Participatory simulation in hospital work system design

When ergonomic considerations are integrated into the design of work systems, both overall system performance and employee well-being improve. A central part of integrating ergonomics in work system design is to benefit from emplo y-ees’ knowledge of existing work systems. Participatory simulation (PS) is a method to access employee knowledge; namely employees are involved in the simulation and design of their own future work systems through the exploration of models representing work system designs. However, only a few studies have investigated PS and the elements of the method. Yet understanding the elements is essential when analyzing and planning PS in research and practice.This PhD study investigates PS and the method elements in the context of the Danish hospital sector, where PS is applied in the renewal and design of public hospitals and the work systems within the hospitals. The investigation was guided by three research questions focusing on: 1) the influence of simulation media on ergonomic evaluation in PS, 2) the creation of ergonomic knowledge in PS, and 3) the transfer and integration of the ergonomic knowledge into work system design.The investigation was based on three PS cases in the Danish hospital sector. The cases were analyzed from an ergonomics system perspective combined with theories on knowledge creation, transfer, and integration. The results are presented in six scientific papers from which three core findings are extracted: 1) simulation media attributes influence the type of ergonomic conditions that can be evaluated in PS, 2) sequences and overlaps of knowledge creation activities are sources of ergonomic knowledge creation in PS, and 3) intermediaries are means of knowledge transfer, and interpretation and transformation are means of knowledge integration

Establishing an Agri-food living lab for sustainability transitions: Methodological insight from a case of strengthening the niche of organic vegetables in the Vestfold region in Norway

CONTEXT Agri-food systems face complex sustainability challenges, containing conflicting interests, goals, worldviews and fragmented knowledge and decision-making. There is a need for a better understanding of how to turn knowledge about sustainability into actions for change. The complexity of these challenges necessitates systemic, cross-sectorial, and multi-actor processes. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to strengthen agri-food systems associated with organic vegetables in the Vestfold region in Norway by involving actors through a living lab and to generate knowledge regarding the establishment phase of cross-cutting change initiatives. This included exploring how actors from within and beyond the agri-food domain could be selected and recruited and investigating what characterize their perceived understanding of the current situation regarding organic vegetables and their shared vision. METHODS We first drew the boundary of the living lab “system” in relation to improving the situation of organic vegetable agri-food systems. We explored potential participants by developing and applying a procedure for discovering sectors and actors that could contribute to overcome development obstacles. We then used the snowball sampling method and interviewed 48 actors, identifying 80 potential participants. Among these, 30 actors participated in a workshop in which we facilitated co-creative processes for creating a common problem understanding and a shared vision. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The procedure helped identify change-oriented actors within the agri-food domain. Actors represented small-scale entities who had power to influence their own business, as well as individuals within large-scale entities with limited power to influence change in own organizations. We also discovered actors beyond the agri-food domain who did not originally identify themselves closely with the topic of organic food, such as actors from waste management, education, regional, business, and tourism development, and health and welfare. The diversity of actors contributed to a rich and holistic perspective on the current situation for agriculture and food. They co-created a manifold, but coherent, shared vision, portraying a more collaborative orientation in localized agri-food systems. The gaps between current and future desired situations clearly served as a starting point for action planning and testing. SIGNIFICANCE The study shows crucial steps in establishing an agri-food living lab, including introductory work of bounding the system, selecting actors, and conducting co-creative processes. The study developed and applied a procedure for discovering actors within and beyond the agri-food domain who could contribute to overcoming development obstacles. This procedure can be adjusted and utilized in other settings.publishedVersio

Co-authorship in the age of cyberculture: Open Educational Resources at the Open University of the United Kingdom

