ArticlePDF Available

Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

More than 1,180,000 people use several thousand coworking spaces these days, but the running of coworking spaces is a rather fragile business model. Coworking spaces need entrepreneurial sustainability as well. Therefore, this study identifies success factors for sustainable business through analysis of users and hosts’ demands and priorities about coworking spaces. To identify the priorities, we conducted a questionnaire survey with 60 hosts and 56 users by using the analytic hierarchy process method. We found that hosts thought community and communication most important, followed by space and interior, service diversity, and price plan, and users considered relationship facilitation the most important, followed by service diversity, price plan, and networking event and party. After discussions with coworking space hosts and users to understand the differences in viewpoints, we combined the results to find the highest priorities. Finally, we identified relationship facilitation, service diversity, and price plan as having the highest priorities for sustainable coworking space operation for both sides. This study has major implications for research into improving management of coworking spaces as it asks users and hosts to select and focus on elements of priority in their decision making for entrepreneurial sustainability and management innovation.
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on
Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives
Jongseok Seo 1ID , Lidziya Lysiankova 2, Young-Seok Ock 1ID and Dongphil Chun 1, *
1Graduate School of Management of Technology, Pukyong National University, 365, Sinseon-ro, Nam-gu,
Busan 48547, Korea; jsseo@pknu.ac.kr (J.S.); ysock@pknu.ac.kr (Y.-S.O.)
2Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, Universiteto str. 3, Vilnius 01513, Lithuania;
lydia.lysenkova@gmail.com
*Correspondence: performance@pknu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-51-629-5647
Received: 19 July 2017; Accepted: 10 August 2017; Published: 22 August 2017
Abstract:
More than 1,180,000 people use several thousand coworking spaces these days, but
the running of coworking spaces is a rather fragile business model. Coworking spaces need
entrepreneurial sustainability as well. Therefore, this study identifies success factors for sustainable
business through analysis of users and hosts’ demands and priorities about coworking spaces.
To identify the priorities, we conducted a questionnaire survey with 60 hosts and 56 users by using
the analytic hierarchy process method. We found that hosts thought community and communication
most important, followed by space and interior, service diversity, and price plan, and users considered
relationship facilitation the most important, followed by service diversity, price plan, and networking
event and party. After discussions with coworking space hosts and users to understand the differences
in viewpoints, we combined the results to find the highest priorities. Finally, we identified relationship
facilitation, service diversity, and price plan as having the highest priorities for sustainable coworking
space operation for both sides. This study has major implications for research into improving
management of coworking spaces as it asks users and hosts to select and focus on elements of priority
in their decision making for entrepreneurial sustainability and management innovation.
Keywords:
coworking; coworking space; coworking space management; entrepreneurial
sustainability; management innovation; decision making
1. Introduction
Over the past 30 years, three major changes have occurred in the sphere of arrangements for
knowledge work. The first is that home computers and e-mail have created a group of freelancers, who
are definitely more flexible than office workers. The second change occurred with the introduction of
mobile technology and global teamwork: it made it possible for full-time employees to work anywhere
and anytime. Now, a new change is coming: shared spaces now give the benefit of both flexibility and
social factors; people can feel free and not lonely without sacrificing any of these factors [
1
]. Moreover,
shared spaces help with users’ financial situation. Working in a shared workspace is a way of reducing
individual risk: this approach to work arrangement brings flexibility and management innovation,
and improves the financial situation of the workers while providing specific resources for sustaining
freelancers and self-employed persons in a highly competitive job market [2].
Coworking refers to the practice of working alongside one another in flexible, shared work
settings where desks can be rented on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis [
2
]. Referring to data of the
global coworking survey conducted in 2017, people are using 13,800 coworking spaces throughout
the world [
3
]. The new reality is that more and more independent workers are joining this type
of workplace instead of a private office, among them are a huge proportion of entrepreneurs [
4
].
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494; doi:10.3390/su9081494 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494 2 of 10
Of course, sometimes, private offices and assigned seating can increase individual productivity
such as in deadline work, but an open environment and flexible seating increase creativity and
innovation through cross-pollination [
5
]. Therefore, a space and interior strategy is necessary for users’
diversity [6].
In South Korea, this phenomenon of coworking space is definitely up to date. According to the
Korea Institute of Startup & Entrepreneurship Development, which has launched an in-person, creative
company factual survey report, since 2009, one-person creative companies have increased by 13% every
year, and there were 296,137 such companies in 2012 [
7
]. This leads to the thought that South Korea
as a country should focus on the coworking space phenomenon, as it will guarantee entrepreneurial
sustainability as well as a reduction in the costs of renting an office space and maintaining it; it will also
help start-ups gain more experience, because a coworking space brings people from different spheres
together. Productivity can be defined as the ratio of outputs over inputs [
8
]. A coworking space can
increase start-ups’ productivity by reducing their inputs. In other words, joining a coworking space is
an important way to increase the entrepreneurial sustainability of start-ups. According to the in-depth
interview research of Seo et al., Korean users consider this an important benefit [
7
]. The host of a
Korean coworking space plays a leading role [
9
]. As the aim of the host’s activities is to create a unique
cooperative atmosphere and build special relationships between the users of a coworking space [
10
],
Korean coworking spaces should pay attention to the host concept, even though this concept has not
been investigated adequately in a particular cultural range.
Despite its importance, the running of a coworking space is rather fragile as a business model,
with many hosts struggling to keep their spaces going [
11
] because of the low-margin on monthly
services [
10
]. Therefore, in order to identify the important elements of efficient management, the
perspectives of two groups should be considered: those of users and hosts. In some cases, achieving
the right balance between support and interference is a difficult judgment for hosts [
12
]. This problem
can be formulated to determine the perspectives of both the users and hosts of coworking spaces.
As both users and hosts play a crucial role in the formation of a coworking space and related decision
making, it is important to know their opinions on how to make this concept work better for both groups.
This study will compare the two groups based on the criteria of their preferences. This paper is
divided into four sections. Section 2explains the basic concepts and methodology. The results are
discussed in Section 3. Section 4consists of a discussion about the practical implications of the results,
the study’s limitations, and future research possibilities.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Coworking Space
As mentioned before, a coworking space is a new phenomenon. Therefore, most scholars have
different perspectives on its meaning. One opinion is that coworking spaces are shared workplaces
used by various professionals of different spheres [
13
]. Most of them are freelancers and include
those who want to rid the loneliness of working alone in their houses and begin communication with
specialists from different knowledge industries [
13
]. Coworking is a special tool for the promotion of a
collective, community-based approach.
