IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i8p1494-d109315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Jongseok Seo

    (Graduate School of Management of Technology, Pukyong National University, 365, Sinseon-ro, Nam-gu, Busan 48547, Korea)

  • Lidziya Lysiankova

    (Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, Universiteto str. 3, Vilnius 01513, Lithuania)

  • Young-Seok Ock

    (Graduate School of Management of Technology, Pukyong National University, 365, Sinseon-ro, Nam-gu, Busan 48547, Korea)

  • Dongphil Chun

    (Graduate School of Management of Technology, Pukyong National University, 365, Sinseon-ro, Nam-gu, Busan 48547, Korea)

Abstract

More than 1,180,000 people use several thousand coworking spaces these days, but the running of coworking spaces is a rather fragile business model. Coworking spaces need entrepreneurial sustainability as well. Therefore, this study identifies success factors for sustainable business through analysis of users and hosts’ demands and priorities about coworking spaces. To identify the priorities, we conducted a questionnaire survey with 60 hosts and 56 users by using the analytic hierarchy process method. We found that hosts thought community and communication most important, followed by space and interior, service diversity, and price plan, and users considered relationship facilitation the most important, followed by service diversity, price plan, and networking event and party. After discussions with coworking space hosts and users to understand the differences in viewpoints, we combined the results to find the highest priorities. Finally, we identified relationship facilitation, service diversity, and price plan as having the highest priorities for sustainable coworking space operation for both sides. This study has major implications for research into improving management of coworking spaces as it asks users and hosts to select and focus on elements of priority in their decision making for entrepreneurial sustainability and management innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jongseok Seo & Lidziya Lysiankova & Young-Seok Ock & Dongphil Chun, 2017. "Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1494-:d:109315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1494/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1494/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chung, Yanghon & Hong, Sungjun & Kim, Jongwook, 2014. "Which of the technologies for producing hydrogen is the most prospective in Korea?: Evaluating the competitive priority of those in near-, mid-, and long-term," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 115-125.
    2. Shen, Yung-Chi & Chou, Chiyang James & Lin, Grace T.R., 2011. "The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2589-2598.
    3. Tummala, V. M. Rao & Chin, K. S. & Ho, S. H., 1997. "Assessing success factors for implementing CE a case study in Hong Kong electronics industry by AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 265-283, May.
    4. Patel, Sameer & Khandelwal, Anish & Leavey, Anna & Biswas, Pratim, 2016. "A model for cost-benefit analysis of cooking fuel alternatives from a rural Indian household perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 291-302.
    5. Wedley, William C. & Choo, Eng Ung & Schoner, Bertram, 2001. "Magnitude adjustment for AHP benefit/cost ratios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 342-351, January.
    6. Azis, Iwan J., 1990. "Analytic Hierarchy Process in the benefit-cost framework: A post-evaluation of the Trans-Sumatra highway project," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 38-48, September.
    7. Maria Rosa Pires da Cruz & João J Ferreira & Susana Garrido Azevedo, 2013. "Key factors of seaport competitiveness based on the stakeholder perspective: An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 15(4), pages 416-443, December.
    8. Chwolka, Anne & Raith, Matthias G., 2001. "Group preference aggregation with the AHP - implications for multiple-issue agendas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 176-186, July.
    9. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    10. Beynon, Malcolm, 2002. "An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 104-117, July.
    11. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    12. Xu, Z., 2000. "On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 683-687, November.
    13. Tudela, Alejandro & Akiki, Natalia & Cisternas, Rene, 2006. "Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 414-423, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hérique Costa Ribeiro de Lima & Rodolfo Araujo de Moraes Filho & Brigitte Renata Bezerra de Oliveira & Telma Lúcia de Andrade Lima & Marcos Felipe Falcão Sobral, 2024. "Network and Business Performance Installed in Coworking Spaces: Evidence and Associations," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Kolja Oswald & Xiaokang Zhao, 2020. "What Is a Sustainable Coworking Space?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-21, December.
    3. Ailing Liu & Xiaojun Ma & Meimei Zhou & Lichen Zeng & Jijian Lu, 2023. "Performance Model of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Nina Thornton & Martin Engert & Andreas Hein & Helmut Krcmar, 2023. "Finding new purpose for vacancies in rural areas: a taxonomy of coworking space business models," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 1395-1423, September.
