Physical environment as a source for innovation: Investigating the attributes of innovative space

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how physical spaces intersect with innovation and innovativeness, and what the most relevant attributes of physical space are for innovation.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper reflects the changing nature of innovation, from technological advancements to services and meaning changes, and argues that the development of innovative spaces similarly embodies a diverse set of values such as collaboration, openness, and sustainability. Using a literature review, interviews, and benchmarking data, the paper examines the relationship between physical environment and innovation.

Findings – The findings from both the literature review and the interviews underline innovation as a communicative and human-centred process. As a result five attributes of innovative space are presented: collaboration enabling, modifiability, smartness, attractiveness, and value reflecting.

Originality/value – The results provide perspectives to the challenge of how to support innovation creation by developing physical spaces. The paper adds to the conceptual development of innovative space and outlines physical space as an innovative service.

Full text

Journal of Knowledge Management
Physical environment as a source for innovation: investigating the attributes of innovative space
Oksanen Kaisa Ståhle Pirjo
Article information:
To cite this document:
Oksanen Kaisa Ståhle Pirjo , (2013),"Physical environment as a source for innovation: investigating the attributes of innovative space",
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 Iss 6 pp. 815 - 827
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2013-0136
Downloaded on: 22 August 2014, At: 04:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 717 times since 2013*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 101323 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

Physical environment as a source for
innovation: investigating the attributes of
innovative space
Kaisa Oksanen and Pirjo Sta
˚
hle
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how physical spaces intersect with innovation and
innovativeness, and what the most relevant attributes of physical space are for innovation.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper reflects the changing nature of innovation, from
technological advancements to services and meaning changes, and argues that the development of
innovative spaces similarly embodies a diverse set of values such as collaboration, openness, and
sustainability. Using a literature review, interviews, and benchmarking data, the paper examines the
relationship between physical environment and innovation.
Findings – The findings from both the literature review and the interviews underline innovation as a
communicative and human-centred process. As a result five attributes of innovative space are
presented: collaboration enabling, modifiability, smartness, attractiveness, and value reflecting.
Originality/value – The results provide perspectives to the challenge of how to support innovation
creation by developing physical spaces. The paper adds to the conceptual development of innovative
space and outlines physical space as an innovative service.
Keywords Innovation, Creativity, Innovation environment, Innovative space, Physical space
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Innovative spaces may enable interaction, nurture social capital, accelerate start-ups,
generate artistic activities, and support the flow of ideas; they aim to be the most attractive
workspaces and to promote creativity and collaboration in learning and working practices.
However, studies on the physical environment and innovation are fragmented. This paper
explores and characterises the relationship between space and innovation. The study is
based on interviews with experts of innovative spaces and on benchmarking data about
innovative, creative spaces and environments. The analysis is conducted in order to outline
the different characteristics of innovative spaces and to elaborate space as an innovative
service. The results provide perspectives to the challenge of developing physical spaces
that support an innovative culture.
In the age of globalisation, people are not bound to a certain place, but the contributions of
the physical environment to innovation are varied nonetheless. In this paper, the effect of
physical space on innovation is analysed and, as a result, five attributes of innovative space
are presented: collaboration enabling, modifiability, smar tness, attractiveness, and value
reflecting. The paper reflects the changing nature of innovation from technological
advancements to service innovation and value creation and argues that the development of
innovative spaces similarly embodies a diverse set of values such as collaboration,
openness, and sustainability. The research questions are the following: How does a physical
space intersect with innovation and innovativeness, and what are the most relevant elements
of physical space for innovation? Using a literature review, interviews, and benchmarking
data, the paper examines the relationship between physical environment and innovation.
DOI 10.1108/JKM-04-2013-0136 VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013, pp. 815-827, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 815
Kaisa Oksanen is based at
the University of Jyva
¨
skyla
¨
,
Jyva
¨
skyla
¨
, Finland.
Pirjo Sta
˚
hle is based at
Finland Futures Research
Centre, University of Turku,
Turku, Finland; and School
of Business, Aalto
University, Helsinki, Finland.
Received 8 April 2013
Revised 22 July 2013
Accepted 22 July 2013
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

