Proceedings of 8th European Assembly on telework (Telework2001)

205different kinds <strong>of</strong> expertise, achieved only through broad dialogue between all relevant actors,whether researchers or practioners. One <strong>of</strong> the most promising recent conceptual innovationsin programmatic workplace development is a ‘module’, developed in the Norwegian EnterpriseDevelopment 2000 Programme (1994-2000). A ‘module’ is a group <strong>of</strong> researchers with a commonresearch agenda that works with a group <strong>of</strong> enterprises, <strong>of</strong>ten together with other regionalinstitutions as well, for a period <strong>of</strong> several years (Gustavsen et al. 2001).• Development techniques: The new, networked and increasingly dynamic environment requiresalso new development models, methods and tools in projects where the focus <strong>of</strong> development is ona real production network <strong>of</strong> companies. Typical area <strong>of</strong> application so far has been ‘conventional’bilateral, principal-driven production cooperation between the principal and its suppliers. Bycontrast, there has not been a great deal <strong>of</strong> progress in development techniques for genuinelymultilateral production networks yet, at least not in Finland. Multilateral production networkswould be a more fertile soil for process and product innovations than ‘conventional’ bilateralnetworks, in which the goals <strong>of</strong> development measures are <strong>of</strong>ten determined by short-termproductivity targets <strong>of</strong> the principal alone. Multilateral production networks, instead, have betterchances <strong>of</strong> becoming genuine innovation-oriented ‘multivoiced activity systems’ (Hyötyläinen2000).• The qualifications and roles <strong>of</strong> experts: For the qualifications and roles <strong>of</strong> researchers andconsultants, the above changes mean that the emphasis has to be shifted increasingly from <strong>of</strong>feringdesign solutions towards planning, coordinating and supporting entire processes <strong>of</strong> change ininteraction and dialogue with other actors. Owing to the growing complexity <strong>of</strong> problems andgrowing demands for interaction and dialogue, there is a need to shift towards increasinglyreflective expertise in development work. The need for greater reflectivity concerns not onlythe development project in question, but also the general conceptual framework guiding own’sthinking and action (Seppänen-Järvelä 1999, 72-75).• Progamme and project management: The growing unpredictability and uncontrollability<strong>of</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong> development processes will require an increasingly reflective approach fromprogramme and project management, too. Greater reflectivity means sensitivity in monitoring theeffects <strong>of</strong> development processes and the flexibility to make any necessary redefinitions <strong>of</strong> theircontent and forms. Areas in the environment <strong>of</strong> the knowledge-based economy which requireparticular sensitivity from monitoring will be ensuring the participation <strong>of</strong> employees, preventingprocesses <strong>of</strong> social segregation, or even exclusion, and pre-empting ecological risks in connectionwith change.If workplace development programmes prove unable to respond to the new challenges brought bythe environment <strong>of</strong> the knowledge-based economy, it may ultimately undermine their importanceas part <strong>of</strong> national or regional innovation policy. This question must be taken seriously, primarilybecause workplace development programmes have so far been unable to gain the status in publicpolicy-making held by technology development and transfer programmes in any western industrialnation. Quick-fix solutions to this ‘organization development deficit’ (Gustavsen 2000, 121) areunlikely to exist. The main means available for countering any legitimacy problems that workplacedevelopment programmes may be experiencing will be how successful these programmes are increating new innovation concepts which their stakeholders find credible and which are capable <strong>of</strong>dealing with the above and other challenges posed by the knowledge-based economy.