BA Thesis_Boris Gantz_DMI Lucerne_2015

ADAPTABLE WORKSPACE
DESIGN
SUPPORTING CREATIVE COLLABORATION
WITHIN COWORKING ENVIRONMENTS
Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, School of Art and Design
BA Design Management, International
Bachelor Thesis
Lucerne, May 21, 2015
Boris Ingmar Gantz

ADAPTABLE WORKSPACE
DESIGN
SUPPORTING CREATIVE COLLABORATION
WITHIN COWORKING ENVIRONMENTS
Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, School of Art and Design
BA Design Management, International
Bachelor Thesis
Boris Ingmar Gantz
AUTHOR
TUTOR

MAJOR
LOCATION, DATE
Boris Ingmar Gantz
Kasimir-Pfyffer-Strasse 1
CH-6003 Luzern
+41 (0)79 849 16 95
borisgantz@gmail.com
Daniel Aeschbacher,
Faculty Member, Design Management, International
Bachelor of Arts in Product and Industrial Design with
Specialisation in Design Management

This thesis focuses on the topic of co-creation within the physical workspace of coworking environ-
ments. This is of interest as workspace solutions, which support creative collaboration in coworking
spaces are the exception.
Coworking spaces evolve with a steadily increasing number of freelancers and start-ups. The popularity
of these spaces is growing in times, in which innovation through collaboration is one of the main drivers
for growth. In fact the two most important core values of the global coworking movement are based
on community and collaboration. Yet, coworking focuses on socialising, co-operating and networking
rather than true collaboration in the sense of co-creation.
One way to approach this gap as an opportunity is the creation of a workspace solution for creative
collaboration, which is specifically geared towards the needs of coworking space users and proprietors
alike. For this the research question of this paper asks how a workspace concept could support group
collaboration and co-creation within coworking environments.
This question is considered through research and integrative combination of three focus areas – the
environment of coworking spaces, the activity of creative collaboration and the discipline of workspace
design. Literature research as well as qualitative semi-structured user interviews and personal commu-
nication with experts in the field led to three opportunity areas indicating how to trigger creative col-
laboration, and six fundamental criteria indicating how to support creative collaboration. They are the
evaluative basis for the proposed solution.
With a focus on supporting creative collaboration, the main findings of research make clear that a
workspace solution should be an activity space. It should be highly adaptable to a variety of workspace
identities as well as changing user needs, based on work modes and personalities. Furthermore afforda-
bility, privacy, casual feel, and sufficient possibilities for visual communication are of major importance.
The resulting solution is an adaptable and modular lightweight furniture system, which can be used as a
room-dividing wall with sound absorbing qualities, as a pin-board and as a whiteboard. Due to its flex-
ibility it can be easily moved, arranged, stored or transformed into a standing table for collaboration or
standing receptions. The solution allows proprietors and users to react to constantly changing situations
within a work-, living- and event space – the coworking space.
This is of interest as the number of worldwide existing coworking spaces has almost increased five-fold
between 2010 and 2013. Although this tendency is slowing down by now, the coworking market is here
to stay. Nevertheless, the market for specifically designed coworking facilities seems to be largely un-
tapped. Based on the work for this thesis, further research and development into flexible and adaptable
workspace is advisable.
ABSTRACT
III

Abstract
Table of Content
List of Visuals
List of Tables
List of Interviews and Personal Communications
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Definition
1.2 Hypothesis and Project Goal
1.3 Research Question and Research Goal
1.4 Methodology
PART I - THEORY
2 COWORKING
2.1 Defining Coworking Spaces and Coworking
2.2 The Users of Coworking Spaces
2.2.1 Work-modes of Knowledge Workers
2.2.2 Individuals vs. Teams
2.3 Coworking Culture
2.3.1 Values of Coworking
2.3.2 Cultural Reality of Coworking
2.3.3 Organizational Culture in Coworking Spaces
3 COLLABORATION AND CO-CREATION
3.1 Defining Collaboration and Co-creation
3.2 Creative Collaboration and its Value
3.3 Creative Collaboration and Knowledge Management - The Concept of Ba
3.4 Creative Collaboration and Innovation Management
3.5 Psychosocial Prerequisites for Creative Collaboration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III
IV
VI
VI
VII
01
02
03
03
04
05
06
07
07
08
09
09
10
12
14
14
15
16
18
19
IV

4 WORKSPACE DESIGN
4.1 Workspace Design and Ergonomics
4.2 General Design Principles of Collaborative Workspace
4.3 Group Workspace in Corporate Environments and Possible Shortcomings
5 ANALYSIS
5.1 Methodology of Criteria Formulation
5.2 Criteria and Opportunities
PART II - SOLUTION
6 CONCEPTUALIZATION
6.1 Methodology of Concept Generation
6.2 Concepts and Evaluation
6.2.1 Concept 1 – Immersive Pavilion
6.2.2 Concept 2 – Community-Bank & Play-Box
6.2.3 Concept 3 – Community Pad & Adapt-A-Wall
7. OUTCOME
7.1 Methodology of Solution Development
7.2 The Adapt-A-Wall in Detail
7.2.1 Performance According to Criteria
7.2.2 Value Proposition
7.2.3 Benchmarking
7.3 Insights from Prototype Testing
8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
9 LIMITATION OF PROJECT
10 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
11 BIBLIOGRAPHY
12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
13 AFFIDAVIT
14 APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
23
23
24
25
28
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
39
41
41
42
44
45
46
48
50
51
52
53
56
57
58
V

VISUAL 1 The opportunity gap of creative collaboration in coworking spaces
VISUAL 2 The good neighbors-configuration of coworking -
adapted from Spinuzzi (2012, p. 429)
VISUAL 3 The good partners-configuration of coworking -
adapted from Spinuzzi (2012, p. 430)
VISUAL 4 The Double Diamond Process - in parts adapted from Hunter (2015)
VISUAL 5 Concept of Ba - adapted from Nonaka & Konno (1998, p. 43) and Erbe
VISUAL 6 The three major topics of research
VISUAL 7 The two functions of triggering and supporting creative collaboration
VISUAL 8 The steps to opportunity and criteria formulation
VISUAL 9 The steps of concept generation
VISUAL 10 Concept One - The Immersive Pavilion
VISUAL 11 Concept Two - Community-Bank and Play-Box
VISUAL 12 Concept Three - Community Pad and Adapt-A-Wall
VISUAL 13 The steps of testing and feedback
VISUAL 14 Solution prototype
VISUAL 15 Benchmarking of movable workspace elements
LIST OF VISUALS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 The Big Five personality factors implications for performance and collaboration -
adapted from Oseland (2012, p. 24)
TABLE 2 Preferred environment by personality and task -
adapted from Oseland (2012, p. 33)
TABLE 3 Table of criteria and opportunity areas
TABLE 4 Potential concept score per criterion
20
21
32
35
01
12
13
16
17
28
29
30
34
36
37
39
41
43
47
VI

Andreas Erbe Founder and Proprietor of LaunchLabs, Basel and expert in
the field of workspace design,
March 6, 2015 – Interview and Personal Communications
Gian Filippo Floriddia Founders and Owners of WedMap/
Tauras Sinkevičius GNT Group GmbH and Coworking Space Users at Colab, Zurich,
March 23, 2015 – Interview
Christoph Cronimund Self-employed Coworking Space User at CitizenSpace, Zurich,
Jürg Rohner Founder and Proprietor of CitizenSpace, Zurich,
Ulrike Trenz Space Curator at ImpactHub, Zurich,
Zeljko Marin Founder and Owner Architekturbüro Marin GmbH, Basel,
April 24 – Personal Communication
Sven Erni Director of Business Development at Pfister Professional, Suhr,
April 30, 2015 – Personal Communication
Jeffrey Ibanez Corporate Workspace Designer at Pfister Professional, Suhr,
April 30, 2015 – Personal Communication
LIST OF INTERVIEWS
VII
AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

In today’s world of business the pressure to innovate increases, and so does the need for creation
through collaboration (OpenKnowledge Consulting, 2015). Collaboration is one of today’s key drivers
for growth, as its connection to innovation is based on the potential to create new value (Peschl & Fund-
neider, 2012). This means that collaboration refers not only to networking and using shared resources, it
refers to the creation of something new. Sanders and Simmons (2009) state “it is a special case of collab-
oration where the intent is to create something that is not known in advance”. This is co-creation, which
is defined as an “act of collective creativity that is experienced jointly by two or more people” (para. 3).
In the context of coworking spaces, however, understanding and practice of collaboration seem to differ
from the idea of co-creation for innovation. DeGuzman & Tang (2011) are coworking pioneers and au-
thors of Working in the Unoffice, a comprehensive guide and profile to coworking. They describe the value
of collaboration within coworking spaces in the sense of networking and cooperating. This refers to the
importance of gathering new contacts and using them as a resource – or as Clay Spinuzzi (2012) from
the University of Texas puts it: working alone together.
This gap poses an opportunity for improvement to the benefit of coworking space users and proprietors
- from cooperation to co-creation.
1 INTRODUCTION
1
“CO-RENTING”
NETWORKING
COOPERATING
CO-CREATING
Working for each other or the same
clients = Collaborating
Sharing private and professional con-
tacts = Working next to one-another
Creating something new together =
Creatively Collaborating
Sharing facilities such as space and
equipment = Saving Resources
Realityin
CWS!
Potentialfor
CWS?
VISUAL 1 The opportunity gap of creative collaboration in coworking spaces

The thesis at hand explores this opportunity by integrative combination of three aspects:
o The environment of coworking spaces
o The activity of creative collaboration
o The discipline of workspace design

