ENHANCING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: DESIGNING COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS FOR INNOVATION Judy Matthews and Karen Manley Queensland University of Technology, Australia
[email protected] ABSTRACT Work environments have previously been studied to identify the strategies, structures and processes which increase the likelihood of creativity, innovation and collaboration for productive workplaces. A number of perspectives have emerged which identify social and cognitive factors known to contribute to or to restrict innovation and collaboration. Recently more attention has been given to designing physical environments to encourage processes relevant to innovation such as creativity (McCoy & Evans, 2002) knowledge sharing (Hemlin, Allwood & Martin, 2008) and collaboration (Bozeman & Corley, 2004). Some attention has been given specifically to research and development environments (Boutellier et al, 2008) but little integration of this research has occurred. In the context of the construction of new purpose-built premises which will bring together under one roof separate public sector agencies engaged in research and development in agriculture, natural resource systems and the environment, this paper examines the extant literature and develops initial propositions for research relevant to the transition, collaboration and performance of research and development in new organizational environments where traditional boundaries have been redrawn. Key words: innovation, workplace design, conceptual framework, collaboration 1. INTRODUCTION The importance of creativity and the generation of ideas and innovation in workplace settings has received a lot of attention (Amabile 1997, Amabile et al 1996) and more particularly in research and development settings (Allen 1997, 2007: Boutellier et al., 2006). Much of the literature on structuring office and work environments examines factors which lead to good working relationships and the potential for individual and team breakthroughs. Creating environments where knowledge is created, developed and shared has become extremely important (Faems et al., 2007; Skyrme, 1999). Knowledge creation and learning are important processes in any workplace but they are of particular importance in R&D organizations where the explicit purpose is to develop new knowledge or apply existing knowledge in new ways (Jensen et al., 2007). Research into factors which encourage
ISBN 978-90-77360-12-5 © CINet 2009
644
CINet 2009
knowledge sharing and collaboration is fragmented but it is generally agreed that creating environments for collaboration and learning to tackle some of the big important problems that our world is facing is a good idea. The purpose of the study is to identify environmental factors which will lead to increased creativity, communication and collaboration, innovation and learning, knowledge sharing and knowledge generation in organizations. In particular we seek to identify conditions which may influence potential and actual engagement for knowledge sharing to occur and to investigate how cross-boundary knowledge sharing and transfer occur over time in multiple research and development settings. Building on research regarding work environments which encourage workplace creativity, the research questions we are investigating are: What design and environmental factors lead to creativity, innovation and improved knowledge generation, development, collaboration and application in science based workplaces? The objective of this paper is to examine extant research to identify knowledge gaps related to individual, organizational and environmental factors which influence interaction patterns in creativity, communication, knowledge sharing and collaboration and effectiveness with a specific focus on the role of spatial and design relationships in influencing collaboration, innovation and science. A recent study of creative knowledge environments (CKE) argues that there is a “need for longitudinal studies of knowledge environments to analyze how creativity changes in response to changes in the CKE” (Hemlin et al, 2008: 207). These authors argue that more research on different kinds of CKE’s is required, specific processes promoting creativity and their effectiveness should be investigated. First we review literature on workplace environments which enable creativity, communication and collaboration, and knowledge creation, sharing and application. Second we describe the specific context for such knowledge sharing in R&D environments. Finally we establish some initial research propositions based on the gaps in the literature that will form the basis of a new longitudinal empirical study in this area. 2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS There are a number of perspectives relevant to creativity and innovation in organizations. The issues we focus on in this paper are creativity, communication and collaboration, knowledge creation and knowledge sharing. Research on creativity particularly on workplace creativity (Amabile, 2002; Amabile et al. 1996) is based on a component theory of creativity where intrinsic motivation, expertise and creative thinking skills are seen as the components of creativity. We begin with brief summaries of four diverse views which have evolved to investigate creativity and innovation and knowledge generating properties of organizations. Each perspective contains potential for the development of propositions for the new study.
645
2.1
Workplace Creativity and Creative Knowledge Environments
Amabile and colleagues’ research on creativity at the team and individual level as well as at the organizational level is well established (Amabile et al. 1996) and can be seen in their Keys to Creativity. Their research identified management practices which supported innovation as well as practice which hindered innovation. The Keys to Creativity measures have been used by companies to provide indications that companies can use to measure the company’s performance and these factors are summarized in Table 1 below. Management Practices which support innovation Organizational encouragement
Organizational culture that encourages creativity through fair constructive judgment of ideas; reward and recognition for creative work; mechanisms for developing new ideas; an active flow of ideas; shared vision Supervisory Supervisor serves as good work model, sets goals appropriately, encouragement and supports the work group, who values individual contributions, shows confidence in the work group. Work group Diversely skilled work group in which people communicate well, supports are open to new ideas, constructively challenge each other’s work, trust and help each other and feel committed to the work they are doing. Sufficient resources Access to appropriate resources, including funds, materials, facilities and information Challenging work A sense of having to work hard on challenging tasks and important projects Freedom Declining what work to do or how to do it; a sense of control over one’s work Management Practices which inhibit innovation Organizational Organizational culture with internal political problems, destructive Impediments internal competition, avoidance of risk, Workload pressure Extreme time pressures, unrealistic expectation of productivity, distractions from creative work Table 1. Keys to Creativity (from Amabile 2002) McCoy & Evans (2002) extended this work on factors essential to work-level creativity in designing workplaces for creativity using design characteristics salient to creativity largely based on this work on organizational creativity. McCoy & Evans (2002) used these characteristics to frame their discussion of activities, such as: Freedom, or a sense of control over one’s work and ideas; Challenge – a sense of having to work hard on challenging tasks and important projects; resources – access to appropriate resources, including people, materials, facilities, and information; Supervisor – a leader of manager who sets up appropriate goals, values individual contributions, and serves as an intelligent, enthusiastic role model; Coworker – communications with peers are open, trusting and constructive; Recognition – feedback leads to appropriate recognition and reward; Unity and cooperation – a cooperative, collaborative atmosphere in which there is lively flow of
646
ideas around a shared vision. They found that creativity is encouraged and supported with mechanisms to foster creative expression. McCoy and Evans’s study of factors in work preference materials found that “the characteristics of environments with high perceived creativity potential were visually interesting, tended to be highly complex both spatially and ornamentally, tended to have extended views and natural materials and had some provision for promoting social interaction” (McCoy & Evans, 2002: 418). Creative knowledge environments can be viewed at several distinct levels of human organization. “Creative knowledge environments (CKE) are those environments, contexts, and surroundings the characteristics of which are such that they exert a positive influence on human beings engaged in creative work aiming to produce new knowledge or innovations, whether they work individually or in teams within a single organizations or in collaboration with others” (Hemlin, Allwood & Martin, 2008: 197). CKE can be considered as a set of nested layers of environmental factors surrounding the unit in which creative activities are undertaken. The unit of analysis can be as small as one person or as large as a multinational firm. Literature about CKEs includes research environment studies, innovation environment studies and work-team environment studies. “A creative work environment is one where each individual has a number of tasks or projects and where experiences from one domain can exert a positive influence on another” (Simonton 2003) in (Hemlin et, al. 2009: 206). 2.2
Organizational ecologies
The importance of physical structures and human factors has become a recent focus in innovative environments. The adaptability of many structural configurations to researchers working in them on a daily basis has become an increased priority, leading to calls for the development of ‘cooperative buildings’, and active spaces. Using examples from companies which had turned their office or company around by applying principles of harmony in design and alignment of design, human resources technology, the work processes and the culture, Becker (2007) contends that this is because they influence communication and collaboration patterns. The planning, design and management of the spatial aspects of an organizational ecosystem are often overlooked, yet research and experience suggest that the physical design of the workplace can affect a variety of types of informal learning, such as speed of product development and degree of product/service innovation. Becker’s propositions of “eco-diversity, spatial transparency, unassigned workspace, human scale and neutral zones link how workspace is designed, used and managed in dynamic organizations where the rate of change and uncertainty is high” (Becker 2007: 50). Becker (2006) suggests that environments designed to support a culture of communication and collaboration might include the following features: different types of spaces for interactive work; visual connections to facilitate information seeking and interaction; flexible workspaces; smaller unit size to foster interaction and neutral spaced that minimizes professional and status hierarchies. These design factors are summarized to form
647
an organizational ecology checklist in Table 2. These principles were used in planning the physical environment in the design of health care (Joseph, 2006). Design factors likely to increase informal communication, interaction and learning Eco-diversity Spatial transparency Neutral zones Human scale
