Strategy
2010:
Not
a
rebellion,
just
a
call
for
action
This
is
not
an
attempt
at
a
rebellion,
because
I
strongly
believe
that
the
new
Rectorate
means
well
and
will
reach
far
in
their
work
with
the
long‐term
strategy
for
UiO.
It
is,
however,
a
call
for
action
to
those
who
do
not
want
to
spend
their
time
on
a
30­page
document
with
rather
complicated
language
and
even
more
time
on
formulating
their
own
comments
in
a
web
form
before
sending
them
off
to
an
uncertain
future.
Through
this
call
for
action,
I
hope
to
gain
support
in
a
plea
for
a
thorough
trimming
and
simplification
of
the
contents
in
the
so‐called
Green
Paper
consultation
document
for
UiO’s
strategy
2010‐2020.
If
you
find
the
following
comments
reasonable,
feel
free
to
cut
and
paste
those
parts
you
want
into
your
issue
of
the
web
form
at
https://nettskjema.uio.no/answer.html?fid=42711&lang=en.
Or,
if
you
agree
with
pretty
much
everything
stated
here,
simply
attach
this
document
to
an
email
to
mailto:strategi2020@uio.no,
stating
that
you
support
the
attached
statement.
For
simplicity,
this
document
is
written
to
match
the
order
of
the
questions
in
the
web
form.
1.1
What
are
you
comments
to
these
challenges
and
to
the
description
of
them?
Do
you
consider
these
challenges
to
be
the
right
ones?
Will
surmounting
them
contribute
to
improving
UiO
and
to
the
achievement
of
UiOs
ambitions
over
the
next
few
years?
It
is
somewhat
strange,
if
you
consider
it,
that
each
of
the
six
(6!)
“main
goals”
have
exactly
one
main
challenge.
In
general,
a
main
goal
might
have
many
large
challenges
associated
with
it
–
or
none.
I
believe
this
is
a
symptom
that
the
structure
has
taken
a
front
seat
in
the
writing
process,
with
some
collateral
damage.
The
document
clearly
wants
to
please
everyone,
irrespective
of
what
kinds
of
structural
or
linguistic
exercise
has
to
be
performed
to
do
so.
This
is
exemplified
by
the
following
statement
(Dokumentet
bærer
også
preg
av
at
alle
skal
gjøres
til
lags,
alt
skal
med,
uansett
hva
slags
språklige
og
strukturelle
krumspring
som
må
til.
Eksemplifisert
ved
følgende
merkelige
utsagn
(avsnitt
50,
s.
12)
:
"
The
strategic
solution
may
be
to
adapt
the
university’s
priorities
to
external
priorities
(for
example
at
European
or
national
level)
in
order
to
strengthen
autonomy
and
the
ability
to
take
part
in
processes
where
influence
is
to
be
exerted
on
the
university’s
own
terms.
However,
this
requires
not
only
competence
but
also
adaptability
within
the
organization.."
Thus:
Adaptation
of
internal
priorities
to
external
priorities
in
order
to
strengthen
autonomy?
I
have
yet
to
find
a
single
person
who
thinks
this
makes
sense.
Are
these
challenges
the
right
ones?
No,
not
as
“main
challenges”.
To
make
a
list
of
main
challenges
in
a
strategic
plan
effective,
it
has
to
be
short
enough
and
unifying
enough
that
everyone
can
live
by
it,
every
day,
and
contribute
to
solutions
that
brings
us
closer
to
achieving
the
overarching
objective.
One
should
rather
use
terms
like
“techniques”
or
“means”
instead
of
“main
challenges”,
and
“strategies”
instead
of
“main
goals”.
There’s
a
vague
distinction
between
the
two
in
this
context,
however,
so
feel
free
to
mix
and
match
to
vary
your
language!
For
example:
Quality‐consciousness
is
a
means
or
a
strategy
to
reach
an
overarching
objective,
likewise
for
action‐orientation,
and
being
groundbreaking,
or
strenghtening
focus
on
quality,
establishing
a
unified
programme
for
the
contribution
of
human
and
material
resources
to
the
production
of
knowledge,
etc
Don’t
get
me
wrong:
None
of
the
“main
challenges”
are
“wrong”
per
se,
they
all
represent
good
ideas
and
intentions
–
but
as
a
summary
of
challenges
ahead
they
fail
miserably!
If
surmounted,
the
so‐called
“main
challenges”
will
definitely
contribute
to
attaining
the
overarching
objective,
by
and
large
(albeit,
I
fear,
with
some
collateral
damage).
And
there
are
tons
of
great
strategies,
techniques,
principles,
ideas,
and
means
mentioned
in
this
document
–
bravo!
1.2
The
following
challenge(s)
are
lacking::
I
consider
the
real
challenges
to
be:
1.
Creating
the
best
possible
environment
and
support
services
for
the
execution
of
research,
education,
and
outreach
at
a
high
level
of
excellence
by
international
standards.
2.
Creating
good
indicators
and
reward
systems
that
measure
exactly
what
we
want
to
prioritize
(research,
education,
and
outreach),
without
too
much
red
tape
involved
for
those
who
do
these
activities.
