Programme overview

At the faculty meeting in December a first presentation was made. The work started in March of 2024 with the formation of a working grup and a specified assigment:

• Stephan Reinhold Vice dean of education, chair
• Christina Öberg, Department of Marketing and Tourism Studies
• Natalia Berg, Department of Management
• Thomas Giebe, Department of Economics and Statistics
• Emmelie Hedin Ekholm, secretary

In May the group made a check in at Medarbetare and in September of 2023 the first draft of the results and the report was presented to the faculty board where guidelines for the proceeding work was asked for and given. This was also presented to the faculty at the faculty meeting in September. 

During the fall of 2023 the board got updates on the work in Novemeber and December and an update was also given at the faculty meeting in December. 

During January 2024 different groups, from the management group, to student representatives and the whole faculty was invited to read the draft of the report with suggestions and conclusion to ask questions and to give feedback during different information and discussion sessions.

The feedback was gathered and revisions where made to the suggestions from the group and then presented and disussed by the board at the meeting in February.

In March, at a designated board meeting, the board took the decision to proceed the work and to go forward with second phase of the programme overview. 

This and the upcoming work was then iniated at the faculty conference in Karlskrona where a world café was held for the programmes togheter with inspiration boards for new ideas and input from the faculty as to what to include in the basblock and what kind of innovations on programmes there where. 

Translatation from the board decision:

"Each program manager, in consultation with relevant subject and sub-subject groups, is responsible for (a.) identifying the national and European peers/competitors for each program, (b.) formulating and benchmarking each program's (including specializations’) value proposition against these peers/competitors, and (c.) developing a proposal on how each program can evolve within the new common structure (...)"

Full assignment and information post on medarbetare

Translatation of the boards decision:

"That the faculty proceeds with the proposal to establish a basblock for undergraduate (bachelor's) programs, and that a working group be appointed by the dean, consisting of relevant subjects and sub-subjects within the faculty, including law, with the vice-dean for education as chairperson. The group's task is to develop a proposal for the content (courses, skills, and competencies) to be included in the faculty's basblock."

An open call was for sign up. Full call information and full assigment of the group on medarbetare.

Work group composition 

Faculty subject and sub-subject representatives (alphabetical order):

• Business Administration
  • Entrepreneurship - Marina Jogmark
  • Leadership and organisation - Olle Duhlin
  • Management Control, Accounting and Auditing - Erik Rosell
  • Marketing and international business - Viktor Magnusson 
  • Supply Chain Management/Logistics - Petra Andersson
• Economics - Hyunjoo Kim Karlsson
• Legal Science - Jyri Backman
• Statistics - Stanislas Muhinyuza
• Tourism studies - Christer Foghagen

• Vice Dean for Education (chair) Stephan Reinhold
• Faculty coordinator (secretary) Emmelie Hedin Ekholm
• Pedagogical developer Katarina Ellborg

With the aim to develop new programmes in the “innovation track” of the programme overview are part of the School of Business and Economics, initiative to future-proof its education portfolio through a call for innovation for development of new programme ideas supported by the faculty management. 

Full call information in medarbetare.

The management group concluded to dedicate hours for development to three programme proposals of the five proposals.

• Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change (basic level, BSc) – 40 hrs
• Business Intelligence (advanced level, Magister) – 20 hrs
• Sustainable Finance and Investment Analytics (advanced level, Magister) – 20 hrs

The innovation proposals follows the timeline and materials as the programme development plans with a summary to the faculty board in december and an intial draft for the crictial friends in december. 

The critical friends will be tasked with giving feedback on each programme development plan as well as on the full portfolio of the faculty.

The cricial friends

Professor Daniel Nyberg
University of Queensland
SBE visiting faculty
Green transformation
Background
Strategy, Governance,
PRME

Professor Kenneth Carling
Högskolan i Dalarna
Partner to Economics and Statistics Department at SBE
Digital transformation
Background
Economics, statistics, computing

Professor Pietro Beritelli
University of St Gallen where the programme overview phase I did a peer-visit
Portfolio perspective
Background:
Marketing, Tourism, Programme director MiMM, Assessment year

The student associations Kalmar ESS and EHVS, as well as a representative from Linnékåren, were invited to a dedicated session to discuss and provide feedback on the work done so far. Three students from EHVS, representing the Civilekonom program, one student from Kalmar ESS, representing the HRM program, and a full-time student representative from Linnékåren participated in the discussion.

The students were asked to discuss the proposed principles for the program portfolio, reflect on the possibilities for flexibility and choice within the proposed structure (e.g., the Ekonomie Kandidatprogram with specializations, the Civilekonomprogram with specializations), and provide input on the proposed Basblock (basblock groups version).

Regarding the principles and the portfolio, the students had no additional input, stating, "It seems normal." In terms of master’s studies as the next step in a complete educational pathway, they shared that this is not a frequent topic of discussion among students. The concept of co-creation was seen as positive, with good examples provided from HRM and SCM, particularly in relation to guest lectures. For HRM, internships were also valued, though students noted they can sometimes be difficult to secure.

