Stockholm Concert Hall Management of a Project in the 1920S

STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY Department of Economic History and International Relations Master's Thesis in Economic History Fall Term 2020

Student: Kjell Rodenstedt Supervisor: Elin Åström Rudberg

Stockholm Concert Hall Management of a project in the 1920s

Abstract

The beginning of the 20th century was an epoch when new industries were established, migration to the cities were increasing, the service sector was growing, and with an increased middle class. Many of the new developments were endeavors, which we today would call projects. The purpose of this thesis is to extend our knowledge about projects during the 1920s, particularly how they were managed and how different persons took on roles and responsibilities to accomplish something they believed in. One such project was Stockholm Concert Hall (1923–1926). The project was managed by the architect Ivar Tengbom, who was the project manager. There have not been any previous studies of the concert hall as a project. Previous research of projects in the past are few and then mostly from the 1940s and 50s. The thesis covers the management of the project and the different roles and associated responsibilities. The main theories are Bourdieu’s Theory of Fields and current project management theories. One of the findings is that just four men with economic, social, and cultural capital dominated the total project process. The project is considered a success; the concert hall is still appreciated.

Keywords: Project management, historic project, roles and responsibilities, Concert Hall, Bourdieu, construction, the 1920s

Table of contents

Table of contents ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 2

Aim and research questions ...... 5

Delimitations ...... 8

Previous research ...... 8

Theoretical standpoint ...... 14

Material and method ...... 18 Material ...... 18 Method...... 19 Project management as a science and method ...... 20

Outline of the thesis ...... 23 2. Organizing the project ...... 24

The pre-period, 1900–1921 ...... 24

Period 1922 until 1926 ...... 30

Discussion on roles and responsibilities ...... 33

Summary Roles and Responsibilities ...... 40 3. Scope, time, and cost ...... 42 Summary of scope, cost, and schedule ...... 51 4. Discussion and conclusions ...... 53 References ...... 59

Primary sources ...... 59 Archival material ...... 59 Printed sources ...... 59

Material from Internet ...... 59

Printed references ...... 60 Appendix ...... 63

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

1. Introduction

This thesis concerns project management and how the architect Ivar Tengbom managed the project of constructing Stockholm Concert Hall from start to finish. With this short introduction of what the thesis is about, I would like to take a step back and look at the conditions at the beginning of the 20th century. With the second industrial revolution both science and engineering grew in importance, new inventions resulted in the establishment of new companies and industries. This affected the whole society by increased number of jobs and new types of jobs, among others in the service sector. White-collar workers grew in number, especially in the major towns. During the period 1870 to 1930 the annual GNP per capita grew by not less than 2 % per year and productivity was doubled. Stockholm grew from 300,000 in 1900 to 420,000 in 1920.1 During the late 19th and early 20th century Stockholm began changing into a modern city and its importance as an economic center increased. Banking and financial services grew. Foreign companies were beginning to look at Stockholm and started to invest and set up subsidiaries in the city. Stockholm grew when people from the countryside started to move to the city, looking for jobs. This increased the need to build public transportations, trams, new apartment houses, new city planning and new roads, not necessarily in that order, it was mostly a parallel process. The urbanization and industries required railroads, electricity, and other infrastructure projects which all together were necessary ingredients for a new and more prosperous Sweden.2 New ways of doing banking and other financial services were introduced, new industries that were profitable were established, and together with the growth in services, both in the private and in the government sector new fortunes were being made. The service sector created a larger and wealthier middle class.3 All this led to new ways of life and the demand for culture in different forms increased.

Part of this demand resulted in the development of Stockholm with several new public buildings between the years 1910 and 1930. At the same time as the demand for new buildings, both housing and offices, the architectural style changed from neo-classicism into functionalism in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Among the buildings that were built

1 Lennart Schön. En modern svensk ekonomisk historia - tillväxt och omvandling under två sekel. 4th ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB, 2014: 188, 193–95, 200. 2 Örjan Sölvell, Ivo Zander, and Michael E Porter. Advantage Sweden. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik, 1993. 3 Schön, En modern svensk ekonomisk historia - tillväxt och omvandling under två sekel.: 221, 226.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress before functionalism started to have an effect were Stockholm Town Hall, Stockholm Public Library, Stockholm Concert Hall, and Stockholm School of Economics. Much of this development was done through projects, even if it was not called projects at that time. In a way we may say that projects did build Sweden.

A part of understanding the development of Sweden into a more modern and prosperous nation is to study how projects were managed during the first decades of the 20th century. A project in this thesis is an endeavor to create something new and takes both time (has a start and a finish) and effort/resources to accomplish.4 Mankind has performed infrastructures, buildings, and other types of development projects for at least 5,000 years, probably longer. Building the Wall in China, the pyramids in Egypt and Mexico, or the viaducts in the Roman empire were all projects in a sense. There are few actual studies of the history of project management. The cases that exist are mainly from complex military and space projects in the US. Jonas Söderlund (Professor at the Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at the BI Norwegian Business School) has taken the initiative to raise interest to do research in this area.5 As he explains: Project management history and case studies can help to understand "the roots of project management" and how current methods have developed. As projects have been managed all through history, we might, by studying these old projects, rediscover innovative ways that have been forgotten. For example, the Manhattan project included practices that are almost forgotten today, such as experimental development and concurrent engineering. The history of projects may also lead to a common ground for academic knowledge.6 Söderlund also refers to professor Mats Engwall, who means that when studying historic landmark projects, we must also study the context of the project.7 The context why a project was undertaken and what were the success factors in the society at that time, such as the economic, the cultural and the social situation, is necessary to understand. Most of the historic projects that have been studied by scientists were done after the second world war. There are very few examples that have been studied in the periods before that time.

4 A more specific definition will be made later. 5 Jonas Söderlund. “Special Issue: Project History: International Journal of Project Management”, International Journal of Project Management. 29, no. 5 (2011): 491–93. 6 Söderlund, “Special Issue: Project History: International Journal of Project Management”: 491. 7 Mats Engwall. “No Project Is an Island: Linking Projects to History and Context,” Research Policy 32, no. 5 (2003): 789–808.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Documentation and research are very scarce about the actual project process. If there are any documentation it usually only covers the decision making and events leading up to the actual project and to the actual result after the project was finished.

My interest in the history of project management was trigged during a project management conference, where one of the speakers took some examples from the past. A couple of years later it was triggered again when studying art history and architecture, where the focus is on different architectural styles and the architects that designed them. But there is almost nothing on how they accomplished their projects. For example, how did Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446) manage the construction of the dome of Florence Cathedral (1420–1436)? Brunelleschi acted both as an architect and constructor.8 What was his role and how did he manage the construction? The same questions aroused when I was reading Irving Stone’s book about Michelangelo.9 In this book Stone gives a view of Michelangelo from different perspectives, but how he managed his projects when different professions were involved is not mentioned. Turning the question up-side-down: how were projects in infrastructure and buildings managed before project management became an established profession with methods and techniques, that is before the 1940s?

Above, the term project has been mentioned several times. The word project can refer to several different undertakings but there is a definition that has been formulated by Project Management Institute (PMI), one of the major international project organizations: “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result”.10 The meaning of temporary is that a project must have a definite start- and endpoint in time. A project may not go on and on without an end, if it does, then it is part of the operation in the organization. Endeavor means that it takes resources, that it costs something for someone. The project must have a goal or objective and that is to produce something unique, something that has not been done before, at least not in that organization or in that way. There must be something new, if it is just doing the same thing repeatedly, then it is, again, part of the going concern. There is another definition

8 Marilyn Stokstad and Michael W. Cothren. Art Histrory. 5th ed. London, UK: Pearson, Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2014. 9 Irving Stone. Han Som Skapade En Värld. Translated by Gunilla Berglund. Forum, 1962. 10 Project Management Institute, PMI. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 5th ed. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute, 2013: 3.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress that is useful to understand before defining the aim of this thesis: “Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements”.11

The term project in doing these kinds of infrastructure, building, and other larger tasks seems to have originated during the 1940s with the Manhattan project. When speaking about project management at that time it usually only included the planning tools. As Söderlund and Lenfle writes: “There is a growing concern in the project management community about the lack of historical understanding of the emergence of project management […] There is also an increasing awareness that there is still much to learn from landmark projects of the past.“12

Aim and research questions

Almost all development is today done by projects or programs.13 It may be creating a new or modified product, building a new road/tunnel around Stockholm, building a new hospital or, sometimes, configuring and executing a specific customer order and delivery. More than 50 % of the revenue for many of the world’s largest companies comes today from projects, for example Siemens, Ericsson, IBM just to mention a few. Projects drive a lot of the current world economy. This may seem like a recent development, but it was probably true during a large part of the 20th century.

When studying projects today, the focus is on how we currently manage projects as effectively and efficient as possible. When looking on historic projects there seems to be a demarcation line around the 1950s with a few exceptions going back to the 1940s. Before that period there are very few examples that have been studied, even if the end of the 19th century and early 20th centuries were the formative years when projects were used to develop our current companies during the second industrialization. To study how projects

11 Project Management Institute, PMI. PMBOK Guide: 5. 12 Jonas Söderlund and Sylvain Lenfle. “Making Project History: Revisiting the Past, Creating the Future,” International Journal of Project Management 31, no. 3 (2013): 654. 13 The difference between a project and a program is that the project has a single objective to accomplish something very precis, it has a truly clear start and a likewise clear end. When the project has completed and handed over its deliverables, it ceases to exist. A program consists of several projects, and sometimes other programs. Each of these can be managed alone, but to increase their effectiveness and efficiency there is a joint leadership. A program does not end when it has delivered its deliverables, its mission is also to realize the benefits from the deliverables. This means that the end of a program is not so clearly defined as it is with a project.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress were managed during the first decades of the 20th century may help to understand the development of Sweden.

The purpose of this thesis is to extend our knowledge about projects in the early 20th century, particularly how they were managed and how different persons took on roles and responsibilities to accomplish something they believed in. There are only a few studies of how complex projects were handled before project management was established as practice and a science with formal education, and tools and techniques.

Traditionally the architect had a leading role in the building process, while today it is the construction companies that have taken over that role. The role delineation has changed during the years. Large projects, today, tend to cost more and take longer to execute than originally planned. A part of studying projects from the past is to see if this also was the case at that time, that is to see if there is a possibility to get “lessons learned” from projects being done hundred years ago.14 During the 1920s there were three main public buildings being built: Stockholm Public Library by Gunnar Asplund, Stockholm Concert Hall, and Stockholm School of Economics, both the latter by Ivar Tengbom. As the library has been studied from several different perspectives, I have chosen to study the concert hall. By choosing the concert hall, this study may add to the knowledge base. Not only will this thesis add knowledge about the concert hall and its architect Ivar Tengbom. The study will also add to the knowledge base of how a project was run during the 1920s. The study will not focus on the architectural aspects but on the process from design to a functional concert hall; the construction process, the architect as a project manager, how and if the project was a success.15 Success can be measured in many ways. When the project is finished the project success will be measured in terms of delivering the agreed scope according to the requirements, was the project finished in time and within the

14 “Lessons learned” is a common term in projects management used to capture any lessons, good or bad, after a project is finished. When this new knowledge is actively used in a new project it is called “lessons applied”. Some organizations have put in a practice to always require a study of old projects before the project manager can start a new project. He or she must document this. 15 The industry had started to use new production processes with, for example, scientific management. The building industry was still conservative and erected buildings in the same way as before. The Bauhaus movement and functionalism were starting around 1925 with first the design and later with new production processes in the 1930s, where reinforced concrete was being used not only in the basement but also in the main building.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress budget.16 Another way to measure success is to see the value of the building over time and what it has meant for the cultural life in Stockholm. Take for example the Sydney Opera. The actual cost was more than 1,400 percent over estimated cost.17 It is today one of the world’s most famous buildings and a symbol both for Sydney and Australia.

Most studies on organizations that are instituted by humans concern formal permanent organizations. They have formal goals and procedures and try to rationalize their procedures and activities to achieve increased results, whatever that may mean. To survive, these organizations must adapt to the environment.18 In this thesis I will focus on temporary organizations that are established for one or a set of specific goals. These organizations differ from the more permanent organizations in that they usually do not actively seek to improve their procedures or adapt to changing environments. They may, however, be terminated if they are no longer required, if the changes make them superseded.

Focus during this research will be on the project process and the roles different stakeholders had. The research questions that may be derived from the purpose statement above are:

• How was the project process managed when constructing Stockholm Concert Hall from 1923 to 1926? The main parts will be the communication between different stakeholders, the decision process when difficulties arose, how change requests were handled and, how the three parameters scope, time, and cost were managed. • What role or roles did the architect, Ivar Tengbom, have during this project and what roles and responsibilities did the other major stakeholders have during the project?

The answer to these questions will shed light on how projects were managed and how different persons took different roles and responsibilities and how this affected the

16 The three parameters – time, cost, and scope – is usually called the triple-constraints. These three can be looked upon as a triangle, where each side represents one of the parameters. If one is changed it will impact one or both of the other two. To manage the triple-constraints together with the stakeholders are most important to accomplish the project. 17 Bent Flyvbjerg. “Introduction: The Iron Law of Megaproject Management.” In The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management, edited by Bent Flyvbjerg. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press, 2017: 11. 18 Joel A. C. Baum and Tim J. Rowley. “Companion to Organizations: An Introduction.” In The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, edited by Joel A. C. Baum, 1–34. Oxford UK: Blackwell, 2002: 3–4.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress finished product, in this case the concert hall. To study the roles, it is possible to get insights and conclusions that may have a bearing on understanding the development of Sweden.

Delimitations

This thesis is not primarily on the architect Ivar Tengbom, but rather the role that he had as an architect and project manager in the concert hall project. The role may shift during the different project phases.

Project management and the developing processes are two different things, even if the development and its different tasks will be part of the detailed plan.19 I will not include the actual design or construction processes. For example, how the basement was excavated and constructed to uphold the rest of the building, or how the roof was going to be constructed. These kinds of activities are crucial for constructing the building, but not from a project management point of view, where it is more a question of how the work is delegated, what roles different stakeholders have, how the decision process is managed, how the changes are handled and how the control of scope, time and cost are affected.

The main persons covered in this thesis are all male. Certainly, it could have made an impact on the project management process and the design of the concert hall if there had also been women involved. I will, however, not discuss the project roles from a gender perspective.

Previous research

In this section I will cover research that has been conducted on the central topics of this thesis. First is research about the concert hall and/or its architect, Ivar Tengbom. Then I will point to some research on architectural history followed by project management, megaprojects and, lastly, research on historical projects.

