Analysing user preferences for co-working space characteristics

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of the literature that mentioned co-working space characteristics.

	Deijl (2011)	Deskmag (2012)	Deskmag (2013)	Fuzi (2015)	Fuzi et al. (2014)	Gandini (2015)	Kojo and Nenonen (2014)	Leforestier (2009)	Merkel (2015)	Moriset (2013)	Parrino (2015)	Spinuzzi (2012)	Spreitzer, Bacevice, and Garrett (2015)	Sykes (2014)
24-h access								×
Co-working host						×	×		×			×
Access to tools, resources and network	×	×	×	×	×		×
Atmosphere and interior aesthetics	×		×	×	×		×		×	×
Collaborative spaces					×		×	×					×	×
Concentration rooms		×			×		×	×				×	×
Diversity of tenants			×		×								×
Event spaces							×	×
Flexible (shared) workspaces				×	×	×	×	×			×
Flexible lease contract	×	×	×	×	×		×		×			×		×
Good accessibility (e.g. car and public transport)		×	×
Kitchen areas	×						×						×	×
Meeting rooms							×							×
Networking events and workshops	×		×	×			×				×		×
Open layout							×						×	×
Virtual platform					×		×				×

Table 2. Overview of the literature on motivations for working at a co-working space.

	Capdevila (2015)	Capdevila (2013)	Deijl (2011)	Deskmag (2012)	Deskmag (2013)	Fuzi (2015)	Fuzi et al. (2014)	Gandini (2015)	Kojo and Nenonen (2014)	Leforestier (2009)	Merkel (2015)	Moriset (2013)	Orel (2015)	Parrino (2015)	Spinuzzi (2012)	Spreitzer et al. (2015)	Sykes (2014)
Access to a network of co-workers	×	×				×	×				×			×	×
Affordable accommodation			×	×	×	×					×				×		×
Collaboration with co-workers			×	×		×	×	×	×	×		×	×	×	×	×	×
Feeling part of a community	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	×
Interaction and social support	×		×	×	×	×	×		×	×	×	×			×		×
Professional support from co-workers			×	×	×	×				×	×				×	×	×
Sharing ideas and knowledge with co-workers	×	×	×	×	×	×	×		×	×	×	×	×	×	×		×
Inspiring and creative atmosphere			×		×	×	×		×		×	×	×

Table 3. Attributes and levels for co-working space choice experiment.

Attributes	Attribute levels
Accessibility of the location	Level 0: by car and public transport Level 1: by car Level 2: by public transport
Atmosphere and interior aesthetics	Level 0: industrial Level 1: modern Level 2: homelike
Layout of the space	Level 0: open layout (large open workspace) Level 1: semi-open layout (combination of open and closed workspaces) Level 2: closed layout (enclosed and separate workspaces)
Diversity in supply spaces	Level 0: basic co-working space (collaborative workspace, meeting rooms and kitchen areas) Level 1: standard co-working space (collaborative workspace, meeting rooms, kitchen areas and informal spaces) Level 2: premium co-working spaces (collaborative workspace, meeting rooms, kitchen areas, informal spaces, fitness centre and bar)
Reception and hospitality	Level 0: no reception and no host Level 1: reception but no host Level 2: reception and host
Events	Level 0: none events Level 1: sometimes an event Level 2: often an event
Diversity of tenants	Level 0: no diversity of tenants Level 1: moderate diversity of tenants Level 2: strong diversity of tenants
Type of lease contract	Level 0: no leas contract Level 1: short term lease contract (day, week or month) Level 2: long term lease contract (one year or longer)

Table 4. Example choice set.

Attribute	Alternative 1	Alternative 2	Alternative 3	None of these options
Accessibility	By car	By car	By public transport
Atmosphere/interior aesthetics	Homelike	Industrial	Industrial
Layout of the space	Open layout	Open layout	Closed layout
Diversity in supply spaces	Standard	Premium	Standard
Reception and hospitality	No reception and no host	Reception but no host	Reception but no host
Events	None	Sometimes	None
Diversity of tenants	Strong diversity	Moderate diversity	Moderate diversity
Lease contract	Long term	Short term	No contract

Table 5. Sample characteristics (N = 219).

	N	%	Mean	SD
Gender
Male	150	68
Female	69	32
Age (years)			34.6	11.2
< 24	35	16
25–34	86	39
35–44	55	25
> 45	43	20
Education level
Low education (i.e. secondary vocational, pre-university and intermediate vocational educations)	32	14
High education (i.e. higher vocational education, university bachelor, master’s, doctorate)	187	86
Position in the organization
Supporting staff	7	3
Regular employee	48	22
Manager	18	8
Board/owner	92	42
Does not apply	55	25
User type
Self-employed worker, freelancer or entrepreneur	117	54
Employee of a company (2–10 employees)	38	18
Employee of a company (11 or more employees)	38	18
Student	26	12
Income/year (€)
> 20,000	59	27
20.001–50,000	79	36
> 50,000	31	14
I don’t know/I’d rather not say	50	23
Hours in co-working space			21.3	14.3
Transport to the co-working space
By car	112	51
By bicycle	47	22
Walking	13	5
By public transport	47	22

Figure 1. Motivations to work at a co-working space (N = 219).

