9.1 USER EXPERIENCE IN AN ACADEMIC COWORKING …ADF is a multi-user academic innovation hub type of...

CIB Facilities Management Conference 2014 Technical University of Denmark

341

9.1

USER EXPERIENCE IN AN ACADEMIC COWORKING PLACE: THE CASE OF AALTO UNIVERSITY’S DESIGN FACTORY

Inka Kojo

Aalto University School of Engineering, Built Environment Services (BES) Research Group [email protected] +358 50 5769729

Suvi Nenonen

Aalto University School of Engineering, Built Environment Services (BES) Research Group [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The purpose of this paper was to identify the element of user experience that the Aalto University Design Factory building should support, why and with which spatial solu-tions. Aalto University Design Factory is an innovation hub type for a coworking place locat-ed in Aalto University’s Otaniemi Campus area (Espoo, Finland). Background: The function of academic environments is transforming. Formal learning envi-ronments are being accompanied by mix of coworking spaces that facilitate informal learning and collaboration. A user experience-centred approach can provide concrete solutions that allow the workplace planners and managers to meet today’s educational needs. Approach: This aim was achieved using mixed-method research consisting of a digital sur-vey answered by 101 respondents, including students, staff members, researchers, visitors and start-up entrepreneurs. The 6T-model was adapted for the survey to capture the user’s experience of places. Based on the results, 15 in-depth thematic interviews were completed with the participation of members of the distinct user groups. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview data. Results: The results describe the six elements of user experience that the ADF buildings should support by highlighting the reasoning behind each element’s importance and by intro-ducing spatial solutions and services that support these issues. Practical implications: In practice, the findings of this research can be applied by facility and workplace practitioners when developing attractive coworking spaces. Research limitations: To increase the level of generalisation, the results should be investi-gated in other coworking spaces and by separating the distinct user groups. Originality/value: Today, coworking spaces seems to be the subject of increasing academic discussion. Thus, this research supports the latest usability research trends in that context by focusing on user experiences. Keywords: Usability, User experience, Coworking space, Academic learning environment


342

1 INTRODUCTION

The core skills required in today’s economy are believed to include creativity, interdiscipli-nary thinking, problem solving and the ability to collaborate with others (Bilandzic & Foth, 2013). Education and its environments should support the acquisition of these qualities to educate successful future workers. Investigating the viewpoints of the users of academic en-vironments, including both students and staff, can help meet this challenge. To improve their performance, academic institutions need to evaluate users’ experiences with their facilities and services. The post-occupancy evaluation method introduced by Preiser et al. (1988) is the best-known method for evaluating buildings. However, most satisfaction studies focus on the building, rather than on users’ experiences and primary processes. There have been calls for methods for understanding the experiences and behavioural aspects (Al-exander, 2008; Inalhan, 2009) of campus facilities’ main users, such as the students and staff. The widely applied ISO 9241-11 standard defines usability as “the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specific context of use” (ISO, 1998). Lately, a redefinition has been suggest-ed that substitutes ‘experience’ for ‘satisfaction’ (Alexander, 2010). Therefore, user experi-ence is considered one of the main concepts in the development of learning and working en-vironments and in their usability (Lindahl et al., 2010; Thomas; 2012). Hence, this study investigated users’ experience of the learning environment in the context of academic coworking spaces with an aim of identifying development possibilities and solu-tions. This aim was achieved via the following research questions: (1) What are the most es-sential elements of user experience that the Aalto Design Factory (ADF) building should support and why, and (2) Through which spatial solutions and services can these elements be supported? ADF is a multi-user academic innovation hub type of coworking place situated in the Ota-niemi Campus area (Espoo, Finland). It has been described as a space for multidisciplinary innovation (Himanen et al., 2011). ADF has functioned as a cross-disciplinary project of Aal-to University since 2008. ADF is located in a late 1950s building of approximately 4,000 m2 (gross floor area). It is estimated that 500 interdisciplinary students, 31 ADF staff members, 20 teachers and professors, 5 research groups and 4 companies participated in study activities during the 2011-2012 academic year (ADF, 2012). This paper is divided into four chapters. After the introduction, the state of the art is presented and the methodology is explained. The results are then discussed. The final chapter consists of a discussion about the practical implications of the results, the study’s limitations and fu-ture research possibilities.