More varied work settings inside and outside the “office” More opportunities for employees to observe the behavior of each other and the work they are doing More deliberate planning, design and the use of spaces not “owned” by any particular discipline or unit Smaller scale work areas within floors and less separation of related functional areas Designing space to increase the opportunity for chance encounters
Functional inconvenience Table 2. Organizational Ecology Checklist (Becker, 2007: 58)
As companies grow in size and complexity, the number of diverse disciplinary and experience backgrounds which provide the potential for knowledge generation and application and the opportunity to stimulate new ideas and new ways of working may be not be captured. Many companies form cross-disciplinary and cross-functional teams to provide multiple perspectives and expertise to generate new ideas and solutions from within their companies. Information sharing and collaboration around research themes is not a straightforward process. Indeed, some literature asserts that physical barriers may become social barriers to informal communication and knowledge sharing (Allen & Fusfeld, 1976). Organizations within a knowledge-based economy with increasing levels of complexity and dynamism face the need to shift the “managerial focus away from coordinating resources and processes” toward “managing intangible knowledge capacities” (Yoo et al. 2006: 215). Managing capacities of knowledge sharing, generation and application is a key concern for research based organizations as well as companies (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and social, spatial and design factors which are likely increase such knowledge capacities practices are in high demand. 2.3 Communication and Collaboration Research on communication between researchers engaged in research and development in different locations within an organization has been influenced by Thomas Allen’s decade of research on communication processes and relationship to innovation. Communication is of course essential in any workplace and this largely includes coordination, and information for the smooth running of organizations. Communication among team members and with outsiders improves project team effectiveness (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995) and multi-functional teams quickened the speed of the development process (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995). Current examples of workplace communication and collaboration are described in Google (Eisenmann & Herman 2006). At Google almost every project is a team project. Teams tend to be small and communication tends to be easy as team members are located within a few feet of each other. It seems
648
virtually everyone shares an office. Such colocation makes project coordination relatively easy. Furthermore individuals “email a snippet once a week to the work group describing what has been done in the last week, providing an easy way to track what everyone else is up to, and easy to monitor progress and synchronize work flow” (Eisenmann & Herman 2006: 23) and internal web pages are set up for virtually every project and every task. Across the organization employees communicate effectively at weekly Friday ‘all hands’ assembly with announcements introductions and Q&A (Eisenmann & Herman 2006). These design and occupancy solutions with employees “jam packed for better communication” and the regular all-hands meetings on Fridays were also noted by Iyer & Davenport (2008). Allen (1977; Allen & Henn, 2007) remind us that spatial proximity also seems to encourage collaboration because it leads to informal communication and “the closer two potential collaborators are in spatial proximity the more they are likely to engage in informal communications that will lead to collaboration” (Bozerman & Corley, 2004: 602). Bozerman & Corley (2004) summarize the most commonly cited reasons for research collaborations. Such reasons include: access to expertise and access to equipment or resources, where one does not have to encourage cross-fertilization across disciplines, to improve access to funds, obtain prestige or visibility; to learn tacit knowledge about a technique; to pool knowledge for tackling large and complex problems; to enhance productivity, to educate a student, and increasing specialization of science and for fun and pleasure. They also state that many scholars agree that collaborations often begin informally and stem from informal conversations between colleagues. 2.4
Research and Development
Organizations engaged in innovation and research and development traditionally focus on developing portfolios of projects, platforms for new products and services and the development of new markets. Some research identifies relationships between centrally based R & D and decentralized or dispersed R&D (De Sanctis, Glass & Ensing 2002) but to a large extent, the structural dimensions and spatial arrangements of research and development environments have been largely overlooked in the innovation literature. One exception is a study which compared two different office environments in a science-driven business within the same site, same activity, same hierarchical level and same company: a traditional cell office area and a new multi-space office, used by people who used to work in cell offices (Boutellier, et al., 2008). In this research the focus was on patterns of face-to -face communication rather than innovative outcomes. Similarly research on workplace design used to improve potential for interactions between staff to capture the possibilities of informal encounters (Stegmeier, 2008) has not been used in organizations required to produce innovative outcomes. Boutellier et al.’s (2008) research argues that performance of an R&D organization is influenced directly by communication and indirectly through knowledge sharing and creation. Boutellier et al. contend that the design of work places would benefit from research into architectural and organizational design which optimizes spatial and interaction design for knowledge generation in science based business, as illustrated in Figure 1 below.