The concept of labor market knowledge shows the coworking phenomenon to be a “new model
of work” in the context of a “collaborative and sharing” economy [
14
]. It leads to the thought that
this new idea points out the importance of social interaction between colleagues (people who work
together) for ensuring added value based on lower cost through the sharing of offices and devices.
The implications of these circumstances have an influence on the propriety of the social interaction of
workers in their professional networks, as well as on the nature of their jobs [1].
In South Korea, the host definitely plays a key role in coworking spaces [
7
]. The host’s
activities are aimed at the creation of a special atmosphere of collaboration and relationship building
between the users of a coworking space [
11
]. Furthermore, the host holds investment briefings
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494 3 of 10
or encourages investor relations for users’ business promotion. This function is similar to that of
an enterprise-development program of a for-profit seed capital incubator [
15
]. Especially, these
management activities lead to up-front investment and lengthy payback periods [
12
]. This means that
social factors play a huge role in coworking spaces and help to ensure entrepreneurial sustainability.
It is understood that a favorable working environment is the keystone of the success of any
organization, no matter the sphere in which it operates. These conditions have a significant influence
on the nature of their jobs, the relevance of social relations across their own professional networks,
and—ultimately—their existence as productive workers in the knowledge economy [13].
This concept is a new form of urban social infrastructure that helps to build special connections,
collaboration between people, the development of decision-making skills, and the sharing of new
ideas and crucial contacts that will be beneficial for furthering the business [
11
]. It is different from the
old-school methods used in working spaces, whether or not they were self-organized. Some variables
of common spaces are diverse, such as the short-term letting of desks (on a daily, weekly, or monthly
basis), and especially the flexibility, mobility, and constant change in social make-up [11].
This approach is becoming more and more popular among business people. The network of
activities in which each coworker engages has become the push for the development of the objective
at each coworking site, as a coworking space is a place to get work done—specifically, knowledge or
service work that originates outside the site in other intersecting activities [13].
Coworking spaces are a concentration of knowledge production and knowledge distribution, and
they provide the chance for the exchange of different concepts between professionals and the creation
of collaborations that are particularly important for businesses, especially start-ups that do not have
enough resources to operate without any support [
11
]. Coworking is a joint activity, not a singular one,
and it relies on the ability of the participants to understand that coworking rests heavily on how it
intersects with other networked activities [10].
To conclude, a coworking space is the perfect place for young start-up entrepreneurs, venture
capitalists, and potential public policy interventions in cities as it provides everything that is needed
for them [16].
2.2. Empirical Research on Coworking Spaces
Contemporary coworking spaces originated in 2005 in San Francisco. These were places where
the “third way” of working was found: a balance between the “standard” work life within a traditional,
well-delimited workplace in a community-like environment, and an independent work life as a
freelancer, characteristic of freedom and independence, where the worker is based at home in
isolation [17].
Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that as the coworking space concept appeared only in 2005,
it has developed really fast over the past 11 years and has become a management innovation [
11
].
There is not a lot of research in the sphere of coworking spaces as it is a brand-new concept. In addition,
most of the quality research was based on interviews, which cannot be the only way of exploring
a phenomenon.
There are two perspectives on coworking spaces: that of the users and the hosts. The needs
of both these sides are completely varied, even though their goal—to be successful—is the same.
Different scholars have defined various elements of coworking spaces. Leforestier identified the
following co-working space operating elements: community, advice, support, promotion, mentor,
and coworker [
18
]. In addition, Kojo et al. identified service factors for strategy operations through
user experiences such as a “Sense of welcome”, “Possibilities for multi-use of the building and
spaces”, “Informality and ease”, “Inspiration and facilitation”, and “Constant narrative of spaces” [
19
].
Seo et al. found important elements of coworking spaces such as “Co-working management”,
“Membership management” and “Supporting management” (the research was conducted with 60 hosts
of co-working spaces by using the analytic hierarchy process [AHP]) [
9
]. A comparison of the works of
the abovementioned authors is presented in Table 1.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494 4 of 10
Table 1. Comparison of scholars’ works about coworking spaces.
Author Year Title Summary Target
Leforestier [18] 2009 The coworking
space concept
Coworkers’ expectations through
a survey of 120 coworkers Users
Kojo et al. [19] 2014
User experience in
an academic
coworking place
Most important elements of user
experience through 101
respondents participating in a
survey of students, staff members,
researchers, and teachers
Users
Seo et al. [6] 2015
A study of
coworking space
operation strategy
Most important elements of the
operation distinguished through a
survey of 60 hosts
Hosts
To conclude, there have been several studies about coworking spaces. Nevertheless, this paper is
unique as it brings together the perspectives of the two crucial groups of coworking spaces—users and
hosts—without whom such spaces could not exist.
2.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process Method
The AHP was developed and introduced by Saaty. This method has a comprehensive
decision-making process with a hierarchical structure that consists of levels and links [
20
]. The AHP’s
characteristics are suitable for handling multiple levels and criteria [
21
]. In order to use AHP, scholars
have to identify several qualitative and quantitative criteria. This will be helpful to evaluate the
priorities among multiple alternatives [
22
,
23
]. The strongpoint of this method is that it is appropriate
to transform qualitative information into quantitative information [
24
26
]. It is based on a person’s
perceptions identified through a survey [
27
]. The results of the analysis are provided as a priority
ratio by paired comparison [
28
]. Saaty mentioned that “The AHP is a theory of measurement through
pairwise comparisons and relies on the judgements of experts to derive priority scales” [29].
The AHP generally uses a nine-point scale and provides a consistency ratio with relative priority
within criteria, elements, and alternatives [
20
,
29
,
30
]. The nine-point scale is subdivided into equally,
moderately, strongly, very strongly, and absolutely preferred (with the values of 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9,
respectively), as well as intermediate values (2, 4, 6, and 8) [31].
The AHP has been widely applied to evaluate complex and comprehensive impacts during
the last few decades [
27
]. Economic analysis, forecasting, and strategic planning are performed by
using AHP [
32
]. Furthermore, in various industries, AHP has been applied for resource allocation,
performance evaluation, business decision making, and priority rating [3335].
Some papers apply the AHP approach in the fields of entrepreneurship and innovation success
factors, innovative capabilities and the intellectual property of firms, and important factors of
innovation clusters. Liu and Chin used this method to propose an intellectual property management
excellence audit system, and to identify its critical success factors [
36
]. Chen and Wang revealed the
critical operational factors of success for the information service industry using the AHP approach [
37
].
