The co-working space blueprint : a case study on the impact of co-working spaces on entrepreneurship

The Co-Working Space Blueprint:

A Case Study on the Impact of Co-Working Spaces on Entrepreneurship

Date: 24 June, 2016

Supervisor: Prof. Roel van der Voort Student: Shahar Graff

Student Number: 11085878

Education: MSc Business Administration, Entrepreneurship & Innovation Track Institution: Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Amsterdam

S

TATEMENT OF

O

RIGINALITY

This document is written by Shahar Graff who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

A

BSTRACT

Purpose: Understanding the role of the co-working space in the entrepreneurial process and

determining which components of the co-working spaces provide value to the entrepreneurial members.

Design Approach: Mixed case study, based on nine semi-structured interviews. Units of

analysis were the managers of the co-working spaces and their venture tenants. Sample was chosen using no-probability sampling. The research was conducted in both Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Tel Aviv, Israel.

Findings: The areas of most value to the studied entrepreneurs are an impressive design and

atmosphere, an extensive professional network and a dining area for socialization among members. Additionally, various components of the business model were analyzed, providing an understanding on the contribution to the co-working space members.

Research Limitations: The sample size was limited, which does not permit generalizations. Yet

the findings show the contribution of various factors that may be further researched and analyzed.

Originality: The co-working phenomenon has appeared and grown in recent years and has not

yet been thoroughly researched. Even more so, little empirical evidence places co-working spaces in the context of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Additionally, this study was done within two cities, each with differently developed entrepreneurial ecosystems. In addition to providing more variation to the findings, a number of cultural differences seemed to arise.

A

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Roel van der Voort for his guidance throughout the entire process of writing this Master thesis. I would also like to thank each of the participants that took the time to meet with me and provide me with valuable information for this study.

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

Abbreviations ... 7

List of Tables & Figures ... 7

1. Introduction ... 8 1.1 Overview ... 8 1.2 Relevance of Research ... 9 1.3 Outline ... 9 2. Literature Review ...10 2.1 Introduction to Entrepreneurship ...10

2.1.1 The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ...10

2.1.2 Definition of an Entrepreneur: ...14

2.2 Business Incubation ...16

2.2.1 Historical Background ...16

2.2.2 The Role ...17

2.3 Co-Working Spaces ...19

2.3.1 Introduction to Co-Working Spaces ...19

2.3.2 Characteristics of Co-Working Spaces...20

I Professional Services ...21

II Professional Networks ...21

III Physical Environment ...25

3. Methodology ...26

3.1 Research Design ...26

3.2 Research Sample ...28

3.2.1 Selection of Co-Working Spaces ...29

3.2.2 Selection of Tenant Ventures ...30

3.3 Data Collection ...31

3.4 Data Analysis ...34

4. Case Context ...35

4.1 Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of the Netherlands ...35