649
While there are predictions about what might be required in the future, there appears to be a notable absence of relevant research.
From Work Space Layout to Productivity Work space Layout
Has influence on human behaviour and FTF communication patterns between Individuals
Communication
Communication Enhances organization knowledge creation through socialization and coordination
Knowledge creation
Creates a higher efficiency e.g. in the interpretation of results
Productivity in Research Improves strategic position
Figure 1. Work Space Layout and Productivity in Science-based Business (Boutellier et al. 2008:373)
Communication landscape changes rapidly moving from cell-space to multi-space, especially in large R&D departments and therefore can be used as a tool to reach higher productivity (Boutellier et al. 2008: 387). The benefits of multiple spaces are welldescribed. For example, multi-space creates: more time to think on your own; more short contacts at the work place; higher probability of chance encounters. All of this is important for productivity (Allen 1984). The biggest change is the total number of encounters. “People meet far more often, with short feed-back cycles and fast exchange of small digestible bits of knowledge and hence speed of verification increases” (Boutellier et al. 2008: 388). Research in research and development laboratories carried out at MIT identified that while coordination and information sharing are essential; of particular importance in such environments is communication for inspiration (Allen, 1997; Allen, 2007). The explicit purpose of R&D organisations is to develop new knowledge and apply existing knowledge in new ways. Organizations focused on research and development attempt to plan structures, projects, teams and processes to maximize possibilities for the generation of knowledge with new solution and productivity. Such processes may include laboratory based research, field research, desk-based research, use of herbariums, or classificatory collections as well as development processes to experiment and test interactions with a range of materials. The value of architectural design of the research lab and ways in which design might change in the lab of the future has largely not been well articulated. “Architectural design has been identified as an important factor in contributing to the aesthetic appeal of the facility, to the well-being of the staff, to its relationship in the local community, and to the recruitment potential of the lab” (R&D Magazine, 2005). Researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute researching the “Lab of the Future” Project contend that important drivers that will influence the development of new research labs and work flows: namely an increase in team-based research with more cross-discipline interaction and more cross-border cooperation; an increasing relevance of human factors in the laboratory environments; the
650
ubiquitous use of automated processes and ICT (information and communication technologies; and the emergence and advancement of new technologies and their integration into bio-related research. They argue that team-oriented research has become the norm in the scientific world, with measures to facilitate interaction and communication for increased efficiency, productivity, and innovation in research taking prominence (R&D Magazine 2008). Summarizing these four factors we develop the following framework, extending Amabile’s work on workplace creativity, and including relevant factors related to communication, physical environments, R&D projects and implementation.
Physical Environment Spaces for interaction
Innovation Management practices
Design for Flexibility
Communication
Organizational Innovation
Resources
Work Environment
Creativity Feeds Innovation
Clear goals
R&D Projects
Procedural autonomy aut my Expertise
Feedback &
Supervisory Reward & recognition support Task Motivation
Individual/Team Creativity
Creativity Skills
Creativity [Modified from Amabile 1997]
Figure 2. Potential Factors Affecting Organizational Creativity, Innovation and Productivity (Developed for this study) Combining these four diverse perspectives we develop the following propositions which will be investigated in the first round of the research project. Proposition 1: Designing environments for learning and interaction will create an increased number of possibilities for informal learning in the workplace. Proposition 2: Scientists with prior experience with inter-organizational collaboration are more likely to engage in research and development collaboration. Proposition 3: Scientists who perceive collaboration to generate mutual benefits are more likely to engage in collaborative research and development. Scientists are more likely to engage in collaborative research and development across organizational boundaries in situations of explicit organizational support. Proposition 4: Designing workspaces may influence the type and frequency of communication and collaboration across workgroups. Moderating factors may include leadership, supervisory encouragement and the organization’s strategic goals.
651
Proposition 5: Leadership and supervisor encouragement will influence engagement in collaborative research and development across organizational boundaries and research outcomes.
