The role of expert knowledge of the environment in decision-making about urban development has been intensively debated, largely in terms of a so-called ‘science-policy gap’. Most contributions to this debate have studied the use of knowledge in the decision-making process from the knowledge providers’ point of view. In this paper, we reverse the perspective and try to unearth how decision-makers use scientific knowledge in decision-making about an urban plan. We confronted municipal administrators, responsible for local urban development, with conceptions of the use of knowledge that were derived from the literature on this issue. From the reactions obtained, we conclude that, in the context of urban redevelopment, local administrators hardly perceive a barrier between themselves as decision-makers and experts – both environmental scientists and urban designers. They do, however, acknowledge that experts and decision-makers have distinct roles: unlike experts, local administrators have to balance all interests relevant to an urban plan. It is argued, therefore, that experts should engage in providing better decision frameworks rather than more or better knowledge.
The role of expert knowledge of the environment in decision-making about urban development has been intensively debated, largely in terms of a so-called ‘science-policy gap’. Most contributions to this debate have studied the use of knowledge in the decision-making process from the knowledge providers’ point of view. In this paper, we reverse the perspective and try to unearth how decision-makers use scientific knowledge in decision-making about an urban plan. We confronted municipal administrators, responsible for local urban development, with conceptions of the use of knowledge that were derived from the literature on this issue. From the reactions obtained, we conclude that, in the context of urban redevelopment, local administrators hardly perceive a barrier between themselves as decision-makers and experts – both environmental scientists and urban designers. They do, however, acknowledge that experts and decision-makers have distinct roles: unlike experts, local administrators have to balance all interests relevant to an urban plan. It is argued, therefore, that experts should engage in providing better decision frameworks rather than more or better knowledge.
During the past two decades the implementation and adoption of information technology has rapidly increased. As a consequence the way businesses operate has changed dramatically. For example, the amount of data has grown exponentially. Companies are looking for ways to use this data to add value to their business. This has implications for the manner in which (financial) governance needs to be organized. The main purpose of this study is to obtain insight in the changing role of controllers in order to add value to the business by means of data analytics. To answer the research question a literature study was performed to establish a theoretical foundation concerning data analytics and its potential use. Second, nineteen interviews were conducted with controllers, data scientists and academics in the financial domain. Thirdly, a focus group with experts was organized in which additional data were gathered. Based on the literature study and the participants responses it is clear that the challenge of the data explosion consist of converting data into information, knowledge and meaningful insights to support decision-making processes. Performing data analyses enables the controller to support rational decision making to complement the intuitive decision making by (senior) management. In this way, the controller has the opportunity to be in the lead of the information provision within an organization. However, controllers need to have more advanced data science and statistic competences to be able to provide management with effective analysis. Specifically, we found that an important skill regarding statistics is the visualization and communication of statistical analysis. This is needed for controllers in order to grow in their role as business partner..
The IMPULS-2020 project DIGIREAL (BUas, 2021) aims to significantly strengthen BUAS’ Research and Development (R&D) on Digital Realities for the benefit of innovation in our sectoral industries. The project will furthermore help BUas to position itself in the emerging innovation ecosystems on Human Interaction, AI and Interactive Technologies. The pandemic has had a tremendous negative impact on BUas industrial sectors of research: Tourism, Leisure and Events, Hospitality and Facility, Built Environment and Logistics. Our partner industries are in great need of innovative responses to the crises. Data, AI combined with Interactive and Immersive Technologies (Games, VR/AR) can provide a partial solution, in line with the key-enabling technologies of the Smart Industry agenda. DIGIREAL builds upon our well-established expertise and capacity in entertainment and serious games and digital media (VR/AR). It furthermore strengthens our initial plans to venture into Data and Applied AI. Digital Realities offer great opportunities for sectoral industry research and innovation, such as experience measurement in Leisure and Hospitality, data-driven decision-making for (sustainable) tourism, geo-data simulations for Logistics and Digital Twins for Spatial Planning. Although BUas already has successful R&D projects in these areas, the synergy can and should significantly be improved. We propose a coherent one-year Impuls funded package to develop (in 2021): 1. A multi-year R&D program on Digital Realities, that leads to, 2. Strategic R&D proposals, in particular a SPRONG/sleuteltechnologie proposal; 3. Partnerships in the regional and national innovation ecosystem, in particular Mind Labs and Data Development Lab (DDL); 4. A shared Digital Realities Lab infrastructure, in particular hardware/software/peopleware for Augmented and Mixed Reality; 5. Leadership, support and operational capacity to achieve and support the above. The proposal presents a work program and management structure, with external partners in an advisory role.
- MOTIVE: This project (NoSI) constitutes a first step towards a broader research aiming at counteracting the compartmentalization of Dutch education: WO-HBO-MBO. This first step focuses on vocational education and training (VET) in the creative industry (CI) to develop an incubator for an innovative and participatory VET system, that bridges the gap between the professional field and education. It starts from the pioneering experience of No School (NS) (http://noschool.nl/), where teachers and students already work together as co-creators. - RESULTS: 1) incubator of the new creative VET, based on the following activities: NS book-Manifesto; NS Pavilion; international VET movement /network of people working on educational change; 2) design of a large-scale subsidised study. - CONTENT: VET system needs a systematised renovation on both practical and theoretical level. We will furtherly develop the NS experiment into an incubator serving as operational example of co-creation between: HBO/MBO/WO; teachers/students; schools/professional field. We are in line with the CLICKNL agenda (The Human Touch) and NWA routes (Jeugd in ontwikkeling, opvoeding en onderwijs; Kunst: onderzoek en innovatie in de 21ste eeuw). - RELEVANCE: Starting directly from the practical needs of the professionals (VET teachers/students/professionals), NoSI bridges the gap between schools and the professional field towards a new educational system that can match the demands of the 21st century society. - METHODS: NoSI introduces Participatory Action Research (PAR) as on-going approach in which all the stakeholders (researchers, teachers, students/CI professionals) are actively involved in the decision-making process as co-creators in bringing an ‘idea’ directly into reality. It considers ‘action’ as the main criterion to validate any theory, prioritizing practical knowledges. PARTNERS: 1) ArtEZ lectoraat Kunst- en Cultuureducatie (AeCT), 2) No School (Cibap/SintLucas), 3) Studio INAMATT, 4) expert groups (UvA).
