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) PAGE 16-12-2015

3. 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 26-12-2015 Tacit knowledge: achieve togetherf-to-f Explicit knowledge: exchangevirtual ??

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) PAGE 36-12-2015

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 PAGE 46-12-2015

6. Conceptual model / name of department PAGE 56-12-2015 Laborious!

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” PAGE 66-12-2015

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 PAGE 7 6-12-2015 Not seen by many

9. Methodology + fieldwork Océ Netherlands 1 building (2 storey), 269 R&D employees PAGE 86-12-2015

10. / name of department PAGE 96-12-2015 Walking distances for this person

11. Methodology + fieldwork 138 logbooks (51%) 1 week 918 matched interactions between participants 9453 dyads  only 4% KS that week 45 min/day meeting Most < 15 minutes 3x/week (SD = 3) / name of department PAGE 106-12-2015

12. Results for Océ FrequencyValid% KS activities Descriptions Actions Questions Proposals Evaluations 423 321 1067 372 395 22,4% 17% 56,4% 19,7% 20,9% Alternative source Yes, non human Yes, other person(s) No, only this person 40 176 733 4,2% 18,5% 77,2% Location of interaction own workplace workplace of other meeting area lab coffee machine hallway 802 684 22 274 81 39 42,2% 36,0% 1,2% 14,4% 4,3% 2,1% Intentionality Intentional unscheduled visit Initiated after coincidental visual contact 1358 533 71,8% 28,2% At the workplace Tacit knowledge Coincidental Questions PAGE 116-12-2015

13. Results for Océ Co-presence Spearman's rho Same roomIntervisibility Hearing distance # of KS meetingsCorrelation Coefficient.460(**).465(**)-.422(**) Sig. (2-tailed).000 N 9453 570 Same roomCorrelation Coefficient 1.000.953(**). Sig. (2-tailed)..000. N 9453. IntervisibilityCorrelation Coefficient 1.000-.259(**) Sig. (2-tailed)..000 N 9453570 PAGE 126-12-2015 Position building Spearman's rho Walking distanceSame floor # of KS meetingsCorrelation Coefficient -.270(**).178(**) Sig. (2-tailed).000 N 9453 Walking distanceCorrelation Coefficient 1.000-.368(**) Sig. (2-tailed)..000 N 9453 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) PAGE 136-12-2015 Only outliers, outside hearing distance (max. 5-10 m)

15. Results for Océ Walking distance / name of department PAGE 146-12-2015 3 or more KS meetings  within 22 m

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 PAGE 156-12-2015

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) PAGE 166-12-2015

18. Discussion ? PAGE 176-12-2015