1 Organizing Work in the Knowledge Economy

Although research in the field of economic geography addresses increasingly volatile, flexible, and dynamic economic environments in the knowledge economy, knowledge regarding the organization of economic and/or innovation-driven activities outside the boundaries of firms remains scarce. This paper addresses the phenomenon of open work spaces as a new type of organization in the knowledge economy. We refer to these places as “innovation and creativity labs”. These labs are designed as long-term organizations based on a physical/material frame. At the same time, they are primarily used as temporary spaces, whose users are defined by a dynamic social fluctuation and a high cultural openness. Despite being embedded in local contexts, open work spaces are integrated in global knowledge practices cultivated and generated in communities of practice. Based on an empirical study conducted in Berlin, this paper attempts to provide a typology for the variety of such new places. It discusses the role of such sites and places with regard to their temporary economic use. Furthermore, the empirical material will be interpreted in terms of how temporary uses and processes effect the transformation and (re)development of urban centers at large. Verena Brinks, Suntje Schmidt IRS 1 Organizing Work in the Knowledge Economy Organization and management studies have shown an increasing interest in the concept of “communities” for quite some time (see e.g. O’Mahony and Lakhani, 2011). Respective studies emphasize communities as the focal unit generating knowledge rather than organization (such as firms). Such knowledge communities may emerge within, across, or outside of organizational boundaries (e.g. Brown and Duguid, 1991; von Hippel, 2005; Hagel et al., 2010). Communities are in this context conceptualized as “communities of practice” (Lave and Wenger, 2008 [1991]), which can broadly be defined as social entities consisting of people who are linked through joint enterprises, passions, or interests (Wenger 1998, cited in Amin and Roberts, 2008). Communities are thus perceived as learning contexts that generate knowledge through interaction and collaboration among its members, who contribute their respective expertise voluntarily to the shared topic of interest. Apart from the initial motivation of theorizing learning as a highly contextualized and interactive process (Lave and Wenger, 2008 [1991]), more recent studies shed light on the question how to organize and even “cultivate” (Wenger et al., 2002) communities as initiators of innovative practices. But why are communities associated with such high expectations? Two basic assumptions can be identified: first of all, the genesis of new knowledge requires a constant flow of fresh insights and ideas. In comparison to traditional organizations, communities are regarded as the more permeable entities for the inand outflux of new knowledge. In particular, the “boundaries” (Wenger, 2000) of communities are discussed as crucial since “learning opportunities” (ibid.) may occur wherever different communities overlap. Secondly, there is a growing awareness that new knowledge can principally occur everywhere: it is as likely to emerge in scientific laboratories as in enthusiastic online forums. A community perspective on this new form of generating knowledge therefore blurs established binaries between producers and consumers or between technology and design (see also Callon, 2004). Access to diverse knowledge domains and the creation of opportunities for recombining them becomes a new challenge for actors (including individuals and organizations) operating in the knowledge economy. When focusing on the actors involved in creating new knowledge, two main trends become visible: first of all, firms and organizations increasingly implement an “open innovation” strategy (Chesbrough, 2003), which includes a partial opening of former in-house research and development processes to external entities. The integration of users and consumers by initiating “firm-hosted communities” (Jeppeson and Frederiksen, 2006) is widely discussed in the existing literature (e.g. Grabher, Ibert and Flohr, 2008; Dahlander and Frederiksen, 2012). Secondly, individuals increasingly organize their work outside the boundaries of a firm, for example as freelancers or micro-entrepreneurs (Grugulis and Stoyanova, 2011; Schmidt et al., 2014). These two trends are, of course, by no means unrelated. The increasing number of micro-entrepreneurs can also be regarded as resulting from changed employment strategies of large companies, which seek to stay flexible and (openly) innovative