Space as an Actor in Innovation

An Examination of Space as an Actor in Innovation

“There’s a temptation in our networked age to think that ideas can be developed by email and iChat. That’s crazy. Creativity comes from spontaneous meetings, from random discussions. You run into someone, you ask what they’re doing, you say ‘Wow,” and soon you’re cooking up all sorts of ideas.”1

- Steve Jobs on the design of Pixar Headquarters

Heather BlanchardAmerican University of ParisMedia, Stuff and Values: CM 5033 - Spring 2012

An Examination of Space as an Actor in Innovation Media, Stuff and Values - CM 5033

Page 1

1 Isaacson, Walter. "The Real Leadership Lessons from Steve Jobs." The Magazine. Harvard Business Review, Apr. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.

Overview

The aim of this research paper is to investigate how space and landscape provide

tangible (i.e. shared resources) and intangible (i.e. shared sense of community) benefits for

entrepreneurs. The research question I would like to explore is why are entrepreneurs

attracted to and participate in shared space? What benefits does these spaces provide? What

are the similar environmental conditions within the physical space? Ultimately, this paper will

seek to understand how communal working and co-creation necessary (or not) for innovation.

To explore these research questions, field research was necessary to collect primary

source data of spaces which entrepreneurs occupy. Three spaces were observed for this paper

including two in Paris, France, La Cantine and DojoBoost and one in Brussels, Belgium called

The Hub. Critical theory and secondary research sources are used to provide contextualization

to for the innovation space observations as well as the participants who occupy them.

This paper will provide a relationship of the rise of co-working spaces, the role of the

workplace, the role of learning, three observations of innovation spaces and a private sector

approach to creative space. Through these areas this paper will present arguments which

relate to the use of adhocracy, experiential learning. Also provided is the concept that both the

space and the interaction between people within that space are both objects which support

mediation and circulation which in turn create its value. insights and illustrations of

environmental conditions by which entrepreneurs are attracted to collaboration space.


Page 2

Through this research an initial set of conditions may be developed for future research to

better understand environmental conditions which may facilitate a greater probability for

innovation and creativity.

The Rise of Co-Working in a Networked World

The genesis of co-working can be attributed to an open source software developer,

later a Google employee, Brad Neuberg who from 2005 - 2007 who founded and fostered a

movement of a new kind of workspace. Dubbed, co-working by Neuberg as “alternative office

space for self-employed developers and writers, (which create) a forum for structure,

community, and innovation.”2 Neuberg offered the framework to anyone who was interesting

in opening their own space. “Disseminated [the] co-working idea as a kind of Johnny Appleseed

by encouraging others to take ownership of the idea and run with it in any direction they

wanted. Co-working spaces are now around the world and United States, and is a real

grassroots movement thanks to this unorthodox policy.” As a founder he felt that his role was

to “develop and evangelize the need for new kind of work environment through blog posts,

wikis, articles, speeches, and more.”


Page 3

2 Neuberg, Brad. "About Brad Neuberg." Resume for Brad Neuberg. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. http://codinginparadise.org/about/.

http://codinginparadise.org/about/




The idea for this new kind of environment germinated from the need to connect with

others. Neuberg explained to the New York Times3 that the choice to found a space what

perhaps a simple one. “It seemed I could either have a job, which would give me structure and

community, or I could be freelance and have freedom and independence. Why couldn’t I have

both?”4 Mother Jones5 offered a more detailed description of the formulation of Neuberg’s

first co-working space. “In 2005, Brad Neuberg, a software programmer in San Francisco, hit

upon a simple solution: He got a few friends together to share a rental space, as well as

printers, fax machines, and wireless Internet, and—like a good start-up founder—branded his

creation "coworking." As the 31-year-old recalls, "I said, 'Why can't I have my cake and eat it

too? Is there a way that I can have community and independence?' It's a false assumption that

you can't have both." Word of Neuberg's San Francisco Coworking Space spread, and techies,

writers, and entrepreneurs began dropping in. "I urged people to steal the idea," he says.

Today, there are 29 coworking sites across North America and a few more around the globe—

all listed on a wiki that has instructions for anyone who wants to start her own.”

Since these interviews, there are thousands of co-working spaces across the world.

Some even created in partnership and supported by local governments such as Fab Labs in


Page 4

3 Fost, Dan. They’re Working on Thier Own, Just Side By Side. New York Times. 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 29. Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/20cowork.html?pagewanted=all>.


