No Direct Reporting Responsibilities for Subcontracts

Related to the earlier text is the situation that much of the core leadership and management responsibilities of TERN facilities are effectively delivered as an in-kind rather than a funded component of the infrastructure. Even when the management was a funded component, the relationship between TERN central office and component facilities is often very indirect. This meant that TERN-specific priorities are always competing against a range of other priorities. To a very large extent, this has been managed well but there were some consequences regarding milestone delivery slippage (more in timeliness as opposed to quality). Efforts have been made to address this through but it still is not completely resolved.

Likewise, there is an expectation of participation in planning meetings and communication stakeholder activities that are predominantly borne by institutional and individuals' discretion but there are limits to this. Currently, there are frustrations around this and potential for growing disengagement by some key people, particularly where they are already time-challenged. Again, much of TERN must rely on the goodwill of participants, as with no direct line management processes there is little that can be done if parts of the network or individuals within it behave in a suboptimal manner. It would be self-defeating to merely defund an individual or a network component for perceived wrongdoing as this leads to the potential of destabilizing the whole of TERN.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >