Commission A – Proposition for Organisational development (Dnr74/00-09)
Introduction
Framework and points of reference
The framework for this proposition was defined as preconditions and terms of reference
formulated and compiled in annex 1. These have been the guiding principles for the investigation
and for whom to interview. The subject was much too ambitious and far reaching in relation to
the time frame and the scope. Instead of feeling discouraged by this I have rather decided to
attempt to deliver answers to my best ability. I do however pray that the reader keeps the
preconditions in mind, and in particular when you come about the shortcomings which you
surely will detect in this report. At the same time I hope and wish that the propositions I present
deserve factual counter arguments. Annex 2 holds a compilation of the material I have used.
These mainly consist of earlier investigations carried out at the college and other data concerning
resource allocation, working hours’ agreements etc.
Method
Just as important as the above mentioned investigations are the interviews I have had with
various officials at Konstfack. Based on its organisational scheme and the proposed topics, I
made a preliminary list of those I should talk to. Some of the college co-workers shared their
points of view concerning the choice of respondents and upon their recommendations I added
up some more names, making it a total of 24 interviews.
The objective with the interviews – apart from learning about the organisation, getting to know
its co-workers and to establish legitimacy to my work – was to assemble, acknowledge or perhaps
challenge the image I got from reading the documents. My respondents’ answers constitute the
platform for my work. All the interviews were transcribed by my self and thereafter read,
corrected and acknowledged by the respondent. The transcripts are enclosed in annex 3. The
respondents have been made anonymous in the texts.
Apart from all the knowledge provided, about the formal structure of the organisation, issues of
context etc I have tried to distinguish other perspectives in our conversations, i.e. explanatory
models and attitudes, real and ideal – i.e the organisational culture – indicated by my respondents.
Sometimes during the interviews I have also put forward different views on the Konstfack
organisation – my own or others’ – or proposed changes in order to test perceptions, to get feedback and gather counter arguments. These segments of the interviews are seldom revealed in the
transcripts.
At one occasion I spoke to representatives of the trade union and they were also presented some
different perspectives for which I got feed-back.
Konstfacks’ information officer informed all employees and students about my work via e-mail.
The information included a reference to the Intranet where the topics formulated by my
commissioners were presented and all readers, except for those already interviewed, were asked –
if they so wished – to send their written remarks over e-mail. A reminder was sent out mid-June.
1
I have received ten or so e-mails, some more extensive and they are published, anonymously,
after the interviews in annex 3.
This is the information I, to the best of my ability, have edited and compiled into various
propositions. To some extent, I have allowed those who might be affected by the proposition to
read and provide feed-back, acknowledgements or counter arguments.
My background
I have been asked to include a presentation of my own background in this context, to visualize
the position I speak from. I’m graduated photographer from Konstfack and I have been
employed with the college for 14 years. I have been working as a professor and with the
responsibilities of a head of department. I have moreover been college president at the Art
College Valand, and chairman for KUNO, the Nordic and Baltic art academy organisation.
The six past years I have been working as dean at the Artistic faculty at the University of
Gothenburg. The faculty organises Music-, Theatre-, Opera-, Photo-, Film colleges and the
College for Design and Cratfs, the Valand art college, the author programme Litterär Gestaltning
and the institute for research GOArt. The faculty has some 40 professors, same number of
doctoral students, 2000 students and 300 employees. I have been member of the presidents’
management board at the University of Gothenburg under three different presidents in 20022008. The University of Gothenburg is one of northern Europe’s largest universities with 60,000
students and a turnover of 4 billion SEK. I have worked with quality systems and quality work
within the university, evaluations at the Norwegian NOKUT, provided evaluation criteria to
HSV. For 14 years I have worked as editor, journalist and critic for newspapers and magazines
such as Arbetaren, SvD and the art magazine Index. I have held a number of positions in various
boards of directors e.g. at the Moderna museet.
Konstfack is my professional home, my professional mother and father. My relation to the school
is probably biased by this. As most other co-workers at Konstfack, I have an emotional relation
to the college. This relation may sometimes bias, both mine and others, perceptions and from
time to time blur the view.
The structure of the organisational development proposition
I commence this report with an attempt to provide an overall view of some of the distinct
dilemmas in the organisation. Next I will bring up assets and the potentials. After that, I present
some overarching principles, which constitute the framework of this report. This is followed by
an assessment of the Konstfack organisation starting from the very bottom and upwards, from
the institutional level and way up in the hierarchy. The aim of this presentation is to answer the
questions upon which my work is based. One of my propositions will therefore be presented
before I get a chance to explain it more in detail. There will be footnotes with references for
more elaborate explanations.
I wish to highlight that this commission was very critically formulated, see annex 1. As a result I
will mainly focus on problems. Konstfack is a school which has taken on different positions ever
since 1844 and it has had a strong impact on cratfs, art, design and pedagogy in Sweden. This is a
position which has been maintained and developed with success. I will not bring up this
impressive progress. My task is to offer a bitter chalice, to attempt to make Konstfack an even
2
better school, where my report constitutes a critical platform and where I offer a number of
propositions. Obviously this is a very difficult task. My approach is to not let this fact prevent me
from trying.
Dilemmas
1. Decision taking levels
The well reputed college legal expert Anders Stening highlights in his report; Övergripande synpunkter
på Konstfacks organisation och beslutsordning 06-05-13, annex 4, that Konstfack is characterised by a
complex over-organisation. He establishes that there are seven decision levels; board of directors,
president, professors’ staff meeting, KU-board/teachers proposition board, programme board,
working committee and head of department. He instead proposes three levels; Board of
directors/president, KU-board and institution/head of department. Stening also highlights the
double commando he claims to distinguish between professor/head of department and he
recommends clear terms of reference for the head of department.
An assessment of the current organisation reveals that some of the decision levels have received a
different mandate since Stenings’ report. The professors’ meeting has become advisory, the
educational board (UN) shall no more take any decisions about the institutions’ budget. The
presidents’ governing power has increased, in accordance with Stenings’ recommendations,
thanks to the establishment of the presidents’ decision meeting. There are however many
unchanged elements in the structure that Stening criticized. I addition to this, two new instances
have been created:, Operations forum and Management group, where issues are prepared and with an
advisory function to the president. The operations forum, where the chief administrative officers
meet with the head of departments, is where issues are prepared for the presidents decisions in
matters that concern the whole college. The management group is mainly for strategic
discussions.
In connection with my interviews, the word “inexplicit” was often mentioned when describing
the organisation. This is moreover verified in the report Arbetsmiljö och hälsoundersökning made by
Avonova Hälsa (formerly Curera), annex 5, carried out in the form of a questionnaire in September
2007. In this survey the questions about inexplicitness in the organisation and the management followed
by inexplicit expectations and demands and lacking information, are those who receive highest negative
results. The psycho-social factors of the work place were mentioned as the cause for personal
unhealth among many respondents. Sixty per cent – an extremely high figure in this context –
claim this is the case. The study is however not perfectly statistically significant depending on the
low number of respondents.
Apart from the complex over-organisation and the psychological unhealth it is obvious that a
number of different decision levels create additional work due to poor exchange of information
and communication, and moreover constitutes a source of confusion – one hand is not aware of
what the other one is doing - and in addition to that, the decision taking process becomes
abnormally long until the issues have passed through all units.
It is moreover not in line with the national directions (SFS 2007:603) stating that authorities
should be governed efficiently.
Moreover – mainly in theory but perhaps also in reality – there is a risk for contradictory
decisions by different units which may result in confusion and obstruction. Individuals or groups
who wish to lift a specific agenda may moreover make use of the situation, conscious of the
difficulties of coordinating such a complex organisation.
3
Someone may object to this presentation and claim that the current order is democratic and
collegial. One should however keep in mind that the collegial and democratic influence is
doubled in many instances at Konstfack. The collegiality is doubled in the KU-board and the
professors’ staff meeting, and democracy in the Board and the Educational board (UN).
2. Konstfack as a whole and its institutions as components
The Konstfack institutions possess a very strong position in relation to Konstfack as a whole.
This is reflected in the fact that every institution has constructed a function full of peculiarities,
traditions and pedagogic elements which cannot easily be linked to any other institution or for
that matter coordinated within Konstfack as a whole. From my interviews I have received the
impression that the background to the self governing institutions has a historical explanation in
relation to the management. Sometimes authoritarian, at other times weak Konstfack directors
have made the institutions turn inward and to focus more on their own business. Unfortunately
the development has become more polarised and it has highlighted the internal conflict which in
most schools lay latent between the central administration/coordination and the functions of the
institutions.
At the same time the responsibility for Konstfacks’ symbolic level seems to have hollowed out.
The institutions’ motivation as expressed in concrete action – such as participation in different
activities or nomination to units where general issues are discussed – seems somewhat
ambiguous. Rather the opposite as a matter of fact, as the institutions tend to view upon
Konstfack – although perhaps said with irony – as a burden or more commonly, as something
insignificant and irrelevant. Konstfack as a common concept, e.g. a brand, its history and strategic
resource is not always naturally promoted by the representatives of the institutions.
There is a paradox in this: only very few of the different functions would have the same
importance outside the context of Konstfack. It should therefore be in the interest of all players
to contribute to the whole. Some disturbing tendencies – which shouldn’t be over-estimated, but
nevertheless need mentioning in this context – it that the professors and the president at times
have had different opinions about the agenda and the functions in the professors’ meeting. On
the other hand there is an organisational level which enhances the marginalisation between subfractions and the whole. The management group – the president’s advisory board - and the way
it’s composed does not incorporate the perspective of the representatives of the institutions.
Konstfacks’ common history and identity is not quite cared for, neither by the institutions nor
Konstfack centrally. What should be regarded as one of Konstfacks’ most important assets seems
to be taken for granted by most of the people working at the college. It’s just there and that’s the
state of affairs and it does not need any further nurturing.
Another dilemma lies in the current institutions’ capacity of carrying the necessary support
functions. The Konstfack institutions normally submit 40-60 students with strict professional
identities such as industrial designers, ceramists etc. To maintain a high level of education,
economical-, HR- and information administration as well as a secretariat with just as high capacity
is difficult. The result is work task allocation problems between the central administration versus
institutions and this is a source of conflict. The institutions claim they have too many work tasks
and the central administration finds the quality of the work too varied. This also results in a
situation where the management of the institution, head of department and professors,
sometimes carry out work tasks for which they are much too qualified and over paid for. The
4
current system is inefficient and offers an unnecessarily high work load for all employees, from
educational administrators to the head of departments. There are moreover seldom any one else
who can replace a colleague during sick leave or other forms of absence, also depending on the
fact that the different institutions run different administrative systems.
At other universities, the institutions normally attend to some hundred students, and a vast
number of subjects/programmes. The tendency within the universities is moreover to make the
institutions even larger in order to carry the necessary support functions.
Konstfack seems to mix up a number of concepts, constantly: on the one hand the concepts
subject-, programme identity with the institution and its support functions on the other hand.
This seems to have added up to the dilemma. The administrative system, the support functions
do not necessarily have to be directly associated with the subject or the programme. Konstfack
could probably benefit a lot – professors, teachers and students, the curriculum and the future
perspectives and not the least the quality of the support functions – if bureaucracy was separated
from curricular content to a higher degree than today.
Konstfack provides the impression of having developed organically, i.e new functions have not
been associated with the old ones. Instead they are given a new, often relatively free status. This
can be seen in the establishment of Färg and Form in the 80’s and its recent transformation into
Interdisciplinary Studies. This is also seen within master programs/groups and research projects
associated with the school. For two of the latter programmes the main organisation is located
outside the institutions they normally would belong to.
The master programs’ director of studies/coordinator is seated in the central administration and
belongs to the Department for education and information. The research section belongs to the
department of External relations. This organisation – as defined in the College ordinance - makes
it difficult to integrate the different educational levels (basic, master and doctoral programme)
and constitutes a barrier against the cooperation between research and education which is
expected in similar settings.
