Skip to main content

Büro als Treiber von Wissens- und Innovationsprozessen

Zusammenfassung

Um die Zukunftsfähigkeit eines Unternehmens zu sichern, muss der Arbeitsplatz der Zukunft ein Workspace für Wissens- und Innovationsarbeiter sein. In diesem Beitrag wird gezeigt, wie Innovation, Wissen, Organisation und Raum beziehungsweise Büro zusammenhängen. Ausgehend von einer Darstellung des Konzeptes der Innovation wird deutlich, dass kognitive Prozesse für alle Formen von Wissens- und Innovationsprozessen verantwortlich sind und dass diese niemals ohne die sie umgebenden Rahmenbedingungen (Raum, Organisation, soziale Strukturen) verstanden werden können. Innovation kann demnach nur ermöglicht und nicht „gemacht“ werden. Notwendig ist es, eben diese „Ermöglicher“ zu verstehen und zu einem ganzheitlichen Organisations- und Raumkonzept für den Arbeitsplatz der Zukunft zu integrieren. Aus der Darstellung der „Ermöglicher“ werden die Konsequenzen für die Gestaltung von Workspaces abgeleitet und praktische Implikationen, Handlungsempfehlungen sowie konkrete Beispiele vorgestellt.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-12606-3_2
  • Chapter length: 26 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-658-12606-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Abb. 2.1
Abb. 2.2
Abb. 2.3
Abb. 2.4
Abb. 2.5

Literatur

  • Adolf, M., & Stehr, N. (2014). Knowledge. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. J., & Henn, G. W. (2007). The organization of architecture and innovation. Managing the flow of technology. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323–1339.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catmull, E. (2008). How Pixar fosters collective creativity. https://hbr.org/2008/09/how-pixar-fosters-collective-creativity. Zugegriffen: 12. Sept. 2015.

  • Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. M. (1979). Scientific realism and the plasticity of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind. Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44–54.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan, P., Suri, J. F., & Canales, K. (2007). Prototypes as (design) tools for behavioral and organizational change. A design-based approach to help organizations change work behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(1), 1–13.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation. Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42(5), 693–716.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M., & Gann, D. (2010). Innovation. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2003). The problem of design problems. In N. Cross & E. Edmonds (Hrsg.), Expertise in design (S. 135–147). Sydney: Creativity and Cognition Studio Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues (National Council of State Boards of Nursing (U. S.)), 22(3), 4–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1988). The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review, 66, 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • d.school. (2010). Design thinking bootcamp bootleg. Methodbook. Stanford: d.school, Hasso Platter, Institute of Design.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets. Reasoning about a highly connected world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organisational strategic and structural differences for radical vs. incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1995). Green paper on innovation. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2004). Innovation management and the knowledge-driven economy. Brussels: European Commission. (Directorate-general for Enterprise)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies. The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (Hrsg.). (2006). The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fayard, A. L., & Weeks, J. (2007). Photocopiers and water-coolers: The affordances of informal interaction. Organization Studies, 28(5), 605–634.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., Kauffman, S. A., Koppl, R., et al. (2014). Economic opportunity and evolution: Beyond landscapes and bounded rationality. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(4), 269–282.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Friedenberg, J., & Silverman, G. (2006). Cognitive science. An introduction to the study of the mind. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat. A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Ferrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gedenryd, H. (1998). How designers work. Lund: Lund University Cognitive Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Houde, S., & Hill, C. (1997). What do prototypes prototype?. In M. Helander, T. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Hrsg.), Handbook of human-computer interaction. Second (S. 367–381). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. A. (2014). Prolegomenon to patterns in evolution. BioSystems, 123(2014), 3–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Hrsg.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. (2004). The art of innovation. Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppl, R., Kauffman, S. A., Felin, T., et al. (2014). Economics for a creative world. Journal of Institutional Economics, 2014, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogh, G. v., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Laurel, B.. (Hrsg.). (2003). Design research. Methods and perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifer, R. (2000). Radical innovation. How mature companies can outsmart upstarts. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menary, R. (Hrsg.). (2010). The extended mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Moggridge, B., Suri, J. F., & Bray, D. (2007). People and prototypes. In B. Moggridge (Hrsg.), Designing interactions (S. 641–735). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of „ba“: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. How Japanese companies manage the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, G. C., & McDermott, C. M. (2004). The human side of radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2), 11–30. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2003.12.002.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Onarheim, B. (2012). Creativity from constraints in engineering design: Lessons learned at Coloplast. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 323–336.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2008a). Emergent innovation and sustainable knowledge co-creation. A socio-epistemological approach to „Innovation from within“. In M. D. Lytras, J. M. Carroll, E. Damiani, et al. (Hrsg.), The open knowledge society: A computer science and information systems manifesto (S. 101–108). New York: Springer (CCIS 19).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2012a). Spaces enabling game-changing and sustaining innovations: Why space matters for knowledge creation and innovation. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change (OTSC), 9(1), 41–61.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2012b). Vom „digital turn“ zum „socio-epistemological creative turn“. Räume der Ermöglichung von Innovation und Wissensgenerierung. In B. Kossek & M. F. Peschl (Hrsg.), Digital Turn? Zum Einfluss digitaler Medien auf Wissensgenerierungsprozesse von Studierenden und Hochschullehrenden (S. 47–62). Göttingen: V & R unipress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014a). Designing and enabling interfaces for collaborative knowledge creation and innovation. From managing to enabling innovation as socio-epistemological technology. Computers and Human Behavior, 37, 346–359.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014b). Why space matters for collaborative innovation networks. On designing enabling spaces for collaborative knowledge creation. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering (IJODE), 3(3/4), 358–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., Raffl, C., Fundneider, T., et al. (2010).Creating sustainable futures by innovation from within. Radical change is in demand of radical innovation. In R. Trappl (Hrsg.), Cybernetics and Systems 2010 (S. 354–359). Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli, R. (2006). The ontology of what is not there. In J. Malinowski & A. Pietruszczak (Hrsg.), Essays in logic and ontology (Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol. 91) (S. 73–80). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAP. (2015). https://experience.sap.com/designservices/apphaus. Zugegriffen: 9. Sept. 2015.

  • Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending knowledge. Sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 137–150.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Theory U. Leading from the future as it emerges. The social technology of presencing. Cambridge: Society for Organizational Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steup, M. (2012). Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Hrsg.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/.

  • Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints. The psychology of breakthrough. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, P. D. (2007). Using constraints to generate and sustain novelty. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 107–113.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tedlock, B. (2005). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Third (S. 455–486). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2005). Towards knowledge societies. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO World Report).

    Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J. (1990). Kognitionswissenschaft – Kognitionstechnik. Eine Skizze aktueller Perspektiven. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus F. Peschl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peschl, M., Fundneider, T. (2016). Büro als Treiber von Wissens- und Innovationsprozessen. In: Klaffke, M. (eds) Arbeitsplatz der Zukunft. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12606-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12606-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-12605-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-12606-3

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)