M.H. Arkesteijn
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
62 records found
1
Coworking space users
A literature review on characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences in urban and non-urban areas
Purpose
This study aims to analyze and compare three dimensions of coworking space (CS) usage: user characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences, comparing the literature on urban vs non-urban CSs.
Design/methodology/approach
The methodological approach follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, known as PRISMA. Following the PRISMA checklist items, this study presents aspects from cross-sectional studies published over 13 years (2010–2023).
Findings
The research reveals user characteristics, motivations for choosing a CS and workplace preferences of users of urban and non-urban CSs. Even though user characteristics in urban and non-urban CSs appear similar, the literature highlights differences: studies on urban CSs often emphasize increased productivity as a motivator to rent a workplace in a CS. In contrast, literature on non-urban CSs focuses on the reduced time spent commuting. Furthermore, literature on urban CSs prioritizes affordability and neighborhood image, while users of non-urban CSs focus on service offerings and proximity to nature. These findings suggest that CS operators should tailor their value propositions based on location, with urban CSs emphasizing cost-effectiveness and non-urban CSs focusing on comprehensive services and natural settings.
Practical implications
The study’s findings provide a practical lens for understanding the differences between CS in urban and non-urban areas from a user perspective. The insights from this research could inform the evolution of workplace requirements and strategy adaptations, with particular relevance for CS providers and organizations with CSs as part of their Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) portfolio.
Originality/value
The existing body of literature has yet to explore the workplace preferences of CSs in non-urban locations. As CSs grow in non-urban areas and their characteristics may differ from their urban counterparts, this study sheds light on an under-researched area. Furthermore, no study has investigated the literature on CS user preferences systematically and compared the perspectives of urban and non-urban CS users. ...
This study aims to analyze and compare three dimensions of coworking space (CS) usage: user characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences, comparing the literature on urban vs non-urban CSs.
Design/methodology/approach
The methodological approach follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, known as PRISMA. Following the PRISMA checklist items, this study presents aspects from cross-sectional studies published over 13 years (2010–2023).
Findings
The research reveals user characteristics, motivations for choosing a CS and workplace preferences of users of urban and non-urban CSs. Even though user characteristics in urban and non-urban CSs appear similar, the literature highlights differences: studies on urban CSs often emphasize increased productivity as a motivator to rent a workplace in a CS. In contrast, literature on non-urban CSs focuses on the reduced time spent commuting. Furthermore, literature on urban CSs prioritizes affordability and neighborhood image, while users of non-urban CSs focus on service offerings and proximity to nature. These findings suggest that CS operators should tailor their value propositions based on location, with urban CSs emphasizing cost-effectiveness and non-urban CSs focusing on comprehensive services and natural settings.
Practical implications
The study’s findings provide a practical lens for understanding the differences between CS in urban and non-urban areas from a user perspective. The insights from this research could inform the evolution of workplace requirements and strategy adaptations, with particular relevance for CS providers and organizations with CSs as part of their Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) portfolio.
Originality/value
The existing body of literature has yet to explore the workplace preferences of CSs in non-urban locations. As CSs grow in non-urban areas and their characteristics may differ from their urban counterparts, this study sheds light on an under-researched area. Furthermore, no study has investigated the literature on CS user preferences systematically and compared the perspectives of urban and non-urban CS users. ...
Purpose
This study aims to analyze and compare three dimensions of coworking space (CS) usage: user characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences, comparing the literature on urban vs non-urban CSs.
Design/methodology/approach
The methodological approach follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, known as PRISMA. Following the PRISMA checklist items, this study presents aspects from cross-sectional studies published over 13 years (2010–2023).
Findings
The research reveals user characteristics, motivations for choosing a CS and workplace preferences of users of urban and non-urban CSs. Even though user characteristics in urban and non-urban CSs appear similar, the literature highlights differences: studies on urban CSs often emphasize increased productivity as a motivator to rent a workplace in a CS. In contrast, literature on non-urban CSs focuses on the reduced time spent commuting. Furthermore, literature on urban CSs prioritizes affordability and neighborhood image, while users of non-urban CSs focus on service offerings and proximity to nature. These findings suggest that CS operators should tailor their value propositions based on location, with urban CSs emphasizing cost-effectiveness and non-urban CSs focusing on comprehensive services and natural settings.
Practical implications
The study’s findings provide a practical lens for understanding the differences between CS in urban and non-urban areas from a user perspective. The insights from this research could inform the evolution of workplace requirements and strategy adaptations, with particular relevance for CS providers and organizations with CSs as part of their Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) portfolio.
Originality/value
The existing body of literature has yet to explore the workplace preferences of CSs in non-urban locations. As CSs grow in non-urban areas and their characteristics may differ from their urban counterparts, this study sheds light on an under-researched area. Furthermore, no study has investigated the literature on CS user preferences systematically and compared the perspectives of urban and non-urban CS users.
This study aims to analyze and compare three dimensions of coworking space (CS) usage: user characteristics, motivations and workplace preferences, comparing the literature on urban vs non-urban CSs.
Design/methodology/approach
The methodological approach follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, known as PRISMA. Following the PRISMA checklist items, this study presents aspects from cross-sectional studies published over 13 years (2010–2023).
Findings
The research reveals user characteristics, motivations for choosing a CS and workplace preferences of users of urban and non-urban CSs. Even though user characteristics in urban and non-urban CSs appear similar, the literature highlights differences: studies on urban CSs often emphasize increased productivity as a motivator to rent a workplace in a CS. In contrast, literature on non-urban CSs focuses on the reduced time spent commuting. Furthermore, literature on urban CSs prioritizes affordability and neighborhood image, while users of non-urban CSs focus on service offerings and proximity to nature. These findings suggest that CS operators should tailor their value propositions based on location, with urban CSs emphasizing cost-effectiveness and non-urban CSs focusing on comprehensive services and natural settings.
Practical implications
The study’s findings provide a practical lens for understanding the differences between CS in urban and non-urban areas from a user perspective. The insights from this research could inform the evolution of workplace requirements and strategy adaptations, with particular relevance for CS providers and organizations with CSs as part of their Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) portfolio.
Originality/value
The existing body of literature has yet to explore the workplace preferences of CSs in non-urban locations. As CSs grow in non-urban areas and their characteristics may differ from their urban counterparts, this study sheds light on an under-researched area. Furthermore, no study has investigated the literature on CS user preferences systematically and compared the perspectives of urban and non-urban CS users.
Continuous briefing for the future university campus
An evidence-based approach to match spatial supply and demand
Purpose
To plan the future university campus, campus executives need decision-making support from theory and practice. Matching the static campus (supply) with the dynamic (demand) - while safeguarding spatial quality and sustainability - requires management information from similar organizations. This study presents an evidence-based briefing approach to support decision-makers of individual universities with management information when making decisions for their future campus.
Design/methodology/approach
For the proposed evidence-based briefing approach, the continuous Designing an Accommodation Strategy (DAS) framework is used in a mixed-method research design to evaluate the past to plan for the future. Five campus themes and three campus models (solid, liquid, and gas) are introduced to describe the development and diversification of university campuses and their impact across different university building types. Based on this theoretical framework, first, qualitative interview data are analyzed to understand which standards campus managers expect; second, a quantitative project database is used to demonstrate what is actually realized.
Findings
The findings demonstrate that remote working and online education will become more common. Academic workplaces and learning environments are more adaptive to changes than laboratory spaces. The analyses reveal different effective space use strategies to meet the current demand: they include space-efficient mixed-use buildings, and mono-functional generic educational and office spaces. These results show that operationalized evidence-based briefing can help design the future campus.
Originality/value
The study adds knowledge during a critical (post-COVID) period when decision-makers need evidence from others to adapt their campus management strategies to hybrid and sustainable ambitions. ...
To plan the future university campus, campus executives need decision-making support from theory and practice. Matching the static campus (supply) with the dynamic (demand) - while safeguarding spatial quality and sustainability - requires management information from similar organizations. This study presents an evidence-based briefing approach to support decision-makers of individual universities with management information when making decisions for their future campus.
Design/methodology/approach
For the proposed evidence-based briefing approach, the continuous Designing an Accommodation Strategy (DAS) framework is used in a mixed-method research design to evaluate the past to plan for the future. Five campus themes and three campus models (solid, liquid, and gas) are introduced to describe the development and diversification of university campuses and their impact across different university building types. Based on this theoretical framework, first, qualitative interview data are analyzed to understand which standards campus managers expect; second, a quantitative project database is used to demonstrate what is actually realized.
Findings
The findings demonstrate that remote working and online education will become more common. Academic workplaces and learning environments are more adaptive to changes than laboratory spaces. The analyses reveal different effective space use strategies to meet the current demand: they include space-efficient mixed-use buildings, and mono-functional generic educational and office spaces. These results show that operationalized evidence-based briefing can help design the future campus.
Originality/value
The study adds knowledge during a critical (post-COVID) period when decision-makers need evidence from others to adapt their campus management strategies to hybrid and sustainable ambitions. ...
Purpose
To plan the future university campus, campus executives need decision-making support from theory and practice. Matching the static campus (supply) with the dynamic (demand) - while safeguarding spatial quality and sustainability - requires management information from similar organizations. This study presents an evidence-based briefing approach to support decision-makers of individual universities with management information when making decisions for their future campus.