To differentiate: The topic is not about global collaboration, which is favoured by global connectivity
(MacCormack, Forbath, Brooks, & Kalaher, 2007). It refers to group collaboration in the sense of
co-creation (Paulus & Nijstad, 2010). Therefore, this thesis specifically focuses on group collaboration
within the physical workspace setting and related culture of coworking spaces, aiming at creating some-
thing new, which is of value.
1.1 Problem Definition
According to Andreas Erbe (interview, March 6, 2015 - see Appendix A for transcript), proprietor of
LaunchLabs, Basel, most coworking spaces are excelling at providing workspace in which the single en-
trepreneur or the small start-up is able to do individual and focused work. There is plenty of workspace
that facilitates solo work. At the same time, users can escape isolation, as there are a lot of opportunities
for social interaction. Literature supports this notion, saying that socialising and networking are the ma-
jor appeal of coworking spaces (Schuermann, 2014).
However, collaboration in the sense of co-creation for innovation in a physical group setting is rarely
taking place in coworking spaces (interviews, A. Erbe, 2015; U. Trenz, 2015; G.F Floriddia & T. Sinkevi-
cius, 2015; J. Rohner, 2015; - see Appendices A, B, D & F for transcript). This, Erbe presumes, is because
the act of co-creation is hardly considered or facilitated in the workspace design of coworking spaces.
There are communal tables, sofas and coffee corners, but no dedicated group work areas. Moreover,
currently there is already a trend of corporate companies renting space in coworking spaces to profit
from synergies (Bauer, Rief, Stiefel, & Weiss, 2014). Project based collaboration is increasingly sought
after and will need to be regarded by coworking space proprietors. This thesis is based on the notion
that the offering of functional and coherently integrated workspace is one of the integral requirements
to facilitate creative collaboration.
INTRODUCTION
12

1.2 Hypothesis and Project Goal
This thesis seeks to create a workspace solution, which caters for the need and opportunity of creative
collaboration in coworking spaces and is based on the hypothesis:
Creative group collaboration within coworking environments can be improved with a purposefully con-
ceived workspace solution.
The overall project goal is to create a plug’n’play workspace solution that supports group collaboration
and co-creation within coworking environments.
Plug’n’Play means that the solution is applicable to many different coworking spaces and can be adapted
to their respective situations.
1.3 Research Question and Research Goal
How could a workspace concept support group collaboration and co-creation within coworking
environments?
Criteria for the development of an applicable solution are derived from three sub questions:
o What are the specific cultural characteristics of coworking spaces and their users?
o What is group collaboration and co-creation, and how is it managed?
o What workspace characteristics support and facilitate creative collaboration?
The research goal of this thesis is to determine the criteria needed to develop a workspace solution,
which supports group collaboration and co-creation within coworking environments.
INTRODUCTION
3

1.4 Methodology
The work at hand is based on two project parts.
Firstly, there is the theory section, which seeks to develop a deeper understanding of subject and adja-
cent topics to yield relevant facts and answers to the research question. This is done by literature research
in the fields of coworking, creative collaboration and workspace design.
Further, qualitative, semi-structured interviews are conducted with the main stakeholders – the cowork-
ing space users and proprietors – as well as personal communications with experts in the field. Findings
are either validated by triangulation of two or more sources or directly taken from sources that showcase
secondary data according to academic standards of trustworthiness and authenticity (cf. Bryman & Bell,
2007). In many cases the triangulation is based on a link between literature and semi-structured inter-
views. Some sources are not of academic nature but are, nevertheless, considered due to their actuality
and/ or relevance within the respective topic. The important findings are highlighted alongside the flow
text in this paper. These findings are translated into criteria, based on a clustering that takes into account
the perceived importance and correlation between findings. The criteria formulation is further explained
in chapter 5.1.
Secondly, there is a solution section, beginning with chapter 6, which makes use of these criteria in
order to ideate, choose, develop and test an applicable solution. This section is predominantly based on
the integration of users in the solution development process. The detailed methodology of conceptual-
ization and solution refinement is further described in chapter 6.1.
INTRODUCTION
4

2 COWORKING
Coworking spaces have been mushrooming for the last decade. A project-based economy, lead by the
demands of the service industry, is changing structural and organizational patterns in our professional
and private lives (Schuermann, 2014). Due to the changing economic circumstances, amplified by the
economic crisis in 2008, many workers turned to freelancing, starting their own businesses instead of
being employed by established companies (Segran, 2015). Workers are more self-reliant and independent
than ever before and through the advances of technology they telecommute, interact electronically and,
run their own businesses with mobile phones and laptops.
On the other hand, Clay Spinuzzi (2012) mentions, “their freedom to work anywhere often means
isolation, inability to build trust and relationships with others, and sharply restricted opportunities for
collaboration and networking” (p402). Without the limiting framework of a 9-to-5 job, coworking spaces
counteract the social isolation of the home office or the limiting circum-
stances of working in cafés. They seem to be the ideal working model
responding to the new conditions of total freedom in today’s world of
business (Schuermann, 2014). In front of this background an important
finding is, that social interaction against social isolation is one of the most important selling points of
coworking spaces.
Moreover, DeGuzman and Tang (2011) name four major trends , which favour the coworking concept.
These trends describe the non-sedentary freedom and the community orientation of today’s knowledge
workers:
o The possibility of telecommuting;
o Cloud-computing setting workers free from rigid infrastructure;
o Collective creativity as an effect of increased connectedness;
o The trend towards a sharing community and collective consumption.
These four trends strongly influence the success of the business model coworking space, which is a
business model that is still developing. After all, the main income of coworking comes from community
members, who pay for a place to work. However, Carsten Foertsch (2011) from Deskmag states, “over
the past five years, the growth rate of coworking spaces has averaged 100% each year. Yet at the same
time, almost one in every five coworking spaces has closed its doors, according to Emergent Research.
The income from renting desks often doesn’t cover all the costs, especially in cities with high rent and
strong competition.” Most coworking spaces need alternative sources of income, such as facilitated
workshops or events for corporate organizations that are looking for fresh venues (Foertsch, 2011).
A very strong selling point of
CWS is the escape of social
isolation of homeoffice
5

Another possibility is for instance a sponsorship by a big company, such as Swisscom sponsoring The
ImpactHub and Colab in Zurich to be cheek by jowl with young talent and fresh ideas. Regardless of
the exact business model it is important to acknowledge that coworking spaces are under high pressure
to offer very attractive, flexibly used work environments with low budget
facilities. To put this into context it is important to determine what ex-
actly a coworking space is and what characteristics differ from traditional
shared offices.
2.1 Defining Coworking Spaces and Coworking
There is no strict and plain definition of coworking and coworking space as it is a still developing con-
cept, which has yet to find its bearings (DeGuzman & Tang, 2011). A clear definition of coworking
space cannot be determined by organizational or spatial characteristics, such as shape, size, arrangement
of rooms or the relationship of proprietor and user as there is a multitude of formats (Pohler, 2011).
Pohler (2011) defines a coworking space as “every workspace with flexible structures that is designed
for and by people with atypical, new types of work - that is not exclusively for people from one certain
company”(para. 9). In her article Pohler puts an emphasis on the character of new [knowledge] work as
in post-fordist work styles within the information society. Bauer, et al. (2014) state that coworking is “the
flexible working of knowledge workers largely independent of each other at a common, institutionalised
location” (p.43). A similar definition reads: “A coworking space is a place to get work done—specifically,
knowledge or service work that originates outside the site in other intersecting activities” (Spinuzzi, 2012,
p418).
From a purpose-oriented point of view we can conclude, that a coworking space is a shared workspace
for independent professionals seeking a flexible work environment to perform knowledge work.
What distinguishes the concept coworking space from traditional shared offices is, that it is not only
about the sharing of resources such as space, connectivity and other amenities of infrastructure. “But
in general, coworking refers to a set-up and dynamics of a diverse group of people [...]” (DeGuzman &
Tang, 2011, p22). Coworking spaces are workspaces where “independent professionals [...] work better
together than they do alone” (Coworking Wiki, 2015, para. 4). In coworking, the “co” reflects the soci-
etal, economical and working trends through open working relationships, increased information sharing
and building of a global network (Schuermann, 2014, p.9). This means that from a social point of view
COWORKING THEORY
CWS have to offer very
attractive work environments
with low budget facilities
6

coworking spaces are spaces that show elements of a somewhat cohesive social structure to perform
work alongside each other and with each other – a community.
To clarify, this thesis is not referring to workspace alternatives that only address the factor of not being
alone while working. This means that neither research part nor solution of this paper are concerned with
spaces such as regular offices, or office space providers like Regus, cafés or bars like Starbucks, libraries
or other semi public institutions offering the possibility to work.
2.2 The Users of Coworking Spaces
The way users work and the way they create value is knowledge work.
Most coworkers around the globe work in the service industries – the majority in creative industries and/
or the new media sector (Schuermann, 2014). The largest groups of users are comprised by web devel-
opers and IT specialists, followed by graphic or web designers and independent consultants (Deskmag &
Technische Universität Berlin, 2011). However, what exact industry the users work in might not be too
interesting for the case of this thesis.
2.2.1 Work-modes of Knowledge Workers
In his book Landmarks of Tomorrow (1957) Peter Drucker coined the term ‘knowledge work’, describing
a form of work that is not characterized by physical labor but based on mental processes. “Knowledge
work tasks include planning, analyzing, interpreting, developing, and creating products and services
using information, data or ideas as the raw materials.” Heerwagen et al. (2004) state that this kind of
work is both very cognitive and very social in its nature. Workers need to spend time alone to analyze
situations, to recall memories and to develop ideas. Yet, workers do also interact with peers to externalize
the products of this work, to make it useful to the organization and to build on the concept of collective
intelligence (Heerwagen et al., 2004). This transfer of knowledge happens within formal but also infor-
mal interaction, thus in scheduled meetings or conferences but also in the coffee break or when giving an
impromptu feedback to a colleague. So, knowledge work means working individually, as well as working
with others in a team, beyond the point of mere socializing.
However, group collaboration is the exception in coworking spaces (interviews, A. Erbe, 2015; U. Trenz,
COWORKING THEORY
7

