"Bringing Teams Together" (BTT) Basically Sabotaged the Workplace at the European Patent Office
ABOUT A WEEK before this past Christmas the Local Staff Committee Munich (LSCMN) at the EPO wrote to colleagues:
The Local Staff Committee Munich (LSCMN) met with VP4 on 9 November 2023.We addressed the issues caused by the infamous project Bringing Teams Together (BTT) and the plans to introduce glass walls in PH5-6. In our intervention, we stressed that the overwhelming majority of staff, especially in DG1 staff were not fond of glass walls for reasons of privacy and the need to concentrate.
Much of this report speaks of the notorious Bringing Teams Together (BTT) 'scheme'. Here's the full report as HTML/text/GemText (depending on whether you read the site, the bulletin, or the capsule). The meeting lasted only one hour and included the controversial Elodie Bergot.
Örtlicher Personalausschuss München Innenstadt, Haar und Brüssel
Local Staff Committee Munich City, Haar and Brussels
Le Comité local du Personnel de Munich Ville, Haar et BruxellesMunich, 18-12-2023
sc23021mpReport on the meeting with VP4 of 9 November 2023
On 9 November 2023 staff representatives of the Local Staff Committee Munich met online with Nellie Simon (VP4). Other members of the Administration who attended the meeting were Maria Arranz Gomez (Communication Strategy), Elodie Bergot (PD Welfare and Renumeration), Frédéric Brunelle (Facility Management), Konstantinos Kortsaris (Senior Advisor President’s Office), Elizabeth Rees (Social Dialogue Secretariat), Fiona Dullenkopf (Social Dialogue Secretariat) and Andreas Sattler (Chief People Officer).
Meeting opened: 14:00
Bringing Teams Together (BTT)
Staff Representation opened the meeting by presenting its opinion on the Bringing Teams Together (BTT) project (see Annex). There seemed to be a lot of scope for improvement. For example, PH BT 1-4 had both empty floors and many teams not being given enough space for allocated offices.
Facility Management disputed that staff were in general against the project and thought that Staff Representation were only considering the opinions of a very small minority of staff. The Administration had a mailbox open to all staff so that they could ask about BTT, and the number of questions had been reducing month-upon-month, from 59 questions in March down to 7 in June, 5 in July, and none so far in November. It was therefore clear that the vast majority of issues raised, such as those concerning hygiene, had been addressed.
Allocated offices had been given to the vast majority of staff who regularly come to the Office, which meant that around 45% of staff had an allocated workplace. However, staff patterns had changed since the start of BTT. Some staff who had been allocated offices at the start of the project were no longer regularly using them, whereas other staff, who had initially not wanted an allocated workplace, now found that they needed one. Hence, some rebalancing was needed, and the Administration asked that staff have patience as rebalancing takes time.
Concerning hygiene, workplaces for the day were cleaned every day, and allocated offices twice a week. Any issues with hygiene that staff had raised at the beginning of the project had since been resolved.
Concerning wasted time, this had been looked into. The Administration had found that for staff that did not have an allocated office only four minutes was needed for a staff member to retrieve their belongings from their locker and set up their workspace.
Concerning empty floors, these had been vacated so that essential safety work could be carried out. Savings were also being made on cleaning, lighting and heating.
Staff Representation responded to the statements made by Facility Management. To start with, staff members with problems were more likely to reach out to Staff Representation than the Administration. Questions sent by staff to the Administration mailbox were therefore less relevant, as was the fact that the amount of questions to said mailbox was dwindling. Discussing with colleagues in person was so much more efficient than doing so online. Facility Management disagreed, saying that staff members tend to open official service tickets if there is a problem. They added that they disputed that BTT was as unpopular as staff representation believed. Staff presence in the Office was not any lower now than it was during the pandemic.
Staff Representation expressed that the BTT project was actually putting staff off from coming to work, as the working environment with its empty corridors was unwelcoming. Facility Management replied that BTT was aimed at bringing teams together. This was why staff members could not spread out over the Office - only half of the available space was being used. Facility Management repeated that for those staff members who had not initially been given an allocated office, but who were now regularly coming to work, an allocated office could be found for them, following the “three days a week” principle.