Design/methodology/approach
For the proposed evidence-based briefing approach, the continuous Designing an Accommodation Strategy (DAS) framework is used in a mixed-method research design to evaluate the past to plan for the future. Five campus themes and three campus models (solid, liquid, and gas) are introduced to describe the development and diversification of university campuses and their impact across different university building types. Based on this theoretical framework, first, qualitative interview data are analyzed to understand which standards campus managers expect; second, a quantitative project database is used to demonstrate what is actually realized.
Findings
The findings demonstrate that remote working and online education will become more common. Academic workplaces and learning environments are more adaptive to changes than laboratory spaces. The analyses reveal different effective space use strategies to meet the current demand: they include space-efficient mixed-use buildings, and mono-functional generic educational and office spaces. These results show that operationalized evidence-based briefing can help design the future campus.
Originality/value
The study adds knowledge during a critical (post-COVID) period when decision-makers need evidence from others to adapt their campus management strategies to hybrid and sustainable ambitions.
To plan the future university campus, campus executives need decision-making support from theory and practice. Matching the static campus (supply) with the dynamic (demand) - while safeguarding spatial quality and sustainability - requires management information from similar organizations. This study presents an evidence-based briefing approach to support decision-makers of individual universities with management information when making decisions for their future campus.
Design/methodology/approach
For the proposed evidence-based briefing approach, the continuous Designing an Accommodation Strategy (DAS) framework is used in a mixed-method research design to evaluate the past to plan for the future. Five campus themes and three campus models (solid, liquid, and gas) are introduced to describe the development and diversification of university campuses and their impact across different university building types. Based on this theoretical framework, first, qualitative interview data are analyzed to understand which standards campus managers expect; second, a quantitative project database is used to demonstrate what is actually realized.
Findings
The findings demonstrate that remote working and online education will become more common. Academic workplaces and learning environments are more adaptive to changes than laboratory spaces. The analyses reveal different effective space use strategies to meet the current demand: they include space-efficient mixed-use buildings, and mono-functional generic educational and office spaces. These results show that operationalized evidence-based briefing can help design the future campus.
Originality/value
The study adds knowledge during a critical (post-COVID) period when decision-makers need evidence from others to adapt their campus management strategies to hybrid and sustainable ambitions.
Strategic behaviour (SB) is critical in multi-stakeholder decision-making processes and influences negotiations and outcomes. SB is defined as the behaviour of stakeholders aiming to maximise their own goals and interests by influencing the outcomes in a decision-making environment. Although there are many publications on SB, there is a gap in understanding how decision environments influence such behaviours, with a specific focus on Decision Support Systems (DSS). This literature review aims to identify and analyse the key aspects of SB in decision-making processes and environments, specifically within the context of Decision Support Systems (DSS). This study adopts a narrative approach to identify the most relevant publications related to the research topic in the Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect databases. It should be mentioned that a literature search is conducted for each individual topic: (1) strategic behaviour, (2) DSS, and then (3) the intersection of Strategic behaviour and DSS. This literature review provided a comprehensive understanding of the SBs through different perspectives and categorisations. Moreover, it led to the identification of 11 actions that can be considered as SB: (a) withholding information, (b) selectively sharing information, gathering information, (c) misrepresentation, (d) bluffing, (e) exaggerating, (f) tit-for-that, (g) opposing, (h) keeping options open, (i) coupling issues, and (j) framing. Next to SB, a similar search process with a narrative approach was conducted to find the most relevant publications in the field of DSS, which are computer-based information systems designed to assist decision-makers in solving semi-structured or unstructured problems by providing data, models, and analytical tools (e.g., Preference-Based Accommodation Strategy (PAS)). The findings of the research show that research in both DSS and SB has mainly focused on how DSS can aid strategic decision-making or develop mechanisms resilient to strategic manipulation. However, there is a lack of understanding of the actual behaviours of users interacting with DSS and how to observe them. Thus, this research led to the understanding that there is a gap in gasping how SBs develop within DSS use. Future research could focus on filling this gap by using the actions (outcomes of this research) in the decision-making processes within DSS systems.
...
Strategic behaviour (SB) is critical in multi-stakeholder decision-making processes and influences negotiations and outcomes. SB is defined as the behaviour of stakeholders aiming to maximise their own goals and interests by influencing the outcomes in a decision-making environment. Although there are many publications on SB, there is a gap in understanding how decision environments influence such behaviours, with a specific focus on Decision Support Systems (DSS). This literature review aims to identify and analyse the key aspects of SB in decision-making processes and environments, specifically within the context of Decision Support Systems (DSS). This study adopts a narrative approach to identify the most relevant publications related to the research topic in the Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect databases. It should be mentioned that a literature search is conducted for each individual topic: (1) strategic behaviour, (2) DSS, and then (3) the intersection of Strategic behaviour and DSS. This literature review provided a comprehensive understanding of the SBs through different perspectives and categorisations. Moreover, it led to the identification of 11 actions that can be considered as SB: (a) withholding information, (b) selectively sharing information, gathering information, (c) misrepresentation, (d) bluffing, (e) exaggerating, (f) tit-for-that, (g) opposing, (h) keeping options open, (i) coupling issues, and (j) framing. Next to SB, a similar search process with a narrative approach was conducted to find the most relevant publications in the field of DSS, which are computer-based information systems designed to assist decision-makers in solving semi-structured or unstructured problems by providing data, models, and analytical tools (e.g., Preference-Based Accommodation Strategy (PAS)). The findings of the research show that research in both DSS and SB has mainly focused on how DSS can aid strategic decision-making or develop mechanisms resilient to strategic manipulation. However, there is a lack of understanding of the actual behaviours of users interacting with DSS and how to observe them. Thus, this research led to the understanding that there is a gap in gasping how SBs develop within DSS use. Future research could focus on filling this gap by using the actions (outcomes of this research) in the decision-making processes within DSS systems.
Strategic behaviour (SB) is defined as the behaviour of stakeholders aiming to maximise their own goals and interests by influencing the outcomes in a decision-making environment. This behaviour is by nature included in the multi-stakeholder decision-making processes, as they use it to influence the process and align the outcomes with their own interests. This can result in imbalances and less-optimal outcomes of the decision-making processes. Decision Support Systems (DSS) are designed to improve decision quality. However, their effectiveness can be compromised when behavioural dynamics are not fully understood. This study aims to investigate how DSS influence SBs (including collaborative and competitive strategies, by using a specific DSS namely the Preference-Based Accommodation Strategy (PAS). PAS is a design and decision support system, which is designed to include the preferences of all the decision-makers. This research uses different qualitative methods within the pilot study at a large Dutch governmental real estate organisation. Different interviews were conducted with key decision-makers to understand the SBs in both traditional and PAS-supported environments. In addition to this, observations were conducted during the execution of the PAS decision and decision support system to analyse stakeholders’ interactions and behavioural patterns in real time. These insights were then analysed to identify how DSS (in this case PAS) influence competitive and collaborative strategies. The results of the analysis show that the current decision-making environments lack transparency and inclusivity, which contributes to competitive behaviour. However, within the PAS-supported environment, collaborative strategies were more prevalent. This is due to the fact that transparency and structured decision process within the PAS encourage collaborative decision-making. The PAS integrates open dialogue and transparent negotiation. Moreover, it creates an environment where cooperative strategies become more effective and rewarding. By addressing the gaps in the DSS field, this study provides insights into the use of specific decision-making environments, such as PAS, to mitigate SBs, more specifically competitive ones, and enhance collective decision quality.
...
Strategic behaviour (SB) is defined as the behaviour of stakeholders aiming to maximise their own goals and interests by influencing the outcomes in a decision-making environment. This behaviour is by nature included in the multi-stakeholder decision-making processes, as they use it to influence the process and align the outcomes with their own interests. This can result in imbalances and less-optimal outcomes of the decision-making processes. Decision Support Systems (DSS) are designed to improve decision quality. However, their effectiveness can be compromised when behavioural dynamics are not fully understood. This study aims to investigate how DSS influence SBs (including collaborative and competitive strategies, by using a specific DSS namely the Preference-Based Accommodation Strategy (PAS). PAS is a design and decision support system, which is designed to include the preferences of all the decision-makers. This research uses different qualitative methods within the pilot study at a large Dutch governmental real estate organisation. Different interviews were conducted with key decision-makers to understand the SBs in both traditional and PAS-supported environments. In addition to this, observations were conducted during the execution of the PAS decision and decision support system to analyse stakeholders’ interactions and behavioural patterns in real time. These insights were then analysed to identify how DSS (in this case PAS) influence competitive and collaborative strategies. The results of the analysis show that the current decision-making environments lack transparency and inclusivity, which contributes to competitive behaviour. However, within the PAS-supported environment, collaborative strategies were more prevalent. This is due to the fact that transparency and structured decision process within the PAS encourage collaborative decision-making. The PAS integrates open dialogue and transparent negotiation. Moreover, it creates an environment where cooperative strategies become more effective and rewarding. By addressing the gaps in the DSS field, this study provides insights into the use of specific decision-making environments, such as PAS, to mitigate SBs, more specifically competitive ones, and enhance collective decision quality.
