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

1. 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

2. 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)

3. Increasing knowledge sharing Explicit knowledge: exchange virtual ?? Tacit knowledge: achieve together f-to-f • 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

4. Increasing knowledge sharing • Duration • Location • Tacitness • Issues addressed • Intentionality • Scheduled meetings: organisational structure/project • Coincidental meetings: building design(bump into each other: 30 meters)

5. 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

6. Conceptual model Laborious! / name of department PAGE 5

7. 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”

8. 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 Not seen by many

9. Methodology + fieldwork • Océ Netherlands • 1 building (2 storey), 269 R&D employees

10. Walking distances for this person / name of department

11. 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

12. Results for Océ Questions Tacit knowledge At the workplace Coincidental

13. Results for Océ Higher than KS meetings

14. Results for Océ • Co-presence > position in building • Same room 1.4 KS meetings (SD = 2.68) • different floor 0 KS meetings (SD = .07) Only outliers, outside hearing distance (max. 5-10 m)

15. Results for Océ 3 or more KS meetings  within 22 m Walking distance / name of department PAGE 14

16. 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

17. 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)

18. Discussion ?