Search results

This paper aims to outline campus management process dynamics that are affected by glocalization, changing funding structures and digitalization, and answer: How do glocalization, changing funding structures and digitalization challenge university campus management? and What implications do the challenges have on campus management processes?

Literature overview discusses how glocalization, changing funding structures and digitalization affect campus management. Empirical part explores how these forces affect management processes through 36 interviews on multiple embedded cases in the main campuses of Aalto University in Finland and the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Major challenges include future foresight, institutional sharing, economical paucity and functional flexibility. Heterogeneous user behaviors challenge absolute spatial measures as bases for designing learning and working environments. Finding a balance between long-haul portfolio maintenance for the university and future users and short-haul flexible pilots for the current user communities is crucial.

The results derive from interviews of 36 campus management professionals from two campus management organizations limiting the validity and the reliability of the study. Further studies should be conducted by replicating the study in another context, by interviewing end users and clients and by investigating case investments and impacts over time.

Campus managers can answer the challenges through practical applications such as big data collection and sharing in physical environments, integrated service provision to thematic communities, cross-pollination of user communities and open access to information and infrastructure services.

This paper provides insights and tools to strategic alignment by comparing campus management of two fundamentally different systems in the context of higher education and on-going digitalization.

The need to understand work processes and end-users has become an issue in corporate real estate and workplace management. Flexible work practices and technological advancement allow end-users to move outside the building boundaries. This influences workplace management to become more service-oriented and demand-driven, and better serve the needs of end-users. For that, this paper aims to investigate the ways in which new workplace services support the knowledge creation processes of mobile workers.

This study is exploratory and follows a multiple-case study strategy. Literature is reviewed on workplace and knowledge theories, and the market analysis consists of data from 57 firms that offer services to support the mobile knowledge worker.

Workplace services were categorized into three new groups that support knowledge creation processes for the mobile knowledge worker in various work environments. The analysis indicated that new services are driven by technological development and community formation around the physical or virtual place.

The proposed service groups can be examined as new business opportunities by workplace service providers, and the results suggest that the CRE managers should re-think their service portfolios, boost their collaboration with the service providers and invest in building a community.

This paper categorizes workplace services from a mobile knowledge worker perspective and follows a service-oriented approach to workplace management.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impacts of spatial transformation in the Network Society on facilities management principles in the context of an interdisciplinary university campus.

This study reports a holistic case study with eight embedded units in one interdisciplinary university campus in Finland through a business model approach.

The findings propose that spatial development projects should be examined holistically on three facilitation layers, namely, social, physical and virtual, through five business model lenses of Offering, Customers, Revenue Streams, Resources, and Cost Structure. Based on the findings, four main business model types can be identified and distinguished mainly in terms of collaborating with different partners and supporting a different core task of the university.

The cases are highly context-dependent, and their business models are ever evolving, which is why the dynamics of the development processes should be studied in more detail. The types of business models differ fundamentally, which is why their evaluation criteria could be tailored accordingly.

The results suggest that the spatial transformation requires multiple supporting processes and principles, expanding the roles of the campus managers: finding a balance between localization and globalization, and individualism and communalism; collaborating with internal and external parties; identifying potential grass root spatial development projects to be supported; and engaging users in their expertise. The strengthening impact of social facilitation is capable of opening new business opportunities.

This study indicates that the spatial transformation is happening in practice and offers guidelines for dynamically reacting to it from the facilities management perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize development processes of eight novel learning environment projects in one university campus in Finland.

This study builds propositions on case study data in an attempt to characterize the distinguished cases. In total, 22 semi-structured interviews were conducted as the primary data collection method. Supporting data includes archives, seminars and workshops. The data were analyzed in ATLAS.ti.

The cases are unique in their processes constituting socio-technical change. They represent two main process types: agile, iterative bottom-up processes and slow, linear, top-down processes. The essence of each project is in balancing in five dimensions of approach, motivation, budget, type of outcome and added value (AMB to AV) process management model: approach scaling from strategic to operational, motivation scaling from space to activity, budget scaling from fixed to seed money, type of outcome scaling from slow and standardized to quick and dirty and added value scaling from research to societal impact.

The cases are highly context-dependent and only provide a narrow understanding of a previously little studied area. The main contribution is in highlighting the complexity of the studied phenomenon. Future research could further the subject by, i.e. testing the created model in another context.

Transformation from institutionalized learning environments toward campuses facilitating learning flows requires multiple supporting processes. The roles of the campus managers are expanded from measuring, controlling and maintaining the campuses toward identifying, empowering, supporting and enabling user communities to affect their working and learning environments.

Managing campuses top-down based on large amounts of data can be supported by bottom-up approaches. This study outlines a systemic framework for supporting both types of processes.