On the topic of flexibility, students in the Civilekonom program viewed the current setup as favourable, as it allows them to make decisions later rather than at the start of their studies. They also expressed the belief that future employers value the Civilekonom degree more than specific specializations. However, they highlighted that the way information about specializations is presented varies between different sessions, leading to inconsistencies. They also reflected on the timing of specialization choices, suggesting that it occurs somewhat late in the program. Many students seek advice from students in more advanced semesters to understand the differences between specializations.

Kalmar ESS also viewed choice as a positive aspect but emphasized the importance of having clear visibility, be that as a HRM program or a specialization. If there were an option to choose later, they would welcome it. Both student associations recognized that students may not know from the start what specialization is the best fit for them, and even if they do, their preferences may change over time. However, they also noted that the amount of choice does not need to be excessive—"lagom is best." Students appreciated a balance between flexibility and structure, stating, “It is also good when things are decided for us and included in the plan. We follow the progression and are happy with that”.

Basblocket. A strong foundational base is seen as beneficial—it allows students to explore different areas and sometimes be pleasantly surprised by what works for them. Regarding content, affärsutveckling (business development) and entrepreneurship were highlighted as valuable components in the basblock.

Students mentioned that they already engage in co-reading, and it is not perceived as an issue. However, EHVS students noted that not all programs include this approach. They are aware that other programs have almost the same content but do not take the same courses as they themselves, which they ask about.

A concern raised by Civilekonom students is that classrooms are sometimes too small to accommodate all students. They have also heard from teachers that room bookings can be challenging.

Regarding the level of math, students do not actively reflect on this themselves.

Program identity was also discussed. The HRM student did not see this as a current issue, as their program only has joint courses in the first semester. However, they pointed out that finding a peer group can be a challenge regardless of study format.

Regarding course credit distribution, students noted that courses is suggested to be smaller, but they prefer larger courses that run back-to-back. They raised concerns about whether they will remember content as well when courses are split up. They also reflected that while some courses are connected, they are not always scheduled consecutively, and that setup does work as well already to date.

For the parallel course setup, students raised concerns about exams, wondering whether all exams would be scheduled at the same time in the end. They also considered the practical implications of scheduling. Linnékåren emphasized that teacher collaboration is essential for this structure to function effectively. Other students agreed, stating that if teachers coordinate well, the setup can work—but careful planning of examinations is necessary.

When asked about future skills, the students highlighted what future skills is seen as what employers need and expect from them after the studies, that they have the skills needed to work.

During the internat in Värnamo, the faculty was presented with the principle, the proposed programme structure and an updated version of the basblock after feedback from the board. All areas were presented to the faculty with a presentation. After the presentation the faculty was asked to look at and discuss the content of the presentation and to share their comments through wooclap. There was also a plenum discussion held after the individual/group discussion. In the wooclap there were three questions:

• What questions do the principles and portfolio 2027 instil in you?
• This is how I would like to contribute to the Basblock and Ekonomie semester
• This is the suggestion (“medskick”) I would like to provide for the ongoing development of the basblock and Ekonomie semester.

For the principles programme portfolio, questions on why student attractiveness is not part of the principles as a basis - why are, and should we be the students first choice? This is a recurring tread, and it also connects to the proposed programme portfolio structure that does not visualize room for profiled programmes from the start and does not signal the possibility of keeping a filosofie kandidat in business administration. From this some overarching common themes are found:

• The division between the subjects, economics, statistics and legal science compared to business administration. This has different approaches,
  • The HST distribution will change if all programmes as an ekonomie semester – the additional 30 credits will shift resources from mainly business administration to economics based on HST. Is that calculated for the economic implications?
  • Will economics, statistics and legal science have enough personnel resources for this (sufficient teaching staff). Is there a risk and konskvensanalys on this?
    
    
• If all has the ekonomie semester, inrikting starting in semester four is perceived as late to introduce the students to what they applied for.
  
  
• Do all bachelor programmes need the ekonomie kandidat track and what implications does students going for an ekonomprogram rather than a profiled programme have on:
  • Promotion of programmes – how to communicate specialisations and not programmes?
  • Will it affect student numbers?
  • Portfolio differentiation, we will become as everyone else.
  • Our identity and story as a school.

There are also mentions of the pedagogical approach noted as something that can be added and for complete pathways, a targeted Master of Research is lifted.

For the basblock, the questions and discussion’s main themes was around:

• Visibility of business administration sub-subjects, marketing and organisation was raised as two areas not found explicitly, but logistics is also mentioned. It was voiced that the content did not handle business administration in a good way. What is the core of business administration and how much to add of that.
• With business administration in smaller courses than today, it looks like the main areas of the basblock is Economics. This also connects to input on the division of HST and resources, with the ekonomie, will those outside of this field be needed in the same extent. The smaller courses also raised questions on administration, more courses mean more administration of course evaluations for example. Also, that the visualisation seems to indicate that only BA should take the responsibility of introducing academic competencies.
• Future competencies like digitalization and sustainability are not in there.
• Profiled course for programmes, should be in there, part communication to students, what kind of a programme they are in as well as attractiveness. Will this strengthen the attractiveness.
• With the basblock extended to an ekonomie, how would that affect programmes and room for profile courses – do all programmes need this?
• Courses in half-speed, what does the students think? Is it hard to focus with that pace? It would need careful planning. More student perspectives are asked for.
• Master eligibility, will they be eligible with a different credit allocation?
• Are the changes in line with what students and employers want and need?

