Since we started the strategy work in the spring of 2017, we spent almost two years working on it. Throughout the process we had 18 versions of the strategy document. The latest version, launched in February 2019, is called "Knowledge development in a changing world – science and technology towards 2030". It has become a value document giving a clear strategic direction for the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Oslo.
Framework and Expectations
Prior to writing the strategy draft we had several discussions, primarily with the Faculty Board and the Heads of Departments, about the framework and expectations for the strategy itself and for the work process. During the discussions, it became quite clear that our goal would have to be to develop a value document with a clear strategic direction for the Faculty. Furthermore, we asked all employees and students, via student organizations, to give their opinion on what ambitions should be the most important for the Faculty towards 2030. We received hundreds of pages with answers. These became very important to the further strategy work.
For us leading the process, it was important at this stage to understand what expectations our employees and students had for the organization and the strategy process itself.
Ambition and Design
Before we started the phase of writing the strategy, it was important to develop an overall ambition, ie. to create a semi-concrete aim of where we wanted to be in 2030. We looked to this ambition throughout the process, although it appeared in slightly different written variations until the final wording was in place. We explicitly chose not to formulate a unified vision for the Faculty, primarily because we viewed it as an almost impossible task.
Although different alternatives were discussed, we quickly found that the strategy had to be based on the societal mission for a research-intensive university. If we had chosen a different approach, the strategy would be difficult to use as a value document, both for ourselves and for others. Although we were primarily writing the strategy for our own employees, we wanted it to also be of interest for our stakeholders.
Values and Concepts
The strategy’s values and concepts were intertwined with choices and weighting of the choices (which is described in the next paragraph) – ie. we wrote versions of the strategy and had a series of seminars, meetings and hearings where “values and concepts” and “choices and weighting” were on the agenda.
In my opinion, we quickly concluded what the basic values of the Faculty should be. Most likely because the expectations where clarified at the beginning of the process. However, we had to work hard to find the right concepts and formulations. It was essential to find the right level and to avoid the mistake of making formulations that could be interpreted as suggested actions.
Choices and weighting
An important prerequisite for the work was that the strategy should be inclusive. Everyone must be a part of the strategy. The strategy therefore had to be comprehensive for the Faculty’s tasks, but at the same time give direction. Some clear choices had to be made and weighted. Some of these choices were easy to make, others very demanding.
We spent most of our time on choosing what ambitions were the most important as well as creating a common understanding of what concepts we should use and how these should be formulated. The reason why this worked well, in my opinion, was that we started the strategy process with a wide involvement of staff and students, in addition to establishing a clear framework for the work and a unified ambition for the Faculty.
Implementation and Adjustment
It is well known that the implementation of the strategy started a bit before we were completely finished with the strategy document itself. One example is the establishment of our International Strategic Advisory Board, which has now visited us for the second time.
Today, the strategy document is an important tool in the development work at the Faculty and it is gratifying to see that all of our departments use it in their development work as well. Our focus during our strategy work have been focused on the process itself and that the final document should guide our own work. I am therefore somewhat (positively) surprised by the external interest, which has been greater than expected.
Now, one year after the launch of our strategy, I do not see any need for adjustments to the strategy document, other than a few formulations being improved. However, we are living in a changing world, which the title points to, so we must expect adjustments to come in the future.