5 Butler, Keira. Practical Values: Works Well With Others. What if a day at the office is actually good for you? Mother Jones. 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/01/practical-values-works-well-others>.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/20cowork.html?pagewanted=all




http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/01/practical-values-works-well-others




Manchester and La Cantine in Paris. There are franchise-like networks of co-working spaces

called The Hub which have interconnected locations all over the world. While co-working is a

kind of open space which often has few restrictions for membership or participation, it is not

the only kind of what one might call an “innovation space” where as Ardvisson points out in

his writings on Information Capital (Ardvisson, 2006: 124) that these spaces are the hubs of this

new economy. Where the space isn’t the producer, rather its the environment where

production is networked and not towards a common goal, but rather enjoy the common values

which production needs at any level as Marx points out in his book, Capital.

Today there are a vast array of spaces where co-working occurs but often there are

other things happening too. Beyond co-working spaces, there are hacker spaces

(hackerspace.org) where there is over 1,100 independently run spaces where the hobby of

hacking computers, sharing knowledge and electronics are supported. In essence they make

things. There is another group called Maker who also do this but with temporary spaces called

Maker Faires. There are entrepreneur excellerators which provide initial stage start-up support

such as office space, legal expertise and mentorship to connect these small business to venture

capital to scale their product into production. Companies have come into the mix with

supporting the development of community-use space where their product is used by

entrepreneurs who might not have been able to access the expensive tools and resources

needed such as TechShop in San Francisco which provides the AutoDesk suit of products and

manufacturing prototype machines. In addition, venture capitalists have also begun invitation


Page 5

only incubation models like the Y Combinator which provides 25 companies with early stage

seed capital and resources. There are many methods and models of innovation space out there

since Brad Neuberg began the first co-working space in San Francisco. This paper will provide

an initial selection of insights based on observations of two co-working spaces and one

excellerators space. In addition, research will pull from how the private sector is incorporating

innovation space design in its own workplaces.

Role of the Workplace

While co-working space may not aim towards group innovation, rather it is a

networked space where innovators can interact, the role of an environment as an actor and

relational construction is possible because the space itself and the interaction of the people

within the space are both objects. In Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon’s 1999 book Excellence

by Design: Transforming Workplace and Work Practice offer that the process architect is an

objectified mediation role which allows for interaction. The writers offer that there is a role for

space to be able, through its conditions, set up a platform which will allow for greater

efficiency, collaboration and therefore create a better product or result of that workforce. This

transformation is facilitated through an mediation object, the role of a process architect, which

they offer it not a role of one person, but a role of many. “The role of the process architect is

not given, but it must be created. Workplace-making may play itself out in the hands of a

single participant, or it may move from one person to another - or no single person my


Page 6

actually direct the process. The role of process architect may fall to an organizational

insider...or it may fall to an outside consultant...any of these people can have significant effects

on the play of the game. What they do and how and when they do it is affected by the roles

they are given or assume, the authority they begin with or accumulate, and their own

normative frameworks of action. In any case, the process architect enters the game with the

aim of directing it toward greater collaboration and co-invention.” (Horgen, Joroff, Porter and

Schon, 1989: 91)

Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon offer that not only that physical space is an actor but

that the act of collaboration itself, the interaction between people can be object of itself and

that it is not owned by a single person. Interaction among people in the space is a medium by

which mediation can take place. Like in advertising and the objectivation of the brand, the

object has an ability to be an interface of circulation between the producer and consumer.

Related to the process architect, a interface point (the physical space itself) is able to act in a

mediation role which seeks participation and circulation from its environment (i.e. building a

community-based social structure.)

The question of ownership is a complex challenge, it is a question of power. It could be

argued that proprietary systems (i.e. controlled) where ownership drives behavior could be

poor environments for the objectified process architect to be used as a mediation tool. Like

the entrepreneur from La Cantine who referenced the traditional private sector environment

and the ability for process architecture to take place. “In economic environments like today


Page 7

which can be austere, the concept of sharing and creating is a challenge. People don’t want to

help each other in an environment which is focused on optimization. Information is power.

When the economy is booming it’s so much easier to collaborate and work together, but when

jobs are being threatened people tend to keep to themselves. They are scared to loose their job

or their status.” Horgeon, Joroff, Porter and Schon underscore this challenge, although they do

not contextualize it in relation to ownership per say. “Fear on the part of the less powerful

players coupled with arrogance and blindness on the part of the more powerful ones kept the

key issues undiscussable, preventing them from surfacing soon enough to be productively

dealt with.” (Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon, 1989: 99)

The role of the process architect (i.e. collaboration) offers that the“game is understood,

even if imperfectly at first” (Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon, 1989: 92) The ability of the

workplace to transform towards this collaboration construct creates a “reframing of the

situation.” The process of framing is an ability to provide a set of contextual parameters for the

participants who are interacting and creating flow with an object. Celia Lury explained

framing as “...a boundary within which interaction takes place more or less independently of

its surrounding context. The frame is a communication surface or boundary that both

connects and separates disunified or disparate spaces (Rodowick, 1994). The interface of the

brand is not, however, to be located in a single place, at a single time. Rather, like the interface

of the Internet, it is distributed across a number of surfaces...” (Lury, 2006: 50)


