Cluster Management Institutionalisation Social Authorizsation and Local Translation in Public-Sector Day Care

Leo Normann Pedersen Head of Education Administrationcenter Arts – Arts Studies Aarhus University Tåsingegade 3 DK-8000 Aarhus C e-mail: [email protected]

Jeppe Agger Nielsen Associate Professor Department of Political Science Aalborg University Fibigerstræde 1 DK-9220 Aalborg Ø e-mail: [email protected] Cluster Management Institutionalisation Social Authorizsation and Local Translation in Public-Sector Day Care

Leo Normann Pedersen & Jeppe Agger Nielsen

Abstract This article explores a new management form – cluster management – in Danish public- sector day care. Although cluster management has been widely adopted in Danish day care at the municipality level, it has attracted only sparse research attention. We use theoretical insights from Scandinavian institutionalism and a longitudinal case-based inquiry to investigate how cluster management has entered and penetrated the management practices of day care in Denmark. We demonstrate how cluster management became widely adopted in the day care field, not only because of its intrinsic proper- ties, but also because of how it was legitimised as a »ready-to-use« management model. Furthermore, our account reveals how cluster management translated into considerably different local variants as it travelled into specific organisations. However, these processes have not occurred sequentially with cluster management first legitimised at the field level, then spread, and finally translated into action in the adopting organisations. Instead, we observed entangled field- and organisational-level processes. Accordingly, we argue that cluster management institutionalisation is most readily understood by simultaneously investigating translation activities in specific organisations, and the social construction work taking place in the broader organisational field.

Introduction For decades, the Danish public sector has been the subject of considerations about how it can be renewed, and every Danish government since the 1980s has announced a modernisation programme (Ejersbo & Greve, 2008). These programmes have a number of recurring themes. One of them is a greater focus on management. This applies to both the right and the duty to manage, as well as to the quality of management practice. This focus points to a professionalisation of management (Rennison, 2011), also within professions and sectors that previously were fairly resistant towards management (e.g. eldercare, primary schools and day care).

The Danish day care system has witnessed substantial managerial changes in recent years. In general, the new management structures involve larger units than previ-

37 Danish Journal of Management & Business nr. 2 | 2015 ous models and the separation of pedagogical and administrative management. The management role is now characterised as having a wider management span and more strategic tasks. Accordingly, different models such as network management and cluster management have to some extent substituted the traditional model of only one head of an institution and an associate deputy manager. More than one-third of the 98 Danish municipalities have rejected the traditional management structure in day care, while more than half have chosen to combine the traditional model with other types of management (Væksthus for Ledelse, 2011, p. 3). Cluster management seems to be the new model which has won greatest acceptance in Danish municipalities (ibid.). It is defined as …» joint management of a number of day care institutions in which there is one manager with the overall responsibility and a number of subordinate managers, each responsible for the day-to-day management of one or more day care institutions« (Væksthus for Ledelse 2007, p. 38-39).

Cluster management has not only been adopted in day care. Similar progress is found in other public-sector areas such as elderly care and primary schools. This development is confirmed by a decrease of 14% in the number of local managers from 2010 to 2012 (KORA, 2013). Cluster management has also gained popularity outside Den- mark (e.g. Borhaug & Lotsberg, 2010). However, the management development within Danish day care seems to differ from that of other parts of the public sector in several ways: the development has occurred later, the process has run over a longer period, and it is less exposed and disputed (Pedersen & Andersen, 2010). Perhaps because of this rather silent existence, research has only paid little attention to management changes in day care. Although some studies have started to investigate management changes in day care (e.g. Væksthus for Ledelse, 2007, 2011; Klausen & Nielsen, 2011; EVA, 2012a, 2012b), we are faced with a lack of knowledge about how cluster management has become widely adopted and manifested in different organisational settings. This paper addresses these issues.