    5. Fedoua Kasmi & Ferney Osorio & Laurent Dupont & Brunelle Marche & Mauricio Camargo, 2022. "Innovation Spaces as Drivers of Eco-innovations Supporting the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review," Post-Print hal-03590438, HAL.
    6. Swantje Robelski & Helena Keller & Volker Harth & Stefanie Mache, 2019. "Coworking Spaces: The Better Home Office? A Psychosocial and Health-Related Perspective on an Emerging Work Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-22, July.
    7. Cristopher Siegfried Kopplin & Till Marius Gantert & Julia Verena Maier, 2022. "Acceptance of matchmaking tools in coworking spaces: an extended perspective," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 1911-1943, August.
    8. Josef, Barbara & Back, Andrea, 2018. "Coworking as a New Innovation Scenario from the Perspective of Mature Organisations," 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disruptive Change (Dubrovnik, 2018), in: 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disrupt, pages 491-507, Governance Research and Development Centre (CIRU), Zagreb.
    9. Vanichvatana, Sonthya, 2018. "Investigating Users’ Perspectives of Coworking Space: Cases of Bangkok CBD," 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disruptive Change (Dubrovnik, 2018), in: 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disrupt, pages 376-389, Governance Research and Development Centre (CIRU), Zagreb.
    10. Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, 2021. "What Do We Know about Co-Working Spaces? Trends and Challenges Ahead," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    11. Ferney Osorio & Laurent Dupont & Mauricio Camargo & José Ismael Peña, 2019. "Constellation of Innovation Laboratories: A Scientific Outlook," Post-Print hal-02266978, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    2. Nakagawa, Yoshinori & Nasu, Seigo & Saito, Taiki & Yamaguchi, Nobuyoshi, 2010. "Analytic hierarchy based policy design method (AHPo) for solving societal problems that require a multifaceted approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1545-1553, December.
    3. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    4. Tereza Aubrechtová & Eva Semančíková & Pavel Raška, 2020. "Formulation Matters! The Failure of Integrating Landscape Fragmentation Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    6. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    7. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    8. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Lucie Lidinska & Josef Jablonsky, 2018. "AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 239-258, March.
    10. Rubio-Aliaga, Alvaro & García-Cascales, M. Socorro & Sánchez-Lozano, Juan Miguel & Molina-Garcia, Angel, 2021. "MCDM-based multidimensional approach for selection of optimal groundwater pumping systems: Design and case example," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 213-224.
    11. Shih, Hsu-Shih, 2008. "Incremental analysis for MCDM with an application to group TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 720-734, April.
    12. Scholz, Michael & Pfeiffer, Jella & Rothlauf, Franz, 2017. "Using PageRank for non-personalized default rankings in dynamic markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 388-401.
    13. Hongxun Xiang & Xia Heng & Boleng Zhai & Lichen Yang, 2024. "Digital and Culture: Towards More Resilient Urban Community Governance," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, May.
    14. R. Jothi Basu & Nachiappan Subramanian & Angappa Gunasekaran & P. L. K. Palaniappan, 2017. "Influence of non-price and environmental sustainability factors on truckload procurement process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 250(2), pages 363-388, March.
    15. Ashraf Abdelkarim & Mohamed Hssan Hassan Abdelhafez & Khaled Elkhayat & Mohammad Alshenaifi & Sultan Alfraidi & Ali Aldersoni & Ghazy Albaqawy & Amer Aldamaty & Ayman Ragab, 2024. "Spatial Suitability Index for Sustainable Urban Development in Desert Hinterland Using a Geographical-Information-System-Based Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-37, July.
    16. Tohid Atashbar, 2013. "Iranian Disease: Why a Developing Country's Government Did Not Listen to Economists' Advices," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 732-760, July.
    17. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    18. Xiaowang Zhang & Shuangqing Li & Xiaoqian Liu & Shengqi Jian & Shuren Li & Jinchao Yue, 2024. "Research on the Establishment and Application of a Transportation Safety Supervision Evaluation System Based on Grey Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-22, December.
    19. Mohammed Said Obeidat & Tarek Qasim & Aseel Khanfar, 2018. "Implementing the AHP multi-criteria decision approach in buying an apartment in Jordan," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 53-71, January.
    20. Ivan Ligardo-Herrera & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango, 2019. "Application of the ANP to the prioritization of project stakeholders in the context of responsible research and innovation," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(3), pages 679-701, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1494-:d:109315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.