Locating Open Educational Resources (OER) as a phenomenon of cyberculture, this paper presents a reflection on the possibilities of co-authorship that are entailed in OER initiatives of different natures and settings within a large organisation. A selection of OER-related projects and activities carried out at the Open University of United Kingdom (UKOU) are examined from the perspective of a comparative framework proposed by Okada (2010). The framework identifies key features and differences between ‘Closed’ and ‘Open’ Education, that is, respectively, formal education, which takes place within the constraints of institutional Virtual Learning Environments, and informal education, which is gradually taking place more widely in cyberspace. The paper is introduced with a succinct discussion of the connection between cyberculture and the emergence of OER, followed by a presentation of the comparative framework adopted. The UKOU´s structure and methods are then presented, and various projects are discussed. The article concludes by proposing a brief commentary on the creative potential that is being unleashed at the very boundaries between formal and informal educational spaces that cyberculture is challenging

MAZI Deliverable Report D2.5: – Design, progress and evaluation of the Deptford CreekNet pilot (version 2)

In this deliverable, the second in a series of three, we report on progress in the Creeknet pilot. We describe progress towards tasks identified in the Description of Work (DoW) for Task 2.2, focusing on activities in Year 2 (2017: months 13-24) and look forward to Year 3. The Creeknet pilot consists of four phases. This year, our focus has been on consolidating initial contacts made in Year 1 (Phase 1), and continuing community engagement activities alongside carrying out an initial deployment of the MAZI toolkit with a number of engaged community groups and individuals (Phase 2). In the second half of the year, as the toolkit was developed and an integrated set of tool established these groups and others were invited to engage in further trials, and feedback was gathered to further inform onward development (Phase 3). We have continued with our efforts to build upon existing relationships in Deptford Creek and further afield to help us explore the different ways in which DIY networking in the broadest sense and the use of the MAZI toolkit in particular might help address local challenges. We have reassessed some of our foci through seeking out new opportunities for engagement and trialling the MAZI toolkit. A major activity was planning and running the two day MAZI London Cross-fertilisation symposium. This created the opportunity for Creeknet participants to share their experiences and engage with the other MAZI pilots, bringing together existing community contacts in Deptford Creek, and MAZI partners, and attracted new contributors. Through our activities, working with the emerging MAZI toolkit that evolved through several iterations during the year, we have better understood local circumstances and the complexity involved in the conceptualisation of ‘DIY networking’ - it cannot be assumed to be a single notion. We have identified that both social and technological concerns can restrict its uptake, and consider routes to overcoming these challenges. We provide analysis of work carried out so far, and look towards the future activities

Envisioning and evolving: Future evolution of the concept and the practice of service design

ervice Design is evolving from an emerging field, breaking new ground in the design and service research areas, to a more mature stage, developing a set of fundamental concepts, methods and principles that can provide the foundation for its further significance and impact in both research and practice. This paper reflects on the roots and recent evolution of service design in terms of fundamental concepts, methods and outcomes, taking into account the papers in the Envisioning and Evolving track. It considers how the growing interrelation with close fields of service research is introducing useful “contaminations” and reports how the Service perspective is revealing its potential to bring life to technical and entrenched systems. It goes on to argue that design should aim to bring services to life to prove its real, distinguishing value and contribution

Transformative Urban Experimentation: Reimagining the Governance of Cities Towards Sustainability

This thesis by publication used action research to build capacity for grassroots agency and evaluate the direct impacts of urban experimentation from the perspective of participants in an urban living lab and investigated enabling processes of transformation through multiple case studies across a variety of socio-institutional contexts. This thesis developed an agency-centred analysis of urban experimentation to interpret how social learning, institutional arrangements, dynamics of transformation and capture and new urban imaginaries can drive the transformation of cities towards sustainability

Using Cloudworks to Support OER Activities

This report forms the third and final output of the Pearls in the Clouds project, funded by the Higher Education Academy. It focuses on evaluation of the use of a social networking site, Cloudworks, to support evidence-based practice. The aim of this project (Pearls in the Clouds) has been to evaluate the ways in which web 2.0 tools like Cloudworks can support evidence-informed practices in relation to learning and teaching. We have reviewed evidence from empirically grounded studies surrounding the uses of web2.0 in higher education and highlighted the gap between using web2.0 to support learning and teaching, and using it to support learning about learning and teaching (in an evidence-informed way) (Conole and Alevizou, 2010). We have reported on findings from a case study focusing on the use of Cloudworks by a community of practice - educational technologists - reflecting upon, and, negotiating their role in enhancing teaching and learning in higher education (Galley et al., 2010). The object of this study is to explore and evaluate the use of the site by individuals and communities involved in the production of, and research on, the development, delivery and use of Open Educational Resources (OER)