The results from both the literature review and from interviews underline innovation as a
communicative and human-centred process.
2. Literature and conceptual framework
Physical space affects people in many ways. In this section, a review of the literature from the
innovation and creativity disciplines attempts to put some clarity to the question of how
physical space affects innovation. The existing literature includes both empirical and
relevant conceptual and theoretical studies, and it provides an initial impression of the area
of space and innovation. This paper both accumulates the knowledge on innovation creation
and generates understanding about the role of physical spaces in it.
The basic concepts in the paper consist of physical space, innovation, and innovative
space. Physical space in this article refers to the tangible, physical environment, which can
interfere with people and their actions, such as social interaction, in various ways. As the
authors are trying to find out how physical space interferes with innovation and
innovativeness, the authors also use the concept of innovative space, which simply refers
to a physical environment where innovation flourishes. By innovation the authors mean a new
idea that has been put into practice. Often these terms are used to describe innovative firms,
such as Apple, Google, or Facebook, and innovative ecosystems, such as Silicon Valley
(e.g. Saxenian, 2006; Munroe, 2009). The authors’ emphasis is on the widening scope of
innovation and, as they are studying universities and research organisations as a source of
innovation, the examples in this article focus on the innovative university premises. To
highlight the importance of a physical environment, a few classical examples about the
effects of a physical space on people are explored. Following this, the authors focus on
studies about physical space and innovation processes.
A classical study of Ulrich (1984) demonstrated the relation between environment and the
wellbeing of people. Ulrich proved that hospital patients who viewed nice scenes such as
trees and animals from their wards, recovered faster, spent less time in hospital, required
fewer painkillers, and had fewer post-operative complications than those patients whose
ward views consisted only of empty walls. Evidence for the effects of environment –
especially of nature – on wellbeing and health is strong (e.g. Wilson, 1984; Wilson, 2001).
Similar results can be found about the effect of environment on creativity (McCoy and Evans,
2010). Another notable feature of physical environment is its connection to social interaction
and collaboration (Strauss, 1978). The physical environment in which people work affects
both job performance and job satisfaction (Vischer, 2007). In addition, numerous studies
about people’s interaction with the physical environment were conducted in environmental
psychology; these generally explored people’s associations and emotional construction of
places, behavioural components of space, place dependence, and so forth (Auburn and
Barnes, 2006; Gustafson, 2001).
2.1 Physical environment and creativity
The theoretical foundations of creativity, innovation, and environment support the empirical
findings. For example, physical environment is recognised as a significant factor for
knowledge creation and learning (Senoo et al., 2007; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Spaces
enable the building of a special knowledge available only to the people living or working
there – tacit knowledge. This special knowledge emerges from the surrounding social
networks and environments. Nonaka and Konno (1998) use the Japanese concept of Ba,
‘‘ Most of the theories on creativity, on innovation, and on
creative industries acknowledge a relationship between place
and creativity. ’’
PAGE 816
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

which refers to inclusive places that enable the creation of shared contexts and the
knowledge-creation process. Fundamentally, the concept refers to a shared space for
emerging relationships, and the space itself can be physical, virtual, or mental (Nonaka and
Konno, 1998). The concept of creative space is useful in understanding the diverse
processes of knowledge and technology creation (Wierzbicki et al., 2005). Generally, it is
assumed that organisations can generate more new ideas by using the physical space more
diligently. Fostering creativity is also a critical aspect of innovation as innovations require
ideas. By using the choice of place and space, creative processes may be facilitated. The
creativity literature (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Sternberg and Davidson, 1995) presents
many good examples of people’s creative habits and validates the general argument that
space effects widely on people’s emotional well-being, which in turn is taken as fundamental
for creative work. People tend to create microenvironments, personal spaces that one
creates to feel comfortable, safe, or cozy (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). People need supportive,
symbolic environments to proceed with the tasks of life and work.
In Sternberg and Lubart’s investment theory of creativity, environment is listed among the six
important sources that creativity requires (Sternberg, 2006). The other sources include
intellectual abilities, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, and motivation. Environment
here refers to the surrounding ecosystem with physical, mental, and social dimensions, but
the physical environment has some specific features that the authors want to underline.
To sum up, most of the theories on creativity, on innovation, and on creative industries
acknowledge a relationsh ip between place and creativity. Without the support of
environment, innovations and innovativeness might never be displayed, and, as noted
previously, spaces provide knowledge and experiences available only to the people who are
physically in attendance. This article utilizes the theories of knowledge creation and creative
space as a background but concentrates on analyzing today’s innovative spaces, their
characteristics and effects on innovation capital. The chosen approach emphasises
innovation as a social process and not the relationship between knowledge and
technological innovation, thus the authors analysed the spaces for how they support
innovation from a human-centric perspective.
2.2 Physical environment and innovation
The article addresses the changing nature of innovation from the application of new
technology to the delivery of meanings, values, and solutions, and it also addresses the role
of physical environment in innovation. The defining element of innovation is shifting from
maximizing profit to solving wicked problems and positively effecting society as a whole
(Chesbrough, 2003; Von Hippel, 2005; Benkler, 2006), and the authors argue that the
spaces of innovation both reflect and support this shift.
Fundamentally, innovation means introducing something new (Nordfors, 2009), and
innovativeness refers to the virtue and ability of introducing and refining new ideas.
Introducing new ideas requires creativity, which can be supported in various ways.
Generally studies on the physical environment and innovation are fragmented. Moultrie et al.
(2007) explored the role of physical environment in innovation and divided the development
into studies that looked more widely at how the workplace influences work performance and
studies that concentrated explicitly on innovation. The first category includes considerations
of the spatial structuring of workplaces (Allen, 1966), investigations about the impact of
physical environment on employees and customers (Bitner, 1992), and analyses of how
office design and new technology is changing the ways of working (Myerson and Ross,
2005). Also architectural literature provides examples of workspace design and
innovativeness but theoretical foundations are limited. The way in which workspaces
generally are changing has been reported in several books that illustrate developments in
style, configuration, and technology (e.g. Zelinsky, 2004, in Moultrie et al., 2007). Some
studies stress the relationship between physical environment and social and environmental
psychology and indicate that the conceptions of space and time are fundamental to the
manner in which organisations and workplaces are managed and organised (Inalhan, 2009;
Carr and Hancock, 2006).
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 817
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