Stockholm Concert Hall was inaugurated in 1926. There has not been any research on the building or the construction process. When it has been mentioned in research it is usually

19 The same project management tools can be used for projects as different as building a house or developing a new car model or building a nuclear plant. The emphasis on different tools and techniques in project management may shift depending on the project but basically, they are fetched from the same toolbox.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress as part of something else, for example the architecture and the finished Stockholm Concert Hall, the architecture of the city, or the actual site, Hötorget, and how this place was developed, or from a musical point of view. One example is Anders Bergström, who have in his dissertation researched Ivar Tengbom and his architecture from a building historical view. In his research the concert hall is one of the buildings that were performed by Tengbom. The concert hall is looked upon by comparing the building and its spatial design with other classical buildings and temples in Greece, Rome, and other places. The music halls, and the artists that had decorated the concert hall are also described.20 The dissertation covers the concert hall and is a most valuable research into the architecture and how it is experienced by other architects as well as its visitors and audience. As the research is not on the actual construction process or from a project management view, I will not use it as material in this thesis except to be able to define the concert hall as a success, as it is still appreciated as a building and as a concert hall. Another example is a book by the company Tengbomgruppen covering its history from 1905 until 1991. In this the Stockholm Concert Hall is described in architectural text and pictures. It is very well done but more a memorial publication that can be used for marketing purposes.21

Eva Eriksson studied in her PhD dissertation how the modern city developed during the period 1900 until 1933. The major focus is on the architecture and the discourse around architecture during the first part of the 20th century. In her dissertation, the concert hall covers 6 out of 585 pages and is more descriptive than analytical of the tender competition and the winning proposal by Ivar Tengbom.22 Another example is Mia Kuritzén Löwengart, who has another approach in her dissertation. She is more interested in the background of the symphonic orchestra in Stockholm, where the concert hall is one part. Most of her thesis is focused on the music and the need for a place to deliver music. There are no conclusions on the process to get a concert hall or the building. 23 Håkan Forsell has described the situation in Stockholm and Europe in the beginning of the 20th century and

20 Bergström, Anders. Arkitekten Ivar Tengbom - Byggnadskonst På Klassisk Grund. Diss. Stockholm: Byggförlaget, 2001. 21 Erik Thelaus. “Tre Byggnader - Tre Skeden.” In Tengboms : Ett Arkitektkontors Utveckling Sedan 1905, 33–43. Stockholm: Tengbom gruppen, cop, 1991. 22 Eva Eriksson. Mellan tradition och modernitet: Arkitektur och arkitekturdebatt 1900–1930, PhD Diss., Ordfront, Stockholm 2000: 401–406. 23 Mia Löwengart. En samhällelig angelägenhet: Framväxten av en symfoniorkester och ett konserthus i Stockholm, cirka 1890 till 1926, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2017.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress the demand for culture. The main part of his article covers the first 15 years after 1926, when the concert hall was in operation.24

While the actual construction of Stockholm Concert Hall has not been investigated, the topic of architectural history has been covered extensively in research. This covers both individual historical buildings, and, from a time perspective, how architectural styles have developed during the centuries. Neither of these are of specific interest to me. As general background to the history of architectural research I would like to mention Andrew Leach. He means that the study of architecture goes back to Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (around first century BC), who was the first to document ancient buildings and argued that an architect must be more than just an engineer and builder. Leach mentions several other persons during the past that have documented buildings and architects. They were all architects, and their interest were to systemize, document and formulate past architecture and its principles.25 Leach gives a meta-perspective of architectural historical research. I will not directly use this in my thesis, but it has given me a valuable understanding of the topic of historical architecture.

A more recent writer is Mauro Guillén, who takes the stance in Frederick Taylor and scientific management. He starts with explaining that the architect needs to balance between the artistic freedom and fulfilling the requirements and limits imposed by the client. While Taylorism and scientific management were implemented widely in the industry due to the increased productivity it accomplished, it did not have a large impact on the building industry until the late 1920s, at least not in Europe. The starting point was with Bauhaus in Germany and Le Corbusier in France.26 The ideas behind the concert hall was to design a building where a large orchestra could perform and make the music available to the denizens of Stockholm with inexpensive tickets. In this effort it is modernistic in the same way that Guillén means that the “modernist architects wished to break with their old role of catering to the tastes of the monarch, the Church, or the upper class”. This was very much in line with “the scientific manager’s goal to make mass

24 Håkan Forsell. “Musikens Rum i Samhällets Mitt. Stockholms Konserthus Och Mellankrigstidens Publik.” Bebyggelsehistorisk Tidskrift 54 (2007): 46–58. 25 Andrew Leach. What Is Architectural History? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2010. 26 Mauro F. Guillén. The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006: 3, 10.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress consumption widely available and to fix social problems by increasing the size of the pie”.27 Taylorism in architecture started with Walter Gropius and his Bauhaus in 1920. The Bauhaus school was a center for crafts, architecture, and art, where Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe were attached. Outside of some early adopters, Sweden took notice of the movement during the Paris exhibition 1925. Uno Åhrén described the new architecture and internal designs in his article “Brytningar”.28 This is the first instance when functionalism was officially mentioned in Sweden. By 1930 and the Stockholm exhibition, the functionalism was fully explored.29 Before these ideas were implemented in the architecture it was mainly neo-classicism that were expected from the architects in the 1920s. While the industry was accepting new systematic ways of organizing the production process, for example the assembly band, and standardization, the building industry was conservative and used bricks when erecting buildings. The division of labor was traditional, someone carried the bricks and someone else put them in place; carpenters worked with wood, et cetera. Concrete was mainly used in the foundation and lower levels in a building. There were no prefabricated parts in the construction process. Building material, however, was impacted by standardization, for example windows, doors et cetera.30

Most projects are today small or medium sized. These projects rarely get any attention, unless they are a disaster and have severe impacts on people, businesses, or other organizations. A few projects are termed very large projects or even megaprojects. Megaprojects are categorized by being “large-scale, complex ventures that typically cost $ 1 billion or more, take many years to develop and build, involve multiple public and private stakeholders, are transformational, and impact millions of people.”31 According to Bent Flyvbjerg (Professor and Founding Chair of Major Programme Management at Oxford University) they are not just an upscaled version of ordinary projects. The challenges go beyond what most projects experience in terms of stakeholder management and involvement, longer lead times, and complexity. The risk level is also much higher. There are several black swans, that is something that no one could foresee, occurring

27 Guillén. The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical: 22. 28 Uno Åhrén. “Brytningar.” In Svenska Slöjdföreningens årsbok. Stockholm: Svenska Slöjdföreningens, 1925. 29 Eva Rudberg. “Svensk Funktionalism.” Arkitektur, 1980. 30 Eriksson. Mellan tradition och modernitet: arkitektur och arkitekturdebatt 1900–1930: 20–24, 394–95. 31 Flyvbjerg. “Introduction: The Iron Law of Megaproject Management”.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress during these projects mostly due to complexity, breaking edge technology and, not least, the duration.32 Some examples of such projects in Sweden are Hallandstunneln, Nya Karolinska sjukhuset, and Förbifart Stockholm. Flyvbjerg lists ten factors that megaprojects bring, and which often are overlooked, which may be summarized: These projects are risky, lots of black swans and no contingency for unknown unknowns.33 Usually there is no previous experience, includes non-standard design, and involves decision making by many different actors that are overcommitting themselves without any alternatives. They fail slow, often due to misinformation about schedules, budget/costs, risks, and future benefits.34

The Stockholm Concert Hall cannot be regarded as a megaproject, neither in total expenditure nor in duration. For Stockholm during the 1920s it was large, but not a megaproject. That does not necessarily mean that some of the factors above did not apply.

A good practice within project management is to capture “lessons learned” from projects and to reuse these in the next projects. In the more project mature organizations this is done in a systematic way. Before the last thirty years this was not done or only on specific occasions. During the last decade, however, there has been an increased interest of looking at past projects, before project management became a profession, that is projects before the 1980:s. As already mentioned, Professor Söderlund, Linköping university, and Lenfle argues that the study of project history and project management history are unexplored academic areas. To study the classics in any field gives a common language and understanding and identity in that field. It also gives a baseline for evaluating change over time within the field. The authors state that within strategic management most everyone recognizes the impact that Igor Ansoff and Michael Porter have had on the field, even if the current practices have surpassed them.35 In project management there are no such

32 Flyvbjerg. “Introduction: The Iron Law of Megaproject Management.”. For a discussion on black swans see Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. London: Penguin Book Ltd, 2007. The reference to black swans is that everyone knew, or thought, that all swans were white until Thomas Cock sailed into Perth river in Australia and discovered that there were black swans. 33 See for example the very recent investigation of Nya Karolinska Sjukhuset: Grafström, Maria, Martin Qvist, and Göran Sundström. Megaprojektet Nya Karolinska Solna - Beslutsprocesserna Bakom En Sjukvårdsreform. Edited by Göran Sundström. Göteborg och Stockholm: Makadam Förlag, 2021. 34 Flyvbjerg. “Introduction: The Iron Law of Megaproject Management.”: 8. 35 Igor Ansoff was one of the first to advocate strategic planning at the end of the 1960s and Michael Porter continued this in the 1980s and 1990s, with his marketing strategies and the five-power theory. See References for their publications.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress founding fathers.36 This article is an introduction to a special issue of the journal International Journal of Project Management that aims at discussing the classics that have formed the project management area. All the examples, however, are from 1940 and onwards. It shows the importance of studying past projects but will not give much input to the study of even earlier projects when there were no established project management tools. The idea of looking at the past is not to glorify it but to look at history in a critical way and at the situation, context, that was at hand at that time. The objective is to understand the practices better, both the old and the new. They argue that research into past projects will need new ways to look at projects, as projects are different depending on what the project is supposed to accomplish.37 This can be compared to Thomas Kuhn who means that new paradigms need to replace old for progress to take place but there is also a need for different paradigms according to what the research aims at.38 The two articles by Söderlund are introductions to the field of studying projects from the past.

Two researchers have tried to look at more distant historical projects: Kozak-Holland and Procter. They started to research the project management of Filippo Brunelleschi when he constructed the dome of Florence (1420–1436).39 According to the authors, the dome was the most significant building for over 1300 years. Brunelleschi was both an engineer and architect. They have gone back to old material and laid a puzzle of how Brunelleschi managed this technically difficult project. Brunelleschi learned from an even older project, the Pantheon in Rome, to understand how a dome could be constructed. The authors, when investigating the project management, focus on the four parameters scope, time, cost, and quality. The same two authors have also researched the project of the Great Pyramid of Giza, built during approximately 20 years around 2560 BC.40 In their paper they show how experience is built from one megaproject to the next and how this helps in solving technical problems. Management also needed experience as well as new innovations to

36 Söderlund and Lenfle, “Making Project History: Revisiting the Past, Creating the Future,”: 653–662. 37 Jonas Söderlund and Joana Geraldi, “Classics in Project Management: Revisiting the Past, Creating the Future,” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 5, no. 4 (2012): 562–564, and Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2012). 38 Thomas S Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 4th ed. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2012. 39 Mark Kozak-Holland and Chris Procter. “Florence Duomo Project (1420–1436): Learning Best Project Management Practice from History.” International Journal of Project Management 32, no. 2 (February 2014): 242–55. 40 Chris Procter and Mark Kozak-Holland. “The Giza Pyramid: Learning from This Megaproject.” Journal of Management History 25, no. 3 (2019): 364–83.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress manage scope, time, cost, and organization. The two articles cover projects well in the past and the context of them are quite different to my study. Even so, they are relevant to my study to understand how an architect, or project manager, came to understand and control important parts of the project and not just the technical challenges. In an article by Sylvain Lenfle and Christoph Loch the authors argues that project management has shifted its focus from a flexible way to solve risks, challenges, and problems during the 1940s and 1950s, to a more stringent control today.41 In the research that Kozak-Holland and Procter have done they also point to a more flexible way to handle uncertainty, risks, and challenges by adapting the project to manage these with new innovative ways. The conclusion from these articles is that flexibility and adaptivity are factors that increases success, while a too much controlled way to manage projects may be a hindrance.42 I will use their studies as examples of what to look at and how to interpret the findings.

Theoretical standpoint

Project management constitutes to a large extent of interacting with different stakeholders, such as the sponsors, internal and external experts, entrepreneurs delivering different parts of the building, artists, employees from different organizations, government personnel, et cetera. All these different stakeholders belong to different groups, have their own agendas, come from different cultural settings, and have different values. The project manager must work with them, coordinate their work and be a leader.

A theory that aims at describing complex relations and power structures is Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory of Fields, as described in The Rules of Art.43 Even if Bourdieu concentrates on the cultural sector, his theories have been, transposed to other sectors in modern research. One example is Guillén, who means that architecture is one field. As Guillén writes: “because various actors – ranging from users and critics to clients, patrons, and architects – enter into contact (and conflict) with one another in ways that may be different across societies and time.”44 This is interesting and supports the use of Bourdieu

41 Sylvain Lenfle and Christoph Loch, “Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control Over Flexibility and Novelty,” California Management Review 53, no. 1 (2010): 32–55. 42 Here I would like to point to the new more agile ways to manage projects, where everything will not need to be defined from the start. These ideas are most common today in IT-projects but are used even in other types of projects. 43 Pierre Bourdieu. The Rules of Art. Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Translated by Susan Emanuel. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996. 44 Guillén. The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical: 40.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress as a theory, when discussing the different roles. In this case I will use Bourdieu when analyzing organizations, roles of the participants and different powers within the project. Theory of fields covers several different aspects, for instance the education and development of artists from avant-garde with a low production into consecrated mass producers. For my purpose I will concentrate on the dominating class consisting of those with economic capital: businessmen, professionals like lawyers and architects, and higher officials in the government like judges and directors-general.