Page 8

It could be argued that these innovation space, co-working or otherwise, create a frame

by which participants opt-in to participate. These frames provide participants as Horgen,

Joroff, Porter and Schon offer as the “game” buy which behaviors within the space are

created. Innovation spaces have their own personality, set of characteristics and derive its

culture from the framing which occurs to build the community which the space seeks to

attract. While Lury may have been speaking of the role of framing as a communications

discourse, framing also could be applied to the communication which takes place within a

space, with the space itself playing an active role in mediation of culture and norms which can

create contextual reference points for the participants within that environment. Interestingly,

much of this framing and contextualization is may not be made through rational decision

making, but rather through a set of behaviors. Though this understanding, whether conscious

or unconsciously, the frame allows, “The possibility of creative change begins with reframing

the situation.” (Horgen, Joroff, Porter and Schon, 1989: 92)

While framing may set contextual boundaries of the innovation space, there is a unsaid

set of behaviors which the community exhibits which it normative and not overly prescriptive.

In a way it is subconscious which as stated earlier may not involve rational thought. This is a

kind of shared knowledge, an ethos, which connects the participants within a collaborative

innovation space. Schephers and van den Berg argue that this kind of knowledge is actively

shared. That the key to collaborative environment is the interaction of people. “Tacit

knowledge is often unconscious and effective transfer requires extensive personal contact and


Page 9

trust (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Tobin, 1998; Bertrams, 1999).” This kind of interaction also

speaks to the ability of knowledge sharing between individuals, whether expertial learning or

mentorship, it is the ability of people to connect through contextualized space which

interaction occurs and is mediated. Schepers and va de Berg take this a step further where

they offer that there is an opportunity for “personalization strategy.” This activity, similar to

mentorship, provides one-on-one transfer of knowledge between individuals by building

relationships between employees and encouraging face to face meetings. Organizations need

to build communities of practice: groups of people who share insight, experience and tools

about an area of common interest (Wenger, 1998).” (Schepers and van den Berg, 2007: 413) To

provide a present day contextualization of this notion, Steve Jobs reflected on the importance

of space where people are able to have a social context. “There’s a temptation in our

networked age to think that ideas can be developed by email and iChat. That’s crazy. Creativity

comes from spontaneous meetings, from random discussions. You run into someone, you ask

what they’re doing, you say ‘Wow,” and soon you’re cooking up all sorts of ideas.” 6

Interestingly, Jobs evokes a comparison of people collaborating in person verses digital

collaboration which he strongly views as ineffective.

Role of Learning


Page 10


At a fundamental level interaction, the mediated experience which people negotiate

when they share experiences, skills and knowledge is an act of learning. This action if placed

through experience has been labeled, “experiential learning.” Kolb points out in his book

Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development that “Experiential

learning theory, however, proceeds from a difference set of assumptions. Ideas are not fixed

and immutable elements of though but formed and reformed through experience. No two

thoughts are every the same, experience always intervenes.” (Kolb, 1984:28) In the innovation

space area, looking through the lens of co-working, space creates a both proactive approach

through organized events which are socially rooted (i.e. Come learn how to code!) where

people who has “been around the block” come and offer what they have experienced to those

who perhaps are less experienced or who just might be curious.

“Learning is a major part process of human adaption.” (Kolb, 1984:32) He offers that

“Knowledge is the result of the translation between social knowledge and personal

knowledge. The former as Dewey noted, is the civilized objective accumulation of previous

human cultural experience, whereas the latter is the accumulation of the individual person’s

subjective life experiences. Knowledge results from the transaction between these object and

subjective experience in a process called learning.” Kolb, 1984:37) However R.D. Lang in his

book the The Politics of Experience suggest that there is an invisible mediation point where,

“experience is not ‘subjective’ rather than ‘objective,’ not ‘inner’ rather than ‘outer,’ not process

rather than praxis, not input rather than output, not psychic rather than somatic, not some


Page 11

doubtful data dredged up from introspection rather than extrospection.” He offers that, “Such

translations, object relations, interpersonal relations, transference, counter-transference, as we

suppose to go on between people are not the interplay merely of two objects in space, each

equipped with ongoing intrapsychic processes.” (Lang, 1967: 20) Lang offers that the

collaboration itself between two people are mediated through experiences. “When two (or

more) people are in relation, the behavior of each towards the other, and the experience of

each is mediated by the behavior of each.” (Lang, 1967: 25) This offers that while the space

may be an actor, another object which can be offered as a mediation device it the interplay

between two people. That interplay in and of itself is an object which is mediated by

experience itself (and it’s own object and mediation tool). Meaning that in innovations space

there are two objects at play, one is the physicality of the the environment and the second is

the interchange between people. Both are mediated experiences where circulation as Lury

suggestions creates value.