Location Choices for (National) Police Organisations
Four Case Studies: The Netherlands Police, The Federal Police of Belgium, The Norwegian Police Service, and The Federal Criminal Police of Germany (BKA)
The Netherlands Police is one of the largest real estate users and owners in the Netherlands, and runs a very comprehensive accommodation programme. Their accommodation is an important and highly visible resource for the police and the general public. The police aims to increasingly use their accommodation as an ‘enabler’ of its organisational objectives. The mission of the Police is ‘Unchanged, the police is “vigilant and subservient” to the values of the rule of law. The Police fulfils this mission by protecting, limiting or empowering depending on the situation, both solicited and unsolicited’.
Given the objectives and size of the real estate portfolio of the Netherlands police and given the social impact, size and visibility of the organisation, the police continuously wants to develop as a leading commissioner. In 2021, the Netherlands Police and the chair Public Real Estate of the department Management in the Built Environment of the faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment started a 6 year research cooperation. As part of this collaboration, a long term research project has started with the aim to better use their accommodation as an ‘enabler’ for the organisation (development). The main project focuses on preference-based decision making for (parts) of the real estate portfolio. In this project, decision making is transparent, gives insights in the effects of potential real estate strategies and in all values (quantitative & qualitative) have been made measurable.
Next to that, short-term research projects are conducted. The first study focused on campus development for a specific police unit. This second study focuses on the location choices of (national) police organisations. We are pleased to present the results and are grateful for the cooperation of the police organisations in Norway, Germany and Belgium. ...
Given the objectives and size of the real estate portfolio of the Netherlands police and given the social impact, size and visibility of the organisation, the police continuously wants to develop as a leading commissioner. In 2021, the Netherlands Police and the chair Public Real Estate of the department Management in the Built Environment of the faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment started a 6 year research cooperation. As part of this collaboration, a long term research project has started with the aim to better use their accommodation as an ‘enabler’ for the organisation (development). The main project focuses on preference-based decision making for (parts) of the real estate portfolio. In this project, decision making is transparent, gives insights in the effects of potential real estate strategies and in all values (quantitative & qualitative) have been made measurable.
Next to that, short-term research projects are conducted. The first study focused on campus development for a specific police unit. This second study focuses on the location choices of (national) police organisations. We are pleased to present the results and are grateful for the cooperation of the police organisations in Norway, Germany and Belgium. ...
The Netherlands Police is one of the largest real estate users and owners in the Netherlands, and runs a very comprehensive accommodation programme. Their accommodation is an important and highly visible resource for the police and the general public. The police aims to increasingly use their accommodation as an ‘enabler’ of its organisational objectives. The mission of the Police is ‘Unchanged, the police is “vigilant and subservient” to the values of the rule of law. The Police fulfils this mission by protecting, limiting or empowering depending on the situation, both solicited and unsolicited’.
Given the objectives and size of the real estate portfolio of the Netherlands police and given the social impact, size and visibility of the organisation, the police continuously wants to develop as a leading commissioner. In 2021, the Netherlands Police and the chair Public Real Estate of the department Management in the Built Environment of the faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment started a 6 year research cooperation. As part of this collaboration, a long term research project has started with the aim to better use their accommodation as an ‘enabler’ for the organisation (development). The main project focuses on preference-based decision making for (parts) of the real estate portfolio. In this project, decision making is transparent, gives insights in the effects of potential real estate strategies and in all values (quantitative & qualitative) have been made measurable.
Next to that, short-term research projects are conducted. The first study focused on campus development for a specific police unit. This second study focuses on the location choices of (national) police organisations. We are pleased to present the results and are grateful for the cooperation of the police organisations in Norway, Germany and Belgium.
Given the objectives and size of the real estate portfolio of the Netherlands police and given the social impact, size and visibility of the organisation, the police continuously wants to develop as a leading commissioner. In 2021, the Netherlands Police and the chair Public Real Estate of the department Management in the Built Environment of the faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment started a 6 year research cooperation. As part of this collaboration, a long term research project has started with the aim to better use their accommodation as an ‘enabler’ for the organisation (development). The main project focuses on preference-based decision making for (parts) of the real estate portfolio. In this project, decision making is transparent, gives insights in the effects of potential real estate strategies and in all values (quantitative & qualitative) have been made measurable.
Next to that, short-term research projects are conducted. The first study focused on campus development for a specific police unit. This second study focuses on the location choices of (national) police organisations. We are pleased to present the results and are grateful for the cooperation of the police organisations in Norway, Germany and Belgium.
Spatial challenges of hybrid work
An exploration of Dutch university campuses
Journal article
(2025)
-
Sophie Schuller, Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, Lisanne Bergefurt, Monique Arkesteijn, Alexandra den Heijer
Purpose
The shift to hybrid work, broadly defined as the transition between traditional and non-traditional work modes enabled by digital technologies, has profoundly impacted university campuses, which function both as educational institutions and major employment centres. Despite their significance, adapting hybrid work models within universities remains under-explored in academic research. This study aims to investigate how university real estate support teams perceive challenges stemming from the adoption of hybrid work.
Design/methodology/approach
Through thematic content analysis, a narrative review of 27 studies identified three dimensions of challenges: spatial challenges in campus planning from a real estate perspective, psychosocial challenges for employees and organisational challenges shaping spatial strategies. In total, 12 higher-level spatial challenges were identified and discussed in a Delphi workshop involving representatives from 12 of the 14 Dutch universities. Group discussions revealed three additional challenges not identified in the literature review.
Findings
Through three rounds of prioritisation, the five most critical challenges emerged: preventing resistance to changes, balancing employee autonomy and control, supporting individual and group needs, accommodating diverse work types and individual preferences and managing underutilised space without overcrowding.
Practical implications
Co-creating university spaces between real estate teams and campus employees, coupled with extended change management periods, seems crucial for stakeholder engagement and successful transitions. These findings highlight an urgent need for targeted research and context-specific strategies to navigate hybrid work within university frameworks.
Originality/value
This paper’s originality lies in addressing the often-overlooked influence of hybrid work on university staff within campus spatial planning. It identifies the most critical challenges in spatial planning in implementing hybrid work in university campus settings. ...
The shift to hybrid work, broadly defined as the transition between traditional and non-traditional work modes enabled by digital technologies, has profoundly impacted university campuses, which function both as educational institutions and major employment centres. Despite their significance, adapting hybrid work models within universities remains under-explored in academic research. This study aims to investigate how university real estate support teams perceive challenges stemming from the adoption of hybrid work.
Design/methodology/approach
Through thematic content analysis, a narrative review of 27 studies identified three dimensions of challenges: spatial challenges in campus planning from a real estate perspective, psychosocial challenges for employees and organisational challenges shaping spatial strategies. In total, 12 higher-level spatial challenges were identified and discussed in a Delphi workshop involving representatives from 12 of the 14 Dutch universities. Group discussions revealed three additional challenges not identified in the literature review.
Findings
Through three rounds of prioritisation, the five most critical challenges emerged: preventing resistance to changes, balancing employee autonomy and control, supporting individual and group needs, accommodating diverse work types and individual preferences and managing underutilised space without overcrowding.
Practical implications
Co-creating university spaces between real estate teams and campus employees, coupled with extended change management periods, seems crucial for stakeholder engagement and successful transitions. These findings highlight an urgent need for targeted research and context-specific strategies to navigate hybrid work within university frameworks.
Originality/value
This paper’s originality lies in addressing the often-overlooked influence of hybrid work on university staff within campus spatial planning. It identifies the most critical challenges in spatial planning in implementing hybrid work in university campus settings. ...
Purpose
The shift to hybrid work, broadly defined as the transition between traditional and non-traditional work modes enabled by digital technologies, has profoundly impacted university campuses, which function both as educational institutions and major employment centres. Despite their significance, adapting hybrid work models within universities remains under-explored in academic research. This study aims to investigate how university real estate support teams perceive challenges stemming from the adoption of hybrid work.
Design/methodology/approach
Through thematic content analysis, a narrative review of 27 studies identified three dimensions of challenges: spatial challenges in campus planning from a real estate perspective, psychosocial challenges for employees and organisational challenges shaping spatial strategies. In total, 12 higher-level spatial challenges were identified and discussed in a Delphi workshop involving representatives from 12 of the 14 Dutch universities. Group discussions revealed three additional challenges not identified in the literature review.
Findings
Through three rounds of prioritisation, the five most critical challenges emerged: preventing resistance to changes, balancing employee autonomy and control, supporting individual and group needs, accommodating diverse work types and individual preferences and managing underutilised space without overcrowding.
Practical implications
Co-creating university spaces between real estate teams and campus employees, coupled with extended change management periods, seems crucial for stakeholder engagement and successful transitions. These findings highlight an urgent need for targeted research and context-specific strategies to navigate hybrid work within university frameworks.
Originality/value
This paper’s originality lies in addressing the often-overlooked influence of hybrid work on university staff within campus spatial planning. It identifies the most critical challenges in spatial planning in implementing hybrid work in university campus settings.