Bourdieu distinguishes between different types of capital: economic capital, social capital, and symbolic capital. Symbolic capital are intangible assets that are appreciated by the social group but are not easily converted to economic capital. Cultural capital, which the intellectuals possess, is a subdivision of symbolic capital.45

The economic historian Martin Gustavsson uses Bourdieu in his PhD dissertation as a theory. Usually there are conflicts between different social classes. Those that are regarded as intellectuals together with those in power, who possess economic capital, are part of the dominating field. Gustavsson covers mostly this dominating field and the conflicts within this field between different groups, who possess different types of capital. These groups may be looked upon as subfields within the dominating field, where one field dominates another field. In any constellation the dominating field is populated by people with economic capital who have power over those that populate the dominated field, the intellectual field, for example the architect, who have cultural capital. Social capital is described as a system of relations with other individuals that have a common goal or share common ideas, sometimes across different fields. The sum of different capital, economic, cultural, and social, is the main difference between social groups while the structure of the capital, that is more or less of different types of capital, is the differentiator within the social group and divides a dominating field into two subfields, where one is dominating the other. Those with more economic capital dominates the others.46

Theory of Fields can be used to describe relative power positions between stakeholders in

45 Donald Broady. “Nätverk Och Fält.” In Sociala Nätverk Och Fält, edited by Håkan Gunneriusson, 49–72. Uppsala: Swedish Science Press, 2002: 53. 46 Martin Gustavsson. Makt och konstsmak. Sociala och politiska motsättningar på den svenska konstmarknaden 1920 – 1960, PhD diss., Stockholm: Ekonomisk Historiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet, 2002: 5-6, 26.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress a project. The architect may also be regarded as an artist and can well be included in this theory and be part of the intellectual field, just as a painter or writer. Bourdieu mentions other categories that belong to the intellectual or cultural field: galleries, curators, art critics. 47 Bourdieu looks at the intellectual field and divides it into the producing field (including the architects and other artists) and those who consumes the art and have the economic power over the producers. In my case these may be the sponsors, that sign contracts with the producers, persons within the municipality and government that will put limitations on and approve the building. The dominated field, the producers, can still have a relative autonomy to the dominating field, for example due to expertise.48 Donald Broady, an interpreter of Bourdieu, means that a field must be autonomous to be viewed as a field. The degree of autonomy depends on several factors of which one is important in the above structure: the field must have its own type of capital.49 The different fields and capital will be used when discussing the roles and responsibilities that identify the fields in the concert hall project.

Mizruchi and Yoo have written about organizations and interactions between organizations. All organizations must respond to external stimuli, it may be government regulations, economic factors, supply and demand, and other organizations. The organizations are dependent on each other, and when there is dependence it means that there is power from one organization over another. The dependence is not always in just one direction it can act in both ways, usually on different topics or activities.50 This may be compared to Bourdieu’s Theory of Fields and dominated versus dominating. This will be another way when looking on the organizations within the concert hall but also when looking at dependencies between the government, the municipality, and the concert hall, and when looking at the client/sponsors and the architect. The client has the economic power and dominates the architect while the architect has the cultural power; sometimes the economic power trumps the cultural power and sometimes it is the opposite.

Within the fields there are networks of people. Some networks existed from before the

47 Bourdieu, The Rules of Art. 48 Pierre Bourdieu. ”The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World reversed”, in The Field of Cultural Production, edited by Pierre Bourdieu, 29–73. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993: 37–38. 49 Broady. “Nätverk och fält”: 50–52. 50 Mark S. Mizruchi and Mina Yoo. “Interorganizational Power and Dependence.” in The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, edited by Joel A. C. Baum, 599–620. Oxford UK: Blackwell, 2002: 599–600.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress concert hall was decided and some were the result of the project. For example, the Concert Hall Committee used their individual networks to raise money from the donors. This was possible as the networks were built on informal power relations.51

Projects are initiated to accomplish something specific; they will take time and they have associated costs. To govern projects there are stakeholders who have the economic capital.52 Usually, if the stakeholders consist of different parties, sometimes with conflicting interests, they establish a steering committee that is delegated this power, and thereby receives the economic capital and power to take decisions about the project, such as starting or terminating the project; they have an overall monitoring and controlling mandate. This is in line with Bourdieu’s Theory of Fields. The economic power is delegated, even if the steering committee’s representatives in themselves do not have the economic capital. The steering committee is dominating the project, a separate field, with its project manager, who is usually appointed or at least approved by the steering committee. In Bourdieu’s terms the project manager has more of cultural capital, even if he or she may also have a delegated budget. The project manager is a professional person and can be regarded in the same way as an artist or maybe an art teacher. According to the art historian Marta Edling the teacher and the students in an art school have a natural aptitude for their studies and they were usually from the higher social groups. They possessed cultural capital.53 The project manager and his/her team might be regarded in the same manner.

Another theory that will be used is the “global standard” of Project management as outlined in A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK® Guide).54 This will also be used as a method and will be presented under that heading.

51 See Ylva Hasselberg, Leos Müller, and Niklas Stenlås. “Åter till historiens nätverk.” in Sociala nätverk och fält, edited by Håkan Gunneriusson, Uppsala: Swedish Science Press, 2002: 15. 52 The term stakeholder comes from that the person has invested something and so have something “at stake”, which he or she may lose. 53 Marta Edling. Fri Konst? Bildkonstnärlig Utbildning Vid Konsthögskolan Valand, Konstfackskolan Och Kungl. Konsthögskolan 1960 – 1995. Göteborg och Stockholm: Makadam Förlag, 2010. 54 Project Management Institute, PMI. PMBOK® Guide.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Material and method

Material

The primary material may be divided into two different categories: material in archives, and published books and articles. For this thesis there are three possible archives that house material. The first is ArkDes, where the material from the architect Ivar Tengbom is stored. The material from the concert hall at ArkDes is contained in three boxes plus drawings. The boxes contain mostly formal notes, letters, minutes from meetings and the contract for his assignment as architect. There are some PM:s but not any personal notes. It is evident that the material has been screened before it was deposited at ArkDes. The second archive that is of interest are files from the Foundation Stockholm Concert Hall, Konserthusstiftelsen, stored by the Swedish National Archives, Riksarkivet, in Marieberg, Stockholm. The files from the concert hall take up 28 running meters, divided into categories. The categories that will be of interest are minutes of the board 1919–1926, minutes from the Executive Committee 1917–1926, minutes from the Building Committee 1922–1926, external communications 1917–1926, investigations 1922–1926, and documents about the conception of the concert hall 1905–1925.55 The third archive is Stockholms Stadsarkiv where the documents from the municipality of Stockholm is stored. All the material has been scanned and is available online. For this study it is minutes from the city council, their investigations to base decisions on, and PM:s that are of interest.

In the beginning of the 20th century Swedish architects used to write about their building projects in the publications Byggmästaren and/or Arkitekten. These articles will be part of the source material. There is, for instance, an article in Byggmästaren which builds on information from Ivar Tengbom.56 There are also some small booklets, that is of interest. The earliest documented investigation regarding how a concert hall could be realized in Stockholm was made by some influential persons in Stockholm 1905.57 At the inauguration of the concert hall a book called Minnesskrift was published. This book contains two articles, one of the process before the construction and one by Tengbom

55 In the appendix there are copies of two documents from the files at Riksarkivet. 56 “Konserthusbygget,” Byggmästaren, 1926: 170–172. 57 “Utlåtande rörande konserthusfrågan i Stockholm, 29 Dec. 1905”, Stockholm, 1906.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress covering the construction.58

There is other material that will be used to a lesser degree that will give other perspectives on the concert hall. For example, articles and debates around the actual location of the concert hall. Lilienberg wrote a short article that propagates that the concert hall should be built at the end of Sveavägen, seen from the north.59 Gunnar Asplund discusses both the location of the concert hall and propagates that the invited architects for the Stockholm concert hall should have the freedom to discuss the current city plan.60 Britt Eva Schartau discusses the concert hall in respect to the marketplace Hötorget. She also covers the contest and the winning proposal by Ivar Tengbom.61 This material will be used as material in the background of the concert hall and its location.

Method

The data are mainly collected through archival research of written texts produced within organizations. Archives are sedimentary and accumulated over the years and may, as Corti means, be “subject to erosion or fragmentation – by natural (e.g., accidental loss or damage) or manmade causes (e.g., purposive selection or organizational disposal policies). Material is therefore subjectively judged to be worthy of preservation by either the depositor or archivist and therefore may not represent the original collection in its entirety”.62

The success in retrieving and recognizing the data depends on several factors. First is the question of what has been achieved. The material available at ArkDes depends on what the individual architect or the successors have chosen to send to ArkDes. There may be some bias in the selection, as I did not find any personal notes among the material. Another bias comes from the retrieval process and the researcher. The archives that were used consists of qualitative data. The amount of data in the archives is extensive. I did not

58 Ivar Tengbom. “Konserthusbyggnaden.” In Stockholms konserthus: minnesskrift vid invigningen, Stockholm den 7 april 1926, 41–62. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1926. 59 Albert Lilienberg. “Konserthusets placering,” Arkitektur, 1921. 60 Gunnar Asplund. “Konserthuset,” Arkitektur 1921, no. 1 (1921): 1–4. 61 Britt Eva Schartau. “Idéer kring Hötorget,” in Sankt Eriks Årsbok 1979, Samfundet S:t Erik, Stockholm 1979): 111– 122. 62 Louise Corti, “Archival Research.” In The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods, edited by Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim F. Liao. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2004, 21.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress use any sampling method when accessing the different documents, I looked at every single document. All the documents are written, mostly type-written, text. I eye-scanned all the documents that were available to me and selected those that were of interest depending on how the work was performed, organization, roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, or if they covered scope/requirements, schedule/time, or cost.

If the document covered one or more af these topics, I made a short note about the document, its date, where it was found, what it contained and, sometimes, of its immediate importance. If it was a long document or if I was not possible to describe it fully at the time, I took photos of it, and recorded in my notes that there were photos. Afterwards I went through my notes and the photos and classified the document if it was about cost, time, scope, organization, and/or roles. I recorded for each document: date of the document, photo-ids, archive, and a description. In the description I afterwards added more notes as I studied the photos of the document. My coding could be looked upon as a qualitative content analysis, as Pickering describes it.63 Often the same document could be found both in the files from the concert hall and in Tengbom’s files. They were both documented in my notes. Some documents were overlapping, as they first raised a question, then was discussed, and finally decided. Each of these instances were recorded.

With the amount of material there is of course a risk that some specimen that could have been of importance were missed. This could be regarded as a bias, but it was probably more random and did not affect the result.

Project management as a science and method

Can project management be regarded as a theory and scientific method? In project management courses there is usually a slide that says it is both a science and a practice. Is there a conflict between being both a practice and a science? Gilles Garel means “The status of project management as a ‘theory’ continues to compete for recognition against its ‘professional’ dimension. This tension is commonplace in disciplines rooted in practices,

63 Michael J. Pickering. “Qualitative Content Analysis.” In The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods, edited by Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim F. Liao. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2004. Regarding the use of memos for documentation, see Juliet M. Corbin,. “Memos, Memoing.” In The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods, edited by Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim F. Liao. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2004.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress especially when they are new.”64 There has, over the last 40 years, been a development towards a theory, or rather a group of theories, around project management. These theories are built from practices but have been synthesized into theories. The major work that can both be regarded as a set of theories, a method, and a standard is A Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge, called PMBoK® Guide, developed under the umbrella of the international organization Project Management Institute (PMI).65. The PMBoK® Guide has been developed since 1987, the first printed version was released in 1996. A new version is released about every fourth year. Over one thousand persons are involved across the globe to update and add to the next version. PMBoK® Guide 4th edition has been the foundation for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) when developing Guidance on Project Management.66

Several historians argue for looking at history with the eyes of that period.67 I have chosen to use today’s methods (from PMBoK® Guide) when studying a project in the past, as there were no project management best practises or methods commonly used in the beginning of the 20th century. This has been done in the few examples of historical projects that are available and will make it possible to, in the future, compare and discuss historical projects.68 Using today’s glasses does not imply that I will criticize the processes or the individuals from today’s knowledge, but rather that I will look at the past with what is currently state of the art.

PMBoK® Guide consists of some 40 processes. These processes are grouped into five Process Groups: Initiating, Planning, Executing, Monitoring and Controlling, and Closing Processes. These process groups are not sequential during the project. They are in play all through the project, but with varying intensity, as is shown in Figure 1.

64 Gilles Garel, “A History of Project Management Models: From Pre-Models to the Standard Models,” International Journal of Project Management 31, no. 5 (July 2013): 664. 65 Project Management Institute, PMI, PMBOK® Guide. 66 “ISO 21500:2012 Guidance on Project Management.” ISO. Geneva: International Standards Association, 2012. 67 See for example Marc Bloch. The Historian’s Craft. Translated by Peter Putman. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992, and Michael Baxandall. Painting & Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. 68 Examples of this research are Kozak-Holland, and Procter. “Florence Duomo Project (1420–1436): 242–55, and Procter, and Kozak-Holland. “The Giza Pyramid: Learning from This Megaproject.”: 364–83.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Executing Processes

Closing Planning Processes Processes Initiating Controlling Processes Processes Level of Activity

Phase start Time Phase Finish Figure 1 Overlap of process groups during a phase. From PMBoK® Guide, page 51.

When defining specific project models, often based on PMBoK® Guide, these process groups are shown as sequential project phases: initiation, when the project is being prepared as a project – it really is not yet defined as a project. Next follows the planning phase, where the project is being broken down from requirements into its scope, schedule, cost, quality, risks, human resources and so on. Between the phases there are usually decision points or Gates. Each phase according to PMBoK® Guide can be looked on as a project in its own, and are for large projects, and mega projects, usually run that way. PMBoK® Guide is divided into 10 Knowledge Areas. Each knowledge area has processes in two or more process groups. The knowledge areas are: Integration, Scope, Time, Cost, Quality, Human Recourses, Communication, Risk, Procurement, and Stakeholder Management. There are four basic knowledge areas that are present in all projects and are crucial: scope, time, cost, and stakeholder management. Most projects also involve uncertainty and risks, and quality-aspects. In this thesis I will focus on the four basic knowledge areas:

• Scope, where the facilities, functions, and other requirements were defined, broken down to work packages, and controlled and managed throughout the project. The control is crucial to avoid “scope creep”, where the scope is changed without formal decision and will impact what is being delivered as well as the following two areas. Specific quality requirements will be incorporated in the scope as requirements. The same goes for specific risks and their mitigations which also will be formulated as specific tasks within scope. • Time, defined as the decided schedule, and how this schedule is controlled to avoid slippage.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

• Cost and the formally decided budget. A budget shows the decided cost over time. The budget must be controlled to avoid cost overruns. • Stakeholder and the roles different persons and organizations have during the whole process. An important part of Stakeholder management is to control the expectations of what is going to be delivered. If not controlled there is a danger that the expectations will increase over time, especially when the project takes several years. This will lead to dissatisfaction, when the expectations are higher than what is delivered in accordance with the contract.69

Outline of the thesis

The main part of this thesis is divided into three chapters. Mats Engwall pointed out that when we are studying project and project management of the past, we must consider the context of the project.70 The context and why a project is started is important as it gives valuable information on what the project is targeted to achieve. The next chapter (chapter 2) is about the period before the project came into being and the organization with stakeholders and persons that were involved, their roles and responsibilities. The third chapter investigates and analyzes the three project parameters of scope, cost, and time. How did the steering committee, and the project manager, Tengbom, manage these? The thesis will be discussed and summarized in chapter four, where I will go back to my research questions and answers to them. In this chapter I will also make reflections on the method and possible future research.