Thick Descriptions of Innovation Space

Space Profile: La Cantine (Co-Working)

La Cantine, a primarily french speaking space, is one of the oldest co-working spaces in

Paris. It was designed similar to other spaces located in the San Francisco Bay area and in

Spain. La Cantine shares on its wiki, “After Brad Neuberg saw that certain employees

preferred to work in a café rather than in an office because it was more pleasant and there was


Page 12

more space, La Cantine decided to encourage this work model that encourages exchanges and

creativity, by thinking of the space as a third place somewhere between office and home.” 7

The aim of the space is to provide an environment “specifically designed for collaboration and

facilitating cooperation.” Through their wiki, La Cantine promotes that the “aim of La Cantine

is to connect those who work in diverse locations, in order to pool resources and skills among

developers, entrepreneurs, users, artists, researchers and students. It is thus a place for

meeting, information, exchange and synergy between dispersed individuals, built around

harnessing the collective intelligence.”

La Cantine, verses many of the other co-working spaces in Paris, has the ability for people to

walk in and co-work for free in the bar area. If workers want to stay for a half or whole day to

work with others at common tables the charge is 7 Euro for a half day and 10 Euro for a full

day. Passes are available for frequent co-workers. This type of model is supported by event

sponsorship and a public-private partnership with the City of Paris and the French

Government. La Cantine actively promotes social entrepreneurial efforts, training and network

connection.

Observing the space, one primary point is that people cycle in and out during the day.

Some stay for the whole day, some just the afternoon. There was about twelve people

coworking on two tables. Most of the participation in the space is male, with only two female


Page 13

7 "About La Cantine." La Cantine Wiki. La Cantine Co-Working Space. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://wiki.coworking.info/w/page/16583879/La%20Cantine>.

http://wiki.coworking.info/w/page/16583879/La%20Cantine




co-workers that day. The space is laid out in a modular fashion. Technically it is one large

space on the first level that is divided three ways. The bar area, the co-working tables and the

conference table in the back. From outside you can see into the space as there are floor to

ceiling windows. On the windows there are post-it notes which create squared objects which

resemble computer game characters circa 1980s.

The design of the space is open. Along the entrance way there is a sitting area with

couches and bar stools where co-workers can meet and have a coffee. This space doubles as

the free co-working area. The entire space has free Wi-Fi. There is a bar with beverages, coffee

and wine to the left and upon entry is a large chalkboard (which is the size of an entire wall)

which announces upcoming events or just to use to draw ideas. To the right of the entry way is

a large open room which is divided by a round sitting area atop a slighted raised stage area.

This area is in the middle of the room and acts as a divider between the two areas. One area

(in the back of the room) is quieter space with a thirty person white oval table and the other

side of the room is a re-arrangeable space with movable tables which can configure to seating

50-70 via chairs people for a presentation (complete with A/V capability) or for daily use are

two-three long work tables where 20-30 people a day co-work together. Along the far wall is a

DJ-booth which controls all of the A/V equipment in the space. The floors, tables and shaped

sitting area are black. The conference table is white as well as the screen that can come down

to separate the two areas. There are red accents with aluminum, industrial-looking lamps. La

Cantine has a second floor connected by a spiral metal staircase with additional conference


Page 14

rooms and small offices. The second floor is reserved for co-workers who rent offices upstairs

where they have a permanent space. However much of the activity in La Cantine is on it’s first

floor.

La Cantine has strong community with events happening almost daily. When the technology

celebrity comes to town, they often are hosted and stop by La Cantine. For example, Google’s

Chris Bonilla, the lead of their open source development team visited La Cantine where

participants were able to hear what Chris was interested in and connect to Google’s efforts.

While french is the primary language used, English seems to be the secondary language used

at La Cantine.

Space Profile: DojoBoost (Incubator)

Recently opened DojoBoost builds upon the work of Frederic Dembak who operates

DojoCrea a french entrepreneur incubation space in Paris. DojoBoost is a franchise of

DojoCrea which supports a model of membership where entrepreneurs are selected to

participate in a five month program to ready their company for first round venture capital

investment. While there is co-working space available for about 350 EU a month (not on a

daily basis), Dojoboost is primarily focused on attracting and supporting early stage

technology development companies. Entrepreneurs receive 5 months training program the

facility provides office space, mentoring and training for start up companies in exchange for


Page 15

five percent of common shares. Services provided include a graphic designer, community

management, public relations, technical expertise, legal and accounting counsel.