3. RESEARCH CONTEXT The context in which these notions of structuring environments for developing knowledge capacities and collaboration are examined is the construction of new R&D facilities and offices on a new site with the relocation of existing R&D professional and technical staff into new purpose-built facilities. Four existing public sector organisations engaged in public sector research development and extension in agriculture, natural resources and the environment will be brought together in the new premises. Currently the existing premises of each of these four separate departments have been located in separate facilities in separate locations and the separateness of such locations has been one of the factors influencing the distinct nature of their research programs and their tendency to collaborate with colleagues within their own organization rather than across organizational boundaries. Existing facilities previously developed for research programs were established some time ago and the facilities now require substantial reorganization, major maintenance, retrofitting and upgrading. The decision to build new premises and to co-locate these three distinct government departments with different research and development departments was largely economically driven, but there are also expectations that locating these department in new structures on one site may increase the potential for collaboration across departmental boundaries, to address some of the major issues and challenges from multiple perspectives, generate genuinely novel collaborative solutions and lead to an increase in “productivity”. To some extent the establishment of different aggregations of programs and responsibilities is a political as well as a scientific and technological one. However, the requirement to relocate scientists from four organisations with different identities also provides an opportunity for restructuring of work places with more flexible organizational boundaries and generates the possibility for the development and redesign of laboratory spaces, new configurations of laboratory and office spaces and new possibilities for collaboration across “boundaries”. 4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This exploratory research began with an extensive investigation of extant literature on the relationship between the social and physical work environments and innovation and productivity. We then framed such notions in terms of science and research laboratories and public sector research and development contexts in particular, identifying key themes and developing research propositions for testing in workplace settings. Given the relative paucity of research on workplace design, collaboration and R&D environments, we contend that a qualitative research design that allows a detailed exploration of the topic is most appropriate (Eisenhardt, 1989) for this study. Case studies
652
will be conducted with scientists through semi-structured interviews with scientists and technical staff from four different research organizations. Using purposeful sampling we have selected scientists from two organizations, for a pilot study, matching on the criteria of previous collaboration, leadership and plans for the future. We carry out analyses of these cases within organizations and across organizational boundaries. We expect that the preliminary findings from our thematic analysis of the first round of interviews will begin to articulate identified benefits and concerns from this sample of senior members of each organization. These findings will be presented back to the organizations after each stage of the research to develop ongoing dialogues regarding possibilities for spatial and work related practices and their perspectives of the effects on research collaboration and productivity. This exploratory research will be the first phase of a new study, so these preliminary findings will be indicative, rather than able to be generalized to other situations, but they will lead the way for further longitudinal research in this field. These propositions will be examined through a longitudinal study of processes involved in the establishment of a greenfield research and development facility and the location of a number of government departments with distinct responsibilities into a new purposefully built joint facility. 5. LIMITATIONS The social and cultural environments in which scientific activities such as research and development is carried out have long been well studied (Allen, 2007; Amabile, 1996) but to date, little research about the physical environments in which such research-based activities are carried out is available in the public domain. The lack of availability may be a consequence of little research in this area or the recognition that such information derived from private sector R&D environments maybe one aspect of a firm’s competitive advantage and not freely available. This research project builds on available knowledge and investigates attributes of physical environments and the design of workspaces in which research, development and collaboration are carried out. This paper reports the conceptual frameworks of the study and the initial research propositions to be investigated in the first phase of the transition process to new organizational arrangements. The early stage of this project makes the early framing of the propositions exploratory rather than confirmatory. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTION This exploratory paper addresses the lack of available research and the dearth of literature regarding the integration of principles and practices for designing workspaces for scientists engaged in research and development. It identifies four diverse themes within the extant literature that address this topic, and develops relevant propositions based on identified research gaps. Many researchers have stressed the importance of this topic and the need for research in this field from different perspectives (Allen & Fusfield 1976; Boutellier et al. 2008; Hemlin et al. 2008). Findings from the research will contribute to an area which has largely been overlooked in the framing of research and development environments: the