69 This can be compared to what Christian Grönroos (professor in Business Administration at Åbo Academi) writes about Expected Quality versus Experienced Quality in his Service Management and Marketing - Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition. Massachusets and Toronto: Lexington Books, 1990: 41. 70 Engwall, “No Project Is an Island: Linking Projects to History and Context”.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

2. Organizing the project

The 1920s was a turbulent period in Sweden as in most western countries. According to Lars Magnusson it was a struggle between old ways of manufacturing and doing business and the new ways, where the productivity was increased by, for example, scientific management. The decade started with a fall of 25 % in production and an unemployment of equal proportion. The years thereafter became an industrial boom and resulted in a high level of growth (7–8 % per annum).71 Stockholm was transformed during the late 19th and early 20th century with an increased population. Both the demand for culture and the number of individuals that practiced cultural activities grew. Stockholm did not at that time possess a venue where many singers could perform in front of a public or for a symphony orchestra. This chapter will give an overview of the total process when the Stockholm concert hall was built, equipped, and decorated. While doing so it is convenient to cover roles and responsibilities during the process. Roles and responsibilities were one of the research questions. Here I will apply Bourdieu’s Theory of Fields and the different kinds of capital.72

The process can be divided into three different periods. The first is the period from the earliest discussions of having a concert hall in Stockholm. In this case from the beginning of the 20th century until 1921, when Ivar Tengbom drawings for the concert hall had been decided to be the future concert hall. The second period starts with discussions of the renumeration to Tengbom when he was contracted, until the concert hall was inaugurated, and the final works had been concluded. This period starts early in 1922 and ends in mid- 1926. The third and last period starts when the concert hall had been formally handed over to its future owner, the Concert Hall Foundation, Stiftelsen Stocholms Konserhus.73 This last period will only be mentioned briefly, as it is outside the scope of this thesis.

The pre-period, 1900–1921

The organization, Konsertföreningen i Stockholm, was started in 1902 to facilitate

71 Lars Magnusson. An Economic History of Sweden. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2000: 162–165. 72 Bourdieu, The Rules of Art. See also the discussion in the theory section. 73 In different documents both Konserthusstiftelsen and Stiftelsen Stockholms Konserthus is mentioned. The mean the same.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress symphonic concerts in Stockholm.74 Together with a non-profit organization consisting of singers they performed one of the first investigations of how Stockholm could get a concert hall. This was documented in a short report called “Utlåtande Rörande Konserthusfrågan i Stockholm, 29 Dec. 1905”.75 The investigation was performed by a group of influential men: Tor Aulin, violinist, conductor and composer, Ferdinand Broberg, architect and artist, Wilhelm Granath, writer, Carl Lindhagen, member of the parliament and lawyer, C. E. Ljungberg, John May, insurance and founder of Concert Hall Foundation, and Carl Möller, architect and public official, director of Överintendentsämbetet.76 While one of the goals with a concert hall was to enable ordinary people to take part in the cultural life and have the opportunity to hear music for a low fee it is remarkable that it was only men from the elite who discussed and planned for a concert hall.

In the report they discuss several alternatives for a concert hall and what it also could (should?) be used for as well as where it could be located in Stockholm. The main conclusions, due to economic constraints, were that it should only be a house for concerts with two auditoriums, one large for circa 2.500 and one smaller for circa 800. The geographical location should be decentralized and not in the center of Stockholm, which at that time was defined as around Gustaf Adolfs Torg. The proposed site was the place where the Historic museum is currently located in Stockholm. The estimated revenues and costs showed that as a business enterprise the proposal was not viable. To cover the initial investment private donations were necessary and that the City of Stockholm owned and leased the land to the concert hall. In the report the estimated cost to accomplish the building was SEK 4 million.77

The question of a concert hall in Stockholm was debated during the next 10 years in different ways. There were two main obstacles: where to locate the concert hall and how to finance it.78 The first had to be solved by the city, while the second was to get private

74 This is noted in an undated letter to the King (Kungl. Maj:t) titled “Lokalfrågan”, Riksarkivet SE/RA/780006/B2/1. 75 “Utlåtande Rörande Konserthusfrågan i Stockholm, 29 dec. 1905”: 24–26. 76 Överintendentsämbetet was the predecessor to Kungliga Byggnadsstyrelsen (today Statens Fastighetsverk) and was responsible and caretaker for all governmental buildings in Sweden but also had the task to approve all official buildings. 77 “Utlåtande Rörande Konserthusfrågan i Stockholm, 29 dec. 1905”. 78 Holger Nyblom. “Konserthusets förhistoria.” In Stockholms Konserthus: Minnesskrift vid invigningen, Stockholm den 7 april 1926. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1926.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress donations and was far from resolved.

Figure 2: Location of the concert hall. Map of Stockholm from 1930. Accessed from https://stockholmskallan.stockholm.se/sok/?q=&map=true

Already in the first decades of the 20th century Stockholm experienced traffic jams and the infrastructure needed to be developed to support new living areas in the northern part of the city. The plan was to make Sveavägen and Kungsgatan (not yet the streets they are today) as main thoroughfares. At this time, the discussion had not really started in the municipality regarding new, public buildings like the Stockholm City Library or a concert hall, except the town hall that had started to be planned. There was no decided building plan for Norrmalm and Hötorget until 1927, by which time several of the significant buildings were already in place. The municipality eventually decided that a concert hall should be located at the south-western corner of the crossing between Kungsgatan and Sveavägen.79

In October 1917, a group of men met to discuss to formalize an organization that could bring the concert hall into being. Firstly, they needed to find a number fundraisers.80 The fundraisers needed to be socially well connected and be donors themselves. In November

79 Eriksson, Mellan tradition och modernitet: Arkitektur och arkitekturdebatt 1900–1930: 400. 80 ”P.M. i anledning av förhandlingarna vid sammanträdet i konserthusfrågan den 27 Oktober 1917” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

1917 the Stockholm Concert Hall Committee, Stockholms konserthuskommitté, was inaugurated, with 33 persons in the committee, and the work to realize a concert hall started in earnest.81 The idea was to solve part of the financial problem by a lottery, which required a permit from the government. A basic requirement was that the municipality could lease the land close to Hötorget. Most of the site was divided into several smaller plots that already were owned by the municipality, except for one plot that the Foundation bought from a private owner and handed over to the municipality. The City of Stockholm agreed to lease the plots for an annual fee of 10 Swedish crowns.82 Several wealthy denizens in Stockholm donated more than 2 million crowns during the first couple of months, which together with a lottery gave a starting sum early in 1919 of the required 4 million, that the building was estimated to cost.83

The organization around the concert hall needs to be explained, as it consisted of several different but connected bodies. As mentioned above the first was the Concert Hall Committee (Stockholms Konserthuskommitté), constituted in November 1917, to make the fundraising possible, with 33 members. In this committee it was decided to instigate a smaller body, an Executive Committee, Konserthuskommitténs arbetsutskott, with eight members. All of these eight were part of the nucleus that started the process. The tasks of the Executive Committee were to be trustees of the funds, and to lead the process of the future concert hall. The executive committee was granted the right to negotiate with the authorities and to monitor the actual building process.84

As a result of the negotiations with the City of Stockholm it was agreed that the concert hall should be owned and managed by a foundation. The Executive Committee proposed the establishment of the Concert Hall Foundation, Stiftelsen Stockholms konserthus, on January 22, 1919. The actual decision to establish this Foundation had to be taken by the Concert Hall Committee, but on the recommendation by the Executive Committee. The

81 ”Protokoll hållet vid konstituerande sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommitté den 8 November 1917” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1. 82 ”Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés arbetsutskott den 22 januari 1919” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1, and Stockholms stadsfullmäktiges protokoll, tisdagen 17 december 1918, § 36 and referering to Bihang N:r 212 till Beredningsutskottets utlåtande och memorial för år 1918, Stadsarkivet Kommunfullmäktige tryck 1863-2009. 83 Nyblom. “Konserthusets Förhistoria”. Note that the amount had not changed since 1902. 84 ”Protokoll hållet vid konstituerande sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommitté den 8 November 1917” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress board of the foundation, according to the agreement with the City of Stockholm, was to consist of nine persons, of which the Government of Sweden, Kungl. Maj:t, was to appoint one, who should also act as chairman of the board. The City of Stockholm was to appoint two members and the rest, six members, to be chosen by the Concert Hall Committee. A curiosity was that one of the members was the editor Hjalmar Branting, who not so much later, 1920, became the first Social Democratic prime minister. Otherwise, the members that were selected consisted of other members from the board of the Concert Hall Committee. It was also decided to appoint an architect as expert when drawing up the tender request for the concert hall.85 In the files the tender document is called the Program and may be looked upon as the requirement document for the building. It can be noted that up until the inauguration in 1926 the Foundation did not take any active part.

To monitor and control the actual building of the concert hall, the Executive Committee recommended the Concert Hall Committee to establish a group called Building Delegated (Byggnadsdelegerade), March 1923. At the same time the Committee decided to change the name of the Executive Committee to Concert Hall Sub-Committee or just the sub- committee.86 The different organizational bodies are summarized in table 1.

Table 1: Different organizations within the Concert Hall

Name Established by and Established Main tasks reports to Concert Hall Committee 1917 The final decision maker until the (Stockholms Concert Hall Foundation takes konserthuskommitté) over the building in 1926. Executive Committee Concert Hall Committee 27 October 1917 To raise and handle the (Konserthuskommitténs funds. To drive the realization of arbetsutskott) the Concert Hall. To expedite all questions that needs to be decided by the Concert Hall Committee. Concert Hall Foundation Concert Hall Committee 22 January 1919. To sign agreements and to, in the (Stiftelsen Stockholms but reports to no one. As a Inaugural meeting future, own the actual building.

85 ”Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés arbetsutskott den 22 Januari 1919” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1. 86 “Protokoll, hållet vid sammanträde den 16 Mars 1923 med Stockholms Konserthuskommitté i Skandinaviska Kredit A. B:s hus, Gustaf Adolfs Torg N:o 18” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1. The first page of this document is shown in the appendix, at the end of the thesis.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Name Established by and Established Main tasks reports to konserthus) legal entity the Foundation 5 June 1919. stands on its own. Concert Hall Sub Concert Hall Committee 16 March 1923 Same as Executive Committee Committee (Konserthuskommittens sub-kommitté) New name for the Executive Committee Building Delegated Concert Hall Committee 16 March 1923 Responsible for the realization of (Byggnadsdelegerade) on recommendation by the the Concert Hall. Executive Committee, to whom it reports.

The Executive Committee was responsible for defining and executing a tender competition. The committee consisted, among others, of district judge (häradshövding) Walter Philipson, the lawyer Erik Lidforss, and the founder of NK Josef Sachs. Prince Eugen was nominated as honorary chairman.87 These four men were part of the original initiators and became Building Delegated.

The request for tender for the new concert hall was released in March 1920. At that time, the main façade was to be towards Sveavägen with a small square between Sveavägen and the concert hall.88 The contest was open to all architects, but three architects were specially invited: Erik Lallerstedt, Ivar Tengbom and Torben Grut.89 Both Lallersted and Tengbom were placed as number one, but Tengbom received the contract since he had shown how the large and small concert halls could be placed on the same floor without

87 Nyblom. “Konserthusets Förhistoria.”: 27, and “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott den 10 Oktober 1919” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1. 88 Stockholms stadsfullmäktiges protokoll, tisdagen 17 december 1918, § 36 and referering to Bihang N:r 212 till Beredningsutskottets utlåtande och memorial för år 1918, Stadsarkivet Kommunfullmäktige tryck 1863-2009. 89 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott den 10 Oktober 1919” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1, and ”Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott den 27 Mars 1920” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1, and Schartau. “Idéer kring Hötorget”: 111.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress overhearing between the two halls.90

There was a discussion, at least among architects, about the concert hall. Shortly after the architectural contest had been decided, Albert Liljenberg argues that the concert hall should be placed in the middle of Sveavägen, which meant that the street had to make a circumvention around the concert hall. Liljenberg idea was that a signature building like the concert hall must be seen and should take a central position in the newly developed part of Stockholm.91 This was opposed by Gunnar Asplund, who thought that the location at the corner between Sveavägen and Kungsgatan was a superb placement, and argued that the concert hall should be placed by the side of Sveavägen and not in the middle of it. He also argued that the main facade should be turned towards Hötorget, and not towards Sveavägen, as was the current plan.92 This was later agreed by the City of Stockholm and the façade was turned towards Hötorget but required a change in the city plan (stadsplan) which in turn required approval by the government (Kungl. Maj:t through its agency Byggnadsstyrelsen).93

Period 1922 until 1926

Tengbom won the tender contest in February 1921 but was not officially contracted until late October 1922. In the meantime, he participated in several investigations. The start of the construction was estimated to be in April 1923. Tengbom was asked to make the final drawings for the building and to monitor the erection of the building, when all permits had been obtained.94

In a memorandum from the beginning of 1922, when the renumeration for the architect was discussed, it is evident that he was being asked to be responsible for the economic and technical leadership of the project, that is in fact the project manager.95 This is further elaborated in the contract between Tengbom and Building Delegated, signed in October

90 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott den 1 Februari 1921” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1. 91 Lilienberg. “Konserthusets Placering.”: 15–17. 92 Asplund. “Konserthuset.”: 1–4. 93 Stockholms stadsfullmäktiges protokoll, måndagen 19 mars 1923, § 12, Stadsarkivet Kommunfullmäktige tryck 1863– 2009. 94 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott å Professor I. Tengboms kontor i Stockholm den 11 November 1921” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1. 95 ”P. M. Konserthuset. Arvoden arkitekt och byggchef.” in ArkDes, AM1984-11 box 80.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

1922. In the contract, the architect was delegated the responsibility for all drawings, work descriptions, contracts with entrepreneurs except for documents and decisions regarding heating, ventilation, gas water and drainage pipes, electricity, lifts, lightning, furniture, and other furnishings. He was to cooperate with the entrepreneurs responsible for the exceptions and to make plans for the erection of the building and be responsible to participate in different inquires and investigations regarding the economy as well as ad hoc. He was to present and execute the decisions taken by Building Delegated. He was the technical and art director, had the responsibility to monitor and control the work, and participate with quality inspections. The architect also had the responsibility to handle contacts with different outside governing organizations and to instigate tenders from different entrepreneurs, when required. Even if the furniture and other equipment was not among the architect’s responsibility, he was nevertheless responsible for planning and to make drawings for these both from an artistic point and acquisition of these. The concert hall was planned to be ready for use in September 1925.96

In a meeting with Building Delegated in June 1923 the decision was to engage the master builder, Axel Olsson, for the foundation and erection of the building.97 This was confirmed a few days later by the Sub-Committee. The contracted sum was SEK 2.3 million.98 I have not been able to find the actual contract between the concert hall and Axel Olsson in any of the archives. It is, however, clear that the architect was responsible for the contacts and overall management of the construction.