4.3 Background On Selected Co-Working Spaces ...40

4.3.1 WeWork ...40

4.3.2 B. Amsterdam ...42

4.3.3 SOSA (South of Salame) ...42

5. Case Analysis & Findings...44

5.1 Determining Contribution of Professional Services ...45

5.1.1 Business Services ...45

5.1.2 Venture Efficiency ...47

5.1.3 Benefits & Discounts ...47

5.1.4 Flexible Membership ...48

5.2 Determining Contribution of the Professional Network ...48

5.2.1. Member Interaction. ...49

5.2.2 External Contacts. ...53

5.2.3 Tenant Mix. ...54

5.2.4 Establishing Legitimacy ...55

5.2.5 Events. ...56

5.3 Determining Contribution of the Physical Environment ...57

5.3.1 Space Layout ...58

5.3.2 Dining Area ...58

5.3.3 Design & Atmosphere ...59

5.4 Leaving the Co-Working Space ...59

5.4 Identifying Cultural Gaps ...60

5.5 Summary ...61

6. Discussion ...61

7. References ...64

8. Appendices ...69

Appendix I Main Co-Working Spaces In Amsterdam & Tel Aviv...69

Appendix II Interview Guide ...71

Interview Template I: Managers of Selected Co-Working Spaces ...71

Interview Template 2: Selected Tenant Ventures of Co-Working Spaces ...74

Appendix III Extensive Interview Information ...76

A

BBREVIATIONS

CTO: Chief Technology Officer

GEM: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

ICT: Information & Communications Technology R&D: Research & Development

TEA: Total Early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity

L

IST OF

T

ABLES

&

F

IGURES

Figure 1. TEA rate from 2001 to 2013 36

Table 1. Nine pillars of the entrepreneurial ecosystem 13

Table 2. Categorization of interview guide 32

Table 3. Interview Participants, Co-Working Space Managers 33

Table 4. Interview Participants, Co-Working Space Tenant Ventures 33

Table 5. Characteristics of chosen co-working spaces 43

Table 6. Main co-working spaces in Tel Aviv & Amsterdam 70

Table 7. Extensive interview characteristics, co-working space managers 77 Table 8. Extensive interview characteristics, co-working space tenants 78

1.

I

NTRODUCTION

1.1

O

Co-working spaces, also referred to as collaborative workspaces, are flexible workspaces designed to encourage collaboration, creativity, networking, socializing and generating new business opportunities for small firms, start-ups and freelancers. They are flexible, shared, rentable and community-oriented workspaces occupied by professionals from diverse sectors. Co-working spaces provide independent professionals with a building of community, a way to work better together than they do alone. The idea behind the concept is to serve as a ground for collaboration, community, sustainability, openness and accessibility (Spinuzzi, 2012).

The co-working movement started in the USA in 2005 and has spread globally, with over 700 spaces by the year 2011 (Foertsch & Cagnol, 2013). While co-working spaces appear to be growing quickly, little information is known regarding the value they provide. This thesis will look into the various co-working spaces in Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Tel Aviv, Israel, each with more than 15 co-working companies. Moreover, many of the companies have a number of spaces within each city, amounting to even more co-working spaces available in both cities.

In addition to defining co-working spaces and the environment they provide for their members, it is important to understand the contribution of such spaces to the entrepreneurial process and the growth of new ventures. There is a lack of empirical evidence to guide the co-working spaces in operating to best suit the entrepreneurial ecosystem and accelerate venture growth.

1.2

R

R

Although there is research available on the subject of co-production, it is mainly from years past and, as a result, is not entirely in line with recent developments in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Co-working spaces are one of the more recent developments, and have yet to be researched thoroughly. Moreover, there are few studies that relate the co-working spaces to the field of entrepreneurship and its impact on entrepreneurs. Scientific findings that may be relevant for understanding this phenomenon can be extracted from the study of business incubators. Although the business model is not identical, the two are built on similar characteristics and core components. As state, co-working spaces are mentioned minimally in the literature although they are becoming more frequent around the world, which provides an opportunity for new research.

The study will observe co-working spaces from two angles, that of the managerial staff and of the entrepreneurs who are tenants. The following objectives will guide the research process:

(I) Understanding the role of the co-working space in the entrepreneurial process

(II) Determining which components of the co-working spaces provide value to the

entrepreneurial members

In order to meet the objectives, the research question of this study is as follows:

How do the components of co-working space business models contribute to the entrepreneurial process.

This study will begin with a thorough overview of relevant literature in topics that contribute to the in-depth understanding of co-working spaces as well as the entrepreneurial process. Following, will be an explanation of the method used to conduct the study, including the sampling size, research design and data analysis. After the first research-focused sections, a section on the case context will provide detailed information on all aspects of the case study. Finally, the findings will be presented and discussed, along with the implications and limitations of the study.

2.

L

ITERATURE

R

EVIEW

2.1

I

E

2.1.1

T

E

E

There is yet to be a concrete definition for the term entrepreneurial ecosystem, however various studies use similar guidelines in effort to create one. At the root of the term you find two words, ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘ecosystem.’ Shane and Venkatamaran (2000) define entrepreneurship as a process in which opportunities are discovered, evaluated and exploited in order to create novel goods and services. Stam (2014) expands on the definition, claiming that it is the process in which individuals pursue opportunities for innovation, thus creating new value for society. The second word of the term is ‘ecosystem,’ most commonly associated with biology. The definition of ecosystem, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is as follows: “A biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment.” The sub-definition displayed for general use of the term is “a complex network or interconnected system,” (Ecosystem, 2016).

