Within the Swedish educational system improved student learning, teaching quality and organizational development has been the focus of attention for many years (OECD, 2015; Gorard 2010; Seidel & Shavelson 2007;). And many of the improvement initiatives have aimed at increasing learning and teaching quality by demanding more transparency and accountability (Everson 2016; Harris & Gorard 2015). To fulfill these requirements some of the solutions have been to implement and use digital management control systems (dMCS’) (such as unikum, schoolsoft, canvas, urkund, incident-reportingsystems and many more) to support follow-ups, decision-making, evaluations and actions in schools (Perry 2016; Leckie & Goldstein 2017). Subsequently are now teachers and principals required to collect, analyze and evaluate large amounts of performance data in dPMS’ to inform teaching and report achievements (DfE 2018).

Based on sociology and organizational research, it is known that the use of dPMS’ and performance measures will have unintended consequences (Ashton, 1976; Franco-Santos & Otley,2018 ; Ferreira & Otley 2009). Some of these consequences will be positive e.g. increased focus and attention; others will be undesirable e.g. measure fixation, bias, manipulation of data, ‘window dressing’, and stress amongst teachers and principals (Jones, et al., 2017).

The core idea for this paper emerges from the outcomes in a pilot study (Mauléon & Spante, 2015) showing how the use of an dPMS’ (a digital incident reporting system) at a primaryschool had adverse effects for the students being subjected to the dPMS’ and the teachers having to comply with it. It is also based on studies conducted in the US showing how groups of students such as African American, Hispanic and native American boys are disproportionately reported in dPMS’ due to the way in which teachers and principals enact (Weick, 1995) the systems. Over time, the digitally recorded information stigmatizes these particular students potentially affecting their futures (Anfinson et al., 2010).

This paper will present further empirical examples from the Swedish educational system of how well intended solutions end up having not only unintended but even negative consequences for students and teachers. We may call these unintentional social side effects, which due to the interpretation and use of the digital management control systems within the educational setting may affect them for years to come. The aim of our paper is thus to investigate the dark side of the use of digital management control systems within the Swedish educational system.

Summary

Improved student learning, teaching quality and organizational development has been the center of attention within the Swedish educational system for many years (OECD, 2015; Gorard 2010; Seidel & Shavelson 2007;). Numerous improvement initiatives based upon neoliberal ideas exemplified in New Public Management (NPM) have been implemented. Goals and practices are increasingly linked to centrally imposed performance measures often coupled to detailed, centrally imposed national curriculums, policies and processes (Herr, 2015). Digital performance management systems (dPMS) and performance measures often play a key role in this transformation process as the use of them, under certain contextual conditions, will support these new reforms (Herr and Anderson , 2015; Gillies, 2011; Ball, 2001).Through a review of previous research of digitalization of Swedish schools, research of technology-in-use and glimpses into some empirical examples this paper aims to present an alternative framework exploring ‘the darks sides’ of the use of dPMS and performance measures and to investigate how well intended solutions may end up in unintended consequences - and for who. We can call these unintentional social side effects, which due to the interpretation and use of the dPMS’s and performance measures within the educational setting may have unknown and even adverse effects on both individual, organizational and societal levels.

When the corona pandemic began in early 2020, universities as well as other sectors in society, were profoundly affected. Higher education was expected to continue to work as usual, except that everything should be conducted digitally. In this crisis, teachers received a “carte blanche” from management to handle the situation in any way they found appropriate (Hjelm-Lidholm, Mauléon, Müllern & Solli, 2021). However, the support functions at the universities (student support, administrators, university management) did not show the same ability to adapt to the crisis. Our study (Hjelm-Lidholm, Mauléon, Müllern & Solli, 2021) shows that although teachers acknowledged how they were the ones who had the know-how of handling the dramatic shift from on-site teaching to off-site teaching they felt they weren’t provided with appropriate support in order to being able to conduct this transformation in an efficient way (Hjelm-Lidholm, Mauléon, Müllern & Solli, 2021). The lack of appropriate support from management and other support functions made the dramatic shift in many cases challenging for the teachers. One teacher described it as laying out the rails whilst the train was moving (Hjelm-Lidholm, Mauléon, Müllern & Solli, 2021). In these occasions teachers turned to their closest colleagues to find support in the often chaotic situation. What is interesting here is how we found that the strong bureaucratic governance of universities (as well as other public institutions) were either not prepared or appropriate for handling the crisis. The bureaucratic governance system, we found, rather obstructed than supported the crisis driven digital transformation of teaching from on-site to off-site.