2015; G.F Floriddia & T. Sinkevicius, 2015; J. Rohner, 2015; - see Appendices A, B, D & F for transcript).
The problem or opportunity that this thesis addresses has to do with the reality that mostly solitary work
and social interaction is happening and catered for in the majority of coworking spaces (Erbe, 2015;
Spinuzzi, 2012). Although users of coworking spaces are not forming an organization per se, it can be
assumed that innovation potential through collaboration is somewhat untapped.
2.2.2 Individuals vs. Teams
Group collaboration is a social activity. As such the collaboration depends largely on personal relation-
ships and the interdependence of participants. Thus, if and how group collaboration takes place in
coworking spaces is largely connected to how coworking space users are organized and what their rela-
tionships are. Analysing relationship networks of users would, however, exceed the scope of this thesis.
In terms of organization, there are two dominant types of coworking space users – individual freelancers
and small start-ups between two to four people (Bauer et al., 2014). Individual freelancers mostly join
coworking spaces to escape social isolation of the home office. Small start-ups evolve from entrepre-
neurial work and join coworking spaces, seeing that they find catalysing conditions (Bauer et al., 2014).
By nature individual freelancers work on their own on day-to-day operations (Spinuzzi, 2012; interview
with C. Cronimund, March 19, 2015, see Appendix C for transcript). In contrast start-ups work as very
coherent teams without much involvement of other users (interview with G.F. Floriddia & T. Sinkevi-
cius, March 23, 2015, see Appendix D for transcript). As Jürg Rohner, proprietor of Citizen Space in
Zurich states: “they have their own work culture and are somewhat closed” (interview, March 19, 2015,
see Appendix F for transcript, 2015). This means that start-ups are already collaborating albeit predom-
inantly in their team, individuals, however would have to be motivated first. Consequently a solution
encompassing creative collaboration for all users beyond a support function has to respond to both:
o The need to engage individuals in collaboration
o The need to facilitate a workspace for small collaborating teams.
The engagement of individuals in collaboration is important, and has to be regarded.
However, due to the scope of this thesis, the research goal and the project goal focus on the design of
collaborative workspace to support small creatively collaborating teams.
COWORKING THEORY
8

2.3 Coworking Culture
The coworking concept does not seem to be anything new or revolutionary in itself. Long before Brad
Neuberg, a Californian software programmer, coined the term coworking in 2005, people organized
themselves to share space in order to work. The fundamental difference lies in the culture and the con-
text of coworking. Culture is the personality of a workplace, mainly shaped by values, traditions and be-
liefs. This culture determines not only how users work, but how they integrate work, life and surrounding
to create outcomes (ERC Human Resources Organization, 2013). The values and the resulting benefits
of coworking, which are largely determined by the above-mentioned context, are part of the foundation
for a solution to this project.
2.3.1 Values of Coworking
Although the definition of coworking and its related spaces falls short of a distinct format in terms of
organizational model, physical shape or absolutely defined user structure, there are elements that seem
to be universally shared. Across the established literature, including online blogs and forums, coworking
is seen as a global phenomenon, which has formed its own movement. DeGuzman and Tang (2011)
mention that coworking spaces share a set of core values despite the fact that the spaces differ in design,
culture, specific feel and house rules. These core values define the movement as a whole and have to
be particularly recognised in the approach of a solution. Schuermann (2014) presents them as follows:
o Collaboration Working together; the will to cooperate with others to create
something of value. This might be the strongest point.
o Community A group of like-minded people who work together. Each one
contributes to the community and receives from the community.
o Sustainability Staying power; a driving force for financial stability to ensure
continuity, creating a community that can thrive indefinitely through
the careful use of sparse resources.
o Openness Being open to the sharing of ideas and information, as well as being
open-minded and tolerant toward other coworkers.
o Accessibility Working in a Coworking Space has to be financially viable to the
users as well as accommodate all users’ physical needs.
COWORKING THEORY
9

The five core values are the overarching building blocks and common ground of the coworking move-
ment and must find reflection in the solution. However, seeing that every coworking space is defined by
a very individual setup and a unique feeling, it is pivotal that a plug’n’play
workspace concept is, adaptable to specific location, feel and identity of a
multitude of coworking spaces. It is relevant to record that every cowork-
ing space has a different identity, but values are shared.
Complementing the value set of the coworking movement, Bauer et al. (2014) highlight the importance
of trust as a link between community and collaboration:
“The principle of the community describes the fact that work is not only performed
side by side in coworking spaces but also in an atmosphere characterised by trust. The
community and trust that exist therein are a precondition for the collaboration […]. It
is the social bond that motivates coworkers to help others, support them and deal with
them and their ideas.” (Bauer, et al., 2014)
2.3.2 Cultural Reality of Coworking
According to Bauer et al. (2014) collaboration and community, the two most prominent values, pose the
strongest motivators for the membership in coworking spaces. DeGuzman and Tang (2011) state, that
this pertains not only to the sharing of physical resources and the possibility to escape the social isolation
of the home office – it is the potential for innovation and community that makes coworking so attrac-
tive. There is the notion that collaboration in the workplace can lead to innovation. This means, that the
opportunity of innovation poses a value proposition for coworking space users.
However, as mentioned in 2.2.2, apart from start-up teams working together this value proposition is
not necessarily reflected in day-to-day reality of coworking spaces: Supported by Spinuzzi (2012), the
interview with a start-up team at Colab in Zurich shows that the reality
of collaboration is mostly limited to networking. The interview excerpt
makes clear that collaboration is associated with networking and social
interaction – not co-creation.
COWORKING THEORY
Every CWS has a different
identity, but values
are shared
Trust amongst group
members is a precondition
for collaboration
Collaboration is associated
with networking and social
interaction (not co-creation)
10

“Collaboration sounds like there is a group of people sharing ideas and working together. That would be nice but no:
everybody has his own project and deadlines. […] when it is [about] business, everybody is super busy and [coworking
space users] really have limited resources for you to help. [Coworking] is more individualistic. Of course you can feel the
community and everybody is [very] friendly [… but] it is more a network.”
Floriddia & Sinkevicius (interview, March 23, 2015, see Appendix D for transcript)
Moreover, the interview reveals that users are under pressure to focus on their own projects and have
little time or resources to engage in other parties’ activities. Nevertheless, as Spinuzzi’s (2012) study
identified, there seems to be a strong need and willingness for collaborative interaction – not only for the
purpose of socialising and networking, but for exchanging feedback and learning from and with peers.
There is a gap between the interpretation of coworking values and the re-
ality of circumstances. Creative collaboration is generally welcomed and
desired by coworking space users, but project related time pressure often
neglects creative collaboration with other users.
Further, Jürg Rohner, proprietor of Citizenspace, Zurich stated in a short interview:
“[…] I find the idea of co-creating great. […the] thing is, that often it just keeps being stuck at the stage of having nice
ideas. I mean essentially we are all here to make money. Most of the time it is about getting the job done for the client.”
Rohner (interview, March 19, 2015, see Appendix F for transcript)
This statement supports again the notion that creative collaboration is generally welcomed. However,
within the routine and the pressure of daily operations the direct link to value creation is often not appre-
ciated. Creative collaboration can be perceived as wishful thinking, which
is not realistic or does have no space in day-to-day business – creative
collaboration can have the notion of being ineffective.
COWORKING THEORY
Project related time pressure
often neglects creative co-
llaboration with other users.
Creative collaboration can have
the notion of being ineffective
11

2.3.3 Organizational Culture in Coworking Spaces
In respect to the previously described cultural reality in coworking spaces Clay Spinuzzi (2012) identi-
fied two basic forms of workspace organization within coworking spaces, regarding the ‘‘collaborations
and engagements with a shared object in and for relationships of interaction between multiple activity
systems’’ (p. 428). There is the good-neighbors configuration, which describes a setting where the main
commitment of coworkers encompasses sharing and improving of a communal space. As neighbors in a
residential area, “these coworkers may be entirely unconnected in their work lives” (p. 429), but share the
space as a representative location, as the place where work gets done and where interaction is happening.
COWORKING THEORY
COWORKING
WEB DEVELOPMENT
MARKETING
REAL ESTATE
INTERIOR DESIGN
Clients
Clients
Clients
Clients
neighborly collaboration
parallel work
VISUAL 2 The good neighbors-configuration of coworking - adapted from Spinuzzi (2012, p. 429)
12

COWORKING THEORY
13
To conclude: as mentioned in 2.3.1 collaboration is one of the core values of the coworking movement
(Schuermann, 2014), nonetheless, many coworkers do not describe creative collaboration as a key aspect
or even benefit of coworking. The emphasis is put on social interaction, networking and cooperation of
“good partners” as described by Spinuzzi (2012).
COPY
WRITING
WEB
DEVELOPMENT
WEB
SERVICES
Client
SEARCH ENGINE
OPTIMIZATION
team collaboration
cooperative work
VISUAL 3 The good partners-configuration of coworking - adapted from Spinuzzi (2012, p. 430)
In contrast, there is the good partners configuration, which describes a group of unaffiliated specialists,
which use the coworking space as a hub to work on shared projects. Those shared projects are mostly
connected to shared clients, which in turn stem from networking activities. The result is temporary
co-operation.

3 COLLABORATION & CO-CREATION
There is much ambiguity in how the terms collaboration and co-creation are used. Generally, Collabora-
tion just describes the working together of stakeholders. The nature of group constellation, coherence,
space, purpose and organization is open. Co-creation on the other hand is used to describe any kind
of collective value creation, often in association with the effects of connectedness through modern
technology.
3.1 DEFINING COLLABORATION AND CO-CREATION
For the scope of this thesis the term co-creation is not used in the sense of a joint creation of value by
a company and its customers, which is in some literature also referred to as crowd-sourcing. In this paper
co-creation is defined as creation of something new by a group of people. Or as Sanders and Simmons
(2009) put it: “It is a special case of collaboration where the intent is to create something that is not
known in advance.” Further, co-creation is defined as an “act of collective creativity that is experienced
jointly by two or more people” (para. 3) – a group of people.
To complement this notion, collaboration involves at least two people interacting over time to produce
a joint product or other outcome (McGrath, 1984). Collaboration can also be defined as “the action
of working with someone to produce something” (Oxford Dictionaries). “Collaboration is not simply
interaction between colleagues, it involves two or more individuals working towards a common goal and
creating a new product (e.g. an idea, solution, or insight) beyond what they could have achieved individ-
ually” (Oseland, 2012, p. 2). If we were to express collaboration as a basic arithmetic operation it would
be the addition, where the result is the sum of all single parts.
What this thesis focuses on is a combination of both co-creation and collaboration, where the product
of all single parts is larger than its sum and the outcome is something that was not known before. In this
thesis the term creative collaboration is used to describe co-creation as a group activity within a shared
physical space. In connection to the landscape of freelancers in coworking spaces an interviewee aptly
called this “not working for each other but working with each other”. (interview with C. Cronimund,
March 19, 2015, see Appendix C for transcript) Concretely, this entails for instance ideation sessions in
the form of role playing, brainstorming or brainswarming.
14

