nach oben

Review of Managerial Science

Erschienen in:

09.03.2020 | Original Paper

Two heads are better than one: matchmaking tools in coworking spaces

verfasst von: Cristopher Siegfried Kopplin

Erschienen in: Review of Managerial Science | Ausgabe 4/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Matchmaking is introduced to the coworking literature as a process of connecting potential collaboration partners. The process itself is realised through a smartphone application drawing on user-generated profiles, allowing coworkers to create tags according to their business interests and challenges, find cooperation opportunities, and get in touch via instant messaging or voice chat. Acceptance of software support for finding matches in the coworking space context is examined using a modified Technology Acceptance Model, investigating the role of personal innovativeness as additional factor. Personal innovativeness describes an individual’s tendencies towards novel technology for the sake of trying something new. Cluster sampling was employed among 300 German coworking spaces, 93 responses qualified for analysis. Matchmaking is seen as an opportunity to find help for current challenges, personal learning, and establish relations by coworkers. Perceived usefulness is found to be the main factor of acceptance, indicating the need to design matchmaking mechanisms as organically implemented within the coworking ecosystem as possible, preferably integrating it with existing applications.

Vorheriger Artikel The intellectual structure of organizational legitimacy research: a co-citation analysis in business journals

Nächster Artikel The possible pitfalls of boards’ engagement in the strategic management process

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Abdullah F, Ward R (2016) Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for E-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Comput Hum Behav 56:238–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036CrossRef

Afuah A, Tucci CL (2012) Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. AMR 37:355–375. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0146CrossRef

Agarwal R, Prasad J (1998) A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Inf Syst Res 9:204–215. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.204CrossRef

Amabile TM (1997) Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. Calif Manag Rev 40:39–58CrossRef

Amabile TM (1998) How to kill creativity. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston

Amabile TM (2012) Componential theory of creativity. Harvard Business School 12:1–10

Amabile TM, Pratt MG (2016) The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning. Res Org Behav 36:157–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001CrossRef

André P, Schraefel MC, Teevan J, Dumais ST (2009) Discovery is never by chance. In: Bryan-Kinns N, Gross MD, Johnson H, Ox J, Wakkary R (eds) Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition. ACM, New York, NY, p 305

Baer M (2012) Putting creativity to work: the implementation of creative ideas in organizations. AMJ 55:1102–1119. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0470CrossRef

Bagozzi R (2007) The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. JAIS 8:244–254. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00122CrossRef

Baron RA, Ensley MD (2006) Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Manag Sci 52:1331–1344. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0538CrossRef

Bates TW (2011) Community and collaboration: new shared workplaces for evolving work practices. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud 39:61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887CrossRef

Bouncken R, Aslam MM (2019) Understanding knowledge exchange processes among diverse users of coworking-spaces. JKM 23:2067–2085. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2018-0316CrossRef

Bouncken RB, Reuschl AJ (2016) Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. RMS 12:317–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0215-yCrossRef

Bouncken RB, Reuschl AJ (2018) Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. RMS 12:317–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0215-yCrossRef

Bouncken RB, Laudien SM, Fredrich V, Görmar L (2018) Coopetition in coworking-spaces: value creation and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space. Rev Manag Sci 12:385–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0267-7CrossRef

Brinks V (2012) Netzwerke(n) und Nestwärme im coworking space—Arbeiten zwischen Digitalisierung und Re-Lokalisierung. Geographische Zeitschrift 100:129–145

Brown C, Efstratiou C, Leontiadis I, Quercia D, Mascolo C (2014) Tracking serendipitous interactions. In: Fussell S, Lutters W, Morris MR, Reddy M (eds) Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing—CSCW ‘14. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp 1072–1081

Butcher T (2018) Learning everyday entrepreneurial practices through coworking. Manag Learn 49:327–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507618757088CrossRef

Capdevila I (2013) Knowledge dynamics in localized communities: coworking spaces as microclusters. SSRN J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2414121CrossRef

Cattani G (2006) Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new technologies: how corning invented and developed fiber optics. Ind Corp Change 15:285–318. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtj016CrossRef

Cheah S, Ho Y-P (2019) Coworking and sustainable business model innovation in young firms. Sustainability 11:2959CrossRef