Staff Representation asked Facility Management to clarify that any staff member who wanted an allocated office could have one, as there was certainly enough space. Facility Management said that rebalancing for individuals should be carried out between staff members and their managers. Staff Representation replied that there were no clear rules, and a number of managers were telling their staff that they had no chance of having an allocated office. VP4 stated that she did not believe in over-regulation. If a manager decided something she would not like to get involved.
Staff Representation then asked about the survey that would be held in 2024 at the end of the pilot phase of the New Ways of Working project. Could the survey also include questions about the BTT project? Could Staff Representation be involved in deciding which questions would be asked? VP4 replied that the survey would be carried out by an external consultancy, and as experts they would be responsible for devising the questions. The Office would not be telling the experts what the questions should be. However, Staff Representation could highlight areas of concern for the Administration, and these would be forwarded to the consultants.
To wrap up the topic, Staff Representation asked VP4 to confirm that if staff members decided to regularly come to work then the overall space available for allocated offices would be increased. VP4 said that this would be the case. However, Staff Representation should be aware that a lot of staff have stated that they actually want to work more at home. The only intention of the Administration was to offer flexibility.
Renovations and future planning
Staff Representation asked about EPO plans concerning the buildings. They had heard that no buildings would be sold but that they would rather be renovated. The Social Dialogue Secretariat replied that the President had twice said that no buildings would be sold, Facility
Management confirmed this. Staff Representation then asked if there were any plans to rent out buildings. Facility Management said that it was far too early to discuss renting out BT1- 4 as the buildings needed renovating.
Staff Representation then asked about the plans to introduce glass walls in BT 5 and 6. The overwhelming majority of DG1 staff were not fond of glass walls for reasons of privacy and the need to concentrate. Facility Management disputed this, stating that glass walls had been praised by colleagues in the Isar Building. Staff Representation replied that examiners in the Isar Building were of a different opinion. Could a question on glass walls be included in the survey? Could Staff Representation be involved in any plans to introduce glass walls across the Office? Could there be a working group with management on this topic? Facility Management replied that it was a question of change. Daylight was good psychologically, and people get used to glass walls and end up preferring them. VP4 said that the health implications could be discussed between Staff Representation and the Administration in the health committees LOHSEC and COHSEC.
Turning to other aspects of renovation, VP4 explained that three types of renovation would be carried out in the next five years. Firstly, health and safety mandatory work was needed, which required Administrative Council approval. Secondly, work was needed to improve sustainability, such as improving the façade of the Isar building for better heat retention. Thirdly, the buildings needed to be updated to create a modern working environment with glass walls and community spaces. If the EPO were to invest a lot of money then rent the buildings out a lot of questions would be asked. However, the buildings could not be kept empty. Could we instead use them for other purposes?
Printers and pigeonholes
Staff Representation advised VP4 that the decision to switch to P5000 secure printing would cause problems such as time wasted queuing at the printers and documents turning up in the wrong order. Also, the furniture in the post rooms was no longer ergonomic.
Facility Management replied that the new printers could print out 3.300 prints per hour. With the new printers the first print comes out after 3.5 seconds. The current printers were only being used 1 minute per hour, at most 3 minutes. There was a lot of over-capacity. Should the Administration see that there be an issue it would react, but this was unlikely. With regard to the pigeonholes, the medical implications had been discussed but the conclusion wa s that it would not be an issue as staff would only be using them once or twice a day. If Staff Representation became aware of any particular medical issues they should alert the Administration.
Closing remarks
To conclude, Staff Representation stated that they found it useful to have regular meetings with VP4, but asked to have the meeting in person next time. VP4 replied that she, too, liked live meetings. But flexibility was important.
Meeting closed: 15:00
The Local Staff Committee Munich (LSCMN)
Dear Ms Simon,
On 1. August we sent you an email concerning our evaluation of the very active feedback we received from EPO staff after our publication dated 16. May, “Has BTT improved your life in the Office?”. The replies of our colleagues allowed us to produce a fairly detailed overview of the situation from both qualitative and quantitative viewpoints. This picture remains relevant.