This peculiar organisation may stem from a management, not altogether convinced about the
potential of the institutions and therefore preferring a development through operative work
instead of modifying the organisations. There may also have been opposition within the
institutions against new activities, the type of activities which the college-board and management
has found strategically motivated and important.
Finally I perceived a conflictive and dissonant image of Konstfack in the first answers of my
interviews. I asked my respondents to start with a definition of the chore function of Konstfack.
The answers were seldom evident and the definitions were disparate. Education, was one of few
things all agreed upon. Education in art, cratfs and design, was sometimes added. Art pedagogy was
not an evident chore function to more than a few, neither was research. Research was very seldom
mentioned within any defined area. The different levels, bachelor, master and doctoral programme were
seldom mentioned. Almost no one mentioned Interdisciplinary studies, as a chore function. Upon a
direct question IS was however mentioned.
The answers to my question can perhaps not be used as a definition of the true character of the
college. The controversy about the definition of Konstfacks’ chore functions could probably go
on forever. There is however a disturbing tendency in the fact that the respondents fail to have a
common definition to relate to, not even a negative one. This must be regarded as a definite
dilemma. The platform for any organisation is that its components, above all its co-workers,
5
share mutual interests and common objectives. This needs to be clarified or re-conquered within
Konstfack, which up to now has been operating for 166 years.
3. Exchange between institutions
Konstfack currently has a structure with nine institutions led by five head of departments. Some
of the institutions, 3+3, share head of department. The responsibility for courses and workshops
is however shared over various institutions. The scheduling of classes as well as the working
hours for the staff is the head of departments’ task. Approximately 1/3 of the teaching is, or
should be carried out at IS, according to the education plans. IS has a budget-frame for this.
Current allocation principles provide the resources to IS regardless of whether the students
participate or are examined at the institution.1
The director of studies or the student, subsequently needs to keep track of two teaching systems
at Konstfack, IS’ and the own institutions’. The person responsible for the scheduling at IS told
me about the difficulty of synchronising the IS schedule with the requests of the institutions.
Many of the professors at other institutions in turn have told me about how their classes and
projects collide with IS’ activities and how they have recommended the students to prioritise their
own classes instead of IS’. The reason for this could surely be found in communication problems,
misunderstandings and general chaos but you get the impression that the organisation itself could
be inadequate.
If the director of studies or the student moreover requests a separate course offered at another
institution , a third system adds up the two first ones etc. Perhaps it shouldn’t constitute any
significant problem under the condition that the structure of the teaching was organised in a
similar way. Unfortunately this is not the case. The institutions tend to make them selves
sovereign in their scheduling. This is turn makes it very difficult for the director of studies or the
students to get access to the full range of Konstfacks’ programmes2. It should be mentioned that
it’s probably not even desirable, from pedagogic and quality reasons, that all Konstfacks’
programmes become accessible to all students. Some eligibility once you are qualified, is probably
reasonable in a college where the students are expected to possess a great deal of independence
and freedom, an independence which, not the least is defined in the educational plans, see annex
6, and furthermore is described in the University Act.
Another aspect, which seems to add up to the seclusion of the institutions, is the current resource
allocation system. The institution receives funding regardless of whether it fulfils the anticipated
production3 . In many cases - students have complained about this system for years – the result is
lacking motivation to arrange courses for any students – groups or individuals – from other
institutions than your own. The lacking motivation is often shared both by the receiving and the
home institution, where financial motives and the complicated organisational conditions surely
constitutes a decisive condition.
1
Professor Louise Mazanti at IS and others have brought up this issue. Mazanti has observed that no students
have ever flunked, although someone may have had to complete a work. The resource allocation principle may
be responsible for this system.
2
See transcript of interview with student in annex 3
3
Konstfack receives grants from the Department of Education in order to submit a specified number of full time
students and acknowledged students per full time achievements. There is no such corresponding relation between
the institutions and the central administration of the school.
6
More overarching critical points of view have been expressed concerning the idea that IS should
constitute a forum for students from different institutions, where cross cutting issues could be
dealt with and networks without defined boundaries could develop. The critics claim it’s not
feasible. IS currently only organises courses upon the request of individual institutions.
A more challenging concept deals with what a relevant institution, one that offers
interdisciplinary approaches, actually should do. With respect to theoretic classes professor
Louise Mazanti, IS, pointed out, in her report, annex 7, that this is a form of misguided and
impossible task. Theory must, says Mazanti, be integrated with practice and an overarching
interdisciplinary theory serves nobody. Theory needs, in order to become efficient and distinct,
association with the different fields of action. As a consequence some institutions, among them
Art and Ädellab, have employed their own theoretical experts, who also work integrated with
other classes.
The rest of IS’ courses, courses tailored to suit the institution, express the same thought. This
raises the question whether the design institutions perhaps could offer the artists a design
perspective? Or couldn’t the art institution convey the current art perspective to design students?
Yet another dilemma lies in the fact that the education offered at IS to a large extent has dealt
with the provision of an artistic approach to the design and cratfs students. To the students at the
art institution, these classes have been considered a doubling of the teachings offered in the
home institution, which in turn has made it troublesome for the art institution to make use of IS
and in reality has turned out a waste of resources.
Moreover, Konstfack does not define IS as an interdisciplinary function when it comes to the
settlement of full time students reported to the Department of education or for internal resource
allocation purposes. IS’ function is thereby defined as purely artistic training for the students who
are inscribed with the institution. All this reveals ambivalence towards the activities at IS.
One should keep in mind that IS consists of 4 main sections. Two master groups – EDG and
WIRE (the latter formally in cooperation with the art institution), history and art theory classes,
cratfs- and design, a number of workshops, lab, studios and courses for licence for safe
management and/or supervision and a number of specially designed courses directed at all
institutions individually.
The latter have resonance in the idea that all students at Konstfack should share an artistic
perception and participate equally and from this platform, develop their own visual expressions.
This concept was used in the Weimar republic Bauhaus school which established that all students
should get the same education regardless of the special direction they intended to follow further
on. The idea was imported and interpreted by Konstfack and it is also closely related to the old
and firm concept perceived by European art academies, that visual art goes via the depicting, the
sketching of the human being. The extensive observing and readiness training associated with
sketching which is also included in the courses offered by IS to the institutions, reflects this
historical root. IS has a very high competence within this particular field. Nowadays there are
however a vast number of other approaches and ways of becoming an artist, but it remains
important to maintain competence, knowledge and education about the traditions presented
above.
Here lies another interesting aspect. The knowledge growth associated with practise tends to
manifest itself as an invisible agreement in way of Silent knowledge. The sketching discourse is
associated with rationales or beliefs that there is hidden knowledge about how artists have dealt
7
with artistic challenges. Knowledge associated with other concepts than just plain depiction or its
expression. Perhaps its a matter of deeper knowledge stemming from how human beings are
perceived and cultural dilemmas. This knowledge, not yet observable may be important to
formulate and made visible for coming generations of artists.
4. Under-production of students.
A threat to every school is the under-production in relation to what has been commissioned by
the Department of education. A few times during the current decade Konstfack has found itself
in that situation. But since Konstfack, just like other colleges is allowed to balance the under
production against passed years surplus, the college has managed to avoid problems – i.e. no
reduction of funding. There are however disturbing tendencies in the prognostics.
As earlier remarked, the institutions are allocated resources regardless of the number of students
accepted or examined. The negative consequence of this system, with regard to inconsistencies
between institutions, has also been described above. The question is whether this model should
be modified in order to achieve full production and to facilitate the movements across
institutions?
Assets
Konstfack has immense assets. The college is well known among most Swedish people and
furthermore well established in the Nordic Countries and not unknown internationally. All coworkers - from technicians to professors - are very engaged in the work and have strong,
although sometimes, disparate views, which in itself is a quality sign and characterises a living
academy. Only few co-workers feel indifferent towards the work.
Konstfack’s programmes are among the most popular in Sweden. Generation after generation of
students – not all, but more than enough – fairly quickly and comfortably establish themselves
within the Swedish art, cratfs and design establishment. Konstfack’s art pedagogy teachers have
promoted the discussion about art pedagogy for decades, a discussion of strong importance for
the perception of art in Sweden. Konstfack’s art teachers are unique in Sweden, the only ones
who are accepted upon artistic grounds to their education.
Konstfack’s professors are among the most acknowledged there is. Konstfack is often in the
middle of the debate concerning the colleges’ chore activities, design, cratfs, art and art pedagogy.
Recently a student not only managed to dominate the culture debate but also the general opinion.
The Konstfack ”brand”, its exiting, important and resilient history, with a strong impact on
Swedish, Scandinavian design in an almost unprecedented way, holds a strategic potential and
strength which by far has not yet been fully extracted.
Overarching principles for the proposition
The inexplicitness of the organisation is obvious. To this may be added the tendencies to
polarisation – which should however not be exaggerated – mostly by some of the managers of
the institutions /institutional representatives, but also by some units who enhance the distance
against Konstfack as a mutual concern, resource and identity. Moreover there is a lack of an
adequate forum for the institutions to put forward their points of view to the management.
8
All this adds up to the confusion and has an impact on the work allocation, work load, work joy
and the essence of the work - often in a negative way - which can be distinguished in the
mentioned work environment study, and in the transcripts of my interviews.
Under this framework, the principles for the current proposition have been
1) To construct organisational forms where Konstfack is strengthened as a whole
2) To ask all decision making or advisory units within Konstfack whether they are necessary
for the school. If there is any doubt, then suggest either that the unit is brought to an end
or transformed into something more functional
3) Propose mainstreaming and to some extent division of the remaining areas of
responsibility, mostly support and functions dealing with issues of contents
4) Propose that the organisational peculiarities and branches are mainstreamed into the line
of organisation
From institution to central administration
Below follows a compilation of the different levels in the organisation, and suggestions for
organisational development. The presentation starts at institutional level and moves upwards in
the decision making hierarchy.
Institution
The institution is the smallest unit in the educational organisation. The institution is responsible
for education, examination, curricula and the provision of basic data for educational plans, school
schedules and management issues. They are moreover responsible for the working environment,
equality issues and sustainable development. The institution has a secretariat which takes charge
of the economic- HR-, education- and information administration.
The institution is governed by an educational board (UN), which mainly deals with issues of
contents and there is a working committee (AU) within UN mainly in charge of organising the
work and its administration, class rooms etc., and it has some overlapping responsibilities
concerning education jointly with UN4.
UN members are nominated by way of elections and the unit is governed by a head of
department, with professors, teachers, students and staff and business representatives. UN and
AU convene several times per semester. The institution is led by the head of department, who
allocates the work and is responsible for the organisation of the education, the budget and the
staff. Some of the responsibilities are overlapping to some extent and inexplicitly shared between
AU and the head of department, see note 5. The professor/the professors are the main
representatives within their area and they are in charge of the contents of the programme and the
pedagogy.
4
The Konstfack terms of reference rev. by HS 2008-10-12 describe the UN, AU and head of departments work
tasks. I claim these distincly reveal the overlapping responsibilities, annex 8.
9
In the beginning of this presentation, attention was brought to the fact that the institutions
normally inscribe 40- 60 students. The relation between the base and the top could possibly be
the cause for the inexplicitness which almost all co-workers claim to find troublesome, both in
the work environment study and the interviews. The UN/AU staff is mostly composed of the
teachers’ staff meeting.
There may be a more tangible cause behind the inexplicitness such as the mix of
contents/pedagogy and administrative responsibility which becomes apparent in many different
contexts and at various levels. At the institution it becomes apparent mostly in the allocation of
responsibilities between head of department and UN/AU and the responsibilities between head
of department/professors, which are aspects highlighted and criticised by the college legal expert
Anders Stening. I intend to concentrate, diverge and make these functions more distinct in
accordance with the principles I propose in this report.
Educational board and working committee
The democratic impact established in the 70’s, and manifested in way of large assemblies at
Konstfack, has been adopted by the institutions, UN and the working committee. This
organisational form reflects the University’s institutional boards. UN consists of business and and student representatives. UN and AU double the democratic impact in the Board and the
collegial within the KU-board.