The studies related more directly to innovation processes include cases about innovative
and creative spaces and ‘‘laboratories’’ (Lewis and Moultrie, 2005; Wycoff and Snead, 1999)
and about considerations on how the wider implications of how workspace design
influences innovation (Kristensen, 2004).
Global trends in development of innovative environments are varied. In regional
development, Etzkowitz and his colleagues presented an institutional framework of Triple
Helix spaces that consists of Knowledge, Innovation, and Consensus spaces (Etzkowitz and
Leydesdorff, 2000; Etzkowitz and Ranga, 2011). The Triple Helix spaces provide insights to
the process and mechanisms by which the institutional actors interact and co-evolve over
time, and these spaces provide an interesting approach to localised innovation processes
and to the use of regional resources. Another significant approach to innovation and spaces
can be found in a development of both formal and informal collaborative spaces, a shrinking
individual work space, an increasing use of collaborative technology, and the growing
importance of 3rd places are found (Ouye et al. 2010).
In communication literature, some researchers argue for communicating in issue arenas,
which function as spaces for enactment and discussion, where different players come
together to discuss a central problem or issue (Luoma-aho and Vos, 2010). Such arenas are
stages or platforms in virtual or tangible surroundings; in them the scenery changes
continuously as a result of the interactions between the players and the developments in the
social environment (Goffman, 1959; Luoma-aho and Vos, 2010).
A special issue that affects innovative spaces is the continuous movement of ideas and
people, re-cycling. As the innovation ecosystem runs by official and unofficial value
networks between the actors both locally and globally, people are not bound to a certain
physical space (Hautama
¨
ki, 2010). There are claims that the processes of globalisation and
digitalisation are causing the spatial dimensions of economy to completely lose their
importance (Morgan, 2004). People move easily between companies and from research
institutions to business and vice versa, and innovation processes increasingly are
distributed across the globe. Innovation is conducted in global networks with partners
situated practically anywhere. A new knowledge is emerging in collaborations between
people and organisations situated in different locations. However, from the point-of-view of
space, it is impor tant to understand that physical space enables the emergence of tacit
knowledge that is available only to the people present in the space – physically or virtually.
That special knowledge is emerging from the surrounding innovation ecosystem and
creating unique historic, geographical, and planning conditions.
To sum up, the importance of physical environment is recognised both in the theoretical and
empirical studies on innovation. However, there is a need for greater clarity on the
characteristics and components of such spaces and on how they actually support
innovation. Experts have argued that there is a gap in current literature for understanding
how the environment actually impacts innovative and creative performance and for how this
performance matches the underlying strategic intentions of the organisation (Moultrie et al.,
2007). Kristensen (2004) concluded that knowledge on how the physical space enhances
creativity and innovativeness is limited. In this paper the authors further elaborate the special
characteristics of space that enhance innovation and innovativeness. The paper adds to the
understanding of innovation environments and provides a framework from which one can
consider the development of innovative spaces.
‘‘ Innovative spaces are to be seen as catalysts for an
organization’s ability to, for example, improve
communication, reconfigure resources, attract and retain
talent, or reflect values. ’’
PAGE 818
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