2 STATE OF THE ART

Learning can take place in both formal and informal settings (McLaughlin & Faulker, 2012). Informal learning relates to learning from other people during social interaction and in less-formal learning environments (Eraut, 2004). The significance of social and collaborative learning has been emphasised in recent learning space discussions (McLaughlin & Faulker, 2012). Matthews et al. (2011) suggest that physical learning environments should include


343

purpose-built informal social learning spaces to enhance the student experience and strength-en student engagement. These spaces should be flexible in a sense of adaptability to both in-dividual and collaborative work and should have a strong emphasis on social learning and advanced technology (McLaughlin & Faulker, 2012). Informal learning environments have been referred to in previous literature using many names, such as creative spaces (Jankowska & Atlay, 2008), third-space learning environments (McLaughlin & Faulker, 2012) and coworking spaces (Bilandzic & Foth, 2013, Lumley, 2013). Coworking refers to the co-localisation of group of people with different backgrounds to the same work environment (see, e.g., Spinuzzi, 2013; Parrino, 2013). The spaces and tools are at least to some extent shared among the users (see, e.g., Bostman & Rogers, 2010; Huwart et al., 2012). Some of the coworking spaces emphasise certain values as a base of their func-tion, and Olma (2012) argues that this values-based orientation distinguishes coworking spaces from traditional office environments. These values are collaboration, openness, com-munity, accessibility and sustainability (see, e.g., Bates, 2006; DeGuzman & Tang, 2011; Olma, 2012). Thus, in addition to sharing a physical workplace, coworking can also include activities that enhance collaboration and community building (Parrino, 2013). Consequently, coworking is seen as social working with an emphasis on interaction with other workers (Spinuzzi, 2012). Some coworking spaces are staffed by a host (or community coordinator, coworking space manager or community manager) (Bates, 2006; Huwart et al., 2012) who works to sustain and develop the community. It has been claimed that students would benefit greatly from becoming more entrepreneurial in their thinking (Lumley, 2013). This change in thinking can happen in innovation hub-type academic coworking spaces, which represent the academic version of creative industry busi-ness incubators that enhances early sector development by combining aspects of the olds art-ists’ studio spaces with the serviced office space model (Montgomery, 2007). The collabora-tive aspects are essential. A study about university campus incubators showed that incubation occurs via a co-production process and depends on the voluntary and active participation of the customer firms or users and on the quality of human relationships (Ahmad & Ingle, 2011). 3 METHODOLOGY

The mixed-methods approach was used in this investigation. The mixed-methods approach is defined as “the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 17). More specifically, the study implemented the explanatory sequential design process of mixed method research (Creswell et al., 2011). The research process consisted of two phases, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The design of the research process (adapted from Creswell et al., 2011, p.69)


344

The aim of the ADF survey was to understand the elements of user experience that the ADF building should support. An experience-based usability framework categorised six different dimensions. The so-called 6T model was applied as a framework for the predicate questions to capture the intangible elements of user experience of places. This experience-based usabil-ity framework was developed based on customer experience design practices (Diller et al., 2006) and has been applied in different user experience-centred spaces and urban environ-ment research and development situations (see Kojo et al., 2011; Kojo et al., 2013; Tähtinen et al., forthcoming). The model was developed through abductive reasoning. The first version of the model was developed in Finnish and was followed by two English versions. The earlier English version was reported by Nenonen and Kojo (2013); subsequently, the model was further advanced by Tähtinen et al. (forthcoming). The aim of the experience-based usability framework 6T model is to integrate the different user experience elements of a place into one holistic model that consists of six dimensions: tune, tempo, task, tie, tale and theme. These overlapping dimensions provide a framework for structuring the user’s holistic, intangible experience of a place. “Tune” refers to a place’s atmosphere, which is created through the sensory environment and cognitive symbols. “Tem-po” relates to time and includes such issues as the place’s rhythm and its use and sense of time. “Task” relates to functional issues, such as how the users can accomplish their tasks in the place. “Tie” relates to usability matters, such as learnability and ease of use. “Tale” ex-presses the narrative of the place, such as the continuity and consistency of its story and the visibility of history in the environment. Finally, “theme” relates to the importance and mean-ing of the place to its users and refers to such topics as support of users’ identity and values (Nenonen & Kojo, 2013; Tähtinen et al., forthcoming). The 6T model for capturing the user experience of places is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: The 6T model for capturing the user experience of places (adapted from Nenonen & Kojo, 2013; Tähtinen et al., forthcoming)

