|
6. Recommendation
This study has revealed that the expected changes to organizational structure and culture as
described in business environment-based literature seem to be less of an issue for the academic
environment. The structure and culture in academic environments are to a large extent already
equipped according to NWW-principles. However, this is not visible in the academic office workplace.
Reason for this seems to be that academics are not ready for a change, since they are claimed to be
very conservative and stubborn. Therefore, when wanting to implement NWW within the academic
environment, focus needs to be on creating change-readiness. Currently, academics will not profit
from an NWW-oriented physical layout; they will only notice a loss of private space. One mentioned
reason for this is that financial systems within universities causes that space reduction and thereby
cost reduction will not be beneficial for academics themselves. Since changing these financial
systems is very complex and therefore almost impossible, universities need to highlight other
benefits for academics as well as their students. Examples could be increased knowledge sharing, co-
creation with students, mutual inspiration, and thereby potential increasing study success (Kok et al.,
2011, 2015). Furthermore, universities can ‘seduce’ academics by promising that a percentage of cost
savings will be invested in, for instance, staff (PhDs/Post-docs), better laboratories or other research
facilities.
To overcome resistance, end-users need to be asked for their wishes, needs and expectations
of the workplace. Taking into account the desires of end-users will ensure that they still come to the
office workplace, which will minimalize decreasing, and optimally even increasing, organizational
attachment. Employees need to be coached before, during, and after implementation. Furthermore,
facilitating all work processes performed on the workplace, also at peak times, contributes to
satisfaction with the workplace. It is thus important to determine what activities are performed by
employees by a work activity analysis, and design a layout based on the outcomes of this analysis.
Respondents have reported a wide-scaled range of future possibilities for the academic office
workplace, ranging from a disappearance of the physical appearance of the university to no change
in office layout at all. Most academics tend to the scenario’s in the middle; shared spaces focused on
meetings, informal encounters, knowledge sharing and collaboration. However, they disagree
whether academics will still have a privately owned territorial office workplace. Literature states that
occupancy rates of academic offices are approximately 30% (Parkin et al., 2006; Brunia et al., 2012).
Since respondents also reported that most academic offices suffer from underutilization, it is advised
to redesign academic office workplaces and make them activity based.
When looking at the different scenarios as described in chapter 5, the most suitable
environment will therefore be scenario two or three. This implies possibilities for concentration or
focus work around the edge, and meeting, collaboration, and knowledge sharing opportunities in an
informal area in the center. Wageningen UR needs to determine if there will still be privately owned
offices, based on a follow-up study focused on end-users’ needs and a work activity analysis. This
ensures that both collaboration and focus work can be performed. It must thereby, again, be stated
that the nature of academic work, thus mainly concentration/focus work and one-on-one
conversations, and the occupancy rates at peak times must be taken into account. An important
aspect is the careful support with respect to resistance to change. Wageningen UR needs to take
52 |
P a g e
away concerns, fear, and anxiety. Furthermore, it is matter of course that the workplace should be
optimally facilitated by ICT, where collaboration and knowledge sharing is not obstructed.
The environment as described above is an enormous change compared to most current
academic environments, as well for Wageningen URs academic office environment. Therefore, it is
suggested to let people get to know this way of working by creating small experiments changing
office workplaces and involving acknowledged scientists to study the consequences, for a period of
approximately one to two years. Other departments will become curious and hear experiences from
colleagues or visit the department themselves. If the created environment is a success, further
implementation is possible. When it turns out to be a disaster, the layout will go back to the way it
was. By creating this test arrangement people will most likely be more open for change, since in first
instance it is perhaps not seen as a permanent change; there is a way back when it does not meet
the expectations.
Last but not least, respondents have mentioned a number of preventive measures to avoid
organizational attachment to decrease when implementing NWW. Firstly, employees need to feel
valued by the organization, whereby leadership is very important. Secondly, people need to be in the
workplace. Creating contact moments will bring people together and foster social cohesion. This is
claimed to be even more important for the academic environment, since academics are spread
around a campus. Finally, to get people to the office, well-established workplaces that facilitate
people in their individual needs seems to be very important. The workplace becomes a place for
meeting and social interaction instead of a place focused on just screen work. An organization needs
to facilitate and support the way people work and make sure that when employees come into the
office, they get a good experience. Bottom line thus seems to be to get people to the office, which
automatically happens if you create inspiring workplaces where employees want to be and are
facilitated in their needs, which can be achieved by taking into account work activities, peak hours,
and end-user requirements.
53 |
P a g e
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