3. Resear ch material and analysis
The article uses a cross-disciplinary approach to explore creative spaces and adds to the
understanding on how environment supports innovation. The analysed material consists of
seven semi-structured interviews and in-depth discussions with experts, developers,
pioneers, and users of creative and innovative spaces and learning environments. The
interviews were qualitative with open-ended questions about the relationship between
physical space and innovation/innovativeness, they lasted from one to two hours and
revealed information on what constitutes an innovative space. Some interview sessions
included explorations of creative physical premises and provided complementary
qualitative data about the attributes and functions of innovative environments. The
interviews took place in university cities in Finland, and the selection is focused, thus, on
modern university and research premises. The choice is rationalized by the growing
importance of universities and research organisations to innovation ecosystems and
processes (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). Traditionally in the innovation process,
universities have a central role as creators and transferors of new knowledge, but today it is
more and more important that universities also utilize and commercialize the scientific
knowledge they create (Christensen and Eyring, 2011; Berman, 2012). Within this process,
the development of innovative spaces within universities has proved essential.
In addition to interviews, and to complement the views from only one country, benchmarking
material from various locations is utilized. The emphasis of benchmarking has been on
innovative university campuses and on learning and research environments, but the material
includes also examples from creative business environments and other workspaces.
Furthermore, in many places, the creative platforms host students and researchers as well
as entrepreneurs and industry representatives. The benchmarking data consist mainly of
researchers’ and some of the interviewees’ articulated experiences from the places visited,
communication and promotional material from and pictures of the places, a few reports
about development projects (e.g. Bjo
¨
rlund et al., 2011), and discussions and short time
collaboration with the people working in the places. In the paper, the chosen real-life
examples illustrate and cha racteri se the nature of today’s innovati ve space an d
environment. The benchmarking data were partly visual (including pictures of innovative
spaces), and its role was supportive (reflecting the relationships between people, space,
and innovation).
The authors investigated spaces are from different locations such as libraries at several
universities in The Netherlands (Amsterdam University College, Rotterdam University, and
Delft University), spaces in Aalto University (e.g. Aalto Design Factory – one of the main
physical manifestations of Aalto University and its innovative spaces), various premises of
the University Properties of Finland Ltd. (e.g. Tampere Technical Universi ty);
Entrepreneurship Centres of Excellence of the Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences in
Jyva
¨
skyla
¨
and Tampere (Team Academy and Pro Academy); TILLT, a Swedish producer of
artistic interventions in organisations; and t he National University of Singapore
(e.g. Interactive and Digital Media Institute), and various innovative locations used by
creativity pioneers from the US (WeWork, IDEO, General Assembly, etc.). Benchmarking
was applied to spaces enhancing new kind of learning, working, and innovation; and the
places and facilities that the authors studied generally represent successful examples of a
nonconventional work and study environments.
The analysis was performed in two steps. In step 1, the authors selected the key narratives
from existing literature and the interviews, and, from the chosen key narratives, the authors
determined preliminary categories for mapping innovative spaces. Step 2 provided a
qualitative insight into the material. In this stage, the authors evaluated the mapping and
separated the material first into themes and later into dimensions of an innovative space. The
Table I displays the research framework and the preliminary findings.
First, the literature review presented in the previous chapter laid the foundations for analysis.
The literature supported the connection between space and innovation and presented
various findings on how physical space affects people and their behaviour.
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 819
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

Next, the authors categorised the data from interviews and benchmarking in order to identify
the important features of innovative space. The general attributes (facilities, aesthetics,
distances, etc.) of physical environment were varied so special attention was paid in order to
identify and highlight the attributes linked specifically to innovation and innovativeness.
Similarly the general themes around innovation (social dimension, service dimension, and
changes in the concept and practices, etc.) were wide-ranging but in the end the analysis
showed how the innovative space generally is defined and how physical space is utilized as
a source of innovation. The preliminar y themes were further separated into detailed
characteristics of innovative space that are presented in the next chapter. The key narrative
from the existing literature and from the interviews is presented in Table II.
Table II embodies simple classifications from the research material. The first theme, the
desirable attributes of physical space, concentrates on the elements that the interviewees
highlighted when asked to describe the value and relevance of physical space in today’s
work and study life. The design in the benchmarked premises also highlighted these
desirable attributes for example by various open space solutions and by modifiable units.
The second theme is presented in the sense of preoccupation with today’s innovation and its
importance in all sectors of society, not only in business. The third theme centres the rhetoric
about what an innovative space is and how it is created. The interviewees represent
innovation experts with experience working and/or studying in various creative spaces, and
their expert knowledge proved to be valuable.
4. Results: space and innovation
The study illuminated the relationship between physical environment and innovation and, as
a result, the authors provide the determining characteristics of innovative spaces. Results
from studies examining components of innovative or creative spaces showed a connection
between physical environment and innovation, and interviews and benchmarking further
indicated that certain features of a physical space foster innovation. With this research, the
authors are not trying to prove that certain elements of a physical space inevitably produce
Table I Research framework and analysis
Literature Interviews Benchmarking data on innovative spaces
Empirical findings about impacts of
physical space on people
Mapping the general themes around
physical space and innovation
Real-life examples of innovative spaces
Theoretical foundations of creativity,
innovation and environment
Exploring the detailed attributes of
innovative space
Demonstrations on concrete features of
innovative spaces
Connections between physical space,
creativity and innovation
Insights from users and developers of
innovative spaces
Table II Key narratives from the existing literature and from the interviews
Themes Key narratives
The desirable attributes of physical space Physical space improves the well-being and happiness of people
Physical space can be modified in order to meet the diverse needs of different people
Physical space encourages communication and enables collaboration
Physical space fosters creativity
The changing concept of innovation Innovation today is more open, inclusive, diverse and wide-ranging than before
Innovation is a communicative, human-centered process the environment affecting
people has effect on innovation and innovativeness
What constitutes an innovative space Innovative space highlights team-work and the communicative aspects of working and
studying (it supports collaboration)
Innovative space is creatively designed (it is attractive) and reflects the personality and
values of users
PAGE 820
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