T-concept Area of con-cern Topics

Tune Atmosphere Sensory environment and cognitive symbols

Tempo Time Use of time, sense of time and rhythm, history

Task Functionality Modifiability and support of activities and performance

Tie Familiarity Learnability and ease of use, memorability

Tale Story Continuity and consistency of the story and narrative, visibility of history

Theme Meaning Support of users’ identity and values

The survey took place in March-May 2012. It included eight background questions and six predicate questions addressing the necessary user experiences of the building. Each of the predicate questions included 6 claims based on the aforementioned framework, consisting of 36 claims altogether (presented in Appendix 1). The respondents were asked to rate these claims on a one to five response scale (very unimportant – very important) regarding the im-portance that the ADF building addresses the claim. Altogether, 101 respondents participated in the survey; 41 were students, and 43 were staff members including ADF staff members, researchers, and teachers. Participants from the other user groups were also involved, includ-ing visitors (13), and start-up entrepreneurs (4) who had offices in the ADF.


345

The survey was followed by interviews, with an aim to understand why the elements of user experience that were reported in the survey study were considered important and by which spatial solutions they could be supported. Fifteen of the survey participants participated in recorded and focused (or semi-structured) interviews that were approximately 30 minutes long. The interviewees consisted of 8 staff representatives, 4 students and 3 start-up entrepre-neurs. The focused interview is a qualitative research method. It consists of a sequence of themes and questions that are covered during the interview while retaining openness to changes in the sequence and form of the questions. This format enables the interviewer to follow up on the answers given and the stories told by the interviewees (Kvale, 1996, p. 124). The interviews took place in April-June 2012. During the interviews, the highest rated theme was discussed in terms of its importance to the interviewee and which spatial solutions could be used to support it. The interview data were analysed using thematic analysis, “a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns within data.” 4 RESULTS

4.1 Most important elements of user experience Based on the survey results, the elements of user experience users felt the ADF building should support can be seen in Figure 2, which shows the mean values of the highest-rated user experience claims of the ADF survey. All claims and their mean response values are shown in Appendix 1. The top rated claims were related to tie (4.4) and task (4.4), indicating that the spaces in the ADF building should be welcoming and usable for many purposes. The next most important claims were related to theme (4.3) and tempo (4.3), indicating that the building should allow its users to be themselves when using it and should have an informal atmosphere. The fifth rated claim was related to tune (4.2), indicating that the users pay par-ticular attention to the vibe or feeling of the place more than to other sensory stimuli. The final claim was related to tale (4.1), showing that the ADF building’s users consider it im-portant that the activities taking place in the building are visible to them.

Figure 2: Elements of user experience that the ADF building should support

4.2 Elements of the ADF users’ experience Based on the interview analysis, the user experience elements that the ADF building should support are described in the following chapters in terms of why they are considered im-portant. Additionally, examples of supporting spatial solutions and services are provided. Sense of a welcoming place A place with a welcoming atmosphere may be attractive, as one student stated: “If it was a closed group, it would be good for the people inside, but outsiders with new ideas would not