Based on theoretical insights from Scandinavian institutionalism, we consider cluster management as a »travelling« idea (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996; Røvik, 1998) that has entered and penetrated the management practices of day care in Denmark. By choos- ing this approach, we follow a well-established Scandinavian scholarly tradition of examining how management ideas may, or may not, be institutionalised in fields, sectors or particular organisations. We argue that cluster management as a travelling idea is most readily understood by simultaneously investigating local translation activities in the individual municipalities and the social construction work taking place in the wider organisational field which may legitimise cluster management as a »ready-to- use« management model (Nielsen, Mathiassen & Newell, 2014). This leads us to pose the following research question: How can we understand the institutionalisation of cluster management as the dynamic interplay between local translation activities in

38 Cluster Management Institutionalisation particular municipalities and the broader social construction work in the organisational field surrounding the municipalities?

We first outline our theoretical framework of Scandinavian institutionalism before we describe the study design and the methods. We then present the results from the empirical analysis. In a final step, we highlight the main research contribution of our study.

Theoretical Framework The notion of »travelling of ideas« has gained growing acceptance among scholars who seek to describe and explain how management ideas spread and transform themselves into practice (e.g. Czarniawska & Joerges 1996; Røvik 1998, 2007, Pedersen 2014). While institutional diffusion studies inspired by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) have stressed how organisations within an organisational field tend to be similar (i.e. isomorphism), Scandinavian scholars emphasise the differences that can be observed in organisations that adopt the same management ideas. As Røvik (1998) points out: »Everything is everywhere, but everywhere differently« (p. 168). Hence, Scandinavian scholars have stressed the need to focus not only on the spread of management ideas, but also on what is happening when management ideas travel into modern organisations. In order to observe these movements, it is crucial to have a time perspective on the studied phenomena and not merely to focus on whether management ideas are adopted or not.

Røvik (1992, 1998) offers a valuable analytical framework divided into three phases showing how management ideas institutionalise. Each of them is perceived as critical, and there is a risk (or possibility) that the institutionalisation process can be inter- rupted along the way in any of the phases. The first phase describes the emergence of the management idea, its genesis. The second phase deals with the social construction work, i.e. the processes of social authorisation whereby new ideas are justified and legit- imated and subsequently spread and adopted by organisations across an organisational field or within a sector. During this phase, new management ideas are associated with successful organisations and presented as something new and interesting, and thereby as an appealing answer to current and future challenges in modern organisations.

The third phase, organisational idea handling, is concerned with the translation of the idea by the organisation when it has been adopted. The notion of translation refers »to set something in a new place is to construct it anew« (Czarniawska & Sevón, 2005, p. 8). As management ideas are confronted with organisational norms and practices, conscious as well as unconscious choices are made, and ideas are likely to develop further while being implemented, sometimes making them more suitable as problem- solving tools in local contexts (Czarniawska & Sevón, 2005).

39 Danish Journal of Management & Business nr. 2 | 2015

Røvik (2007) suggests four translation rules that apply inside organisations: copying, addition, omission and alteration. These translation rules make it possible to view translation processes with a certain regularity, and they draw attention to general patterns of the modifications that can occur to travelling management ideas during organisational translation processes (Wærass & Sataøen, 2014). Copying refers to the transfer of a management idea with no or very few changes to the original concept. Addition means making the idea more concrete and explicit by adding information that was either vague or did not exist in the original model, whereas omission (or subtraction) is about toning down or leaving out some elements of an idea. Finally, alteration involves a radical mode of translation that implies a comprehensive trans- formation of an idea leading to the idea being viewed as local innovation.

Røvik’s phase model is useful as it highlights pivotal events in the institutionalisation process. Yet, it seems to argue for a sequential process view in which ideas are first legitimised, then spread and finally managed and translated locally. Although these phases should be understood as analytical views, the phase model tends to place less emphasis on how field-level and organizational-level processes are entangled as they unfold over time. In this article, we will draw on the work of Røvik, but we emphasise the dynamic interplay of the social construction work in organisational fields and local translation activities in individual organisations as suggested by Nielsen, Mathi- assen & Newell (2014). By zooming in and zooming out (Nicolini, 2011) and by cou- pling the processes of social construction work and local translation, the article aims to examine cluster management as a travelling organisational idea that is shaped by particular organisations and their environments.