3.
Creating
an
environment
and
a
support
apparatus
that
actively
encourages
activities
that
increase
the
financing
available
for
the
primary
acivities
(research,
education,
and
outreach),
from
both
external
and
internal
sources
(government
budget
allocations).
1.3
Explanation
[Rationale]:
1.
Those
who
perform
these
tasks
are
the
University’s
“primary
producers”,
and
creating
a
good
environment
and
support
services
for
them
and
their
activities
will
increase
the
production
and
benefit
recruitment.
2.
Without
good
indicators
measuring
exactly
what
we
want
to
prioritize,
we
are
blind.
Without
reward
systems,
the
incentives
to
improve
“output”
are
smaller
than
they
would
otherwise
be
–
though
given
a
good
and
generally
accepted
set
of
indicators,
most
academics
are
reasonably
self‐motivated,
unless
they’re
in
a
terrible
squeeze
with
regard
to
basic
resources.
3.
As
noted
by
the
Green
Paper,
external
financing
will
become
more
and
more
important
in
the
future,
and
that
means
we
should
have
a
smoothly
functioning
support
apparatus
for
those
who
apply
for,
and
receive,
external
funds.
There
are
also,
however,
things
that
can
be
done
to
influence
the
allocation
of
the
overall
budget
for
research
and
education,
in
particular
refereed
papers
and
ECTS
credit
production.
We
should
even
aim
to
influence
the
size
of
the
total
budget
through
outreach
activities!
2.1.
Do
you
have
suggestions
for
[measures
that
will
help
to
steer
UiO
in
the
desired
direction]?
Note
that
these
must
be
measures
which
UiO
itself
can
carry
out.
External
factors,
such
as
allocations
etc
are
not
relevant
here.
1.
Many
current
and
future
projects
have/will
have
income
in
Euros
and
expenses
in
NOK.
In
industry,
tools
for
managing
such
inconveniences
by
locking
in
the
exchange
rate
at
a
given
time
are
a
natural
part
of
the
budgeting
and
planning
process
–
it
should
become
a
standard
tool
that
is
easily
accessible
to
each
project
manager
at
the
University.
2.
Some
projectes
(e.g.
those
financed
by
the
European
Space
Agency)
are
exempt
from
VAT
(MVA)
–
but
according
to
EU
rules,
the
tax
must
first
be
paid
and
then
reclaimed
from
the
Norwegian
authorities.
At
the
Institute
of
Theoretical
Astrophysics,
we
have
tried
since
last
August
to
find
out
how
this
is
supposed
to
be
done
most
easily
with
respect
to
the
accounting
department,
but
per
medio
January,
we
have
still
not
reached
the
point
of
sending
in
an
application
to
reclaim
the
taxes
paid
by
one
such
project.
Such
services
and/or
advice
should
be
readily
available
to
the
project
managers,
and
there
ought
to
be
a
culture
of
administrative
excellence
that
takes
pride
in
solving
such
red
tape
problems
in
a
speedy
fashion.
3.
Many
large
projects
require
the
hiring
of
temporary
technical‐
administrative
staff
to
execute
the
tasks
involved.
But
many
of
the
best‐qualified
people
for
these
jobs
do
not
wish
uncertain,
temporary
employment,
and
therefore
take
up
permanent
positions
elsewhere,
most
likely
with
better
pay.
There
ought
to
be
a
central
fund
to
take
on
the
economic
risk
that
would
otherwise
fall
on
the
institutes
if
these
were
to
be
hired,
instead,
on
a
permanent
basis.
If
funding
stops
completely,
the
employees
can
be
switched
onto
other
projects
in
other
places,
with
the
added
bonus
of
transferring
knowledge
between
different
units.
For
the
sake
of
disclosure:
I
am
a
temporary
employee
in
the
technical‐administrative
category
myself.
4.
As
many
of
the
permanent
employees
at
UiO
are
about
to
be
retired,
a
generation
with
a
few
exceptional
talents
is
waiting
outside
in
the
cold.
They
won’t
wait
too
long,
given
today’s
labour
market.
There
ought
to
be
a
“time
smoothing
fund”
that
gives
the
institutes
an
opportunity
to
hire
a
few
exceptional
recruites
before
they
“disappear”
to
other
countries
or
other
jobs.
Again,
for
the
sake
of
disclosure:
I
count
myself
among
those
who
gave
up
on
an
academic
career
for
this
and
other
reasons.
5.
Create
permanent
suggestion
boxes
(both
real
and
virtual
ones)
where
people
can
make
suggestions
as
to
how
the
University
can
attain
its
goals,
give
feedback
on
suggestions
and
reward
(at
least
with
honourable
mention)
those
suggestions
that
are
implemented.
This
is
standard
practice
at
e.g.
NASA’s
Goddard
Space
Flight
Center:
Anyone,
from
the
top
scientist
to
the
cleaning
staff,
are
encouraged
to
submit
suggestions
–
anonymously
if
so
desired.
Some
months
ago,
I
ended
up
sending
an
email
with
three
of
these
suggestions
to
what
I
thought
was
an
appropriate
recipient
at
the
administration.
I
have
not
heard
back
–
at
all.