346

come.” A staff member described the change in visitors’ behaviours as follows: “Suited men with stiff body language… often, when we walk around the building, it changes… they ask many more questions and even laugh intermittently, and their body language becomes more relaxed.” It was generally reported that it is the people who create the welcoming feeling and not the physical space. As an entrepreneur described, “It emerges from the operating model that you say hello to people, speak to strangers and dare to encounter others.” However, spatial solutions and services were also seen to have an effect on the welcoming atmosphere. A researcher noted the importance of knowing that the place is accessible every day at all hours even before one’s first visit. Users who do not have an access key can enter by ringing the doorbell. A staff member commented on this convention as follows: “When you come here, you have to ring the doorbell, and then somebody answers… you can tell if this person is smiling or not even just by hearing the voice.” The importance of this situation was further stated: “It's a little detail that creates the first impression of what the whole expe-rience is going to be like.” Regarding the interior of the ADF, an entrepreneur valued the fact that “When you enter the main door, you arrive right in the middle of action.” A staff mem-ber considered the suitable layout for the lobby space: “There is furniture that communicates that you can sit and spend more than two minutes there… not just wait for the meeting to start.” According to that staff member, a solution would be providing “furnishing that is com-fortable… for example, what is used in cafeteria-like environments.” The freedom to use the spaces and their availability via a general-use policy create a welcoming atmosphere. In addi-tion to reservable spaces, there are many facilities that can be used without a reservation. As an entrepreneur emphasised, “The basis is that if the space is not reserved, you can use it”. Possibilities for multi-use of the building and spaces According to the survey results, multi-use means the flexibility of the facilities to adapt to and support users’ distinct activities. Multi-use was seen to apply at both the building and space levels. A student described multi-use as follows: “There are several different spaces under the same roof that can be used for more than one use purpose”; for example, “You can have a lecture and do the related teamwork in the same space, and you can also go to an indi-vidual work space inside the same building and then come back.” The reasons given for the importance of multi-use facilities were diverse. A researcher noted that such facilities “sug-gest alternative ways of doing things,” and student said that they “help to expect unexpected.” More practical reasons for providing multi-use spaces related to the possibility of finding spaces that suit the users’ current activity and mood, as an entrepreneur said, or increasing the use rate, as some of the staff members explained. A student imagined the different space types of ADF as follows: “You have rooms for indi-vidual work, a very informal beanbag chair but also more formal teamwork and meeting spaces, many workshops and labs as well as bigger multi-use spaces.” A staff member de-scribed the use of these bigger spaces by saying that “you can arrange lectures, workshops, parties, exhibitions, dinners or anything else.” The results show that the furniture in the multi-use spaces should be easy to move. This can be accomplished by providing light furniture or furniture with wheels. A staff member emphasised that the facilities’ use policy may have an effect on its flexibility: “If the metal workshop closes its doors at 4 pm, its multi-use ends then.” In contrast, as a student noted, the building’s 24/7 availability policy makes it more flexible to use. A researcher praised the absence of certain rules that allow sticking notes to the walls, for example.


347

Permission to be oneself Although most of the interviewees mentioned that they feel as if they can be themselves all the time, the subject prompted discussion. The possibility of being oneself was generally de-scribed as not needing to act according to a strict behavioural model. As an entrepreneur put it, “You come and go as you will without needing to dress or talk in a certain way.” The ben-efits of being oneself were considered to relate to enhanced productivity and learning. It “al-lows you to work on your potential,” as a staff member explained. Another staff member em-phasised that “You dare to ask stupid questions… you cannot learn without asking ques-tions.” Another staff member said, “If you try with a negative attitude and then fail … maybe that's the last time that you will ever do it again.” The opportunity to be oneself was seen as something that is created more by the people than the space or services. As a staff member put it, “People are open, kind to each other and pas-sionate,” or equal to each other, as another staff member noted. The role of the managers is central because they provide an example to others of how to act, participate or even dress, as one staff member noted. Some spatial solutions and services were mentioned, such as the 24/7 opening times and spaces that enable informal interaction. The Kafis (the common kitchen-cafeteria at the ADF) was seen as an example of that type of place. Some users saw relaxing spaces as especially suitable. A researcher explained, “No traditional office look … you can do the same kind of things as at home, for instance, have coffee and sit on the sofa for a while… and be in your socks.” A welcoming feeling can result from small details, as one respondent mentioned: “There is a coat rack in the place where I need to hang my jack-et.” Informality and ease Some of the interviewees described the informal atmosphere of the place as the result of an equal and non-hierarchical work culture. Thus, as a researcher described, “We can talk and do things spontaneously without the formal preparation of meetings and permission-seeking.” A staff member noted informal interactions as she described that “in situations where we, for instance, play games during or after the work … we often touch upon work-related issues.” She further mentioned that “nobody gives you a dirty look if you talk with people in the cor-ridor about your weekend plans, and they may even join the conversation.” A student ex-plained the importance of the informal atmosphere to the campus environment by saying that “it creates the feeling that it is not compulsory for you to be here.” Another student further stated that “I don’t need to come to the campus anymore… unless I have courses with manda-tory attendance.” The student continued, “Informal and cosy environments have become the be-all and end-all of these kinds of places… otherwise, people do not come.” A researcher added to this discussion by saying that “without informality, everything would function in more inflexible way… and people wouldn’t come here anymore.” An entrepreneur described the informal space solution by saying that “if you think of it con-versely… a formal space has a main door, reception, a long corridor with private rooms and closed doors.” Thus, informal spaces are “open spaces without walls separating people,” as a student noted. Some of the staff members explained that they prefer offices with hot desks instead of personal desks. An entrepreneur mentioned places such as Kafis that bring people together because “the only coffee machine of the building is located there,” as a staff member explained. A researcher noted that Kafis provides opportunities to “easily exchange a word with people you don’t already know.” Additionally, the funny and playful elements of the