3.2 CREATIVE COLLABORATION AND ITS VALUE
Referring to Schuermann’s (2014) definition of collaboration, creative collaboration can be described as
using the synergy of a group to create something new, which is of value. From a business perspective
creative collaboration can be seen as a part of a functional value chain to add value to products or servic-
es (Sanders & Simmons, 2009). As such there are two major components to creative collaboration - the
creative process itself and the value it produces.
If this value cannot be measured in monetary units, its link to business performance is abstract as it is
difficult to track and comprehend. This pertains also to the value of design, as a creative and collabo-
rative activity. Even though there are countless efforts to measure and better communicate the specific
value of design and creative processes, the subject remains vague. Taking a more general view, there is
for instance a UK wide study conducted by the British Design Council (2007), which shows a positive
statistical correlation between business growth and the investment in design and design processes. The
study states for instance that “shares in design-led businesses have outperformed the FTSE 100 * by
more than 200% over the past decade” (p.4).
Nevertheless, on a macro or project level it is more difficult to come to such explicit statements. Next
to producing quality outcomes, which are most widely linked to reiteration and repetition, the goal of a
creative process is connected to effectivity. The double diamond process promoted by design consultan-
cy IDEO (Hunter, 2015) and The British Design Council describe this in a conceptual way (cf. following
page). The latter part of each diamond is converging and therefore concerned with analysis, decision
speed and efficiency. The diverging part, in contrast, is creative as it is concerned with producing options
– the goal is effectivity by generating as many ideas and as much knowledge as possible.
* Financial times share index made up of the 100 largest (according to market capitalization) UK firms listed on London stock exchange
(Business Dictionary, 2015)
COLLABORATION & CO-CREATION THEORY
15

Therefore it can be inferred, that one way to measure the grade or goodness of creative collaboration is
the amount of ideas being generated within a defined time-frame. For this it is suggestive to test a work-
space solution with these parameters and compare the result to a referential workspace, once a solution
is implemented and sufficiently integrated.
3.3 CREATIVE COLLABORATION AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
THE CONCEPT OF BA
As described, co-creation and collaboration are drivers for value creation. However, this applies especial-
ly then, when knowledge is not only shared and applied but when new knowledge is created. This view
is connected to the idea that interaction is a fundamental process step for knowledge creation. Based on
a concept by Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida, the organizational theorists Ikujiro Nonaka and No-
boru Konno (1998) developed a leading knowledge management model to describe the mental, physical
and virtual space in which knowledge creation can happen - the Concept of Ba.
In today’s economy of information, knowledge is widely seen as a competitive asset, which must be
shared, transferred, applied, developed and thus managed (Carlucci & Schiuma, n.d.). Within this context
of co-creation, knowledge management and specifically The Concept of Ba describe the continuous
flow of human interaction and knowledge needed to create new knowledge.
16
DIVERGING CONVERGING
The goal is effectivity (of effort) =
As much result as possible
The goal is efficiency (of effort) =
As little effort as possible
VISUAL 4 The Double Diamond Process - in parts adapted from Hunter (2015)

The basic claim is that business success is directly linked to a knowledge creation process, of which the
biggest part is co-creative. For this the concept of Ba can be applied as a basis to manage the process of
creative collaboration (Nonaka & Konno, 1998).
17
Nonaka and Konno (1998) state that there are four basic modes of knowledge conversion: socialisation,
externalisation, combination and internalisation. The mode of externalisation describes the moment
where tacit knowledge, which is often intuitive not codified and experiential, is turned into explicit and
documented knowledge (cf. Heerwagen et al., 2004). This is the phase of creative collaboration, taking
place amongst a small group of people. According to The Concept of Ba this is a space of intensive
i
i
i
i
i
i
g
EXTERNALISATION
explicit knowledge
tacit knowledge
collaborate &
co-create
COMBINATION
SOCIALIZATION
INTERNALISATION
g
g
gg o
transfer &
train
i
g
o
retreat &
reflect
i i
interact &
inspire
i = individual
g = group
o = organization
VISUAL 5 Concept of Ba - adapted from Nonaka & Konno (1998, p. 43) and Erbe

communication. Here it is crucial to have immediate access to sufficient means of communication to
successfully and effectively “[…] express ideas and images as words, concepts, figurative language [such
as metaphors, analogies, or narratives], and visuals” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p.44). Oseland (2012)
underlines this fact as especially important for participants “of an introverted and conscientious persua-
sion” (p.37). 
Although Ba as a concept has been criticized as too deeply rooted in traditional Japanese culture, and al-
though it might have been applied to complex organizational knowledge problems beyond its conceptual
limits in the past, (Bratianu, 2010) Ba makes two important points: To
serve the purpose of knowledge and therefore value creation, the step of
externalisation or collaboration and co-creation has to be seamlessly em-
bedded in the flow of all activities within a physical space. Therefore the
emphasis must be put on the transitions. To support the process step of
externalisation, there have to be extensive means for self-expression and
storytelling. This means that the physical space, created for the purpose
of collaboration and co-creation, must be a tool for communication.
3.4 CREATIVE COLLABORATION AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Similar to the Concept of Ba, the discipline of innovation management is concerned with creative
collaboration and examines the intersections of space, culture and collective output.
Co-creation, creativity and collaboration are directly linked to processes leading to innovation.
Tom Duxbury (2012) states that creativity, defined as a process step of generating something novel,
useful and appropriate, is a necessary precondition for innovation, which is by definition something new.
As integral part of the so called fuzzy front-end the degree of a person’s or group’s creativity and perfor-
mance is largely dependent on personality attributes, next to intrinsic motivation and divergent thinking.
Duxbury (2012) states that the most important attribute is openness for experience, which includes for
example active imagination and aesthetic sensitivity.

18
Creative Collaboration must
be embedded in the flow
of activities
Space must support external-
isation: communication/self
expression/storytelling

For the purpose of supporting such a creative mind-set, a workspace
solution has to aid a user’s openness to experience. This in turn means
that active imagination and aesthetic sensitivity in connection to the task
is important.
As for collaboration: innovation management links collaboration directly to space. Michael Schrage,
research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and multiple author in the field of innova-
tion risk management concludes that shared space and its character is a pivotal factor to the effectivity
of collaboration:
“Successful collaborators don’t just work with each other; they work together through a shared space. Shared space —
whether physical, virtual or digital — is where collaborators agree to jointly create, manipulate, iterate, capture and critique
the representations of the reality they seek to discover or design. This holds true for collaboration around products, processes,
services, songs, or the exploration of scientific principles. Shared space is the essential means, medium, and mechanism that
makes collaboration possible. No shared space? No real collaboration. […] Character, cognition, and creativity remain
undeniably important. But they play out in the collaborative context of shared spaces where the real work gets done. It takes
shared space to create shared understandings. That’s the key.” (Schrage, 2015, para. 3)
Seeing that shared space is “essential means, medium and mechanism” (Schrage, 2015, para. 3) of col-
laboration, space poses a shared ground that connects people with each other and with the topic or goal
at hand. Therefore it can be inferred that collaborative workspace can be used to calibrate the collective
mind-set towards a shared goal, a shared feeling or a shared attitude if the workspace adapts to a topical
context. Shared space connects a team and can support a shared mind-
set. An opportunity, which can be deduced from this is that contextual
immersion of a group within a shared space can aid guidance and imag-
ination for creativity.
3.5 PSYCHOSOCIAL PREREQUISITES FOR CREATIVE COLLABORATION
Workspace strategist Nigel Oseland (2012), who conducted an extensive workspace study for furniture
manufacturer Herman Miller, makes clear that it is not possible to determine the perfect environmental
conditions for all kinds of effective group collaboration, because we would have to assume that per-
sonality traits of varying and changing team members are all the same (cf. 3.4). Oseland visualises the
19
Active imagination and aes-
thetic sensitivity in connection
to the task is important
Shared space connects a
team and can create a
shared mindset

complexity of workspace demand for collaborative activities according to the Big Five Personality Traits
(OCEAN) or Five Factor Model (FFM). The chart below shows that each of the five personality dimen-
sions requires to some extend opposite workspace characteristics.
20
Openness (to experience) vs Not Open
Evidence supports the importance of open-
ness for creative and imaginative tasks but
suggests that openness is less important, or
even detrimental, when the task is of a more
routine nature.
Open people prefer F2F meetings, brain-
storming, plus stimulating, different and new
spaces.
Not open people prefer formal, familiar, con-
forming and traditional spaces.
Conscientiousness vs Undirected
Should be positively related to team perfor-
mance across a wide variety of tasks and
settings,
Conscientious people prefer planned,
formal, well- organised, minuted meetings.
Undirected people prefer impromptu and
informal meetings, idea generation, and quick
interactions.
Extraversion vs Introversion
Extraversion is related to team performance
when tasks involve imaginative or creative
activity but may inhibit performance when
tasks call for precise, sequential and logical
behaviour.
Extraverts prefer F2F and socialising, large
social groups plus impromptu, informal, off-
site meetings, and stimulating spaces.
Introverts prefer written communications,
distributed information, small groups, telecon-
ferences, and subdued spaces.
Agreeableness vs Antagonism
Agreeableness may be important for perfor-
mance in long-term teams with tasks that
involve persuasion, or other socially related
dimensions; when tasks do not require a high
degree of social interaction, agreeableness
may actually inhibit performance.
Agreeable prefer large meetings with struc-
ture and distributed information to help gain
group consensus.
Antagonistic prefer unstructured F2F meet-
ings where they can challenge/ derail.
Neuroticism vs Emotional Stability
The level of emotional stability in the team
correlates with team performance for a wide
range of tasks.
Neurotic people prefer well- planned formal
meetings with advance notice and informa-
tion; also subdued environments.
Stable people are comfortable with large,
impromptu or informal meetings.
IMPLICATION FOR TASK PERFORMANCE IMPLICATION FOR COLLABORATION
TABLE 1 The Big Five personality factors implications for performance and collaboration - adapted from Oseland (2012, p.24)

