Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations

НазваниеSpacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations
Дата конвертации13.02.2013
Размер0.57 Mb.
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20

5.4 The Bottom Line: Tacit Knowledge Creation and Sharing

Most of the knowledge creation in design organizations occurs within offices, in the interaction of people with materials, projects and places. Although there are a common process beyond the geographical barriers of a design organization, I found differences in the work styles and cultures across locations. A great deal of knowledge sticks and remain in the local offices (in a spatial context) and, sometimes, it is not easy shared.

Most of this knowledge is produced by a “tacit and situated knowing” in a place within a particular urban ecology. The ecology or the building, as I did describe, might constrain or enable, depending on the circumstances and choices, such tacit knowledge production and situated knowing capacity.

As Polanyi (1966) put it, such tacit knowing is part of every act of knowing. The explicit knowledge only makes sense and can become a real competitive advantage with the tacit knowing capacity at play. In this sense, what it is at issue is not explicit-tacit knowledge conversion, but rather the disclosing (and working) of tacit knowledge to make explicit knowledge valuable, tradable and mobile (Brown and Duguid 2001).

Our body is “the ultimate instrument of all our external [explicit] knowledge, whether intellectual or practical.” (Polanyi 1966: 15) The urban location, the building, the workplace and even the users, as we saw, are critical to foster learning and awareness in our body-based relationship with the creation and sharing of knowledge.

For this reason, workplace making is such an important activity and factor of innovation because incorporate the body and its tacit knowing capacity in the design and learning of the work space. The design of spaces that overlook the resources of the body (of the communities and teams of practice) for “place making” can damage one of the sources of organizational innovation.

What can we do, when as Moggridge says, “If you want to get effective tacit knowledge sharing, you need something you can experience like a physical browsing.” The body is a fundamental source of knowledge in design organizations (and probably in other types), but if we think of an experience of physical browsing across locations, or even floors in a building, we may encounter important limits for knowledge sharing.

On the one hand, the body cognition supported by urban ecologies, agile and evolving workplaces is crucial, and on the other hand, there is a limit on the scalability and extension of that cognition across physical boundaries.

How can organizations and leaders manage such body-based resources and capacities and overcome the related limits of tacit knowledge sharing?

By enabling workplace making and by spreading the practice of tacit knowing and the relation to which the explicit knowledge makes sense because “knowledge, in short, runs on rails laid by practice” (Brown and Duguid 2001: 204). Both the enabling of workplace making and the spreading of work practice are intimately related to space design and space-in-use.

One the one hand, the design of spaces has to avoid “overdesign,” anticipate breakdowns on work situations, and allow agility by flexible materials, activity settings and furniture. On the other, attending at specific and productive spaces-in-use in one location such as a room, a project space, a particular way to work in a open space that may trigger, as we saw, less territorialities and more shared ownership (knowledge). Also attending at features of a building-in-use might open directions and know-how for spreading practice across locations and thus, enable the conditions for tacit knowledge sharing.

One of my objectives in this thesis has been to highlight the relevance of different types of space on a certain type of organizational innovation. The life and evolution of an organization, so to speak, has to do with its embodiment.

The “making” of organizational places in the case studies and, probably in other cases, is something that deserves attention, care and action not of only one department or level (such as real estate people or managers) but rather require the participation of a great deal of members. To enable such “making” and co-evolution is to enable organizational agility and collective leadership to deal with changing environments and increasing uncertainty. That is to say that not only the mind but also the body and its surrounding spaces have to be ready to learn.


Adler, Paul and Winograd, Terry. (1992), Usability: Turning Technologies into

tools. New York, Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Ackerman. Mark, Pipek. Volkmar and Wulf, Volker (eds) (2003) Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge management. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass. London, England.

Allen, Thomas (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, reprinted 1993. 

Allen, Thomas (1997), Architecture and Communication Among Product Development, Sept 1997, Sloan School of Management WP # 3983, MIT.

Allen and Cohen, S. (1969) Information glow in research and development

laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 12-19.

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action

Perspective. Addison-Wesley. Reading, MA.

Argyris, C. and Schön, D.(1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and

Practice. . Addison-Wesley. Reading, MA.

Avgerou, C. and Walsham, G. (eds) (2000) Information Technology in Context, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.

Barlow, John Perry (1999) Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.

Basalla, George (1988) The Evolution of Technology. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Bateson, Gregory (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. NYC: Ballantine Books.

Becker, Howard (1982), Art Worlds (Berkeley: University of California Press).

Becker, H. (1972) A school is a lousy place to learn anything in. American

Behavioral Scientist 16: 85-105.

BEYOND PRODUCTIVITY: Information Technology, Innovation and Creativity

(2003). National Research Council of the National Academies.

Bijker, W. and Pinch, T. (1987) “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts:

Or how the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other” in Bijker, W. E., T. P. Hughes and T. Pinch (eds.)