In Bourdieu’s terms Building Delegated had the economic capital while the architect had the cultural capital and was dominated by Building Delegated. After signing the contract, Building Delegated still retained the economic power, as they had formally declared that

96 I have found the contract both in the archives from the concert hall and in the documents that Tengbom has deposited at ArkDes. “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegation å Professor Ivar Tengboms kontor den 24 okt. 1922, kl 1,30 em.” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1 and ”Kontrakt Mellan Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade, här nedan kallade delegerade, å ena och Professor Ivar Tengbom, här nedan kallad arkitekten, å andra sidan, är följande avtal träffat.”, in ArkDes, AM1984-11 box 80. 97 Axel Olsson has an extremely low profile in all documents and in texts about Stockholm Concert Hall. Who he was and how he accomplished his tasks can only be derived from his change requests and proposals to Building Delegated. 98 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegation å Professor Ivar Tengboms kontor den 19 juni 1923, kl 1,30 em.” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1 and ”Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde den 22 Juni 1923 med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Subkommitté å Professor Ivar Tengboms kontor” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress all agreements must be signed by them, even if the architect was responsible for the tenders, receiving and evaluating proposals. The architect, on the other hand, had by delegation received some of the economic power vis à vie the entrepreneurs and vendors. Even if the mandate Tengbom had was substantial, it was Building Delegated that had the ultimate power in decisions. The architect had the full responsibility only when it came to the drawings for the building and for managing the daily operations in the project. This division between responsibility and accountability is not unusual for the division of power between the sponsor(s) and the project manager.

Interesting to note is that the building permit was approved by the City of Stockholm in March 1925. The building was under roof, that is the frame and roof were finished, in November 1924. The permit states that work on the construction must not be started before the building site has been measured, which it was in October 1924, but even so the building had started before all approvals.99 Furthermore the agreement of the lease of the land was signed by the City of Stockholm and the Foundation Stockholm Concert Hall in July 1925. In this agreement it is confirmed that the lease is for 100 years, starting July 1925, and a symbolic rent of 10 Swedish crowns per year.100 During 1925 there were several proposed alterations and additions, all decided by Building Delegated, as well as decisions on installations, decorations and other equipment that were in the cost estimates but had not been specified before. All decisions were based on proposals including costs from the entrepreneurs and vendors.101

From fall 1925 and to the inauguration, in 1926, several discussions and decisions were documented regarding details like a book, donators table, medals et cetera. In February 1926 Building Delegated decided that a schedule for the remaining work to finish the concert hall, including artistic works, should be produced.102 The decision was to have the

99 ”Byggnadslov” in Handlingar rörande konserthusets tillblivelse och invigning, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/F 3/1 and ”Protokoll över förrättning för tomtsättning av tomten N:o 2 uti kvarteret Konserthuset å Norrmalm, Stockholm” dated 21 October 1924, in Handlingar rörande konserthusets tillblivelse och invigning, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/F 3/1. 100 ”Mellan Stockholms stads fastighetsnämnd, å ena, samt Stiftelsen Stockholms Konserthus, å den andra sidan. Är, upprättat detta Tomträttsavtal” in Handlingar rörande konserthusets tillblivelse och invigning, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/F 3/1. 101 In appendix there is a copy of a proposal of changes and additions. 102 “Protokoll, hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegerade i Konserthuset i Stockholm den 15 februari 1926” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress inauguration ceremony on the 7th of April 1926.103

In a meeting with Building Delegated, 6 April 1926, it was formally decided that the building was to be handed over to the Foundation Stockholm Concert Hall just before the inauguration the next day.104 Even if the Stockholm Concert Hall was inaugurated and the ownership handed over, all the work on the building and, above all, its interiors were not finished. The Stockholm Concert Hall Committee had formally been discharged, Building Delegated was still functioning and was responsible for all remaining work. The architect Tengbom was retained and supported Building Delegated.

For the third period, that is after 1926, Stockholm Concert Hall was managed and operated by the Foundation Stockholm Concert Hall. Most of the concerts were arranged by Konsertföreningen. When looking at the acts from the time after 1926 there were numerous alterations and additions to the concert hall. In a document from 1954 it can be noted that the architect Tengbom was still part of the concert hall, now in the Foundation.105

Discussion on roles and responsibilities

The same nucleus of men that started the process to get a concert hall in Stockholm maintained dominating roles in the whole process until the concert hall was finished and handed over to the Foundation Stockholm Concert Hall. The four men constituting Building Delegated was continuing in that position until 1930, when that organization was discharged after handing over all the remaining funds to the foundation. During all these years the architect Tengbom participated in the Executive Committee, Building Delegated and later in the Foundation Stockholm Concert Hall. Table 2 shows the original initiators of the concert hall and how they participated in the different organizations. It is evident that the four men H. R. H. Prince Eugen, Josef Sachs, Erik Lidforss, and Walter Philipson were central during the process and three of them continued to be part of the Foundation.

103 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegerade i Stockholm den 8 februari 1926” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. 104 “Protokoll, hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegerade i Konserthuset i Stockholm den 15 februari 1926” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. 105 ”P. M.” dated 3 November 1954 in PM och utredningar, Riksarkivet SE/RA/780006/F 2/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Tengbom is not included in the table, as he was not elected, only opted in.106

Table 2: Persons elected to the different organizations and time of involvement.

Name Initiators Concert Executive Building Foundation Hall Committee Delegated Stockholm Committee Concert Hall H. R. H. Prince Eugen 1917 1917-26 1917-26 1923-30 1924- Jonas C:son Kjellberg 1917 1917-26 1917-26 Josef Sachs 1917 1917-26 1917-26 1923-30 Oscar Rydbeck 1917 1917-26 1917-26 Erik Lidforss 1917 1917-26 1917-26 1923-30 1919- Johan May 1917 1917-26 1917-26 Otto L. Fürstenberg 1917 1917-24 1917-24 Walter Philipson 1917 1917-26 1917-26 1923-30 1919-

The initiators had a central role during the whole process and were highly placed in the society and had an interest in music. H. R. H. Prince Eugen (1865–1947) was the youngest son to the king Oscar II of Sweden. He was an artist, a painter. He was also engaged in the cultural life of Stockholm. Jonas C:son Kjellberg (1858–1942) was a Swedish member of the parliament, he was a member of the board of Skandinaviska Kreditaktiebolaget as well as in several other companies. Oscar Rydbeck (1878–1951) was a banker, Managing Director of Skandinaviska Kreditaktiebolaget, vice chairman of Stockholm chamber of commerce, and member of the board in other Swedish companies. Erik Lidforss (1970– 1938) was a lawyer and active in the music life in Stockholm, Fellow of Kungliga Musikaliska Akademien, and vice chairman in Konsertföreningen. Johan May (1860– 1935) was engaged in insurance and was active in many musical organizations including chairman in Stockholms Konsertförening. Otto L. Fürstenberg (1865–1924) was public

106 ”P. M. i anledning av förhandlingar vid sammanträdet i konserthusfrågan lördagen den 27 oktober 1917” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1, and ”Protokoll hållet vid konstituerande sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommitté den 8 November 1917” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1, and ”Protokoll hållet vid konstituerande sammanträde med stiftelsen Stockholms Konserthus i Stockholm torsdagen den 5 juni 1919” in Stiftelsen Stockholms konserthus: styrelsens protokoll, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A1A/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress notary, notarius publicus, in Stockholm. Walter Philipson (1861–1934) was a lawyer and vice district judge (vice Häradshövding), and Fellow of Kungliga Musikaliska Akademien. Josef Sachs (1872–1949) was a businessman and the founder of Nordiska Kompaniet, NK.107 These men possessed social capital and together knew most of the elite in Stockholm during the time 1917 to 1926. All the initiators were part of the Executive Committee. They also possessed economic capital, which can be estimated by that each, except Prince Eugen, donated SEK 100.000 at the first meeting with Concert Hall Committee in 1917. This amount corresponds to more than 3.1 million today per person.108 With their position in the society and the economy in Stockholm, these men belonged to the elite and was the dominating field in Bourdieu’s terms.109

The reason to have different organizations was that the Concert Hall Committee consisted of up to 33 persons, all influential individuals responsible for collecting funds, and were also themselves donors, and were responsible towards the persons that had donated to the concert hall. They shared the social capital needed for the main task, to raise funds. This was too big an organization to lead the process to finish the concert hall. When the two parts, The Concert Hall Committee, and the Executive Committee, were set up, the idea was that the Concert Hall Committee should be the dominating part, as the Executive Committee was supposed to report to the Concert Hall Committee. In practice, however, the formal power was delegated to the Executive Committee, who then became the dominating power. This Executive Committee possessed all types of capital: economic, social, and symbolic, including cultural capital.

When the building-process was started in 1923 it is obvious that the nucleus was the four individuals that formed Building Delegated. With Bourdieu’s eyes we need to see through the organizational structure and focus on the group of individuals, the eight initiators, of which four were appointed Building Delegated. These four became the dominating field; the Executive Committee was subsequently renamed Concert Hall sub-committee. The

107 All information around persons is from Wikipedia: https://www.wikipedia.org accessed 2020-11-30. 108 This amount has been estimated with the use of Rodney Edvinsson’s calculation available at https://ekonomiskamuseet.se/rakna-ut-penningvardet/, accessed 2020-12-14. 109 Bourdieu mentions different kinds of capital: Economic capital can mean both the wealth, also called symbolic capital, and the profit of buying or handling art. In this study I mean the wealth a person has, that is economic and symbolic capital will not be separated. With social capital I mean how known and well renowned he/she is in the community. Bourdieu, The Rules of Art: 142, 148, 361–65.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Building Delegated became at that time the dominating field and dominated not only the project but also the Concert Hall Committee. During the whole building process, the Building Delegated also dominated the Concert Hall Foundation, whose sole purpose until the inauguration was to sign the agreement with the city for the long-term lease of the building site.

Building Delegated had power of attorney and were final decision makers in almost all matters. If they felt the need to get a decision from the Concert Hall Committee, the decision was always the one proposed from Building Delegated. It was just the construction of the building where the architect had the appointed power, a power that was not absolute. Decisions that involved resources not included in the budget had first to be approved by the architect and later decided by Building Delegated.

This set up of committees and delegation was not uncommon. Most companies, then as well as now, have a similar organization. The Concert Hall Committee may be regarded as the board of directors, representing the different stakeholders (donors in this case). The Executive Committee, later sub-committee, can be compared with the president and vice presidents, with the important difference that, in a company, a decision is not taken by a group, it is taken by an individual, who ultimately can be held responsible. Building Delegated had the equivalent in a steering committee for a large project or program. The Building Delegated were acting on behalf of the Sponsors for the project up until the building was finished when the Foundation took over the building. This is typical for most projects.

Compared to most projects today Building Delegated were dominating not only the project manager but also the other stakeholders. In practice, they became the dominating group, even if it was not the formal set-up of the organization. The sum of their capital (economic, social, and cultural) was larger than any of the other groups, which they also belonged to. This is not the case when looking at other projects. The reason this could happen was that the other individuals in the committees were volunteers and chose to participate with money (economic capital) and their own network (social capital) but were only committed with the amount of money they had donated. The initiators and later the inner nucleus of Building Delegated had more at stake – it was their idea and vision; failure was not an option; it would have been a loss of face. They had to take control of all

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress things concerning the building and its furnishings. It should be noted that Building Delegated as well as Tengbom only worked part time in the project. Building Delegated had their other professional roles and Tengbom was at the same time architect for Stockholm School of Economics.

The architect was the project manager handling the day-to-day operations and decisions. Decisions regarding selection of and budget allocations to major suppliers resided with Building Delegated but based on recommendations from the project manager who managed the tenders and proposals. The master builder, who was accountable for the foundation, and erection of the building was managing a sub-project. As sub-project manager he had the responsibility to select vendors for his part of the project. In Bourdieu’s terminology the architect and his team are the producers but also part of the field of power and have relative autonomy. They are dominated by Building Delegated.

Decisions not concerning the building which had an impact on the future operation of the concert hall was a different matter. In the material there are only a few examples of how the power works. The first is in a discussion in 1923 regarding prospective tenants for the shops. Building Delegated and Sub-committee were unsure of the mandate when signing rental agreements with future tenants, as this had long term impacts on the revenues. They decided to raise the question with the Concert Hall Committee and ask for power of attorney to sign the agreements, which they received.110 In this case the Concert Hall Committee took on the responsibility that the Foundation Stockholm Concert Hall should have had, as the long-term owner of the concert hall. The Foundation was established but was not yet fully operational.

The second example is a requirement from 1925 that had been formulated by one of the interested tenants (NK on behalf of the Swedish glass manufacturers) that wanted to rent three of the shops, but they required that the shop windows be moved out 25 centimetres in line with the façade towards Kungsgatan, to facilitate a more effective display. Tengbom, objected to this change as it impacted the façade. He was overruled and wanted

110 “Protokoll, hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés subkommitté den 3 December 1923 å Professor I. Tengboms kontor.” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress his objection to be noted in the minutes. In the meeting were Prince Eugen, Lidforss, Sachs, Philipson and Tengbom. Sachs, who owned NK, is not mentioned in the minutes as taking part or not in the decision. It was Philipson and Lidforss who argued on behalf of the change.111 In this decision it is evident that the power, even over artistic issues, was by Building Delegated.

The third example is in discussion-minutes from 1926. In these minutes, the discussion was about the date for the inauguration. The architect argued for the inauguration should take place April 7, so that the acoustics could be tested, and any needed corrections could be made during the summer and not in the fall. This was supported by Lidforss, but the chairman (not named in the minutes, but was probably Philipson) was hesitant, as he did not want to commit to a date at this time (early February) and may have to change it again. Tengbom argued that the work was going to be finished to make the inauguration possible but understood that the chairman was hesitant due to earlier delays. At the end, and by a suggestion from Prince Eugen, it was agreed that they would communicate that the inauguration would take place the week after easter, but without a specific date.112 In this case it was not a power struggle or a question of being dominating or dominated, this was an example of expressing differences in opinion of the best way to handle a matter and showed a willingness to listen to arguments and to find a solution.