Sun et al. attempted to understand the driving forces of the innovation cluster by analyzing priorities
from the Hsinchu Science Park in Taiwan using the fuzzy AHP method [38].
Nevertheless, no coworking space research has been conducted using AHP, and only Seo et al.
focused on the providers’ perspective [
9
]. In order to capture the competitiveness of coworking spaces,
both providers and users’ perspectives need to be understood together. If the users and providers’
specific needs are grasped, coworking spaces can achieve sustainable design and become a source of
entrepreneurial sustainability. Few scholars have tried to understand both sides’ priorities. Kher et al.
proposed a network selection model with two ranking schemes that indicate the providers and users’
specific needs [
39
]. This research emphasized the importance of understanding both sides’ ranking
results in a network industry. Da Cruz et al. tried to measure the users and providers’ priorities using
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494 5 of 10
AHP in a seaport industry [
40
]. They examined important factors of Iberian seaport competitiveness
based on the related stakeholders—that is, liner shipping companies (users) and seaport service
providers. They identified seaport facilities and equipment, channel depth, vessel turnaround time,
and proximity to import/export area as key factors. Based on the results, the users and providers’
priorities regarding key factors were found to be totally different. Vessel turnaround time was the most
important factor from the users’ view, while seaport facilities and equipment were the best factors in
the providers’ view.
The AHP is designed to decompose a complex, multi-criteria problem into multiple levels of
hierarchy with the top level as the goal or objective, the intermediate levels as the categories and
criteria, and the lowest level as the alternatives [
38
]. It is a subjective methodology that requires
experts in the particular fields to act as evaluators who provide their expert knowledge [
36
]. Decision
makers need to decide the priorities by conducting pairwise comparisons between complex criteria [
37
].
The AHP method can support a reasonable approximation when the policy and decision maker’s
judgments are applied [41].
We propose to analyze the important factors of success for coworking space operation through
the AHP approach by considering both hosts and users’ perspectives. Following previous studies, we
performed comparative analysis using the AHP method for coworking space operation. The results
will reveal discrepancies between the users and providers, and suggest ways for coworking spaces to
obtain a competitive edge for sustainable operation.
3. Research Design
For application in coworking space research, two levels of the AHP model have been designed.
This model was suggested by Seo et al. [
9
]; see Figure 1. The elements were collected from advanced
papers, such as those listed in Table 1, discussion with experts, and suggestions and verifications by
published papers [6,7,9].
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1494 5 of 10
channel depth, vessel turnaround time, and proximity to import/export area as key factors. Based on
the results, the users and providers’ priorities regarding key factors were found to be totally
different. Vessel turnaround time was the most important factor from the users’ view, while seaport
facilities and equipment were the best factors in the providers’ view.
The AHP is designed to decompose a complex, multi-criteria problem into multiple levels of
hierarchy with the top level as the goal or objective, the intermediate levels as the categories and
criteria, and the lowest level as the alternatives [38]. It is a subjective methodology that requires
experts in the particular fields to act as evaluators who provide their expert knowledge [36].
Decision makers need to decide the priorities by conducting pairwise comparisons between complex
criteria [37]. The AHP method can support a reasonable approximation when the policy and
decision maker’s judgments are applied [41].
We propose to analyze the important factors of success for coworking space operation through
the AHP approach by considering both hosts and users’ perspectives. Following previous studies,
we performed comparative analysis using the AHP method for coworking space operation. The
results will reveal discrepancies between the users and providers, and suggest ways for coworking
spaces to obtain a competitive edge for sustainable operation.
3. Research Design
For application in coworking space research, two levels of the AHP model have been designed.
This model was suggested by Seo et al. [9]; see Figure 1. The elements were collected from advanced
papers, such as those listed in Table 1, discussion with experts, and suggestions and verifications by
published papers [6,7,9].
Figure 1. Hierarchy of coworking space operating elements as suggested by Seo et al. [9].
The model uses both users and providers’ perspectives [2]. The first level presents key
management criteria that include coworking management, membership management, and
supporting management. The second level captures sub-attributes of the first level’s criterion.
Coworking management is related to relationship facilitation, networking event and party, and
community and communication. Membership management is a key criterion of service diversity and
price plan, promotion and public relations, and alliance and partnership. Space and interior, facility
and device solution, and mentoring and education are sub-attributes of supporting management.
Figure 1 and Table 2 summarize the AHP model for coworking spaces. We used the Expert Choice
2000 software to apply AHP in this research.
The AHP survey data were collected from users and hosts separately. The respondents of this
research are 60 coworking space hosts in 23 cities of South Korea and 64 users of coworking spaces
Figure 1. Hierarchy of coworking space operating elements as suggested by Seo et al. [9].
The model uses both users and providers’ perspectives [
2
]. The first level presents key
management criteria that include coworking management, membership management, and supporting
management. The second level captures sub-attributes of the first level’s criterion. Coworking
management is related to relationship facilitation, networking event and party, and community and
communication. Membership management is a key criterion of service diversity and price plan,
promotion and public relations, and alliance and partnership. Space and interior, facility and device
solution, and mentoring and education are sub-attributes of supporting management. Figure 1and
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494 6 of 10
Table 2summarize the AHP model for coworking spaces. We used the Expert Choice 2000 software to
apply AHP in this research.
Table 2. Definitions of an operating system.
Key Management Sub-Attributes Descriptions
Coworking management
Relationship facilitation Activities that encourage members to form relationships and
natural collaborations
Networking event and
party
Activities involving events to interact with experts in various
fields and exchange information between the members
Community and
communication
Continuous management of online and offline communication
channels for effective exchange of information, interaction,
and cooperative work
Membership management
Service diversity and
price plan
Development and management of strategy and revenue
models for customer needs and member acquisition
Promotion and public
relations
Activities to hold investment seminars or public relations
events supporting and promoting members’ businesses
Alliance and partnership
Activities that connect and interact with other regions and
brands of coworking spaces and other services such as
theaters, cafés, and cultural facilities to expand business
profits and members’ benefits
Supporting management
Space and interior
Activities for improving work efficiency and coworking
atmosphere through a variety of space arrangements and
interior concepts
Facility and device
solution
Activities maintaining the supporting equipment, facilities,
and services for members’ convenience in the coworking space
Mentoring and education
Programs for improving members’ business capabilities such
as skills, knowledge, and know-how
The AHP survey data were collected from users and hosts separately. The respondents of this
research are 60 coworking space hosts in 23 cities of South Korea and 64 users of coworking spaces
from main cities such as Seoul, Busan, Daejeon, and Daegu. The survey was conducted over five
months; we obtained 49 responses from hosts and 56 from users after verification of the consistency
ratio (CR) value (CR
0.1). CR
0.1 indicates that responses to the AHP questionnaire are satisfactory
in terms of consistency.
4. Results
The respondents are users and hosts of South Korean coworking spaces. The answers are valid
and have a sense of reality. This means that respondents are experts in this field. This research is
valuable as it presents a comparative analysis of both sides. This means that the important factors will
be different by perspective. In the first level of hierarchy, the priorities are different between hosts and
users. From the hosts’ perspective, coworking management is the most important, and membership
management has the lowest rank. From the users’ perspective, the most important criteria are the same
as that of hosts. However, supporting management has the lowest rank. Table 3shows the difference
in weight and priority by perspectives.
Table 3. Results of priority weightings in the first level between hosts and users.
Key Management Hosts’ Priority Weight Users’ Priority Weight
Coworking management 0.347 0.486
Membership management 0.337 0.314
Supporting management 0.316 0.199
In the second level, the different needs regarding the sub-attributes have been checked by the
respondent group; see Table 4.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494 7 of 10
Table 4. Results of priority weightings in the second level between hosts and users.
Sub-Attributes Hosts’ Priority Weight Users’ Priority Weight
Relationship facilitation (1) 0.348 0.472
Networking event and party (2) 0.256 0.288
Community and communication (3) 0.396 0.241
Service diversity and price plan (4) 0.402 0.492
Promotion and public relations (5) 0.357 0.364
Alliance and partnership (6) 0.241 0.144
Space and interior (7) 0.392 0.581
Facility and device solution (8) 0.302 0.203
Mentoring and education (9) 0.306 0.217
By synthesizing the process, the different priority weights have been defined. The synthesizing
results are derived by multiplying the priority weight of key management and the priority weight of
the sub-attributes; see Table 5.
Table 5. Results of synthesizing between the hosts and users.
Sub-Attributes Hosts’ Priority Weight Rank Users’ Priority Weight Rank
Relationship facilitation (1) 0.121 4 0.229 1
Networking event and party (2) 0.089 8 0.140 3
Community and communication (3)
0.137 1 0.117 4
Service diversity and price plan (4) 0.127 3 0.154 2
Promotion and public relations (5) 0.113 5 0.114 6
Alliance and partnership (6) 0.076 9 0.045 7
Space and interior (7) 0.132 2 0.116 5
Facility and device solution (8) 0.102 7 0.040 9
Mentoring and education (9) 0.103 6 0.043 8
Based on rank, there are many different important factors by perspective. In hosts’ responses,
community and communication is the most important factor, and alliance and partnership has the
lowest rank. However, from the users’ perspective, relationship facilitation is the best factor, and
facility and device solution is of no particular importance.
Figure 2presents a summary of the AHP analysis of coworking spaces. The X-axis indicates
the hosts’ priority weight, and the Y-axis indicates the users’ priority weight. We categorized the
sub-attributes by quadrant graph based on the mean of each perspective’s priority weights. The median
is a classification criteria (X-axis: 0.113, Y-axis: 0.116). As a result, relationship facilitation, and service
diversity and price plan, are identified as important elements from both hosts and users’ perspectives.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1494 7 of 10
Table 4. Results of priority weightings in the second level between hosts and users.
Sub-Attributes Hosts’ Priority Weight Users’ Priority Weight
Relationship facilitation (1) 0.348 0.472
Networking event and party (2) 0.256 0.288
Community and communication (3) 0.396 0.241
Service diversity and price plan (4) 0.402 0.492
Promotion and public relations (5) 0.357 0.364
Alliance and partnership (6) 0.241 0.144
Space and interior (7) 0.392 0.581
Facility and device solution (8) 0.302 0.203
Mentoring and education (9) 0.306 0.217
By synthesizing the process, the different priority weights have been defined. The synthesizing
results are derived by multiplying the priority weight of key management and the priority weight of
the sub-attributes; see Table 5.
Table 5. Results of synthesizing between the hosts and users.
Sub-Attributes Hosts’ Priority Weight Rank Users’ Priority Weight Rank
Relationship facilitation (1) 0.121 4 0.229 1
Networking event and party (2) 0.089 8 0.140 3
Community and communication (3) 0.137 1 0.117 4
Service diversity and price plan (4) 0.127 3 0.154 2
Promotion and public relations (5) 0.113 5 0.114 6
Alliance and partnership (6) 0.076 9 0.045 7
Space and interior (7) 0.132 2 0.116 5
Facility and device solution (8) 0.102 7 0.040 9
Mentoring and education (9) 0.103 6 0.043 8
Based on rank, there are many different important factors by perspective. In hosts’ responses,
community and communication is the most important factor, and alliance and partnership has the
lowest rank. However, from the users’ perspective, relationship facilitation is the best factor, and
facility and device solution is of no particular importance.
Figure 2 presents a summary of the AHP analysis of coworking spaces. The X-axis indicates the
hosts’ priority weight, and the Y-axis indicates the users’ priority weight. We categorized the
sub-attributes by quadrant graph based on the mean of each perspective’s priority weights. The
median is a classification criteria (X-axis: 0.113, Y-axis: 0.116). As a result, relationship facilitation,
and service diversity and price plan, are identified as important elements from both hosts and users’
perspectives.
Figure 2. Hierarchy of coworking space operating elements.
Figure 2. Hierarchy of coworking space operating elements.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494 8 of 10
5. Conclusions
A coworking space has two main actors: users and hosts. Users are those who take advantage of
all the benefits of a coworking space. Users have needs the hosts try to satisfy. It can be said that users
are the so-called customers and the hosts are the sellers of their service. Therefore, it is understood
that the success of any coworking space will be destined with the criteria. These criteria are important
as they can vary according to the perspectives of the main actors: users and hosts.
Using the AHP model, a survey was conducted with users and hosts. Before the survey, three
levels of management were defined: coworking management, membership management, and, finally,
supporting management. Each level has a number of criteria that were evaluated. Coworking
management is composed of relationship facilitation, networking event and party, and community and
communication. Membership management is composed of service diversity and price plan, promotion
and public relations, and alliance and partnership. In addition, supporting management is composed
of space and interior, facility and device solution, and mentoring and education.
The survey respondents were the hosts and users of coworking spaces in Korea, and 60 coworking
hosts and 56 users were interviewed. After this detailed analysis, the priorities of both groups were
distinguished. From both hosts and users’ perspectives, coworking management is the most significant
criteria in key management. Nevertheless, for hosts, membership management has the lowest rank.
