research output (that usually ends badly).
If there are issues to be resolved in some areas of the JRC's output, surely a nutcracker is better than a sledgehammer. The staff would have greatly appreciated a further round of reviews of the proposed implementation before launch - as scientists we like to be convinced with evidence, and such an approach would be more likely to make them willing partners.
Salvatore Tirendi Robert Kenny
Vice-President, R&D Ispra Political Secretary, R&D Ispra
Cc : B. Magenhann, D. Al Khudhairy, M. Landabaso Alvarez, P. Szymanski, G. De Santi, D. Chirondojan, G. Van den Eede, M. Betti, P. Duponteil, K. Maruszewski, X. Troussard.
(1) Note to the attention of Mr Sucha – DG JRC - JERB EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD of 25/10/2019
Reply to the letter of R&D Ispra from Ms Vitcheva - Acting DG JRC of 2/12/2019
(2) Minutes Senior Management Meeting of 20/7/2020
Note from Mr Quest, DG JRC in reply to the R&D Note _ A VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF THE ISPRA SITE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
The Director-General
Brussels, 24/07/2020
NOTE TO GIANFRANCO SELVAGIO, PRESIDENT, R&D ISPRA ROBERT KENNY, POLITICAL SECRETARY, R&D ISPRA
Reference: Ares(2020)3730594
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for your letter and for your positive approach to further develop the Ispra site. I
understand that similar issues have already been raised by you with the previous College, andtake good note of the fact that you are now reverting to this matter in the new context of the
Coronavirus outbreak.
Oettinger and Navracsics and former Vice-President Georgieva. Suffice it to say that the JRC is
generally considered to have achieved major progress in recent years in positioning itself as
strategic partner of the Commission and its policymaking. It has also built up its site
management services to a high level of expertise and professionalism. Having said that, I also
take careful note of your suggestions.
next MFF and, as you know, the negotiation of the specific sectoral programmes (including
Horizon and Euratom), and the available budgets, have yet to be finalised. We are also still
very much focused on managing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
circumstances improve later on this year and I finally get the opportunity to travel to the Ispra
site.
Best regards,
(e-signed)
Stephen QUEST
Cc: B. Magenhann, D. Al Khudhairy, M. Stroosnijder
Some flaws but many virtues of one of the best administrations in the world: the EU
Qualche vizio ma
tante virtù di una delle migliori amministrazioni del mondo: quella dell’Ue
13 Luglio 2020
Giornalista
Some flaws but many virtues of one of the best administrations in the world: the EU
Interview of "IL Riformista" to Cristiano Sebastiani, President of R&D Brussels.
Read full article (Italian version only)
A VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF THE ISPRA SITE
NOTE TO THE ATTENTION OF
MR STEPHEN QUEST- DIRECTOR GENERAL of the JRC
Subject: A vision for the future of the Ispra site
1. Free the JRC to focus on its role to underpin and enhance policy-making through high quality science delivering data, knowledge and options for action. Science services go beyond mere explorative research, and routine tasks not compatible with the JRC strategy can be entrusted to the direct control of policy DGs, which ensures the highest policy impact1. These staff should nevertheless be located at Ispra to maximise interaction and information exchange;
3. The Ispra site already hosts a very advanced crisis management infrastructure, and can provide increased resilience through decentralisation and geo-distribution of vital Commission services, thus guaranteeing business continuity in case of extreme events impeding their normal functioning at other major locations;
4. Renaissance of the idea of applied science diplomacy, as formulated in the treaties, making the Ispra site the hub of an active partnership between Europe, Africa and the Middle East;
5. The enabling factor: from "OIB and JRC site management" to OII (Office Infrastructure for Ispra). A neutral and independent management of the site infrastructure guarantees harmonised services to any DG that wishes to host staff at the Ispra site. We are thinking, for example, of EUROPOL, for whom a specially constructed facility has been created at Ispra.
President, R&D Ispra Political Secretary, R&D Ispra
Cc : Bernard MAGENHANN, Marinus STROOSNIJDER
Annex – Supporting information and links to previous communications with Commissioners
1 While in the JRC implementation review 2017 some of these activities are flagged for possible outsourcing, we consider more reasonable and effective to attach them and their related staff directly to the relevant policy DG (In some cases, legal constraints make externalisation impossible).
Supporting
information and links to previous communications with Commissioners
Ispra hosts the third largest
Commission site, it is located at the very heart of Europe and it is
nearby major transport links. Due to its unique geographical position, the site
offers itself an ideal hub for science
diplomacy with focus on the Mediterranean, Danube region and beyond, thus
offering new impulses to the EU integration process and the leading global role
the EU strives for. We are convinced that the Commission would greatly benefit
from a more intensive employment of the facilities and know how available at
Ispra, as well from increased investments in the site.
In a previous note sent on 26th May 2016 to VP
Georgieva, referring to the major JRC reorganisation that took
place on 1st July 2016, we anticipated that "we
consider the JRC reorganisation as a first step setting the framework to be
followed by further moves towards a full integration of the Ispra site within
the framework planned for the whole Commission." In her reply, VP Georgieva
recognised the validity of the points raised by us, stating at the same time
that "the Director General of JRC
decided that the best way forward was to create a dedicated entity within JRC
to ensure the infrastructure governance for all JRC sites".
In a follow-up note to Commissioners Oettinger
and Navracsics dated 14th December 2017 we
made further proposals for a stronger and more streamlined JRC. In their reply,
they noted that some of our proposals were worthy of further discussion, while also
stating their belief that the current approach to site management was the most
efficient.