The above examples show that there were not only different opinions but that there were different power structures between Building Delegated and the architect. It also points to that not only formal power, but also informal power was important and that arguments was not only listened to but also affected the decisions. Generally, though, it is evident that the members of Building Delegated were mostly in agreement. They all shared the interest in music and a concert hall. Within the organization, for example in Building Delegated they had different roles, chairman, honorary chairman, secretary, and cashier,

111 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegerade lördagen den 4 april 1925.” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. 112 ”Diskussionsprotokoll från byggnadsdelegerades sammanträde den 8 februari 1926” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. This document is the only document that shows what the different persons actually said. If there were other discussion minutes they have been lost.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress but when formulating decisions and managing the project they acted in unison.

Figure 3, below, shows graphically decision- and information-paths between different organizations. The figure intends to show how Building Delegated were dominating not

Other Sponsors

City of Governement Stockholm (Kungl Maj:t) Conc. Hall Committee 33 pers Sub-C 8 ind. Build. Deleg Major 4 ind. Suppliers

Architect Other Proj. Mgr. supliers

Master Vendors buider

Decisions Information

Figure 3: A breakdown of the different fields. Drawing by Kjell Rodenstedt. only the architect and project manager but also the Sub-committee and Concert Hall Committee. The decision arrows within the three circles go both ways to indicate that the decision is already taken but is confirmed by the two committees. The stakeholders and sponsors outside the Concert Hall Committee is shown as a cloud. They did not affect the process.

There were power structures outside the concert hall: the government, the municipality and in extension the marketplace. They have the power to say Yes or No to a concert hall in Stockholm. The government and municipality had a dominating role over Building Delegated, and in extension the Concert Hall Committee and its Sub-committee. Building Delegated was dominating the whole building process. According to Håkan Gunneriusson

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress all of these could be put together as the elite, as they dominate the Intellectual field.113 By elite in this case I include all the donors, who financed a major part of the Concert Hall.

Summary Roles and Responsibilities

There was a hierarchy of organizational units before and during the construction process. The organizations shifted and had different mandates before, during and after the project phase. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the organizations during the active construction phase. The formal decision was from the Concert Hall Committee to the Sub-committee to Building Delegated and down to the architect as project manager. The decision structure was, however, replaced by delegation, letter of attorney, to Building Delegated. This is shown by the arrows from City of Stockholm and the government that points to Building Committee and not the Concert Hall Committee, or to the Foundation. Almost all formal power was with Building Delegated. The figure also shows the flow of decisions and information within the project.

Looking at the power within the total structure it is evident that it is four persons that have the power from the very beginning to the end, when the Foundation Stockholm Concert Hall formally takes over. Three of these four will continue as members of the board of directors for the Foundation. These four men constitutes the nucleus and the ultimate power and were dominating through the whole process, in Bourdieu’s terms they together constituted a power field dominating all other fields. Nowhere is there any indication that the Concert Hall Committee have had any objections or other ideas to what the Executive Committee (or Sub-committee) or Building Delegated proposed. This is also true between the Sub-committee and Building Delegated. In all other respects the roles and responsibilities have similarities to how both companies and projects are defined, both at that time, and today.

On paper there was a division of power between the different organizations which gave a feeling of check-and-balance. However, there was a nucleus of individuals who had the ultimate power during the whole process. As an example of this is that both Prince Eugen and Walter Philipson were among the initiators in 1917. They were both part of all the

113 Håkan Gunneriusson. “Fält och sociala nätverk — så förhåller de sig till varandra.” In Sociala Nätverk Och Fält, edited by Håkan Gunneriusson, 32–48. Uppsala: Swedish Science Press, 2002: 39.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress committees including Building Delegated and were greatly involved in the building process. When the government had to appoint a chairman for the Foundation, they chose Philipson to be their representative on the board. At the time of the inauguration, April 7 1926, Prince Eugen represented the Concert Hall Committee and thanked everyone involved in the process, including the donors, the government, who had allowed a lottery to finance the building and municipality of Stockholm for leasing the land. He also had the task to formally hand over the concert hall to the foundation. The recipient, the Foundation, was represented by Philipson as the chairman. He in turn, thanked the Concert Hall Committee, its sub-committee and Building Delegated for their great effort to realize the concert hall. Somewhat cynically, he thereby thanked himself, too.114 This shows the limited number of persons who managed the whole process from start to finish and were also part of the ongoing operation of the concert hall, which included all except one person from the Building Delegated. The architect, Tengbom, also continued as part of the Foundation as a consultant.

The different roles and who made decisions in projects usually have a direct impact on the project scope, cost, and time. In the next chapter these three dimensions will be discussed.

114 “Prins Eugens tal” and ”Musiken tillgänglig för alla” in Dagens Nyheter 1926-04-08.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

3. Scope, time, and cost

When going through the minutes from meetings in the different committees between 1917 and 1923 there were some noteworthy decisions made. There were formal decisions in 1917 to establish the Concert Hall Committee, its Executive Committee, and collecting donations from wealthy denizens in Stockholm as well as a lottery, that required a permit from the Swedish Government (Kungl. Maj:t). The establishment of the Concert Hall Foundation was made in 1919. The next decision regarding the building of the concert hall was in 1920 with the contest for bids from architects. The third decision was to contract Tengbom as architect and de facto project manager in 1922. The fourth decision was to hand the concert hall over to the Foundation in April 1926. Nowhere in the minutes from the different committees is there a formal decision to start building the concert hall and to commit resources to the project. Still, the work towards a finished concert hall was progressing steadily over the years.

A project must have a formal start and a definitive end to be defined as a project.115 Neither of these two points in time are clear when reading the different documents. The start can be looked upon as either when the architect was appointed or when the contract with him was signed. The time from appointment, February 1921, to contract, October 1922, was more than 18 months. During that time, the architect was engaged in investigations and calculating costs and finalising the drawings. In my view the start took place sometime during the two points: November 1921, when Tengbom presented the first cost estimate and final drawings.116 The delivery of the concert hall to the Concert Hall Foundation, April 1926, could be one point in time the project may be regarded as closed. On the other hand, there were several outstanding items that were not finished until late 1926. I would like to define the finish in July 1926, when the architect presented a total of all costs up until that date and when the building had been formally handed over to its final owner, the Foundation Stockholm Concert Hall.

115 See the definition of a project: “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result”, according to PMBoK® Guide: 3. 116 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott å Professor I. Tengboms kontor i Stockholm den 11 November 1921” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

The three dimensions scope, time, and cost can be viewed as three sides in a triangle. The scope will be defined and decomposed to work packages and activities. The activities will then be estimated in duration and cost. When the scope, the schedule and budget are formally decided, the three sides are fixed. If one side, say scope, is increased it will have an impact on time and/or cost. This is called the triple constraint (see figure 4, below).

Scope Figure 4 The triple constraint, drawing by Kjell Rodenstedt.

The scope of a project is defined first by formulating the requirements. Requirements may be of different dignities and types. The dignity of a requirement ranges from mandatory requirements, if not being met, the project should not even be considered, down to wishful thinking, that costs much more than they will contribute to the benefits and are usually the ones that, in the end, will jeopardize the whole project. Today we categorize requirements as functional, performance, quality, technical, and safety and security requirements. It is not uncommon that the requirements are dependent and impacts each other; they may even be contradictory; you cannot realize both. When the requirements have been decided upon, they are broken down into functions and further decomposed into work and planning packages, that eventually will become activities, that will be executed. While this is a strict formal process today, it was a process built on experience in the past, you learned both by studying other projects and by your own lessons learned. This was, for example, what Brunelleschi did when building the dome in Florence and the what the project manager did for the great pyramid in Giza.117

The first documents covering the requirements for a future concert hall was formulated in November 1917 and was a memorandum when the Concert Hall Committee was

117 See Kozak-Holland and Procter. “Florence Duomo Project (1420–1436): Learning Best Project Management Practice from History”, and Procter and Kozak-Holland. “The Giza Pyramid: Learning from this Megaproject.” 364–83.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress instigated. This document stated that the concert hall should have one large concert hall with around 2,400 seats, a podium for 300 persons, a built-in concert organ, and a smaller chamber for chamber music with around 600 seats, spacious premises for rehearsals, rooms for administration, library, soloists, conductor et cetera. There should be shops on the ground floor towards Kungsgatan. It was also a requirement that the municipality will let the site to the concert hall for free, but that the Committee will have to buy the plot that was currently privately owned for 225,000 Swedish crowns. The building cost, according to calculations, would be more than 4 million Swedish crowns which would have to be covered by private donors and a lottery.118 Except for the plots where the concert hall was going to be built it should not (and did not) require any funding from the municipality and government.

As part of the tender request, the Concert Hall Committee formulated the overall requirements for the Concert Hall. The requirements was communicated in the tender document, “Program för tävlan om förslag till konserthus i kvarteret Hästhuvudet i Stockholm”, to the participating architects. A summary of the main requirements was the following: current budget 4 million; entrance located towards Sveavägen; the building must not impact neither Sveavägen nor the trade on Hötorget; specifics about height; the size of the two auditoria; the two auditoria must be able to be used simultaneously; premises for a list of functions; specific requirements regarding material, ventilation, electricity et cetera.119

Some of the requirements were specific while others were loftier. It was, after all, a document for the architects participating in the tender to show how they would meet the requirements and at the same time, themselves formulating some of the requirements for the future concert hall. For example, Ivar Tengbom made drawings of the house, both from outside and inside, showing how the space was going to be used. There were cloakrooms, but not how they were going to be outfitted. The same goes for all interior

118 “P. M. angående uppförande av ett konserthus å tomten i kvarteret Hästhuvudet i Stockholm” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1. If SEK 4 million in 1917 is converted to today’s value the estimate to build the concert hall would be almost SEK 123 million, according to of Rodney Edvinsson’s calculation available at https://ekonomiskamuseet.se/rakna-ut-penningvardet/, accessed 2020-12-14. 119 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott den 27 Mars 1920” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress designs and fittings. The drawings were, after some modifications and detailing, enough to use for doing the construction drawings by a building engineer.120 The construction drawings were then used by the master builder to start work.

When the contract with Tengbom was signed in October 1922, there was a separate P. M. covering what kind of materials Building Delegated required for the floors, stairs, columns, walls, and ceilings of the building.121 Except from these three documents there are not any more detailed specifications. Some requirements were most probably collected during a study tour to Hamburg, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Frankfurt. This was done in November 1922 by Building Delegated and the architect.122

A best practice today is to decompose the requirements into functions and then down to work packages and activities. The cost estimates are then done bottom-up, adding the costs for the work packages.123 When looking at cost estimates for the concert hall, there are some specific, well-defined, items while some of the larger costs are just mentioned as one line, for example lifts and ventilation. This indicates that the requirements were developed when needed, rather than up-front.124 The detail requirements for ventilation, heating, gas, water, drainage, and electrical installations were developed by outside consulting firms. When the different construction drawings were finished, they were used for acquiring proposals from different contractors and after a selection process, firm fixed price contracts were awarded.

As the fixed price contract to the master builder, Axel Olsson, was based on the functional requirements and the construction drawings that were not detailed enough the result was several changes and additions. These changes and additions were decided by the architect and Building Delegated continuously during the construction process. Mostly the changes

120 Letter from professor H. Kreüger to professor I. Tengbom, Stockholm 19 April 1922, in ArkDes, AM1984-11 box 80, where Kreüger acknowledges his commission. 121 ”Konserthuset. P. M. över material för interiörerna. 24.10.1922” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskottsbyggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. 122 ”Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegerade å Professor Ivar Tengboms kontor, lördagen den 4 nov. 1922.” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskottsbyggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. 123 A work package is usually defined as a piece of work or work-related activities that can be estimated for cost and duration and can be delegated to a person or in some cases an organization. If the delegation is to an organization, for example an entrepreneur, that organization is expected to do its own decomposition to a suitable level. Related work packages are usually grouped together to a cost account. 124 This way of planning is sometimes called rolling wave planning and is also used in agile development.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress were a response to changes from external factors, work by the other contractors, or in response to unexpected events or difficulties.125 In the minutes from the meetings there is one completely new functional requirement: the facility for cinema in both concert halls.126 This change request was investigated and decided by Building Delegated and resulted in several additions in the construction, changes of electrical cables, and a new room for the cinema projectors. As far as it is possible to understand by the minutes from Building Delegated, all changes and additions were investigated, presented, decided, and documented. There seems not to have been any scope creep, that is changes that were implemented without formal handling. When the change requests were presented there were, however, no investigation of how the changes impacted the schedule, quality, or risks, at least not as documented and available in the archives. The only focus in the minutes was on cost. Between 1923 and January 1926 there were no questions or reports on the total costs, incurred or remaining.

The first cost estimates that have been mentioned in the texts were around four million. That sum is mentioned as early as 1905 and was then repeated in 1917 when the Concert Hall Committee was established and was also mentioned as part of the instructions in the tender competition in 1920.127 In spite of an average yearly inflation of 5.74 percent during the period 1905–1917 the estimate remained the same.128

The level of scope is reflected in the estimated costs for the project. As the scope was not very well defined, as can be derived from the minutes, the cost units were shown in different ways in different calculations done in different times. The first estimation was done in November 1921, before Tengbom’s contract was negotiated and signed. At that time, the architect made two different estimations. The first was a parametric estimation, based on the cubic meters of the building. That estimate after some additions and subtractions showed a total cost of SEK 5.7 million. The second estimate at the same time

125 An example of a proposal for changes and additions, see the appendix. 126 In the minutes from 1925-01-16 the cinema is only mentioned for the larger auditorium but on the detailed drawings there is also a cinema-facility in the smaller. 127 “Utlåtande Rörande Konserthusfrågan i Stockholm, 29 dec. 1905” (Stockholm, 1906), and “P. M. angående uppförande av ett konserthus å tomten i kvarteret Hästhuvudet i Stockholm” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1, and “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott den 27 Mars 1920” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1. 128 Using Rodney Edvinsson’s calculations in https://ekonomiskamuseet.se/rakna-ut-penningvardet 4 million in 1905 corresponds to 7.8 million twelve years later.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress was more of a bottom-up calculation. The total in that case was 6 million.129 The second time an estimate was made was July 1923. At that time, the project had some fixed cost contracts in place with different entrepreneurs, which were used in the calculations together with estimates for items that were still not clear. The total in 1923 was 5.2 million.130 As comparison 5.2 million is in today’s value slightly less than 151 million.131

The third estimate was done in early 1926 and the total cost was at that point SEK 5.4 million. Between this estimate and early 1926, there were several change requests from the master builder. Some of these costs were anticipated by a buffer of ten percent. Over the two years 1924–1925 there were changes and additions for a total of three hundred thousand Swedish crowns.132 In none of the minutes are there any discussions around these changes and additions.133 In June 1926 the architect made his last cost calculation for the project, on actual costs up to that date. The total ended in SEK 5.7 million.134 This is half a million more than the estimate in 1923.