On the other hand, supporting management has the lowest rank for users.
Then, a more detailed analysis was considered. It was found that from the users’ perspective,
there are two important elements: facilitation and costs. Facilitation refers to when users want to meet
coworkers naturally, and the cost plays a significant role as well. Users desire to get performance at a
certain price. This means that they check the service plan of the coworking space. Therefore, hosts
should concentrate on these elements for efficiency through investment, development policy, and
management procedure. In their turn, hosts consider community and communication, and space and
interior, as the most important elements in a coworking space, while users believe these have normal
priority. The existence of a community for coworkers and communication tools are believed to be
the most important elements for maintaining a successful coworking relationship, but users do not
consider them in this way. Space and interior leads to the thought that upgrading the atmosphere
in the coworking space is related to marginal utility. Users do not leave one coworking space for
another only because of this criterion. Any development of space and interior does not bring about
higher satisfaction.
Networking event and party should be regarded separately. Users appreciate this part of the
management, but hosts think that it is not very important and does not influence the work. Some hosts
want such events and parties to be part of the voluntary culture of users without the hosts’ input [
7
].
In Western countries, events are appreciated a lot as a tool for team building [
10
]. Young entrepreneurs
are especially pleased with the networking activities and seminars for support and caching that hosts
organize [
12
]. Such events are also planned by members themselves, physically or through online
conferences [18].
This study has limitations as the results are obtained from analyzing the responses of Korean
coworking users and hosts, which cannot be applied to coworking spaces throughout the world. There
will be some cultural differences that affect the rankings of the users and the hosts’ priorities. This
means that in every culture, coworking spaces should be evaluated separately. In addition, we only
focused on start-ups as users within the coworking space, and the hosts’ role as a control. Future
research would have more value if it reflected and improved upon the abovementioned limitations.
Nevertheless, the results can be used for the successful operation of coworking spaces in Korea and
other Asian countries due to similar cultural elements. This study suggests guidelines for developing
coworking spaces in the Korean or Asian styles that provide both users and hosts with the opportunity
to understand each other and arrive at a compromise.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494 9 of 10
Acknowledgments:
This research was supported by the Technology Innovation Program (Graduate School of
Management of Technology) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (N0001613).
Author Contributions:
Jongseok Seo mainly contributed to perform this research through set research design,
applied AHP method, data collection, and writing paper. Dongphil Chun reviewed research design, method,
and calculated priorities. Lidziya Lysiankova participated data collection, and writing literature review section.
Young-Seok Ock contributed to set research design, data collection and interpretation of key results. All authors
have read and approved this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Gandini, A. The rise of coworking spaces: A literature review. Ephemera 2015,15, 193–205.
2.
Merkel, J. Coworking Spaces: Die (Re-)Organisation Kreativer Arbeit; Working Paper, Wissenschaftszentrum
Berlin für Sozialforschung: WZB brief Arbeit 16; WZB: Berlin, Germany, 2013.
3.
Foertsch, C. First Results of the 2017 Global Coworking Survey. 2016. Available online: https://
www.slideshare.net/carstenfoertsch/the-first-results-of-the-2017-global-coworking-survey (accessed on
10 July 2017).
4.
Fabbri, J.; Charue-Duboc, F. The role of material space in coworking spaces hosting entrepreneurs: The case
of the Beehives in Paris. In Proceedings of the 2nd Organizations, Artifacts and Practices Workshop, Paris,
France, 10–11 May 2012.
5.
Waber, B.; Magnolfi, J.; Lindsay, G. Workspaces that move people. Harv. Bus. Rev.
2014
,92, 68–77, 121.
[PubMed]
6.
Seo, J.S.; Lee, G.C.; Ock, Y.S. A study of coworking space operation strategy: Focused on operation elements
analysis by AHP method. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Ventur. Entrep. 2015,40, 157–165.
7.
Seo, J.S.; Ko, D.Y.; Lee, G.C.; Ock, Y.S. An exploratory study on adoption of co-working and co-working
space: Focusing on in-depth interviews with mangers of one-person creative company business center.
Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Ventur. Entrep. 2015,41, 83–92.
8.
Pritchard, R.D. Productivity Measurement and Improvement: Organizational Case Studies; Greenwood Publishing
Group: Westport, CT, USA, 1995.
9.
Seo, J.S.; Ock, Y.S. A study on application for coworking space management evaluation. ICIC Express Lett.
2016,6, 1–8.
10.
Spinuzzi, C. Working alone together coworking as emergent collaborative activity. J. Bus. Tech. Commun.
2012,26, 399–441. [CrossRef]
11. Merkel, J. Coworking in the city. Ephemera 2015,15, 121–139.
12. Trott, P.; Scholten, V.E.; Hartmann, D. How university incubators may be overprotective and hindering the
success of the young firm: Findings from a preliminary study. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Engineering Management Conference, Estoril, Portugal, 28–30 June 2008.
13.
Foertsch, C. Profitable Coworking Business Models. 2011. Available online: http://www.deskmag.com/en/
profitable-coworking-space-business-models-189 (accessed on 10 July 2017).
14.
Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine Is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption Is Changing the Way We Live;
Collins: London, UK, 2011.
15.
Allen, D.N.; McCluskey, R. Structure, policy, services, and performance in the business incubator industry.
Entrep. Theory Pract. 1990,2, 61–77.
16.
Moriset, B. Building new places of the creative economy. The rise of coworking spaces. In Proceedings of the
2nd Geography of Innovation International Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 25 January 2014.
17.
Niewiadomska, E.W. Marketing Strategies to Grow Your Coworking Business! 2013. Available online:
http://www.deskmag.com/en/8- marketing-strategies- to-grow-your-coworking-business-791 (accessed
on 10 July 2017).
18.
Leforestier, A. The Co-Working Space Concept. CINE Term Project; Indian Institute of Management (IIMAHD):
Ahmedabad, India, 2009.
19.
Kojo, I.; Nenonen, S. User experience in an academic coworking place: The case of alto university’s
design factory. In Proceedings of the CIB Facilities Management Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark,
21–23 May 2014.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1494 10 of 10
20.
Tudela, A.; Akiki, N.; Cisternas, R. Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis.
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2006,40, 414–423. [CrossRef]
21.
Vaidya, O.S.; Kumar, S. Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
2006
,169,
1–29. [CrossRef]
22.
Saaty, T.L. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World;
RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1990; Volume 48, pp. 9–26.
23.
Saaty, T.L. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process;
RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2000; Volume 6.
24.
Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
1990
,48, 9–26.
[CrossRef]
25.
Tummala, V.R.; Chin, K.; Ho, S. Assessing success factors for implementing CE a case study in Hong Kong
electronics industry by AHP. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1997,49, 265–283. [CrossRef]
26.
Patel, S.; Khandelwal, A.; Leavey, A.; Biswas, P. A model for cost-benefit analysis of cooking fuel alternatives
from a rural Indian household perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016,56, 291–302. [CrossRef]
27.
Azis, I.J. Analytic hierarchy process in the benefit-cost framework: A post-evaluation of the Trans-Sumatra
highway project. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990,48, 38–48. [CrossRef]
28.
Wedley, W.C.; Choo, E.U.; Schoner, B. Magnitude adjustment for AHP benefit/cost ratios. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
2001,133, 342–351. [CrossRef]
29.
Chung, Y.; Hong, S.; Kim, J. Which of the technologies for producing hydrogen is the most prospective in
Korea?: Evaluating the competitive priority of those in near-, mid-, and long-term. Energy Policy
2014
,65,
115–125. [CrossRef]
30. Satty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
31.
Shen, Y.-C.; Chou, C.J.; Lin, G.T. The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy
goals. Energy 2011,36, 2589–2598. [CrossRef]
32.
Xu, Z. On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
2000,126, 683–687. [CrossRef]
33.
Chwolka, A.; Raith, M.G. Group preference aggregation with the AHP–implications for multiple-issue
agendas. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001,132, 176–186. [CrossRef]
34.
Beynon, M. An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002,140, 104–117. [CrossRef]
35.
Tzeng, G.-H.; Teng, M.-H.; Chen, J.-J.; Opricovic, S. Multicriteria selection for a restaurant location in Taipei.
Int. J. Hospitality Manag. 2002,21, 171–187. [CrossRef]
36.
Kher, S.; Somani, A.K.; Gupta, R. Network selection using fuzzy logic. In Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Broadband Networks, Boston, MA, USA, 7 October 2005.
37.
Chen, M.-K.; Wang, S.-C. The critical factors of success for information service industry in developing
international market: Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Expert Syst. Appl.
2010
,37, 694–704.
[CrossRef]
38.
Sun, C.-C.; Lin, G.T.R.; Tzeng, G.-H. The evaluation of cluster policy by fuzzy MCDM: Empirical evidence
from HsinChu Science Park. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009,36, 11895–11906. [CrossRef]
39.
Liu, T.-W.; Chin, K.-S. Development of audit system for intellectual property management excellence.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2010,37, 4504–4518. [CrossRef]
40.
Da Cruz, M.R.P.; Ferreira, J.J.; Azevedo, S.G. Key factors of seaport competitiveness based on the stakeholder
perspective: An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model. Marit. Econ. Logist.
2013
,15, 416–443. [CrossRef]
41.
Cho, J.; Lee, J. Development of a new technology product evaluation model for assessing commercialization
opportunities using Delphi method and fuzzy AHP approach. Expert Syst. Appl.
2013
,40, 5314–5330.
[CrossRef]
©
2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... Coworking spaces (CWSs) are shared workspaces used by companies, entrepreneurs, and freelancers from different areas and specializations, designed to facilitate collaboration among users with similar professional goals (Spinuzzi 2012;Capdevila 2014;Gandini 2015;Oswald and Zhao 2022;Oliveira Junior and Costa 2023). These spaces have become one of the three most significant transformations in the work environment, particularly in fostering knowledge exchange (Seo et al. 2017). These spaces embody a new production paradigm, which Krause (2019) considers "uberism" (a term related to Uber relationships). ...
... Spinuzzi (2012) highlights space, professionalism, and design, which provide comfort to its users and possibilities to serve customers, investors, and business partners or even work alone in an organized, professional environment with less informality and social isolation than the home office. This combination of characteristics has the potential to generate innovative results that could increase the possibilities of superior performance and competitiveness for the businesses and professionals involved (Milovanovic 2015;Lee 2016;Castilho and Quandt 2017;Seo et al. 2017;Howell 2022). Furthermore, it could enhance a business's sustainability potential (Bouncken et al. 2023). ...
... The network variables were grouped into two latent factors. The first, named the "support network", relates to the physical, instrumental, and intellectual support among users, as noted by Spinuzzi (2012), Capdevila (2014Capdevila ( , 2015, Fuzi (2015), Gerdenitsch et al. (2016), and Seo et al. (2017). The second factor, "training network", represents the opportunities for forming new contacts and exchanging information, knowledge, and skills, according to Bilandzic and Foth (2014), Capdevila (2014), Soares and Saltorato (2015), Capdevila (2015), Castilho andQuandt (2017), andHoendervanger et al. (2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Space sharing for companies has become a trend in the last decade. Many of the benefits of these spaces go beyond the financial scope, creating real value-added processes from these spaces. This study examines the associations between networks developed in coworking spaces and business performance. This research was quantitative, exploratory, and descriptive ex post facto. A survey was conducted among companies installed in coworking spaces in Recife, Brazil. The sample consisted of 77 valid respondents, and the data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics that measure central tendency, factor analysis, and Spearman (ordinal indicators) and Pearson (resulting factors) correlations, in addition to reliability tests and adequacy of the sample, necessary in the refinement of the scales. This study makes a theoretical contribution by specifying the concept of coworking, a topic still underexplored in the literature, and by defining networks in this context, which allowed for the development of a measurement scale. It also discusses the performance construct and its measurement classes, which showed significant internal consistency. Despite the consistency in the data, only the hypothesis of a positive and significant association between network and market performance was partially accepted, demonstrating that more than the network alone was needed to generate results among coworkers. This lack of association contradicts the literature as it is the most discussed aspect in qualitative studies on coworking and suggests that the network may not be a final resource but rather a means by which users obtain benefits such as benchmarks, creative ideas, and adaptation of business practices.
... This growth is evident in Africa (Akanle & Omotayo, 2019), Nigeria (Odunsi et al., 2019), and its largest economic city, Lagos State (Ezugwu, 2021). The users of CWS, mostly referred to as "coworkers" are a sophisticated crowd with varying work dynamics driven by their need to create value in collaboration (Waters-Lynch et al., 2016) and the success of these spaces lies heavily on its user's experience (Seo et al., 2017;Al-Hajji, 2017). ...
... This was quite different from the findings by Holienka and Race (2015) who reported that users are drawn to coworking spaces for their perceived ambience first, and secondly for their ability to give users a sense of community and positive interactions with like minds. In another vein, Seo et al. (2017) stated that the two key drivers are the need to facilitate relationship and the economic benefits of sharing a space. This study was supported by Cruz et al. (2021) and Huang et al. (2019) adding that that the urge for professional and social interaction are pivotal to coworking. ...