Table 6. Results final mixed-multinomial logit model (MMNL).

Attributes	Attribute level	Coefficient (β)
Random parameters
Constant	Constant	1.365***
Accessibility	By car and public transport	0.693***
Atmosphere and interior aesthetics	Industrial	–0.163***
Layout of the space	Open layout	0.051
Type of lease contract	No contract	0.362***
Diversity of tenants	No diversity of tenants	–0.331***
Reception and hospitality	No reception and no host	–0.220***
Non-random parameters
Accessibility	By car	–0.939***
	By public transport (reference)	0.246
Atmosphere and interior	Modern	–0.302**
	Homelike (reference)	0.465
Layout of the space	Semi-open layout	0.328***
	Closed layout (reference)	–0.379
Type of lease contract	Short term contract	–0.048
	Long term (reference)	–0.314
Diversity of tenants	Moderate diversity of tenants	0.168***
	Strong diversity of tenants (reference)	0.163
Reception and hospitality	Reception but no host	0.172***
	Reception and active host (reference)	0.048
Events	None	–0.182***
	Sometimes	0.168***
	Often (reference)	0.014
Diversity in supply spaces	Basic co-working space	–0.061
	Standard co-working space	0.123**
	Premium co-working space (reference)	–0.062
Interaction parameters
Accessibility	Age (≥ 35 years) * By car and public transport	–0.222**
	Age (≥ 35 years) * By car	0.562***
	Manager * By car	0.193*
Atmosphere and interior	High education level * Modern	0.353***
Type of lease contract	Age (≥ 35 years) * No contract	0.300*
	High education level * Short term contract	0.463***
	Self-employed * No contract	0.352**
	Hours working (≥ 20 hours) * No contract	–0.406**
Distributions of random parameters, standard deviations or limits of triangular
Constant	Constant	3.266***
Accessibility	By car and public transport	0.328***
Atmosphere and interior	Industrial	0.273***
Layout of the space	Open layout	0.288***
Type of lease contract	No contract	0.859***
Diversity of tenants	Basic co-working space	0.378***
Reception and hospitality	No reception and no host	0.464***
Goodness of fit statistics
Parameters	32	ρ^2	0.2376
Log-likelihood function (LL(β))	–2083.175	ρ^2 adjusted	0.2335
Restricted log-likelihood function (LL(0))	–2732.386	AIC	4230.4

Notes: AIC = Akaike information criterion.

*Significant at the 0.1 level; **significant at the 0.05 level; ***significant at the 0.01 level.

Figure 2. Total utility of attributes.

Deijl, C. M. (2011). Two heads are better than one, a case study of the co-working community in the Netherlands (Master’s thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.

 Google Scholar

Deskmag. (2012). The 2nd annual coworking survey. Retrieved from http://reseau.fing.org/file/download/128857

 Google Scholar

Deskmag. (2013). The 3rd Global Coworking Survey. Retrieved from https://communityjelly.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/3rdglobalcoworkingsurvey-121108034918-phpapp02.pdf

 Google Scholar

Fuzi, A. (2015). Coworking spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: The case of South Wales. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 462–469. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1072053

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fuzi, A., Clifton, N., & Loudon, G. (2014). New in-house organizational spaces that support creativity and innovation: The co-working space. Paper presented at R&D management conference, Stuttgart, Germany.

 Google Scholar

Gandini, A. (2015). The rise of co-working spaces: A literature review. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 15(1), 193–205.

 Google Scholar

Kojo, I., & Nenonen, S. (2014). User experience in an academic coworking place: The case of Aalto university’s design factory. In P. A. Jensen (Ed.), CIB facilities management conference 2014 (pp. 341–353). Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark.

 Google Scholar

Leforestier, A. (2009). The co-working space concept. Retrieved from http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/users/anilg/files/Articles/Co-working%20space.pdf

 Google Scholar

Merkel, J. (2015). Coworking in the city. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 15(1), 121–139.

 Google Scholar

Moriset, B. (2013). Building new places of the creative economy, the rise of coworking spaces. Proceedings of the 2nd geography of innovation international conference 2013. Utrecht University.

 Google Scholar

Parrino, L. (2015). Coworking: Assessing the role of proximity knowledge exchange. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 13, 261–271. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.47

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spreitzer, G., Bacevice, P., & Garrett, L. (2015). Why people thrive in coworking spaces. Harvard Business Review, 93(9), 28–35.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Sykes, K. (2014). Coworking: A workplace paradigm shift. Contract, 55(6), 140–145.

 Google Scholar

Capdevila, I. (2015). Co-working spaces and the localised dynamics of innovation in Barcelona. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(3), 1–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919615400046

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Capdevila, I. (2013). Knowledge dynamics in localized communities: Spaces as microclusters. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=241412

 Google Scholar

Orel, M. (2015). Working in co working spaces: The social and economic engagement of European youth. In Youth Partnership (Ed.), Perspectives on youth, Vol. 2: Connections and disconnection (pp. 133–139). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publ.

 Google Scholar