The cost accounts used in July 1923 differs from those used in June 1926, both in the level of detail and where a specific cost was included. Table 3 shows on a summary level how the cost changed from the estimations in 1923 to the actual in 1926, when the project was finished.135

129 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott å Professor I. Tengboms kontor i Stockholm den 11 November 1921” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1. 130 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegerade å professor Tengboms kontor, tisdagen de 23 augusti 1923” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1, and “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegation i Stockholm de 20 jan. 1925.” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. 131This amount has been estimated with the use of Rodney Edvinsson’s calculation available at https://ekonomiskamuseet.se/rakna-ut-penningvardet/, accessed 2020-12-15. 132 The changes are documented in the minutes from the Building Delegated on 6 June 1924, 7 November 1924, 20 January 1925, 20 March 1925, 5 April 1925, and 8 May 1925. These minutes are all located in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. 133 There must have been several changes that were internal within the sub-project of the building construction. Maybe they could be found in the files from the architect Tengbom that I could not access due to the pandemic. 134 ”Stockholms Konserthus, Kostnadstablå 4.6.1926” in ArkDes, AM1984-11 box 80. 135 Table 3 is constructed from material found in both Riksarkivet and ArkDes. For 1923 the material can be found in “Stockholms konserthus Kostnadsförslag 15.7.1923” in Riksarkivet SE/RA/780006/F3/1. The same document is also available in Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. For 1926 the material can be found in ”Konserthuset” in ArkDes, AM1984-11 box 80 and in “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegation i Stockholm den 26 juni 1926 å generaldirektör I. Tengboms kontor.” in an appendix to Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Table 3 Comparison of costs (in KSEK) between estimate in 1923 and final costs in 1926.

All costs in KSEK

Estimate Final calc. Change from Perc.

1923-07-15 1926-06-25 1923 change

Total cost noted in minutes 5200 5676 476 9 of which: Cost of construction & foundation 2696 3197 501 19

In Table 3 the first line shows the total cost including the total building and all furnishings and artistic decorations. The total cost including everything was nine percent higher than estimated in 1923. Compared to most projects of this kind of prestigious buildings this is quite good. The actual building and its erection, that is what the master builder was responsible for, was 19 percent above budget.

The cost of the building was half a million above the estimate. This is an indication of poor scope definition. When looking at the total cost of the building, the construction, the increase is 19 percent. When compared to other significant buildings as well as projects done with rolling-wave planning this is not an exceptionally large deviation.

Tengbom commented some of the costs in a draft letter to Building Delegated.136 In this document he comments on the difficulties in comparing the different calculations due to differences in accounting and the fact that some costs have been allocated to the project instead of to operations (for example some salaries, electricity, and heating of the house). He argues that the decision to start the project was based on the calculation of 5.7 million. The architect means that the high cost for finishing the shops and compares the cost per cubic meter for these premises and says that the total space equals a house with six floors, where an estimate to build this house would have been half a million (while actual costs for the shops were 0.3 million). It was not the actual cost that was too high it was the

136 “Till Konserthuskommitténs Byggnadsdelegerade.” in ArkDes, AM1984-11 box 80. The final version, which isnot as specific, can be found as an appendix to “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegation i Stockholm den 26 juni 1926 å generaldirektör I. Tengboms kontor.” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress estimate that was too low, he writes.137 Nowhere in this document is there comments on the total cost for the building, which was 0.5 million above the estimate in 1923. When looking at the details behind this increase it seems to be due to several changes from incomplete specifications which resulted in many change requests from the master builder. There were also changes that occurred from several strikes by the unions, which impacted both costs and the schedule.

In the contract with the architect and project manager there were some specified dates: proposals from the building entrepreneurs not later than May 1, 1923; the demolition of the existing building should start June 1, 1923; the shell and roof should be finished July 1, 1925 (this is most probably a typo, it should have been July 1924); the building should be finished July 1, 1925; all interior decorations and furniture should be finished September 1, 1925.138 This meant that the builder had two years from starting the demolition until finished building. The artistic decorations, other parts of the interior design and furnishings must be finished in two months, which meant that these activities must be started earlier and be performed in parallel with the building activities, which would impact both the builders and the artists doing the decorations.

When trying to follow what happened on the schedule there was a delay in the whole process of getting proposals for the construction and assigning the Master Builder. The choice of Axel Olsson as Master Builder was made June 22, 1923 – around one month late. The total process of getting the building foundation and construction started was four months later than originally planned.139 On October 3, 1923 there is a letter from Axel Olsson, the Master Builder, to Building Delegated, that the inhabitant, the public health committee, in the building that should be demolished on the building site could not move

137 Depending on who made the estimate. If it was the project manager, then he/she was responsible for poor planning. If the estimate was imposed on the project, the project manager should have escalated this at the time of accepting the project or when the faulty estimate became obvious – not when the project was finished. 138 “Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegation å Professor Ivar Tengboms kontor den 24 okt. 1922, kl 1,30 em.” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1. July 1, 1925 is mentioned twice, both for the building under roof and for the finished building. 139 For documentation around the times see “Ang Stockholms Konserthus”, avskrift, ” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1, ”Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde den 22 Juni 1923 med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Subkommitté å Professor Ivar Tengboms kontor” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskott - protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2A/1, and ”Protokoll hållet vid sammanträde med Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Byggnadsdelegerade å Professor Tengboms kontor, tisdagen den 298 augusti 1923.” in Stockholms Konserthuskommittés Arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Riksarkivet, SE/RA/780006/A2B/1.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress out until later in October.140 Another matter was the discovery that the ground would not be able to carry the weight of the concert hall, unless it was done with reinforced concrete.141 Nowhere are there any documentation of how these events impacted the schedule. Other examples of incidents were at least three disputes with the unions, and the roof had to be temporarily built due to a delay in delivering the columns in front of the building. The strike by the electricians started August 1924 and was not resolved until April 1925. To hide the cables in the walls the final plaster and painting had to wait until spring 1925.

The shell was finished in July 1924 and the building was “under roof” in November 1924 (originally planned for July 1924, four months late) and the total construction seems to have been finished during December 1925, instead of July 1925, that is five months late, or twelve percent. In short, the four months delay in the start continued through the whole construction process with an additional month added during the last year. The decoration and furnishings were planned to take around 2 months, they took four months, and the total concert hall was inaugurated on April 7, 1926 instead of in September 1925. A delay of five months in all, or instead of taking 39 months to finish the actual duration was 46 months or a 18 % delay, of which 11 % were due to a late start for selecting the Master Builder and start of the building construction. The delays are also covered by Tengbom in his notes to Building Delegated in July 1926, when he presented the final cost of the project. The different labour conflicts and the late delivery of the stone colons impacted not only the schedule but also costs and were handled as change requests. There were two major conflicts that impacted the cost and schedule. The electricians strike that lasted eight months and when the union protested that the panelling must be done by carpenters, not cabin makers.142

Looking at public projects today, delays and cost overruns are usually covered by the media and will result in opinions expressed in the press. When looking at how the delay and increased cost was covered in the two leading newspapers in Stockholm: Dagens Nyheter (DN) and Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) there was no mention of the cost at all. The

140 Letter from Axel Olsson to Building Delegated, dated October 3, 1923, in ArkDes, AM1984-11 box 80. 141 Letter from professor H. Kreüger to professor I. Tengbom, Stockholm 21 juni 1924, in ArkDes, AM1984-11 box 80, where Kreüger explains the bearing capacity of the ground. 142 “Till Konserthuskommitténs Byggnadsdelegerade.” in ArkDes, AM1984-11 box 80.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress delays were only noted, and then only in terms of that the inauguration would take place later than expected. The first small notice was in SvD March 30, 1925, when they wrote that conflicts by the union had delayed the process and that the inauguration would not occur until January 1926. The day after in DN the focus was that the building had reached its height, but no mention about strikes or delays.143

In the fall 1925 both newspapers reported that the concert hall should be inaugurated beginning of 1926.144 In December and January they reported that the inauguration would be March 10–12 and in February and March the newspapers reported that the event would be April 7–9.145 There was nowhere any criticism whatsoever of the delays.

Summary of scope, cost, and schedule

It is evident that several requirements were developed as needed when the work was to be commenced on that specific part. The original drawings were also specific enough to be able to make both the technical construction drawings and to show where different rooms, stairs et cetera were to be located as well as their dimensions. Even so, there were several change requests raised during the construction process, several of these were because things were performed by different entrepreneurs or when something was delayed, for example when the columns in front of the building were delayed and there was a need for a temporary way to support the roof or when the plaster and painting on the inside walls were late due to the strike by the electricians.

There were very few completely new requirements for functions not being planned from the start. The only such requirement I have been able to find is the capability for cinema. In the minutes there is only one installation in the big auditorium, but when looking at the drawings there is also one in the smaller auditorium. New and/or changed requirements impacts the scope, which in turn impacts the cost of the project. The total cost, with an initial top-down of 4 million, became between 5.7 and 6 million in 1921. After some of

143 ”Konserthuset kan ej invigas förrän nästa år. Arbetskonflikter ha försenat bygget.” in Svenska Dagbladet 1925-03-30, and ”Konserthusbygget har synnerligen raskt skjutit i höjden.” in Dagens Nyheter 1925-03-31. 144 Quelqu’une, ”Stockholms senaste konsttempel.” in Svenska Dagbladet 1925-08-23, and ”Konserthuset färdigt på nyåret. Det viktigaste byggmästeriarbetet klart, snickerier och målning återstår bland annat” in Dagens Nyheter 1925- 10-30. 145 ”Konserthusinvigningen blir den 10 mars.” in Svenska Dagbladet 1925-12-03, ”Konserthusets invigningsfest: programmet klart. Tre festkonserter, den 10, 11 och 12 mars” in Dagens Nyheter 1926-01-09, ”Konserthuset invigs den 7, 8 och 9 april.” in Svenska Dagbladet 1926-02-13, and ”Evenemang i april.” in Dagens Nyheter 1926-03-14.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress the costs had been fixed by contracts the estimate was 5.2 million. The actual cost as calculated in June 1926 was almost 5.7 million, that is back to the original estimate in 1921. The cost increase between 1923 and 1926 is dependent both on new/changed scope and delays. Delays, in themselves, almost always impacts the cost as there is a time element to cost. The actual cost was also affected by a planning error when calculating how much the shops should cost. Another factor was the large increase in the cost for furniture. The actual cost of the building, the construction, was 19 percent over budget, which may also be compared to the delay of 12 percent, when just looking at the construction.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

4. Discussion and conclusions

The endeavour to build a concert hall in Stockholm seems to have been a very tight project. Even if there were several different bodies or organizations involved, the nucleus in all of these consisted of just four persons and in some instances eight. The group of initiators were eight and these eight were present in all but the most important organization, Building Delegated, where just four of them were involved. All the original initiators were influential men in the society in Stockholm. They also possessed economic power both by their own wealth and, in some cases, with the companies they represented. This must have been a key success factor for getting donations and being able to finance the construction and furnishings of the concert hall. Another success factor must have been the active involvement of Prince Eugen.

A key success factor was most certainly that the same nucleus of four individuals were present during the whole process. It shows how a small group of men could dominate the process, as they were among the original initiators, possessed a large total amount of capital, economic, social, and cultural. As Building Delegated, they dominated the Concert Hall Committee, the Executive Committee, and the project. Three of these original four became members of the board of the Foundation. Even if the architect, Tengbom, was not part of the elected board he was, nevertheless, participating actively in Building Delegated and, later, in the Foundation. In Bourdieu’s terms these four, or five if including Tengbom, were the dominating field throughout the process. This is curious as the setup of the different organizations was meant to have a check-and-balance role, where the decision power ultimately should have been with the Concert Hall Committee but resided with these four, or five, persons. Instead of being dominated by the Concert Hall Committee, Building Delegated dominated it.

Building Delegated had meetings with written minutes. When reading these minutes there were only a few instances where there was a difference in opinions, for example when one of the shops wanted to move the display windows in line with the façade. Tengbom protested but was overruled by Building Delegated. Otherwise, they all seemed very much in agreement. Tengbom was a permanent invited participant in all the meetings and the venue was mostly at his office. They obviously trusted each other, which may have been

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress why there were no demands for a review of the costs between July 1923 and January 1925. All change requests seem to have been managed in a controlled way and the costs formally decided on, but there was no periodical calculation of the status regarding costs and neither on the schedule. They were all incredibly involved in the tasks and were jointly responsible for both the increased costs and delayed schedule. The roles and division of power between sponsor(s) and project manager were dissolved. It is interesting to notice that despite not monitoring and controlingl the schedule and costs they managed to just be 18 % late for the total concert hall and just 9 % over the estimate done in 1923 (not including the deflation during the period). In the material I have had access to in the archives there is no explanation how cost and schedule control were accomplished.

There may have been three different factors that together affected the success of the project. The first factor was the experience of similar projects by both the architect (project manager) and the master builder and how they managed to resolve issues, for example actions by the unions, and technical problems. This is exactly what Kozak- Holland and Proctor found when investigating both the dome in Florence and the Great Pyramid in Giza.146 The second factor was that most of Building Delegated were businessmen and had a feeling for costs and they were experienced managers used to take decisions, as well as having committed a large sum of their own money to the building. The third factor that may have had an effect was the time during the first part of the 1920s, when there was high unemployment and even a deflation, the labour cost was low like most of the materials needed. Contractors were most concerned with both doing a good job and to manage within the contracts. It was also a time when the unions became more active as is evident in the number of strikes that occurred during the building process. The strikes delayed the project and affected the costs, due to activities done in the wrong order. Another example was when the union protested that it was the cabinet makers who had the task to do the panelling of the concert halls rather than the carpenters. This both delayed the project and increased the cost.

146 Kozak-Holland and Procter. “Florence Duomo Project (1420–1436): Learning Best Project Management Practice from History.”, and Procter and Kozak-Holland. “The Giza Pyramid: Learning from this Megaproject.”: 364–83.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

In this thesis I have mostly covered the execution project-phase. As mentioned in the introduction, it is not uncommon that expectations will increase during this phase. A main task for the project manager is to monitor the expectation level. As Building Delegated were tightly involved in the process and decisions, this increase in expectations did not happen, at least not in this group, and there are no indications that it happened outside either.