When bringing the terms together and into context, the entrepreneurial ecosystem refers to the interdependent network or community of independent actors, who focus on the impact of external conditions on a firm’s innovation and business progress (Stam, 2014).

Within Feld (2012: 186-187), Case and Harris detail the nine main attributes of a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem, also referred to as a startup community. The key actors and events listed are the following: leadership, intermediaries, network density, government, talent, support services, engagement, companies and capital.

The following table (Table 1) details the main attributes of an entrepreneurial ecosystem, as outlined in Feld, 2012:

Attribute Description

Leadership Strong group of entrepreneurs who are visible, accessible and committed to the region being a great place to start and grow a company.

Intermediaries Many well-respected mentors and advisors giving back across all stages, sectors, demographics and geographies as well as a solid presence of effective, visible, well-integrated accelerators and incubators.

Network Density Deep, well-connected community of startups and entrepreneurs along with engaged and visible investors, advisors, mentors and supporters. Optimally, these people and organizations cut across sectors, demographics, and culture engagement. Everyone must be willing to give back to his community.

Government Strong government support for and understanding of startups to economic growth. Additionally, supportive policies should be in place covering economic development, tax and investment vehicles.

Talent Broad, deep talent pool for all level of employees in all sectors and areas of expertise. Universities are an excellent resource for startup talent and should be well connected to community.

Support Services Professional services (legal, accounting, real estate, insurance, consulting) are integrated, accessible, effective and appropriately priced.

Engagement Large number of events for entrepreneurs and community to connect, with highly visible and authentic participants (e.g. meetups, pitch days, startup weekends, bootcamps, hackathons and

competitions).

Companies Large companies that are the anchor of a city should create specific departments and programs to encourage cooperation with high-growth startups.

Capital Strong, dense, and supportive community of VCs, angels, seed investors, and other forms of financing should be available, visible, and accessible across sectors, demographics and geography.

Although the listed components are necessary for creating a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem, the amount of external involvement must be limited. According to Isenberg (2010), one key principle is to allow clusters to grow and develop naturally without over engineering their surroundings (Isenberg, 2010). In other words, it is important to provide a supportive environment that helps foster an entrepreneurial ecosystem, but also allow room for organic progress.

As suggested in its definition, the actors of the entrepreneurial ecosystem each play distinct roles that are interconnected and affect the ecosystem as a whole. According to Feld (2012), it is important to note that government and support services are considered ‘feeders’ of the ecosystem. Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are considered to be the ‘leaders’ of the ecosystem (Feld, 2012). Furthermore, Stam (2014) states that entrepreneurship is should not only be regarded as an outcome of the ecosystem but as a key player in creating and sustaining the ecosystem.

2.1.2

D

E

:

As mentioned in the previous section, at the core of the entrepreneurial ecosystem is the entrepreneur. An entrepreneur is defined as an agent of change who is able to identify an opportunity where there is a match between an innovation and its market. The entrepreneur must make use of resources to meet the customer needs and to deliver a product at competitive cost and quality (Lalkaka, 2002).

Assenza (2015) analyses the life cycle of entrepreneurial ventures. According to their research, the life cycle starts with an entrepreneur and their idea, which must be willing to take

the risk of developing it and creating value. During this time they are most often solo practitioners who work on the idea part-time, in addition to their existing career. If the idea seems to have the potential of becoming a sustainable business, they may choose to commit to it entirely. Next, they will need to involve others and form a startup team. As they grow and add more employees, the venture will be considered a small business, with a main focus on creating stability in the business operations. If they are able to provide a unique offering or hold a competitive advantage in the market, the business will scale up and expand operations or exit (be acquired). At this point, the venture will become “fully engaged in economic activity with wide repercussions for success or failure,” (ibid.).

Drawing from this, in order to promote economic activity, the ecosystem’s pillars must pay attention to the needs of the solo practitioners and support them. There are many uncertainties and risks faced by entrepreneurs, through all stages of their ventures. And while entrepreneurship supports economic growth, it may also need support of its own.

