Built environment education and research : making connections

This conference is a landmark gathering of those from around the world concerned with the future of Built environment education and Research. It takes place at a time of great change and opportunity. Around the world the long-standing principles of what, how and who we teach for graduate entry into Built environment professions, is increasingly under review. The need for research and the way in which it is funded, conducted and knowledge shared is also under increasing pressure. Both changes are being triggered by a fast changing and increasingly challenging competitive environment for education and research. Competition for the highest quality of graduate entrants in the right numbers is becoming more intense. Competition between Universities, as funding for education and research comes under ever close scrutiny, is intensifying and we are all being forced to look for more effective and exciting ways of recruting, retaining, enhancing and maximising the achievement of our students and of our staff in their research activities. Competition amongst employees in industry is becoming more intense as professional employers increasingly recognise that people and knowledge are their key strategic resources. Universities are increasingly looking to partnerships with industry, the professions and other Universities to further improve their eduacation, research and innovation activities. These challenges are unfolding at a time of accelerating development in information technologies and systems and in our understanding of principles of knowledge management and pedagogical advancement. This environment presents both opportunities and threats to the world of education.

From the consciousness industry to the creative industries : consumer-created content, social network markets, & the growth of knowledge

In studies of media industries, too much attention has been paid to providers and firms, too little to consumers and markets. But with user-created content, the question first posed more than a generation ago by the uses & gratifications method and taken up by semiotics and the active audience tradition (‘what do audiences do with media?’), has resurfaced with renewed force. What’s new is that where this question (of what the media industries and audiences did with each other) used to be individualist and functionalist, now, with the advent of social networks using Web 2.0 affordances, it can be re-posed at the level of systems and populations as well.

Uses of YouTube : digital literacy and the growth of knowledge

I invented YouTube. Well, not YouTube exactly, but something close – something called YIRN; and not by myself exactly, but with a team. In 2003-5 I led a research project designed to link geographically dispersed young people, to allow them to post their own photos, videos and music, and to comment on the same from various points of view – peer to peer, author to public, or impresario to audience. We wanted to find a way to take the individual creative productivity that is associated with the Internet and combine it with the easy accessibility and openness to other people’s imagination that is associated with broadcasting; especially, in the context of young people, listening to the radio. So we called it the Youth Internet Radio Network, or YIRN.

Knowledge-Based Urban Development : Planning and Applications in the Information Era

In the globalizing world, knowledge and information (and the social and technological settings for their production and communication) are now seen as keys to economic prosperity. The economy of a knowledge city creates value-added products using research, technology, and brainpower. The social benefit of knowledge-based urban development (KBUD); however, extends beyond aggregate economic growth.

Creative urban regions : harnessing urban technologies to support knowledge city initiatives

In the rapidly growing knowledge economy, the talent and creativity of those around us will be increasingly decisive in shaping economic opportunity. Creativity can be described as the ability to produce new and original ideas and things. In other words, it is any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain or transforms an existing domain into a new one. From an economic perspective, creativity can be considered as the generation of new ideas that is the major source of innovation and new economic activities. As urban regions have become the localities of key knowledge precincts and knowledge clusters across the globe, the link between a range of new technologies and the development of ‘creative urban regions’ (CURs) has come to the fore. In this sense, creativity has become a buzz concept in knowledge-economy research and policy circles. It has spawned ‘creative milieus,’ ‘creative industries,’ ‘creative cities,’ ‘creative class,’ and ‘creative capital.’ Hence, creativity has become a key concept on the agenda of city managers, development agents, and planners as they search for new forms of urban and economic development. CURs provide vast opportunities for knowledge production and spillover, which lead to the formation of knowledge cities. Urban information and communication technology (ICT) developments support the transformation of cities into knowledge cities. This book, which is a companion volume to Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era (also published by IGI Global) focuses on some of these developments. The Forward and Afterword are written by senior respected academic researchers Robert Stimson of the University of Queensland, Australia, and Zorica Nedovic-Budic of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. The book is divided into four sections, each one dealing with selected aspects of information and communication technologies and creative urban regions.

Queensland's Smart State Initiative : a successful knowledge based urban development strategy

The chapter will set out to explain the KBUD and urban policy making processes in Queensland, Australia. This chapter will draw on providing a clear understanding on policy frameworks and relevant ICT applications of the Queensland ‘Smart State’ experience. The chapter is consisted of six sections. The first section following the introduction provides background information. The second section focuses on the KBUD processes in Queensland. The third section offers a comprehensive analysis of the ‘Queensland Smart State’ initiative, and it also identifies actors and goals of the agenda of Smart State experience. The fourth section reviews knowledge based development and ICT applications and policies of the Queensland Smart State and Brisbane Smart City experiences, and their impacts on Brisbane’s successful KBUD. The fifth section discusses knowledge hubs and ICT developments within the Brisbane metropolitan area. Then the chapter concludes with future trends and conclusion sections.

