MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2930050672 · doi:10.1108/jcre-10-2017-0039

Open creative workspaces impacts for new product development team creativity and effectiveness

2019· article· en· W2930050672 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Corporate Real Estate · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityWorkspaceKnowledge managementTeam effectivenessSociotechnical systemNew product developmentProduct (mathematics)PsychologySpace (punctuation)Team compositionScope (computer science)Process managementBusinessMarketingComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to further explore the relationship between new product development project teams and their workspace regarding the impact of the physical (space variety, indoor environmental quality, large meeting room, workstation) and sociotechnical environments (project commitment, IT environment) on their creativity and effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach The authors gathered data on an enterprise’s ten multidisciplinary teams operating in diverse workspaces by four means: over 40 interviews and four months of observation, secondary data and a survey with 645 responses. Findings For teams co-located on site and abroad, employees express that proximity in open space is paramount even considering the augmented density. The relationship between team effectiveness and team creativity is strong and bidirectional (correlationβ = 0.40****), but the patterns of relationship between these two variables and certain dimensions of the physical and sociotechnical environment are different. There is a positive and direct impact on team effectiveness, but to a lesser degree on creativity which, in turn, positively influences team effectiveness. Moreover, creativity intervenes (mediator variable) between project commitment, satisfaction with large meeting rooms and the IT environment on their relationship with team effectiveness. When the authors added a direct link between the variables and team effectiveness, the model explains 47.1 per cent of the variance. Research limitations/implications The scope of the data is somewhat limited by the time that the company and its teams could allocate to this paper. Practical implications The arrangement of space reinforces employees’ sense of belonging to their team as measured by project commitment which along with satisfaction with the large meeting rooms and IT environment influence both team effectiveness and creativity. Managers could consider these three elements as levers for action. Space variety (or balanced layout) is also a way to support team creativity. Originality/value Even if open spaces are frequently used, the literature on creative spaces is dedicated mainly to an individual. This paper delivers some results and evidence on the concrete and simultaneous impacts of the workspaces on creativity and effectiveness of multidisciplinary new product development (NPD) team.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it