This paper allows for broader reflections on how professionals interact with managers in times of crisis, but also on the role of digitalization in the continued change and development of universities. It is our hope that this paper will spark a debate on the role of university teachers (professionals) in the strategic management of universities, considering the clear trend towards increased centralization and bureaucratization.

Sveriges universitet och högskolor har sakta men säkert utvecklat en byråkratisk linjestyrning, där den professionsstyrda, kollegiala styrningen har fått stryka på foten. Här följer lärosätena en större managementtrend som är både synlig och bekymmersam.

Safety is more than the management of risk. It is more than the absence of accidents, avoidance of error or even the control of risk. Defining an organization as safe because it has a low rate of error or accidents has the same limitations as defining health in terms of not being sick (Rochlin, 1999; Hollnagel, 2012).

Performance measurement is a fundamental principle of managing organizations and digital management control systems (dMCS) and well defined key performance indicators (KPI’s) are seen to support the identification of performance gaps between current and desired performance and provide indication of progress towards closing the gaps. DMC's and KPI’s are also seen as potent control tools in error detection with the purpose to support safe practice and build resilient organizations (Hutchins, 1995).

Calls are being made to broaden the scope from seeing technology such as dMCS, in which KPI's are a part, as something taken for granted or being black-boxed and instead investigate how actors create meaning and make sense of such technology in their daily use of it (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001; Ciborra, 2002; Orlikowski, 2007, Zetterquist et al., 2011). Like other technological artefacts the meaning of dMCS is largely a matter of its use (Zettequist et al., 2011).

The need for improved insight regarding the use of dMCS’ in organizations was early emphasized by Ashton (1976) who described how the use of dMCS' not only could risk resulting in unintended consequences, but also how the use of such systems and measurements could preserve unintended consequences by deviation-amplifying feedback.

Results from studies within a healthcare setting, a nuclear power plant and a school show how the use of dMCs, such as i.e. an incident reporting system, result in unintended consequences for students, patients and the community. The studies also show how the use of dMCS' and KPI’s furthermore can amplify negative effects over time.

Continuous control, testing and maintenance of systems and components are of utmost importance for maintaining safety at a nuclear power plant (NPP). And key elements for safe practice in organizations overall are often claimed to be adaptation, change and the ability to reflect and maneuver in paradoxical situations.  Identifying new innovative ways of organizing in order to control growing demands regarding safety, efficiency, quality, reliability, profitability etc. is a challenge in all types of organizations. Following this development organizational and management controltheory and practice have progressed rapidly inorganizations in recent years and one profound idea to manage and control for organizational efficiency and success is to implement management control systems (MCS:s) in which Key Performance Indicators (KPI:s) playa key role.  This paper will present an example of when a safety KPI at a NPP was presented as green,orange and red simultaneously within the same NPP. Questions raised were: how could this happen? and what consequences might this have upon safety?  What was found is that different stakeholder demands were being met at different levels of the organization when reporting the safety KPI in three different ways.However no deeper analysis of what consequences this might bring in terms of safety was conducted at anylevel.  There exists some research on how management control systems and KPI:s shape organizational outcomes. However there exists a knowledge gap considering the long term effects the use of such systems and measurements have upon i.e. safety.