OTANIEMI CAMPUS – A FINNISH TECHNOLOGY HUB

Nils Gersberg, CEM Facility Services Research, Helsinki University of Technology [email protected] Suvi Nenonen, CEM Facility Services Research, Helsinki University of Technology [email protected]

This paper aims to list several perspectives to 1 INTRODUCTION approach the challenges for the higher educational environment. It also presents one The knowledge society demands new ways of campus as a case in order to provide an working compared to industrial times. The example for how to analyse the learning collaborative performance is an as important environment and to understand the variety of part of productive work than individual work properties required for learning environments performance (Drucker 1999). Such renewed today and in the future. However, the intention ways of working are mainly taking place in is not to indicate causal relationships between office buildings, which have remained environment and learning, but predominantly surprisingly similar in their structure until to describe the learning environment and the recently: they are built for individually possibilities to organise the university campus performed work tasks. The same applies to to support different kind of learning processes. traditional school buildings; they are also It therefore explores the application of a set of designed for groups of individuals, whose design criteria from lower educational performances are directed by an authority, the buildings for the campus of Helsinki teacher. Also University buildings are still University of Technology and its surroundings. defined and designed from a traditional pedagogical perspective, where the major 2 LEARNING ENVIRONMENT mode of communication is unidirectional – from the teacher to the students. The teachers Learning is an on-going process that is not teach the students through lectures and the dependent on place. The rapid progress of students learn by listening to their wisdom. information and communication technology This teaching philosophy is built on a specific has revolutionized the methods of acquiring view of knowledge and calls for a special type and producing information and creating new of university buildings. (Granath 2006) knowledge. Learning is no longer bound to time and place. However place has an impact However, a change in the pedagogical on the educational process and its results and paradigm towards a more constructive learning can at its best support the learning processes – philosophy, where the focus is on students’ specially the social part of it. Holtman and willingness and ability to search for knowledge Ward (2000) have classified the elements through dialogues with each other and their worth to consider for knowledge intensive teachers, thereby extending the one way work. The knowledge management needs to communication of wisdom from teacher to balance the rigor of diagnostics, processes, student, requires quite different university analysis and monitoring with the purposeful premises. The traditional university design of real and virtual spaces where people environment would be quite useless for this can discover what they know, exploit what new pedagogy. (Granath 2006) The higher they know and share and increase what they education environment as well as the modern know. There has to be places and time to think office environment is facing a similar kind of and reflect, watch, listen. Not always doing. challenge: what kind of environment is The time and space take risks, challenge the relevant for new ways to learn and work? system, and push the envelope, cross boundaries. Places of greater safety in which to connections with foreign information experiment, fail, learn from failure and apply networks. (Tapaninen 2000) the lessons to the next experiment. Part of the learning community teachers' The learning environment should be seen as a workspaces must no longer be isolated in a composition of physical and virtual separate administration wing but located in the environment facilitating both interaction and middle of the learning spaces or in their individual privacy in learning processes – the immediate vicinity. While participating in third corner stone is the social environment. learning situations, teachers themselves also learn, experiment, and observe. Several 2.1 Physical learning environment teachers may be present in the same learning situation. (Tapaninen 2000) The workplace Physical places are needed for learning, solutions like combi office with shared discussion, and group work spaces for groups workstations and separate rooms for of different sizes, from auditoriums to small concentration (Mosbech 2004) might be group work nooks. It must be possible to use relevant for modern school environment. the space reserved for dining flexibly as a group work space and maybe also as an all-day The spaces should be furnished with cafe. (Tapaninen 2000) It is a place where one comfortable and pleasant furniture that enables can bond and belong – to increase social versatile use. Traditional furniture for schools capital. Cohen and Prusak (2001) define social has consisted of a combination of a desk and capital: "Social capital consists of stock of bench. However, this concept is poorly suited active connections among people: the trust, for the modern way of working at school. mutual understanding, and the shared values Office-type furniture with table groups that can and behaviours that bind the members of be combined and varied in many ways is better human networks and communities and make suited for the work environment. (Tapaninen co-operative action possible. According 2000) The informal work environments Putnam (1995) and applied by Engeström increase the circulation of tacit knowledge. (2002) social capital can be described as three (Nenonen 2005) The learning space may also kinds: linking, bridging and bonding. Linking resemble a living room, with rocking chairs, means connection upwards with government couches, and plants. The whole of the building and other powers, bridging means crossing the technology – lighting, air conditioning and boarders between communities and bonding waste management have its impact for healthy means network inside the community. environment (Seppänen 2004) and it must Engeström locates social capital functioning at create a positive example of an environment its best in so-called boarder zones – they are based on sustainable development. (Tapaninen areas for sharing and changing. The 2000) complexity of social capital has lead to proposals to use the concept trust instead of 2.2 Virtual learning environment social capital – it means both