Methods The Danish public sector is structured into state, regional and local government. At the local level, 98 municipalities are responsible for delivering day care services. Day care covers all municipal day care institutions for children aged 0–5 years. Over a 100-year period, day care has developed from what was, at first, mainly a private social arrange- ment, to currently being a crucial element in the Danish public welfare system. Espe- cially during the period from the early 1970s to the end of the century, when a growing number of women became part of the workforce, the demand for day care rose dramat- ically. Today, 97% of all Danish children between 3 and 5 years and 68% of all children between 0 and 2 years are in public day care (dst.dk, April 2013). Hence, day care lies at the core of the Danish welfare society. In this sense, day care represents a rather ma- ture organisational field (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) formed by well-defined regulatory processes and marked by heterogeneous stakeholders with occasionally conflicting interests including those of the day care institutions themselves, interest groups, trade unions, research and educational institutions, and government agencies.

40 Cluster Management Institutionalisation

Table 1: Data sources

Level of analysis Data

Field Written documents about cluster management, including policy documents from government bodies and reports from interest groups and consultants (e.g. Væksthus for Ledelse, 2007, 2011; EVA, 2012a, 2012b; KORA 2013).

Organisation Case studies in two municipalities: Horsens and Randers.

Data: Written documents, e.g. project descriptions and agendas from the municipalities.

Interviews with managers from different levels in each municipality. In Horsens Munici- pality, we interviewed the top manager (direktøren), the head of the day care organisation (dagtilbudschefen) and a manager of a cluster (dagtilbudsleder). Interviews were conducted in 2009.

In Randers Municipality, we interviewed the head of the day care organisation, the manager of a cluster and a pedagogy manager (pædagogisk leder). Interviews were conducted in 2013.

Following previous »travels-of-ideas« studies (e.g., Morris & Lancaster, 2006; Zilber, 2006), this study is based on a longitudinal case-study design (Yin, 2009). Because the study was initiated after the introduction of cluster management, a complete longitudinal design was impossible. We therefore adopted a retrospective longitudinal design to retrace activities of the institutionalisation process covering a ten-year period from 2003 (when the first ideas were initiated) to 2013 (when the model was widely adopted by Danish municipalities). The empirical context under examination is characterised by interplay between various actors, organisations and political goals. We suggest that this complexity can be best handled using a qualitative approach with semi-structured interviews and document analysis.

As summarised in Table 1, the data for this case study include multiple sources of empirical evidence. To match our theoretical framing with empirical material, we drew data from sources that relate both to the broader social construction work and to the local translation activities in particular municipalities. At the field level, we relied on public archive materials as a way to examine how cluster management was justified and socially authorised. At the organisational level, we included two case municipalities (Horsens and Randers) to illustrate the different ways in which cluster management was transformed into practice. While Horsens Municipality was one of the pioneers – they adopted cluster management in day care in 2003 – Randers Mu- nicipality introduced the model much later, in 2011. Given our interest in the cluster management institutionalisation process, we looked for meaningful ways into which categorise our data. Following Langley (1999), we used a temporal bracketing strategy to decompose our process data into periods or events. Accordingly, we identified and

41 Danish Journal of Management & Business nr. 2 | 2015 named three main periods as the idea of cluster management travelled across and within Danish municipalities: »time for change« (2003–2006), »taking stock« (2007– 2010) and »moving slowly« (2011–2013). In accordance with our theoretical framework, each phase contains an analysis of the broader social construction work and local translation activities and of how these processes interact.