You will remember that, concerning the Overall Rating of the BTT project, an overwhelming majority of colleagues felt negatively about the project. Also, we estimated systematic time losses amounting to a few dozen FTE years linked to booking and setting up of workplaces for a day, just considering the time loss for examiners in Munich. We note that the work of an examiner is quite different from that of an administrator in other DGs, and requires very intensive computer time and an environment in which deep concentration is possible. Thus, while a workplace for a day may be more easily accepted by an administrator, this does not apply to those examiners who prefer to work mainly in the Office.
You will also remember that in said email we sent you a compiled list of (groups of) problems in decreasing frequency of occurrence, based on colleague feedback, starting from those mainly, or exclusively, relating to workplaces for a day. For some of the secondary issues, solutions have been tested in some units and may be applied more generally, using the principle of best practice. However, for the fundamental issues (e.g., disconnection from team members and/or the Office, daily adjustment of working space, booking issues, feeling “second class”, and hygiene issues) we believe that there is no viable solution other than providing significantly more workspace in the buildings for staff (which is, anyway, abundantly available), in particular by allocating a fixed office to all colleagues working at least 3 days per week in the Office. We believe that a significant step towards achieving this objective would be the reopening of floors 6 to 8 of BT 1-4. This would allow a significant higher number of fixed offices and benefit both our colleagues and the Office itself.
We invite the administration to carry out a survey among staff about the BTT project and we would like to be part of its planning. The survey results should be
distinguished according to the DGs. In particular, the results for DG1 should be provided separately. A few months on from the start of the BTT project we have now experienced how it is – and isn’t – working, and time has come for a comprehensive survey. We nevertheless expect that for the overwhelming majority of colleagues who prefer to work mainly in the Office a fixed smaller office is preferable than a workplace for a day. We note that the sharing of fixed double offices has proven to be successful in several cases.
Concerning the future renovation of BT 5-6, it is also clear that the overwhelming majority of DG1 colleagues are against the introduction of glass walls, for similar reasons as those applying to the workplaces for a day: the work of an examiner requires privacy and an environment in which deep concentration is possible. Being distracted by colleagues in nearby offices or passing by in the corridor deteriorates significantly the working environment.
Discarding the unwelcome option of introducing glass walls in BT 5-6 would also allow the Office to save money, since the installation of such walls would be costly.
The renovation of BT 5-6 should also aim at increasing the number of available rooms, so that a higher number of fixed offices could be allocated in the future.
We propose the creation of a working group on the renovation of BT 5-6 in which we would like to participate.Dear Ms Simon, we warmly invite you to take into consideration the information and thoughts shared with you above, aimed at improving the BTT project and better planning the renovation of BT 5-6.
The very concise or short story is, EPO management makes the staff miserable, maybe by intention, for supposed "cost savings" (but wasting a lot of time and making the workplace vastly less welcoming). Maybe they figured that depressed examiners would be more inclined to just grant any patent application, in effect giving a monopoly just to meet "targets" or "quotas" or "deadlines"; in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) we know that by default, if a patent examiner cannot or could find some reasonable ground for rejection, e.g. prior art, the patent would be granted as that would be more profitable to the Office. So the less experienced or more overwhelmed (by workload) the examiners become, the less inclined the examiners would be to challenge/antagonise the request for a market monopoly.
We already know, based on EPO leaks, that neither quality nor compliance are among the goals. The bubble is inflated, leaving its implosion over the horizon for Europeans to collectively pay for.
Exhausted examiners are more likely to grant patents without much-needed scrutiny. If they waste a lot of time clicking things to book a desk (many people outside the EPO can relate to the waste of time associated with that) and then setting up a desk for each day, they will lack time to research material pertaining to the application or search. Heck, walking all over the Office looking for a printer (or printout) barely counts as exercise. Desks are left unattended for longer (security risks amplified by a lot) and there's more exhaustion, fatigue, even time-wasting. Also, unaccompanied examiners cannot get help/advice from colleagues. To them, people surrounding them are strangers. The "BTT" seems more like deliberate vandalism of examiners' minds (thought processes), not a merely misguided decision. █