trusting people, even strangers and confidence towards The virtual learning environment can be a institutions. (Ilmonen 2000) space, a centre, equipped with the latest technologies. Educational facilities, through A physical learning environment is needed information and communications technology both to gather and search for information and can create virtual learning communities. study. The meaning of the library as the (Tapaninen 2000) The virtual work facilitated information centre of the university is by information technology is considered both significant. It can be a centrally located place as a possibility to break the physical borders, for information gathering, with many offering and widening social networks and as a terminals, multimedia workstations, and threat that could isolate people from social face-to face interaction. (Holtham and Ward From the technical perspective the need to 2000) Nevertheless, virtual learning provide technical systems and their environments can provide relevant and installations for virtual learning environments rewarding experiences. Meanwhile, many often causes a disordered bundle of cords and emerging technologies and networks can be sockets. Yet, newer buildings already adopt used to enrich and provide greater interactivity floor structure commonly used in office within the virtual learning environment. buildings: on top of the suspended slab is a Advances in technology ensure that almost all separate light installation floor under which all traditional classroom equipment can be the electric networks and cords run. emulated in the virtual learning environment. (Tapaninen 2000) (Benesova et al. 2002) 2.3 Social learning environment In terms of academic results, virtual learning environments can represent a more successful The social learning environment provides learning environment and have proven to be places to meet, to associate with each other, motivating contexts for learning. In these and to experience things together. The virtual environments the learning experience academic community is a complex network of can be flexible, more accessible and inclusive. human relations, work plans, schedules, and Not only are these environments often a more daily activities, for which the building economically viable option, but they also allow constitutes a physical environment with its specialist tuition and knowledge to cross own material flows and internal requirements. geographical boundaries. (Benesova et al. The educational building itself can direct and 2002) determine the behaviour taking place in the environment – it places restrictions as well as it The future of virtual learning environments offers opportunities to support the core possesses many innovative and exciting activities. (Tapaninen 2000) possibilities. New networks can allow students more opportunities way beyond those offered Further social development, the build up and by the World Wide Web in its current state. extension of professional networks, essentially But careful planning and innovation will be all activities directed to increase the social required to ensure that the potential for the capital or trust often rely on direct face-to-face scope of delivery is reached. The importance communication. It remains to be seen, in how of mobility should also be considered so that far the maturing virtual learning environment learning can take place in the most appropriate will be able to replace these direct contacts. context. If issues of cost and programming were resolved students would be given access 2.4 Quality criteria for learning to the range of additional hardware and environments software required. However, one of the main disadvantages of the virtual learning In Finland a catalogue of criteria for the environment is the lack of face-to-face evaluation of School designs has been interaction and direct social contact among the developed. Nuikkinen (2005) describes the students and teachers which conventional principal criteria for safe and healthy school educational contexts provide. It is because of building and its relation to the quality of the these factors, and the lack of evidence of how basic education. The overall eight criteria are they will impact on student personal and social summarised in Table 1. development, that virtual learning environment may not entirely replace traditional classrooms Table 1 Criteria for safe and healthy school and teacher –student contacts. (Benesova et al. buildings according to Nuikkinen (2005) 2002) Criteria for school Design proposal buildings higher educational school buildings. It is Connective therefore challenging to apply it and investigate the nature of work environment for Multifunctional higher education. The following case Flexible environment description explores the application of the Alternative ways to use eight criteria for higher educational school building buildings and the campus environment of Easy to move Helsinki University of Technology. Motivating environment 3 CASE OTANIEMI Promotes sustainability Encourages learning Location Provides model of working environment Otaniemi is located in the Helsinki Takes into account needs of surrounding metropolitan area in Espoo. It is the leading community technology hub in the Nordic countries, with a Multidimensional unique mix of top-level research organisations, centre for multiple Multipurpose building for usage higher educational institutions and technology all businesses. Otaniemi is a community of over 25,000 people consisting of about 15,000 For all ages students of the Helsinki University of Environmental message is in importance of co- Technology and 10,000 technology Challenging operation, not in professionals. 