A half day UN-meeting, with 8 participants, represents salaries corresponding almost 10,000
SEK. To this you must add the resources for protocols and preparations etc. The head of
department at KoG, Ädellab and ID attends a total of 27 UN and AU-meetings per academic
year i.e one important meeting almost every single week during the academic year. With
corresponding mathematics this would imply almost 270,000SEK a year. This amounts
astronomical figures for Konstfacks’ institutions. Even in rough figures, the message is clear.
Could these resources be used more effectively?
In my opinion, UN and AU mostly constitute an over-organisation. These units moreover tend
to blur the governance and the responsibility at the institution an results from the mix up
concerning subjects/contents with support functions/administrative issues in the agenda of the
units5, and – a paradox in itself – makes the power more invisible. The head of departments’
responsibility becomes less distinguishable behind units dealing with issues where their mandate
is questionable.
It is moreover – although hypothetically – difficult for the president e.g. to hold any elected unit
liable. The head of department subsequently has to bear the responsibility for all decisions which
in itself is peculiar - that the head of department should be liable for something decided by the
UN/AU institutions. The organisation as such generates additional work, makes the functions
more rigid and adds up to the confusion concerning responsibilities.
Proposition: Put an end to UN and AU. In accordance with the College ordinance 3 chapter § 9
the college is free – with the exception of the teachers’ education – to have any forms of
governance found appropriate at this level. I propose that the head of department should have
the responsibility6 to take decisions about issues dealt within these units. There are many ways of
5
See UN and AU-protocols vs Arbetsordning vid Konstfack
Proposition concerning head of departments area of responsibility and how they should be performed is
described on page 11
6
10
making head of department decisions transparent and well prepared without the need for
justifying them with a board or committee. An advisory board to the head of department could
be developed in order to mainstream and prepare the issues concerning contents and to
mainstream the discussion. This advisory unit Subject board - Ämnesråd (ÄR) should exclusively
deal with the contents of the subject and the pedagogic organisation. The mandate should be
similar to that of UN stated in the Arbetsordning för Konstfack. The mandate should instead be given
to ÄR.
ÄRs’ role should be to represent the subject and consequently not be the same as the institution. The
idea is that those who participate in ÄR should be much more competent within the given
subject and that the discussion should be kept at the highest possible level with regard to the
contents of the subject. ÄR prepares overarching topics and takes charge of contents and quality
issues in the education but also with associated issues such as recruitment profiles and resource
allocation. ÄR convenes more seldom but with a minimum of three times a year with additional
meetings if necessary. The time for the three meetings would be decided centrally and
synchronised with all ÄR within Konstfack. This would facilitate joint ÄR-meetings at Konstfack
when necessary.
At one of the meetings, just before the examinations, the ÄR must call in all the programme
teachers to assess the student’s individual status and if necessary discuss measures to be taken –
the student representative does not participate at this occasion. At another meeting the
professor/professors must present the national and international development of his/her subject
and possibly propose measures which should be attached to the protocol. At yet another meeting
– the same occasion for when the planning of the next academic year is to be presented – the
past academic year should be evaluated, and the report and propositions for measures to be taken
should be attached to the protocol. ÄR suggests how the organisation around the admissions
should be implemented and provides basic data concerning the admission, as well as for
examinations and exhibitions. ÄR prepares curricula and basic data for educational plans and
reports concerning the contents of the educations, contents and quality issues to the KU-board
or HSV etc.
ÄR is advisory body to the head of department. The head of department appoints ÄR except for the student
representative who is appointed by the student union and naturally the professor/professors who
also shall be members of the board. Membership demands compulsory attendance which needs to be
stated in the terms of reference. The head of department or someone appointed by him/her is
chair of the ÄR. Professor/the professors with the assistance of an educational administrator
present the issues. The ÄR secretary is the educational administrator. ÄR reports to the KUboard, the president and the chief administrative officer – and at occasions when the head of
department does not hold the chair – to the head of department.
Head of department
The responsibility and mandate of the head of department within Konstfack is neither clear, nor
easily understood. On one hand the head of department is responsible for the whole function of
the institution but on the other hand there are a number of formal and informal exceptions. The
formal exceptions manifest themselves in the construction of the UN/AU. Depending on the
fact that Konstfack’s institutions generally are very small, but numerous, a great number
of teachers are represented in the UN/AU. This brings about that the head of department both
has a large number of teachers both as subordinate employees and as superiors in their UN/AUcapacity.
11
The informal exception manifests it self in the head of departments’ relation to the professors.
From time to time the professors, the students, teachers, administrators, managers and
sometimes even the president and moreover the head of departments themselves avoid the fact
that was pointed out in the line organisation, namely that the head of department is superior to
the professors.
The ambiguity felt in the organisation and which becomes apparent in the work environment
study as well as in my interviews, most certainly could be related to this ambivalent situation
concerning the mandate and power of the head of department.
There are probably numerous reasons behind this ambivalence. Konstfack has a strong tradition
of being a flat organisation with shared leadership and where decisions have been taken jointly,
ideally in consensus. This was particularly evident in connection with the revolving situation in
1968 when radical teachers and students wiped out what was perceived as authoritarian decision
making procedures. The consensus culture was most certainly a necessity even before that, as the
working comradeship in the different fields, often stretched far out and also involved a strong
social aspect where people socialised, and sometimes even lived with and within the workshop.
Students and teachers were also unified not only by an aesthetic programme but also by way of
opposing the establishment which strengthened the unity even more.
With this historical background it’s quite obvious that once Konstfack became a college in 1977,
by adopting the University nomenclature, the position of the head of department and professor
were merged into one. The experiences gained from this form of leadership should probably
generally be regarded as harmful both to the professors themselves and to the college. Yet
another aspect was however, that the head of department was appointed by the teachers
themselves and appointed by the president for a time limited mandate. The result was that the
head of department once she/he quit was allowed to return to the working fellowship where
she/he formerly had been the manager.
To no surprise, all these elements resulted in a weaker position for the head of department. The
situation has become even more precarious since the work load on the leadership has increased
depending on a large number of facts such as the Bologna procedure, which increased the
requirements from the authorities (e.g. concerning the psycho-social and physical work
environment), less resources etc. Konstfack has tried to adjust to the new circumstances by trying
to develop the position of the head of department, making it more professional. Three full time
head of departments have been employed on permanent basis with the task to establish
continuity in the work and to offer long term competence development growth for the leaders.
This investment in the leadership was however not followed up with corresponding mandates
and responsibilities in relation to what was mentioned initially.
Proposition: The head of departments’ position needs to be strengthened and made more
perceptible. The mandate needs to be real without formal or informal exceptions. This may be
accomplished if the UN and AU come to an end [1]. In order to improve the line organisation it
is proposed that a head of department decision comes into force, based on the same model as
presidents’ decisions at Konstfack. The decisions would be prepared by economy-, educational,
HR administrators and in ÄR, in the form earlier described. Agenda, protocol and calls would be
the responsibility of the educational administrator jointly with the head of department.
The head of departments’ decision meeting should be held every second week during semesters
at regular appointed times. The agenda should be posted at the institution one week ahead of the
12
meeting. Decisions must be backed up with basic data in writing. Every decision needs to be
backed up with a motivation and transparent rules of procedure. The students should always be
consulted concerning questions that pertain to them. The head of department may call anyone
he/she finds appropriate to a meeting before taking a decision. The head of department may also
send back the matter for further investigation. The head of departments’ decision should be
reported to the president, the chair of the KU-board and the chief administrative officer [2].
By making the mandate clear in this way, the decision making process becomes more visible as
well as the position where the authority is concentrated in the institution. This focal point in the
mandate, with the responsibilities of the head of department, the tasks, the responsibility for
handling the contents-, subjects and the educational issues would be concentrated in a natural
position. This in turn needs to be balanced against the mandate for the institutional resources and
its support functions where the support functions are made available for the promotion of the
subject and for the development of the programme. The head of department, who according to
the line organisation at the college, is the one with capacity to carry out this, and to facilitate and
unite all the different fields of interest. This should be the case and thoroughly promoted.
As a result, the task of the head of department should be to decide about curricula after
propositions put forward by the ÄR or professors – after handling by the educational
administrator7. This line of decision is logical depending on the fact that it’s not feasible that the
one who outlines the curricula should be the one who takes decision about it. In order to clarify
the professors’ and ÄRs’ unique impact on the contents of the subjects, there should be criteria
in the order of delegation stating the nature of the head of departments’ power of decision. The
issues of contents would thereby fall outside the jurisdiction of the head of department. The
criteria could be as follows:
The head of department should decide the curricula based on the following principles; so that
- The curricula abide with the educational plan
- formalities are fulfilled (students’ rights, as related to the institutions’ responsibility, as related to
the College ordinance)
- the course is feasible in way of available resources (staff, premises, economically, schedules)
- it’s presumed that there are enough approved students
The contradiction between the head of departments’ management and the professors’ impact on
the artistry, contents, and educational influence should not be exaggerated. There is however a
long history of conflicts within the academy between these positions, where professors from time
to time have used their status and importance to carry out informal management parallel to the
line organisation. This without exception, is destructive for all parties involved; students,
institutions, co-workers, head of department, professor and school. It may also add up to the
confusion and inexplicitness of which Konstfack already suffers due to many other reasons. This
type of conflicts could hypothetically also appear at Konstfack. It is therefore crucial to establish
that the head of department is the professors’ superior and in crucial situations the head of
department has the last word. It should however be established that no management within a
college could be carried out unless the views of the most prominent and competent co-workers
are taken into consideration.
7
A background to the proposition about the increased support from educational administrators to the professors
is provided on pages 13-16
13
Professor8
The professors’ competence and work tasks could be defined as follows.
-
-
Should hold the highest possible competence within her/his subject area at Konstfack
Should carry out the most qualified assessments about the development of the subject,
nationally and internationally and judge the impact of the contents of the education as
well as pedagogy at basic, advanced levels with regard to the modifications in the
education plans, curricula and course descriptions
Should be responsible for the contents of the subject and profile of the institution
Should be member of the institutions’ ÄR
Should be eligible to the KU and the teachers’ proposition board
Should be responsible for coordination of tasks, represent the subject within and outside
Konstfack
Should supervise students at the basic and advanced levels
Should formulate and run educational projects at basic and advanced levels
Should lead and participate in the admission procedures at basic and advanced levels
Should lead and participate in the examination at basic and advanced levels
Should carry out personal artistic development work ad provide accounts of the progress
to Konstfack
Institutions with research education, doctoral programmes and research require professors’
competence and work tasks involving
-
to carry out corresponding assessments as described above for doctoral programmes and
research
to represent the subject and in that capacity to accept doctoral students, supervise them
and to approve their courses (except for the thesis)
to contribute to the higher seminar
to formulate applications, implement and provide accounts of research projects
to carry out her/his own research projects with accounts provided of the progress to
Konstfack
There is probably no or very little discrepancy between the described competence above and the
actual state in the described part one. In the second, however, it’s not altogether obvious. Most
people would however agree that in order for Konstfack to maintain its leading position, the
competence described in part two is necessary. It does not necessarily need to imply that the
professors need to have a doctors’ degree, but rather a keen and deep interest in the doctoral
programme and research issues. For those with a doctors’ degree there should be a preparedness
and humbleness to get involved in the basics of artistic research.
In view of the new challenges that the college is facing it’s not ideal that the professors’ work
hours have been reduced during the 10 past years while the work load has increased. The full
time professorships have been reduced to 70-80%. The professors, without exceptions, are under
extreme stress. There is moreover no explicit support function for newly recruited professors to
guide them concerning educational and HR-matters. In this sense Konstfack professors as well as
artistic professors in general, distinguish from professors in other academies. The latter often
8
A similar description should probably be done concerning senior lecturer - lecturer, but this will have to be
done later on. This was made to highlight the tasks of the head of department versus professors, functions of
major importance to the whole organisation at Konstfack.
14
made their way through the universities and colleges and are more socialised in a system where
they feel at home. That is seldom the case within the art colleges.