Entrepreneurial research shows that there are certain traits shared by entrepreneurs. For example, tolerance for risk and uncertainty, inclination towards autonomous work and confidence in their resourcefulness. Nonetheless, starting a new venture requires many resources. These include financial, human and social resources (Acs, Audretsch, & Lehmann, 2013). Teece (1986) addresses this topic as well. He states that one of the main challenges for entrepreneurs when starting a new venture is obtaining the necessary resources. Building a resource base has great importance in helping the entrepreneur develop their innovation and enter the market (ibid). However, following the market penetration, new ventures often face additional risks such as inexperienced management, a lack of relevant networks and use of immature systems (Avnimelech et al., 2007).

Although entrepreneurs may face many risks in the process of new venture creation, there are many business services made available to them in order to minimize risk and help overcome barriers. This will be further examined in the upcoming sections.

2.2

B

USINESS

I

NCUBATION

2.2.1

H

B

In the 1970s, the role of small and medium-sized enterprises appeared to play an important role in economic growth, regional development and technological changes. Additionally, high-tech clusters such as Silicon Valley began to show success. This led to countries shifting the focus of their economic development to more entrepreneurial strategies and policies (Eisinger, 1988). In the years following, many states, regions and cities introduced economic development programs. One of the goals was to create new industries by helping support small and medium enterprises in the phases of starting the busienss, surviving the industry and succeeding in the market (Rice, 2002).

After various business development services began to appear, business incubators were developed and became more common and widespread during the 1980s. Lalkaka (2002) researched technology business incubators and their influence in building an innovation-based economy. The research shows that the role of business incubators is to assist in new venture creation by providing affordable workspaces, shared facilities, training and access to external entrepreneurial networks. As a result, research shows that the venture’s likelihood to survive in the market is higher after undergoing incubation (ibid.).

One benefit of the business incubator, in comparison to the other programs and services offered at the time, was their ability to provide the enterprises with many forms of assistance, as well interact with them on a consistent basis (Rice, 2002).

Furthermore, business incubation also became a tool used by governments and academic institutions, used to develop various industry sectors, contribute to the creation of jobs and provide economic benefits such as wealth (Avnimelech et al., 2007).

2.2.2

T

R

To understand the importance of business incubation, one must understand its role within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. A core principle of business incubation is to support new ventures temporarily, until they are able gain strength and become efficient (Avnimelech et al., 2007). As previously mentioned, business incubators were introduced as a tool for economic development. According to Peters et al. (2004), the incubator must provide a supportive environment for new ventures. Often this includes flexible renting spaces, shared administrative services or equipment and access to a network of advisors.

Today, there are many variations of business incubators. Characteristics differ among them, however each must provide counseling, training, networking services, space and facilities. In doing so they provide create a positive environment for new venture success and play a role in their professional development (Lalkaka, 2002).

Over time, the role of an incubator has transformed and is no longer a business center offering solely office facilities. The business incubator is considered to be “a vehicle for enterprise development,” as it assists entrepreneurs in lowering the costs of information and resources. Once entrepreneurs have formulated their idea, business incubators play a large role in

gathering the necessary resources and then “harvesting the rewards.” On a wider scale, the incubator is also said to promote the surrounding economy by creating local jobs, supporting economic development and promoting the transfer of technology. Peters et al. (2004) list the following functions as factors for the success of an incubator: (1) establish clear metrics for success, (2) provide entrepreneurial leadership, (3) develop and deliver value-added services to member companies, (4) develop a rational new-company selection process and (5) ensure that member companies gain access to necessary human and financial resources (Peters et al., 2004).

Smilor (1987) declares that business incubators are useful in many industries, but are most effective for technology-based firms. Over 90% of new businesses fail annually (during the first five operational years), due to a lack in managerial skills or capital. Moreover, new ventures have little access to resources, where the incubator is able to fill this gap by helping connect the ventures with talent, technology, capital and expertise. The incubator provides access to resources through formal and informal network ties, which is a great benefit for technology-based ventures.

Incubators have been growing at a fast pace and, for this reason, Lalkaka (2002) suggests that there is a need for improved incubator variations. By introducing different business models, the entrepreneurs will be able to increase performance, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, utility and sustainability (ibid.).