Further, Oseland states that especially extraversion and introversion can be the major decisive factor in
determining if a space is adapted and facilitates effective collaboration. The personality type is in direct
correlation with the complexity of the task and the surrounding environment:
21
This means that there cannot be a static one-fits-all solution to ensure
effectivity of creative collaboration. Workspace has to adapt to diverse
personality characteristics of participating group members. This pertains
to formal or informal as well as calming or stimulating environments.
Additionally, supporting Bauer et al. (2014) in chapter 2.3.1, Oseland (2012) underlines:
“Effective teams are characterized by trust and collaboration such that building trust through creating a community, in-
teraction and socializing is important for nurturing collaboration. Therefore whilst collaboration is more complicated than
interaction per se, interaction helps build trust and is therefore a prerequisite for true collaboration” (p.2).
In front of a psychosocial background the above mentioned points represent an inside view of creative
collaboration. An outside view poses the question of how a collaborative space should be connected to
its surroundings. As stated within The Concept of Ba (cf. 3.3) collaborative space must be coherently
integrated in the overall workspace to ensure the seamless flow of activities. However, it also has to be
sufficiently separated. If trust or safety is of major importance it can be inferred, that a too open spatial
configuration can lead to constraint or even embarrassment. (cf. interview with Andreas Erbe, March 6,
2015 - see Appendix A for transcript) This might be the case when co-creating participants feel watched
or listened to. Also in regard to introverts’ need of intimacy (cf. Table 1)
it is important to acknowledge that travelling noise and unhindered sight
can be a problem for the freedom of expression.
Calming Very Calming
SIMPLE COMPLEX
TASK
Very Stimulating StimulatingEXTRAVERT
INTROVERT
PERSONALITY
TYPE
TABLE 2 Preferred environment by personality and task - adapted from Oseland (2012, p.33)
Workspace must be adaptable
to personality characteristics
and tasks
Travelling noise and unhindered
sight can be a problem for the
freedom of expression

Further, there are key themes and principles that can be deduced from evolutionary psychology. Oseland
(2012) describes for example the phenomenon of biophilia: next to the afore mentioned “natural” level
of background noise, many people have the tendency to prefer natural environments and places that
support social gathering, for instance to share food and stories. Natural
materials support the feeling of familiarity within a space, therefore, the
phenomenon of biophelia might help to build trust.
To support the freedom of exchange, to spur activity, to encourage creation and the use of space in such
social places the D-School (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012) promotes a basic concept: “Patina gives permis-
sion to create”. In essence this means that space must not feel precious
but accessible and usable. Doorley and Witthoft (2012) advise to expose
raw materials to create a natural and casual environment. Patina, as an
aesthetic element, has the ability to encourage activity through a certain
level of ruggedness and authenticity.
22
“Patina gives permission to
create” / space must not feel
precious but usable
Phenomenon of Biophelia
might help to build trust

The plug’n’play concept, set out with the project goal, requires looking at general aspects that determine
the functionality of workspace. Workspace always has a support function to its users and proprietors.
Next to supporting performance, workspace also has social and symbolic functions. A general and con-
cise but un-prioritized list of workspace objectives, which includes both aspects reads (Meel, Martens,
& van Ree, 2010):
o Enhance Productivity
o Reduce Costs
o Increase flexibility
o Encourage Interaction
o Support Cultural Change
o Stimulate Creativity
o Attract and Retain Staff
o Express the Brand
o Reduce environmental Impact
These workspace objectives are not included in the criteria formulation, as they are not per se aiming
at creative collaboration but provide a general view on the goodness of workspace. They are of value
when assessing a workspace concept on a superordinate level and should therefore be revisited before a
solution is implemented.
4.1 WORKSPACE DESIGN AND ERGONOMICS
The discipline of workspace design is connected to many disciplines and fields of research. Some have
been covered on the preceding pages of this thesis. One of the most basic, yet most important aspects
that must be covered is ergonomics. As defined by Merriam Webster Dictionaries (2015) “ergonomics
is an applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people use so that the people and
things interact most efficiently and safely”. If we broaden this definition and focus not only on efficiency
but also effectivity of creative collaboration we can distinguish two particularly purposeful body posi-
tions that should be supported – standing and sitting low to the ground:
A number of studies show that standing and moving in meetings enhances creative thinking and prob-
lem solving (Human Resource Executive Online, 2014). In fact, standing “[…] influence[s] interpersonal
23
4 WORKSPACE DESIGN

processes in groups performing knowledge work – tasks that require groups to combine information
to develop creative ideas and solve problems” (Knight & Baer, 2014, p.1). The performance of group
collaboration is positively influenced through a non-sedentary workspace. This finding is referable to
an increased group arousal, “while at the same time decreasing group idea territoriality, both of which
result in better information elaboration and, indirectly, better group per-
formance” (Knight & Baer, 2014, p.1). A key finding is therefore, that
standing and physical movement improve cognitive flexibility and per-
formance.
Complementary, Doorley and Witthoft (2012) promote low seating around an imaginary campfire, which
“heightens the awareness of group participants and activity topic”(p. 32). This translates into a feeling
of safety and comfort that helps participants to bond or address sensitive
topics. (cf. importance of trust - Oseland(2012) and Heerwagen et al.
(2004)) This means that sitting close to the ground around a common
focal point creates focus and a feeling of safety
4.2 GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES OF COLLABORATIVE WORKSPACE
As Oseland (2012) states: “a comprehensive review of the social science literature (Fayard & Weeks,
2005) revealed several general conditions for creating successful interaction and collaboration spaces,
regardless of the personality of the users”(p. 31). In short these are:
o Proximity as the frequency of all forms of communication decreases over distance, the
proximity of spaces for interaction is of utmost importance;
o Accessibility ease of accessibility and known availability of spaces for interaction is key,
they need to be conveniently located with appropriate visual access;
o Privacy they should provide a sense of perceived visual and aural privacy, which
does not necessarily mean that full enclosure is required for privacy;
o Legitimacy people need a valid reason for being in the space where interactions may take
place, e.g. a copy/print area or stairwell/corridor;
o Functionality layout of the furniture, equipment provided, environmental conditions,
amenities, and capacity all impact on the suitability for different types of
interaction.
24
WORKSPACE DESIGN THEORY
Standing and physical
movement improve cognitive
flexibility and performance
Sitting close to the ground
around a focal point creates
focus and feeling of safety

To underpin these conditions: privacy, for instance, was also mentioned as very important by coworking
space user Christoph Cronimund for three reasons (interview, March 19, 2015, see Appendix C for tran-
script): confidentiality of information, private matters – especially on the telephone, but also not wanting
to disturb anyone is important. Especially the latter point is illustrated by the fact that the interview in
CitizenSpace, Zurich was held whispering to not impose ourselves on other coworkers. Further, with a
meeting room, which was occupied at the time, the interview had to be conducted completely unshield-
ed, as the open-office-style workspace layout did not permit any kind of privacy.
Nevertheless, these general conditions are not translated into direct criteria, but, as general and super-
ordinate design principles, they are of major importance and must be inherent to a suitable workspace
solution.
For the completeness of contents, Fayard & Weeks (2005) make no statement about the aesthetics or
workspace in their general design principles. Oseland (2012) comments on this by mentioning that there
is plenty of research regarding color, decoration and how it affects mood, performance and inspiration.
However, “the results of such research are contradictory, possibly because much of it takes a simple
stimulus-response (architectural determinist) approach and ignores the impact of personal factors and
the task being carried out” (Oseland, 2012, p.32). Even more so it is important to create flexible work-
space. Space, which adapts to the given situation and the various activities
at hand (cf. 3.5). This also corresponds with the general workspace design
principles by Meel, Martens, & van Ree (2010), presented in chapter 4,
as an adaptable workspace increases flexibility and can also reduce costs.
4.2 GROUP WORKSPACE IN CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS AND
POSSIBLE SHORTCOMINGS
According to Knoll (2013) the most successful spaces, conceived for collaborative work, support the
interactions of small groups. In Knoll’s study, the majority of participants from 38 international compa-
nies rated four collaborative activities as the most valuable and important group situations in daily work
life. The four activities are brainstorming, ad-hoc interaction, focused project teamwork and face-to-face
mentoring. The group sizes of these activities range between two and four participants. This reinforces
the notion of reduced utilization rates of large corporate meeting spaces, which fail to provide a com-
fortable and appropriate setting for small groups. Moreover, the small group size is closely connected
to an increasing desire of today’s workforce for informal and rather casual interactions (Knoll, 2013).
25
Layout must be adaptable
to various activities
and situations

This makes it most promising to focus on small groups interacting in a casual environment when trying
to encourage collaboration. Moreover, in corporate environments the majority of face-to-face interac-
tions at work are unplanned and rather coincidental.  Observational studies have shown that interac-
tions often stem from movement patterns and spatial visibility as they most likely occur near personal
workstations and on much-frequented pathways. Highest chances to trigger interaction are given when
creating places for chance encounters. (Heerwagen, et al., 2004). Although the above-mentioned facts
pertain to corporate environments, the findings can be considered as equally relating to coworking en-
vironments since the nature of work, namely knowledge work applies to
both environments. For the application in the context of this thesis the
most important finding might be that a casual feel of the collaborative
workspace is usually favoured by collaborative teams.
Moreover, to mention it once more, there is one prevalent point that appears time and again across the
established literature: A major requirement for collaborative workspace is the possibility to share ideas in
a preferably visual way (Becker, 2004; Heerwagen et.al., 2004; Herman Miller, 2014; Nonaka & Konno,
1998). Further, the D-School refers to the concept of saturation, which says that creating in a collab-
orative manner largely depends on the possibility to draw and pin-up photographs or other artefacts.
This is to “display and broadcast information, express emotions and immerse a team in the context of a
problem” (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012, p. 32). This confirms not only the
need for a space that connects team and task (cf. 3.4) it also means for
the solution that availability of many writable and/or pin-able surfaces is
important to share thoughts visually.
There is an array of approaches trying to increase interaction and therefore collaboration within office
environments. As reported by Heerwagen et al. (2004) many of these attempts, as for example pursuing
the open or non-territorial office as described by Allen & Gerstberger (1973) fail because they are in-
compatible with existing context of work and culture. The main critique is that collaborative spaces are
not adopted, because they are not sufficiently integrated in the workspace and its norms. Doorley and
Witthoft (2012) even say “space is the body language of an organization” (p. 23). If this body language is
not congruent with the overall culture, space is prone to fail in its purpose. A general statement from the
practice of workspace design is therefore that also collaborative space must not only be easily accessible
but coherently integrated in the workspace and its culture. In respect to this notion a general focus must
be put on the values and context of coworking described in chapter 2.
26
A casual feel of workspace is
usually favoured for
collaboration
Availability of many writeable or
pin-able surfaces is important
to share thoughts visually