348

spaces were mentioned. These elements include a foosball table and other games, a meeting room with funny hats hanging on the wall and funny signposts. Inspiration and facilitation The atmosphere or ambience of a place was seen as the cumulative effect of the environment, including both the people and the design of the space. As one researcher commented, “When you are in the place, it is hard to say what it should be like to have a good atmosphere, but when I’m feeling good, then the atmosphere of the place is also most likely good.” The at-mosphere of the ADF was described using such terms as “immediate”, “open”, “dynamic” and “inspiring”. A student commented that “often you know what the ambience is in a lecture hall… here, it is unpredictable, and that is fascinating.” A staff member stated that the atmos-phere of the ADF cheers one up. The ADF’s atmosphere can also support learning, as one student stated: “If the atmosphere is formal and uptight, it may be harder to internalise some issues… when coming to a joyful atmosphere with a hands-on attitude, you might go along with the learning spiral.” This result is aligned with the findings of McLaughlin & Walker (2012), who point out the significance of informal settings and learning environments. Because the atmosphere was seen to be the result of people’s ways of communicating, spatial solutions and services were also considered to affect atmosphere. Bright colours and cosy spaces were frequently mentioned as solutions. In addition, matters such as the tone in which instructions are written and whether the doors were kept open were considered by a staff member. Another staff representative mentioned the rooms with imaginative decorations, such as a meeting room with birch forest wallpaper, and continued by imagining further pur-poses for these rooms: “These rooms could be designed to indicate a certain purpose, such as brainstorming.” Additionally, different materials and textures relating to the walls, floors or furniture were mentioned. For instance, a researcher considered the importance of carpets by saying, “If each step would clop on a stone floor, the atmosphere would be instantly differ-ent.” Constant narrative of spaces A staff member stated that “there has to be an argument for why spaces are designed the way they are.” Thus, the meaning of the constant narrative of the spaces was noted by a research-er: “The look and feel of space goes hand-in-hand with that we claim we do here,” or as a staff member put it, “They [spaces] have a convergent message.” The narrative of the spaces was seen to relate to how the space is communicated outwardly, as one researcher stated: “These spaces tell a story… what we do here and what the way of thinking is.” This story was told by an entrepreneur as follows: “To bring people together that wouldn’t otherwise meet.” Another entrepreneur also described the space’s story: “You can change thoughts, experiences, test and try … and there are different spaces to support the distinct phases of product development.” A student said, “This place correlates with the Aalto pioneering spirit and shows what Aalto can be at its best.” The narrative of spaces can be used to guide the users’ actions, as a staff member claimed: “A place has to communicate its purpose for exist-ence, what people do there and how you can participate… and the rules of use.” Another staff member justified the role of the narrative by saying that “we can validate our existence be-cause otherwise, outsiders may see this place as an adults’ amusement park.” Another staff member said, “We [ADF staff] have to tell the story during the tours, so it’s good that all of us know it.” The co-narrative of place was also seen as a tool for space development because it steers the action in the same direction.