Analysis Time for change (2003-2006) After decades with a stable organisational structure in the Danish day care sector, ex- perimentation with new organisation forms commenced in the early 2000s. The standard structure, consisting of a head of an institution and a deputy manager, which had existed since the 1960s, was challenged. This model had been so prevalent that it was seen as an institutionalised standard, which for decades had been taken for granted by actors in the day care field. Up to the early 2000s, the homogenisation of day care management in Denmark was so manifest that it was written into a settlement between LGDK (interest group for Danish municipalities) and BUPL (Danish Union of Early Childhood and Youth Educators) regarding the organisation of day care.

In 2003, however, LGDK and BUPL allowed municipalities to deviate from the traditional management model, which made it possible to experiment with new management forms. Especially LGDK pushed for these changes. BUPL agreed to testing new management forms on an experimental basis under specifically defined conditions, but they still expressed scepticism:

Scepticism is justified because we fear LGDK will seize the opportunity to apply the cost-cutting axe to the day care institutions (BUPL, 2003).

The first experiments with cluster management in day care were carried out from 2003 to 2006 as Horsens Municipality established a cluster management pilot in a selected area of the municipality (Nørgaard, 2004). Horsens is also mentioned as an early adopter of cluster management in day care:

Horsens was one of the first municipalities to adopt cluster management. A lot happened around 2002 and 2003 in what was a massive lobbying effort especially by LGDK (The head of the day care organization in Randers Municipality).

It is reasonable to consider LGDK as the authoritative centre (Røvik, 1992) of the idea of cluster management from 2003 onwards. Other municipalities rapidly followed Horsens Municipality, for instance Høje Taastrup in 2004, Albertslund in 2005 and Svendborg in 2006 (Andersen, Gundelach & Rasmussen, 2008). In these local experiments, private consultants as well as consultants from LGDK often participated in

42 Cluster Management Institutionalisation the implementation process. It was mostly smaller municipalities that adopted cluster management during this early phase. It is also evident that most municipalities implemented new management structures only in a limited part of the municipalities’ day care institutions. Furthermore, cluster management was not a well-defined model at that time. For example, in the pioneer municipality, Horsens, the model was even not termed »cluster management«, but »district management« – a concept that later took on an independent, but different meaning.

Horsens Municipality’s translation of cluster management was associated with strategic management. The head of the day care organisation explains:

… in a crystal ball, we could see that we needed far more strategic managers – managers who would manage and not sometimes have to be pedagogues and sometimes managers.

Cluster management was introduced at a time characterized by mergers and a general up-sizing of public organisations. In 2004, the Danish Parliament passed the law that three years later led to considerably fewer, but also significantly larger municipalities. Small was no longer (necessarily) good. The concept of sustainability appeared and was frequently invoked by the municipalities (and LGDK) to argue in favour of the need for changed management forms in day care. In the process of preparing the merging of municipalities, LGDK published a number of guidelines, e.g. »A catalogue of inspiration – efficiency improvement regarding the structural reform«. Among other things, it states:

The merging of the municipalities affords perfect opportunities for considering the structure of the day care area, including cluster management (LGDK, 2006).

Despite this appeal from LGDK, cluster management was still not on the agenda in most municipalities. However, the pioneer municipality, Horsens, participated actively in the wider social authorisation of cluster management as a durable management model. Being experienced in translating cluster management into practice, they are often invited to participate as speakers at conferences and theme days in other municipalities considering changing their management structure.

Taking stock (2007–2010) In the next period, the need for new management structures in day care was stressed more intensively. In the early phase, cluster management was mainly adopted by small municipalities. Even though these small municipalities actively participated in the pro- motion of cluster management, it was a report from Væksthus for Ledelse in 2007 that legitimised cluster management as a new management model. Powerful organisations

43 Danish Journal of Management & Business nr. 2 | 2015 like LGDK and KTO (a negotiating organisation for over a half-million public-sector employees) jointly recommended the need for new management forms (Væksthus for Ledelse, 2007). A further contribution to the social authorisation of cluster management was that Denmark’s second-largest city, Aarhus, introduced the model in 2007.