I
think
a
number
of
people
do
go
around
with
great
ideas
that
would
solve
many
problems,
but
they
feel
that
suggestions
are
not
welcome,
anywhere.
2.2.
Can
you
suggest
any
good
indicators
for
the
overarching
goals
and
main
goals
outlined
in
the
Green
Paper
(Ch.s
5­6)?
How
do
we
know
that
UiO
might
do
better?
How
do
we
measure
or
evaluate
whether
we
are
moving
in
the
right
direction?
These
need
not
necessarily
be
quantitative
goals,
but
we
must
be
able
to
measure
progress
and
reveal
lack
of
progress.
As
indicated
above,
this
is
one
of
the
real
challenges.
Count
all
desireable
activities
–
not
just
some.
In
particular,
outreach
activities
have
been
sadly
neglected
in
this
regard
–
no
wonder
people
think
UiO
is
participating
too
little
in
the
public
discourse!
How
about
a
self‐reporting
syste
for
all
outreach
activities?
How
about
an
explicit
policy
stating
that
outreach
activities
in
scools,
kindergartens,
all
kinds
of
groups
and
associations
is
desireable,
and
should
be
counted
as
part
of
your
working
time
regardless
of
whether
it’s
done
outside
of
working
hours?
Including
time
spent
to
prepare,
of
course.
Reward
all
desireable
activities
–
not
just
some.
Based
on
measurable
indicators,
of
course
(but
they
might
well
be
of
a
self‐reporting
nature).
Note:
ECTS
credit
production
and
publication
in
peer‐reviewed
journals
is
already
rewarded
with
money
in
the
bank
at
the
institute
level.
In
general,
one
has
to
be
careful
not
to
reach
a
consensus
on
buzzwords
that
are
later
on
applied
(with
force)
to
all
areas
of
activity.
They
get
written
into
almost
all
applications
and
reports,
but
they
do
not
mean
much
at
all.
Does
science
benefit
from
“mobility”
itself?
Of
course
not.
These
words
make
sense
only
in
a
political
setting.
“Everyone”
knows
that
the
substance
of
the
grant
applications
and
the
research
done
would
be
largely
unaffected
if
the
buzzwords
were
changed
overnight.
Let
us
not
set
this
trap
for
ourselves
–
we
do
not
have
to
do
that.
If
some
group
carries
out
excellent,
high‐international‐standard
research
and
education
with
a
good
outreach
program,
should
they
be
penalized
if
they
are
not
part
of
a
formalized
network?
Are
they
to
be
forced
into
spending
more
time
on
what
passes
as
“main
goals”
in
the
current
Green
Paper?
Of
course
not!
Therefore
it
is
imperative
that
your
goals
(and
your
indicators)
spell
out
exactly
what
you
really
want
to
achieve.
The
goals
and
the
indicators
should
not
refer
to
the
methods
dictated
by
current
fashion,
because
the
methods
are
not
the
goals!
And
as
a
comment
to
the
web
form
itself:
“lack
of
progress”
–
measured
with
even
the
best
of
indicators
–
is
not
a
negative
thing
if
you’re
already
at
the
top!
3.1
[Further
comments]
Section
5
seems
oddly
detached
from
the
rest
of
the
paper,
and
here
too
there
are
too
many,
vague,
and
overlapping
principles
to
work
well
as
a
summary.
What
is
the
difference
between
a
“strategic
approach
–
from
the
individual
employee
to
the
entire
university”
and
“more
scope
for
opportunities
–
all
resources
viewed
in
an
overall
perspective”?
Greater
independence
–
are
we
really
so
terribly
dependent
right
now?
And
is
the
solution
to
dependence
to
adapt
our
priorities
to
the
external
priorities?
Better
leadership
–
what
does
that
really
mean?
The
overarching
objective
of
the
Green
Paper
("the
University
of
Oslo
shall
strengthen
its
position
as
an
outstanding
European
research‐intensive
university
and
place
of
learning,
with
an
action‐oriented
social
commitment")
is
not
too
bad,
and
summarises
that
we
have
grand
ambitions
in
all
three
areas
that
we
have
been
charged
with
by
Norwegian
law:
research,
education,
and
outreach.
The
statement
could
easily
be
trimmed
down,
however:
Given
the
legal
and
social
context,
the
statement
“the
University
of
Oslo
shall
strengthen
its
position
as
an
outstanding
university”
means
pretty
much
the
same.
Though
it
might
be
considered…
too
short?
I
still
vote
for
a
shortened
version,
with
3
main
challenges
to
go
with
it.
Then,
a
long
list
of
strategies,
principles,
ideas,
techniques
and
means
that
can
be
shown
–
in
a
traceable
manner
–
as
contributing
to
overcome
the
challenges,
bringing
the
university
closer
to
attaining
the
overarching
objective.
With
fewer
superfluous
words,
repetitions
and
overlaps
originating
from
the
adaptation
of
otherwise
good
ideas
to
an
awkward
and
complicated
document
structure.
Dr.
Scient.
Stein
Vidar
Hagfors
Haugan
Senior
Engineer,
Institutt
for
teoretisk
astrofysikk