The document discusses the merger of Oslo University College and Akershus University College in Norway. It provides background on the Norwegian higher education system and landscape. It describes the challenges facing higher education institutions in Norway that drove the merger process, such as regional strengths, international competition, and fragmentation. The document then outlines the process of discussions, reports, and decisions that led to the merger of the two university colleges into a single institution to better serve the shared region of Oslo and Akershus.

1. The Merger of Oslo and Akershus
University Colleges: why and how?
The University of Oslo, 4.11.2011
Sissel Østberg, Ass.Prof.,
Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences
23.11.2011

2. Background: the Norwegian landscape of
Higher Education
— Three categories of institutions: universities
(8), specialized university institutions (11), university
colleges (høgskoler) (27)
— 1994 Reform: from 98 university colleges to 26
— Diversity of size, academic profiles, financing, degree
of autonomy
— Diversity between and within the three categories
— Common law since 2005: Education+R&D
— Oslo University College and Akershus University
College did not merge in 1994 – for political reasons
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

3. The challenges and driving forces in
Norway
— A policy of decentralized higher education
— Regional strength and national equality
— International competition
— Fragmentation? Academic weaknesses? Quality of
Education and Research?
— Academic drive: research & development and
researchbased education
— Regional ambitions (UiS, UiA, UiN)
— 2006-2008: Stjernø-committee/Official Norwegian
Report (NoU 2008:3)
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

4. 2007: Oslo University College – what now?
— Rector’s statement: Institutional profile and the quality
of the institution is more important than institutional
category, but the autonomy question may be decisive
— 2007, December: the board decided that OUC should
aim at becoming a university of applied sciences
(universitet med profesjonsrettet profil)
— Merging processes were going on elsewhere, what
would be OUC’s challenges in a new landscape?
— Akershus University College: does a small institution
have a chance?
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

5. Common regional and national challenges
in Oslo and Akershus
— Oslo and Akershus is one region, 1/3 of Norway’s
population live and work here
— Expected growth in the younger and elderly population
— Increasing multicultural population
— Need for expansion and improvements in
education, health, environment, technology, entrepene
urship, innovation, interculturality
— The development of professions in an urban context
— A need for more political support of HE within
professional education and research: external
visibility, relevance, recognition
— A need for improved basic funding; external funding
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

6. Institutional choices
— Continue as separate institutions?
— More cooperation but no merging?
— Cooperation (or merging) with other institutions?
— Merging of the two university colleges in Oslo and
Akershus?
— Informal discussions started Spring 2008
— An Intentional Agreement to start a process with the
aim of closer cooperation or full merger passed the two
boards in the Fall of 2008
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

7. A phase of reports and discussions 2008-
2011
— Project organisation: project leader, secretariat, project
group
— Joint steering committee
— Timetable set up; goal 1.8.2011
— Involvement of leaders, faculty and administrative
staff, students, representatives from the
unions, external representatives
— Hearings of all reports in faculties and other units
— Seminars for the board members, deans, external
leaders of the fac.boards, unions, students etc.
— Open debates at campus, on Internet and in media
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

8. Support – Opposition- Demand for Delay
— Supporters: regional and academic arguments; a
merger gives an opportunity to develop the idea of a
new type of university and to develop a new
infrastructure/organisation; a time for wished-for-
changes
— Opposition (from parts of OUC): AUC is not strong
enough when it comes to research, a merger takes time
from academic work, two campuses a
disadvantage, OUC is big enough, a merger is very
expensive, bachelor programs may suffer
— Delay: we need more time, more investigations, more
reports
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

9. Decisions taken by the two boards
— Fall 2008: Agreement of Intention
— 28.10.2009: Principal Agreement to merge;
Application to proceed with the project sent to the Ministry;
Political support and some resources (SAK-midler)
— 18.03.2010 Management at an institutional level
— 09.09.2011 University Strategy/Academic Profile
— 09.12.2010 Faculty Organisation (4 Faculties) +
Final Agreement to Merge
— January 2011: Approved by the Government, SAK-money
— 28.02.2011 Development of External Funded R&D
— 17.03.2011 Administrative Organisation
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

10. The hard work of a merger
— Development of common administrative systems:
safety from day one (1.8.11): students in focus
— The process of readjustment: legal rights, some
changes for a few (adm.staff)
— Employment processes (mostly leaders)
— ICT, web-solutions, design etc.
— Students’democracy
— One budget from 1.1.2012
— Common intake of students from 1.8.2012
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

11. Challenges to be considered
— To find the right balance between keeping a good drive
and having enough time to reportwriting, hearings and
debates
— To find the right balance between external and internal
issues of concern
— To find the right balance between informal contact
between study programs/faculty members, common
cultural events and waiting for the formal decisions to
be taken
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

12. Lessons learnt
— Feedback from faculty members who were in touch
across the two institutions was predominantly positive
— The merger contributed to energy, creativity and
innovation – for some parts of the institutions
— The merger was time consuming
— The hard work of the last phase was underestimated
— The toughest burden on the administrative staff due to
organisational changes; legal rights and emotions
— Representatives from the Student Parliament
contributed a lot
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011

13. Conclusion
 Merging is hard work
 Institutions may be changed
 Opposition must be expected
 A common goal/a joint vision helps a lot
 Merging is not a goal in itself
 Better organisational and financial
frames for the development as university
college or university of professional
studies
 Academic profile, relevance, autonomy
Presentasjonens tittel 23.11.2011