6000 of them working for bureaucratic institution research organisations, while the latter 4000 and artefacts are employed by technology businesses. How people meet each Helsinki University of Technology itself is other divided into 12 departments and several Supports interaction instituts. (Otaniemi 2006) Traffic junctions and meeting places Accessibility Otaniemi area has firmly established itself as an international technology centre and an Individual privacy School for everyone integral part of Finland’s innovation framework. The “Otaniemi Model”, which Openness – no need for emphasises diversity and collaboration, has control – safety served as the inspiration for numerous Body and sense experience technology centres both in Finland and abroad. In particular, the close relationship between Aesthetical Self regulation research and business draws a constant flow of international visitors. Comfortable, healthy Message about Otaniemi has become an acknowledged Supports the identity organisation, expected location for high-technology companies and behaviour organisations. In total, the area is home to over 300 companies, with 60 to 80 new businesses The catalogue has lot of significance for founded and over 500 new business ideas learning environments for children and in basic invented each year. There are about 200 education. patents received each year, and over 1,000 academic degrees are completed at the While the classification scheme has Helsinki University of Technology. successfully been used in the basic educational Additionally, Dipoli, across the street from the sector, no experiences exist within the field of University’s main building, is one of the companies such as HP, Microsoft and leading international congress centres in TietoEnator are in close proximity. The Espoo- Finland. Vantaa Institute of Technology (EVTEK) and Laurea Polytechnic are also located nearby. For start-up companies, Otaniemi offers a valued environment, a strong ecosystem of Startup companies are supported by other companies in a similar phase, and a wide Technopolis Ventures, which also manages the array of business development services. An business incubator services of the area. The increasing number of large companies and technology centre Innopoli commercialises the research organizations, both Finnish and research and knowledge-intensive ideas of international, are establishing themselves in Otaniemi and functions as a business Otaniemi. These companies value Otaniemi’s generator. In total, there are approximately 230 solid infrastructure, innovative and companies operating in Innopoli and Otaniemi entrepreneurial spirit, and the availability of a Science Park. wide base of potential new employees. Otaniemi is therefore a prime example of how History physical proximity and interconnectedness foster collaboration and innovation between The campus area of the Helsinki University of organisations. Technology (TKK) and VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (formerly: the This is also recognised by others: The EU Technical Research Centre of Finland) has an Commission has nominated Otaniemi twice as interesting history: For the 1952 Olympic one of the most innovative regions in Europe. Games in Helsinki the athletes were housed in With its wide spectrum and strong newly constructed buildings in Otaniemi. collaboration, Otaniemi as a technology hub is These buildings still constitute a substantial expected to explore new opportunities to part of today’s students’ village. Just recently promote, initiate successful companies and new additions have been made again, in order innovative products and services in order to to host the 2005 World Championships in drive the economy of Finland and northern Athletics. Also these houses were later turned Europe further. into students apartments. Nowadays 3000 students live in the village. Helsinki University of Technology

Shortly after the students moved, Helsinki The focal point of the university centre is the University of Technology and VTT relocated auditorium building with two large halls (also and Otaniemi received its landmark with Alvar intended for congresses). Its staircase-like Aalto’s main building. ascending rows of windows suggest from the outside and amphitheatre. All tuition rooms are Users in adjacent buildings grouped about small internal courts, and here are also found the Otaniemi of today, which has grown around smaller lecture-rooms, laboratories and TKK and VTT, is the heart of Finnish science professors' rooms. The centre is divided into and technology. The area is architecturally three principal departments: general, geodetic unique, boasting buildings designed by leading and architectural. The chief materials are dark architects including the mentioned Alvar red brick, black granite and copper. Aalto, but also Heikki and Kaija Sirén, and Reima and Raili Pietilä. The corporate The library closes off at an oblique angle the headquarters of companies such as Nokia, third side of the park/court established by the Kone and Fortum are within walking distance main buildings of the Institute of Technology, from Otaniemi, and other major technology begun twenty-two years previously. As a major reference library, the main problem was to Centre of the campus in provide good working conditions for the Supports interaction library and main building – students over a three-storey basement for the historical part Education, research and library stacks. These spaces and the small practice premises and lending collection are housed in a faceted places for living – student volume on the side, away from the main School for everyone village in the campus area buildings. In the rectilinear tail of the building, offices and seminar rooms are provided. Accessibility Alvar Aalto architecture Closeness to nature has been preserved well in Aesthetical Materials Otaniemi, partly due to protected areas; especially the coast lines have not been Nature touched. They provide an excellent Identity of student, next environment for plants and birds; on the other step for researcher – modern research centres – hand, they fail to connect the residential areas Supports the identity to the sea, but function rather as a separating incubators on the “outskirts” of the campus and visually restricting wall. area, border zones

Table 1 Applied criteria for higher education It can be said that the criteria developed by campus area Otaniemi Nuikkinen can be used to analyse the higher educational premises too. The emphasis of the Criteria for school Designed environment analysis however lies more on a macro level. buildings Also the role of student is different to that in Campus location basic education and the core business of the University buildings, higher educational institution, education and Research Centre buildings, research, differs too. Nevertheless, the higher Incubator buildings, library education is using its premises as a strong and facilities Flexible environment message for the society and the business world – it is the investment for the future. Variety in use: from individual space to collaborative space 4 CONCLUSIONS

The quality of school buildings in different High tech solution in older educational levels is high in Finland. However, and modern parts of the question is not only about the quality of the campus area building, but about the variety of environments it is providing for learning. The triad of Wireless connections physical, virtual and social learning Green values in facilities environments together form the setting for Encourages learning services modern learning.