more innovations, but, rather, that a physical space both supports innovation and reflects the
changing nature of it. The spaces characterised here tend to be populated by people and
firms working within the wide field of innovation, but, more significantly, these spaces
represent the changing drivers of innovation such as openness, collaboration, sustainability,
or wellbeing. Innovation policies and processes all over the world need new approaches to
more fully tap into the undiscovered innovation potential, and innovators need to develop
new capabilities covering the entire innovation chain, from conducting preliminary research
through to taking products and services to users.
How can a physical space support innovation? As a result of the research, the authors
present five characteristics of innovative space – collaboration enabling, modifiability,
smartness, value reflecting, and attractiveness – and the authors further elaborate on the
service element of spaces. The results suggest that the physical space is among the
required sources of innovation.
4.1 Collaboration and communication enabling space
The view of innovation as a social process is one of the guiding principles in building
innovative spaces, and all the locations studied have been actualizing this view intensively.
Innovation is collaborative work (e.g. Nordfors, 2009), and an ideal working environment
encourages and enables fruitful interaction between different actors such as students,
researchers, and professional practitioners. Similarly, the focus in creativity theories is
usually on creativity as a collective or social process, with some concentration on the
relationship between place and individualized creativity (Drake, 2003). The collaborative
element is therefore one of the main requirements of innovative space. All the benchmarked
and analysed innovative spaces highlighted collaborative and communicative attributes.
The interaction between people, enterprises, and institutions is the core of the innovation
system (Lundvall, 1992). Collaborative spaces are linked also with other spaces locally and
globally.
Social capital generally refers to the overall pattern of connections between different actors
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1996), and spaces can be designed to support its development in
many ways. Space design aiming at greater innovativeness supports people’s motivation,
ability, and opportunity to share knowledge and experiences. According to a research report
on Aalto University Design Factory platform and community, having a common physical
space and spatial arrangements that promote interaction (such as having shared rooms in
which you work next to other community members, rather than working in separate rooms)
were perceived to enhance getting to know other members of the community. Being able to
use the space actively in one’s own work and able to participate in activities organised by
others were seen as critical for entering the community, as well as for getting new
information, potential contacts, and feedback (Bjo
¨
rlund et al., 2011). This, naturally, has also
some challenges. One recognised issue is that spaces that facilitate interaction and
collective activities sometimes make it hard to focus on individual work. That is why
innovative spaces need to be modifiable.
4.2 Modifiable space
Innovative work and learning requires flexible ways of doing. In the learning and research
environments of the study (e.g. Aalto Design Factory, Team Academy, and Pro Academy),
the facilities were built to support a versatile range of activities and new collaborative ways of
studying and working. The flexibility of the space provides possibilities for the use of a wider
scale of modern and interactive teaching and research methods than are available in the
majority of the spaces normally used by educational institutions. The varied and flexible
spaces can facilitate a wide range of experimentations and can provide an important home
base for interdisciplinary and inter-organisational work and learning groups. These kinds of
views were shared across all spaces studied.
Senoo et al. (2007) studied the effects of workplace reformation on ba and on the knowledge
creation process and found that physical workplace reforms have resulted, most notably, in
improving direct communication. Modifiability is one of the factors that enables the
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 821
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

organisation to make the most of the existing workspace. In the end, modifiable spaces
provide an experience of being allowed to, or empowered to, act differently and innovatively.
Successful innovative spaces are responsive to the needs of their users. Modifications vary
from different lighting options to moving walls and fluid seating arrangements, but it also
includes intangible changes. Modifiable space changes such that the same space can
serve totally different purposes at different times. By modifying the physical space, the
varying needs of users can be fulfilled.
4.3 Intellectual space
Intellectuality as a feature of a space is naturally linked to certain key technologies, such as
wireless communication, various sensors and user interaction methods, and intelligent
objects, but it is more than just technology. The often used term smart space refers to spaces
such as offices, schools, malls, university campuses, and outdoor areas that are enabled for
co-operation of smart objects and systems and for ubiquitous interaction with different
users. Smart spaces are being developed in many locations all over the world. One
interviewee highlighted the importance of the development of smart collaborative spaces
that support innovative learning within universities:
Smart spaces within our campus are designed based on the knowledge triangle. The knowledge
triangle is an old concept used, for example, within the European Union strategies to strengthen
interaction between research, innovation, and education. These modern, urban research and
learning spaces are also interfaces to the newest knowledge – in this smart solutions are
required.
Intellectual spaces are spaces equipped, for example, with visual and audio sensing
systems that can perceive and react to people and have ‘‘memories’’ about previous users.
It also can include augmented reality solutions such as meeting room tables and walls that
act as computer displays. But intellectuality means more than technological solutions;
intellectual space is a part of a socio-technical ecosystem and a platform on which people
will build various meanings. Technology also has its limitations, for example, the variety of
augmented reality applications have not been widely accepted as a part of peoples’
everyday use (Azuma et al., 2001). However, smart space is an active and evolving field of
study and development, and the authors believe that future research will provide solutions to
the challenges in the human-computer interaction, in managing the variety of technology,
and in understanding and utilizing the changing contexts present in spaces.
4.4 Attracting space
‘‘Interesting space attracts interesting people’’, said one of the interviewees. It is claimed
that especially creative people resent living or working just anywhere. Studies on
environmental psychology suppor t the claim and indicate that people need to be more than
simply healthy and safe in the spaces they occupy (Vischer, 2007). Instead, creating a
space at school or at work that people feel comfortable with is extremely important
(e.g. Florida, 2002). Thus attractive space is comforting. Once basic needs are assured,
people need environmental support for the activities they are to perform, that is, they need
environmental comfort (Vischer, 1989).
Attractiveness of a space is also related to the wider concepts of milieu used in the studies
concerning creative cities, urban areas, and regions. Attractive milieu is described with the
concept quality of place, which includes a range of qualities and features stretching from
bike tracks, meeting places, and art and music venues to tolerance (Florida, 2002; Landry,
2000).
In practice interior design, ergonomics, art, and so forth are well distributed complements to
the creative and innovative work life. Attractiveness of a space also includes elements such
as location, architecture, or services; and attractiveness consists of a combination of other
important attributes, such as the earlier mentioned modifiability and collaboration. In
innovation the key to environmental comfor t and attractiveness is in how the space supports
the flow of ideas; for example, by making new ideas and knowledge visible and accessible.
The flow of ideas is partly enabled by the intangibles of innovative space. Intangibles such
PAGE 822
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