DojoBoost is located at 41 Boulevard Saint Martin in Paris in a street level commercial

space. The space is newly opened and renovated with a bright open floor with open space for

co-working. There is a small presentation area on the right where companies pitch there

ideas. There is a upper level and a lower level with offices. There is a lower level lounge area

with couches. The upstairs is brightly lit while the lower level has low intensity lighting with

exposed stone walls. There are blonde wood floors with white tables. There are green accents.

While centered in Paris, Dojoboost is actually managed by an American who has lived in

France for 20 years. On their website, which is all English they offer that, “Even though the

majority of our staff is French, we have a strong flavor of the American startup culture.”

Space Profile: The Hub in Brussels (Monthly Membership)

The Hub in Brussels is a co-working space which is affiliated with and part of a

network of “The Hub” spaces around the world. Currently 25 Hubs exists in 5 continents. One

of the spaces connected within The Hub network is The Hub - Brussels. Located in the 37 Rue

du Prince Royal in Brussels the Hub is a co-working space operates as a meeting destination

space with the ability to co-work on a full time basis. The design of the space is impactful

upon entering. A large cardboard hive-like hanging model is displayed from the ceiling with

rows of tables which were handmade to be rearranged in the space. The space is within a


Page 16

renovated industrial building with other small businesses surrounding it. Like the other two

co-working spaces, The Hub is a large open, brightly lit space however The Hub is focused on

created a sustainable eco-friendly environment. Free wi-fi is available for co-working

participants and events are held almost everyday to provide training and networking

opportunities for entrepreneurs in Brussels.

The space is focused on being low to no impact on the environment and is vegetarian

by design. Reusable cups, recycling bins and organic food align its kitchen where shared

healthy snacks are available for any participant. The Hub has a full service kitchen which was a

unique aspect of its space. The Hub is membership based at varying levels. From a virtual

membership to be connected to the community in a digital space to the amount of hours that

an entrepreneur might need. For people traveling the Hub provides a free space to work.

Environmental Condition: Sense of Community

One of the core common themes of these spaces is the ability to connect with

community and network with others. These spaces provide an environment for the ability of

people to come together, to form community. “Even people who are antisocial feel a need to be

around other people for at least part of the day while they’re working,”8 said Laura Forlano, a

visiting fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School who has studied people


Page 17




working in communal offices and cafes.” Learning theory confirms this sentiment as Schepers

and van den Berg offer, “In line with social learning theory, we defined knowledge sharing as

the tendency to provide expertise to fellow professionals.” (Schepers and van den Berg, 2007:

414)

Like Dojoboost, entrepreneurs not only are participating in the incubator but they are

being actively mentored by others to share knowledge. Related to social learning theory,

“According to Vygotsky (1978) cognitive growth is fostered when experts provide guidance and

encouragement on tasks that are too complex to be mastered alone: the “zone of proximal

development.” This guidance is helpful for inexperienced, as well as experienced, colleagues.

Lave’s (1988) situated learning theory emphasizes social interaction as a critical component of

learning and advocates that learners become involved in a “community of practice.”

Communities of practice are groups of people who share insight experience and tools about

an area of common interest (Wenger, 1998).” (Schepers and van den Berg, 2007: 413) They also

move towards a wider view of “expertise” to include non-experts as part of their approach.

“Our definition embraces guidance of inexperienced employees, as well as interaction among

experienced employees. Amabile et al. (1996) has shown that work group support fosters

creativity. Work group support is defined as open communication in which members

constructively challenge each other’s ideas, and trust each other. Work group support should

lead to creativity because individuals are exposed to a greater variety of unusual ideas. Such


Page 18

exposure has been demonstrated to have a positive impact on creative thinking (Parnes &

Noller, 1972)” (Schepers and van den Berg, 2007: 414)

Power Dynamics of Innovation Space

Entrepreneurs are often individuals who at some level were frustrated by their own

ecosystem within a bureaucratic system (i.e. traditional corporate job). This kind of behavior,

simply “dropping out” of the corporate structure perhaps wasn’t on the mind of many

management theorists. Stewart quoted Peter Drucker in is book, Intellectual Capital, where

Ducker stated, “Only the organization and provide the basic continuity that knowledge

workers need in order to be effective. Only the organization can convert the specialized

knowledge of the knowledge working into performance” (Stewart, 1999:108) This is counter

the finding that Schepers and van den Berg argued where adhocracy, the polar opposite of the

“organization” or bureaucracy is the ideal place for knowledge creation, specifically learning

through experience, experimentation and creativity. “According to Claver, Llopis, Garcia, and

Moline (1998), the ideal profile for creativity is an adhocracy. Adhocracies foster creativity

because they adapt to the environment Cameron and Quinn (1999). Bertrams (1999) states that

an adhocracy is excellent for innovation because people are motivated to learn, experiment

and take risks. Accordingly, Nystrom (1990) found that organizational divisions with cultures

reflecting challenge and risk taking were more innovative. Brand (1998( showed that an