Another point, why many attempts to create collaborative spaces fail, is that they interfere with individual
work modes. The most common interference with individual work is noise (Becker, 2004) (cf. 4.2, 3.5).
However, it is technically very difficult to contain noise, as for example room-dividers deviate noise
upwards, where the ceiling partially reflects it back down. With this said, the actual problem with noise
is reportedly not merely the loudness but the legibility of speech, which is most prominent in too quiet
spaces (Becker, 2004). If speech cannot be interpreted because of blending sources and mixing back-
ground noise as for example in a café, we are less likely to be disturbed or
pay attention to distractive content. An effective method to create this ef-
fect is so called sound-masking, which is the moderate emission of white
noise or another kind of undifferentiated sound (Becker, 2004). For the
solution approach it is important to notice that collaborative space must
not interfere with individual workspace – at the same time it is advisable
to combine soundproofing and sound-masking.
27
Collaborative space must not
interfere with individual
workspace
It is advisable to combine
sound-proofing and
sound-masking

To recapitulate – for the purpose to inform the creation of a specific workspace concept the research
tried to touch upon the most pertinent points of three major topics regarding the research question and
the project goal:
28
5 ANALYSIS
To compare, the research question at hand reads: “How could a workspace concept support group col-
laboration and co-creation within coworking environments?”
However, research about coworking spaces also points at the fact that a workspace solution for cowork-
ing spaces has to fulfil the function of triggering and not only supporting creative collaboration
(cf. 2.2.2).
CREATIVE
COLLABO-
RATION
COWORKING
SPACE
WORKSPACE
DESIGN
CRITERIA
Locus and Context – coworking as
a global movement and the physical
spaces are the stage, which
determine the cultural back-
ground and user types as
a frame of reference
Activity and Process – creative collab-
oration is the subject of interest,
which the workspace should
help facilitate and manage
Space and its Principles –
space design as a discipline
provides a general design back-
ground from a corporate perspective
to draw from
VISUAL 6 The three major topics of research

These two functions correspond with the two dominant user groups – individual freelancers and small
start-up teams.
The predominant function, which is required, is to support creative collaboration by providing space
that caters for the activity of externalisation as described in the Concept of Ba (cf. 3.3). Concretely this
means sharing and creation of ideas in a flexible activity workspace for small groups and teams.
The second required function is to trigger creative collaboration. This means that individual coworkers,
which mostly work on their own are motivated to open up to a behavioural change towards creative
collaboration with other users.
29
ANALYSIS THEORY
Both functions have to be met by a solution. However, within the scope of this project the support
function has priority over the trigger function seeing that they seem to represent two consecutive steps.
Firstly it is advisable to cater for the existing need for collaboration and in a second step nudge towards
the yet hidden need of collaboration.
This is the reason, why the approach for concept ideation is consciously divided in these two functions.
Two aspects of a solution can, in the best case, complement each other in a symbiotic relationship, but
can also exist as solutions on their own.
start-up teams need space
for creative collaboration
individuals need to be motivated to-
wards creative collaboration
TRIGGERSUPPORT
CREATIVE
COLLABORATION
VISUAL 7 The two functions of triggering and supporting creative collaboration

5.1 METHODOLOGY OF CRITERIA FORMULATION
In order to guide ideation and to measure the quality of concepts in a direct comparison there have to
be formulated criteria and/ or opportunity areas. As stated in chapter 1.4, the research conducted for
this project focused on the collection of key findings geared towards generating a set of criteria. This
collection of key findings did not only lead to criteria, it also yielded areas of opportunity. By no means
is and can this list of criteria and opportunities, presented in 5.2, be exhaustive. It does, however, reflect
the degree of detail and scope that the project allowed.
In order to generate solution requirements to support and trigger creative collaboration the following
approach was taken (cf. Visual 8): In a first step all relevant findings were collected. Then, in a second
step the findings were clustered according to the perceived correlation between them. These clusters
were named according to their most prevalent topical connection. In a third step, these topic clusters
were used as a basis to form requirements – some of which where more specific and some more open
and unspecific.
30
ANALYSIS THEORY
The specific requirements – the criteria – are concerned with concrete physical specifications of work-
space. They describe clear spatial characteristics, which are either quantitatively measurable, as for ex-
ample the height of a work-surface, or are otherwise clearly defined, as for example effortless one-per-
son-operation. These criteria focus on supporting creative collaboration and point at a product design
VISUAL 8 The steps to opportunity and criteria formulation
FINDINGS TOPIC CLUSTERS OPPORTUNITIES & CRITERIA

31
ANALYSIS THEORY
solution. The unspecific requirements stem from more complex topic clusters, which are predominantly
concerned with human interaction as well as the connection of workspace (physical space) and mind-
set (mental space). They represent opportunities for further exploration and might be areas capable of
triggering creative collaboration. As such these opportunity areas point at inducing a behavioural
change.
5.2 CRITERIA AND OPPORTUNITIES
Criteria and opportunities are visualized in the overview table on page 32.
The table shows the key findings within the according topic clusters. Further the column Value or Principle
shows if there is a connection to the core values of coworking (cf. 2.3.1) or to general design principles
for collaborative spaces (cf. 4.2). Chapter and Source signalise where the information is taken from.
Weight defines the weighting of the criterion or the opportunity area according to the inferred impor-
tance. The weightings are subjective in the way that they are deduced from overall perception of the
topic. However, they are also based on the question if the criterion is a vital or a complimentary attribute
to answer the research question. The maximum weighting of a criterion or opportunity is the value of
5 describing a must-have-attribute. The minimum weighting is the value of 1 describing a nice-to-have
attribute. (cf. table 4 in 6.1)
To give an example: The criteria within the topic cluster Adaptability & Flexibility receive a compara-
tively high weighting as they pose a precondition to create a Plug’n’Play solution, which is universally
applicable to various locations and situations. In contrast, the topic cluster Trust receives a much lower
weighting. Although trust is a fundamental precondition for creative collaboration a workspace design
can only contribute to but not create a relationship of trust. Consequently, the trust-related criteria have
subordinate status.

32
ANALYSIS THEORY
Connecting
Topic
C
luster
Value
orPrinciple
C
hapterand
Source*
C
riterion
or
Finding
Shared space connects a team and can
create a shared mindset
Community&
Collaboration
Active imagination and aesthetic sensitivi-
ty in connection to the task is important
Connect team, task and space through
shared sensual experience
CC
3.3
CC
3.3
Privacy
Travelling noise and unhindered sight can
be a problem for the freedom of expression
Community&
Collaboration
It is advisable to combine soundproofing
and sound-masking Contain and mask noise to create a pleas-
ant ambience for participants and non
participants
CC
3.4
WS
4.4
Collaborative space must not interfere with
individual workspace
WS
4.4
Trust
Trust amongst group members is a pre-
condition for successful collaboration
Community
Encourage low seating
(with seat heights below 44 cm)
CC/CW
3.4/2.4.2
Sitting close to the ground (focal point)
creates focus and feeling of safety
WS
4.2
Adaptability
&Flexibility
Layout must be adaptable to various
activities and situations
Functionality
WS
4.5
Every CWS has a different identity but
values are shared
CW
2.4.1
Workspace must be adaptable to person-
ality characteristics and tasks
CC
3.4
Create a light(weight), movable and recon-
figurable layout (easy one person handling)
Create adaptable semantics to be
adaptable to various CWS identities
Make it easy to create formal/informal or
calming/stimulating environments
Collaboration&
SocialInteraction
A very strong selling points of CWS is the
escape of social isolation (homeoffice)
Collaboration
CW
2.1
Collaboration is associated with network-
ing and social interaction (not co-creation)
CW
2.4.2
Creative Collaboration must be embedded
in flow of activities (Concept of Ba)
CC
3.2
Enable a fluent transition from social inter-
action into collaborative work (easy entry)
Sharing
Ideas
Space must support externalisation (Ba):
communication/self expression/storytelling
Openness&
Community
CW
3.2
Availability of many writable or pinable sur-
faces is important to share thoughts visually
WS
4.4
Offer many writeable and/or transformable
surfaces for visual communication
Offer storage for tools, accessories and
material
Mindset
Project related pressure prevents creative
collaboration (esp. for individuals)
Legitimacy
CW
2.4.2
Creative collaboration can have the notion
of being ineffective
CW
2.4.2
Help to take away some project related
pressure or deviate from it
Communicate the value of creative
collaboration
Casualness
A casual feel of workspace is usually
favoured for collaboration
Openness&
Sustainability
WS
4.4
“Patina gives permission to create” /
space must not feel precious but usable
CC
3.4
Offer an unpretentious and casual
environment (eg. by exposing raw materials)
Standing and physical movement improve
cognitive flexibility and performance
CC
4.2
Encourage standing, leaning or moving
(with activity areas above 100 cm)
W
eight
5
3
2
4
4
4
4
5
5
3
5
4
5
Regard Biophelia by providing a natural
environment 2
Create semi-shielding visual barriers 5
Phenomenon of Biophelia might help to
build trust
CC
3.5
Workspace must also be suitable for
“transfer & train” (easy exit)
5
Connect team, task and space through
contextual cues of topic 5
Limited
Resources
CWS are under high pressure to offer very
attractive work environments with low
budget facilities
Accessibility
CW
2 Offer an economic solution to make it
accessible for the majority of CWS 5
OPPORTUNITYAREASCRITERIA
O
pportunity
* CW = Coworking (spaces) / CC = Creative Collaboration / WS = Workspace Design
Offer an informal and non-prescriptive
environment 4
TABLE 3 Table of criteria and opportunity areas

