Proceedings of 8th European Assembly on telework (Telework2001)

190the development coalitions being formed in a substantial number <strong>of</strong> <strong>European</strong> regions (Ennals &Gustavsen 1998).A question invariably emerging when this kind <strong>of</strong> research role is indicated is why do we needresearch at all: if it is so that everything is subject to local settlement, why not depend purely onthe practical skills and insights <strong>of</strong> the other actors? Even when they rely strongly on insights andexperiences emerging from practices, the other actors tend, however, to develop complementaryroles. Not everybody in an innovation system is an engineer; there will be economists, designers,marketing experts, venture capitalists and much more, all working interactively. Even whenpractical experience and the locally unique are the driving forces more general concepts andknowledge are always in active use to highlight experience, locate it within a framework and giveit forms and shapes that can make it fit the larger whole identified as the innovation process <strong>of</strong>the whole network. The purpose <strong>of</strong> having research on organisation within this kind <strong>of</strong> contextis simply to have the same resources in terms <strong>of</strong> knowledge present here as is generally the casewithin the other subject areas. Out <strong>of</strong> local experiences more generalised knowledge will <strong>of</strong> coursealways emerge: the point is that each local situation is the primary context and no knowledge canclaim generality unless it proves its worth within each <strong>of</strong> the contexts on which it is brought tobear.With the emergence <strong>of</strong> continuously more multiplex and dense relationships between organisations,the issue <strong>of</strong> organisation itself acquires further dimensions. How to organise becomes an evenmore critical issue. That Europe in general still falls short <strong>of</strong> its potential for innovation anddevelopment, due to a reluctance to set issues <strong>of</strong> organisation on the agenda, can hardly be madesubject to much dispute. Admittedly, North America and in all probability even Japan constitutewhat many may see as less difficult challenges than Europe. Europe is stronger in terms <strong>of</strong>formalised rights and duties, degree <strong>of</strong> organisation according to interests, formalised negotiationsand corresponding institutions and even in interdependencies between politics and workplacedevelopment. Issues <strong>of</strong> organisation are still <strong>of</strong>ten experienced as difficult to place on the agendaand Europe quite clearly lacks the kind <strong>of</strong> “learning event terminology” that evolved in Japaneseenterprises in the high time <strong>of</strong> such notions as total quality, zero stock logistics and lean production(Womack et al 1990; Helling 1991.) Whereas the United States as well as Japan must probably becharacterised as having been more successful than Europe in developing technology, it is a strangeparadox that in Europe there is much more talk about technology and correspondingly less aboutorganisation. When an actor within the <strong>European</strong> Union – the former head <strong>of</strong> DG V Allan Larsson- some years ago developed a green paper on work organisation a door was opened towards a<strong>European</strong> discourse on organisation (<strong>European</strong> Commission 1997). The door was rapidly closedagain and at the moment the agencies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>European</strong> Union contribute little in this field (whereaspapers on technology (and economy) reach continuously new heights). Initiatives are again leftwith nations, regions and even smaller networks. Within this kind <strong>of</strong> context the modest programefforts we can point at in countries like Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany may not be the mostappropriate answer – they are certainly not the full answer – but they represent efforts to come togrips with the core challenges by placing issues <strong>of</strong> organisation on the agenda. The issues are madesubject to discourse and within networks encompassing a number <strong>of</strong> actors. Even as organisationis concerned, we ensure advances by talking about things rather than by keeping silent aboutthem; by doing something rather than avoid doing something. We do not promote new forms <strong>of</strong>organisation by talking about technological imperatives – what we need to do is to explicitly facethe challenges <strong>of</strong> organisation as such.