It’s also common that recruitment procedures at artistic colleges favour high quality artistry
rather than readiness to accomplish the work tasks described in part 1 and 2 above. One
recurring example is to underestimate the applicant’s pedagogic merits and the ability to bestow
knowledge. This state of affairs is not unnatural and rather easily understandable. The art colleges
such as Konstfack need to attract the most prominent artistic and gifted capacities, for many
reasons. While many schools seem to expect that this type of work tasks may be carried out
automatically without having checked if the person you intend to recruit actually possess these
qualities, it may result in both unhappy professors and a less successful school. The issue
becomes even more vibrant due to the prestige and integrity associated with the professor title.
Should the college persist and appoint a prominent artist who lacks pedagogic experience, then
back up solutions need to be installed, such as training and support offered to the newly recruited
professors by way of qualified assistance e.g. provided by the educational administration. The
procedures involved when recruiting a professor are quite extensive and costly, and based on the
fact that the professors’ work will leave an impression on a whole generation of students, it’s
good economy to take care of the officials once they’ve been employed. This should be further
developed at Konstfack.
One aspect which may be the result of the above and the result of a genuine historic tradition is
the living ideal of a master - apprentice. This was expressed in the interviews I had with a number
of professors, where they expressed a wish to abandon their offices and desks, and to stay with
their students. There is good reason for why one should maintain a close relation to the students.
The individual supervision is unique for the artistic educations and could only be paralleled with
the research preparation and doctoral programmes within other academies.
This could however result in a situation where some of the professors’ would prioritise individual
tutoring at the cost of the over all structure of the education and the knowledge growth which is
the fundament and basic concept for both colleges and art colleges.
As of now, there is a lack of motivation to produce this substantial and pedagogic construction
which could lead to a situation where the professor don’t leave any foot prints of her/his work
at the institution whatsoever. This makes the introduction of a new professor heavy and
frustrating and given the fact that professors are recruited only once every 5-10 years makes it
easy to give in and attend to matters that offer immediate response and to engage in what you
find most concrete and stimulating, just like your predecessor – i.e. the encounter with the
students.
The result of this scenario is a situation where all players become losers, unless a lengthy and
deliberate process is initiated aiming at building up the structure and the educational
programmes. No matter the genius of one specific person, it can never replace the experiences
formed and documented in a collective knowledge growth process over time.
The artistic colleges are the only ones within the college world with the right to legally avoid
employing professors and teachers at permanent employment basis. This is the result of
awareness among the legislators that the artistic field is in a process of constant innovation and
that a permanently employed teacher corps can make the education obsolete.
15
At the same time art colleges have suffered from discontinuity and lack of knowledge growth in
the shift from one professor to the other. Competence growth becomes less important when the
person in charge soon is about to leave the function. There are however no obstacles against
creating permanent positions, e.g, after a period of 10 years employment or immediately after the
first employment. A well composed balance between time limited and permanently employed
function bearers is probably the best solution. This allows the college to maintain the
responsibility for both innovation and continuity.
One employment concept, constructed at Konstfacks’ design and cratfs programmes, involves
halftime employments for the professors, supposedly allowing them to run their own business at
the rest of the time. The purpose was to offer a fruitful, open channel between the teaching and
the professional life of the professors’. It is however extremely doubtful whether such a solution
is practically feasible. All professors’, without exceptions, claim it has not worked. The problem
lies in the difficulty to maintain a business which often is associated with fixed costs i.e. premises,
computers, copying machines, telephones and vehicles and in some cases even staff. The
business takes a lot more than full time dedication to make it worth the effort. At full time basis
you can run the business and establish and maintain your network but once you’ve only got half
the time at your disposal it becomes challenging. The 50-50 construction also rests on the
concept of Konstfack as a vocational school - which doesn’t agree with Konstfack as a college.
So what about the critical mission, established in law and ordinances when the programme is so
intimately associated with the professional life? What impact does such construction have upon
the development of the unlimited search after knowledge within the subject? The colleges’
function may even end up in opposition to the norm or the form, with a majority of the
professional corps and its commissioners in the business life.
Of all officials at Konstfack, the professors hold the key competence, but their working
conditions tend to be stressful and disparate depending on the institution where they are
employed. They moreover seem to have different personal capacities to implement the critical
and unbiased task associated with their position at the college. The terms of reference, see e.g.
annex 9, reveal that some professors have less time for development growth than other lecturers.
The time allocated for preparing the classes is also very disparate – and this goes for all teacher
categories, and institutions.
Proposition: The professors’ key position at Konstfack motivates a radical overview of their
work tasks, terms of employment and support functions. The KU-board and the head of
departments should jointly initiate this and focus should lie on the professors’ position as the
developing agent for the subject. The proposed annual development report for the subject could
be one crucial component and the requirement that the professor should have a pedagogic
educational background could be reasonable. The terms of employment should be transparent so
that the development work carried out within the employment might be reconnected to the
institution and Konstfack. The terms of reference should moreover be mainstreamed.
Competence growth, in terms of artistic research and capacity for supervision within doctoral
programmes should also be offered to professors who don’t already possess this competence –
scheduled time for capacity development could be used for that purpose. The concept
development time should furthermore be defined by the college.
The programme administration also needs to support the professors with basic data for curricula
and education plans. The professors’ function should furthermore be documented after standards
defined by KU – thereby becoming part of the institutions’ and Konstfacks’ legacy, structure and
knowledge growth.
16
The terms for the teachers’ preparation and other work associated with the teaching should also
be defined and standardised at all Konstfacks’ institutions.
Institutions and support functions
The current institutional organisation strictly follows the different subjects except for IS. This
legacy originates from the time when Konstfack was included in the national college system in
1977 and it may be dated back to the reform which established Konstfack in the 40’s. The
different cratfs professions formerly taught at the college were then separated into different
categories, “fack” which is the historical background to the name. The terminology has German
roots.
This has resulted in the division of a large number of small institutions with extensive
responsibility for each and every one, and not just concerning the contents of the subject; basic
data for education plans/curricula and administrative duties in terms of economy, education,
information, secretariat and staff as well as responsibility for workshops with sometimes
extremely specific and complex working environmental issues to deal with. These small
institutions struggle to maintain relevant support functions in all these aspects. Many of these
challenges are associated with shell problems as this extensive responsibility often involves a
programme with no more than 40-60 students.
The high level of specialisation and the varied reporting standards, create tension between central
and institutional administration. And due to the fact that some institutions have developed their
own solutions for dealing with data which are needed all over the college, creates even more
administrative problems. This shell problem creates a situation where the head of department and
the professors can’t always get the support needed and instead they carry out tasks in an
inappropriate way or take on tasks which they occasionally are over qualified for. The
administrative staff ends up dealing with a number of important duties which increase their work
load and exposes them to stress.
One of the overarching principles for this investigation has been to specify and distinguish issues
of content and educational perspectives from the support functions. One idea that was put
forward was to establish a Subject board Ämnesråd, ÄR, to which the issues of content and
education should be referred and to propose that UN/AU was put to an end. The purpose of
this has been to separate the educational administration and support functions from the subject
structure even more. This makes it possible to face the shell problem of which the small
institutions suffer.
Subject has often been synonymous with institution in a very negative way at Konstfack. High
quality and efficiency is best acquired if e.g. interior decorating teachers and students get a chance
to interact in a context where they can deal with issues of contents based on qualified insights
and a common understanding with each other. There is a strong and legitimate need for this type
of encounters and a similar need could probably be distinguished within the support functions.9
9
Proposition about how the support functions, depending in their function and direction, could establish school
committees are described on page 18
17
Some years ago IA, ID, GDI rejected a proposition about the establishment of a mutual design
institution. KoG, Textil and Ädellab rejected another proposal about setting up an institution
directed at cratfs. Instead the current organisation with one head of department each for IA,
Textile, GDI and KoG, Ädellab, ID were established.
Proposition: Konstfack should make a better distinction between subject/programme and
institution. The support functions are organised in the latter, while the issues of involving the
subject and its contents are under the responsibility of ÄR. Konstfack has taken a step forward
towards mainstreaming the head of department organisation - the three-pack - ”trepacket”, and
thereby commenced the separation of bureaucracy from education - a process which must
continue. Support functions should be organised in larger units so that necessary specialisation is
established. This means a unit which may provide the educational administrators with a special
mandate for economy, education, HR and information as well as secretariat. Focus should lie on
support, to the professors’ in educational matter and for the establishment of the proposed
organisation based on the head of department decisions.
This implies that Konstfack should establish support functions for IA, ID, KoG, Textile, GDI
and Ädellab in one single institution under one head of department. This institution should
concentrate on internal work. Interior decoration, Industrial design, Ceramics and Glass, Textile,
Graphic Design and Illustration and Ädellab should organise in separate Subject Boards
Ämnesråd (ÄR)10 and focus on the subjects’ contents. The professors’ would become even more
subject related and involved in the developing work once they are released from the institutional
bureaucracy. The terms IA, ID, etc. should be communicated externally, i.e. they remain
unchanged apart from the fact that the word institution is not used anymore. The new institution
would have some 60 co-workers, and a system for associate head of department should be
elaborated to facilitate development growth discussions with staff, etc.
The support functions for the Konstfack programmes should subsequently be organised in three
institutions, the one mentioned above and Art and Art pedagogy11
The relation between the institutional and central administration
There is mutual frustration pestering the relation between the current central and institutional
administration. One reason is the lack of mainstream administrative systems. This has prevented
normal administrative synergies and no co-worker can replace a colleague somewhere else in the
system and it’s moreover impossible to get a full overview of the whole administrative system.
Proposition: In order to establish a more unified organisational culture and to provide basic
conditions for better efficiency, mutual learning, better work environment and less stress it’s
suggested that several administrative groups are established within the college i.e educational
administrators with economy-, educational- and HR- expertise as well as information officers and
a secretariat. Each administrative group should meet with corresponding officers and managers
from the central administration once a month during semesters. The objective for the meetings
should be coordination of the functions within the group, the establishment of common routines
and to prepare and inform about issues to HS, KU, ÄR, the presidents’ decision, the KU12 chairs’
10
The ÄR is described in detail under, Educational board and working committee, page 10 forward
The IS-organisation is described in the following section, page 18 forward
12
The KU-organisation is described on page 27 forward
11
18
decision, the head of department’s decision and decisions to be taken by the chief administrative
officer. This would be a more specialised form of meeting as compared the current Operations
forum and would replace it. The meetings should be short, not more than 2 hours in the afternoon
just before the end of the day and held the same time for all circles which would facilitate the
possibility to gather the support functions within Konstfack to a meeting, at least once a year.
The annual meeting could be concluded with speech held by the president, the professors or
anyone who could convey interesting information about any burning topic at the college. These
meetings could also involve culinary aspects.
Interdisciplinary studies (IS)
The organisation of Konstfack tends to become more polarised. The institutions hold extremely
strong positions in relation to Konstfack as a whole and this is reflected by the fact that many
institutions have constructed individual solutions, traditions and pedagogic elements which
impedes coordination between institutions. These systems have sometimes been established in
conflict with central regulations and recommendations. This is particularly obvious is the relation
between IS and other institutions.
Ever since the last extensive re-organisation, i.e. in perspective of the whole period after the war,
there has been a deep frustration within Konstfack about the inconsistency and the lack of real
exchange between institutions/groups. Even if it has been disguised in other terms and
sometimes described in terms of unwillingness or wrong competence, it is obvious that the
problem rests in the organisational structure. Unless organisational requirements are put in place
exchange will remain impossible. It’s all about cooperation within the structure and it’s only
achieved if the structure is consistent /attuned.
This may have been the reason why Färg and Form, founded in 1983, was established. The
objective was to establish a joint institution for the basic art programme and to provide readiness
training which formerly had been included in the group programmes. Färg och Form offered an
organisational focal point where the students, independent of their programmes could interact,
exchange experiences and knowledge with other students during a third of their total programme.