The Social Construction of Technological Systems, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bijker, Wiebe E., Hughes, Thomas P. and Pinch, Trevor (eds.) (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press.

Bijker, Wiebe E. and Law, John (1994). Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in Socio-technical Change. Cambridge Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press.

Boland, RJ and Tenkasi, RV (1995) Perspective making and perspective taking in Communities of Knowing, Organization Science, (6:4), p.350-372.

Booth, Wayne, Colomb, Gregory and Williams, Joseph (1995) The Craft of Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1977) Outline of a theory of Practice . Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.

Brand, Steward (1987) The Media Lab, Inventing the future at MIT. New York, Harvard Business Review, January/February.

Brand, Steward (1994) How Buildings Learn: What happens after they’re built. New York, Viking. Published by the Penguin Group.

Brown, JS (1999), “Introduction,” p.xi in Art and Innovation: The Xerox PARC

Artist-in-Residence Program, Craig Harris (ed), Cambridge: The MIT Press

Brown, JS (2003) “Innovating Innovation” Foreword to Chesbrough, H.(2003)

Open Innovation The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from

Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Brown, JS and Cook, Scott D. N. (1999) Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organizational Science/ Vol. 10, No. 4, July- August 1999 pp. 381-400.

Brown, John and Duguid, Paul (2000/2002) The Social Life of Information.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Brown, John and Duguid, Paul (1991) Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation,

Organization Science, (2:1), p.40-57.

Brown, J. and Duguid, P. (2000) Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organizational Science, 2001 INFORMS Vol. 12, No. 2, March-April 2001, pp. 198-213.

Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt K.M. (1995) Product development: past research,

present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management

Review, 20 92): 343-78.

Burt, Ronald (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burton-Jones, Alan (1999) Knowledge Capitalism: Business, Work, and Learning

in the New Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cairncross, Frances (2001) The Death of the Distance: How the Communications

Revolution will change our Lives. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Callon, Michel (1980) The state and technical innovation: A case study of the

electric vehicle in France. Research Policy, 9:358-376

Carr, N. (2003) “IT doesn’t Matter.” Boston: Harvard Business Review, May.

Castells, Manuel (1996/2000) The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture Vol 1: The Rise of Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castells, Manuel (1997) The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture

Volume 2: The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, Manuel (2001) The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet,

Business, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Castells, Manuel “Grassrooting the Space of Flows” in (2000) Cities in the Telecommunication Age: The fracturing o geographies. Wheeler, Aoyama and Wharf (eds). Routledge, NY and London.

Carlile, Paul and Osterlund, Carsten (2003) “How Practice Matters: A Relational View of Knowledge Sharing” in Marleen Huysman, Etiennne Wenger and Volker Wulf (eds.) Communities and Technologies. The Netherlands : Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Carlile, Paul R. (2002) “Transferring, Translating and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries”. Sloan School of management. Cambridge, Ma. Unpublished.

Chandler, A. (ed)(1990) Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1990.

Chesbrough H. W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Clark, Andy (1997) Being There: putting Brian, Body and World Together Again. A Bradford Book. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass. London, England.

Clark, Herbert (1992). Arenas of language use. University of Chicago Press.

Cohen , W.M. and Levinthal, D.A (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective

on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-52.

Daft, Richard L. and Weick, Karl E. (1984) Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems. Academic of Management Review, 1984, Vol. 9, No. 2, 284-295.

Davenport, Thomas and Prusak, Laurence (1998) Working Knowledge: How

Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston: HBS Press

de Monthoux, P.G (1996). "Conversation Kills Ideas." In C. O. Scharmer, ed.,

"Crafting Thought Architectures. 21 Dialogue-Interviews on Organization

Studies, Strategy, Leadership & Controlling in the 21st Century."

Unpublished project report, Vol. II: 409—438, Cambridge, MA

De Sola Pool, Ithiel (1981). The Social Impact of the Telephone. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1981

DEGW (2004) “Office Design and its impact on busines performance” CABE, 29th March 2004.

DEGW (2003) “Measuring Success”. Material from 4.181 workshop

Dosi, G. (1984) Technological Paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change” Research Policy. 11: 147-162.

Dougherty, D. (1992) A practice-centered model of organization renewal

through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal,


Dreyfus, Hubert (1979) What Computers Can’t Do. Revised edition. New York: Harper and Row.

Dreyfus, Hubert (2001) On Internet: thinking in action. New York: Routledge.

Dreyfus, Hubert and Harrison Hall eds. (1992) Heidegger: A Critical Reader.

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell

Duffy, Francis (1997) The New Office. London: Conrad Octopuss.

Duffy, Francis (1999) Architectural Knowledge. London: Routledge.

Ehn, Pelle (1992) “Scandinavian Design: On Participation and Skill” in Paul Adler and Terry Winograd (eds.) Usability: Turning Technologies into Tools. NY: Oxford University Press.

Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

Flores, Fernando and Winograd, Terry (1986) Understanding Computers and

Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing.

Florida, Richard (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. NY, Basic Books.

Fodor, J. RePresentations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive

Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, A Bradford Book.

Frey, William and DeVol, Ross (2000) “America’s Demographic in the New Century: Aging baby Boomers and New Immigrants as Mayor Players.” Milken Institute.

Fulk, Janet (1993) Social construction of communication technology, Academy of Management Journal, 36:921-950

Fulk, Janet and Steinfield, Charles (eds.) (1990) Organizations and

Communication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Garcia, C. (2003). A Framework for Political Edutainment: the case of the Daily

Show in MIT Media in Transition Conference, Cambridge, May 2-4, 2003.

Geertz, Clifford (1973/2000) The Interpretation of Cultures. NY: Basic Books.

Giddens, Anthony (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. London: Blackwell.

Giddens, Anthony (1984) The Constitution of Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University of California Press.

Glaeser, Edward (1998) “Are Cities Dying?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 1998, pp. 139-160.

Glaeser, Edward, Scheinkman and Shliefer Andrei, “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Cities” Journal of Monetary Economics, 36, 1995, pp.117-143

Granovetter, Mark (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of

Sociology 78 (6): 1360- 80

Greenbaum, Joan and Kyng, Morten (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, New Jesey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hagedoorn, John (1989) The Dynamic Analysis of Innovation and Diffusion: A Study in process Control. London: Pinter Publishers.

Hargadon, A. (2003) How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth about How Companies Innovate. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. (1997) Technology Brokering and Innovation in a

Product Development Firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, (42), p.716-


Haythornthwaite, Caroline (2002) Strong, Weak and Latent Ties and the impact

of New Media. The Information Society 18 (5): 385-401.

Heidegger, Martin (1950) “The Question concerning Technology” in Question

concerning Technology. New York: Routledge.

Heidegger, Martin (1927/1997) Ser y Tiempo. Santiago: Editorial Universitaria.

Henkel, Joachim and Eric von Hippel (2003). Welfare implications of User Innovation. MIT Sloan School of Management, Working Paper 4327-03, June 2003.

Henn, Gunter and Meyhofer, Dirk (2002) Architecture of Knowledge. A conversation between Gunter Henn and Dirk Meyhofer on 7th June 2003 in Munich. Junius.

Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schön (1999) Excellence by Design: Transforming workplace and work practice. New York: John Wiley and sons, Inc.

Hughes, Thomas (1989) American Genesis: A Century of Invention and

Technological Enthusiasm. New York: Penguin Books.

IDEO (2003) “Designs on Behavior” Human factors proprietary materials.

Jacobs, Jane (1961-1993). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: The Modern Library.

Jenkins, H. “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars? Digital Cinema, Media Convergence and Participatory Culture” (2003) in Rethinking Media Change, edited by Jenkins, H. and Thorburn, D. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Jenkins, H. (1992) Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture (Studies in Culture and Communication) Routledge.

Joroff, Porter, Feinberg and Kukla (2001) The Agile Workplace: Supporting people and their work. Gartner and Massachussets Institute of Technology.

Kee, Shujimori, Morshead, Tsakonas, Kohlert, Allen and Henn (2002) MIT Media Lab Workplace Performance: Architecting the Knowledge Driven Oganization.Final Presentation, December 9, 2002, E51-372.

Kelley, David (1996). The designer’s stance in Winograd et al. Bridging Design to

Software. Addison-Wesley. 1996

Kelley, Kevin (1998) New Rules for the New Economy: Ten Radical Strategies for a Connected world. New York: Penguin Books. Pp. 94-95.

Kelley, Tom (2001)
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20


Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations iconManagerial Perceptions of Innovation Value in Public and Nonprofit Organizations

Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations iconLearning routines in organizational change and innovation

Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations icon13. 30 Thematic workshop: Bridging Design, Sustainability and Innovation in Regional Policy

Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations iconImplementation and Deployment of the ims learning Design Specification1

Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations iconNorthern arizona university 0801. 00 Distance learning facility design development documents

Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations iconProject full title: Conceptual Design of a Food Manufacturing Research Infrastructure to boost up innovation in Food Industry

Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations iconThe design and trial of an interactive computer program Lata-kuunu to support Warlpiri school children’s literacy learning

Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations iconAn Introduction on some un organizations & Int’ Organizations

Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations iconAage T, Belussi f (2008) From Fashion to Design: Creative Networks in Industrial Districts. Industry and Innovation 15: 475-491 Creative industries enjoy a great

Spacing Innovation and Learning in Design Organizations iconDesign is a both a creative and scientific procedure. Equipments, on the other hand are the most important part of the plant design process. Equipment design

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2012
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница