The Scottish Library & Information Council Co-working Hub Evaluation
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•61 views
Charlotte Wilson, Charlotte Wilson Research Services
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The Scottish Library & Information Council Co-working Hub Evaluation
Similar to The Scottish Library & Information Council Co-working Hub Evaluation (20)
More from CILIPScotland
More from CILIPScotland (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Scottish Library & Information Council Co-working Hub Evaluation
- 1. TheScottishLibrary&InformationCouncil Co-working Hub Evaluation Charlotte Wilson Research Services October 2019
- 2. ResearchScope Undertake an evaluation of the pilot project to introduce 6 co-working hubs in libraries across Scotland (now 5) Evaluate impact Identify good practice Recommend a scalable model Talking to users, library staff, stakeholders Charlotte Wilson Research Services
- 3. Methodology & Sample Online survey sent to co-working hub users Qualitative Depth Interviews with staff at each co-working hub Edinburgh Dunfermline Troon Inverness Dundee Interviews and discussions with key stakeholders and referrers Desk research to investigate other similar projects to identify best practise Charlotte Wilson Research Services
- 4. Other Coworking Hubs Charlotte Wilson Research Services Accelerator v Incubator Tontine – Glasgow WeWork – Edinburgh The Melting Pot – Edinburgh Elevator British Library
- 5. Feedback - Charlotte Wilson Research Services
- 6. Charlotte Wilson Research Services User Profile – 9% 27% 32% 27% 5% 0% 0% Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 47% 53% Gender Male Female
- 7. 37% 23% 20% 3% 3% 13% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Creative Industries IT Business Services Construction Health and Social Care Other Charlotte Wilson Research Services User Profile - Industry
- 8. 55% 45% Freelancer/solopreneur Small business Charlotte Wilson Research Services User Profile 73% 27% Current User Past User
- 9. Usage and Awareness Charlotte Wilson Research Services 62% have a fixed desk, 38% use hot desk facility 67% were library members before joining co-working hub Majority became aware of co-corking hub through word of mouth and SLIC social media
- 10. Awareness, Interest & Decision Making Charlotte Wilson Research Services Generally became aware through communications with SLIC Most had heard of possibility of pilot All were interested in pilot and enthusiastic about it Different levels of decision based on local authority and job role. Some local authorities have bigger hierarchies and so decision time was longer and more drawn out. Signing agreements differed too based on local authorities, for some was much easier, for others was a very drawn out process.
- 11. Appeal Charlotte Wilson Research Services 87% 83% 37% 23% 13% 10% 7% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cost Location Flexbility of Contract Opportunities for networking and making contact Facilities Becoming part of a professional commuity Availability of both fixed and hot desks Other
- 12. Satisfaction Charlotte Wilson Research Services 30% 52% 23% 17% 48% 14% 37% 31% 40% 45% 41% 21% 23% 14% 33% 31% 10% 45% 10% 3% 3% 7% 21% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Induction to Space Set up of Contract Systems in place for communications with SLIC Systems in place for communications with other users Systems in place for payment IT support received to set up at the co-working space Very Good Good Neither good nor Poor Poor Very Poor
- 13. Dealings with SLIC Charlotte Wilson Research Services 52% 38% 7% 3% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Very Good Good Neither Good nor Poor Poor Very Poor
- 14. SLIC Charlotte Wilson Research Services High praise for SLIC across the board in terms of the set up and management of the project. Work undertaken to make sure things ran smoothly was commended by all. Some said that more involvement at the set up process would have been good.
- 15. Facilities Charlotte Wilson Research Services 50% 23% 29% 23% 14% 27% 14% 36% 9% 24% 14% 14% 18% 5% 9% 27% 10% 18% 23% 36% 38% 9% 10% 14% 18% 9% 10% 9% 24% 5% 5% 23% 5% 32% 27% 9% 33% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Library Services IT Services WIFI Meeting Spaces Catering Facilities Networking Opportunities Training/development Opportunities Very Good Good Neither good nor Poor Poor Very Poor N/A
- 16. The Future Charlotte Wilson Research Services Past users were asked why they had left the space. Reasons given included opening hours, levels of usage and change in working. 86% likely or very likely to continue using the space 90% would recommend the space
- 17. Demand & Success Charlotte Wilson Research Services Already significant demand for desks across the locations Edinburgh sold out! Success is full and buzzing co-working hubs for all. Some libraries already keen to expand on the idea with potentially including makers spaces. Some libraries also considering the financial benefits and increased library user potential as measure of success.