This ideal construction was however immediately challenged when it came to coordination of the
schedules – from reasons presented above. IS currently has no such ambitions and instead offers
specially designed courses, both classic artistic readiness training and more elaborate current
educational projects upon the request of individual institutions. The originally planned focal
points between different student groups are given up. One question does remain – if this
fundamental ambition cannot be realised, how can this current organisation be justified?
Wouldn’t it be more efficient if the institutions themselves arranged artistic readiness training so
that their schedules wouldn’t have to be matched with other institutions?
Institutions who send their students to IS have claimed that the quality has been poor and not
relevant for their own programmes. This criticism has been in line with IS’ own findings. The art
institution has moreover found that some of their students already possess the knowledge
provided at IS - even before beginning their studies at Konstfack – or that the classes are doubled
in the framework of FoF and IS.
IS’ function, with regard to budget and student’s (full time studies/achievements per year) is
defined as artistic. This could be interpreted in terms of two different institutions for art studies
within Konstfack.
19
It may established that IS – as focal point for exchange between institutions, for networking and
as the catalyst for artistic cross over projects within Konstfack - has been an almost impossible
mission. It is not realistic to believe that you can solve problems of lacking coordination and
exchange between seven institutions by adding up with another institution. This has rather
contributed to the confusion and the frustration.
IS has moreover – at advanced level – initiated two master groups. EDG – working innovatively
with a new design concept; experience design, and WIRE, which is a curator programme which
formally but not in actuality is arranged jointly with the Art institution. The latter master
programme has no admission this year. Some students are however commencing their second
year this fall.
IS has a number of professors with a doctors degree, teaching at IS, with strong research
ambitions and research strategies, see annex 13.
In addition there are 8 different workshops at IS; mural, painting, sculpture, perception,
carpentry, screen, metal and plastic.
Proposition: The history and theoretical classes should be integrated, in accordance with the
recommendations put forward by Louise Mazanti, under the responsibility of the proposed
Subject boards ÄR. This structure would allow theoretical teachers, professors at IS, to either
become employed by the art institution or the above13 proposed new institution. The contents
would be associated with ÄR which is line with their function.
The EDG master group should be placed under the Subject board for Industrial design, and the
masters’ group WIRE under the Subject board for Art.
Teachers involved with artistic readiness training, sketching etc, should be associated with the
institution for Art where a competence centre for figuration and reproduction is established and
moreover offer courses to all college programmes. If the art institution finds it appropriate they
could accept admission of a number of students as well.
A proposition for the organisation of the workshops and the teachers associated with these are
described under a separate heading14.
The research ambitions at IS should be channelled to KU, which is the unit within Konstfack in
charge of research issues.
Some new concerns - stemming from the reorganisation
1. Konstfack competence
It is reasonable that a student, examined from Konstfack, not only should possess deep
knowledge about her/his own subject area but also be well oriented in the other subjects of the
school. Such an approach should be expressed in the educational plans, annex 6 where the
wording show understanding for the objective of art in society is recurrent within many institutions. This is
the concept behind the joint history and theoretical classes provided at Konstfack.
13
14
See page 17
See page 24 forward, The workshops
20
Professor Louise Mazanti has been very critical to the organisation of this programme and claims
that the very discipline – here indicating art, cratfs and design – should offer its own theoretical
education to the students. This is required to make the disciplines relevant, fruitful and
furthermore integrated with the other educational sequences within the discipline. The
institutions for Art and Ädellab already operate in line with this. But the specialisation has a
negative impact on the general knowledge. General knowledge is a concept which has been
strongly requested by the college as it enhances the level of discussions within the whole college
as well as within the knowledge-/culture sector. This is referred to as the Konstfack competence
Proposition: History and theoretical education should be integrated within the institutions in
accordance with the concepts proposed by professor Louise Mazanti. This will however add yet
another task upon the institutions. The different disciplines should elaborate a new course for
students within other disciplines, with a focus on the development during the past and current
centuries, internationally and nationally, and with presentations of important artists, craftsmen,
designers and image pedagogs with roots in Konstfack. The KU-board should make this more
explicit in the educational plans.
The production of such an extrovert course probably would have beneficial side effects to the
own subject as it outlines a background to the own function. It moreover holds an advocating
element since the management for the subject would need to explain and more explicitly define
important and crucial aspects of the discipline to the general public. The course could surely be
used as a competence development resource for teachers and staff at the college, as well as for
teachers from other colleges and universities, and for the interested general public.
2. Courses and functions at external institutions
More and more students request cross-over project thereby crossing the boundaries of their
subjects. This is reflected in the situation outside Konstfack, where designers, craftsmen and
artists often operate across the limits of the discipline. This makes the requirement for historical
and theoretical general knowledge and orientation even more pertinent and this is in line with the
proposition put forward above. At the same time it’s important to maintain the sovereignty of the
specific subject long enough so that the student gets a firm platform for her/his own search for
knowledge. Too few boundaries and lack of deeper understanding may result in a poor
perception of the subject. This goes not only for students in quest for more knowledge in spite of
vague perceptions of the tradition, it is definitely so for the subject itself and the knowledge
growth associated with the subject. If the subject allows it self to be undermined due to
occasional and not well considered demands then there is a risk that the knowledge related to it
becomes scattered.
A twin track is subsequently required. The subject should be even more highlighted in relation to
its identity and development. This could be achieved by way of offering the professors a more
explicit mandate to report and document the development of the subject within her/his
jurisdiction15. This should however be combined with the opportunity for the students who have
reached a specific basic capacity to cross the boundaries of the subjects if they wish. No college
and definitely no art college should prevent such artistic and/or scientific freedom. Students who
are judged to have a balanced perception of the main subject should be allowed, encouraged, to
independently and critically search for knowledge both within and outside the framework of the
school. This is clearly defined in the initial part of the College Ordinance, article 1. 8 § where it is
stated Education at basic level shall develop the students capacity to make individual and critical assessments and
15
See page 13 forward Professors
21
capacity to independently formulate and solve problems. The article is included as a general objective in all
educations plans in the bachelor programmes at Konstfack, see annex 6. The current, actual,
strong association between subject identity and institution, and the situation at some institutions
which reminds of that between a master and apprentice, is an obstacle to that, pedagogically,
economically and organisationally.
There are only a few exclusive workshops to which external students perhaps should have very
limited access and where the grounds for such limitation lay mainly in security aspects, expensive
machinery or a cratfs so advanced that it takes dedicated training to accomplish. But the current
system with ad hoc access or total exclusion of students not associated to these workshops is not
reasonable.
Proposition: the current system where the academic year is divided into course periods – a
decision taken by the president but not implemented by all institutions with regard to the
bachelor programme – should be established. The implementation should be carefully followed
up starting the academic year 2010/2011. Within this system a number of eligible courses should
be offered at the Bachelor level in line with the Masters level. The eligibility should be mainly
directed towards the second academic year and the KU-board could ensure that it becomes
feasible by way of the education plans. A director of studies for the eligible and joint courses at
the bachelor level should be appointed and associated with the KU-board and the KU-board office;
Department for research and education16 A financial system based on the number of appointed student
and the individual student’s degree of performance17 should be constructed and related to
allocated resources and courses across the institutional boundaries. Means should be allocated for
these courses in the budget frame for the coming years and the system should be connected to
the Ladok-reporting. The new appointed director of studies should be commissioned to
immediately start the process administering those students who intend to apply for a licence for
safe management of the machinery or those who wish to use resources available at other units
than the home-institution – so that this practise may serve as a fundament for an even better
operating system in the future.
Locked up positions are often opened up with the help of financial incentives in combination
with structural changes. Konstfack may allocate and grant special means for courses offered in
one institution to another, the funding could be based on the number of “external students“
participating in the course and the result of their examinations/achievements.
One way opening up the exclusive workshops is to reserve a few places to external students for
educational and/or assistance purpose. All eligible students could compete for the places at the
college once a year. Work samples must be submitted with the application and an account of
what the student wants to achieve. The application is managed by an application board,
consisting of teachers and students at Konstfack. This procedure could open up the most
exclusive workshops, to a very limited number however, external students.
3. Joint educational project
In the beginning of this work I provided an account, describing the tendency towards a
polarisation within Konstfack, both as a whole and between the separate institutions. One way of
strengthening Konstfack, both internally and externally while the whole potential of the college
could be used, which in turn would benefit all different subjects, could be established in way of
16
17
See page 29 forward
See the proposition put forward under the heading Economy, page 35
22
joint educational projects directed at the whole college. This has been carried out in practise by
professor Ronald Jones at IS, according to some accounts.
These projects could investigate current pertinent issues such as existential or humanistic
dilemmas. A professor could take on to formulate this issue jointly with the KU-board. During a
number of weeks the participants would gather in lectures and seminars followed by a period
with individual guidance and where the findings could be presented at an exhibition and with a
catalogue. In this way Konstfack could be perceived not only as a college where individual
student projects are manifested during the Spring exhibition but that it also takes on a
responsibility to participate in a wider discussion where different points of view are highlighted
and questioned. The college could use all of its potential: art, cratfs, design and art pedagogy. The
projects themselves would constitute a symbolic act, strengthening Konstfack and contributing to
strengthen the schools internal identity.
Proposition: The joint schedule structure should allow for gathering all Konstfacks’ educational
programmes in recurrent joint annual projects e.g. constituting an eligible course during the
second year of the bachelor programme, but also open to other college students.
4. Introduction courses
In the beginning of this report an account was provided for the fact that the responsibility for the
symbolic level of Konstfack has been undermined and that its joint history and identity hasn’t
been cared for, neither by the institutions, nor centrally. One occasion where such knowledge
about Konstfack would be expected is in connection with the introduction courses.
Proposition: The introduction courses should be enhanced with a thorough recapitulation of
Konstfacks’ complex history and various identities and it’s importance and position as related to
art, design, cratfs and art pedagogy traditions in Sweden and internationally . The courses could
also be offered to the interested general public and as a subject for professional competence
growth to the Konstfack staff.
Professor Louise Mazanti reported about the students’ varied competence and lack of a common
platform with regard to necessary, basic knowledge and insights of art historical movements and
styles. This offers major problems in the schooling and constitutes a barrier towards a mutual
understanding and a common framework concerning crucial issues of presentation.
Proposition: Konstfack should establish compulsory and thorough introduction courses in the
history of art and style for all students who lack documented expertise. Students may apply for
exemption after being examined. These courses may also be offered as separate courses to
external parties or as a subject for professional competence growth to the TA staff.
Other areas where mutual standards need strengthening
This account has presented a number of situations with lack of coordination, inexplicitness
concerning mandates, different interpretations of decisions and at times, plain obstruction.
Although disheartening, such conditions are not unusual within the academy. There is however
not always a will to correct the inconsistencies. Konstfack should therefore feel proud that these
issues are being addressed.
23
In order to unite Konstfack into one single school unit – where the separate elements may
benefit from and cooperate with each other –some measures are needed, which most certainly
will be perceived as painful within some of the organisations’ units. This is the price for healing
the scattered image which becomes so evident when the organisation is described and assessed.
Creating a new Konstfack, where the college workers feel at home and where the institutions are
regarded as a strategic resource is probably not difficult. The basic conditions are there.
One recurring idea, which becomes apparent in the interviews and the documents, is that
Konstfack should establish more explicit objectives for its operations - objectives, broken down
into programmes and action plans to be evaluated at regular basis. One impression is that the
current objectives were never communicated, seldom backed up and not always respected.
Communication, as well the obvious condition that joint decisions should be followed by all
players, is necessary in order to strengthen the joint organisational culture at Konstfack. The
current situation, with a vast number of disparate forms for how the different elements relate to
the organisation, needs to be revised and some basic principles should be defined centrally in
order to establish a reasonable organisation. Apart from earlier mentioned concepts this involves
the following.
1. A Research and educational strategy for Konstfack 2009-2012, annex 10, should be formulated for the
next financial/academic year stating operations and with action plans with deadlines for follow
up. This should be installed in all sections at Konstfack, from central administration down to
institutional level. The budget work should be to broken down so that it becomes more explicit
where the funds have gone. This should also be done with the objectives and visions formulated
and initiated by the president.