349

Some spatial solutions that support the constant narrative of the spaces, such as the consistent look of guideposts and signs, were mentioned during the interviews. One staff member said, “We use many sticker guides [that are fastened to the furniture]… and the font is Aalto style.” The use of similar furniture and colours for decoration was also mentioned. The space’s instructions were further noted by a staff member: “If we want the space to remain orderly… do we scare the users… or communicate in fun way.” Another staff member nar-rated a situation that occurred after the placement of instructions with a picture of how the chairs should be left after the bigger multi-use spaces were used: “The chairs started to be stacked more often.” A researcher noted all types of prototypes and course posters that can be found in the ADF spaces: “They tell what has happened here and what had been possible to do.” The summary of the results can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of results

6 CONCLUSION

This research focused on investigating the user’s experience of an academic coworking place by applying the experience-based 6T usability framework model. The model proved to func-tion as a user experience research framework. The user experience of the ADF that was re-ported in this study arises from the activities of and interactions between its users, and its spatial solutions seem to support the users’ experience. The user groups that participated this study included students, researchers, staff members and entrepreneurs. Some of the user ex-periences were common to all participants, but indications of user group-specific experiences also arose. For instance, the ADF building seems to be especially suitable for students in product development courses. Other students might be uncertain about whether the place was for them and how to gain access to it. Like the students, the entrepreneurs’ activities also re-

Experience Function Examples of supporting spatial solutions

Sense of wel-come

Attract people Opens people up

Consistently friendly doorbell-answering policy Action can be seen right in the lobby Availability of non-reservable spaces

Possibilities for multi-use of the

building and spaces

Suggest new ways of doing things

Support users’ activities Increase the use rate

Different spaces for different functions Spaces that can be modified according to different use purposes Easily movable furniture (e.g., light or with wheels) Use policy that allows the application of the space for different

purposes

Permission to be oneself

Enhance productivity and learning

Spaces that enables informal interaction No traditional office look; relaxing, home-like spaces 24/7 access

Informality and ease Attract people

Open environment Hot desks instead of private rooms or personal desks Places that bring people together Funny and playful decorative elements

Inspiration and facilitation

Inspire Enhance learning

Bright colours and cosy space solutions Tone of instructions about the use of the space Use of different materials and textures in decoration

Constant narra-tive of spaces

Communicate purpose of existence of use

Design reflects the aim of the place Visually and verbally consistent space-use instructions Use of similar furniture and colours Displays of course outcomes, such as prototypes and posters


350

lated to product development, such as ideating and prototyping; however, the entrepreneurs also required spaces for meetings with customers, showrooms and networking. The research-ers’ main needs related to having a peaceful office environment with private desks, whereas staff members seemed to value a close and supportive community spirit as a base of action. It should be noted that the findings of this study apply only to a limited group of ADF users. Thus, broader investigations should be made to generalise the findings. Qualitative user expe-rience research possesses certain challenges. Basing the research design on the user experi-ence model has an effect on the results: Different outcomes might be gained by using another framework or by not using a framework at all. The content of the pre-defined claims of the survey should be further verified to ensure that the survey is appropriately comprehensive and multifaceted. Additionally, the analysis process can affect research results in research that is based on researcher interpretation. This research provides facility and workplace practitioners’ concrete ideas of how to develop and maintain coworking places and spaces. Different groups of coworking place users may have distinct user needs that should be considered during the design and actualisation of such spaces. Furthermore, researchers can benefit from the results because they provide an exam-ple of how the user experience of places can be investigated. REFERENCES

ADF (2010), “Design Factory: Annual Report 2009-2010”, available at: http://www.aaltodesignfactory.fi/about/for-media/ (accessed 14 November 2013).

ADF (2012), “Aalto Design Factory Stories: Annual Report 2011-2012”, available at: http://www.aaltodesignfactory.fi/about/for-media/ (accessed 14 November 2013).

Ahmad, A. J. and Ingle, S. (2011), “Relationships Matter: Case Study of a University Campus Incubator”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 626-644.

Alexander, K. (2010), “Usability of Learning Environments”, in Alexander, K. (Ed.), Usability of Workplaces – Phase 3, International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, pp. 5-16, Rotterdam.

Alexander, K. (2008), “Usability of Learning Environments”, in Alexander, K. (Ed.), Usability of Workplaces - Phase 2, International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, pp. 5-16.

Bates, T. (2006), “Community and Collaboration: New Shared Workplaces for Evolving Work Practices”, MA thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Bilandzic, M., and Forth, M. (2013), “Libraries As Coworking Spaces: Understanding User Motivations and Perceived Barriers to Social Learning”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 254-273.

Bostman, R., and Rogers, R. (2010), What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption, HarperCollins Publishers, New York.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using Thematic Analysis In Psychology”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 77-101.

Creswell, J. W. and Plano Clark, V. L. (2011), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd edition), Sage Publications, Los Angeles.