Page 19

innovative culture stimulates creativity, whereas a controlling culture hinders

creativity.” (Schepers and van den Berg, 2007: 412)

In relation to space, these opposing views also relate to each other. In a corporate

environment (closed contrived, hierarchical space) there can be a hierarchy which creates

meaning for its workforce where in adhocratic spaces (open, organic community driven space)

there is a level of autonomy but interest in collaboration and production in ways which cannot

be created within a power structure. The area which these interpersonal dynamics take place

often create the ethos of the production in that innovation space. Roman Gelfer, a former

equities trader launched his own co-working space in San Francisco remarked to the New

York Times, “If you build a space from the ground up for co-working and networking as well,

you could do a better job and I definitely believe it’s a great business.”9 This kind of

grassroots, almost organic nature of how the community as an “opt-in” approach where all of

the participants seek out its environment changes contribute to the decentralization of power

dynamics of the space. While participants who actively support the development of

collaboration through this kind of self-selected behavior, within an organization it can be very

different even if you provide the open space for collaboration. It could relate to the notion of

the rights of individuals verses the right of a community of practice. “Effectively, the removal

of rights of individuals to space makes everyone a visitor to the building, much as students are


Page 20




in a campus, or pedestrians are in the city. In this situation it is possible for ‘hidden’ power

structures to emerge (the bully in the school playground is one example) that can be far more

conservative in their effects than the more explicit power structures embodied in

organisationally sanctioned statuses.” (Penn, Desyllas and Vaughn, 1997:12.23) The sense of

product may be shifted because production is singular and not within a group dynamic,

although selection of partners can come from the social structure of these spaces.

Looking towards theory of capitalism Marx might be challenged by this new kind of

production. The power relations that once supported industrial production may have shifted

in the new information economy. Marx creates an illustration in Capital where he offers, “Let

us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on

their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the

different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community.

All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that

they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of

his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product

of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and

remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A

distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this

distribution will vary with the productive organization of the community, and the degree of

historical development attained by the producers.” (Marx, 1955:3)


Page 21

While Marx offers that production indeed is social, he may not have imagined the role of an

institution (often created by a collective of consumer turned producers) not as a producer but

as a platform by which micro-production is placed individually. There could be, under the

same roof, two competitors who are not collaborating towards a common production. In fact

the entire institution specializes on the fact that the producers within themselves aren’t

creating a common product but rather they are creating common skills and value. Producers

within the collaborative innovations space share in the benefits of proximity. This can be

tangible such as finding a new business partner, problem solving, learning a new skill or it

could even be intangible by providing mentoring support. The concept of the producer

needing a place to create production in a social environment confirms Marx view that

production is social, however not to split hairs, and if you wanted to compare in relation to

space that instead of one producer where work is produced socially today in the information

economy this is decentralized where everyone is a producer and still wants to be connected to

a social system while producing. Referring back to Schepers and van den Berg these

innovation spaces provide a home for producers themselves to create in instance a community

of practice around similar interests and often values. It could be argued for the future that,“As

utilization of space becomes temporary and the office society becomes effectively ‘nomadic’,

rule systems surrounding space use and cultural devices to allow individuals and groups to


Page 22

maintain their identity are both likely to become more elaborate.” (Penn, Desyllas and Vaughn,

1997:12.24)

Creationism verses Optimization

One entrepreneur (who anonymously provided input in a candid conversation) from

La Cantine, a co-working space in Paris, France, reflected on his experience in co-working and

references how power dynamics are represented in the workplace, especially the challenge of

creating verses optimization.

“We are the first generation who actually has a choice of how they want to work. I left the

corporate environment. My office travels with me. Today I might be working here (at the co-

working space), tomorrow I might be at home. I like it this way. It fits my lifestyle. The

companies I work with all work this way. We don’t have a fixed line. We just use our cell

phones. I like working like this.”

“Idea is that the kind of people who run companies are sometimes just alike. Often they are

similar kinds of people who have been who have been taught to optimize the company (i.e.

MBAs). They are there not to create new ideas but to optimize processes and systems which are

already there instead of creating a creative process. In effect, what they do is castrate the

company from all of its ideas.”


Page 23

“Often real leaders who are innovative are people who have have strong sense of what they

want to do. They have been told by many people that their idea won’t work. They are dedicated

to their vision. These people have a will which push on despite what people say or do. They are

focused on achieving their idea regardless if it makes sense or not.”

“In effect you have to have an extreme personal bias about your idea. You have to be okay with

risk and appreciate it. Companies are often only focused on optimization where the sole focus is

to eliminate excess instead of trying to do something that is new. These are different things.