2. Central definition of a minimum number of meetings to be held at Konstfack, including the
institutions, and a time table for when they should be held. This is to facilitate the administrative
exchange but also to allow for an over view to assess if Konstfack has a reasonable level of
bureaucracy. The principle presented in this proposition should be followed; i.e that the same
type of meetings within different institutions should be held at the same time so that all
employees within a unit at Konstfack could be gathered for joint meetings/coordinated when
necessary. This is to facilitate the introduction of common standards and a general view when
needed.
3. A calendar for the coming years’ most important events should be elaborated; budget process,
admissions, examinations, Ladok-reports, course plans and educational plan deadlines, etc.
4. Moreover a general description should be elaborated of what each unit should handle e.g, in a
more elaborate order of delegation. This work has already been initiated. These definitions
should in time become binding for the organisation.
5. The conditions for the scheduling should be made more explicit and adhered to by all
institutions and subjects. These conditions should be evaluated before the planning of the
coming academic year e.g in a conference with all ÄR.
Workshops, Lab and Studio18 I
18
There are many different terms for this type of function within Konstfack, where the term workshop appeal to
all three nominations.
24
The organisation of the workshops and labs does not follow any overall principle and it’s very
inexplicit concerning aspects such as contents, education and budget. An overall principle is
obviously of no self purpose but considering the fact that some workshops’ fail to follow
regulations about accessibility and opening hours and to consider students’ perspectives, the
legitimacy of the workshops need to be questioned. They should be mainstreamed with the
colleges’ overall and comparative perspective. It is currently not possible to introduce any
principles comparisons are impossible.
The workshops are distributed over nine institutions, where IS constitutes a large section. A
consequence of this wide distribution is that no comparative central assessment has been made
about how the workshops could be developed or how the relevance of the workshops might
transform the education at the college, in relation to investments etc. Every institution should
assumingly make such an assessment, but considering the huge turnover for the workshops –
almost a sixth of Konstfacks’ total grant – and considering the important synergy effects, a
central assessment would be desirable. There are also far stretching demands concerning the
working environment etc which also could be mainstreamed for increased efficiency. The latter
aspect is vital in light of increasing environmental demands. The question is whether Konstfack
can deal with the environmental demands in a relevant way as the demands increase and extreme
resources probably are required in the future.
Another aspect is the number of double workshops, which may be considered a waste of
resources and a failure in the light of the colleges’ internal ambitions for cooperation. Institutions
themselves do their own assessments of their investments as related to the costs for the
programme and such estimations may be very difficult when the resources are withdrawn. There
is an obvious risk for workshops falling apart and that investments are postponed or – even more
possible at Konstfack – that the workshop devours resources at the cost of other forms of
education. This becomes clear when you assess the workshop resources in a 10 year perspective
as compared to the professor resource. The latter has been cut down with approximately 30%.
A more all embracing perspective would be welcomed, where teaching and workshop capacity
could be weighed one versus the other. The dominant position of the workshops should also be
tried against Konstfacks’ mission as college, i.e. the relation between its identity as
vocational/cratfs school and the critical capacity which is expected from a college. Is the current
balance reasonable?
It is moreover important to clarify and allow transparency about the 40 million kronor that were
invested in the workshops and with depreciations, in connection with the relocation to
Telefonplan. Were the costs posted on each institution/work shop respectively? That is not the
case currently, and the depreciations are made centrally. This procedure makes it difficult to find
out how much each work shop costs or how much the individual work shop has been allocated.
Similar conditions involve other less important costs, such as the cost for electricity.
Apart from these aspects there are issues which students have highlighted for years, concerning
accessibility. It is reasonable that workshops can’t be immediately accessible to students not
studying the particular subject for which the workshop is aimed. Both security aspects for the
individual and costly equipment which could break down are important arguments against an
immediate access. It does however seem inexplicable that Konstfack, for decades, hasn’t
managed to create a system which could meet the students’ requirements, at least to some extent.
Such a systems needs to be established immediately.
25
Yet another problem is the inexplicitness concerning the functions of some of the professionals
operating in Konstfacks’ workshops, where the pedagogic staff sometimes acts as technicians and
vice versa. It is an inefficient way of using college resources when pedagogic staff has to manage
technicians’ duties when the workshops are put in order. Technicians who teach depiction don’t
always possess the artistic competence which Konstfack calls for in its programmes. Sometimes
the tendency to identify with “your” work shop end up in a situation where other teachers and
even students are excluded from the opportunity to use the work shop resources.
A rough estimation reveals that Konstfacks’ workshops are managed by 12 full-time employees.
There is no joint view considering what competence the supervisor of a work shop at Konstfack
should require. There are senior lecturers, lecturers, called in lecturers and technicians managing
work shops. Licences for safe management may be approved by technicians or senior lecturers,
lecturers or called in lecturers. Sometimes the responsibility of a full time technician is shared
between a lecturer and technician, some times not. It is reasonable that the technicians should be
considered as teachers when they teach a class and then get duly paid for it. But basic information
about how to handle the machines, security information etc. should perhaps be questioned as
educational topic at college level.
Some of Konstfacks’ workshops are almost completely associated with its subject identity. In
combination with the strong security aspects and expensive machinery these workshops get a
very specific position.
Ulrica Bohné is currently carrying out an investigation about the workshops and some extracts
from her first report are attached in annex 11. I have no desire or intention to forestall her
conclusions, but here follows a proposition with some aspects worth considering. A report from
former building manager Ulf Svensson who also questions the position of the technicians in
included in annex 12.
Proposition: This proposition also distinguishes support functions from subject contents. The
IS’ workshop section should be transformed into a workshop organisation assisting all of
Konstfack. All other workshops under Konstfack should be brought to the same unit. The new
organisation should be mainstreamed to keep workshops in operation and open, supervise the
working environment, provide data for repairs and investments and to convey information to
teachers, students about how the machines should be operated, material function and
maintenance. Joint guidelines for what should be considered education versus information should
be formulated by the KU-board, the HR-section and should be checked up against the trade
unions. The work shops should be manned in line with these recommendations. The work shop
management should be defined in line with the recommendations and supervision should be
considered pedagogic work.
The work shop organisation should be manned with a technician pool of existing staff, where the
individual technicians will get overlapping tasks and on-call duty for a number of workshops so
that they can replace each other if necessary. An experienced supervisor should be employed.
The skill is decisive due to the fact that the task is comparable to managing an institution at
Konstfack, in this case including the responsibility for 43 workshops and some 10-billion
turnover (currently approx. 25 billion, a sixth of Konstfacks’ total grant). The supervisor as well
as the workshops and the labs, will be under the direction of the chief administrative officer19 but
the supervisor is responsible towards the head of departments (institutions /programmes
19
Terms of reference for the administrative manager is described on page 34
26
/subjects) who require the workshops for classes in accordance with the programmes and
curricula.
The grant for the workshops, its annual budget and depreciations/investments, are prepared by
the presidents’ management board20 in connection with the annual budget discussion, where the
head of departments and the chief administrative officer and chair of the KU-board participate.
A long term, 5-10 years – investment plan should be elaborated and revised annually. The KUboard should decide the most relevant - at long term - workshop profile once a year for
Konstfacks range of programmes and propose any changes required. Criteria should be
developed for the assessment such as frequent use, cost versus college grades, relevance based on
artistry, cratfs or design in line with the criteria formulated by Ulrica Bohné.
The pedagogic staff should be separated from the support function of the workshops and instead
associated with the institution-programme-subject with most relevance for the direction required
by the student. Courses, licence for safe management and other functions should be included in
the education plans, compulsory or eligible. One system for all Konstfack with regard to work
shop courses within the programmes, eligible and separate courses, on-call hours and individual
guidance should be established jointly between the director of studies for the basic education
(bachelor and separate courses) and the director of studies at the masters’ level and the
institutions’ head of departments/programme administrators and the economic department. A
pool should be considered here as well, where the teachers, perhaps after competence growth,
could teach and offer guidance within various workshops. The KU-board should establish the
system. The workshops should be open to all Konstfack students. The requirement for access is a
course for safe management, where some – if necessary – are conditioned to be used only under
the supervision and responsibility of a more experienced student, technician or teacher.
The workshops or labs whose representatives perceive the function as un-separable from a
subject or claiming that there are strong environmental reasons for exceptions, may apply for
exemption from this proposed organisation. The application will be duly tried by a group of
independent experts and students, who shall provide the president with recommendations on
how this workshop should be defined by Konstfack. Workshops and labs which are provided the
special status by the president, shall be tasked to develop a system where courses for safe
management are offered once a year to a very limited number of students. The students may
apply for this course and shall be accepted on basis of competition.21 Other workshops shall be
open to all students in line with the above.
The manager shall be commissioned to establish cooperation with the Royal Art College so that
the responsibility for some workshops may be shared and students from both schools offered to
use them. The workshops should also be offered to professionals. The possibility of opening the
workshops against payment for artists and other external players for their own production should
be investigated.
Workshops, Labs and Studio II
When Konstfack recently relocated there was no long term outlined evaluation of which
workshops to maintain. The existing structure was moved as it stood at Valhallavägen, premises
were rented and huge resources were put down in order to maintain or enhance the quality of
20
21
The presidents’ management board, see page 33
See page 21
27
each workshop as compared to the one at Valhallavägen. This in combination with the fact that
the workshops lie under the responsibility of the institutions has led to a situation where the
workshops very seldom have been put to a real test of how the function could be made more
efficient. System reasons have made it impossible to compare programme resources. All
functions within Konstfack have received reduced grants for a 10 year period and the most
obvious result is seen in the fewer number of teachers and professors. The financial statements
haven’t made the picture any clearer. The 40 million kronor investment for the workshops in
connection with the relocation to Telefonplan does not charge the accounts of the institutions,
instead it’s stated centrally in the budget.
Can Konstfack really afford the current number of work shops? It has been a very difficult
question to answer and this is due to the system the workshops have been organised and the way
the financing is stated as well as how the grants are allocated.
Proposition: the cost for the workshops should be weighed against other forms of education
and supervision in line with the model proposed above. One way of making the function more
efficient could be to require that the 43 workshops save resources. The need for saving would
demand priorities of the most urgent functions. The funds thereby released should be allocated
for the purpose of education and research, more teachers and professors, see above for reference.
The KU-board (The Board for artistic development work)
1. The Konstfack unit with the strongest impact on the contents of the education is the
KU-board. Laws and ordinances state that the KU-board holds responsibility both for the artistic
development work and the programmes at basic and advanced levels. The KU-board takes
decisions about education plans and prepares decisions about employments, occasionally in way
of an Associate teacher proposition board which is a KU associated committee. The KU-board
allocates funds and governs the doctoral programme and the research function. In light of this
it’s natural to consider the KU-board as the professors’ unit. The college ordinance stipulates that
the board shall be appointed through elections and that the chair and vice chair are appointed by
the president after proposition from the teachers (based on the outcome of the election). A
nominations committee must propose the composition of the board. At the Stockholm colleges
Teaterhögskolan (Theatre college), Kungl. Musikhögskolan (Royal Academy of Music), Kungl.
Konsthögskolan (Royal Academy of Art) as well as Konstfack the chair of the board is appointed
among the professors.
The professors at Konstfack tend to have avoided being appointed to KU. The reasons being
lack of time, prioritizing the own functions in the institution and its students, etc. It is however a
harmful development which diminishes the legitimacy of the KU-board itself and of Konstfack
as a college. The professors’ disinterest in participating in the KU-board is moreover enhanced by
the polarisation between institutions and Konstfack centrally, as described before.
The terms of operation for Konstfack don’t clearly state where the final decisions should be
taken concerning establishment and cutting down of educational programmes.
Proposition: in order to counteract this situation the president should develop an instruction to
the KU nominations’ committee about the capacity required for its members. The nominations’
committee should be required to ensure that one professor each from the areas art-, cratfs-,
design- and art pedagogy sit in the board. In order to ensure correct representation over time a
principle should be developed e.g. formulated so that a mixed responsibility from senior and
junior professors is maintained. It is crucial that newly employed professors join KU in order to
28
promote a sense of responsibility for the entire school and to familiarize with all of its functions.