Supporting local innovation for rural development: Analysis and review of five innovation support funds

In continents and countries such as Africa and India, huge agricultural areas are "de-facto" organic. More formalised - and knowledge intense - methods of organic agriculture has proved potential help farmers achieve better development returns from farming organic. While not commonly referred to (formally certified) as "organic", this huge agricultural sector mainly depend on farmer-knowledge intensive and local innovation systems very much of the same kind that served development of organic agriculture in the west, before agricultural universities and subsequently governments took interest in participating in developing "organic" agriculture. The aim of this study is to follow up on a World Bank workshop on innovation systems at the community level. Most of the knowledge and innovation referred to in the report relates to agriculture. By resolution, this workshop recommended that a ‘review of existing innovation support funds and outline of a global mechanism to foster community level innovations’ should be undertaken. The study is also, in part, a response to a recent report from the World Bank’s Indigenous Knowledge for Development Program, which calls for the establishment of an “innovation fund to promote successful IK practices” (Gorjestani, N., in WB 2004; 45-53). Th is desk study reviews fi ve innovation support funds (ISFs) or funding concepts: the Indian ‘National Innovation Fund’ (NIF) and its associated web of institutions; the GTZ-funded ‘Small-Scale Project Fund’ (SSPF); the NGO concept ‘Promoting Local Innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and NRM’ (PROLINNOVA); the FAO’s project, ‘Promoting Farmer Innovation-Farmer Field Schools’ (PFI-FFS); and the ‘Local Agricultural Research Committee’ (CIAL) in Latin America. Local innovations are broadly perceived as constituting a major under-utilized potential for development and rural poverty reduction, and ISFs as contributing to realize this potential. Local innovators continue to experiment and generated knowledge within a broad spectrum of areas, including improved mechanical tools for agriculture, natural resource management, medicinal and agricultural practices, and innovative ways of organizing and doing business. Th e signifi cance of local innovators as a source of knowledge and well-adapted solutions is high among the poorer sections of rural society, many of whom cannot aff ord, nor have access to, relevant advisory services. Th ere is growing recognition that a whole range of diff erent actors and organizations are required to stimulate widespread local technological development. New products and processes are brought into local economic and social use through networks of organizations, which are often referred to in the abstract as the innovation system. Th e key challenge is not perceived in terms of devising new technologies, e.g. doing diff erent things, but in bringing about changes in how the innovation system works, e.g. doing things diff diffff erently (Phila 2005). DIIS REPORT 2007:4 6 Our comparative analysis of the fi ve reviews listed above draws twelve preliminary conclusions: (i) NIF is globally the largest and most advanced ISF. However, although the other four ISFs are more limited in scope and focus, they can all contribute valuable experiences, complementary to those of NIF. In our assessment, the eff ectiveness of investing in innovation support could be enhanced if existing complementary experiences were exchanged and acted on in a systematic manner. (ii) ISFs understand innovation as a matter of both processes and products, the latter varying from hard mechanical implements to soft institutional innovations. ISFs support both innovators and their links with public institutions and private entrepreneurs, and groups of rural producers, as platforms for innovations and as their links with innovators. It is our assessment that all ISFs could benefi t from a more balanced mix of the two areas of innovation support. (iii) ISFs’ understandings of who the innovators are varies. NIF celebrates the qualities of individual, small-scale entrepreneurs with a proven record of being innovative, while the remaining ISFs place their eff orts in facilitating poor rural producers and users of innovations to learn to become ‘researchers’ in their own right. It is our assessment that supporting both types of innovator is likely to increase the development outcomes of ISFs. (iv) A general lesson learned by all ISFs is that innovations have to be understood in their context. ISFs currently diff erentiate between innovations on the basis of the types of issues they are concerned with (e.g. soil and water conservation, biological pest management, etc.). It is our assessment that it would be useful if the ISFs could instead distinguish between innovations in relation to (i) the relevance of formal property rights; (ii) public/private goods; and (iii) market/non-market value. (v) When using a ‘learning selection’ analytical framework for rural innovations for development, the focus shifts away from simply understanding innovators as inventors and rural producers as the users of innovations towards a focus on how innovations are continuously improved upon through interaction between the various actors. In our assessment, the facilitation of cycles of ‘ learning selection’ involving innovators, entrepreneurs and innovative adopters is a potential area of activity for ISFs that could contribute to scaling out use and the commercialization of rural innovations. DIIS REPORT 2007:4 7 (vi) Understanding capacity development as ‘the ability of an organization to produce appropriate outputs (e.g. services and products) helps clarify the aim of capacity development eff orts in these ISFs. ISF-supported eff orts are centered on the one hand on building eff ective mechanisms for identifying, documenting, vetting and promoting innovations, and on the other hand on ensuring organizational and fi nancial sustainability. (vii) Th e ISF funds reviewed here have a decentralized management structure linked together by a central management unit or committee. Th e Indian NIF has the most formalized and well-established governance structure, including a national Governing Board that coordinates activities among the web of independent organizations, each with diff erent functions and foci. Coordination of activities is less visible in the case of CIAL and PFI-FFS, as most management decisions in these organizations are taken at the farmer-group level and at the district-level networks of these groups. Th e PROLINNOVA concept provides a refreshing mix of centralized and decentralized decision-making management. (viii) None of these ISFs have a comprehensive system for monitoring outcomes and assessing the impact of support activities. Since none of the M&E systems diff erentiates between diff erent social categories, one potential development impact of ISF activities has not been documented. ISF documents are also unclear in their understandings of the social and economic mechanisms through which support for local innovations result in improved levels of well-being for poor people. (ix) Th e review reveals a diverse picture of Innovation Scouting, from none or implied (PROLINNOVA,) via criteria-based (SSPF), the village walks and student scouts of the NIF, reliance on grassroots “champions” and/or use of extension workers (FFS), to the structured group innovation process encoded in the CIALs. Th e use by NIF of students who return to their villages during their vacations to scout for innovations seems to be a successful approach that may be replicable in other areas where university students come from rural areas. Th e availability of comprehensive standardized forms and criteria that the students can easily apply has contributed to the success of this approach. An unintended side eff ect has been changes in student’s own attitudes to rural development. (x) Most of the funds reviewed made few if any attempts to support any genuine commercialization of local innovations. Th e exception is NIF, which we found to be more advanced in this sense. NIF includes both formal and informal sector DIIS REPORT 2007:4 8 commercialization. While primarily focusing on innovations of a public-good nature with a view to informal commercialization or information-sharing, NIF has developed a proven capacity to work with innovations of a rival good or excludable nature, in other words, those with the potential for commercialization based on standard or sui-generis IPRs. Th e other funds focus mostly (CIAL) or almost exclusively (FFS) on non-excludable and non-rival goods. In the latter cases, most or all the innovations they support are likely to be of a public-good nature. (xi) Th ree complementary forms of innovation vetting are practiced by the IFSs, each with their merits. One of the funds reviewed rely on two separate innovation “review” committees, one “scientifi c”, and one by peers among innovators (NIF), while another used joint experiments involving both external facilitators and researchers (CIAL). Vetting by potential users (e.g. rural producers) is widely practiced in PFI-FFS. (xii) Th e approach to learning varies within the ISFs, from the highly complex and elaborate learning programmed for at all levels, through a wide array of instruments and forums (NIF), to a far more specifi c and scoped adult or joint learning model (CIAL, FFS), to the rather more amorphous “collective learning” envisioned by the PROLINNOVA concept. A global innovation facility (GIF) could play a role in compiling existing documentation of experience, initiating cross-country studies, and assisting in ensuring that these experiences are made available and exchanged in a systematic manner among the existing ISFs. Th e mission of such a GIF could be to enhance the effectiveness of existing ISFs and the global expansion of activities by facilitating institutional learning, the exchange of experience between existing ISFs and the provision of technical assistance