Colleoni E, Rozza A, Arvidsson A (2014) Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. J Commun 64(2):317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084CrossRef

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

Cohen D, Prusak L (2001) In good company: How social capital makes organizations work. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

Davis F (1985) A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management

Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MISQ 13:319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008CrossRef

Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35:982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982CrossRef

Desouza KC (2003) Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange. Commun ACM 46:85–88CrossRef

Dew N (2009) Serendipity in entrepreneurship. Org Stud 30:735–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104815CrossRef

Dwivedi YK, Rana NP, Jeyaraj A, Clement M, Williams MD (2019) Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): towards a revised theoretical model. Inf Syst Front 21:719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-yCrossRef

Eagle N, Pentland A (2005) Social serendipity: mobilizing social software. IEEE Pervasive Comput 4:28–34. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2005.37CrossRef

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312CrossRef

Gandini A (2015) The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review. Ephemera 15:193–205

Garrett LE, Spreitzer GM, Bacevice PA (2017) Co-constructing a sense of community at work: the emergence of community in coworking spaces. Org Stud 38:821–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616685354CrossRef

Gerdenitsch C, Scheel TE, Andorfer J, Korunka C (2016) Coworking spaces: a source of social support for independent professionals. Front Psychol 7:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00581CrossRef

Hacklin F, Marxt C, Fahrni F (2006) Strategic venture partner selection for collaborative innovation in production systems: a decision support system-based approach. Int J Prod Econ 104:100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.09.002CrossRef

Haenlein M, Kaplan AM (2004) A Beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis. Understand Stat 3:283–297. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0304_4CrossRef

Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 19:139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202CrossRef

Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA (2012) An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Mark Sci 40:414–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6CrossRef

Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG (2014) Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. Eur Bus Rev 26:106–121CrossRef

Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2017) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd edn. Sage, Los Angeles

Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43:115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8CrossRef

Hirst G, van Knippenberg D, Zhou J (2009) A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. AMJ 52:280–293. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.37308035CrossRef

Hong W, Thong JYL, Chasalow LC, Dhillon G (2011) User acceptance of agile information systems: a model and empirical test. J Manag Inf Syst 28:235–272CrossRef

Im S, Bayus BL, Mason CH (2003) An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior. J Acad Mark Sci 31:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302238602CrossRef

Jackson JD, Mun YY, Park JS (2013) An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Inf Manag 50:154–161CrossRef

Janssen O, van Yperen NW (2004) Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. AMJ 47:368–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159587CrossRef

Keil M, Beranek PM, Konsynski BR (1995) Usefulness and ease of use: field study evidence regarding task considerations. Decis Support Syst 13:75–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(94)E0032-MCrossRef

Kim C, Tao W, Shin N, Kim K-S (2010) An empirical study of customers’ perceptions of security and trust in e-payment systems. Electron Commer Res Appl 9:84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2009.04.014CrossRef

King WR, He J (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 43:740–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003CrossRef

Köse DB, Hamari J (2019) Dual information systems: a review of factors affecting their use. In: Americas conference on information systems

Lai V, Li H (2005) Technology Acceptance Model for Internet banking: an invariance analysis. Inf Manag 42:373–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.01.007CrossRef

Lewis W, Agarwal R, Sambamurthy V (2003) Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: an empirical study of knowledge workers. MISQ 27:657. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036552CrossRef

Mathieson K (1991) Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf Syst Res 2:173–191. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.173CrossRef

McCutcheon D, Stuart FI (2000) Issues in the choice of supplier alliance partners. Journal of Operations Management 18:279–301CrossRef

McKelvie A, Wiklund J (2004) How knowledge affects opportunity discovery and exploitation among new ventures in dynamic markets. Res Entrep Manag 4:219–239

Merkel J (2015) Coworking in the city. Ephemera 15:121–139

Merton RK, Barber EG (2004) The travels and adventures of serendipity: a study in historical semantics and the sociology of science. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRef

Moriset B (2014) Building new places of the creative economy. The rise of coworking spaces. In: Paper presented at the 2nd geography of innovation conference, Utrecht University, Utrecht

Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

Oldenburg R (1999) The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Marlowe; Da Capo Press a member of the Perseus Books Group, New York