They (the companies) don’t have the space to actually exploit their ideas.”

“In economic environments like today which can be austere, the concept of sharing and creating

is a challenge. People don’t want to help each other in an environment which is focused on

optimization. Information is power. When the economy is booming it’s so much easier to

collaborate and work together, but when jobs are being threatened people tend to keep to

themselves. They are scared to loose their job or their status.”

Indeed while the challenge remains for large institutions to reflect a more agile, perhaps

arguably more contemporary, even adhocratic environment, the ability of talent who reject the

“corporate environment” may be on the rise. Structuralization may prove to be a barrier to

these efforts as, “The concentration is to develop a ‘corporate culture’ conducive to the aims of

an organization, rather than to enforce organizational aims through a management hierarchy

and formal mechanisms.” (Penn, Desyllas and Vaughn, 1997:12.3)


Page 24

Reinventing the Creative Corporate Workspace: A Profile of Pixar Animation Studios

While co-working may adopt open space, experiential learning, active networking and

flexible environments, the private sector is keenly interested in utilizing the workplace as a

competitive advantage to fuel production, especially in the innovation and creative arts. One

story is that of the development and design of Pixar, an digital animation studio in California.

Pixar is a household name across America responsible for such digital animation classics as a

Toy Story, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. They are in the business of creativity and

innovation to bring together both artistry in traditional animation and computer science to

generate vivid animation. “John Lasseter, the chief creative officer at Pixar, describes the

equation this way: “Technology inspires art, and art challenges the technology.”10

In the beginning the company was, not unlike many entrepreneur ventures which

sprout up in the Bay Area, bootstrapped driven by passionate people. In the documentary

film, The Pixar Story, executives of the digital animation company reflected on the role of

space had on the company. Steve Jobs, one of the principle investors in Pixar reflected,

“Pixar’s facilities grew with the company. Which meant that they were hodge podge.”11 While

some offered almost a nostalgia of the space, “The animation bull pen was this amazing


Page 25

10 Lehrer, Jonah. "The New Yorker." Steve Jobs: "Technology Alone Is Not Enough" The New Yorker. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/10/steve-jobs-pixar.html>.

11 The Pixar Story. Dir. Leslie Lwerks. Perf. Steve Jobs, Ed Catmull, John Lasseter. Leslie Iwerks Productions, 2007. DVD.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/10/steve-jobs-pixar.html


building. Probably not legal at all because of fire code.”12 Others remarked, “It looked like a

playground. It was loose. It was free. It was rough. It was like 200 people showed up during a

college dorm room.There was this infectious enthusiasm in the building. I can imagine what it

must be like say for the guys in Monty Python to be like sitting around a table writing material.

You expect there to be a great creative feeding frenzy at the table. That’s what we had. It was a

place where you could go and draw on the wall or make a hole in the wall and not feel bad

about it.”13

As the company became successful and sought to produce movies on a larger scale, the

facilities needed to be able to accommodate growth of the company. This challenge was

looked at by the leadership of Pixar (especially Steve Jobs) as an opportunity began the

intentional open space innovation design of Pixar Studios. Steve Jobs sought to reinvent the

corporate creative workplace. Ed Catmull reflected the drive that Jobs had to create a creative

space, “ Steve had this belief that the right kind of building can do great things for a culture.14

The initial conception of the new space was to separate the workforce into separate buildings

for computer scientists, animators and everyone else. Jobs disagreed. Steve realized that that

was a terrible idea; that the real challenge of Pixar was getting people from these different

cultures — these computer scientists and these cartoonists — to work together, to really


Page 26



14 Lehrer, Jonah. "Imagine: 'How Creativity Works': It's All In Your Imagination." NPR. NPR.com, 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148777350/how-creativity-works-its-all-in-your-imagination>.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148777350/how-creativity-works-its-all-in-your-imagination


collaborate." This direction led Pixar in a different direction and collapse the space into one

large building with “an airy atrium at its center.”15 The New Yorker continued to chronicle this

effort, again with Catmull sharing that, “The philosophy behind this design is that it’s good to

put the most important function at the heart of the building,”16 Catmull emphasized, “Well,

what’s our most important function? It’s the interaction of our employees. That’s why Steve

put a big empty space there. He wanted to create an open area for people to always be talking

to each other.”

This was a point echoed several times by biographers and reporters about why Jobs

was so focused on the design of the Pixar space, " ... He wanted there to be mixing. He knew

that the human friction makes the sparks, and that when you're talking about a creative

endeavor that requires people from different cultures to come together, you have to force them

to mix; that our natural tendency is to stay isolated, to talk to people who are just like us, who

speak our private languages, who understand our problems.”17 Jobs personally shared his

reasoning to Walter Isaacson, writer of Jobs biography, "If a building doesn't encourage that,

you'll lose a lot of innovation and the magic that's sparked by serendipity,”18 And it is best

summarized (again) by Steve Jobs, “There’s a temptation in our networked age to think that


Page 27



17 Pomeroy, Ross. "The Importance of Good Building Design." Real Clear Science. 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/01/buildings.html>.