The shift to hybrid work, broadly defined as the transition between traditional and non-traditional work modes enabled by digital technologies, has profoundly impacted university campuses, which function both as educational institutions and major employment centres. Despite their significance, adapting hybrid work models within universities remains under-explored in academic research. This study aims to investigate how university real estate support teams perceive challenges stemming from the adoption of hybrid work.
Design/methodology/approach
Through thematic content analysis, a narrative review of 27 studies identified three dimensions of challenges: spatial challenges in campus planning from a real estate perspective, psychosocial challenges for employees and organisational challenges shaping spatial strategies. In total, 12 higher-level spatial challenges were identified and discussed in a Delphi workshop involving representatives from 12 of the 14 Dutch universities. Group discussions revealed three additional challenges not identified in the literature review.
Findings
Through three rounds of prioritisation, the five most critical challenges emerged: preventing resistance to changes, balancing employee autonomy and control, supporting individual and group needs, accommodating diverse work types and individual preferences and managing underutilised space without overcrowding.
Practical implications
Co-creating university spaces between real estate teams and campus employees, coupled with extended change management periods, seems crucial for stakeholder engagement and successful transitions. These findings highlight an urgent need for targeted research and context-specific strategies to navigate hybrid work within university frameworks.
Originality/value
This paper’s originality lies in addressing the often-overlooked influence of hybrid work on university staff within campus spatial planning. It identifies the most critical challenges in spatial planning in implementing hybrid work in university campus settings.
In the summer of 2023, the 14 universities of the Netherlands acknowledged the lack of detailed office utilisation data. It was decided that Campus NL should prioritize the collection of those data. While individual universities had data regarding their facilities, a comprehensive dataset was missing. This report represents the first step in building this comprehensive dataset, which the Campus NL team will build with input from practice and theory during the research period (2023-2027).
How universities work is partly reflected in the utilisation rates of office space: when and where workplaces are used (or not). It is up to the universities whether or not they actively would like to use this information to steer. The information found in this report represents a combination of the physical (workplace) and functional (utilisation) perspective. ...
How universities work is partly reflected in the utilisation rates of office space: when and where workplaces are used (or not). It is up to the universities whether or not they actively would like to use this information to steer. The information found in this report represents a combination of the physical (workplace) and functional (utilisation) perspective. ...
In the summer of 2023, the 14 universities of the Netherlands acknowledged the lack of detailed office utilisation data. It was decided that Campus NL should prioritize the collection of those data. While individual universities had data regarding their facilities, a comprehensive dataset was missing. This report represents the first step in building this comprehensive dataset, which the Campus NL team will build with input from practice and theory during the research period (2023-2027).
How universities work is partly reflected in the utilisation rates of office space: when and where workplaces are used (or not). It is up to the universities whether or not they actively would like to use this information to steer. The information found in this report represents a combination of the physical (workplace) and functional (utilisation) perspective.
How universities work is partly reflected in the utilisation rates of office space: when and where workplaces are used (or not). It is up to the universities whether or not they actively would like to use this information to steer. The information found in this report represents a combination of the physical (workplace) and functional (utilisation) perspective.
The escalating significance of knowledge exchange in diverse industries is owed to its potential to enhance business performance. Although numerous theoretical frameworks have been applied to understand and measure knowledge exchange within and between firms, a notable gap remains in measuring inter-organisational knowledge exchange among horizontally-linked firms in the same sector. This research endeavours to fill this gap by proposing a comprehensive survey grounded in theory and practice for assessing knowledge exchange among 14 universities in the Netherlands. Drawing from inputs from campus managers and established theory-based evaluation methods, four key elements were identified: organizational context, enablers and disablers, processes, and outcome expectations. This synthesis aims to offer insights into how knowledge exchange dynamics can be gauged between firms. By gaining insights into the intricacies of inter-organisational knowledge exchange through the survey developed in this study, organisations would be able to adopt more informed strategies, fostering collaborative environments and ultimately optimising the efficiency of knowledge exchange processes between organisations in the same sector.
...
The escalating significance of knowledge exchange in diverse industries is owed to its potential to enhance business performance. Although numerous theoretical frameworks have been applied to understand and measure knowledge exchange within and between firms, a notable gap remains in measuring inter-organisational knowledge exchange among horizontally-linked firms in the same sector. This research endeavours to fill this gap by proposing a comprehensive survey grounded in theory and practice for assessing knowledge exchange among 14 universities in the Netherlands. Drawing from inputs from campus managers and established theory-based evaluation methods, four key elements were identified: organizational context, enablers and disablers, processes, and outcome expectations. This synthesis aims to offer insights into how knowledge exchange dynamics can be gauged between firms. By gaining insights into the intricacies of inter-organisational knowledge exchange through the survey developed in this study, organisations would be able to adopt more informed strategies, fostering collaborative environments and ultimately optimising the efficiency of knowledge exchange processes between organisations in the same sector.
Managing public real estate and the trade-off between supporting user activities and sustainable development
Case of the Netherlands police
Purpose
Corporate real estate management (CREM) is complex due to an increasing number of real estate (RE) added values and the tensions between them. RE managers are faced with trade-offs: to choose a higher performance for one added value at the cost of another. CREM research mainly deals with trade-offs in a hypothetical sense, without looking at the characteristics of the RE portfolio nor the specific context in which trade-offs are made. The purpose of this paper is to further develop the concept of real estate value (REV) optimisation with regard to tensions between decreasing CO2 emissions and supporting user activities.
Design/methodology/approach
Mixed method study. REV optimisation between user activities and energy efficiency for police stations in the Netherlands built between 2000 and 2020 is analysed. This is complemented by interviews with an RE manager and senior user of police stations and analysis of policy documents.
Findings
The characteristics of the police station portfolio indicate no correlation between user activities and energy efficiency for the case studied. This is complemented by interviews, from which it becomes clear that there was in fact little tension between supporting user activities and energy efficiency. The performances of these two different added values were optimised separately.
Originality/value
This study combines different scales (building and portfolio level) with different types of data: portfolio analysis, document analysis and interviews. This creates a comprehensive image of whether and how the Netherlands police optimised the two RE values. ...
Corporate real estate management (CREM) is complex due to an increasing number of real estate (RE) added values and the tensions between them. RE managers are faced with trade-offs: to choose a higher performance for one added value at the cost of another. CREM research mainly deals with trade-offs in a hypothetical sense, without looking at the characteristics of the RE portfolio nor the specific context in which trade-offs are made. The purpose of this paper is to further develop the concept of real estate value (REV) optimisation with regard to tensions between decreasing CO2 emissions and supporting user activities.
Design/methodology/approach
Mixed method study. REV optimisation between user activities and energy efficiency for police stations in the Netherlands built between 2000 and 2020 is analysed. This is complemented by interviews with an RE manager and senior user of police stations and analysis of policy documents.
Findings
The characteristics of the police station portfolio indicate no correlation between user activities and energy efficiency for the case studied. This is complemented by interviews, from which it becomes clear that there was in fact little tension between supporting user activities and energy efficiency. The performances of these two different added values were optimised separately.
Originality/value
This study combines different scales (building and portfolio level) with different types of data: portfolio analysis, document analysis and interviews. This creates a comprehensive image of whether and how the Netherlands police optimised the two RE values. ...
Purpose
Corporate real estate management (CREM) is complex due to an increasing number of real estate (RE) added values and the tensions between them. RE managers are faced with trade-offs: to choose a higher performance for one added value at the cost of another. CREM research mainly deals with trade-offs in a hypothetical sense, without looking at the characteristics of the RE portfolio nor the specific context in which trade-offs are made. The purpose of this paper is to further develop the concept of real estate value (REV) optimisation with regard to tensions between decreasing CO2 emissions and supporting user activities.
Design/methodology/approach
Mixed method study. REV optimisation between user activities and energy efficiency for police stations in the Netherlands built between 2000 and 2020 is analysed. This is complemented by interviews with an RE manager and senior user of police stations and analysis of policy documents.
Findings
The characteristics of the police station portfolio indicate no correlation between user activities and energy efficiency for the case studied. This is complemented by interviews, from which it becomes clear that there was in fact little tension between supporting user activities and energy efficiency. The performances of these two different added values were optimised separately.
Originality/value
This study combines different scales (building and portfolio level) with different types of data: portfolio analysis, document analysis and interviews. This creates a comprehensive image of whether and how the Netherlands police optimised the two RE values.
Corporate real estate management (CREM) is complex due to an increasing number of real estate (RE) added values and the tensions between them. RE managers are faced with trade-offs: to choose a higher performance for one added value at the cost of another. CREM research mainly deals with trade-offs in a hypothetical sense, without looking at the characteristics of the RE portfolio nor the specific context in which trade-offs are made. The purpose of this paper is to further develop the concept of real estate value (REV) optimisation with regard to tensions between decreasing CO2 emissions and supporting user activities.
Design/methodology/approach
Mixed method study. REV optimisation between user activities and energy efficiency for police stations in the Netherlands built between 2000 and 2020 is analysed. This is complemented by interviews with an RE manager and senior user of police stations and analysis of policy documents.
Findings
The characteristics of the police station portfolio indicate no correlation between user activities and energy efficiency for the case studied. This is complemented by interviews, from which it becomes clear that there was in fact little tension between supporting user activities and energy efficiency. The performances of these two different added values were optimised separately.
Originality/value
This study combines different scales (building and portfolio level) with different types of data: portfolio analysis, document analysis and interviews. This creates a comprehensive image of whether and how the Netherlands police optimised the two RE values.
On university campuses today, influenced by large-scale trends and challenges, knowledge exchange is important because universities pursue similar goals and can solve common challenges with each other’s help. In addition, “learning from each other” and “data collection for knowledge generation” fit the education and research functions of the institutions. As university campuses face similar challenges in different locations, knowledge exchange enables campus managers to draw on shared experiences and best practices, promoting cooperation and innovation between universities. […]
...
On university campuses today, influenced by large-scale trends and challenges, knowledge exchange is important because universities pursue similar goals and can solve common challenges with each other’s help. In addition, “learning from each other” and “data collection for knowledge generation” fit the education and research functions of the institutions. As university campuses face similar challenges in different locations, knowledge exchange enables campus managers to draw on shared experiences and best practices, promoting cooperation and innovation between universities. […]
Conference paper
(2024)
-
Gijs Brouwers, Maaike Niekel, Monique Arkesteijn, Susanne Colenberg, Henk-Jan Hoekjen
In workplace design and management, standards for square meters per person and average occupancy of workstations are often used to assess the fit between the number of employees and the availability of workspace and workstations. However, levels of occupancy may be experienced differently by individuals depending on the situation. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of factors that may influence employees’ perception of occupancy at the office. This knowledge could support designers and managers in their decisions and provide a basis for further research in this relatively unexplored territory.
This study is embedded in environmental psychology and its theory about the perception of occupancy. The perception of occupancy is characterized by a perceived (mis)fit between personal demand and the availability of space. In high-density situations, individuals may experience crowding whereas in low-density situations individuals may experience isolation, depending on environmental factors, social factors, and personal factors. It is not entirely clear which and how factors influence perceived occupancy in workspaces.
Articles on the experience of occupancy in office environments were collected and analysed in a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines.
The preliminary results of the literature review show that environmental, social, and personal factors influence perceived occupancy in workspaces. Environmental factors include openness of workspaces, acoustics, plants, workspaces, personalization of workspace, and outside view. Social factors include territoriality, personal space, and culture. Personal factors are stimulus screening, inhibitory ability, task complexity, employee needs, and work pressure.
The experience of occupancy is a relatively unexplored topic in workspace research. By adopting a human-centered perspective on occupancy, this study contributes to a better understanding of discrepancies between organizations’ measures of occupancy and the experience of occupancy by employees. ...
This study is embedded in environmental psychology and its theory about the perception of occupancy. The perception of occupancy is characterized by a perceived (mis)fit between personal demand and the availability of space. In high-density situations, individuals may experience crowding whereas in low-density situations individuals may experience isolation, depending on environmental factors, social factors, and personal factors. It is not entirely clear which and how factors influence perceived occupancy in workspaces.
Articles on the experience of occupancy in office environments were collected and analysed in a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines.
The preliminary results of the literature review show that environmental, social, and personal factors influence perceived occupancy in workspaces. Environmental factors include openness of workspaces, acoustics, plants, workspaces, personalization of workspace, and outside view. Social factors include territoriality, personal space, and culture. Personal factors are stimulus screening, inhibitory ability, task complexity, employee needs, and work pressure.
The experience of occupancy is a relatively unexplored topic in workspace research. By adopting a human-centered perspective on occupancy, this study contributes to a better understanding of discrepancies between organizations’ measures of occupancy and the experience of occupancy by employees. ...
In workplace design and management, standards for square meters per person and average occupancy of workstations are often used to assess the fit between the number of employees and the availability of workspace and workstations. However, levels of occupancy may be experienced differently by individuals depending on the situation. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of factors that may influence employees’ perception of occupancy at the office. This knowledge could support designers and managers in their decisions and provide a basis for further research in this relatively unexplored territory.
This study is embedded in environmental psychology and its theory about the perception of occupancy. The perception of occupancy is characterized by a perceived (mis)fit between personal demand and the availability of space. In high-density situations, individuals may experience crowding whereas in low-density situations individuals may experience isolation, depending on environmental factors, social factors, and personal factors. It is not entirely clear which and how factors influence perceived occupancy in workspaces.
Articles on the experience of occupancy in office environments were collected and analysed in a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines.
The preliminary results of the literature review show that environmental, social, and personal factors influence perceived occupancy in workspaces. Environmental factors include openness of workspaces, acoustics, plants, workspaces, personalization of workspace, and outside view. Social factors include territoriality, personal space, and culture. Personal factors are stimulus screening, inhibitory ability, task complexity, employee needs, and work pressure.
The experience of occupancy is a relatively unexplored topic in workspace research. By adopting a human-centered perspective on occupancy, this study contributes to a better understanding of discrepancies between organizations’ measures of occupancy and the experience of occupancy by employees.
This study is embedded in environmental psychology and its theory about the perception of occupancy. The perception of occupancy is characterized by a perceived (mis)fit between personal demand and the availability of space. In high-density situations, individuals may experience crowding whereas in low-density situations individuals may experience isolation, depending on environmental factors, social factors, and personal factors. It is not entirely clear which and how factors influence perceived occupancy in workspaces.
Articles on the experience of occupancy in office environments were collected and analysed in a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines.
The preliminary results of the literature review show that environmental, social, and personal factors influence perceived occupancy in workspaces. Environmental factors include openness of workspaces, acoustics, plants, workspaces, personalization of workspace, and outside view. Social factors include territoriality, personal space, and culture. Personal factors are stimulus screening, inhibitory ability, task complexity, employee needs, and work pressure.
The experience of occupancy is a relatively unexplored topic in workspace research. By adopting a human-centered perspective on occupancy, this study contributes to a better understanding of discrepancies between organizations’ measures of occupancy and the experience of occupancy by employees.
Campus NL
Hybrid working in the university environment in the Netherlands
Following the Covid-19 pandemic, an increasing number of individuals are expected to engage in remote work. Consequently, the hybrid working paradigm, characterized by a combination of office-based and remote work, is gaining prominence. Despite the governments awareness of this phenomenon, comprehensive policy framework remains absent, leaving determinations to the discretion of individual sectors and entities. Whereas studies focused on diverse sectors in this matter, not much is known regarding hybrid working within the university environment. This study is part of the Campus NL project, aiming to investigate management and strategies across all the 14 universities in the Netherlands. The specific focus of this study was to examine hybrid working and its ramifications within the university landscape in the Netherlands. We asked universities to provide us with information concerning policies and financial allocations related to hybrid working, spatial utilization, energy consumption, and prospective strategies related to sustainability and mobility. Furthermore, we aimed not solely to delineate the present state of hybrid working within Dutch universities but also to enhance future strategies in this domain to provide a better working space in the universities.
...
Following the Covid-19 pandemic, an increasing number of individuals are expected to engage in remote work. Consequently, the hybrid working paradigm, characterized by a combination of office-based and remote work, is gaining prominence. Despite the governments awareness of this phenomenon, comprehensive policy framework remains absent, leaving determinations to the discretion of individual sectors and entities. Whereas studies focused on diverse sectors in this matter, not much is known regarding hybrid working within the university environment. This study is part of the Campus NL project, aiming to investigate management and strategies across all the 14 universities in the Netherlands. The specific focus of this study was to examine hybrid working and its ramifications within the university landscape in the Netherlands. We asked universities to provide us with information concerning policies and financial allocations related to hybrid working, spatial utilization, energy consumption, and prospective strategies related to sustainability and mobility. Furthermore, we aimed not solely to delineate the present state of hybrid working within Dutch universities but also to enhance future strategies in this domain to provide a better working space in the universities.
Inter-university knowledge transfer in (sustainable) campus management
An exploratory study for Campus NL
Knowledge transfer in campus management has a decades-long history in the Netherlands, ever since the Dutch (research) universities became owners of their university buildings and land in the nineties. The shared challenges have urged universities to join forces and exchange insights about their solutions. One of those pressing challenges has been sustainability. Since 2008, long-term agreements on energy-efficiency have become effective in the Netherlands for various sectors. Higher education was one of these sectors and - as a result - universities have developed sustainable visions and road maps for their campuses. At the same time, universities started to improve inter-university knowledge exchange, in general and about sustainability in particular.
Knowledge transfer from theory to practice, from practice to practice, and from practice back to theory, has built a knowledge base with scientific and societal relevance and benefits for academia and professional campus management. Over the years, inter-university networks have given many new and valuable insights to support (sustainable) campus decision making. This presentation/paper combines findings from past campus research with new findings - from Neva Wardenaar's research - about the different existing networks, drivers, barriers, and tools of knowledge sharing between universities, providing an answer to the main research question: “How can inter-university knowledge transfer support university campus managers to achieve the universities’ sustainability goals?”. Wardenaar's research also served as exploratory research for (and before) the larger inter-university Campus NL research (2023-2027) by TU Delft's Campus Research Team.