Olma S (2012) The Serendipity Machine. A Disruptive Business Model for Society 3.0. Lindonk & De Bres, Amersfoort

Pallot M (2011) Collaborative distance: investigating issues related to distance factors affecting collaboration performance. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham

Pallot M, Alishevskikh A, Krawczyk P, Holzmann T (2014) Exploring the feasibility of an online serendipity service in the context of open innovation within the EU Horizon2020 research program. Proceedings of ISPIM Conferences 25:1

Polanyi M (1967) The tacit dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London

Ringle C, Sarstedt M, Mitchell R, Gudergan S (2017) Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Human Resource Management Research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Rogers EM (1962, 1971) Diffusion of innovations, vol 12. Free Press of Glencoe, New York

Schmidt S, Brinks V (2017) Open creative labs: spatial settings at the intersection of communities and organizations. Creativity Inn Man 26:291–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12220CrossRef

Schmidthuber L, Maresch D, Ginner M (2018) Disruptive technologies and abundance in the service sector—toward a refined technology acceptance model. Technol Forecast Soc Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.017CrossRef

Schopfel J, Roche J, Hubert G (2015) Co-working and innovation: new concepts for academic libraries and learning centres. New Libr World 116:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-06-2014-0072CrossRef

Schürmann M (2013) Coworking space: Geschäftsmodell für Entrepreneure und Wissensarbeiter. Springer, BerlinCrossRef

Shane S (2001) Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Manag Sci 47:205–220. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.2.205.9837CrossRef

Shmueli G, Ray S, Velasquez Estrada JM, Chatla SB (2016) The elephant in the room: predictive performance of PLS models. J Bus Res 69:4552–4564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.049CrossRef

Spinuzzi C (2012) Working alone together. J Bus Tech Commun 26:399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070CrossRef

Spinuzzi C, Bodrožić Z, Scaratti G, Ivaldi S (2019) “Coworking is about community”: but what is “community” in coworking? J Bus Tech Commun 33:112–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651918816357CrossRef

Surman T (2013) Building social entrepreneurship through the power of coworking. innovations: technology. Gov Glob 8:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00195CrossRef

Thüring M, Mahlke S (2007) Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction. Int J Psychol 42:253–264CrossRef

Unsworth K (2001) Unpacking creativity. Acad Manag Rev 26:289. https://doi.org/10.2307/259123CrossRef

Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46:186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926CrossRef

Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MISQ 36:157. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412CrossRef

Wang C, Rodan S, Fruin M, Xu X (2014) Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. AMJ 57:484–514. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0917CrossRef

Waters-Lynch J, Duff C (2019) The affective commons of coworking. Hum Relat 0018726719894633

Waters-Lynch J, Potts J (2017) The social economy of coworking spaces: a focal point model of coordination. Rev Soc Econ 75:417–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2016.1269938CrossRef

Waters-Lynch J, Potts J, Butcher T, Dodson J, Hurley J (2016) Coworking: a transdisciplinary overview. SSRN

Wu Y, Zhang K, Padmanabhan V (2018) Matchmaker competition and technology provision. J Mark Res 55:396–413. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.16.0423CrossRef

Yaqub O (2018) Serendipity: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res Policy 47:169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007CrossRef

Yi MY, Fiedler KD, Park JS (2006) Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in the acceptance of IT-based innovations: comparative analyses of models and measures. Decis Sci 37:393–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5414.2006.00132.xCrossRef

Titel: Two heads are better than one: matchmaking tools in coworking spaces
verfasst von: Cristopher Siegfried Kopplin
Publikationsdatum: 09.03.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Review of Managerial Science / Ausgabe 4/2021
Print ISSN: 1863-6683
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-6691
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00382-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2021

The fit between corporate social responsibility and corporate governance: the impact on a firm’s financial performance

Correction to: The effect of stress on customer perception of the frontline employee: an experimental study

Does institutional quality affect the level of entrepreneurial success differently across the entrepreneurship distribution?

Investigating the process of entrepreneurial team member exits: a systematic review and future research directions

Disciplines of organizational resilience: contributions, critiques, and future research avenues

Research note: an analytical perspective on market decisions and asymmetric cost behavior