The participation of the professors’ need additional funds and these should be allocated and
drawn from the KU-boards’ own grant. There may be reason to draw some of the funds from
the educational grant for basic and advanced levels, due to the fact that the board is responsible
for the matters relating to the subjects’ contents at all levels. The fact, that the president appoints
the chair and vice chair of the board, requires check up routines/communication between the
president and nominations’ committee.
The order of delegation should clarify the different terms of responsibility and clarify mandates
concerning the establishment and cutting down of educational programmes. .It is reasonable to
suggest that the KU-board formulates the subjects’ contents, and that the president makes the
assessment whether there are financial means and with the Board, taking the final decision.
The KU-board II; exchange between research and education
As earlier stated, the legal focal point for education and research lies with the KU-board. When
running through the KU-board protocols it becomes clear that the board manages many of its
tasks with great responsibility, high quality and strong integrity. Nevertheless, it can be noted that
parts of the responsibilities are organised outside the boards’ immediate jurisdiction. Konstfacks’
organisational scheme reveals that the institutions’ educational boards – which are proposed to
be transformed into subject boards, ÄR in this report – are the KU-board’s counterparts. The
coordination of the master education is however organised under the central administration i.e. it
follows the organisational domicile of the director of studies and lies under the Department for
education and information. Research on the other hand is mostly organised under the Unit for research
administration and external relations.
Proposition: In order to facilitate integration and exchange between the different educational
levels and to make the functions clearer and more efficient it would be reasonable to have these
tied closer to the KU-board or to the institutions. That would allow Konstfack to install two
levels for programmes and research; KU-board and ÄR. Both levels should deal with educational
and research matters although with slightly different functions as the ÄR would prepare issues
and operate advisory to the head of department22, while the KU-board would take the decisions.
More levels or initiatives apart from these units would risk confusion of the kind already existing
in the current organisational structure, i.e. unsatisfactory coordination, lacking overview and poor
synergies.
In my interviews it has become evident that the research units lack coordination. Currently three
different, relatively strong initiatives are running at the college. The KU-board is the governing
board for them, mainly in relation to the programmes. External relations23 govern the external
research projects which are located at Konstfack – often with vague associations to the
institutions. IS has an active group of doctoral researchers aiming at developing various research
projects independent of other players24. Once the institutions’ professors’ realize that immense
resources and time for research could be conquered from VR, a new interest will surely rise for
research.
22
For suggestions concerning the responsibility of the head of departments see page 11 forward
External relations should get a different organisational position starting . 1 Sept 2009, which is not presented
in this proposition
24
For some draft research strategies developed by IS professors, see annex 13
23
29
Unless coordination takes place, Konstfack will soon face a situation with at least 11 different
players with different agendas and different initiatives which may scatter the operations or end up
in conflict with each other. It’s hard to draw the line once you are there and to make associations
between institutions, their programmes, Konstfack as a whole, as well as the integrity of the
scientists. It’s difficult to avoid that the whole thing ends up in a total mess without any strategic
potential whatsoever. The legal and natural coordinator for this should be the KU-board and this
should be made more explicit. This could perhaps serve as an incentive on the professors’
preparedness to join the board.
In the initial phase of this process it’s also decisive to define strategic boundaries. Konstfack and
its institutions need to consider what they perceive most important and – perhaps above all –
how this research can contribute to the growth of knowledge at the institutions. Too wanton
bonds with the different research projects risk creating more long term problems, such as less
knowledge growth, negative impact on exchange programmes for the institutions’ bachelor -,
masters’- and doctoral programmes. It could also affect the presentation of the results – an
outstanding presentation is the prerequisite for new projects from the same sponsors.
Proposition: The main responsibility for the research function which formerly was organised
under the External relations should be referred back to the KU-board and its office. One officer
should be appointed and made responsible for research issues as well as for presenting them to
the board. The head of department and the ÄR jointly should formulate a research strategy for
the future. The already existing research projects should be more integrated in the institutions
than currently.
The coordination and the director of studies for the masters’ programme, formerly under The
department for education and information should also be brought under the KU-board office, where
preparations and presentations should be even better clarified. A similar construction should be
established for the doctoral and the basic programmes (bachelor and separate courses). This
would moreover have an impact on the current Department for education and information25
The research initiative formulated at IS becomes integrated under KU.
The task of coordinating the institutions’ programmes and to organise joint events needs to be
commissioned to the KU-board and its office. The main task would be to create a joint scheme for
all institutions which would facilitate the introduction of eligible courses at all educational levels.
This work should be carried out in close cooperation with the central programme administration
and the institutions in accordance with the scheme presented earlier in this report. Another task
should be the coordination of the theoretical classes offered by the different institutions, see
above.
This would allow the KU-board to take on some of the responsibility for the joint classes which
earlier lay on IS. Another outcome is that the KU-structure needs to be extended with an office
and some of the former IS administrative resources need to cooperate with the new workshop
organisation and KU.
The new mission for the KU-board will be extensive. In the order of delegation the responsibility
should be given the chair so that minor decisions could be taken recurrently. The same procedure
is proposed for the president, head of department and chief administrative officer. The board
25
See page 30
30
may convene more seldom, e.g. not more than once a month during semesters, i.e 7-9 meetings a
year. The current 20% commission for the chair would probably need to be enhanced.
The KU-board has taken the initiative to documentation and publication of parts of the function,
an initiative financially covered by the overall grant. This should be developed into the general
programme documentation at Konstfack, in close cooperation with the institutions and the
professors, as well as the library. A plan for how to compile a number of the theses should also
be elaborated and implemented. Methods for this are presented elsewhere in this report.26
The Central administration
The organisation of the central administration does not reflect the responsibilities shared
between the KU-board, the institutions and the mandate for the central administration. There is a
risk for ambiguity, in particular for The department for education and information and The unit for research
administration and external relations. There is a director of studies, associated with the master
programme, but it’s not reasonable that the central administration should bear the responsibility
for running programmes in line with the status of the institution.
The office of the KU-board belongs to The unit for research administration and external relations. This
relation does not concord with the mandate of the KU-board, as the College ordinance states
that – as long as no other unit is established – the responsibility for education at basic, advancedand doctoral levels as well as for research functions, i.e all issues with reference to contents,
should lie on the KU board.
Another remarkable aspect is the fact that the research coordinator does not seem to belong to
the KU-board or its office. In addition to that, the work tasks related to the basic education and
the advanced levels seem to be shared between two organisational units, i.e. between the
Institutions and The department for education and information. Apart from the fact that this may result in
double work, there are problems with how to draw a line between them. Other risks are poor
efficiency and a risk for under mining the intention in the College ordinance about creating
conditions for exchange between basic education and research.
The background to this organisation may surely be sought from pragmatic, administrative and
perhaps organic reasons; the organisation has grown out of necessity. Given the common
perceptions provided in a number of studies and in the interviews upon which this report is
based there are strong reasons to consider a reorganisation to make the structure more easy to
grasp and more efficient.
Proposition: one relatively easy move would be to gather all issues related to education and
research into one organisational unit, associated to the KU-board, e.g. within the KU-board office,
the Department for research and programmes. The existing Department for education and information should
instead deal with research- and educational issues in a specific unit and the presidents secretary,
information officer, web editor and service should get a new organisational domicile, e.g. mainly
within the presidents office while The unit for research administration and external relations should be
included in the new programme and research department.
26
See pages 31 and 32
31
The duties formerly called quality officer work should include both preparations for educational
issues within the bachelor programme, as well as equality-, diversity-, course evaluations and
quality issues as well as holding the function of secretary in the Board. The quality officer duties
should be shared between the new department and the presidents’ office. These new positions
are proposed to be placed under the presidents’ office and issues related to education (bachelor,
course evaluations) should be referred to the new proposed department under their staff.
The library, as well as the central administration lies under various departments, currently directly
under the president. This position is remarkable given the close association with the educational
contents. The library should ideally be placed closer to the KU-board and it is proposed that the
library is moved to the KU-boards office, research and educational department. The chief librarian should
also be called in to the KU-board. The library should moreover be given an increased mandate
for the documentation of the education and Konstfacks’ operations, based on the KU-boards
standards, and to include the documentation into its archives.
KU-boards office, research and educational department
The manager for the research and programmes, (could be split in two parts where one is
managing the whole unit and e.g. the current manages The department for education and information),
reports to the KU-board
KU-board secretary
Research coordination
Doctoral programme coordination
Master programme coordination
Under graduate coordination (bachelor and separate courses)
Library, documentation of Konstfacks’ operations and programme archive, art data base
Students’ office – in charge of documentation of studies (Ladok), some of the tasks associated
with admissions and examinations, the international unit
Alumni
Transit
Konstfack partners/commissioned programmes
The management secretariat (The Board, the president and the chief administrative officer)
The president
Chief administrative officer (supervisor of supervisors in the central administration and the
secretariat of the management)
The president and the administrative management secretary, the registrar and officer in charge
Authority archive
Information officer (strategy), information officer (operational)
Web editor /web master
Quality officer
Building and IT- department
The buildings – maintenance, service, cleaning, reception, switchboard, sales, deliverances - work
sample handling
The IT- unit
32
Joining the infrastructural units above, into one single department would be a natural move. On
the other hand - given the recently carried out organisational restructuring, including recruitments
of new managers - it is not reasonable to take such radical steps at this moment. It is therefore
suggested that the IT- department remains intact while the Building department should take on
the responsibility for the reception, etc.
The department for Human resources
The HR- department is the unit which receives most acclaim from all respondents in the
interviews. In connection with the restructuring of the institutional support functions, it should
be considered whether any HR-staff could be more associated with the institution and
decentralised, so that HR competence at institutional levels may be developed. The proposed
new institutional organisation where six become one could bear its own HR-resources. Art and
BI should be able to share one post.
Economy department
The economy department currently holds four full time employees. In line with the HRdepartment it should be considered if any of the posts could be more directly associated and
decentralised to the institutional level, in order to enhance the economical competence. The need
for such competence will increase once the SUHF decision is implemented, which will imply
separate financial statements of all costs at the college. The propositions concerning the
economy27put forward in this document will moreover – if adopted by the Konstfacks’ HS –
increase the need for economical competence at institutional levels.
Another topic seldom brought up these days but more and more urgent in the future, is the lack
of documentation of Konstfack operations, both institutional as well as professors’ and students’
operations. The president or the KU-board should initiate such documentation. KU-works is
another crucial aspect and some the student’s final works should possibly be purchased and
incorporated into the already rich, important and historical collection in Konstfack’s possession.
Routines should be established jointly with the Freemasons or some other benefactor. Older
collections would moreover need attendance and categorization. There are daunting stories of
how this cultural heritage has been handled at the college and that makes the issue even more
burning. Some elements found in the archives could surely be utilized to offer new and
stimulating perspectives of the Konstfack history and importance, as well as for introductory
purposes in the education. External researchers and art experts and others could moreover
benefit from the works in the archives, should they be made more accessible.
Proposition: The president or the KU-board, commissioned by the president, should take the
initiative to elaborate a programme for how the documentation of the operations should be
implemented and for how the archives and the collections could be categorized and made
accessible to the public. Another possibility is that the Library should be commissioned the task
for elaborating guidelines for documentation, archiving and implementation of these functions.
BI has proposed that one person should be appointed, for this task which in turn could be shared
with other art colleges.