We believe now is an appropriate
time to review the major reorganisation implemented on 1st July
2016 (as well as the fine-tuning of 1st January
2018) continuing a path that is consistent with our initial proposal: all Ispra
infrastructure and logistics services having been brought together under a
single Department called "Site Management Ispra".
We
ask now for you to take the final step to merge this JRC Department (JRC.R.I)
with "OIB Ispra" (which is already in charge of Ispra social
infrastructure), thus forming a unique Office for Infrastructure, e.g. as a new
Office for Infrastructure Ispra (OII). This would mean that the Ispra site
would be structured and function as any other major Commission site with a
management capable of interacting with the host national authorities and
performing the legal role provided for by the appropriate agreements (e.g.
Treaty of Rome, EURATOM).
Further benefits deriving from our vision:
• A comprehensive and consistent use of
"Offices" promises an increased efficiency and the reduction of the
cost of support functions;
• It will encourage breaking down of
silos, and facilitate staff mobility;
• Investments aimed at growing the Ispra
site may help to reduce the strain caused by infrastructure shortages and high
costs of rented buildings in Brussels and Luxembourg;
• Contractual Agents working for
"Offices" may be offered contracts that are not limited to 6 years
duration as is the case for JRC staff;
• A clear line of command related to
Health and Safety on the Ispra site, where the leadership of the OII could
become the single responsible according to Italian law.NEW HR STRATEGY
Brussels, 16 June 2020
NEW HR STRATEGY
R&D requires a review, a method, a real involvement of the staff and a social dialogue worthy of the name
According to the basic principle "Never let a good crisis go to waste", the new DG of DG HR announced on last 29 May the launch of a broad staff consultation process with a view to implementing a new 2021 human resources management strategy.
This new strategy would be structured around the following points:
· Talent
· Diversity and Inclusion
· Leadership and Management
· Workplace and Well-being
· Technology
· Culture and Organization
Since 2004, the Commission has the unfortunate tendency to link the "modernization of the human resources management policy" to a whole series of measures associated with the reduction of colleagues’ rights, and / or staff and / or working spaces, all of which provoked a regular and irreversible decline in the quality of working life.
These measures also had a very negative impact on the ability to attract and retain the best talents, as the Commission finally had to acknowledge in its communication highlighting the problems observed with regard to the attractiveness of the European civil service (lien).
Faithful to its principles, R&D will fully and actively participate in this consultation with constructive proposals.
However, to ensure the seriousness of this staff consultation, R&D requests:
· clarity on the true objectives of this exercise
· a review of previous measures
· involvement of staff at all stages of the process
· a structured social dialogue.
« Ignoranti quem portum petat nullus suus ventus est1 » : a modernization what for?
In its communication of 29 May, the Commission claims that it is a question of offering a “pleasant working environment, good working tools, staff development ...”
The COVID-19 crisis demonstrated that staff, despite the obvious limits of the Commission's human resources management policy, have once again demonstrated their loyalty and commitment not only to the EU but also to the Commission, by not hesitating to always work more when it was necessary, as has always been confirmed in the past by the results of the various staff surveys (cf. staff survey… ).
So, in order to avoid that this new "modernization" announced by DG HR leads to yet another failure, R&D demands that the true objectives of this reform are clearly displayed with clear evaluation criteria for all.
The institution must have the courage to openly display its real objectives without once again hiding behind empty slogans.
Would it not be rather a purely budgetary operation?
This so-called modernization of our human resources management policy should not become a budgetary exercise, aimed at obtaining new savings on the backs of staff adding to those, already very heavy, of the successive reforms as rightly pointed out by the Court of Auditors in its report ( special report 2019/15 , The 2014 Reform – “Big savings” at the expense of the staff ).
In such a case, we should discuss with DG BUDG rather than with DG HR…
This is unfortunately the case for the dossier concerning the delegation of new tasks to the executive agencies, which is managed according to a purely and exclusively budgetary logic, with staff considered to be simply “credits”, even though it concerns the future, career prospects and well-being at work of several hundred colleagues.
Inventory right
It is essential to drawing up a contradictory assessment of the latest "modernization" of the administration and the latest HR strategy, to avoid falling back into the same "amnesic" approach that was used for all other reforms in the past ... one more disastrous than the next ... implemented in absence of any critical analysis of the problems found, of their causes and their responsibilities.
Enough of these purely ideological reforms!
The Court of Auditors also invites the Commission to have “a better preparation and more rigorous monitoring of reform measures”.
Involve staff from the start
R&D has always argued that it is essential to involve staff and their representatives from the start, without trying to "sell" a 'turnkey' project, while solemnly committing to set up a broad process of consultation.
It's time for the administration to go back to the fundamentals: listening to staff and its representatives
This means involving staff, the primary stakeholder, and their representatives in the development of policies.
On this point, we welcome Mrs Ingestad's announcement to launch a series of consultations of staff, of which R&D has always defended the principle, namely that of staff surveys.
Of course, this consultation must be organized in a credible way, based on recognized and established standards. Let us avoid monologues and propaganda exercises aiming for the acceptance of the decisions already taken.
A real effective and structured social dialogue
It is symptomatic that in her communication Mrs Ingestad made no mention of social dialogue with staff representatives, and we regret it. We believe this is a simple oversight, ... even if it is fairly recurrent in her communications ...
With the constructive spirit that characterizes it, R&D remains convinced that it will be possible to make a preliminary analysis of the problems and of their functional and structural causes in order to draw lessons for the future.
Cristiano Sebastiani,
President
————
1 There is no favourable wind for someone who does not know where he is heading”, Seneca
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
