ENHANCING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:

DESIGNING COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS FOR

INNOVATION
Judy Matthews and Karen Manley
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
jh.matthews@qut.edu.au

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 Organizational culture that encourages creativity through fair
encouragement 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 More varied work settings inside and outside the “office”
Spatial transparency More opportunities for employees to observe the behavior of each
other and the work they are doing
Neutral zones More deliberate planning, design and the use of spaces not
“owned” by any particular discipline or unit
Human scale Smaller scale work areas within floors and less separation of
related functional areas
Functional Designing space to increase the opportunity for chance encounters
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 Communication Knowledge Productivity in

Layout creation Research

Has influence on Communication

Enhances Creates a Improves
human behaviour organization higher efficiency strategic position
and FTF knowledge e.g. in the
communication creation interpretation
patterns between through of results
Individuals socialization
and
coordination

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 well-
described. 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 Management
Innovation
practices

Design for Resources

Organizational
Communication Innovation
Flexibility
Work
Environment
Creativity
Feeds
Innovation
Clear goals
Procedural
R&D Projects autonomy
aut my

Feedback & Expertise

Supervisory Reward &
support recognition

Task Creativity
Motivation Skills

Individual/Team
Creativity 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, 1-
17.
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