Through an extensive literature review, ten in-depth semi-structured interviews, strategy-analysis, and observations, Wardenaar's research concludes that universities have similar (sustainability) goals and that, by working together, they might accelerate the (decision-making) process of achieving these goals. Collectively, universities can acquire more funds, receive more guidance and get insights into what others are doing. This research provides an overview of the barriers and drivers of knowledge transfer that campus managers (working on the energy transition) are experiencing and contributes to the debate of knowledge transfer and (sustainable) campus management, with lessons beyond Campus NL. ...
Knowledge transfer from theory to practice, from practice to practice, and from practice back to theory, has built a knowledge base with scientific and societal relevance and benefits for academia and professional campus management. Over the years, inter-university networks have given many new and valuable insights to support (sustainable) campus decision making. This presentation/paper combines findings from past campus research with new findings - from Neva Wardenaar's research - about the different existing networks, drivers, barriers, and tools of knowledge sharing between universities, providing an answer to the main research question: “How can inter-university knowledge transfer support university campus managers to achieve the universities’ sustainability goals?”. Wardenaar's research also served as exploratory research for (and before) the larger inter-university Campus NL research (2023-2027) by TU Delft's Campus Research Team.
Through an extensive literature review, ten in-depth semi-structured interviews, strategy-analysis, and observations, Wardenaar's research concludes that universities have similar (sustainability) goals and that, by working together, they might accelerate the (decision-making) process of achieving these goals. Collectively, universities can acquire more funds, receive more guidance and get insights into what others are doing. This research provides an overview of the barriers and drivers of knowledge transfer that campus managers (working on the energy transition) are experiencing and contributes to the debate of knowledge transfer and (sustainable) campus management, with lessons beyond Campus NL. ...
Knowledge transfer in campus management has a decades-long history in the Netherlands, ever since the Dutch (research) universities became owners of their university buildings and land in the nineties. The shared challenges have urged universities to join forces and exchange insights about their solutions. One of those pressing challenges has been sustainability. Since 2008, long-term agreements on energy-efficiency have become effective in the Netherlands for various sectors. Higher education was one of these sectors and - as a result - universities have developed sustainable visions and road maps for their campuses. At the same time, universities started to improve inter-university knowledge exchange, in general and about sustainability in particular.
Knowledge transfer from theory to practice, from practice to practice, and from practice back to theory, has built a knowledge base with scientific and societal relevance and benefits for academia and professional campus management. Over the years, inter-university networks have given many new and valuable insights to support (sustainable) campus decision making. This presentation/paper combines findings from past campus research with new findings - from Neva Wardenaar's research - about the different existing networks, drivers, barriers, and tools of knowledge sharing between universities, providing an answer to the main research question: “How can inter-university knowledge transfer support university campus managers to achieve the universities’ sustainability goals?”. Wardenaar's research also served as exploratory research for (and before) the larger inter-university Campus NL research (2023-2027) by TU Delft's Campus Research Team.
Through an extensive literature review, ten in-depth semi-structured interviews, strategy-analysis, and observations, Wardenaar's research concludes that universities have similar (sustainability) goals and that, by working together, they might accelerate the (decision-making) process of achieving these goals. Collectively, universities can acquire more funds, receive more guidance and get insights into what others are doing. This research provides an overview of the barriers and drivers of knowledge transfer that campus managers (working on the energy transition) are experiencing and contributes to the debate of knowledge transfer and (sustainable) campus management, with lessons beyond Campus NL.
Knowledge transfer from theory to practice, from practice to practice, and from practice back to theory, has built a knowledge base with scientific and societal relevance and benefits for academia and professional campus management. Over the years, inter-university networks have given many new and valuable insights to support (sustainable) campus decision making. This presentation/paper combines findings from past campus research with new findings - from Neva Wardenaar's research - about the different existing networks, drivers, barriers, and tools of knowledge sharing between universities, providing an answer to the main research question: “How can inter-university knowledge transfer support university campus managers to achieve the universities’ sustainability goals?”. Wardenaar's research also served as exploratory research for (and before) the larger inter-university Campus NL research (2023-2027) by TU Delft's Campus Research Team.
Through an extensive literature review, ten in-depth semi-structured interviews, strategy-analysis, and observations, Wardenaar's research concludes that universities have similar (sustainability) goals and that, by working together, they might accelerate the (decision-making) process of achieving these goals. Collectively, universities can acquire more funds, receive more guidance and get insights into what others are doing. This research provides an overview of the barriers and drivers of knowledge transfer that campus managers (working on the energy transition) are experiencing and contributes to the debate of knowledge transfer and (sustainable) campus management, with lessons beyond Campus NL.
Universities experience similar challenges related to hybrid working, climate change, student accommodation, and so on. One of the aims of Campus NL is to pool the resources and knowledge of the 14 Dutch universities to solve these problems jointly and efficiently. This requires learning from others rather than reinventing the wheel or solving individual challenges. To facilitate this process, Campus NL will closely link science and practice to make inter-university learning easier. [...]
...
Universities experience similar challenges related to hybrid working, climate change, student accommodation, and so on. One of the aims of Campus NL is to pool the resources and knowledge of the 14 Dutch universities to solve these problems jointly and efficiently. This requires learning from others rather than reinventing the wheel or solving individual challenges. To facilitate this process, Campus NL will closely link science and practice to make inter-university learning easier. [...]
Journal article
(2023)
-
J.F. Azcarate Aguerre, A.C. den Heijer, M.H. Arkesteijn, L.M. Vergara d'Alençon, T. Klein
Introduction: The challenge of the energy transition in the built environment has, in recent years, been exacerbated by rising awareness of the material resource limitations we face on the path towards sustainable development. In this context the concepts of Circular Economy (CE) and Product-Service Systems (PSS) have emerged as potentially complementary industrial and business strategies to overcome the interdependent material resource and clean energy challenges.
Research significance: Research in the field of circular and PSS-based construction frequently centres on the design and engineering of products, mainly through technical strategies such as design for disassembly and adaptability, and the use of the different “R’s” (Reuse, Repair, Remanufacturing, etc.) to extend and/or reset the service lives of building materials and components. Such an approach often ignores the fact that these strategies require changes in the management, financing, and governance aspects of products and therefore buildings, throughout their entire service-lives. This paper will focus on the systemic administrative (i.e. management, financing, and governance) challenges of the circular and servitisation transitions in the building and construction sector, to enable products which are “Circular by Design”, to effectively support regenerative processes.
Research question: The paper asks how traditional building products’ management, financing, and governance processes prevent or delay the implementation of CE and PSS models. It explores the demand side’s perspective (commissioners, building owners and facility managers), taking a systemic view to the search for new practical, strategic, and scalable administrative models.
Methodology: The research method applies the DAS model (De Jonge et al., 2009; Van der Zwart et al., 2009; den Heijer, 2011; den Heijer et al., 2016) to data gathered from focus group discussion and co-design sessions involving multidisciplinary teams of experts from both academy and industry, as well as literature. The research was conducted within the context of the TU Delft Facades-as-a-Service full-scale pilot project.
Results: The research has shown that, while PSS models to enable material circularity can be partially implemented within the current managerial, financial, and governance framework, this implementation is not efficient, effective, or scalable. This is because standard modes of operation in these disciplines are misaligned with that goal. The practical barriers resulting from this misalignment increase the complexity, risk perception, and therefore cost of PSS alternatives, and thus prevent their organic adoption despite increasing market interest. Recommendations are made for policymakers, financiers, suppliers, and building owners to overcome these barriers. ...
Research significance: Research in the field of circular and PSS-based construction frequently centres on the design and engineering of products, mainly through technical strategies such as design for disassembly and adaptability, and the use of the different “R’s” (Reuse, Repair, Remanufacturing, etc.) to extend and/or reset the service lives of building materials and components. Such an approach often ignores the fact that these strategies require changes in the management, financing, and governance aspects of products and therefore buildings, throughout their entire service-lives. This paper will focus on the systemic administrative (i.e. management, financing, and governance) challenges of the circular and servitisation transitions in the building and construction sector, to enable products which are “Circular by Design”, to effectively support regenerative processes.
Research question: The paper asks how traditional building products’ management, financing, and governance processes prevent or delay the implementation of CE and PSS models. It explores the demand side’s perspective (commissioners, building owners and facility managers), taking a systemic view to the search for new practical, strategic, and scalable administrative models.
Methodology: The research method applies the DAS model (De Jonge et al., 2009; Van der Zwart et al., 2009; den Heijer, 2011; den Heijer et al., 2016) to data gathered from focus group discussion and co-design sessions involving multidisciplinary teams of experts from both academy and industry, as well as literature. The research was conducted within the context of the TU Delft Facades-as-a-Service full-scale pilot project.
Results: The research has shown that, while PSS models to enable material circularity can be partially implemented within the current managerial, financial, and governance framework, this implementation is not efficient, effective, or scalable. This is because standard modes of operation in these disciplines are misaligned with that goal. The practical barriers resulting from this misalignment increase the complexity, risk perception, and therefore cost of PSS alternatives, and thus prevent their organic adoption despite increasing market interest. Recommendations are made for policymakers, financiers, suppliers, and building owners to overcome these barriers. ...
Introduction: The challenge of the energy transition in the built environment has, in recent years, been exacerbated by rising awareness of the material resource limitations we face on the path towards sustainable development. In this context the concepts of Circular Economy (CE) and Product-Service Systems (PSS) have emerged as potentially complementary industrial and business strategies to overcome the interdependent material resource and clean energy challenges.