Until 2007, there was considerable confusion about the concepts behind the new management forms in day care. Terms like district management, combined management and cluster management were used indiscriminately, but actually referred to different management forms. However, the report from Væksthus for Ledelse in 2007 provided an authoritative outline of definitions of the various types of management models, thereby creating an important foundation for a common management vocabulary in the area. At the same time, cluster management was increasingly emphasised as a model that could meet a number of the challenges the day care sector was facing: increased professionalisation of management, increased pedagogical quality, and not least sustainability:

Therefore, the day care institutions’ sustainability – financially as well as mana- gerially – has reached the agenda. Small is not always good enough. It is neces- sary to have larger institution units in order to meet the new and more complex challenges in day care (Væksthus for Ledelse, 2007, p. 10).

There was, however, little research documentation that cluster management could actually meet these requirements. Nevertheless, deploying arguments that organisations like to appear future-oriented and that modern cluster management breaks with the existing, (old-fashioned) institutionalized management standard (Røvik, 1992) in day care, reports such as the one issued by Væksthus for Ledelse (2007) used convincing quotes from people with first-hand experience of the new management forms in order to convince day care institutions of cluster management’s superiority:

In the past I had a manager who came back frustrated from management meet- ings. The new structure has helped. He now receives advice and is heard. I could not help him with his frustration before. Now that he is helped it impacts down on us. A daily manager is enriched through the collaboration (Væksthus for Le- delse, 2007, p. 41).

The guidelines and recommendations from LGDK and from Væksthus for Ledelse seem to provide municipalities with inspiration as well as the legitimacy to address changes in the management structure of day care. The head of the day care organisation in Horsens Municipality describes it in the following way:

We actually used the report from Væksthus for Ledelse extensively … It gave a really good overview, and we were able to see different management and institu-

44 Cluster Management Institutionalisation

tional structures. I think it was stimulating. However, we implemented a model which altered somewhat the idea in the report from Væksthus for Ledelse.

In this sense, local adjustments and translations took place in Horsens Municipal- ity. In contrast, Randers Municipality stuck with the traditional management model. The local city council chose »not to touch« the day care area, as the head of day care organisation in Randers Municipality expressed it.

Moving slowly (2011-2013) In 2011, Væksthus for Ledelse followed up on the study from 2007. They concluded that cluster management had been widely adopted, but they also found that the traditional management model was still the most prevalent model in half of all municipalities (Væksthus for Ledelse, 2011). This development indicates that cluster management was expanding at a relatively slow pace. While the report from Væksthus for Ledelse (2011) still spoke in favour of cluster management in terms of progress and professionalisation of management, more critical issues emerged. For instance, an evaluation of cluster management found significant challenges in clarifying roles and distributing responsi- bilities between management levels (EVA, 2012a). However, the number of municipalities adopting cluster management was steadily increasing. In the wake of the report from Væksthus for Ledelse (2011), several of the larger municipalities, including Copen- hagen and Aalborg, adopted cluster management. Consequently, the majority of the larger Danish municipalities have now adopted this new management form in day care.

Randers Municipality represents one of the large municipalities who decided to imple- ment cluster management in this phase. The initial decision was made in 2011, and two years later, Randers decided to organise the day care into even larger units, thereby further reducing the number of managers. This model with very large units differs to some extent from the model in Horsens Municipality and the rationale for the change was somewhat different. Randers Municipality’s decision to adopt cluster management can be understood as the reaction to an internal problem, or as the acceptance of exter- nally created problem descriptions (for example, »lack of sustainability« as emphasised in reports from Væksthus for Ledelse). However, the adoption of cluster may also be seen as a symbolic activity: As mentioned, the city council in Randers Municipality had decided, »not to touch« day care until 2010 (i.e. until after the term of elected of- fice 2006-09). However, during the next election period (2010-13), day care was to be »set free«. Yet, it was not obvious to everybody that there was a need for change. The head of the day care organisation described the situation as follows:

In the beginning, I could not really see the purpose of it, but »Do we really want to be the last municipality to adopt cluster management when LGDK states that two-thirds of the municipalities already are doing it? Are we going to be the fools

45 Danish Journal of Management & Business nr. 2 | 2015

who join up only at the very last moment?« Sometimes there is an important as- pect of leadership in being active, acting and being seen to be doing something.