DeGuzman, G. V. and Tang, A. I. (2011), Working in the “UnOffice”: A Guide to Coworking for Indie Workers, Small Businesses, and Nonprofits, Night Owls Press, San Francisco.


351

Diller, S., Shedroff, N. and Rhea, D. (2005), Making Meaning: How Successful Businesses Deliver Meaningful Customer Experiences, New Riders Press, Berkeley.

Eraut, M. (2004), “Informal Learning in the Workplace”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 247-273.

Himanen, P., Au, A. and Margulies, P. (2011), “The New Incubators”, World Policy Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 22-34.

Huwart, J-Y., Dichter, G. and Vanrie, P. (2012), “Coworking: Collaborative Space for Microentrepreneurs (Technical Note #1)”, European Business and Innovation Centre Network EBN, Brussels.

Inalhan, G. (2009), “Attachments: The Unrecognised Link Between Employees and Their Workplace (In Change Management Projects)”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 17-37.

ISO (1998), ISO 9241-11, Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work With Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) - Part 11: Guidance on Usability, International Organization for Standardization.

Jankowska, M. and Atlay, M. (2008), “Use of Creative Space in Enhancing Students’ Engagement”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 45, No. 3, 271-279.

Joffe, H. and Yardley, L. (2004), “Contenct and Thematic Analysis”, Marks, D. and Yardley, L. (Ed.), Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology, Sage Publications, London, pp. 56-69.

Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 14-26.

Kojo, I., Keltikangas, K. and Hänninen, J. (2013), “Developing Learning Environments for Engineering Education: Elements of User Experience and Supporting Spatial Solutions”, paper presented at the 41th SEFI Conference, September 16-20, Leuven, Belgium.

Kojo, I., Nenonen, S. and Santamäki, E-M. (2011), “Defining a workplace Experience Framework: Analyzing the Social Heartbeat of Aalto University Design Factory”, paper presented at the first EUCEET Association Conference, November 24-25, Patras, Greece.

Kvale, S. (1996), InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications, California.

Lindahl, G., Hansen, G. and Alexander, K. (2012), “The Usability of Facilities: Experiences and Effects”, in Alexander, K. and Price, I. (Ed.), Managing Organizational Ecologies: Space, Management and Organization, Routledge, New York, pp. 105-116.

Lumley, R. (2013), “A Coworking Project in the Campus Library: Supporting and Modeling Entrepreneurial Activity in the Academic Library”, New Review of Academic Librarianship.

Matthews, K.E., Andrews, V. and Adams, P. (2011), “Social Learning Spaces and Student Engagement”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 105-120.

McLaughlin, P. and Faulker, J. (2012), “Flexible Spaces … What Students Expect from University Facilities”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 140-149.

Montgomery, J. (2007), “Creative Industry Business Incubators and Managed Workspaces: A Review of Best Practise”, Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 601-617.

Nenonen, S. and Kojo, I. (2013), “Experience of Places: Six Dimensional Model for Capturing the User Experience”, paper presented at the EuroFM13, May 22-24, Prague, Czech Republic.

Olma, S. (2012), The Serendipity Machine: A Disruptive Business Model for Society 3.0, Creative Commons.

Parrino, L. (2013), “Coworking: Assessing the Role of Proximity in Knowledge Exchange”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice,


352

Preiser, W.F.E., Rabonowitz, E.T., and White, E.T. (1988), Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

Spinuzzi, C. (2012), “Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity”, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vo. 26, No. 4, pp. 399-441.

Tähtinen, S., Kojo, I. and Nenonen, S. (forthcoming), “User Experience of Creative Class District: Studying Punavuori Neighborhood in Helsinki”, CIB Facilities Management Conference, May 21-23, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Thomas, J. (2012), “Creating Effective Learning Environments: Meetings the Challenges”, in Alexander, K. and Price, I. (Ed.), Managing Organizational Ecologies: Space, Management and Organization, Routledge, New York, pp. 212-221.

9.1 USER EXPERIENCE IN AN ACADEMIC COWORKING …ADF is a multi-user academic innovation hub type of...

Documents

Transcript of 9.1 USER EXPERIENCE IN AN ACADEMIC COWORKING …ADF is a multi-user academic innovation hub type of...