Trust-based governance is often seen as the antithesis of New Public Management (NPM) as a fundamentally different governance philosophy. I think this is both right and wrong. NPM is about governing by setting goals and measuring results and less by providing detailed definitions of how resources should be used. The warnings perhaps have most to do with the fact that excessive measurement of results can lead to the building up of both a control machinery and detailed management through excessively precise instructions and guidelines.

KTH as a university wants to continue to manage with goals and continue to be able to control results. That is almost self-evident. But in a trust-based system, employees are given a greater degree of independence when it comes to interpreting how work is best organised in individual cases or areas. However, this requires an ability to take a holistic view and a knowledge of what best contributes to the organisation as a whole.

Sometimes it is not appropriate to do things in many different ways. Procedures for security work, for invoicing, for recruitment or for procurement should probably be standardized to a large extent. But at the same time, it is necessary to trust that employees can actually do this in their daily work without overloading the organisation with detailed instructions.

At the same time, the methods of research, the pedagogy in the classroom or online, the way of interacting with business partners, or the skills needs of different research teams can take many different forms.

In other words, work can be carried out in different ways without needing to be managed at a more detailed level as long as we rely on staff to take overall responsibility for the whole and for delivering good results.

The question is whether, for example, it is enough to say that travel should be carried out in a way that minimizes costs and the climate footprint, or whether detailed descriptions are needed of exactly over what distances flights can be allowed and when people can use their own cars instead of public transport?

Is it possible to require research supervisors to have termly conversations with all doctoral students about the progress of the projects relative to learning objectives, etc. without it being documented with more than a note that such a conversation took place. Or do we need to ensure the content of such conversations through checklists of all topics that must be reviewed?

I realize that one can argue for both detailed and more trust-based governance. But, the important thing is that in reviewing our own bureaucracy, we constantly ask whether the level of detail in governance is proportionate to what we are achieving.

Fewer guidelines, less bureaucracy and more trust paired with greater accountability and sense of ownership of the whole. If nothing else, that should be our compass as we build the university for the future.

Universities have their own pace, which is very much linked to the semesters and student attendance on campus. When the term ends, it doesn’t take long before it’s time to enjoy the reception activities and the life they bring to our beautiful campuses in August.

However, there are a total of eleven conferences on campus during the summer period, mainly now in June. These are important meetings where our researchers host international gatherings in their respective subject areas and where we also have an opportunity to welcome guests to our beautiful campus.

The spring has been partly characterised by the demonstrations against the war in Gaza. Like many other universities, KTH has also had its fair share of tent camps, loud activism, vandalism of both the external and internal environment and many people on the move on campus. I am aware that many people have felt uncomfortable with both the vandalism and the protests, while at the same time expressing sympathy for the right to express one’s views.

While both reactions are in some sense justified, I do recognise that the presence of protesters and the expressions of protest have led to a reduction in safety on campus lately.

Recently, the demonstration in the courtyard has ended and it is my hope that this expression of opinion will now take on other forms that involve more conversation and dialogue between different parties around society.

KTH needs to focus on education and research. We need to rally around the upcoming start of the semester and show care and trust in each other’s positions rather than distrust and violence.

In a few days, it will be 20 June and the summer solstice. The longest day of the year when the Earth’s axis is tilted most towards the sun. It sometimes seems strange that by the time most of us go on vacation, the days have already started to get shorter. That’s when you have to remind yourself that there are still many weeks of summer left and that the sun has only just begun to warm up the bathing water in our seas and lakes.

The link is not only between engineering education and Islamist extremism, but also with neo-Nazis, white power groups and neo-Stalinists. Engineers lack mental openness, are drawn to order and clarity, and are disgusted by the deviant.

Truly astonishing data. Like recently when a study at the University of Gothenburg showed that out of 300 young men sentenced to prison, mainly for violent offences, a majority had some form of psychiatric or neuropsychiatric diagnosis, 40 per cent had ADHD. A few years ago, Uppdrag granskning showed that of all those convicted of rape in the last five years, 58 per cent were foreign-born. That review included 843 perpetrators.