... Although this concept is both objective and subjective, they are important for increasing users' satisfaction and lack thereof a detrimental to the goals of coworking (Reza et al., 2021). Also, the spaces lack flexibility and adaptability meaning that they cannot be easily maneuvered to fit pressing needs or activities (Seo et al., 2017). This can be related to the previous concerns as a flexible and adaptable space is a subset of a functional space which fits users' personal needs. ...
... Each generation of workers has different expectations, needs and requirements in relation to the workspaces and different studies evidenced which services are most important for coworking users (APPEL-MEULENBROEK et al., 2019;DI MARINO et al., 2018;SEO et al., 2017;WEIJS-PERRÉE et al., 2019). Capdevila (2014) identifies three types of collaboration in the context of Coworking spaces: cost-based collaboration, where the main objective of collaboration is to reduce operational costs; resource-based collaboration, in which collaboration focus is on learning and gaining access to new knowledge and resources; and relational collaboration, where participants engage in collaboration for synergic results, actively investing in building community dynamics. ...
... In this category, Coworking spaces also act as startup incubators, contributing to the development and growth of startups and small ventures, providing consulting, mentoring, ecosystem mapping, networking, investments, and connections (RICHARDSON, 2017). Currently, independent entrepreneurs prefer this type of workplace instead of searching for private offices, since these "innovation ecosystems'' promote creativity and entrepreneurial intentions, contributing to the improvement of global innovation ecosystems (SEO et al., 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
Coworking spaces (CWS) are sustainable pillars for the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems, providing a variety of relevant services, which are co-created in exchanges experienced among different actors. During the pandemic, CWS experienced structural transformations. This study identified, characterised, and evaluated the relevance of the services provided by CWS considering the different stages in the evolution of a startup. For this, a narrative literature review was conducted and the second phase of the research included the development of netnographic initiatives and the conduction of multiple case studies. As a result, six categories of services were identified, comprehending 36 services, whose relevance varies considering the maturity level of the startup. This research contributes to the literature by providing a systemic view of the state of practice of these services in the context of CWS, as well as identifying the changes CWS environments are experiencing driven by digital transformations. Keywords: Coworking Spaces, startup, sharing economy, co-creation, digital transformation.
... CWSs are a promising and novel entrepreneurial phenomenon (Seo et al., 2017). Since it is an emerging topic, there is little and heterogeneous research literature on CWSs in general and CWS in rural areas (Josef, 2017;Seo et al., 2017). ...
... CWSs are a promising and novel entrepreneurial phenomenon (Seo et al., 2017). Since it is an emerging topic, there is little and heterogeneous research literature on CWSs in general and CWS in rural areas (Josef, 2017;Seo et al., 2017). Given the inconsistent use of the term CWS and the multitude of different perspectives taken, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to clarify and organize the subject. 1 Overall, we found a strong focus on empirical studies on CWSs compared to a smaller number of conceptional publications. ...
Article
Full-text available
As a result of the rural exodus over the last decades, unused vacancies in rural areas are at risk of falling into disrepair. Given the current trends of flexible workplaces and people returning to rural areas, their repurposing as coworking spaces (CWSs) by entrepreneurs poses a potential for sustainable future-oriented workplace solutions. However, there is little to no guidance on the structural configuration and business models of CWSs in rural areas available for these entrepreneurs. We apply a structured empirical research approach to create a comprehensive and specialized taxonomy, including a literature review and eleven interviews with operators of rural CWSs in Germany. The resulting taxonomy of business models of CWSs in rural areas based on an extension of the business model canvas contributes to the knowledge base on rural CWSs. We evaluate its usability through a case study and an entrepreneurial operator of a rural CWS, underlining its entrepreneurial and practice-oriented purpose. The study addresses several urgent topics, such as the future of work and new work (places), which enable and accelerate the development of CWSs outside agglomerations consequential to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also promotes social and sustainable entrepreneurship and the revitalizing, enhancing, and increasing of digital accessibility of rural regions.
... (2016). Differences between business center concepts in The Netherlands.MixedBouncken, R., Ratzmann, M., Barwinski, R. and Kraus, S. (2020). Coworking spaces: Empowerment for entrepreneurship and innovation in the digital and sharing economy.Oliva, F. L. and Kotabe, M. (2019). Barriers, practices, methods and knowledge management tools in startups.Seo, J., Lysiankova, L., Ock, Y. S. and Chun, D. (2017). Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users' Perspectives. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In the last decade, the development of flexible workspaces has become a global phenomenon. It is forecasted that by 2030, buildings will quickly and flexibly respond to the demands of those who occupy them. Indications of such transformations are evident even in the contemporary real estate arena. Coworking which is defined as the 'third wave of virtual work' is paramount in such transformations. However, despite this advancement and acknowledgment of success of these workspaces in the commercial real estate market, a limited number of academic studies exist. Further, attempts made on consolidating the existing knowledge base is not adequate. Thus, the aim of this paper is to review the existing literature and identify common themes and interesting research gaps in the coworking space business model for future research. Through this systematic review, 24 articles were reviewed. This review included quantitative, qualitative and mixed approach research articles published on coworking space context during the past five years. A comprehensive review was done using eight key rubRoyal Institute of Charted Surveyors. Finally, many important gaps in the existing literature were identified on the coworking space context and sharing economy and directions for future investigations were provided.
... The services of rural crowdspaces mainly include are technical support, financial support, and social support [7]. Technical support mainly refers to the crowdsourcing space providing office space, tools, materials and relevant training to help enterprises reach their goals [8]. Financial support refers to crowdsourcing spaces providing enterprises with relevant resources at relatively low prices, and crowdsourcing spaces can absorb funds from the government, related organizations and universities for enterprises to further reduce innovation costs [9]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
In order to investigate the relationship between government policy, the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces, the self-efficacy of returning youth, and the innovation performance of businesses, this study focuses on gathering data by distributing questionnaires to returning youth in rural crowdsourcing spaces and developing a structural model. The results demonstrate how important government policies are in encouraging youth entrepreneurship in their local communities. It has the potential to enhance both the development of rural crowdsourcing spaces and the self-efficacy of young entrepreneurs, thereby enhancing the innovative capabilities of local entrepreneurial businesses. Therefore, in order to encourage economic development in rural areas, the government should improve pertinent support measures.