In this sense, Randers Municipality was striving to appear as a modern organisation – or at least not to be perceived as a late-mover.

Even though cluster management may be seen to be a fairly simple organisation model, variations across municipalities are evident. Horsens Municipality chose to translate the model in a way that involves only a single management level correspond- ing to traditional management’s single level. Thereby, their model differs from other cluster management models which have an overall manager level and a subordinate daily manager level. Instead, the »Horsens model« is based on a management team consisting of the day care manager and a number of assisting managers, who as a team report to the head of the administration. In this way, Horsens has attempted to counter the criticism of cluster management that it creates a more comprehensive management hierarchy with slower communication processes and greater distances between day care institutions and the administrative/political decision-makers (EVA, 2012b, p. 13). The head of the day care organisation describes the model in Horsens Municipality as follows:

We call it day care »institutions«…but, actually, it is just a larger day care institution that consists of several houses. So our manager is called day care institution manager… yes, maybe you could call it cluster… but using that term normally indicates one more management level than we have. We have a single management level with an institution manager who, together with his or her team manages, the day care institution and reports to the administration. That is probably the difference.

In contrast to Horsens Municipality’s rather flat management structure, Randers Mu- nicipality implemented a model with more divided tasks for the managers. In Rand- ers, the pedagogical manager has a narrow portfolio of only pedagogical tasks, while the manager of a cluster has a comprehensive portfolio of activities including daily operation as well as strategic management tasks in relation to administration, finances and staff. In this phase, Randers Municipality also adjusted the model towards implementation of larger units. With effect from 2013, the manager of a cluster was now given the responsibility for between 9 and 11 units. It can be seen as a local version of cluster management differing greatly from what was considered possible in 2007 when the report from Væksthus for Ledelse indicated that managers should have responsibility for »two to three units«. However, the tendency towards more units seems to be spreading. Other municipalities such as Aalborg have also substantially reduced the number of managers. An explanation for this development can be the fact that, since 2007, cutbacks have moved upwards on the municipal agenda. This is likely

46 Cluster Management Institutionalisation to impact how many units a manager must cover, but it also impacts the division of tasks between management levels. It seems that it is the demand for cost reductions – rather than innovative management – that is reflected in the local translations.

Concluding Remarks Overall, our analysis reveals how cluster management institutionalisation in Danish public day care unfolded in a dynamic interplay between local translations in individual municipalities and the social authorisation work in the wider day care field. The development did not take place in a series of sequential steps in which cluster management was first legitimised, then spread and finally translated locally. Our analysis hence refines Røvik’s three-phase model (1992, 1998) and demonstrates how the phases are more entangled. For instance, it is evident that in the early period (2003 to 2006) LGDK not only effectively promoted cluster management as a way of ensur- ing professional management, but also took part in the local implementation of cluster management in pioneer municipalities. In turn, pioneer municipalities were not only concerned with their own translations, but were also involved in the wider social authorisation and legitimation of the idea as a ready-to-use management model. In the following period (2007-2010), the local translation work continued as more municipalities implemented cluster management, but reports from Væksthus for Ledelse and LGDK were also important in legitimising cluster management as a powerful management model. In the last analysed period (2011-2013), cluster management adoption continued and the number of municipalities adopting the model grew steadily. By concentrating on two of the municipalities, it was possible to identify local translations of cluster management including various rationales for introducing the model and local variations in the practical implementation. Furthermore, increasing municipal cutbacks paved the way for management units larger than what was considered possible at ear- lier stages. Yet, early ideas of cluster management were not radically transformed, but the different local translations added new meaning and components to cluster management as a reflection of Røvik’s concepts of omission and addition (Røvik, 2007).