Goals to corporate social The learning and teaching processes are in responsibility change towards more constructive learning philosophy. This is a similar discussion to the Old and new workplace one on knowledge intensive work and its solutions in workplaces Multidimensional Unique setting for processes. New ways to learn and work require centre for multiple education, research and new kinds of environments. The common usage practice factor is the need for both individual and collaborative work and learning environments Challenging Innovative region as well as formal and informal work processes. The significance of collaboration and social Facility Management Conference 2006, elements of environments are discussed both Frankfurt, pp. 379-387. theoretically in the quality criteria of school Holtham, C.; Ward, V. (2000) The Role of buildings by Nuikkinen (2005) and in the Private and Public Spaces in Knowledge explorative description of Otaniemi Campus. Management, Knowledge Management: An innovative region can be achieved by Concepts and Controversies, University of combining different sectors of society: Warvick, Coventry, United Kingdom, pp.1-17. education, research and practice. Such a network model adds value for all partners. The Ilmonen, K. (ed.) (2000) Sosiaalinen pääoma campus area then not an enclave for university ja luottamus, University of Jyväskylä, SoPhi, education and research, but it becomes a think Finland. tank for business, innovation and life long Mosbech, K. 2004. Workspace: learning. Organisational goals and physical environments, Litotryk Svendenbofg as., The criteria for quality learning environments Denmark. can be applied for different educational levels; however the actors and the rules of the learning Nenonen, S. (2005) The Nature of the processes differ. At the same time the learning Workplace for Knowledge creation, Research environment is always also a working Reports from Turku Polytechnic No. 19, environment. In view of a future knowledge Turku, Finland. society, a need arises to generate future Nuikkinen, K. (2005) Terveellinen ja working environments which support the turvallinen koulurakennus, Opetushallitus, knowledge working styles. Transferred back to Saarijärvi, Finland. the educational sector this means, we have to generate learning environments which support Otaniemi (2006) http://www.otaniemi.fi, future learning styles. accessed 12.2.2006. PEB exchange (2005) The journal of the REFERENCES OECD programme on educational building. Benesova, A.; Boland, S. and Galloway, W. Vol. 3, No. 56, (2002) Virtual learning environments, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/23/36010882 http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~mm/socbytes/feb .pdf, accessed 31.3.2006. 2002_i/3.html, accessed 14.3.2006. Putnam, R. (1995) Bowling alone: America's Cohen, D.; Prusak, L. (2001) In Good declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, Company. Harvard Business School Press. 6(1), pp. 65-78. Boston, MA, 2001. Seppänen, O. (ed.) (2004) Tuottava toimisto Drucker, P. (1999) Knowledge-work 2005, Loppuraportti B77, TKK, Productivity: The biggest challenge, California Konetekniikanosasto, LVI-tekniikan Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 79- laboratorio, Espoo, Finland. 94. Tapaninen, R. (2000) Schools of the Future: Engeström, Y. (2002) Työ ja oppiminen The Need for Open and Flexible Spaces, muuttuvissa organisaatioissa - Work and Proceedings Committee on Architecture for learning in changing organisations, Rembrand Education, American Institute of Architects, seminar Workplace- space for changing work Amsterdam 2000, 5.9.2002, University of Helsinki, Finland. http://www.designshare.com/Research/AIA/AI A_AMS_2000/aia_ams_proceedings/Tapanine Granath, J. Å.; Alexander, K. (2006) A n.htm, accessed 29.3.2006. theoretical reflection on the practice of designing for usability. Proceedings European