Research significance: Research in the field of circular and PSS-based construction frequently centres on the design and engineering of products, mainly through technical strategies such as design for disassembly and adaptability, and the use of the different “R’s” (Reuse, Repair, Remanufacturing, etc.) to extend and/or reset the service lives of building materials and components. Such an approach often ignores the fact that these strategies require changes in the management, financing, and governance aspects of products and therefore buildings, throughout their entire service-lives. This paper will focus on the systemic administrative (i.e. management, financing, and governance) challenges of the circular and servitisation transitions in the building and construction sector, to enable products which are “Circular by Design”, to effectively support regenerative processes.
Research question: The paper asks how traditional building products’ management, financing, and governance processes prevent or delay the implementation of CE and PSS models. It explores the demand side’s perspective (commissioners, building owners and facility managers), taking a systemic view to the search for new practical, strategic, and scalable administrative models.
Methodology: The research method applies the DAS model (De Jonge et al., 2009; Van der Zwart et al., 2009; den Heijer, 2011; den Heijer et al., 2016) to data gathered from focus group discussion and co-design sessions involving multidisciplinary teams of experts from both academy and industry, as well as literature. The research was conducted within the context of the TU Delft Facades-as-a-Service full-scale pilot project.
Results: The research has shown that, while PSS models to enable material circularity can be partially implemented within the current managerial, financial, and governance framework, this implementation is not efficient, effective, or scalable. This is because standard modes of operation in these disciplines are misaligned with that goal. The practical barriers resulting from this misalignment increase the complexity, risk perception, and therefore cost of PSS alternatives, and thus prevent their organic adoption despite increasing market interest. Recommendations are made for policymakers, financiers, suppliers, and building owners to overcome these barriers.
Research significance: Research in the field of circular and PSS-based construction frequently centres on the design and engineering of products, mainly through technical strategies such as design for disassembly and adaptability, and the use of the different “R’s” (Reuse, Repair, Remanufacturing, etc.) to extend and/or reset the service lives of building materials and components. Such an approach often ignores the fact that these strategies require changes in the management, financing, and governance aspects of products and therefore buildings, throughout their entire service-lives. This paper will focus on the systemic administrative (i.e. management, financing, and governance) challenges of the circular and servitisation transitions in the building and construction sector, to enable products which are “Circular by Design”, to effectively support regenerative processes.
Research question: The paper asks how traditional building products’ management, financing, and governance processes prevent or delay the implementation of CE and PSS models. It explores the demand side’s perspective (commissioners, building owners and facility managers), taking a systemic view to the search for new practical, strategic, and scalable administrative models.
Methodology: The research method applies the DAS model (De Jonge et al., 2009; Van der Zwart et al., 2009; den Heijer, 2011; den Heijer et al., 2016) to data gathered from focus group discussion and co-design sessions involving multidisciplinary teams of experts from both academy and industry, as well as literature. The research was conducted within the context of the TU Delft Facades-as-a-Service full-scale pilot project.
Results: The research has shown that, while PSS models to enable material circularity can be partially implemented within the current managerial, financial, and governance framework, this implementation is not efficient, effective, or scalable. This is because standard modes of operation in these disciplines are misaligned with that goal. The practical barriers resulting from this misalignment increase the complexity, risk perception, and therefore cost of PSS alternatives, and thus prevent their organic adoption despite increasing market interest. Recommendations are made for policymakers, financiers, suppliers, and building owners to overcome these barriers.
Journal article
(2023)
-
Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, Thijs Voulon, Lisanne Bergefurt, Monique Arkesteijn, Bartele Hoekstra, Pity Jongens Van der Schaaf
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, office workers were obliged to work from home (WFH). Alongside known positive aspects of home-based telework, it is associated with reduced health and productivity impacts. Its success depends on employee and environmental characteristics. OBJECTIVE: This paper fills the gap in knowledge on the mediating role of health between personal and environmental factors and employee productivity, when obliged to work from home full-time. It covers health in full (physical, mental, and social) unlike other WFH studies. METHODS: Two large survey-based datasets (gathered April 27th - November 20th, 2020) were analysed resp. with a path model and descriptive analyses. The data provide experiences on health and productivity of resp. 25,058 and 18,859 Dutch office workers from different public organisations, who were obliged to work from home during the COVID-19 lockdowns. RESULTS: In general, the workers in the sample perceived their health to be quite good. Path analysis revealed that gender, age, education, the at-home workspace, the presence of children in the household, and perceived organisational support were significantly related to self-perceived productivity. However, most of these effects were found to be mediated by physical, mental, and/or social health indicators. Possible explanations for health issues from the descriptive analyses were sedentary behaviour, unsuitable furniture, having to be at home, social isolation and changed content and frequency of contact with colleagues. CONCLUSION: Findings imply that specifically engagement and organisational support of teleworkers are most relevant to steer on to ensure productivity while WFH.
...
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, office workers were obliged to work from home (WFH). Alongside known positive aspects of home-based telework, it is associated with reduced health and productivity impacts. Its success depends on employee and environmental characteristics. OBJECTIVE: This paper fills the gap in knowledge on the mediating role of health between personal and environmental factors and employee productivity, when obliged to work from home full-time. It covers health in full (physical, mental, and social) unlike other WFH studies. METHODS: Two large survey-based datasets (gathered April 27th - November 20th, 2020) were analysed resp. with a path model and descriptive analyses. The data provide experiences on health and productivity of resp. 25,058 and 18,859 Dutch office workers from different public organisations, who were obliged to work from home during the COVID-19 lockdowns. RESULTS: In general, the workers in the sample perceived their health to be quite good. Path analysis revealed that gender, age, education, the at-home workspace, the presence of children in the household, and perceived organisational support were significantly related to self-perceived productivity. However, most of these effects were found to be mediated by physical, mental, and/or social health indicators. Possible explanations for health issues from the descriptive analyses were sedentary behaviour, unsuitable furniture, having to be at home, social isolation and changed content and frequency of contact with colleagues. CONCLUSION: Findings imply that specifically engagement and organisational support of teleworkers are most relevant to steer on to ensure productivity while WFH.
Internationally, the ambition to achieve a sustainable built environment is becoming urgent. On the university campus, this vision, combined with unparalleled access to innovative technologies for sustainable development enables/urges universities to implement more innovative solutions more often. As a prime test location, the university campus is uniquely able to serve as a context for living labs, implementing and testing innovative technologies in a real-world environment. However, implementation of innovation on campus requires a clear vision, intentional action and transdisciplinary collaboration, while innovations themselves pose several challenges to the business-as-usual way of work. To explore the role of campus real estate managers in innovation implementation decisions on the university campus, a literature review and a qualitative study among campus managers of 13 Dutch universities were conducted. The research explored the innovation project types, risks, drivers and barriers and the real estate management responsibilities and decision criteria in innovation implementation projects. As one of the outputs of this research, a comprehensive categorization framework was developed. It clarifies campus managers’ decision-making dimensions for innovative sustainability project implementation on campus and highlights the sustainability objectives unique to universities. If implemented across universities, it could further strengthen the networked economy by identifying opportunities for cross-campus implementation of innovative projects for sustainability.
...
Internationally, the ambition to achieve a sustainable built environment is becoming urgent. On the university campus, this vision, combined with unparalleled access to innovative technologies for sustainable development enables/urges universities to implement more innovative solutions more often. As a prime test location, the university campus is uniquely able to serve as a context for living labs, implementing and testing innovative technologies in a real-world environment. However, implementation of innovation on campus requires a clear vision, intentional action and transdisciplinary collaboration, while innovations themselves pose several challenges to the business-as-usual way of work. To explore the role of campus real estate managers in innovation implementation decisions on the university campus, a literature review and a qualitative study among campus managers of 13 Dutch universities were conducted. The research explored the innovation project types, risks, drivers and barriers and the real estate management responsibilities and decision criteria in innovation implementation projects. As one of the outputs of this research, a comprehensive categorization framework was developed. It clarifies campus managers’ decision-making dimensions for innovative sustainability project implementation on campus and highlights the sustainability objectives unique to universities. If implemented across universities, it could further strengthen the networked economy by identifying opportunities for cross-campus implementation of innovative projects for sustainability.
Practice what you preach
Adoption of internal campus innovations at Dutch research-intensive universities
Journal article
(2022)
-
Małgorzata Rymarzak, Alexandra den Heijer, Monique Arkesteijn, Mathilda Du Preez
Campus decision makers are increasingly expected to adopt ‘campus innovations’ (affecting real estate and different facilities), not only from the market and demand-led (external campus innovations), but also developed by the university's own scientists (internal campus innovations). The adoption of the latter can be driven and hindered by many unique factors that campus decision makers have not dealt with before. To provide insight into them, qualitative data were collected from 13 out of 14 Dutch research-intensive universities. The results indicate that internal campus innovations are driven by co-creation stimulation, collaborative partnership, transparency and accountability, and local development contribution. Their adoption, however, may be obstructed by barriers embedded in the interaction between campus decision makers and scientists, organizational university context, funds unavailability and innovations' supply-pushed characteristics. An increased understanding of these barriers and the practices to overcome them is crucial for universities' campus decision makers to actively engage in the adoption of internal campus innovations.