- 18. Scalable Model Charlotte Wilson Research Services A set of principles and objectives for the co-working space and its users A ‘starter- pack’ that outlines the service available, identifies responsible staff, outlines the network and services available beyond the ‘home’ library, and suggests a ‘code of conduct’ for working with other users in the space A supportive ambience – helpful staff and easily accessible information – good, clear ‘gatekeeping’ services from the library Provide an attractive environment – space that is physically well laid out with good quality furniture Good (preferably excellent)Wi-Fi connectivity Secure area that is not accessible by the public Opening hours that are conducive to business use i.e. minimum 9-5 access
Editor's Notes
- Generally, the libraries involved became aware of the coworking hub pilot as a result of being approached by SLIC. Each library was contacted and asked to consider the viability of their local authority participating in the pilot and to consider an appropriate space (if available) to be appraised in terms of viability. The spaces were then appraised and if appropriate were progressed to become part of the pilot. The majority of the libraries had a space that they knew immediately would be appropriate for the pilot. Many were “dead” and unused spaces which were growing tired and desperately needed to be revamped and reused. The pilot therefore was considered an opportune way to get the spaces up and running again and repurpose them within the library setting. All of the libraries participating in the pilot could see there being benefits to the coworking hubs. Generally, this was related to libraries being used for other purposes than simply borrowing books. People are using libraries less in this way and so to encourage people to come in to the library for a different purpose was deemed to be very appealing. In addition, the business community using libraries and their resources was attractive. There is not at present a big connection between libraries and the business community and ways in which to foster this type of relationship was seen by all to be very beneficial. Allowing people to rediscover libraries was also seen as a benefit. By using the hubs, they will be exposed to the resources and services that modern libraries have available which the public can generally be unaware of. Each of the libraries had a different experience relative to the decision-making process to give the “green light” to the pilot. This was generally based on the hierarchy and staff structures in place at each of the local authorities and trusts involved. Some of the libraries had the authority to make the decision and progress with the partnership agreement without requiring approval from a more senior member of staff. Others though required sign off from line managers and approval of the agreement from legal departments prior to go ahead. There is no pattern to this and it highlights the differences in structures and decision making across local authorities and trusts. There appears not to be one level of decision making across the board that would if being rolled out make this process easier. One consistency in this process appears to be the difference between local authorities and trusts. It seems that signing agreements and getting approval from those libraries who are part of a trust was significantly easier than those who are part of the more traditional local authority structure.
- When talking to users in the follow up interviews they praised the space available at the hubs as well as the atmosphere. Compared with other coworking spaces it was felt that a library environment was better and the desk space was much bigger. Light and décor were also praised. Benefits of the spaces were seen as an opportunity to get out the house and talk to people. Enhanced wellbeing.
- Generally, the libraries were favourable about the relationship they had with SLIC in this process.
- Improvements suggested included more access to networking ad events as well as enhanced meeting spaces. More work on bringing a sense of community to the spaces, linked with wellbeing. National network had huge appeal for users and having access across the country was seen as a great benefit.
- There has been significant demand shown in the pilot spaces, with many being full or nearly full after only a short time. Libraries are aware generally of who the users are but feel slightly detached from understanding more about the types of businesses and sectors taking up the spaces or showing interest as SLIC currently manage this. Some libraries are also interested in how they can work together with SLIC to promote the spaces more effectively to encourage demand going forward. At the moment it is considered to be a grey area for the libraries as to who is responsible for promotion and who would take charge of the marketing for the spaces. Success was viewed differently by different locations. All mentioned the spaces being used as a measure of success but not everyone said that being full was success. Generally, a busy and vibrant space was a measure of success. This included having the space used for events for users and the wider business community. Some libraries also mentioned that users also using the library facilities and services was a measure of success as this was then bringing a new audience into the library. All of the libraries could see the benefits of having a national network established. They felt this would increase the offer available and make it an even more attractive proposition to users. There was a recognition that people now work in different ways and as a result may travel around the country. Having access to a space that they know in various locations would be useful and beneficial for both working and meetings.
- Incubator Hot-desk areas (short-term use) Medium and long-term desk rental options Secure areas within the co-working space for longer-term users to leave material and equipment Meeting areas that can be booked Access to shared equipment i.e. printing/copying; possibly 3D printing Optional services: mail address; mail-out services Access to spaces in other libraries, including bookable spaces, in the co-working network Access to specific research and/or archive services that can only be found in the library Accelerator Same facilities as for Incubator above, but also: Ensure joined up with business support ecology network; Business Gateway, Local authorities, Elevator Have set times for business advisors to be there Series of events that allow interaction between users Cross space booking facility i.e. based in Glasgow booking rooms in Dundee Address security issues around protecting IP i.e. folk copying ideas (this would benefit from legal advice) Pricing policy that ensures growing companies don’t ‘get comfortable’ with the available lower-price services in the library i.e. pricing model per desk – costs more if you have more employees Library staff will need up-skilling to ensure they can direct users to the right service/support It is clear from this evaluation that at the moment it does not point to the requirement for a co-working hub in every library in Scotland. There is however demand and evidence to support a roll-out nationally, initially in every local authority and in particular in more remote communities where access to business services may be more limited and feelings of isolation can be increased.