This paper explores the impact of the physical and social dimensions of the work environment on satisfaction and perceived productivity of knowledge workers in Dutch universities of applied sciences. The approach took the form of a literature review, multiple case study of six research centres using interviews and logbook analysis, and web-based survey (N = 188). Optimally facilitating knowledge production requires both space for concentration (to support internalisation of knowledge) and space for interaction (to support externalisation of knowledge). None of the work environments involved in the study adequately supported all the phases of knowledge development adequately. Cellular offices with personal desks are preferred for solo work and, whereas new workplace designs with a focus on the office as a meeting place support interaction and collaboration. Spatial layout and interaction have a stronger impact than comfort and absence of distraction. The spatial layout should support both in-depth concentration and communication, fit the internalisation/externalisation ratio of activities, and accommodate the proximity essential for collaborative knowledge development. Being able to choose is the key to success. In terms of research limitations, knowledge workers’ productivity was measured by self-assessment, but only a limited number of diaries were collected. The lessons learned can be used as inputs to decision-making processes regarding the design, implementation and management of working environments in higher education settings. Few studies have been conducted concerning the spatial preferences and needs of knowledge workers in universities of applied sciences. The results show that the physical dimension (comfort and layout) is more important for collective productivity, whereas individual productivity is more strongly influenced by the social dimension (interaction and distraction).
MULTIFILE
In the knowledge economy knowledge productivity is the main source of competitive advantage and thus the biggest management challenge. Based on a review of the concept from two distinct perspectives, knowledge productivity is defined as the process of knowledge-creation that leads to incremental and radical innovation. The two main elements in this definition are „the process of knowledge creation‟ and „incremental and radical innovation‟. The main aim of this chapter is to contribute to a better understanding of the concept of knowledge productivity in order to support management in designing policies for knowledge productivity enhancement. After elaborating on the concept of knowledge productivity, the two main elements are combined in a conceptual framework – the knowledge productivity flywheel. This framework appeared to be an effective model for supporting initiatives that aim for enhancing knowledge productivity.
Since 2000, all Dutch Universities of Professional Education are confronted with three major renewals. The first was the European agreement to implement the Bachelor-Master system in Higher Education. The second was the strong tendence to renew eduction towards Competence Based Education. The third renewal came from the decision of the ministery of Education to contract lectures (lectoren) and research networks (kenniskringen) to improve research competences among students. Basic idea behind the latest renewal was that if students from Universities of Professional Education bring in more knowledge in companies, during and after their study, this will stimulate the innovative power of Dutch small and medium enterprices (SME’s). Educational developers have been very bussy with these renewals. Under the cloak of national assurance guidelines and external panels of inspection many educational developers automatically tended to use the instrumental paradigm for many design contexts. In accordance with the research of Gustafson (1993) and Richey (1993) we raised questions about the relevance of the instrumental paradigm for educational design contexts, because often the means-end thinking of the instrumental approach have seemed to be out of place. This research project by Lappia, De Boer & Van Rennes took place in 2006 at INHOLLAND university of professional education in the western part of The Netherlands with four pilots at School of Technology, Social Work, Education and Economics. The researchers started from the assumption that improving competence-based internships could not been based on an instrumental paradigma, because of the lack of absolute standards and the need to support deliberation among stakeholders. The Design Science Approach of Van Aken (2004) and Andriessen (2004) was been used to reveal field-tested and grounded technological rules as design specifications for improvement tools. Beside that the research project used the communicative paradigm (Visscher-Voerman & Gustafson, 2004) to reach consensus among the practitioners, who accompanion students during their internships in organisations in order to achieve a growth of competences in the choosen working field. Participants in the research project were employees of the School of Education, The School of Technology and the School of Economics, the department of Education, Quality, Research and development (OKR). Conditions for participating in the project were that the Schools recognized the problems with implementing Competence Based Internship and the School had to set the employees whe participated in the project free for half a day during the project. The Schools as stakeholders in the project were primary interested in solution of their practical problem (practical stream). The department of Education, Quality, Research and development was interested in solution of the pratical problem for dissemination reasons, but would also learn new strategies for implementation (knowledge stream). Therefore was choosen to follow the Design Science Research Approach.
