In Finland, the Universities of Applied Sciencs (later UAS) are seen as important partners in the national innovation system. They are expected to mainly have an intermediary role in the process of knowledge creation and knowledge diffusion, while universities are expected to produce the knowledge (Schienstock & Hämäläinen 2001, 162). The UAS also have the duty of promoting regional development and cooperating with working life. The organisation of workplace placements for students is one of the spaces where building communities of practice between working life and UAS is possible. These communities of practice could serve as a basis for innovation where searching the meaning for new concepts could take place. Even technological innovations get their final shape in social interaction in the communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991, Tuomi 2002, Hakkarainen & al. 2004).The aim of the presentation is to look at what kind of views the employers have on building communities of practice between education and work. What do they think about having interns from UAS? Is there room for innovation? More specifically, how do the Finnish workplace supervisors as representatives of employers differ in the ways they evaluate the benefits of having interns and what kind of features are related to these groups of employers. The description is based on a survey conducted in the autumn 2005 (n=269).The grouping of employers is based on employers´ views presented in a survey conducted in the autumn 2005 (n=269). The survey was answered by employers who have had interns from UAS recently. Three Universities of Applied Sciences gave their contact information on collaborating employers and they make up the focus group of the study. The results discussed in the presentation are based on ordinary statistical analysis as follows. The employers were divided into four groups as a result of a cluster analysis. The statistical significance of differences between these groups with respect to variables like the size of the workplace, sector, field, views considering student´s role and the importance of developmental procedures were further tested by chi square or analysis of variance. The employers were divided into four groups according to a cluster analysis. The groups of the employers were called "the lukewarm", "the collaborative developers", "the multi-functionally oriented" and those of emphasizing the development of their own work, "self-oriented developers". These groups of employers also differed with respect to the size of the workplace (how many employees), sector (public, private) and field (technique, economy, social and health, other). Furthermore they differed in their views considering how students´ role should be organized at the workplace and how important they found developmental procedures like, recruiting new employees, organizing further education for personnel, developing new services and products, more efficient organisation of the working processes and following customer satisfaction.In practice, and as the results show, the working life is not necessarily quite as innovation positive as it is presumed to be in the public definitions of innovation policy. The unrealistic expectations considering working life participation in education produces sometimes confusing definitions in the educational policy and it may result in ill-founded planning and delivery of resources. Therefore concepts, tools and models like the connective model by Guile and Griffiths (2001, Griffiths and Guile 2004) and the concept of heterochronocity by Beach (2003), were found fruitful in interpreting the results of the study. They can be used to picture the common horizon and goals as well as the interactivity of the processes between working life and educational institutions. Picturing the diversity of working life in a more realistic way in educational policy is important, and that is something research can help with.Beach, K. 2003. Consequential Transitions: A Developmental View of Knowledge Propagation Through Social Organizations. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström. (Eds.) Between School and Work: New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary Crossing. Amsterdam: Pergamon, 39-61. Guile, D. & Griffiths, T. 2001. Learning Through Work Experience. Journal of Education and Work 14 (1), 113-131. Griffiths, T. & Guile, D. 2004. Learning through work experience for the knowledge economy. Issues for educational research and policy. Cedefop Reference series; 48. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S. & Lehtinen, E. 2004. Communities of Networked Exper-tise. Professional and Educational Perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schienstock, G. & Hämäläinen, T. 2001. Transformation of the Finnish innovation system: A net-work approach. Sitra Reports series 7. Helsinki: Sitra. Also available at http://www.sitra.fi/en/Publications/ search/publication_search.htm. Tuomi, I. 2002. Networks of Innovation. Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. European Journal