... Since the inception of CWS in 2005, utilisation has been increasing rapidly at rates of 250 percent per annum [12]. A diverse range of knowledge-based workers have been identified as users of CWS, including those in paid employment and those who are self-employed, such as entrepreneurs, teleworkers from large organisations, students, and not-for-profit workers [10,13,14]. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent infection control measures imposed movement restrictions and office density limits which resulted in a significant reduction in the use of CWS [15]. ...
Article
Background: Utilisation of coworking spaces (CWS) was rising sharply prior to the COVID 19 pandemic. The transition to new work arrangements which involve a hybrid, work and home model, is likely to involve the use of alternative workspaces. Understanding the impacts of CWS on employees is timely to examine the benefits of utilisation and how these might be incorporated into new ways of working. This scoping review aims to explore the relationship between CWS, mental and physical health, and workers' performance, and provide insights into future considerations for design. Objective: The main objective was to map the current literature on CWS, focusing on identification of relevant modifiable factors to improve worker's mental and physical health, and performance. Method: Three databases, Embase, PsycInfo, and Proquest, were systematically reviewed, to identify studies from 2005 onwards. Data was extracted and analysed using diagrammatic mapping. Only studies published in English were included. Results: Eleven relevant papers were included which covered the three outcomes of interest, worker's performance (5), mental health (4) and physical health (2). Environmental factors influencing the three outcomes were categorised into physical environment (12 factors) and the psychosocial environment (6 factors). Overall, CWS environmental factors had a positive influence on workers (23 positive relationships and 11 negative relationships). Conclusion: Coworking spaces offer potential benefits for tele-workers, including opportunities for collaboration/networking and productivity gains. However, attention to the CWS physical design is important to optimise the experience for workers and mitigate risk of adverse mental and physical health effects.
Article
Full-text available
The construction of business incubator platforms to assist young people who return to their hometowns to launch their own enterprises is urgently needed because youth entrepreneurship is seen as a crucial component of rural revitalization. Based on this, the authors of this study distributed surveys to 468 returning youths in rural startup spaces to gather data, built a structural model, and conducted interviews with 13 entrepreneurial youths to examine the relationship between government policies, services, and the design of rural startup spaces, as well as the self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurial youths and the innovation performance of businesses. The results demonstrate how important government policies are in encouraging youth entrepreneurship in their local communities. It has the potential to enhance both the development of rural crowdsourcing spaces and the self-efficacy of young entrepreneurs, thereby enhancing the innovative capabilities of local entrepreneurial businesses. Therefore, in order to encourage economic development in rural areas, the government should improve pertinent support measures, enhance the development of business incubation platforms, and encourage young people moving back to their hometowns to start their own businesses.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to develop evaluation method to Co-working Space for improvement of operating management. So, we established the evaluation model that is referred to Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and conducted qualitative survey to the five Co-working Spaces in Busan location which are supported by the government for analysis of the operating management performance. After then, we evaluated the centers operating status through IPA Matrix and analyzed with the Co-working Space managers and expert about the result. This method could apply to Co-working Space evaluation and help to improve the management. This study has a major implication on research into decision making for Co-working Space management strategy by evaluation application.
Article
Full-text available
Nearly half of the worlds population does not have access to cleaner cooking fuels, and this is attributed to several things including the lack of resources (fuel), infrastructure (production and distribution), purchasing power (poverty), relevant policies, and a combination of these reasons. A households fuel choice aims to minimize cost and maximize benefit, both of which are intricate functions of many factors. The factors influencing a households fuel preference, and how manipulating these factors such as subsidies, improved distribution networks and user awareness will affect fuel preference is reported. A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) model was developed to study the fuel preferences of rural Indian households. Seven cooking fuels (biomass (wood and crop residue), dung, charcoal, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), biogas, kerosene and electricity) were ranked in order of household preference. Various scenarios were considered to demonstrate the sensitivity of fuel preference to multiple factors such as subsidies and improvement in cooking technology. Results obtained from the model demonstrated strong agreement with the current fuel usage pattern in rural India. The model was then applied to compare traditional cookstoves (TCS) to non-subsidized improved cookstoves (ICS). The benefit-to-cost ratio of solid fuels when used in ICS was lower than that when used in TCS. A similar trend was observed for fully-subsidized ICS; indicating that price is not the only obstacle to the adoption of an ICS. Sensitivity analysis was performed to demonstrate the utility of this CBA model in framing policies to promote fuel transition in rural India. Although providing subsidies on LPG and electricity can make these cleaner fuels an attractive option, biomass will remain a households preferred fuel unless distribution networks and infrastructure is developed to ensure their uninterrupted supply and accessibility.
Chapter
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a problem solving framework. It is a systematic procedure for representing the elements of any problem. It organizes the basic rationality by breaking down a problem into its smaller constituent parts and then calls for only simple pairwise comparison judgments, to develop priorities in each hierarchy.
Chapter
The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) are presented. These include: (1) ratio scales derived from reciprocal paired comparisons; (2) paired comparisons and the psychophysical origin of the fundamental scale used to make the comparisons; (3) conditions for sensitivity of the eigenvector to changes in judgements; (4) homogeneity and clustering to extend the scale from 1–9 to 1-℞; (5) additive synthesis of priorities, leading to a vector of multi-linear forms as applied within the decision structure of a hierarchy or the more general feedback network to reduce multi-dimensional measurements to a uni-dimensional ratio scale; (6) allowing rank preservation (ideal mode) or allowing rank reversal (distributive mode); and (7) group decision making using a mathematically justifiable way for synthesising individual judgements which allows the construction of a cardinal group decision compatible with individual preferences. These properties of the AHP give it both theoretical support and broad application.
Article
Business incubators are one of the newest tools on the enterprise development scene; nearly 400 are now in operation. A business incubator is a facility that provides affordable space, shared office services, and business development assistance in an environment conducive to new venture creation, survival, and early-stage growth. This article is a preliminary examination of the relationships among incubator structure, policy, services, and performance. A value-added continuum model is used to describe various kinds of incubators and aspects of their operations. Managers of 127 incubators were surveyed to examine features of the value-added continuum. Surrogate measures for the concepts that anchor either end of the continuum—property development and business development—are empirically examined. Incubators are found to be poor real estate ventures. Age and size of facility are found to be important determinants of jobs created and firms graduated. Only one other structure, policy, or services variable is important for explaining business development outcomes.
Article
This paper serves as an introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process - A multicriteria decision making approach in which factors are arranged in a hierarchic structure. The principles and the philosophy of the theory are summarized giving general background information of the type of measurement utilized, its properties and applications.