as creativity or aesthetics are hard to define or measure, but their value is recognised and
supported in many ways. For example, the city of Delft in The Netherlands has invested in
creative city policies, and the city is now known for attracting creative talents and innovative
entrepreneurs.
4.5 Value reflecting space
As noted previously, today’s innovation includes a variety of elements. As a result of
innovation, new value and meaning are created. Innovative spaces similarly can represent
different values. For example, in environmental psychology concepts and values such as
privacy, safety, and identity are generally recognised as central in the construction of the
meanings of different spaces. Spaces can be viewed as a continuation of one’s identity, and
the meanings and values attributed to spaces are often mapped around self and others
(Gustafson, 2001). Quoting our interviewee, ‘‘What the best companies have in common
spatially? Their spaces provide a message or a story about the organisation. Space is full of
symbols, and, if utilized wisely – for example, through art – the space can have wide
psychosocial impacts on their users.’’
The defining elements of innovation today are getting more versatile and include values such
as openness, sustainability, or collaboration, and the authors can see that the attributes of
creative and innovative spaces intersect with these changing values and attributes of
innovation. For example, the design pioneer firm IDEO embraces values such as creativity,
playfulness, open mindedness, and collaboration; similarly their physical workspaces
express these values. IDEO’s environment is aimed at helping the creative process and
contributing also to the values of wild ideas, action, chaos, and barrier breaking. The IDEO
space consists of team project rooms, an open studio for the designers and programmers, a
prototyping workshop, a cafe
´
, a community garden, and so forth. The variety of spaces
supports the firm’s values and working life and inspires people.
4.6 Space as an innovative service
The new concepts of learning and working spaces such as collaborative workspaces or
community spaces resemble the idea of space as a service. Spaces include a variety of
services, from basic office infrastructure, such as an internet connection, to unique
co-creation experiences. Many traditional spaces such as libraries and museums are going
through a significant change as they are no longer single static locations but a space with
services through which users locate, use, and create various learning and research
materials (Pritchard, 2008). The space-as-a-service approach emphasises human-centred
space planning and requires a flexible mindset.
Various services help in keeping the innovation process simple and flowing. Services help to
build relationships with peer innovators, to clarify IPR processes and contracts, to utilize
design, and so forth. Space or location as a service for innovation takes a wider perspective
where space acts as a suite (or a unit) for a system of services. For example the newly
developed Urban Lab, a platform for urban research in Otaniemi, Finland, is one
manifestation of a space as a service. The Urban Lab complex acts in a framework of social
learning and social cohesion; it brings together researcher and developer communities
around the chosen theme, builds a common action culture, and supports collaboration
between and within the different communities working in the area.
‘‘ A characterization of an innovative space includes
communicativeness, modifiability, smartness, attractiveness,
and value reflection. ’’
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 823
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