18 Pomeroy, Ross. "The Importance of Good Building Design." Real Clear Science. 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/01/buildings.html>.





http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/01/buildings.html




ideas can be developed by email and iChat. That’s crazy. Creativity comes from spontaneous

meetings, from random discussions. You run into someone, you ask what they’re doing, you say

‘Wow,” and soon you’re cooking up all sorts of ideas.”19

Conclusion

The information economy is creating a new workplace for production, the co-working

space. This space is just one of many spaces which aim to attract a variety of participants such

as entrepreneurs (social and for-profit), writers and developers. The ability of production to be

location agnostic provides the individual with agency to opt-in to a workplace environment

conducive for their needs. As production is inherently a social convention, these spaces are

developed through social construction to provide an ability for participants to interface

through a mediated structure, the co-working (or other kind of) space. These spaces provide

environmental conditions such as community-focused, modular physical space and openness.

There are two actors in innovation when discussion the physicality of space. First that space

itself is an actor. It provides meditation and circulation among its participants who have

opted-in to participation, thus creating stronger social connection to the physical

environment. In essence the participant has a choice and flexibility to participate or not. The

second actor as relates to space and innovation is the mediation point by which knowledge is


Page 28


shared, it is the interaction of experience between people which provides a secondary object

which mediation occurs. This again is opt-in and participant selected. No one forces anyone to

meet or talk to each other but the space itself, as pointed out by Jobs can guide the

participants to share beyond what they intentioned. These two objects act as mediation points

which creates the network of community (including skills, language and knowledge) where the

environmental conditions may be more conducive for innovation to occur.


Page 29

Bibliography

Arvidsson, Adam. Brands: Meaning and Value in Media Culture. London: Routledge, 2006. Print.

"About La Cantine." La Cantine Wiki. La Cantine Co-Working Space. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://wiki.coworking.info/w/page/16583879/La%20Cantine>.

Butler, Keira. Practical Values: Works Well With Others. What if a day at the office is actually good for you? Mother Jones. 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/01/practical-values-works-well-others>.

Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001) In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

de Certeau, Michel. The practice of everyday life.. London: University of California, 1984. Book.

Fost, Dan. They’re Working on Thier Own, Just Side By Side. New York Times. 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 29. Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/20cowork.html?pagewanted=all>.

Garcia, Cristobal H. Spacing innovation and knowledge creation on design organizations and the study of working spaces. Diss. MIT, 2006. Cambridge: Unpublished.

Glasser, Charlotte. Governing the knowing and innovation space. Diss. Stockholm School of Economics, 2005. Stockholm: Unpublished.

Horgen, Turid, Michael L. Joroff, William L. Porter, and Donald A. Schon. Excellence by Design: Transforming Workplace and Work Practice. New York: Wiley, 1999. Print.

Isaacson, Walter. "The Real Leadership Lessons from Steve Jobs." The Magazine. Harvard Business Review, Apr. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.

Kolb, David A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984. Print.

Lang, R.D. The Politics of Everyday Experience. New York: Pantheon Books, 1967. Book.

Lehrer, Jonah. "Imagine: 'How Creativity Works': It's All In Your Imagination." NPR. NPR.com, 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148777350/how-creativity-works-its-all-in-your-imagination>.


Page 30















Lehrer, Jonah. "The New Yorker." Steve Jobs: "Technology Alone Is Not Enough" The New Yorker. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/10/steve-jobs-pixar.html>.

Lury, Celia. Brands: The Logos of the Global Economy. London: Routledge, 2006. Print

Knight, Sarah. Designing Spaces for Effective Learning: A Guide to 21st Century Learning Space Design. Publication. Bristol: JISC Development Group, 2006. Print.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, Samuel Moore, and Karl Marx. Capital,. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1955. Print.

Neuberg, Brad. "About Brad Neuberg." Resume for Brad Neuberg. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://codinginparadise.org/about/>.

Pomeroy, Ross. "The Importance of Good Building Design." Real Clear Science. 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/01/buildings.html>.

Schepers, Paul, and Peter T. Berg. "Social Factors of Work-Environment Creativity." Journal of Business and Psychology 21.3 (2007): 407-28. Print.

Stewart, Thomas A. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New York: Doubleday / Currency, 1997. Print.

The Pixar Story. Dir. Leslie Lwerks. Perf. Steve Jobs, Ed Catmull, John Lasseter. Leslie Iwerks Productions, 2007. DVD.


Page 31