As broached in chapter 5.2 there are two overarching sets of attributes that are not nominally included
in the criteria. However, they describe superordinate and general characteristics of coworking as a global
movement (a) and collaborative workspace design as a discipline (b). As such these attributes were con-
sulted to set the tone and guide ideation process and conceptualization on a general level:
a. Core values of coworking (Schuermann, 2014) (cf. 2.3.1)
o Collaboration Working together; the will to cooperate with others to create
something of value. This might be the strongest point.
o Community A group of like-minded people who work together. Each one
contributes to the community and receives from the community.
o Sustainability Staying power; a driving force for financial stability to ensure
continuity, creating a community that can thrive indefinitely through
the careful use of sparse resources.
o Openness Being open to the sharing of ideas and information, as well as being
open-minded and tolerant toward other coworkers.
o Accessibility Working in a Coworking Space has to be financially viable to the
users as well as accommodate all users’ physical needs.
b. General design principles for collaborative spaces (Oseland, 2012) (cf. 4.2)
o Proximity as the frequency of all forms of communication decreases over distance, the
proximity of spaces for interaction is of utmost importance;
o Accessibility ease of accessibility and known availability of spaces for interaction is key,
they need to be conveniently located with appropriate visual access;
o Privacy they should provide a sense of perceived visual and aural privacy, which
does not necessarily mean that full enclosure is required for privacy;
o Legitimacy people need a valid reason for being in the space where interactions may take
place, e.g. a copy/print area or stairwell/corridor;
o Functionality layout of the furniture, equipment provided, environmental conditions,
amenities, and capacity all impact on the suitability for different types of
interaction.
33
6 CONCEPTUALIZATION

34
CONCEPTUALIZATION SOLUTION
Further, the solution should reflect the zeitgeist, which supports and justifies the existence of coworking
spaces. This zeitgeist is mirrored in the major trends described in chapter 2.1, feeding the coworking
movement (DeGuzman & Tang, 2011). This is not a criterion for the solution as it becomes rather ab-
stract and subjective when attempting to measure the zeitgeist within a concept. Yet, general feeling and
atmosphere of a solution is important in context. For this the feeling and the attitude of the sharing
community, the opportunity of innovation and collective creativity should be considered in the process
of ideation. Another point, not listed but to be regarded, is that a concept should focus and supporting
collaborative groups of 2 to 5 participants, as research points at a high productivity and likelihood of
small teams (cf. 4.3).
6.1 METHODOLOGY OF CONCEPT GENERATION

The concept generation took place in a two-step process.
A half-day ideation workshop was conducted with four students from Design Management Internation-
al, Lucerne (see Appendix E for images of the ideation session). As knowledge workers, not embedded
in a corporate working environment and an average age between 20 and 40, the students belong to the
prime target group of coworking spaces. Two of the participating students are active coworking space
users. An array of ideas led to three concepts with different focal points. Each concept elaborates on one
opportunity area and on one particular key topic. In a second step the three preliminary concepts were
evaluated. Firstly it was established if the concept is capable of meeting the project goal.
VISUAL 9 The steps of concept generation
IDEATION 3 CONCEPTS EVALUATION FINAL
CONCEPT
Criteria &
Opportunity
Areas
Project
Goal
C1
C2
C3

35
Then, each concept was rated on a scale of 1 to 3 signifying weather each criterion or opportunity area
was fulfilled (3) or not fulfilled (1). This value was then multiplied with the weight of the criterion or
opportunity (cf. 5.2).
The table below shows the potential score of each criterion in regard to a concept.
6.2 CONCEPTS AND EVALUATION
The established opportunity areas give clear indications as to which direction could be taken to induce a
behavioural change towards more creative collaboration. The criteria, however, stipulate which physical
attributes the workspace concept should feature in order to support creative collaboration in coworking
spaces.
WEIGHTING
OF CRITERION
Nice To
Have
Must
Have
DOES THE
CONCEPT
MEET THE
CRITERION ?
Yes,
Fully
No,
Hardly
4
6
123
3
1
2
12 3
2
1
4
23
6
9
4
8
5
10
15
5
Table 4 Potential concept score per criterion

36
6.2.1 CONCEPT ONE - IMMERSIVE PAVILION
Concept One focuses on the opportunity area Connecting and the key topic Privacy.
The Immersive Pavilion is a tent-like structure, which represents a semi-secluded space within a cowork-
ing space. It offers an activity space for groups of 2-8 participants.
Even if physically contained within an indoor setting, the Pavilion offers escape from the regular sur-
roundings as a space, which shields from the outer world. The privacy of a cocoon-like shell can give the
user a sense of security, which supports free thinking and exchange. The idea of contextual immersion
is reflected in the possibility to project 360° imagery of the users’ liking or project related need onto the
inner wall of the dome. Supported by audio effects and/ or music the Pavilion can facilitate a specifically
orchestrated sensual experience. A project team can be connected with the task through the adaptation
of space. Active imagination and increased creativity can be the result as the Pavilion offers the ability to
completely change the user’s environment by just stepping into a tent. Further, curiosity about the staged
experience can trigger the first-time user to enter the Pavilion, which is the initial step to embrace the
Pavilion’s use as a space for creative collaboration.
Critique and Evaluation
Although the Immersive Pavilion is a concept, which might boost imagination, group arousal and cre-
ativity, there are downsides to it: The factor of curiosity, triggering participation, might wear of rather
VISUAL 10 Concept One - The Immersive Pavilion

37
quickly, but even if the pavilion is institutionalised it is questionable if it is accepted as an “event-work-
space”. Further, the concept is expensive and inflexible. A number of powerful short-throw projectors
are needed to realize the idea and the large structure is difficult to move, which takes up a lot of space
that is not usable for other use cases. Last but not least, users might have the feeling of being too con-
tained under such a capsule-like dome, which would most likely counter steer creative collaboration as
free and abstract thinking might be inhibited (Meyers-Levy & Zhu, 2007).
Overall the concept is geared towards the project goal, but scores 162 points at meeting criteria and
opportunities, which puts the concept at the runner-up slot of three concepts.
6.2.2 CONCEPT TWO - COMMUNITY-BANK & PLAY-BOX
Concept Two focuses on the opportunity area Mindset and on the key topic of Casualness.
Community-Bank and Play-Box represent the idea of gamification. Physical space, as well as a commu-
nity support system build on a feeling of lightness, playfulness and the concept of pooled forces.
VISUAL 11 Concept Two - Community Bank and Play-Box

38
The gamification approach supports creative collaboration with a point system that counts “effort-points”
at the Community Bank for the time that is invested to collaboratively help peers. As such the concept
poses a “collaborative time and brainpower bank”. You contribute to somebody else’s project and earn
points. The rewards for investing time and effort into the community are help in return and possibly a
reward from the proprietor’s side. Additionally there are regular events, which thematize creative collabo-
ration as a way to overcome or cope with the pressure of increased competition in today’s markets. These
events are part of an educational initiative, which aim at changing organizational culture by increasing
consciousness about the potential of creative collaboration.
The physical workspace, offers an activity workspace in form of a playground. A basic crate-like piece of
furniture - The Play-Box - made from wood or light sheet metal can be used as seating option, as storage
space or as a universal building block with a whiteboard surface. The building blocks are intended for
building temporary structures needed for role-plays, usability testing, atriums to seat audiences at events,
or to play hide’n’seek if this is the need of the hour.
Part of the concept, the Community Bank where “the community karma” is registered could be a pow-
erful idea if embraced by the community. The thought is worth thinking further, as it seems to directly
relate the users’ context (cf. interview with Gian Filippo Floriddia and Tauras Sinkevicius - see Appendix
D for transcript).
Concerning the Play-Box, one of the general design principles of collaborative workspace (cf. 4.2) is
legitimacy. This means that people need a valid reason for being in a space. If a space feels too much
like a playground, it might bring the connotation of a no-work-space with it. This in turn could lead to
rejection, as “making money” and being efficient is a concern. (cf. interview with Jürg Rohner, March
19, 2015, see Appendix F for transcript) Although casualness is a key topic of this concept, it can be
counterproductive if overdone. Further, the proposed events are already an industry standard, practiced
at many coworking businesses. Half workspace / half incubator program, many coworking spaces do
often have regular educational and community building events.
Overall the concept is partially pursuing the project goal.
It scores 154 points at meeting criteria and opportunities, which puts the concept at the last place of
three concepts.

39
6.2.3 CONCEPT THREE - COMMUNITY PAD & ADAPT-A-WALL
Concept 3 focuses on the opportunity area Collaboration & Social interaction and the key topic of
Adaptability & Flexibility. The Community Pad is a tool that facilitates a fluent transition from social-
ising into collaborating. The Adapt-A-Wall is a multifunctional, highly flexible and extendable wall and
furniture system.
The Community Pad is a tool that picks-up the energy and the momentum of break-time interaction,
when we air our brains and have a chat. The Community Pad is a simple tablet computer integrated into
a piece of kitchen-furniture, which connects social space with the physical group workspace to take the
conversation further. It has two simple functions: being an electronic note pad to jot and scribble while
having a break and to spread the word of the moment. If an idea or thought, which was jotted down,
is good, funny or exciting it can be posted on a screen (digital pin-board) mounted in the collaborative
workspace of the community, visible for everybody. The conversation is opened up and creative collab-
oration can begin.
VISUAL 12 Concept Three - Community Pad and Adapt-A-Wall

40
Concerning physical workspace, work-surfaces and basic room elements for creative collaboration are
usually vertical or horizontal – walls and tables. The Adapt-A-Wall is breaking down the object specific
limitations of vertical and horizontal surfaces. Modularly arranged and movable wall elements can be
rearranged, interchanged and transformed to be tables or for example objects for seating. An array of
pin-able, writable and stick-able surfaces to choose from can create a highly flexible space that can in-
stantly adapt to momentary user needs in terms of layout, colour schemes and activity. A free workspace
unleashes a free mind.
Making use of the concept of nudging the Community Pad picks users up, where they interact naturally.
Even if the functionality might fail to induce instant collaboration, the concept offers a coworking space
an additional platform to communicate, interact and build trustful relationships within a community,
which is conducive to successful collaboration (cf. 2.3.1).
The Adapt-A-Wall: Adaptability and flexibility are two of the most essential aspects of workspace design
for coworking spaces that the research of this thesis has revealed. This is for the reason that there is an
array of needs within coworking environments, pertaining to various tasks, personalities, roles and use
cases of space. The concept is able to respond to these needs: The multi-functionality of the concept
fulfils its main purpose - the support of creative collaboration as it enables the user to ad hoc react, adapt
and create a collaborative workspace for visual communication as needed. Furthermore it offers pivotal
conditions, such as improved privacy and casualness through a non-prescriptive workspace layout.
Overall the concept is geared towards the project goal, and scores 172 points at meeting criteria and
opportunities, which makes it the winning concept.
The concept score sheet with the detailed scores of each concept can be viewed in Appendix E.