It is plausible that the management ideas which gain the most acceptance are those which have best solved the technical challenges, have economic advantages or are most effective. Powerful supporters of cluster management such as LGDK and Væk- sthus for Ledelse (2007) also make use of rationales like professionalisation of management and efficient use of resources. To some extent, it seems that these rational reasons – which occupy the most space in reports and on the political agenda – can contribute to understanding developments in day care management. However, the complete explanation for the development cannot be found here as our study also indicates that the spread of cluster management is shaped by ritual and more symbolic factors. In Randers Municipality, we see how the desire to achieve legitimacy by appearing as a modern organisation shaped the decision to adopt cluster management.

47 Danish Journal of Management & Business nr. 2 | 2015

The fear of being ostracised put pressure on the organisation which did not want to appear to be »the fools joining up at the very last moment«.

While the traditional management model in day care, with a head of institution and a deputy manager in each institution, has for decades insured a stable organisational structure, it is not yet clear whether cluster management can take on a similar position. The model enjoys solid social approval, a reasonably well-defined product form, and a reputation as a new, modern model, which is due not least to descriptions in reports from Væksthus for Ledelse and LGDK. However, the model still lacks convincing evidence for its positive effects and benefits to the individual. Thus, the picture is not clear. Some evaluations show that ordinary employees do not experience many, if any, changes to their position in connection with the introduction of cluster management, while others find that they have lost some freedom of action, and still others feel that unlike their managers they have not at all profited from being part of the larger community (EVA 2012b, p. 7-8). Furthermore, cluster management challenges some of the existing power structures and conflict dimensions: In contrast to the traditional management model’s flat management structure, cluster management usually has an additional management level which distances most of the ordinary employees from direct access to the manager of the cluster, thereby potentially reducing their influence and weakening their power (EVA 2012b, p. 13).

The fact that cluster management, more than ten years after its first introduction, still is not superior to the traditional management model despite its spread gives rise to the question of whether cluster management should perhaps rather be seen as a »transition model« that may exist while municipalities consider more far-reaching solutions. The solution could be a model related to the management of »super institutions« that matches or exceeds the sizes known in the cluster organisation, but has the advantage that the institution is centred in a single location. This could avoid some of the disad- vantages of cluster management in covering multiple locations. The development of super institutions naturally requires extensive physical and economic resources. The Danish government has allocated approximately 3 billion Euros for the periode 2009- 2018 to co-finance municipal construction projects for new buildings and renovation of public schools, residential care facilities and day care facilities. This may indicate that the financial basis for »super institutions« is available (Erhvervs- & Byggestyrelsen & Realdania, 2010). So, whether cluster management represents a transition model or a long-lasting management structure remains an unanswered question for the time being.

