Brief Summary of the Article
This article analysis application of New Ways of Work (NWW) pillars in the modern workplace. Throughout the article, the researchers have studied various impacts of NWW pillar by conducting a pilot study in a Dutch-based organization. The researchers investigated whether flexibility in location and time influenced work behavior in the workplace. Two types of online questionnaires, M1 and M2, were used in the study. The main function of the questionnaires was to identify the NWW awareness, workplace behavior, and their impacts. In addition, the researchers used work@task system to conduct a pilot study. The study involved a sample of 73 participants from three departments. The researchers used descriptive statistical methods to analyze the study results. The researchers found out that only two NWW pillars were successful in the Dutch-based organization. They recommended that further research should be done to ascertain the relevance of the other two NWW pillars (Blok, Groenesteijn, Shelvis & Bink, 2012).
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of the research was to evaluate the effectiveness of the New Ways of Working (NWW) pillars in today’s workplace. The authors compared NWW workplace organization with the traditional manufacturing and agricultural economy. The study was based on the four NWW pillars which included physical workspace, ICT technology, management and organization, and work culture (Blok et al., 2012). The authors presented the purpose of the study in a professional manner (Cherry, n.d.).
Literature Review
The researchers presented a logical literature review in their work. The review begins with a brief overview of the workplace changes found in the four NWW pillars. The authors stated the advantages of NWW adoption in modern organizations comprehensively. Research shows that perception that NWW implementation increases productivity is the main reason why most organizations are adopting NWW pillars. The authors used Telework Trendlines (2009) as the only empirical source in the entire literature review. The source is recent hence its statistical data on NWW implementation is reliable (Blok et al., 2012). Therefore, the authors mainly used theoretical sources in their study. Research asserts that theoretical sources are less reliable as compared to empirical data (Coughlam, Cronin & Ryan, 2007).
Objectives and Hypotheses
The authors clearly defined the objective of their study. The research question was to determine the effect of NWW on knowledge sharing, workers satisfaction and collaboration in the Pilot group office. The researchers conspicuously wrote the research question in italics. The research question was based on changes in three departments in the sample organization. These changes included the introduction of shared office layout, social ICT, and flexible workplaces. These changes forms the basis of the four NWW pillars. Therefore, the research question is in line with the literature review (Cherry, n.d.). Contrary, there is no subheading or phrase that states the research hypotheses throughout the literature review. However, keen reading reveals that the general hypothesis was that the Dutch organization office observed the four NWW pillars (Blok et al., 2012).
Ethical Standard Applied and Operational Definition
The researchers observed high ethical standards when handling their participants throughout the study. For instance, they clearly informed all the 73 participants why they were to be transferred from a private workplace to a shared workplace. In addition, the researchers informed the participants that data collection during the study involved filling in two questionnaires (M1 and M2) and daily text messaging. Data collection in this study was confidential. Participants filled online questionnaires independently. Each participant replied the automatic text messages at different times and to different codes. The researchers did not provide an elaborated participants protection mechanism in their study. However, they have comprehensively defined and explained most of the terms, abbreviations, theories, and concepts used in the study. For instance, the authors have explained the meaning of NWW, ICT, work@task, M1 and M2. However, they did not define the term OECD in the abstract section (Blok et al., 2012).
Methodology
The researchers formulated a robust research methodology. They based their study methodology on two questionnaires and work@task system research instruments. M1 questionnaire evaluated NWW awareness among the participants. On the other hand, M2 questionnaire evaluated changes in the office working environment six months down the line. Use of online questionnaires was the most appropriate instrument since it ensured confidentiality in shared workspace setting (Coughlam et al., 2007). In addition, the researchers used work@task system to measure behavior changes in the workplace and location. A pilot study to test work@task system involved response to five random text messages daily by all participants. The pilot study confirmed that work@task system and online questionnaires were reliable data collection instruments for this study (Blok et al., 2012).
Results Analysis and Results
The researchers show great statistical expertise in the results and analysis sections. They used descriptive statistical methods to analyze work@task and questionnaire results. Furthermore, they used (p<0.05) t-test analysis to analyze M1 and M2 questionnaires. This was the most suitable method to analyze online data. The researchers used three samples drawn from three departments in the Dutch organization. The three samples constituted a total of 73 participants. In general, research results are accurate when high numbers of participants are involved. Therefore, the findings of this study provide us with the most reliable NWW impacts in the modern workspace. The authors presented the research results using tables, pie charts, vertical and horizontal bar charts. The presentations are well colored and labeled. In addition, each presentation has a key which helps the readers to identify and compare different NWW trends (Blok et al., 2012).
Discussion and References
The conclusion section of the study is relevant to the purpose of the study. The findings agree with the hypotheses that participant were aware of the use of NWW in the workplace. However, the study disputed the hypothesis that the introduction of NWW improves management. This was after four out of six questionnaires yielded negative results. Therefore, the conclusion that ICT and physical workspace are the most efficient NWW pillars is justified. The authors recommended further research to be carried out to ascertain the validity of the other two NWW pillars (Blok et al., 2012). Finally, the authors correctly referenced all works sourced from other works provided in the references list. Therefore, the researchers showed high writing ethics by recognizing other people’s work (Cherry, n.d.).
Conclusion
In general, the researchers have written a good study despite a few mistakes in their work. They have formulated a comprehensive abstract at the beginning of the article. The authors have presented a comprehensive research question. However, there is no clear statement of hypotheses in this study (Coughlam et al., 2007). The research methodology was well designed with a suitable samples and time frame. The researchers did not provide a clear participant protection in the sampling plan. Nevertheless, the statistical result analysis is highly professional (Cherry, n.d.). Data presentation is well formulated with the help of a table, pie and bar charts. The researchers have provided a comprehensive discussion providing recommendations as expected. Finally, the authors have ensured that all borrowed work is well referenced. In conclusion, the study was fairly done (Coughlam et al., 2007).
References
Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L, Shelvis, R., & Bink, P. (2012). New ways of working: does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes? Work, 41, 5075 – 5080.
Cherry, K. (n.d.). How To Write A Psychology Critique Paper. About.Com Psychology. Web.
Coughlam, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research. lancashirecare.wordpress.com. Web.