Although several studies have examined the impact of open workspaces, there is still an on-going debate about its advantages and disadvantages. Our paper contributes to this debate by shedding light on three issues: the effect of open workspaces on (1) the flow of communication along and across hierarchical lines; (2) the content of communication; and (3) the specificities of open integrated laboratories. Our findings derive from a longitudinal case in a large pharmaceutical company that has relocated some R&D teams from enclosed to multi-space offices and labs. The relocation has resulted in (a) increased interdisciplinary communication, particularly at lower hierarchical levels, (b) a shift of the location of discussions and the content of conversations and (c) an improved knowledge about expertise distribution. Practitioner Summary: Communication is essential in knowledge-driven organisations. This article examines the impact of a relocation of R&D employees from enclosed to multi-space offices and labs on communication patterns. We explain how the new environment fosters interdisciplinary communication, shifts the location of discussions and increases the knowledge of expertise distribution.

No abstract

No abstract

The funding environment has a profound impact on researchers' behavior. In particular, it influences their freedom and readiness to conduct research ventures with highly uncertain outcomes. In this conceptual paper, we propose a concise new methodology to evaluate researchers' risk aversion based on citation statistics. The derived singlenumber criterion P R is sensitive to the ratio of high impact versus average impact work, based on citation counts. We demonstrate the usefulness of P R on a micro and meso level in the field of chemistry. P R is a potentially valuable tool for managers in higher education, to control for the impact of their funding instruments. The conducted testing may, in addition, contribute to the literature stream dealing with the effects of peer review in the allocation of research funding. Our results support the view that peer review fosters mainstream research. However, faculties with the highest percentages of third-party funding may find ways to avoid the restrictive effects. We also find evidence that permanent positions back risky research endeavors.