The presented basblock and structure were by many colleges received as an opportunity to more in-depth collaboration and integration. Many of the participants at the meetings said that they could see and appreciated the hard work behind the suggestions. The possibility to communicate specific inriktningar to students was especially well received.

Below a summary of the main concerns and questions that were raised:

Shift in credits/HST division between subjects

One area highlighted during the meetings was the shift in credits/HST division between Business Administration (FEK) and Economics/Statistics (NEK) that would be a consequence of the proposal for the basblock together with the ekonomie semester for several student groups.

Questions raised within this area included whether it implies an increased focus on quantitative approaches at the expense of qualitative approaches and philosophical perspectives. More background is requested on how the suggested re-division is linked to future needs for students and how it relates to student attractiveness. Another question in this area concerns resource allocation and staffing. Do we have the capacity to provide the courses? What does the staffing plan look like going forward? What are the credit transfer implications?

In this context, discussions also arose about whether the basblock includes the ekonomie semester or whether it stands independently and can be offered in both the 4th and 3rd semesters depending on the needs of specializations and inriktningar. This question was also posed in relation to students’ flexibility to choose during their education.

Work Environment

The staffing situation was also raised as a concern regarding the employment situation and whether the areas you are engaged with and do your research in are viewed as less important.

Many collogues expressed concerns about the upcoming workload in the transformation process the upcoming years when we will run parallel processes – providing both the educations we do today and simultaneously develop new course- and program syllabuses as well as organize and launch the new basblock. A prefekt present in one of the sessions pointed out that their staff planning for autumn 25 does already start to account for required work time to update and work with course syllabi and the like.

Lastly, several teachers pointed to challenges with large student groups. For example, having the same lecture, seminar, workshop several times a day, many days in a row or and the vulnerability of having too few teachers on a course travelling between campuses teaching in two different languages. What does this mean for teachers’ job satisfaction and their student contacts? There are existing experiences with integrated courses and larger groups that could be relevant input to consider.

Student journey

Teachers were also concerned about the students’ experience of being in excessively large groups. Some questions addressed the feeling of belongingness (both to specific student groups, programmes, and subjects), others included rättssäker bedömning and the risk of not being able to assess students in a legal manner.

Another discussion concerned that there is a risk that we give the impression of providing niched inriktiningar and specializations in communication and then the students would be required to do one and a half year in large groups with very little content from the subject/sub-subject they have chosen.

The principles

More clarity was requested on the emergence of the principle and what position they have in the forthcoming decision-making process, and in relation to other current governing documents. That is, what are the significance of the principles?

Meeting 1 (2025-02-26)

Flexibility in programmes:

• Handling the choice of specialization.
• Review of requirements for entering different specializations.

Group size:

• Important to create dynamics in the classroom.

Pedagogical development:

• Resources are needed to develop pedagogical competence and modern teaching methods.
• AI and experiential learning affect the need for modern methods and tools.
• Create a supportive culture for pedagogical development.
• Competence development time is often spent on research, but pedagogical interest also needs to be valued.

Profile courses and individual study plans:

• Profile courses can affect students' ability to switch tracks.
• Difficulties in managing individual study plans, especially when students have started a profile in the first year.
• Challenges with different prior knowledge in mathematics and statistics, need for better coordination between courses.

Language and co-creation:

• Issues regarding language and collaboration with other students.
• Need for social onboarding for students.
• Proposal for closer cooperation with student associations for social activities.
• Social onboarding is important to create a supportive environment, especially for international students.

Members of the education council noted that the timeline of document/material submission has not granted them sufficient time to process and ponder the 10 principles for the portfolio logic.

Meeting 2 (2025-03-21)

Math levels and what the students are going for, how will this affect the number of students. Study counsellors and a reflection on students sometimes finding some courses hard, usually this is the math courses.

AoL measurements, how will this be handled within the basblock. As there are levels of introducing etc, this will need to be done in the basblock.

UR was asked to discuss the question on when choice of specialisations should happen, at the application, during or a combination. The possibility of choice is seen as it can happen at both instances. The student representatives from EHVS sees their set up as working and highlights that it is good to get the basics before making a choice. Kalmar ESS sees the possibility of choice as positive, but also the possibility of applying to an inrikting directly. Study counsellors highlight that the possibility of choice also comes with a need of inform and help students with their choices. UR was also asked to discuss the placement of the ekonomie semester. In the original FS decision, and the following visualisation, the ekonomie semester was placed at semester 4. This to make it possible for the semester 3 to be part of the electives that students could have on semester 5. With the placement at semester 3, this would not be possible. In the first report from programme overview phase I, this was seen as something that was positive. This opens for a larger selection of courses to choose from.