653
structural and spatial dimensions of research environments and their influence on interactions and innovative outcomes. Our investigation will also contribute to the development of a theoretical framework for investigating the social and physical factors which enhance innovation environments. The identification of factors which encourage organizational innovation and organizational performance maximization in scientific pursuits will have implications for many workplaces. This paper maps out some of the research propositions that will be investigated in a new longitudinal research study which aims to develop knowledge and skills regarding the designing of workplaces for enhanced scientific activity and collaboration across disciplines. REFERENCES Allen, T.J. & Henn, G.W. (2007) The Organization and Architecture of Innovation: Managing the Flow of Technology, Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford. Allen, T.J. (1997) Architecture and Communication Among Product Development Engineers, The International Center for Research on the Management of Technology, MIT, September, WP #165-97. Allen, T.J. (1984) Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information within the R&D Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Allen, T.J. & Fusfeld, A. (1976) Research laboratory architecture and the structuring of communications, R&D Management, 5, 2, 153-163. Amabile, T. M. (1997) Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What you Love and Loving What you Do, California Management Review, 40, 1, 39 – 58. Amabile, T.M., Conti, R. Coon, H., Lazenby, J. & Herron, M. (1996) Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184. Becker, F. (2007) Organizational Ecology and Knowledge Networks, California Management Review, 49, 2, 42- 61. Boutellier, R., Uhllman, F., Schreiber, J. & Naef, R. (2008) Impact of office lay-out on communication in science-driven business, R&D Management, 38, 4, 372-391. Bozerman, B & Corley, E. (2004) Scientist’s collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical social capital, Research Policy, 33, 599-616. Brown, S.L., & Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995) Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions, Academy of Management Review, 20, 2, 343-79. Chan, J.K. Beckman, S. L. & Lawrence, P.G. (2007) Work Design: A New Managerial Imperative, California Management Review, 49, 2, 6-22. Chesbrough, H. & Appleyard, M. (2007) Open Innovation and Strategy. California Management Review, 50, 1, Fall, 57-76. Cohen, W. C. & Levinthal, D.A. (1989) Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R & D, The Economic Journal, 99, September, 569-597. De Sanctis, G., Glass, J.T., & Ensing, I.M. (2002) Organizational Design for R&D, Academy of Management Executive, 16, 3, 55-66. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building theories from case study research, The Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 532-550. Eisenmann, T.R. & Herman, K. (2006) Google Inc., Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. Elkins, T.J. & Keller, R.T. (2004) Best Practices for R&D Project Leaders: Lessons from Thirty Years of Leadership Research, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 1,1, 3-16. Faems, D., Janssens, M. & van Looy, B. (2007) The Initiation and Evolution of Interfirm Knowledge Transfer in R&D Relationships, Organization Studies, 28, 1699 – 1728. Hemlin, S., Allwood, C.M. & Martin, B.R. (2008) Creative knowledge environments, Creativity Research Journal, 20, 2, 196-210. Iyer, B. & Davenport, T.H. (2008) Reverse Engineering Google’s Machine, Harvard Business Review, 86, 4 58 – 68..
654
Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E. & Lundvall, B.A. (2007) Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation, Research Policy, 36, 680-693. Joseph, A. (2006) The Role of the Physical and Social Environment in Promoting Health, Safety and Effectiveness in the Healthcare Workplace, Center for Health Design, Issue Paper, November #3, 117. McCoy, J.M. & Evans, G.W.(2002) The Potential Role of the Physical Environment in Fostering Creativity, Creativity Research Journal, 14, 3, 409 - 426. Lab of the Future, Fraunhofer Institute, R&D Magazine (2008) http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR~PUBCODE~014~ACCT~1400000100~ISSUE~0605~RELTYPE~PR~Cat~1 4~SubCat~20~PRODCODE~00000000~PRODLETT~B~CALLFROM~PR.html Maccoby, M. (1996) Knowledge Workers need new structures, Research Technology Management, Jan/Feb. 39, 1, 56-68. Mort, J. & Knapp, J. (1999) Integrating Work Design, Web-Based Tools and Organizational Behavior, Research Technology Management, March/April, 42, 2, 33 – 40. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Skyrme, D. J. (1999) Knowledge Networking: Creating the Collaborative Enterprise, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford University Press, Stegmeier, D. (2008) Innovations in Office Design: The Critical Influence Approach to Effective Work Environments, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. Swink, M. (2007) Building Collaborative Innovation Capability, Research Technology Management, March/April, 49, 2, 37-47. Tirpak, T. M., Miller, R., Schwartz, L. & Kashdan, D. (2006) R&D Structure in a Changing World, Research Technology Management, 49, 5, 18-26. Van Aken, J. E. & Wegeman, M.P. (2000) Managing learning in informal innovation networks, R&D Management, 30, 2, 139-149 Yoo, Y., Boland, R. & Lyytinen, K. (2006) From organization design to organization designing, Organization Science, 17, 2, 215-229.
655