Knowledge-based strategic planning: harnessing (in)tangible assets of city-regions

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to investigate the ways of best managing city-regions’ valuable tangible and intangible assets while pursuing a knowledge-based urban development that is sustainable and competitive. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a theoretical framework to conceptualise a new strategic planning mechanism, knowledge-based strategic planning, which has been emerged as a planning mechanism for the knowledge-based urban development of post-industrial city-regions. Originality/value – The paper develops a planning framework entitled 6K1C for knowledge-based strategic planning to be used in the analysis of city-regions’ tangible and intangible assets. Practical implications – The paper discusses the importance of asset mapping of cityregions, and explores the ways of successfully managing city-regions’ tangible/intangible assets to achieve an urban development that is sustainable and knowledge-based. Keywords – Knowledge-based urban development, Knowledge-based strategic planning, Tangible assets, Intangible assets, City-regions. Paper type – Academic Research Paper

The Making of knowledge cities : lessons learned from Melbourne

Knowledge cities are seen as fundamental to the economic growth and development of the 21st century cities. The purpose of this paper is to explore the knowledge city concept in depth. This paper discusses the principles of a knowledge city, and portrays its distinguishing characteristics and processes. The paper relates and analyses Melbourne’s experience as a knowledge city and scrutinises Melbourne’s initiatives on science, technology and innovation and policies for economic and social development. It also illustrates how the city administration played a key role in developing Melbourne as a globally recognised, entrepreneurial and competitive knowledge city. Then this paper identifies key success factors and provides some insights to policy makers of the MENA region cities in designing knowledge cities.

Research Monograph: The role of community and lifestyle in the making of a knowledge city

Our brief is to investigate the role of community and lifestyle in the making of a globally successful knowledge city region. Our approach is essentially pragmatic. We start by broadly examining knowledge-based urban development from a number of different perspectives. The first view is historical. In this context knowledge work and knowledge workers are seen as vital parts of a new emergent mode of production reliant on the continual production of abstract knowledge. We briefly develop this perspective to encompass the work of Richard Florida who has, notedly, claimed: “Wherever talent goes, innovation, creativity, and economic growth are sure to follow.” Our next perspective examines concepts of knowledge and modes of its production to discover knowledge is not an unchanging object but a human activity that changes in form and content through history. The suggestion emerges that not only is the production of contemporary ‘knowledge’ organised in a specific (and new) manner but also the output of this networked production is a particular type of knowledge (i.e. techné). The third perspective locates knowledge production and its workers in the contemporary urban context. As such, it co-ordinates the knowledge city in the increasingly global structure of cities and develops a typology of different groups of knowledge workers in their preferred urban environment(s). We see emerging here a distinctive geography of knowledge production. It is an urban phenomenon. There is, in short, something about the nature of cities that knowledge workers find particularly attractive. In the next, essentially anthropological, perspective we start to explore the needs and desires of the individual knowledge worker. Beyond the needs basic to any modern human household an attempt is made to deduce, from a base understanding of knowledge work as mental labour, the compensatory cultural needs of the knowledge worker when not at work - and the expression of these needs in the urban fabric. Our final perspective consists of two case studies. In a review of the experiences of Austin, Texas and Singapore’s one-north precinct we collect empirical data on, respectively, a knowledge city that has sustained itself for over 50 years and an urban precinct newly launched into the global market for knowledge work and knowledge workers. Interwoven The Role of Community and Lifestyle in the Making of a Knowledge City Urban Research Program 8 through all perspectives, in the form of apposite citation, is that of ‘expert opinion’ gathered in a rudimentary poll of academic and industry sources. This opinion appears in text boxes while details of the survey can be found in Appendix A. In the conclusion of the report we interpret the wide range of evidence gathered above in a policy frame. It is our hope this report will leave the reader with a clearer picture of the decisive organisational, infrastructural, aesthetic and social dimensions of a knowledge precinct.

Uncritical framing : lesson and knowledge structure in school science

There is clearly contention over the shape and formation of science curriculum and over, ultimately, what will count as scientific knowledge, skill, capacity and world view. The Cold War set the policy context for an ongoing focus on science education across Western nations. Sputnik-era US and UK educational policy offered a broad premise for the purpose of school science: in a risky geopolitical environment, high levels of advanced scientific expertise were central to the national interest and necessary for the maintenance of military/industrial and technological power. Half a century on, in the context of global economic and environmental crisis, as a justification for digital, industrial and biomedical innovation, the rationale for the production of scientific capital is central to curriculum settlements and educational policy in Europe, Asia and the Americas.