It’s stumblingly close that just as Gina Gustavsson believes that a majority of all engineers are potential terrorists, most people with ADHD or autism must reasonably be particularly prone to violence and foreign-born men can be assumed to be particularly predisposed to rape. If you reduce immigration, lock up people with ADHD at an early age and stop training engineers, you will have fewer violent crimes and fewer terrorists!

It’s a bit of a head scratcher. On the editorial and debate pages, you can of course think what you like, but surely it would be wise to have some logic in the arguments put forward. We can all agree that more of a social perspective and traditional education may be required in engineering programmes, as in all other education, but to conclude that engineering education as such breeds terrorism is nothing but qualified nonsense.

One wishes that those who defend the humanities and social sciences had better friends than DN’s editorial page!

In practice, the model means that the funds allocated by the government and the parliament for universities to conduct education and research are returned to the state through the surplus profits generated by the rental model.

Right now, we are stuck in an economic stranglehold that effectively sucks the energy out of the universities’ activities, as I wrote about in a post https://www.kth.se/blogs/president/2024/05/enough-is-enough/ a few weeks ago. But, for the reform-minded and progressive politician looking for a basis to shape a new solution for premises provision, there are several ways to go.

One relatively simple measure that should be implemented immediately is to change the ownership directive for Akademiska Hus so that a cost-based rental model replaces the current market-based model. A variant of this change is to retain market-based rents but to return the funds received from state-owned Akademiska Hus back to the higher education policy area within the framework of the government budget.

A variant of this change is to retain market-based rents but to return the funds received from the state-owned Akademiska Hus back to the higher education policy area within the framework of the state budget. One of these two measures needs to be implemented immediately, no later than the 2025 budget, to ensure that the university sector is not forced into the abyss of eroded funding and increased rents. At the same time, the rent increases of recent years should be compensated through targeted funding for universities and colleges.

In the longer term, the entire current model should be scrapped. As long as authorities cannot own their own properties, the properties currently owned by Akademiska Hus should be transferred to foundations linked to the respective higher education institutions, which should also have control over the foundation’s operations. In this way, rents can be set either on a cost basis or in line with the market, with surplus profits being returned via the foundation controlled by the university.

I realise that those who are against change can find many arguments against change, but I am equally convinced that those who want to see change can find their way through the regulations so that we can have a reasonable and business-like model for managing the accommodation needs of universities. It is time to address this. It is time for responsible politicians to recognise what is currently the greatest threat to the universities’ activities and, by extension, to the supply of skills for Swedish society and for the country’s long-term competitiveness.

Being part of a global world means that geopolitical conflicts are also discussed and, as we have now learnt, that such conflicts also give rise to loud protests and tent camps on campus. What has already happened in many other countries is now also a reality in Sweden.

It is important to emphasize and understand that it is not our role to take a stand in geopolitical conflicts; KTH must be free from political positions. The government is responsible for Swedish foreign policy. We will therefore not take any position on the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Free co-operation between academic institutions is part of the open society and also part of the freedom enjoyed by researchers and teachers. From time to time, we have such collaborations in regions where there are wars or conflicts, and in many cases it is precisely then that it is important to allow academic dialogue to take place. Today we have an agreement with an Israeli university. There is no activity within the framework of that agreement and we see no reason to reconsider this at the moment. In other words, there is no exchange.

I and many others at KTH have received signals, in many different channels, that people feel uneasy and uncomfortable with the protests in the courtyard that have been going on since last week and the demonstration held on 21 May.

Our assessment of the situation on our campus and how the protests should be handled is based on the police’s assessment, and we are continuously monitoring events and are in contact with other higher education institutions that are currently experiencing the same types of protests on their campuses. The perceived insecurity and intimidation that some of our students and staff are experiencing is juxtaposed with the constitutional right to freely express their views.

Academic freedom and freedom of expression are essential to a democracy and must be defended again and again. But at the same time, this freedom does not mean that everyone should think the same or that one side should be forced to think the same as another.

Employees and students who remain silent out of discomfort or even fear are devastating for a university. A free search for knowledge, exchange of ideas and respect for each other is the foundation of KTH. Even in these challenging times, we must hold on to these values.

KTH supports the statement issued by the Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions (SUHF) in response to the war between Israel and Hamas. suhf.se/om-suhf/nyheter/ (in Swedish)