Purpose This paper aims to categorize the typologies of co-working spaces and describe their main characteristics. Design/methodology/approach The aim is reached by means of analyzing 15 co-working spaces located in the capital area of Finland. The data used consist of interviews, websites, event presentations and brochures. Findings As a result, six co-working space typologies were identified: public offices, third places, collaboration hubs, co-working hotels, incubators and shared studios. The categorization was made by using two axes: business model (for profit and non-profit) and level of user access (public, semi-private and private). Research limitations/implications The results provide a viewpoint on how co-working spaces can be categorized. Practical implications In practise, the results can be applied by all stakeholders who are working with alternative workplace solutions to respond to the needs of new ways of working, especially via workplace services for multi-locational and flexible working, including facilities managers, corporate real estate executives and designers. Originality/value This research builds on the previous academic literature on co-working spaces by making the phenomena more explicit for researchers and practitioners who are facing the challenges of developing new alternative workplace offerings.

No abstract

Purpose-To provide a review and classification of tools, techniques and methodologies, which are and could be used for measuring and identifying the success of corporate real estate and workplace management. Design/methodology/approach-Review of previously published works on performance measurement and measurement models and empirical interviews with 26 corporate real estate executives to examine what are common approaches to measuring performance. Findings-Provides information about the corporate real estate performance measuring methods and practices. Research limitations/implications-The conceptual framework is not an exhaustive list of methods and techniques. It is more like a first analytical review and classification of different kinds of methods, which could be developed over time. Practical implications-A useful source of information and impartial analysis of methods for corporate real estate and workplace managers seeking ways to demonstrate their value to the core business of their firm. Originality/value-Corporate real estate and workplace managers need better ways and tools to illustrate to the corporate leaders how they add value. This paper provides a review of such tools and offers practical help and guidance for using this kind of tools.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to review, evaluate and classify the academic research that has been published in facilities management (FM) and to analyse how FM research and practice are linked. Design/methodology/approach -This paper is based on literature review and qualitative research. Qualitative data have been gathered from academic papers published in FM-related journals (i.e. Facilities, Journal of Facilities Management, and the Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research -Special Series) and in conjunction with academic conferences (i.e. European Research Symposium in Facilities Management and the CIB W70 Symposium) between 1996 -2005. Findings -When analysing empirical research in FM, research papers can be classified according to the FM topics examined in them, the type of research performed and data-gathering methods used in the study reported, the background of the authors, research field, and research sector. Evaluation of academic papers indicates that the reporting of the methods used, data collection and limitations is inadequate in many academic papers. However, to draw valid conclusions and align FM research, methodical issues should be clearly delineated in research papers. In order to progress, the FM discipline must increasingly employ hypothesis testing and more robust data analysis techniques.Research limitations/implications -This research offers new insights into the current state of FM research and sheds light on the development steps needed in future. One limitation of this paper is that it does not include all the empirical research that has been done in FM. Originality/value -This paper helps article writers to take into account the important issues brought up in literature when reporting the results of their research in order to improve validity and reliability of their studies.

Purpose -The paper aims to identify the differences and similarities in work environment preferences of office users of different age. Design/methodology/approach -The paper analyses results of a preference survey answered by more than 1,100 office employees in Finland. The survey included questions concerning user preferences in terms of location, buildings, workspaces, and services. The analysis starts with a principal component analysis (PCA). The respondents are divided into five clusters based on their year of birth, and their responses are compared based on regression analysis. The identified differences are confirmed by discriminant analysis. Findings -The study shows that there are differences in the work environment preferences of users of different age. Significant differences were found concerning personal services, commuting, collaboration, restaurant services, and adjustability of indoor climate. The study also identifies areas in which preferences between younger and older employees did not differ remarkably, such as privacy and the virtual environment. Research limitations/implications -While the study indicates that there are preference differences in the workforce as it currently exists, it does not explain whether the identified differences are connected to generations, or if they are simply a result of age and experience. Practical implications -The paper includes findings that are valuable for all parties that are involved in designing and managing work environments. Originality/value -The results give new insights on what office users of different age prefer in their work environments. The paper proposes that some general notions regarding generational differences in the workplace lack academic evidence, and presents results that suggest that the differences are not as significant as generally thought.

PurposeThe work environment has been identified to influence employee satisfaction and work performance. In order to develop and provide work environments that meet the preferences of as many employees as possible, more information about user preferences and possible preference differences between different kinds of users is required. The purpose of this paper is to increase the understanding concerning office users' work environment preferences. The aim is to investigate whether there are differences in the preferences of office users based on their age, gender, their mobility, and whether they work individually or with others.Design/methodology/approachOffice users' work environment preferences are studied through a survey directed to office employees. Statistical analysis is used in order to identify work environment preference differences between respondents of different age, gender, and the way they work.FindingsThe results indicate that there are differences between office users' work environment preferences concerning some characteristics of the work environment. The results show that the preferences vary both based on demographic issues such as age and gender as well as based on how they work.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is limited to the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland, so the cultural context has to be taken into account when generalising the results.Originality/valueThe paper provides several stakeholders, such as user organisations, designers, consultants, and investors, valuable information on what kind of work environments office users prefer.

Article information:To cite this document: Inka Vuokko Ilona Kojo Suvi Nenonen , (2015),"Places for multi-locational work -opportunities for facilities management", Facilities, Vol. 33 Iss 1/2 pp. 20 -37 Permanent link to this document: http://dx. AbstractPurpose -This research aims to aggregate and categorise distinct places for multi-locational work from the 1960s until today. Based on an understanding of the user needs connected to these locations, the paper aims to identify the service concepts and workplace design solutions by which these needs can be met. Design/methodology/approach -The literature review is based on academic journal papers, reports and books related to the topic. Findings -The paper categorises the main multi-locational workplace locations, namely, organisational offices, home offices, mobile workplaces and flexible offices. The user needs in these locations vary from concept to concept, and therefore, the service offers are distinct. Based on the results, the service provision of organisational offices and flexible offices should focus on providing users with the chance for socialisation using collaborative space solutions and community management policies. In the cases of home offices and mobile workplaces, service provision should instead emphasise ensuring functionalities such as efficient virtual connectivity and accessibility. Additionally, more concept-specific user needs are identified. Research limitations/implications -The paper offers an overview of and framework for future research and concept development. The limitations of cultural differences could have been investigated more. Practical implications -The results provide insight into the purposes of facilities management and workplace design when developing service concepts for multi-locational workplaces. Originality/value -The paper establishes a literature-based framework for the service concepts of places for multi-locational work.

No abstract