Operationalizing the resource based view for nascent and young firms : developing scales for resource advantages and disadvantages

Principal Topic: It is well known that most new ventures suffer from a significant lack of resources, which increases the risk of failure (Shepherd, Douglas and Shanley, 2000) and makes it difficult to attract stakeholders and financing for the venture (Bhide & Stevenson, 1999). The Resource-Based View (RBV) (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) is a dominant theoretical base increasingly drawn on within Strategic Management. While theoretical contributions applying RBV in the domain of entrepreneurship can arguably be traced back to Penrose (1959), there has been renewed attention recently (e.g. Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Alvarez & Barney, 2004). This said, empirical work is in its infancy. In part, this may be due to a lack of well developed measuring instruments for testing ideas derived from RBV. The purpose of this study is to develop a measurement scales that can serve to assist such empirical investigations. In so doing we will try to overcome three deficiencies in current empirical measures used for the application of RBV to the entrepreneurship arena. First, measures for resource characteristics and configurations associated with typical competitive advantages found in entrepreneurial firms need to be developed. These include such things as alertness and industry knowledge (Kirzner, 1973), flexibility (Ebben & Johnson, 2005), strong networks (Lee et al., 2001) and within knowledge intensive contexts, unique technical expertise (Wiklund and Shepard, 2003). Second, the RBV has the important limitations of being relatively static and modelled on large, established firms. In that context, traditional RBV focuses on competitive advantages. However, newly established firms often face disadvantages, especially those associated with the liabilities of newness (Aldrich & Auster, 1986). It is therefore important in entrepreneurial contexts to expand to an investigation of responses to competitive disadvantage through an RBV lens. Conversely, recent research has suggested that resource constraints actually have a positive effect on firm growth and performance under some circumstances (e.g., George, 2005; Katila & Shane, 2005; Mishina et al., 2004; Mosakowski, 2002; cf. also Baker & Nelson, 2005). Third, current empirical applications of RBV measured levels or amounts of particular resources available to a firm. They infer that these resources deliver firms competitive advantage by establishing a relationship between these resource levels and performance (e.g. via regression on profitability). However, there is the opportunity to directly measure the characteristics of resource configurations that deliver competitive advantage, such as Barney´s well known VRIO (Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Organized) framework (Barney, 1997). Key Propositions and Methods: The aim of our study is to develop and test scales for measuring resource advantages (and disadvantages) and inimitability for entrepreneurial firms. The study proceeds in three stages. The first stage developed our initial scales based on earlier literature. Where possible, we adapt scales based on previous work. The first block of the scales related to the level of resource advantages and disadvantages. Respondents were asked the degree to which each resource category represented an advantage or disadvantage relative to other businesses in their industry on a 5 point response scale: Major Disadvantage, Slight Disadvantage, No Advantage or Disadvantage, Slight Advantage and Major Advantage. Items were developed as follows. Network capabilities (3 items) were adapted from (Madsen, Alsos, Borch, Ljunggren & Brastad, 2006). Knowledge resources marketing expertise / customer service (3 items) and technical expertise (3 items) were adapted from Wiklund and Shepard (2003). flexibility (2 items), costs (4 items) were adapted from JIBS B97. New scales were developed for industry knowledge / alertness (3 items) and product / service advantages. The second block asked the respondent to nominate the most important resource advantage (and disadvantage) of the firm. For the advantage, they were then asked four questions to determine how easy it would be for other firms to imitate and/or substitute this resource on a 5 point likert scale. For the disadvantage, they were asked corresponding questions related to overcoming this disadvantage. The second stage involved two pre-tests of the instrument to refine the scales. The first was an on-line convenience sample of 38 respondents. The second pre-test was a telephone interview with a random sample of 31 Nascent firms and 47 Young firms (< 3 years in operation) generated using a PSED method of randomly calling households (Gartner et al. 2004). Several items were dropped or reworded based on the pre-tests. The third stage (currently in progress) is part of Wave 1 of CAUSEE (Nascent Firms) and FEDP (Young Firms), a PSED type study being conducted in Australia. The scales will be tested and analysed with a random sample of approximately 700 Nascent and Young firms respectively. In addition, a judgement sample of approximately 100 high potential businesses in each category will be included. Findings and Implications: The paper will report the results of the main study (stage 3 – currently data collection is in progress) will allow comparison of the level of resource advantage / disadvantage across various sub-groups of the population. Of particular interest will be a comparison of the high potential firms with the random sample. Based on the smaller pre-tests (N=38 and N=78) the factor structure of the items confirmed the distinctiveness of the constructs. The reliabilities are within an acceptable range: Cronbach alpha ranged from 0.701 to 0.927. The study will provide an opportunity for researchers to better operationalize RBV theory in studies within the domain of entrepreneurship. This is a fundamental requirement for the ability to test hypotheses derived from RBV in systematic, large scale research studies.