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.

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.

This thesis is focused upon investigating how come activities in organizations are sometimes not aligned with an objective at hand, be it a project goal, safety, quality or other. When something goes wrong, where are the answers to be found? In the pursuit to examine these questions further, the aim of the thesis has been to investigate meaning making in action as this can increase an understanding of how actors may continuously align their actions, collective and/or individual, with a common goal – this process here being called Joint Directed Action (JDA). Studying the relational aspects in the two-way process of meaning making and action is claimed to be a neglected area in the research of how actors make sense of their realities. As such much could be gained in terms of understanding how actions unfold by focusing upon these issues.This thesis illustrates how meaning and action constitute a two-way process unfolding in a continuous interpretational-relational process that needs to be given attention in the pursuit of JDA. By being aware of how meaning and action are intertwined, actors can naturally become attentive to contextual cues and how management ‘systems’, such as Quality Assurance Systems, in their enactment become co-authors shaping the organizational landscape. These are important issues in the pursuit of JDA.This thesis provides a method for facilitating meaning making in organizations. Knowledge Overlapping Seminars (KOS) — a conversational tool based upon facilitated reflection and dialogue — is presented as a means to increased awareness of different interpretations of e.g., a project goal due to local realities and identities within an organization. KOS is a method with the aim of increasing efficiency and reliability in organizations by e.g. delimiting misunderstandings and bridging knowledge gaps between local identities. In this thesis KOS has been applied and evaluated in a Six Sigma project.Based upon findings from the studies it is clear that actors, in the pursuit of JDA, are aided by being aware of how they ‘see things’ differently due to local interpretations. It is further argued that actors can pursue JDA by being able to ‘relate’ to one another. The ‘relating to one another’ is based upon an awareness of how the organisational landscape is continuously shaped and re-shaped due to the reflexive relationships among meaning making, identity creation, emotional activities and action within the flow of conversational activity. And so it is contested here that in the co-authoring of relational landscapes characterized by an interrelating which is heedful, attentive and conscientious actors can ‘‘Get’ it Together’ in the continuous pursuit of Joint Directed Action.

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 accident has the same limitations as defining health in terms of not being sick. Safety, seen as a collective property that emerges from the interaction between actors in an organization, is continuously maintained by a self-conscious dialectic between collective learning from success and a deep belief that no learning can be taken to be exhaustive as the knowledge base for the complex and dangerous operations is inherently and permanently imperfect. Safety, seen as a constructed human concept does not exist ‘out there’ independent of our minds and culture ready to be measured (Rochlin, 1999). However, performance measurement and indicators are today a fundamental principle of management in many organizations as the idea that well defined performance indicators may support the identification of performance gaps between current and desired performance and provide indication of progress towards closing the gaps. Indicators are thus seen as potent tools for aiding managers in focusing resources to particular areas of the organization that impact upon organizational outcomes; as well as being part of error detection to support safe practice and to build resilient organizations (Mauléon & Gauthereau, 2012; Gauthereau, 2001; Hutchins 1995). Following these arguments the pursuit of safety and performance measurement could seem to be conflicting. Based upon these assumptions the purpose of this pilot study has therefore been to investigate the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) or indicators as they are called at Ringhals AB in order to gain a deeper understanding of how this shapes organizational practice in terms of safety. The results show that RAB as an organization needs to reflect upon the way QPR as a management control tools is enacted within the organization as this have implications on organizational processes and output including the safety culture. Questions needed to be asked are how do employees interpret and translate indicators in their practice? How do data owners collect, translate and transfer data into the indicator system? how do indicator owners, managers and regulatory institutions and organizations requiring this data (e.g. WANO, SSM) translate it? And how is the indicator system continuously adapted in a continuously changing environment? As a culture of safety depends on remaining dynamically engaged in new assessments and avoiding stale, narrow, or static representations of the changing paths (revising or reframing the understanding of paths toward failure over time); safety should thus be seen as a dynamic non-event (Weick,1987; Hollnagel et al., 2006). And success in terms of safety belongs to organizations, groups and individuals who are resilient in the sense that they recognize, adapt to and absorb variations, changes, disturbances, disruptions, and surprises – especially disruptions that fall outside of the set of disturbances the system is designed to handle (Rasmussen, 1990; Rochlin, 1999; Weick et al., 1999; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003) but what is often neglected is that this need for adaptation and recognition includes the adaptation of indicators and performance measurement systems such as QPR.