41
The Community Pad and The Adapt-A-Wall, as described in the previous chapter, are proposed as a
plug’n’play workspace solution that triggers and supports group collaboration and co-creation within
coworking environments. Even a combination with the Community Bank (cf. 6.2.2) is thinkable. The
further development of the solution, however, solely focuses on the Adapt-A-Wall concept, delivering
on the need for a workspace solution that is geared to support and facilitate creative collaboration. This
decision is based on two points – firstly on the viability in respect of the scope of this thesis and sec-
ondly the fact that sufficient physical conditions for creative collaboration are a precondition for creative
collaboration. As described in chapter 5, the support function has priority over the trigger function
seeing that there seem to be two consecutive steps in terms of implementation. Moreover, the Adapt-
A-Wall has found echo and interest in the workspace- as well as the coworking industry as a stand-alone
solution. (personal communications, Zeljko Marin, April 24, 2015; Sven Erni, April 30, 2015; Andreas
Erbe, May 7, 2015)
7.1 METHODOLOGY OF SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT
Prototyping was conducted in quick iterative loops, following several ideas in parallel. Sketching, paper
modelling, combination of materials, alongside with further research and the consultation of other DMI
students and a corporate workspace designer Jeffrey Ibanez lead to a prototype, which was then subject
to testing. Due to the limited scope of this project the concept testing was conducted on a small sample
basis. Nevertheless, it was important to consult the opinions of the main stakeholders – the people that
will use the solution and the people that will integrate it – the users and proprietors. The concept was
evaluated by three users, one proprietor and in addition an expert in the field of corporate workspace
design. Each participant was asked to give feedback on topics like usability, attractiveness and value for
creative collaboration. The relative number of users participating ensured a user centred assessment.
7 OUTCOME
TESTINGSOLUTION
PROTOTYPE
Users
Proprietor
Expert
RECOMMENDATIONSFEEDBACK
F1
F2
F3
VISUAL 13 The steps of testing and feedback

42
OUTCOME SOLUTION
7.2 THE ADAPT-A-WALL IN DETAIL
The Product
The Adapt-A-Wall is predominantly constructed with EchoPanel – a LEED-certified felt-like material
that is to 100% made of fully recyclable PET fibres. 60% of which are sourced from recycled PET bot-
tles. With the potential to be developed to a cradle-to-cradle product, the basic version of the Adapt-A-
Wall consists of a minimum of four wall elements and offers three basic applications of use – a movable
wall, a standing table and a personal workplace shield.
Being a wall, the modular furniture system can be used as an easily movable room divider that adapts to
changing spatial requirements within coworking spaces. It serves as a sound-absorbing shield, as a visual
barrier, as a tool to structure space, as a pin board, and as a whiteboard. Due to a simple mechanism,
consisting of reversible double sided metal hinges and the use of small but strong neodymium-magnets,
the single elements can be clicked into the wall or removed with ease – wall layouts can be freely joined,
changed and broken up as desired. Further the 180° hinges give the user utmost freedom in bending and
arranging the wall, which can either have a height of 102cm or 192cm.
Due to the functionality of the hinges the wall can be easily transformed into a standing table. By simply
pivoting one of the top elements until it safely rests on an angled bottom element the wall is turned into
a table within seconds. As such, table and wall pose a highly agile activity workspace suited to support
creative collaboration. One scenario could be that the outcomes of an impromptu ideation session,
captured on a white board element, can be easily removed from the wall or table and carried to another
location where the session can be continued or transcribed.
Moreover, with a work surface height of 104 cm the table can also be used as a standing desk or for
standing receptions. Last but not least the Adapt-A-Wall is applicable as a personal workplace shield - a
low wall at the corner of a desk. Creating a personal little nook at a users desk the element offers a sense
of privacy and can be used as a pin-board for notes and other items. Overall the Adapt-A-Wall is a highly
versatile piece of furniture and tool to create space.

43
The Implementation
The idea behind the Adapt-A-Wall is not solely the support of creative collaboration, it is also about the
autonomous creation and adaptation of workspace by its users to conceive a coherently integrated and
adopted work environment. To do so and to strengthen the sense of community the solution intends a
personalisation of the wall elements. As new community members join with long- and mid-term mem-
berships they each get presented a new wall module of their choice, which they can then integrate in the
landscape of existing wall elements. This landscape becomes a symbolic manifestation of the communi-
ty. It symbolizes the bigger picture of the community of which every member is an important structural
part. This way not only the identity of the community can be visualized and perhaps strengthened, the
workspace can also grow naturally and organically. Therein lies the possibility that the transformation
of the users’ work and living space can happen gradually, so that a coherent integration in an existing
workspace is possible. This greatly increases the chances that new workspace is adopted. At the same
time the system poses potential to be extended and adapted.
OUTCOME SOLUTION
VISUAL 14 Solution prototype

44
7.2.1 PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO CRITERIA
The Adapt-A-Wall solution proves its strengths in respect to the criteria from chapter 5.2, as follows:
Flexibility And Adaptability
Weight - Due to its relatively low weight of about three to four kilograms per element, effort-
less one-person operation and easy reconfiguration of layout is guaranteed.
Neutral semantics - The plain EchoPanel and the simple geometric formal language, supported by a
frameless construction, make the product fairly neutral in its appearance and can
there-fore be incorporated in an array of environments with various space identities.
Colour - Given the possibility to choose from currently 12 colour schemes and an array of
surface decors, it is feasible to adapt to task related needs of introverts and extroverts.
Stimulating as well as calming environments can be created by applying different
coloured elements on the spot.
Standing - With a table height of 104 cm the work surface of the table encourages standing and
supports flexible and non territorial thinking.
Sharing Ideas
Visual Communication - As the material is a pin board itself and as many whiteboard surfaces are
available the conditions for successful visual group communication are set.
Casualness
Materiality - Through the felt like appearance the material provides a warm room ambiance, which
is not perceived as precious. For this the material signalises usability as a tool rather than
being a mere artefact or rigid barrier. An informal, non-prescriptive and casual
environment is made possible.
Limited Resources
Economic Solution - Unit prices can be held relatively low compared to furniture industry standards.
Through the possibility to buy single modular elements it can make the workspace
creation a steady and therefore affordable process for coworking spaces.
OUTCOME SOLUTION

45
Privacy
Sound - The material, which is designed for interior architecture surfaces, is sound absorbing
and sound insulating, which has a positive effect on the acoustic climate within a space.
Sound masking can be achieved by exposing the space to a moderate level of white
noise. At a pinch with a Hifi solution.
Visibility - Its functionality as an adaptable visual barrier gives the user full freedom in creating
semi-private workspaces.
In great part the solution does not only respond to the criteria, it also relates to the general workspace
objectives by Meel, Martens and van Ree (2010), stated in chapter 4.
Nevertheless, there are also criteria, which the solution does not meet:
Sharing Ideas
Storage - Stowing away tools, accessories and material is not catered for. The Adapt-A-Wall is
predominantly a tool to structure workspace layout. However, it can be argued that the
solution offers available space for additional items, e.g. for storage.
Trust
Low Seating - No seating options are included in the solution. As described for the point above –
seating can be added as needed.
Natural environment - The PET material is artificial and cannot be labelled natural. Nevertheless, feel
and haptic qualities resemble a felt-like material, which can mitigate this shortcoming to
a certain extend.
7.2.2 VALUE PROPOSITION
As previously identified, the main stakeholders of the workspace solution are the members and pro-
prietors of coworking spaces. They are the potential users and buyers of the Adapt-A-Wall. The value
proposition of the Adapt-A-Wall has to respond to their roles and situations:
OUTCOME SOLUTION

46
Value Proposition For The User
Productivity - Active support of creative collaboration has the potential to positively affect the
users’ business performance.
Flexibility - Flexible space adapts to individual needs regarding task and personality type. Users
are able to change and create space to their liking the moment it is needed. Through
the ability to detach single elements, the solution also supports the conflation of
social interaction and collaborative work.
Privacy - Users can decide if they want to work shielded from others with a closed setup or in a
rather open space.
Value Proposition For The Proprietor
Image & Culture - The system poses a competitive advantage seeing that the active support of creative
collaboration can lead to an enhanced image as innovation incubator. The aspect of
using sustainable materials can enhance attractiveness of the space. If applied sen-
sibly, the solution can enhance the space ambiance compared to an open-plan layout.
Flexibility: From a facility management viewpoint, the versatility of the system poses an
economic facility solution that is individually adaptable and extendable. This includes
use cases to structure space layout, as well as furniture and when stowed away.
Price: Acquisition costs are reasonable compared to alternatives within the furniture
industry. (cf. 7.2.3)
7.2.3 BENCHMARKING
As the notion that “the open office is destroying the workplace” (Kaufman, 2014) gains support amongst
workspace specialists, furniture manufacturers increasingly offer space dividers that are reversible or
somehow movable in order to adapt to changing workplace situations. In unison Jeffrey Ibanez, corpo-
rate workspace designer at Pfister Professional, states that the industry trend is moving towards an inte-
grated mix between open office space and team spaces (personal communication, 30.04.2015). It is rele-
vant to compare efforts across the workspace furniture industry accounting for this prevailing trend. The
comparison of movable workspace elements below juxtaposes price per square meter of wall and the
perceived degree of flexibility and multi-functionality according to task and layout. These dimensions are
OUTCOME SOLUTION

BA Thesis_Boris Gantz_DMI Lucerne_2015

BA Thesis_Boris Gantz_DMI Lucerne_2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to BA Thesis_Boris Gantz_DMI Lucerne_2015

Similar to BA Thesis_Boris Gantz_DMI Lucerne_2015 (20)

BA Thesis_Boris Gantz_DMI Lucerne_2015