Spaces as an innovative service mean intuitive platforms that offer resources that users can
select, utilize, modify, and create. For example, IDEO in Palo Alto introduced an action model
where people work in a common space with social interaction, and separate rooms are
meant for working with the current topics and projects. In IDEO, every project proceeds in a
space reserved specifically for it, and new ideas and outcomes are similarly developed in
the chosen space.
Effective utilisation of socio-cultural contexts and tacit knowledge requires personal contact
and regular interaction (Schmidt and Hunter, 1993). This paper argues that these spaces
have a special role. Spaces help to capture and refine the cultural and social knowledge that
is important to innovation creation – even more important if aiming for radical innovation. As
both innovative business and innovation researchers need to explore the society around
them, physical spaces have a special role as platforms for enactment and discussion where
different players come together to discuss and work with common challenges and goals.
5. Conclusions
Innovation requires a variety of resources such as new knowledge, motivation and
collaboration. This research explored the physical environment as one of the resources. The
research question about the most important elements of physical space for innovation was
answered by a literature review, by interviews, and by investigating benchmarking material
on innovative and creative spaces. In summary, the research strengthens the link between
innovation and physical space. As a result, a characterisation of an innovative space was
presented. The five characteristics include communicativeness, modifiability, smartness,
attractiveness, and value reflection. In practice, innovative space consists of a combination
of these attributes, and, depending on the case, some elements will prove to be more
important while others fade to background. These dynamics need more study in the future,
and there are limitations to this research. The characterisation is a simplistic description but
it provides a framework from which one can consider the development of spaces the
enhance innovation. Given the data limitations, the examples are also a little unbalanced
towards universities’ and research organisations’ premises but by this choice the authors
wanted to demonstrate the growing importance of universities in innovation processes and
ecosystems. The results are by no means an exhaustive representation of an innovative
space, but the presented attributes are interesting and add to the works that have identified
and classified the relationship between innovation and physical environment.
The results have implications for innovation practices and studies as they underline the
importance of physical space for innovation and provide insights into the design of
innovative space. In practice, the results can help innovators, developers, and
decision-makers to create innovative spaces. Innovative spaces are to be seen as
catalysts for an organisation’s ability to, for example, improve communication, reconfigure
resources, attract and retain talent, or reflect values. From a strategic perspective, the
physical characteristics of the environment should be connected with the strategic goals of
the organisation (see, e.g. Moultrie et al., 2007). However, to successfully utilize physical
space in innovation processes or strategies, certain challenges need to be addressed and
further studied. More research is needed especially on the capacities needed to create
innovative spaces. The authors need more information about how to develop physical space
in order to affect the general rules of the innovation game (technological possibilities, market
demands, competitor/customer behaviour, political/social context, etc.) but designing
spaces that breed innovation also requires careful study about cultural contexts, people and
their beliefs and values.
Possible future research could address the multidimensional relationship between physical
space and innovation. First, there are the dimensions of innovation including the changing
drivers of innovation from product innovation to service innovation, the changing customer
needs, and new innovation management and policies. Second, along with the attributes
explored in this paper, there are many aspects to spaces to explore, such as the balance
between the technical and socio-cultural dimensions of a space.
PAGE 824
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

References
Allen, T. (1966), Managing the Flow of Scientific and Technological Information, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Auburn, T. and Barnes, R. (2006), ‘‘Producing place: a neo-Schutzian perspective on the ‘psychology of
place’’’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 38-50.
Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S. and MacIntyre, B. (2001), ‘‘Recent advances in
augmented reality’’, Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 34-47.
Benkler, Y. (2006), The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom,
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Berman, E.P. (2012), Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic
Engine, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), ‘‘Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71.
Bjo
¨
rlund, T., Clavert, M., Kirjavainen, S., Laakso, M. and Luukkonen, S. (2011), Aalto University Design
Factory in the Eyes of its Community, Aalto University, Espoo, A Report of a Study Conducted by Design
Factory Research Team.
Carr, A.N. and Hancock, P. (2006), ‘‘Space and time in organizational change management’’, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 545-557.
Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation, The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Christensen, C.M. and Eyring, H.J. (2011), The Innovative University. Changing the DNA of Higher
Education from the Inside Out, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, Harper
Perennial, New York, NY.
Drake, G. (2003), ‘‘‘This place gives me space’: place and creativity in the creative industries’’,
Geoforum, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 511-524.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000), ‘‘The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and
‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations’ ’, Research Policy, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 109-123.
Etzkowitz, H. and Ranga, M. (2011), ‘‘Spaces’’: a Triple Helix governance strategy for regional
innovation’’, in Rickne, A., Laestadius, S. and Etzkowitz, H. (Eds), Regional Innovation Systems:
The Swedish Experience of Policy, Governance and Knowledge Dynamic, Routledge, London.
Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class. How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure and Everyday Life,
Basic Books, New York, NY.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Gustafson, M.V. (2001), ‘‘Meanings of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations’’,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 5-16.
Hautama
¨
ki, A. (2010), Sustainable Innovation. A New Age of Innovation and Finland’s Innovation Policy,
Edita, Helsinki, Sitra Reports 87.
Inalhan, G. (2009), ‘‘The unrecognised link between employees and their workplace (in change
management projects)’’, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 17-37.
Kristensen, T. (2004), ‘ ‘The physical context of creativity’’, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 89-96.
Landry, C. (2000), The Creative City, Earthscan, London.
Lewis, M. and Moultrie, J. (2005), ‘‘The organisational innovation laboratory’’, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 73-83.
Lundvall, B.A
˚
. (1992), National Systems of Innovation; Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive
Learning, Pinter, London.
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 825
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

