In the ambitions to upgrade the teaching profession, much attention is given to Master’s courses for teachers. As such Master’s courses ask for considerable investment in time and money, the question can be raised to what extent the upgrading of teachers to the Master’s level will lead to improvement in teaching and learning at schools. This paper presents the outcomes of a small scale study in which 7 teachers who recently graduated at a Master’s program in the Netherlands were interviewed on the climate and conditions they experienced at the workplace in their schools to apply their newly acquired knowledge, skills and professional attitude in their daily work. This explorative study shows that teachers engaged in a Master’s program can meet considerable obstacles within the organizational culture of the school. There appears to be a considerable misalignment between the teachers engaged in the post-initial Master’s program and their supervisors. While the teachers see the purpose of the Master’s program both in private terms (personal development) and public terms (contributing to school development), they experience an organizational climate that leaves no room for a wider public purpose of their studies, where they use the competences and qualities they have developed outside the boundaries of their own classrooms
Reason’s typology of safety culture (i.e. Just, Informative, Learning, Flexible and Reporting cultures) is widely used in the industry and academia. Through literature review we developed a framework including 36 markers that reflect the operationalization of Reason’s sub-cultures and general organizational prerequisites. We used the framework to assess to what extent safety culture development guidelines of seven industry sectors (i.e. aviation, railway, oil and gas, nuclear, healthcare, defense and maritime) incorporate academic references, and are similar to each other. Gap analysis and statistics showed that the guidelines include 53–69 % of the safety culture markers, with significant differences across subcultures and industry sectors. The results suggested that there is a gap between the industry guidelines and literature, as well as variant approaches to safety culture across the industry. The framework suggested in the study might be used as reference for completing existing safety culture development plans and constructing safety culture assessment instruments.
The external expectations of organizational accountability force organizational leaders to find solutions and answers in organizational (and information) governance to assuage the feelings of doubt and unease about the behaviour of the organization and its employees that continuously seem to be expressed in the organizational environment. Organizational leaders have to align the interests of their share– and stakeholders in finding a balance between performance and accountability, individual and collective ethical approaches, and business ethics based on compliance, based on integrity, or both. They have to integrate accountability in organizational governance based on a strategy that defines boundaries for rules and routines. They need to define authority structures and find ways to control the behaviour of their employees, without being very restrictive and coercive. They have to implement accountability structures in organizational interactions that are extremely complex, nonlinear, and dynamic, in which (mostly informal) relational networks of employees traverse formal structures. Formal processes, rules, and regulations, used for control and compliance, cannot handle such environments, continuously in ‘social flux’, unpredictable, unstable, and (largely) unmanageable. It is a challenging task that asks exceptional management skills from organizational leaders. The external expectations of accountability cannot be neglected, even if it is not always clear what is exactly meant with that concept. Why is this (very old) concept still of importance for modern organizations?In this book, organizational governance, information governance, and accountability are the core subjects, just like the relationship between them. A framework is presented of twelve manifestations of organizational accountability the every organization had to deal with. An approach is introduced for strategically govern organizational accountability with three components: behaviour, accountability, and external assessments. The core propositions in this book are that without paying strategic attention to the behaviour of employees and managers and to information governance and management, it will be extremely difficult for organizational leaders to find a balance between the two objectives of organizational governance: performance and accountability.
Digital transformation has been recognized for its potential to contribute to sustainability goals. It requires companies to develop their Data Analytic Capability (DAC), defined as their ability to collect, manage and analyze data effectively. Despite the governmental efforts to promote digitalization, there seems to be a knowledge gap on how to proceed, with 37% of Dutch SMEs reporting a lack of knowledge, and 33% reporting a lack of support in developing DAC. Participants in the interviews that we organized preparing this proposal indicated a need for guidance on how to develop DAC within their organization given their unique context (e.g. age and experience of the workforce, presence of legacy systems, high daily workload, lack of knowledge of digitalization). While a lot of attention has been given to the technological aspects of DAC, the people, process, and organizational culture aspects are as important, requiring a comprehensive approach and thus a bundling of knowledge from different expertise. Therefore, the objective of this KIEM proposal is to identify organizational enablers and inhibitors of DAC through a series of interviews and case studies, and use these to formulate a preliminary roadmap to DAC. From a structure perspective, the objective of the KIEM proposal will be to explore and solidify the partnership between Breda University of Applied Sciences (BUas), Avans University of Applied Sciences (Avans), Logistics Community Brabant (LCB), van Berkel Logistics BV, Smink Group BV, and iValueImprovement BV. This partnership will be used to develop the preliminary roadmap and pre-test it using action methodology. The action research protocol and preliminary roadmap thereby developed in this KIEM project will form the basis for a subsequent RAAK proposal.
Digital transformation has been recognized for its potential to contribute to sustainability goals. It requires companies to develop their Data Analytic Capability (DAC), defined as their ability to manage and analyze data effectively. Despite the governmental efforts to promote digitalization, there seems to be a knowledge gap on how to proceed, with 37% of Dutch SMEs reporting a lack of knowledge, and 33% reporting a lack of support in developing DAC. While extensive attention has been given to the technological aspects of DAC, the people, process, and organizational culture aspects are as important, requiring a comprehensive approach and thus a bundling of knowledge from different expertise. Therefore, the objective of this KIEM proposal is to identify organizational enablers and inhibitors of DAC through a series of interviews and case studies, and use these to formulate a preliminary roadmap to DAC.
The objective of DIGIREAL-XL is to build a Research, Development & Innovation (RD&I) Center (SPRONG GROUP, level 4) on Digital Realities (DR) for Societal-Economic Impact. DR are intelligent, interactive, and immersive digital environments that seamlessly integrate Data, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning, Modelling-Simulation, and Visualization by using Game and Media Technologies (Game platforms/VR/AR/MR). Examples of these DR disruptive innovations can be seen in many domains, such as in the entertainment and service industries (Digital Humans); in the entertainment, leisure, learning, and culture domain (Virtual Museums and Music festivals) and within the decision making and spatial planning domain (Digital Twins). There are many well-recognized innovations in each of the enabling technologies (Data, AI,V/AR). However, DIGIREAL-XL goes beyond these disconnected state-of-the-art developments and technologies in its focus on DR as an integrated socio-technical concept. This requires pre-commercial, interdisciplinary RD&I, in cross-sectoral and inter-organizational networks. There is a need for integrating theories, methodologies, smart tools, and cross-disciplinary field labs for the effective and efficient design and production of DR. In doing so, DIGIREAL-XL addresses the challenges formulated under the KIA-Enabling Technologies / Key Methodologies for sectoral and societal transformation. BUas (lead partner) and FONTYS built a SPRONG group level 4 based on four pillars: RD&I-Program, Field Labs, Lab-Infrastructure, and Organizational Excellence Program. This provides a solid foundation to initiate and execute challenging, externally funded RD&I projects with partners in SPRONG stage one ('21-'25) and beyond (until' 29). DIGIREAL-XL is organized in a coherent set of Work Packages with clear objectives, tasks, deliverables, and milestones. The SPRONG group is well-positioned within the emerging MINDLABS Interactive Technologies eco-system and strengthens the regional (North-Brabant) digitalization agenda. Field labs on DR work with support and co-funding by many network organizations such as Digishape and Chronosphere and public, private, and societal organizations.