Professors meeting
27
See page 35 forward
33
A remarkable detail at Konstfack is the fact that the professors, seem to have abdicated from
their most influential position, the KU-board and that there is a parallel organisation called the
professors meeting, a staff meeting which formerly had decision making power. The chair of the
meeting is the president. Once this fact was highlighted by the college legal expert Anders
Stening and the status of the professors meeting was found to be decisive, it was deemed
inappropriate, and the formal status of the professors’ meetings was redefined to become an
advisory board to the president. Even if the decision making capacity has been reduced it is
difficult to understand the necessity to have both a KU-board and a staff meeting with the
professors. In the line organisation the KU-board has almost unrestricted mandate over the
contents in the programmes, the artistic development work and the research. It does seem
strange that the professors’ should not aspire to have such a mandate, particularly in the light of
the fact that they formerly dedicated time to another more feeble construction. In my opinion the
advisory professors’ meetings strengthens the informal power within Konstfack, it becomes more
inexplicit and the line of decision becomes very vague.
Proposition: The professors’ meeting as a formal organisation comes to an end and the
professors should instead take on duties in the KU-board, which constitutes their natural
influential platform28. The professors are obviously free to meet whenever they require, it is
however the excluding construction of the meeting which in my view offers an old fashioned and
non-dynamic impression. Why not gather all the teachers – those who are involved in matters of
contents – to a joint staff meeting? The president can naturally continue convening with the
professors but– in order to stick to the line organisation – include their supervisors, the head of
departments, to the meetings.
The presidents management group, the central administration
The current management group consists of the president, the pro-president, the KU-board chair,
the economy manager, HR-manager, educational manager and information officer. This group
has an over representation of staff from the central administration, at the cost of a perspective
towards contents. A well known and classic tension within the academy is the one between the
two perspectives administration and contents, a tension which in its most destructive form can
develop into mutual animosity and paralysing incomprehension. This is not the case at Konstfack
currently but there are some tendencies towards that.
I have earlier mentioned that the difference between Konstfack as a whole and its institutions as
separate entities isn’t as dynamic as one should wish. The president should, if possible, collect
advice from all parties concerned before taking decisions. Those who aren’t directly involved
should be informed about the discussions concerning specific issues at hand by their supervisors.
The professors have a wide spread responsibility for the contents of the education and its
objectives. The composition of the management group moreover has a great symbolic
importance. It is crucial that the whole function of Konstfack is reflected. All these aspects
should be considered when a management group is assembled.
28
See page 27
34
In this context it’s important to stress that it’s the president – jointly with HS – who has the
mandate to take decisions and to speak in the name of Konstfack. This is why the management
group should be called management board instead. It should also be stressed that the president has
sovereign mandate to appoint the management organisation which, as a consequence cannot be
stipulated by the HS based on this proposition.
Proposition: The presidents’ management group should be transformed into a presidents’
management board with the following members: the president, the pro-president - the presidents’
substitute (who should be a professor), the KU-board chair (who should be a professor), the
institutional head of departments, the chief administrative officer/or corresponding official,
information manager and student representative appointed by the student union. The chief
administrative officer sets up the agenda jointly with the president. The information manager is
the secretary of the management board. The board should convene every second week, hold
short meetings and with compulsory attendance.
The presidents management board should mainly deal with strategic considerations and
administrational aspects concerning Konstfack as a whole, and moreover to discuss critical issues
and matters of principle for the college. Issues of minor importance and of information should
be avoided. The discussion should be held in an open and assertive atmosphere and the topics
should remain within the venue where it is held. Other officials could be called in to present
specific issues, such as financial or major HR-issues.
Chief administrative officer
Presently the president holds a detailed management responsibility for the central administration.
The president supervises the managers of The department for education and information, Economy-, HR-,
Building- and IT- departments, as well as External relations and Library. Apart from being a very heavy
task it also dislocates the focus of the presidents’ work towards administration of the current
organisation instead of the required focus on issues of educational contents and strategic
planning for the future. Many other schools have an chief administrative officer, or university- or
college director, a position which also is expected to provide for more continuity than that for a
president. The presidents’ mandate is time limited. Konstfack should consider a similar
organisation, where an chief administrative officer/or corresponding position get the
responsibility for the management for the central administration’s managers.
Proposition: Konstfack establishes a position called chief administrative officer or College
director. The mission includes supervision of the current managers of the central administration
with one exception; Library. The library’s close association with the contents of the education
makes it more relevant to associate it with the KU-board and under the KU-boards office, and its research
and programme department. The chief administrative officer becomes member of the presidents’
management board and supervisor for the management’s secretariat.
The chief administrative officer, just like the president, head of department and the KU-board’s
chair, should hold decisive meetings with issues under her/his jurisdiction in line with the order
of delegation. These meetings should be held every second week as outlined above for the other
boards. Students should participate in the preparation of the decisions pertaining to them.
Decisions should be reported to the president, the head of departments and the KU-board.
Depending on the character of the issues, the decisions should be prepared in the proposed
circles and/or by the managers for the different administrative departments i.e. the managements’
secretariat, economy, HR, KU-board office/research and programme department (issues of
35
educational contents should however be prepared by the KU-board), buildings, IT, workshop
organisation. The chief administrative officer should also gather these managers for regular
follow-up meetings.
The president should in the future be the direct supervisor for the following officials;
institutional head of departments and the chief administrative officer, as well as superior to the
pro-president and the chair of the KU-board. The two latter will however have their closest
supervisors in other parts of the organisation and subsequently carry out salary and development
growth discussions with them.
Operational forum
Three proposed new reforms shall replace the need for an Operational forum. The units for
economy, HR, education, information and the institutional secretariat, moreover the head of
departments’ and the students’ representation in the presidents’ management board and finally
the appointment of an chief administrative officer, shall hold the task of coordinating and
presenting the data to the president. This data shall be prepared in the different units and under
the person in charge for the central administration of each unit.
Proposition: The Operational forum should come to an end
Economy
Konstfack’s economy is well handled and the economy manager holds a capacity which is not
shared by all economists, namely to envision the contents in the figures he deals with. This
proposition should therefore not be regarded as criticism and instead as recommendations for
future possible improvements. The criticism brought forward in the interviews mainly dealt with
issues of transparency in the budget process.
Konstfack’s commission from the Department of Education allows for a maximum settlement of
the grant within the budget year equalling some 610 student submissions. Every submission
receives a reimbursement corresponding to the specific educational programme - whether it’s art,
design or teachers’ education and the funds are allocated accordingly. Each submission quota is
settled at the end of the financial year, in two more or less equal parts. Full year student (hst),
implies that the student is registered with Konstfack. A full year achievement (hpr), means that
the students’ work has been acknowledged by the college. This in turn is reported to the
Department of Education. Konstfack is allowed to examine 10% fewer hst/hpr during one year
under the condition that these are recaptured the following year. Should the deficit prevail two
succeeding years then the corresponding amount may be withdrawn from the colleges’ next
biannual grant by the Department of education. Over achievements do not render any
compensation but may be cashed in against under-achievements the following year.
At some occasions Konstfack has achieved less than commissioned; 2001, 2003 and 2008. As the
years ahead of these had over achievements, there were no sanctions from the Department of
education. There may however be a break in the trend shortly. Some institutions have fewer
36
students compared to the prognostics. A deficit may get far reaching consequences due to the
system where students receive admission for a three or two year period. Unless next years
admission compensates for the lost ones and the school subsequently receives larger number of
students it could result in a far reaching under-production.
In the case of Konstfack this is an extremely sensitive situation due to two reasons. One is the
extraordinarily high rate of students applying for artistic educations which makes it difficult to
explain why you cannot fill up the places. Secondly there are strong political forces who wish to
withdraw the number of artistic programmes with reference to the labor market. The latter is an
extremely dubious argument but nevertheless a dangerous perception held by people with
influence.
Many other schools have sought to find ways of counteracting the threat of under-production by
being more explicit in their model for allocating funds within the college. The most common
model is however to stick to the departments’ template with some minor adjustments.
Proposition: The Board should specify a specific number of hst/hpr per budget year and
instruct the institutions accordingly. The institutions are allowed 5% under- over
production/year[1], and the deficit/surplus will be passed on to the next coming year. Should the
deficit be repeated more than two subsequent years then funds shall be withdrawn from the
institution. The reason for stating 5% instead of 10% is simply to create a safe margin. This is
due to the fact that a deficit not only has bearing on the total financial grant, it also constitutes a
crucial political defeat which reduces the colleges’ freedom of action for a long time.
The reading of hst/hpr is made against the Ladok-registration. This usually makes institutions
more motivated to register all forms of teaching, all courses and all participants. This also tends
to lessen the teachers’ work load once the work becomes perceptible in this way. But the system
requires regular reporting to Ladok, immediately after examination and with a report to the
institution about the state of affairs. This information is important, both for the admission work
and the planning of the following academic year, as these occasions offer the best opportunity for
correcting possible anomalies. One way of handling this could be to connect the reporting to the
tertiary periods’ balance of accounts. The reporting could be paralleled to the financial follow up
and considered just as important. The students are the fundament for all our functions and
thanks to them the college receives its financial grants.
The current accounting system does not allow full transparency concerning the allocation of the
costs between the central administration and the institutions. One example is the deductions in
the central administration, the 80 million kronor which were invested in connection with the
relocation to Telefonplan (of which 40 million kronor were allocated for the workshops). The
cost for the buildings is not explicitly stated for the institutions. The central administration
moreover has costs which are withdrawn before the grants are allocated to the institutions. This
indicates a ”top-down” perspective and makes it difficult for the institutions to interpret the
budget.
The head of departments find it difficult to analyse the size of the deductions for one specific
workshop or how much they contribute to the central administration.
Proposition: All the colleges’ incomes should be reported to the institutions as per student
admission. The institution itself, ”pays” the rent for its share of the workshop organisation and
for its share of the central administration, library, etc. in a perceptible manner. Such a system
37
would be more in line with the how the college receives its grants from the Department of
Education and it would offer better transparency.
It must be pointed out that a revision of the accounting system in order to increase the
transparency may not affect the financial result. The idea is to allow units to get the same funding
as before but the incomes and costs should be easily perceptible in the statements at all levels.
Another way of making the budget work more transparent is to establish a system for budget
dialogues between the school- and institutional management. The budget dialogue would, above
all, offer a good opportunity for both parties to transform strategic considerations into reality.
A feasible starting point for the dialogue could be Konstfack’s and its institutional research and
programme strategies and a prognosis from Ladok presenting the break down of hst and hpr
respectively over the year. Other topics could involve a joint follow-up of the different costs,
costs for students, staff, workshops, investments, premises, administration, library etc.
The financial procedures need to follow a fixed scheme which is followed year by year. The
decisive budget dialogue as presented above should be held before the budget reports are handed
over for decision by the Board.
Teacher education program - BI
The Department of education currently is in the process of formulating a proposition concerning
teacher education, and there are indications towards a major reorganisation of the function once again. These changes may have an effect on the BI-programme and its future position in
Konstfacks’ organisation. In its evaluations, the National Agency for Higher Education
(Högskoleverket) has requested increased integration of BI into other Konstfack units. Since
nothing has been decided I avoid mentioning the position of BI in this proposition.
An important clarification
Nothing in this proposition aims at cutting down staff. The objective of the proposed
reorganisation is to converge the functions, hence enhancing the quality. Thanks to increased
specialisation and explicitness, by offering opportunities for mainstreaming, by way of avoiding
the stress of having a vast number of divergent work tasks and by way of creating a system where
more persons can cover up for each other e.g. during illness. The main objective is to increase the
work satisfaction.
Conclusion
My task was critically formulated, see annex 1[2]. That is why this presentation has a critical
stance. With another outlook this report could just as well have been a perfect praise of the
school. The reader should keep in mind that it takes courage, self awareness, frankness and
perhaps above all, strong self confidence as a school – or as the management of the college – to
allow such a critical stance to ones’ own function. That in itself indicates a strong will and a
powerful potential for change, an undertaking to not settle for less. Konstfack shares many of the
problems described in this text with many other schools. It is however far from common to
discuss them openly. For this confidence – both for itself and for others – this 166-year old
college deserves great respect.
38
Stockholm 2009-08-31
Hans Hedberg
The current model allows the institution to pass on 3% of a surplus; deficits always need to be balanced against
the coming years budget
[2] After having concluded this report I may establish that one important perspective is lacking in my
investigation: the effect of the internationalisation and the fact that the school is bilingual.
39