48 Cluster Management Institutionalisation

References Andersen, J., Gundelach, S. & Rasmussen, K. 2008. Kvalitet i områdeledelsen af daginstitutioner [Quality in the cluster management of day care institutions]. Project report, Udviklingsforum, Aarhus. BUPL. 2003. BUPLs krav tilforsøg med ledelses- og instruktionsstrukturer – en vejledning til fagforeningerne [BUPL’s requirements for management and instruction structures – a guide to the trade unions]. Guide published by BUPL, København. Borhaug, K. & Lotsberg. D.L. 2010. Barnehageledelse i endring [Day care management in change]. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 3 (3):79-94. Czarniawska, B. & Joerges, B. 1996. Travels of Ideas. In: Czarniawska, B. & Sevón, G. (eds.), 1996. Translating Organizational Change. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter. DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Ration- ality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2):147-160. Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen & Realdania. 2010. Modelprogram for daginstitutioner [Model program for day care institutions]. Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen, København 2010. EVA. 2012a. Områdeledelse. Ny struktur på dagtilbudsområdet [Cluster management. New structure in the day care area]. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. EVA. 2012b. Oversigt over kommunale evalueringer af områdeledelse. [Overview of municipal evaluations of cluster management]. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. KL. 2006. Inspirationskatalog – effektiviseringer i forbindelse med opgave- og strukturreformen [Inspiration catalogue for the task and structure reform]. Klausen, K.K. 2006. Institutionsledelse. Ledelse, mellemledere og sjakbajser i det offentlige [Institution management. Management, middle managers and foremen in the public sector]. Børsens Forlag, København. Klausen, K.K. & Nielsen, D. M. 2011. Før og efter strukturreformen: Professionalisering af kommunal institutionsledelse? [Before and after the structure reform: professionalization of municipal institution management], Ledelse & Erhvervsøkonomi. 3: 7-18. KORA. 2013. Færre chefer og flere sagsbehandlere i kommunerne [Fewer managers and more social workers], KORA.dk. Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data,« The Academy of Management Review, 24 (4): 691-710. Morris, T., & Lancaster, Z. 2006. Translating Management Ideas, Organization Studies 27 (2): 207-233. Nicolini, D. 2011. Practice as the site of knowing: Insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science 22 (3): 602-620. Nielsen, J. A, Mathiassen, L. & Newell, S. 2014. Theorization and translation in information technology institu- tionalization. Evidence from Danish home care. MIS Quarterly 38 (1): 65-86. Nørgaard, D. 2004. Forsøg med ny ledelsesstruktur på daginstitutionsområdet, Midtvejsevaluering [Experi- ments with new management structure in the day care area, Midway evaluation], Børn og Ungeforvaltnin- gen, Horsens Kommune. Pedersen, J. S. 2014. Institutionel teori. In: Klassisk og moderne organisationsteori, Vikkelsø, S. & Kjær, P. (eds). Hans Reitzels Forlag. Pedersen, L.N. & Andersen, U. (2010). Den stille ledelsesreform på dagtilbudsområdet. [The silent reform in day care]. Masterafhandling (MPA). Aalborg Universitet. Randers Kommune. 2011. Ny dagtilbudsstruktur børn 0-5 år (Forslag til ny struktur på dagtilbudsområdet børn 0-5 år) [New day care structure kids 0-5 years (suggestion for new structure in the day care area kids 0-5 years), published 1st January 2011. Rennison, B. 2011. Ledelsens genealogi. Offentlig ledelse fra tabu til trend [The management’s genealogy. Public management from taboo to trend], Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg 2011. Røvik, K.A. 1992. Institutsjonaliserte standarder og multistandardorganisasjoner [Institutionalised standards and multi-standard organisations], Norsk Statsvidenskapelig Tidsskrift, 8 (4): 261-284. Røvik, K.A. 1998. Moderne organisationer. Trender i organisasjonstenkningen ved tusenårsskiftet [Modern organisations. Trends in organisation thinking by the turn of the millennium]. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen. Røvik, K.A. 2007. Trender og translasjoner. Idéer som former det 21. århundrets organisasjon [Trends and translations. Ideas that have shaped the 21st century’s organisation]. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

49 Danish Journal of Management & Business nr. 2 | 2015

Væksthus for Ledelse. 2007. Ledelse af dagtilbud under forandring [Management in day care in change]. Væksthus for Ledelse. Væksthus for Ledelse. 2011. Ledelsesmodeller i dagtilbud [Management models in day care]. Væksthus for Ledelse. Wæraas, A. & Sataøen, H. L. 2014. Trapped in Conformity? Translating Reputation Management into Practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30 (2): 242-253. Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications, Inc. Zilber, T.B. 2006. The Work of the Symbolic in Institutional Processes: Translation of Rational Myths in Israeli High-Tech, Academy of Management Journal 49 (2): 279-301.