The concert hall was a large building project and even if it was not a mega-project it could have experienced the same problems that Flyvbjerg discussed, with high risks, multi- actors, no previous experience, non-standard design, scope changes, no contingency planning and misinformation about costs, schedule and scope.147 None of these problems occurred, except, maybe, the part of costs and schedule. As already discussed, it seems reasonable to assume that the experience-level of both the project manager and Building Delegated were high and acted in unison. There was a role delineation between the members of Building Delegated, but they shared the same vision of the concert hall and respected each other. They were also businessmen and knew how to reason and take decision in a timely manner. With just four individuals it was probably easier to get consensus than if the group had been larger.148

This thesis started with an aim and two research questions. The aim was to study one project that was executed during the 1920s. This is meaningful for us to understand how projects were managed and how different persons took on roles and responsibilities to accomplish something they believed in and was a part of developing Sweden into a new era.149 The two research questions were:

147 Flyvbjerg. “Introduction: The Iron Law of Megaproject Management.”. 148 This part could be discussed in the light of the recent investigation of Nya Karolinska Sjukhuset. 149 See page 6.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

• What role or roles did the architect, Ivar Tengbom, have during this project and what roles and responsibilities did the other major stakeholders have during the project?

To answer the first question many documents in different archives have been examined. Due to the pandemic, some material at ArkDes was not available. These documents may have contributed with more details, but probably not the results in this study. The material available have been indicative of the decision process and how change requests were handled. Building Delegated, as well as the other committees, did take decisions in an orderly way, even if one major decision was not documented and probably taken by consensus and being so obvious that it did not need to be formally documented: to actually start the project of building a concert hall.

The second question was easier to investigate, as there were several documents that explicitly documented the roles of the different committees as well as the role of the architect and project manager. There is one role that was not possible to investigate, that of the master builder, Axel Olsson. This can be a result of not being able to look at all the material at ArkDes.

An interesting conclusion, when using Bourdieu and his Theory of Fields, is that initially the dominating field consisted of the eight initiators in the early phases of the project and later just of a sub-set of four individuals that constituted Building Delegated. Contrary to what is usually the case, and possibly how it was thought to work, this small group of men dominated the total project. The check-and-balance between different bodies were disabled.

The studied period, the first half of the 1920s, could be regarded as the end of an epoque, both in architecture and the industrialization of the building industry. The concert hall was built just before the new functionalism started to impact new buildings. The Bauhaus- movement started to influence the architecture around 1925 with the Paris Exhibition. With the functionalism, reinforced concrete took over as the main building material from bricks. Previously, concrete was mainly used in the basements. Streamlined production methods started during the 1930s but it would take until the 1950s when new methods with prefabricated elements would start.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Was there anything in the research that was unexpected? Yes, to understand what a few dedicated men could achieve by their social capital to raise money for a public building and almost without involvement from the government and/or the municipality to give Stockholm a concert hall to the benefit to denizens in Stockholm.

What has this study contributed to science? This thesis shows how different roles and responsibilities could be in a project in the beginning of the 20th century. As discussed, it is not vastly different from today’s projects. The division of responsibility among separate persons, however, are quite different. In most companies it would be impossible for a small group of individuals to be heavily involved on all levels of decision making. There existed no check-and-balance between the different organizational bodies. Another difference is how the newspapers, media, reacted to increased costs (not at all) and delays (just reported in positive terms). This may have been due to that the concert hall was financed by private means and was not really regarded as an official endeavor.

The low number of individuals that dominated the whole process may have been a success factor. It could also have constituted a risk as there were no opposition or outside organizations or individuals that could monitor the progress. They even started the building without the building permit from the City of Stockholm and no one seems to have objected.

To have succeeded with around 18 percent delay and 9 percent cost overruns, was the concert hall an exception, or was that the norm in the beginning of the last century? To understand this there is a need to make case studies for other projects, and not only buildings. This is just one example of a historical project. It is important to understand how projects were managed to understand how Sweden, and other countries, used projects to develop during this period. This was covered in previous research, where the research by Jonas Söderlund and his colleagues were presented.150 Today we tend to stress that prioritized project with higher management attention is a key success factor. This project

150 Söderlund. “Special Issue: Project History: International Journal of Project Management.”: 491–93, Söderlund and Geraldi. “Classics in Project Management: Revisiting the Past, Creating the Future.”: 559–77, and Söderlund and Lenfle. “Making Project History: Revisiting the Past, Creating the Future: 653–62.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress was managed by the most interested persons and they had all the types of capital they needed to overcome obstacles and always had their full attention on the project. It was not a democratic project involving other concerned parties that may have had opinions about the architecture, the facilities, the furnishings and so on. The management was top-down and autocratic and run by a small elite. Would this be possible today? Looking at the very recently published study about Nya Karolinska Sjukhuset this seems to have been the case in the 21st century, but with a result that is more questionable. It would be interesting to compare these two and other projects in future research.151

The concert hall must have been, then as well as today, an official building and subject to be of interest to the politicians and the municipality. It was, however, financed completely by private donations and a lottery. The only involvement was that the municipality was willing to lease the site for 10 Swedish crowns per annum. A possible future research project could be to research how the municipality has leased other building sites to organizations, that are not owned by the City of Stockholm.

Was the project of erecting and furnishing the Stockholm Concert Hall a success? This may be covered in two ways: short and long term. In the short term a project is evaluated according to how well the three parameters scope, time, and cost were fulfilled. It costed nine percent above budget and was eighteen percent late. However, there were no voices raised about these two parameters as the concert hall did perform to expectations. The press was not covering the delay and the finances could cover the extra cost and even other expenses after the project. In the short term it was estimated as a success when finished. Using current project evaluation techniques, the project manager would have been asked several unpleasant questions. Looking at the long term, the success is a fact as the house still fulfils its purpose and is active with full auditoriums. The building and the architecture are appreciated by the people in Stockholm.

151 Maria Grafström, et al. Megaprojektet Nya Karolinska Solna - Beslutsprocesserna Bakom En Sjukvårdsreform.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

References

Primary sources

The primary sources are mainly from three different archives, but there are also a few printed references that have been used as primary.

Archival material

ArkDes AM1984-11, material from Ivar Tengbom deposited at ArkDes, marked with box 80 and 01A05H02.

Riksarkivet RA, Marieberg: Stiftelsen Stockholms Konserthus: styrelsens protokoll, Referenskod SE/RA/780006/A 1 A/1. Stockholms konserthuskommittés arbetsutskott och sub-kommitté: Protokoll med bilagor, Referenskod SE/RA/780006/A 2 A/1. Stockholms konserthuskommittés arbetsutskotts byggnadsdelegerade: Protokoll med bilagor, Referenskod SE/RA/780006/A 2 B/1. Stockholms konserthuskommitté: korrespondens, Referenskod SE/RA/780006/E 4 /1. PM och utredningar, Referenskod SE/RA/780006/F 2/1. Handlingar rörande konserthusets tillblivelse och invigning, Referenskod SE/RA/780006/F 3/1.

Stockholms Stadsarkiv, Stockholms kommuntryck. Available on-line.

Printed sources

Asplund, Gunnar. “Konserthuset.” Arkitektur 1921, no. 1 (1921): 1–4.

Dagens Nyheter 1924-07-23, 1925-10-30, 1926-01-09. 1926-03-14, and 1926-04-08.

“Konserthusbygget.” Byggmästaren, 1926.

Svenska Dagbladet 1925-03-30, 1025-08-23, 1925-12-03, and 1926-02-13.

Tengbom, Ivar. “Konserthusbyggnaden.” In Stockholms konserthus: minnesskrift vid invigningen, Stockholm den 7 april 1926, 41–62. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1926.

“Utlåtande rörande konserthusfrågan i Stockholm, 29 dec. 1905.” Stockholm, 1906.

Åhrén, Uno. “Brytningar.” In Svenska Slöjdföreningens årsbok. Stockholm: Svenska Slöjdföreningens, 1925.

Material from Internet

Calculation of past monetary amounts into todays (2020) value I have used Rodney Edvinsson’s calculation available at https://ekonomiskamuseet.se/rakna-ut-penningvardet/, accessed 2020-12-15.

Wikipedia: https://www.wikipedia.org accessed 2020-11-30

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Printed references

Ansoff, Igor. Corporate Strategy : An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Baum, Joel A. C., and Tim J. Rowley. “Companion to Organizations: An Introduction.” In The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, edited by Joel A. C. Baum, 1–34. Oxford UK: Blackwell, 2002.

Baxandall, Michael. Painting & Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Bergström, Anders. Arkitekten Ivar Tengbom - Byggnadskonst På Klassisk Grund. Diss. Stockholm: Byggförlaget, 2001.

Bloch, Marc. The Historian’s Craft. Translated by Peter Putman. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992.

Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art. Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Translated by Susan Emanuel. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996.

Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed.” In The Field of Cultural Production, edited by Pierre Bourdieu, 29–73. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993.

Broady, Donald. “Nätverk Och Fält.” In Sociala Nätverk Och Fält, edited by Håkan Gunneriusson, 49–72. Uppsala: Swedish Science Press, 2002.

Corbin, Juliet M. “Memos, Memoing.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, edited by Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim F. Liao. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2004.

Corti, Louise. “Archival Research.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, edited by Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim F. Liao. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2004.

Edling, Marta. Fri Konst? Bildkonstnärlig Utbildning Vid Konsthögskolan Valand, Konstfackskolan Och Kungl. Konsthögskolan 1960 – 1995. Göteborg och Stockholm: Makadam Förlag, 2010.

Engwall, Mats. “No Project Is an Island: Linking Projects to History and Context.” Research Policy 32, no. 5 (2003): 789–808.

Eriksson, Eva. Mellan tradition och modernitet: Arkitektur och arkitekturdebatt 1900-1930, PhD Diss. Stockholm: Ordfront, 2000.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Introduction: The Iron Law of Megaproject Management.” In The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management, edited by Bent Flyvbjerg. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Forsell, Håkan. “Musikens Rum i Samhällets Mitt. Stockholms Konserthus Och Mellankrigstidens Publik.” Bebyggelsehistorisk Tidskrift 54 (2007): 46–58.

Garel, Gilles. “A History of Project Management Models: From Pre-Models to the Standard Models.” International Journal of Project Management 31, no. 5 (July 2013): 663–69.

Grönroos, Christian. Service Management and Marketing - Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition. Massachusets and Toronto: Lexington Books, 1990.

Guillén, Mauro F. The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Gunneriusson, Håkan. “Fält Och Sociala Nätverk — Så Förhåller de Sig till Varandra.” In Sociala Nätverk Och Fält, edited by Håkan Gunneriusson, 32–48. Uppsala: Swedish Science Press, 2002.

Gustavsson, Martin. Makt och konstsmak. sociala och politiska motsättningar på den svenska konstmarknaden 1920 – 1960, PhD Diss. Stockholm: Ekonomisk Historiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet, 2002.

Hasselberg, Ylva, Leos Müller, and Niklas Stenlås. “Åter till Historiens Nätverk.” In Sociala Nätverk Och Fält, edited by Håkan Gunneriusson, 7–31. Uppsala: Swedish Science Press, 2002.

“ISO 21500:2012 Guidance on Project Management.” ISO. Geneva: International Standards Association, 2012.

Kozak-Holland, Mark, and Chris Procter. “Florence Duomo Project (1420–1436): Learning Best Project Management Practice from History.” International Journal of Project Management 32, no. 2 (February 2014): 242–55.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 4th ed. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Leach, Andrew. What Is Architectural History. What Is History? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2010.

Lenfle, Sylvain, and Christoph Loch. “Has Megaproject Management Lost Its Way?: Lessons from History.” In The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management, edited by Bent Flyvbjerg. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Lilienberg, Albert. “Konserthusets Placering.” Arkitektur 1921, no. 1 (1921): 15–17.

Löwengart, Mia. En Samhällelig Angelägenhet: Framväxten Av En Symfoniorkester Och Ett Konserthus i Stockholm, Cirka 1890 till 1926. Uppsala: Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2017. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-332490.

Magnusson, Lars. An Economic History of Sweden. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2000.

Mizruchi, Mark S., and Mina Yoo. “Interorganizational Power and Dependence.” In The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, edited by Joel A. C. Baum, 599–620. Oxford UK: Blackwell, 2002.

Nyblom, Holger. “Konserthusets Förhistoria.” In Stockholms Konserthus: Minnesskrift Vid Invigningen, Stockholm Den 7 April 1926. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1926.

Pickering, Michael J. “Qualitative Content Analysis.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, edited by Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim F. Liao, 890. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2004.

Porter, Michael E. Competitive Advantage : Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press, cop., 1985.

Procter, Chris, and Mark Kozak-Holland. “The Giza Pyramid: Learning from This Megaproject.” Journal of Management History 25, no. 3 (2019): 364–83.

Project Management Institute, PMI. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 5th ed. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute, 2013.

Rudberg, Eva. “Svensk Funktionalism.” Arkitektur, 1980.

Schartau, Britt Eva. “Idéer Kring Hötorget.” In Sankt Eriks Årsbok 1979, 111–22. Stockholm: Samfundet S:t Erik, 1979.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Schön, Lennart. En modern svensk ekonomisk historia - tillväxt och omvandling under två sekel. 4th ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB, 2014.

Stockholms Konserthus: Minnesskrift Vid Invigningen, Stockholm Den 7 April 1926. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 1926.

Stokstad, Marilyn, and Michael W. Cothren. Art Histrory. 5th ed. London, UK: Pearson, Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2014.

Stone, Irving. Han Som Skapade En Värld. Translated by Gunilla Berglund. Forum, 1962.

Söderlund, Jonas. “Special Issue: Project History: International Journal of Project Management.” International Journal of Project Management. 29, no. 5 (2011): 491–93.

Söderlund, Jonas, and Joana Geraldi. “Classics in Project Management: Revisiting the Past, Creating the Future.” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 5, no. 4 (2012): 559–77.

Söderlund, Jonas, and Sylvain Lenfle. “Making Project History: Revisiting the Past, Creating the Future.” International Journal of Project Management 31, no. 3 (2013): 653–62.

Sölvell, Örjan, Ivo Zander, and Michael E Porter. Advantage Sweden. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik, 1993.

Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. London: Penguin Book Ltd, 2007.

Thelaus, Erik. “Tre Byggnader - Tre Skeden.” In Tengboms: Ett Arkitektkontors Utveckling Sedan 1905, 33–43. Stockholm: Tengbom gruppen, cop, 1991.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Appendix

Example of proposal for additional work outside the contract. Page two shows the signatures.

Kjell Rodenstedt – work in progress

Example of minutes Concert Hall Committee, March 16, 1923. This was when Building Delegated was appointed and the Executive Committee was renamed to Sub-committee.