...
Campus decision makers are increasingly expected to adopt ‘campus innovations’ (affecting real estate and different facilities), not only from the market and demand-led (external campus innovations), but also developed by the university's own scientists (internal campus innovations). The adoption of the latter can be driven and hindered by many unique factors that campus decision makers have not dealt with before. To provide insight into them, qualitative data were collected from 13 out of 14 Dutch research-intensive universities. The results indicate that internal campus innovations are driven by co-creation stimulation, collaborative partnership, transparency and accountability, and local development contribution. Their adoption, however, may be obstructed by barriers embedded in the interaction between campus decision makers and scientists, organizational university context, funds unavailability and innovations' supply-pushed characteristics. An increased understanding of these barriers and the practices to overcome them is crucial for universities' campus decision makers to actively engage in the adoption of internal campus innovations.
Campus as inter-disciplinary technological playground for sustainable technology experiments and implementation is a dream TU Delft strives for. However, innovation implementation on the university campus is nonetheless considered a risk due to the embedded uncertainty of any innovation. This uncertainty leads to several questions about the decisions to implement innovations on campus. Answering this question is the motivation behind this study, aimed at enabling effective implementation of innovation on our campus. We identified the decision making criteria used by a variety of employees who regularly face innovation implementation challenges on campus on campus.
We used two decision support systems to identify and explain the relative importance of the decision making criteria. The first approach was executed by a TU Delft spin-off Councyl.ai. Councyl.ai’s decision support model was built to identify the decision-making criteria and then through a choice experiment identify the relative weight of those criteria.
In a second approach, the PAS design and decision approach, developed by Prof. Monique Arkesteijn from TU Delft (2019), was used to develop the decision framework and relative importance of each criteria.
This project has been successful in distilling the most important criteria used during implicit assessment of innovation projects on campus, a great achievement in itself. However these two approaches do not indicate the same relative weight of the decision-making criteria, suggesting that innovation projects are very diverse and the importance of criteria change along with the project description and context for implementation.
This brings us one step closer to clearly communicating to innovators and amongst ourselves which decision-making criteria are implicitly taken into consideration for implementation of innovation on campus. It clarifies the steps that need to be taken to manage and mitigate risk, and increase the likelihood of innovators registering their interest in placing their innovations on campus, as well as the likelihood that campus managers will allocate the necessary resources to the project.
We trust this report, in conjunction with the other research projects run at the Campus research team, will be beneficial in providing the necessary support for decision making about sustainable innovation on the university campus. Making the campus a reputable technological showroom of every aspirational clean energy, climate adaptive and circular innovation on the TU Delft campus and beyond. ...
We used two decision support systems to identify and explain the relative importance of the decision making criteria. The first approach was executed by a TU Delft spin-off Councyl.ai. Councyl.ai’s decision support model was built to identify the decision-making criteria and then through a choice experiment identify the relative weight of those criteria.
In a second approach, the PAS design and decision approach, developed by Prof. Monique Arkesteijn from TU Delft (2019), was used to develop the decision framework and relative importance of each criteria.
This project has been successful in distilling the most important criteria used during implicit assessment of innovation projects on campus, a great achievement in itself. However these two approaches do not indicate the same relative weight of the decision-making criteria, suggesting that innovation projects are very diverse and the importance of criteria change along with the project description and context for implementation.
This brings us one step closer to clearly communicating to innovators and amongst ourselves which decision-making criteria are implicitly taken into consideration for implementation of innovation on campus. It clarifies the steps that need to be taken to manage and mitigate risk, and increase the likelihood of innovators registering their interest in placing their innovations on campus, as well as the likelihood that campus managers will allocate the necessary resources to the project.
We trust this report, in conjunction with the other research projects run at the Campus research team, will be beneficial in providing the necessary support for decision making about sustainable innovation on the university campus. Making the campus a reputable technological showroom of every aspirational clean energy, climate adaptive and circular innovation on the TU Delft campus and beyond. ...
Campus as inter-disciplinary technological playground for sustainable technology experiments and implementation is a dream TU Delft strives for. However, innovation implementation on the university campus is nonetheless considered a risk due to the embedded uncertainty of any innovation. This uncertainty leads to several questions about the decisions to implement innovations on campus. Answering this question is the motivation behind this study, aimed at enabling effective implementation of innovation on our campus. We identified the decision making criteria used by a variety of employees who regularly face innovation implementation challenges on campus on campus.
We used two decision support systems to identify and explain the relative importance of the decision making criteria. The first approach was executed by a TU Delft spin-off Councyl.ai. Councyl.ai’s decision support model was built to identify the decision-making criteria and then through a choice experiment identify the relative weight of those criteria.
In a second approach, the PAS design and decision approach, developed by Prof. Monique Arkesteijn from TU Delft (2019), was used to develop the decision framework and relative importance of each criteria.
This project has been successful in distilling the most important criteria used during implicit assessment of innovation projects on campus, a great achievement in itself. However these two approaches do not indicate the same relative weight of the decision-making criteria, suggesting that innovation projects are very diverse and the importance of criteria change along with the project description and context for implementation.
This brings us one step closer to clearly communicating to innovators and amongst ourselves which decision-making criteria are implicitly taken into consideration for implementation of innovation on campus. It clarifies the steps that need to be taken to manage and mitigate risk, and increase the likelihood of innovators registering their interest in placing their innovations on campus, as well as the likelihood that campus managers will allocate the necessary resources to the project.
We trust this report, in conjunction with the other research projects run at the Campus research team, will be beneficial in providing the necessary support for decision making about sustainable innovation on the university campus. Making the campus a reputable technological showroom of every aspirational clean energy, climate adaptive and circular innovation on the TU Delft campus and beyond.
We used two decision support systems to identify and explain the relative importance of the decision making criteria. The first approach was executed by a TU Delft spin-off Councyl.ai. Councyl.ai’s decision support model was built to identify the decision-making criteria and then through a choice experiment identify the relative weight of those criteria.
In a second approach, the PAS design and decision approach, developed by Prof. Monique Arkesteijn from TU Delft (2019), was used to develop the decision framework and relative importance of each criteria.
This project has been successful in distilling the most important criteria used during implicit assessment of innovation projects on campus, a great achievement in itself. However these two approaches do not indicate the same relative weight of the decision-making criteria, suggesting that innovation projects are very diverse and the importance of criteria change along with the project description and context for implementation.
This brings us one step closer to clearly communicating to innovators and amongst ourselves which decision-making criteria are implicitly taken into consideration for implementation of innovation on campus. It clarifies the steps that need to be taken to manage and mitigate risk, and increase the likelihood of innovators registering their interest in placing their innovations on campus, as well as the likelihood that campus managers will allocate the necessary resources to the project.
We trust this report, in conjunction with the other research projects run at the Campus research team, will be beneficial in providing the necessary support for decision making about sustainable innovation on the university campus. Making the campus a reputable technological showroom of every aspirational clean energy, climate adaptive and circular innovation on the TU Delft campus and beyond.
Journal article
(2021)
-
Bart Valks, Elizabeth Blokland, Catelijne Elissen, Iris van Loon, Danko Roozemond, Paul Uiterdijk, Monique Arkesteijn, Alexander Koutamanis, Alexandra Den Heijer
Purpose: Across the world, many universities are dealing with a pressure on resources, caused by both organisational developments and ageing campuses. Space utilization studies have a strategic role, providing information on how space is being used, thereby informing decisions about the type and scale of facilities that are needed. Design/methodology/approach: This study reports on the space use measurements conducted at TU Delft over the past five years, complemented by their use to make decisions about the university's real estate portfolio. Findings: The education spaces of the university are found to perform well in terms of frequency rates and can be improved in terms of occupancy rates. The information helped to support short- and long-term decision-making. The study places of the university have a satisfactory occupancy in some types of study places, while in others there is room for improvement. More research is needed here to understand the relationship between space norms and space use. Practical implications: The space utilization studies have supported discussions with the student council and decision makers on which interventions are required and which current facilities meet students' needs best. Originality/value: Not much space utilisation studies are reported in the academic literature, and those that do have several limitations. This study may serve as a best practice for benchmarking by other universities and as evidence in other research for the planned and actual use of university facilities.
...
Purpose: Across the world, many universities are dealing with a pressure on resources, caused by both organisational developments and ageing campuses. Space utilization studies have a strategic role, providing information on how space is being used, thereby informing decisions about the type and scale of facilities that are needed. Design/methodology/approach: This study reports on the space use measurements conducted at TU Delft over the past five years, complemented by their use to make decisions about the university's real estate portfolio. Findings: The education spaces of the university are found to perform well in terms of frequency rates and can be improved in terms of occupancy rates. The information helped to support short- and long-term decision-making. The study places of the university have a satisfactory occupancy in some types of study places, while in others there is room for improvement. More research is needed here to understand the relationship between space norms and space use. Practical implications: The space utilization studies have supported discussions with the student council and decision makers on which interventions are required and which current facilities meet students' needs best. Originality/value: Not much space utilisation studies are reported in the academic literature, and those that do have several limitations. This study may serve as a best practice for benchmarking by other universities and as evidence in other research for the planned and actual use of university facilities.