Luoma-aho, V. and Vos, M. (2010), ‘‘Towards a more dynamic stakeholder model: acknowledging
multiple issue arenas’’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 315-331.
McCoy, J.M. and Evans, G.W. (2010), ‘‘The potential role of the physical environment in fostering
creativity’’, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 14 Nos 3-4, pp. 409-426.
Morgan, K. (2004), ‘‘The exaggerated death of geography: learning, proximity and territorial innovation
systems’’, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 4, pp. 3-12.
Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U.-E., Janssen, S. and Van der Lugt, R. (2007), ‘‘Innovation
spaces: towards a framework for understanding the role of the physical environment in innovation’’,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Munroe, T. (2009), What Makes Silicon Valley Tick? The Ecology of Innovation at Work, Nova Vista
Publishing, Belgium.
Myerson, J. and Ross, P. (2005), The Twenty-first Century Office, Laurence King Publishing, London.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1996), ‘‘Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational
advantage’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), ‘‘The concept of ‘ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation’’,
California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nordfors, D. (2009), ‘‘Innovation journalism, attention work and the innovation economy’’, Innovation
Journalism, Vol. 6 No. 1, available at: www.innovationjournalism.org/archive/injo-6-1.pdf (accessed
October 29, 2012).
Ouye, J., Nagy, G., Singer, B. and Langhoff, J. (2010), Alternative Workplace Strategies in the Current
Economy: Results from New Ways of Working’s Benchmarking Study, available at: www.newwow.net/
resources/downloads (accessed November 20, 2012).
Pritchard, S.M. (2008), ‘‘Deconstructing the library: reconceptualizing collections, spaces and
services’’, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 219-233.
Saxenian, A. (2006), The New Argonauts. Regional Advantage in a Global Economy, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1993), ‘‘Tacit knowledge, practical intelligence, general mental ability,
and job knowledge’’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 8-9.
Senoo, D., Magnier-Watanabe, R. and Salmador, M.P. (2007), ‘‘Workplace reformation, active ba and
knowledge creation: from a conceptual to a practical framework’’, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 296-315.
Sternberg, R.J. (2006), ‘‘The nature of creativity’’, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 87-98.
Sternberg, R.J. and Davidson, J.E. (1995), The Nature of Insight, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Strauss, A. (1978), ‘‘A social world perspective’’, Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 119-128.
Ulrich, R.S. (1984), ‘‘View through a window may influence recovery from surgery’’, Science, Vol. 224
No. 4647, pp. 420-421.
Vischer, J.C. (1989), Environmental Quality in Offices, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Vischer, J.C. (2007), ‘‘The effects of the physical environment on job performance: towards a theoretical
model of workspace stress’’, Stress and Health, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 175-184.
Von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wierzbicki, A.P., Zhu, Z.C. and Nakamori, Y. (2005), ‘‘A new role of systems science: informed systems
approach’’, in Wierzbicki, A.P. and Nakamori, Y. (Eds), Creative Space: Models of Creative Processes for
the Knowledge Civilization Age, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, NY, pp. 161-215.
Wilson, E.O. (1984), Biophilia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wilson, E.O. (2001), ‘‘The ecological footprint’’, Vital Speeches, Vol. 67, pp. 274-281.
PAGE 826
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

Wycoff, J. and Snead, L. (1999), ‘‘Stimulating innovation with creativity rooms’’, The Journal for Quality
& Participation, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 55-57.
Zelinsky, M. (2004), The Inspired Workplace: Design for Creativity and Production, Rockport Publishers,
Gloucester.
About the authors
Kaisa Oksanen PhD (Public and Social Adm.) is a Research Coordinator at the Agora
Centre, University of Jyva
¨
skyla
¨
, and at the time of this research, a visiting researcher at Aalto
University School of Engineering, Finland. Her main area of expertise is innovation research.
Her background is in social and political sciences, systemic innovation and democracy
development. She took her PhD in the City University of Hong Kong (2005-2009) and in
recent years she has been working in Agora Centre, Finland with projects concerning,
e.g. regional development and innovation ecosystems, service innovation and wellbeing.
Agora Centre is a special unit of the University of Jyva
¨
skyla
¨
acting as a platform for
interdisciplinary research in the field of human technology. Kaisa Oksanen is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: kaisa.oksanen@jyu.fi
Pirjo Sta
˚
hle PhD (Educ.) is a Professor at the Finland Futures Research Centre, University of
Turku and a visiting Professor at Aalto University School of Business, Finland. Her main area
of specialisation is the measurement of intellectual capital and Innovation. Professor Sta
˚
hle
is often mentioned as a pioneer of Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital in
Finland: she was the country’s first-ever Chief Knowledge Officer (Sonera 1998-2001), first
Professor of Knowledge Management (Lappeenranta University of Technology 2001-2007),
and her book on Knowledge Management (together with M. Gro
¨
nroos) was the first Finnish
book on this subject. She has published several books and more than 100 articles in popular
and scientific publications and given numerous lectures and presentations on themes
related to organisational renewal, innovative leadership, and knowledge-intensive economy.
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 827
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:
1. Peter Baudains, Steven Bishop, Philippe Duffour, Ljiljana Marjanovic-Halburd, Sophia Psarra, Catalina Spataru. 2014. A
systems paradigm for integrated building design. Intelligent Buildings International 1-14. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by VTT Information Services At 04:23 22 August 2014 (PT)