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.

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.

This paper presents a close study of a project meeting which had the purpose of creating a shared understanding, within the project, of the project goal. The aim of the paper is to contribute to more knowledge of what may go on in such meetings, as this knowledge can support joint directed action in both projects and organizations. The setting is an introductory meeting to Knowledge Overlapping Seminars (KOS) in a Six Sigma project with actors from different knowledge domains participating. Design: Participative observation and action research. Findings: This study shows how the co-construction of a shared understanding of the project goal was a highly emotional process. In the meeting co-construction involved the negotiation and re-negotiation of the project member’s different perspectives of the project goal. By accepting and managing the emotional turns in the meeting the facilitator supported the actor’s co-construction of a shared understanding of the project goal. Value: Through its thick descriptions this study contributes to the understanding of how identity, emotion and co-construction of a shared understanding are intertwined relational processes which shape and are shaped in action and as such can affect organizational outcomes.

Continuous Improvement is a central concept in the quality movement. In almost all descriptions of quality initiatives Continuous Improvement is central. Even in ISO 9000:2000 that has been recognised. In this paper we will discuss the role of continuous improvement within the quality movement, its relation to knowledge management and, especially, its origin in pragmatic philosophy.

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore the epistemological origin of Shewhart's and Deming's ideas in their development of a theory of quality.

Design/methodology/approach

The approach takes the form of a literature review.

Findings

Walter. A. Shewhart's and W. Edwards Deming's ideas concerning a theory of quality originated not solely from insights about variation within statistics but also from the field of philosophy, particularly epistemology. Shewhart and Deming, both seen as quality pioneers, were strongly influenced by the conceptualistic pragmatist Clarence Irving Lewis and his theory of knowledge. This is, and has often been, a neglected connection; however, in today's competitive business environment knowledge and competence have become crucial success factors. Thus, the epistemology‐related origin of their theory of quality has become increasingly interesting and important to explore. First, a summary version of Clarence Irving Lewis' theory of knowledge will be presented here as expressed in his work Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (1929). Second, examples of some important connections between Lewis, and chosen parts of Shewhart's and Deming's theory of quality will be given, for example the plan‐do‐study‐act cycle, operational definitions and profound knowledge. It will also be indicated how the social element in knowledge is emphasised in the works of Lewis, Deming, and Shewhart.

Originality/value

By exploring the epistemological background of Deming's and Shewhart's ideas of a theory of quality, it might be able to better comprehend the profound ideas they left behind and improve the understanding and use of their theory of quality today.

The aim of this paper is to test and evaluate a designed conversational seminar – the knowledge overlapping seminar (KOS) – as a support for joint directed action in projects. This conversational arena is designed to support the process of co-constructing shared understanding in projects with the aim of delimiting misunderstandings and creating knowledge overlap between people coming together from different organizational contexts. As misunderstandings often rise in projects among people who don't share the same language due to their belonging to different organizational contexts, there exists a need to develop methodologies that will assist in supporting the co-construction process of shared understanding in projects. This study proposes a designed conversational seminar for this purpose. KOSs are designed to be conversational arenas in which members of a project team have an opportunity to guide one another in their respective different domains of knowledge related and connected to the common project goal. The design of KOS aims to avoid conversational obstacles to effective knowledge overlap between members from different organizational contexts and from different knowledge domains, with special emphasis on avoiding prestige. The KOS has here been evaluated as being a promising conversational ?tool? for application in projects with a view to support joint directed action by achieving a shared understanding of the project goal and delimiting misunderstandings, with improved efficiency, quality, and, ultimately, more satisfied customers as a result.

This paper analyses various approaches tothe concept of a ‘safety culture’ in terms of theirepistemological assumptions regarding the nature oflearning. As a result of this analysis, the studyproposes a relational-interpretive framework for thepromotion of safety in health care, which is based onrelational theories and the philosophy of conceptualpragmatism as this can be used to integrate thevarious strands of current safety research. In particular, the approach based on a relational-interpretiveperspective can bridge the apparent dualist gap thatexists between the rational objectivist perspective andthe relativist perspective on the role of learning indeveloping a safety culture. According to the relational-interpretive perspective of safety managementthat is proposed here, organizational members need togive continuous attention to the accepted organizational norms and values, which shape the safetyculture. A case study from a health care safety projectin Sweden is utilized to illustrate the ideas advancedin this paper.

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.