How CREM can measure added value of building design:Knowledge sharing in research buildings

Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek

h.a.j.a.appel@tue.nl

Co-authors: B. de Vries & M. Weggeman

Introduction

• Adding value with real estate – focus on efficiency • Cost reduction• Increasing value• Increasing flexibility

• effectiveness strategies• Promoting Marketing & sales• Increasing innovation • Increasing employee satisfaction• Increasing productivity

• Knowledge gap on softer added values

• Quantifying the workplace

• Innovative behaviour knowledge sharing (KS)

PAGE 220-04-23

Increasing knowledge sharing

• Knowledge = justified true belief a meeting• ↑meetings = ↑KS ??• Knowledge components

• Explicit• Tacit be together, cognitive apprenticeship

• Taxonomy of 29 KS moves [Berends, 2003] 5 categories• Descriptions• Actions• Questions• Proposals• Evaluations

PAGE 320-04-23

Tacit knowledge: achieve together f-to-f

Explicit knowledge: exchange virtual??

Increasing knowledge sharing

• Duration• Location• Tacitness

• Issues addressed

• Intentionality

− Scheduled meetings: organisational structure/project

− Coincidental meetings: building design(bump into each other: 30 meters)

PAGE 420-04-23

Conceptual model

• Content analysis literature• Innovation/KS literature: f-to-f, proximity

• CREM/Workplace literature: more detail, but focus on cooperation

• Two levels• Local effects co-presence

• Global effects position in the building

• Dyads instead of individuals

PAGE 520-04-23

Conceptual model

/ name of department

Co-presence – accessibility

- Position in the building

Same room

Same floor

Intervisibility

Hearing distance

Walking distance

Knowledge sharing of dyad

# of KS meetings

PAGE 620-04-23

Laborious!

Methodology + fieldwork

• Measure distances spatial network analysis• Isovist analysis visual graph analysis (VGA)

− Isovist: “the set of all points visible from a given vantage point in space and with respect to an environment”

PAGE 720-04-23

Methodology + fieldwork

• Visibility graph analysis• Entire plan: viewpoint of accessibility (0.5 m grid)• Space as how the user perceives it, interacts with

it and moves through it• Metric straight line

distance, visibility graph hearing distance

• Metric shortest path distance, permeability graph walking distance

PAGE 820-04-23

Not seen by many

Methodology + fieldwork

• Océ Netherlands• 1 building (2 storey), 269 R&D employees

D E F

C B A

C AB

ABC

FED

ABC

PAGE 920-04-23

/ name of department

PAGE 1020-04-23

Walking distances for this person

Methodology + fieldwork

• 138 logbooks (51%)

• 1 week

• 918 matchedinteractions betweenparticipants

• 9453 dyads only4% KS that week

• 45 min/day meeting• Most < 15 minutes• 3x/week (SD = 3)

/ name of department

PAGE 1120-04-23

Results for Océ

Frequency Valid%KS activitiesDescriptions Actions Questions Proposals Evaluations

423321

1067372395

22,4%17%

56,4%19,7%20,9%

Alternative sourceYes, non humanYes, other person(s)No, only this person

40176733

4,2%18,5%77,2%

Location of interactionown workplaceworkplace of othermeeting arealabcoffee machinehallway

802684

22274

8139

42,2%36,0%

1,2%14,4%

4,3%2,1%

Intentionality Intentional unscheduled visitInitiated after coincidental visual contact

1358533

71,8%28,2%

At the workplace

Tacit knowledge

Coincidental

Questions

PAGE 1220-04-23

Results for Océ Co-presence

Spearman's rhoSame room Intervisibility

Hearing distance

# of KS meetings Correlation Coefficient .460(**) .465(**) -.422(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 9453 9453 570 Same room Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .953(**) . Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 . N 9453 9453 . Intervisibility Correlation Coefficient   1.000 -.259(**) Sig. (2-tailed)   . .000 N   9453 570

PAGE 1320-04-23

Position building

Spearman's rhoWalking distance Same floor

# of KS meetings Correlation Coefficient -.270(**) .178(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 9453 9453 Walking distance Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.368(**) Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 N 9453 9453

Higher than KS meetings

Results for Océ

• Co-presence > position in building• Same room 1.4 KS meetings (SD = 2.68)

• different floor 0 KS meetings (SD = .07)

PAGE 1420-04-23

hearing distance> 16 m14 - 1612 - 1410 - 128 - 10 m6 - 8 m4 - 6 m2 - 4 m< 2 m

# o

f K

S m

eeti

ng

s

17

16

15

13

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Only outliers, outside hearing distance (max. 5-10 m)

Results for Océ

• Walking distance

/ name of departmentPAGE 1520-04-23

# o

f K

S m

eeti

ng

s

17

16

15

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

walking distance1501401301201101009080706050403020100

3 or more KS meetings within 22 m

Results for Océ

• KS process in depth (for same room or not)• No difference KS activities

• Location: different rooms > KS away from workplace

• No difference in coincidental (bumping into each other = not reason for KS)

• KS in same room > about shared problems

PAGE 1620-04-23

Conclusion and recommendations

• Overall moderate association (.460), but added value is proven

• CREM work together with other BUs• If simple layout methodology not worthwhile

• Trend NewWoW towards larger areas

• Recommendations:• Other added values of CREM

• Expressing in financial indicators

• Optimal room size

• Creativity and inventiveness (= also innovation)

PAGE 1720-04-23

Discussion

?PAGE 1820-04-23