Co-working spaces present a new take on the traditional business incubator. By providing many similar services and characteristics, co-working spaces aim to promote new venture creation as well. The next section will look into characteristics unique to the co-working space, as well as its historic background and development.

2.3

C

O

-W

ORKING

S

PACES

2.3.1

I

C

-W

S

Co-working spaces are flexible workspaces that promote collaborations, networking and knowledge sharing, as well as create business opportunities. They provide a community for new ventures, small and medium businesses, startups, independent workers (also known as freelancers) and more by bringing together like-minded individuals of different industries and sectors.

Though studies have researched personality traits that characterize most entrepreneurs, additional factors come into play in new venture success. Other than entrepreneurial traits, entrepreneurial action demands a fitting environment: a productive business environment and a physical surrounding that allows a flow of creativity and innovation (Lee, Florida, & Acs, 2004). An organizational trend that has begun in recent years is ‘collaborative knowledge work,’ referring to positions such as freelancing, co-production, virtual teams and independent contracting. Recent technological and mobile development plays a large role in the spreading of this trend, due to the promotion of less permanent work that can be conducted from remote locations. One of the outcomes of the trend is the creation of co-working spaces (Spinuzzi, 2012).

The origin of the co-working space has been traced back to the year 2005 in San Francisco, USA. A startup employee, Brad Neuberg, started the ‘co-working movement’ by asking others to join him in sharing a workspace. Joining required paying partially for the office space rental, Internet fees and food. The motivation behind this concept was using the physical proximity of like-minded people to create a network, collaborate and inspire productivity and

effectiveness in the workplace. By the year of 2011, over 700 variations of co-working spaces had opened globally (Foertsch & Cagnol, 2013).

Co-working spaces, as defined by Spinuzzi (2012), are paid open-plan office environments, where professionals are able to work alongside unaffiliated professionals. The co-working space can be classified as any of the following: an office alternative, a social hub, a possibility for collaborations, a barrier between the private and professional lives and a chance for like-minded people from diverse industries to work alongside each other (ibid.).

Since the creation of co-working spaces, they have spread on a global scale and provide a solution for a growing problem. The ‘collaborative knowledge work’ trend involves mainly independent work, outside of the traditional office space. This type of work presents a number of shortcomings, which Spinuzzi (ibid.) covers in his research of co-working activities. First, there is a need for a barrier between a person’s workspace and personal life. Working from home makes this a constant struggle, as there is no separation between the two. Additionally, working alone may cause professional isolation. The term ‘professional isolation’ refers to one of the downfalls of solo practitioners that do not have an office and choose to work from home. By sharing a workspace, a community of support is created, which has been found to stimulate business development. Additional benefits of working in a shared space, rather than at home, is being surrounded by like-minded individuals, having a professional network, creating a work-life balance and increased career satisfaction (ibid.).

2.3.2

C

C

-W

S

The main concept of the co-working space is building a community with core values of collaboration, sustainability, openness and accessibility (Spinuzzi, 2012). The following

components represent the core of the co-working spaces and their benefits within the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

IPROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Similar to business incubators, co-working spaces provide businesses with a flexible work environment that supplies office space, facilities and administrative services.

In studying the activities necessary for new ventures to succeed, Delmar & Shane (2004) stated that founders must go through a series of actions in order to create and sustain a new venture. This includes buying or renting facilities and equipment, hiring employees, fundraising, gathering information, product development and more over time. By providing entrepreneurs with infrastructure and services, co-working spaces allow the tenant businesses to focus on the actions they need to take, dissolving the need to handle basic administration and office management tasks. Later in the study, we will go into further detail of the variety of services provided by the co-working spaces.

IIPROFESSIONAL NETWORKS

One of the main characteristics of the co-working space is the professional network provided to tenants who join, which is critical to new venture success. The following studies present the added values of professional networks for new ventures.

Networks prove to be of high importance during the entrepreneurial process. One of the main benefits is providing entrepreneurs with resources such as information and advice, helping reduce the risk in their activity. This is relevant not only during the beginning venture stages, but throughout the entire process (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003).

Delmar & Shane (2004) cite Arrow (1974) claiming, “Social ties are an important lubricant to all economic transactions.” The following section describes various ways in which social ties, or professional networking, come into play within the co-working spaces.

Information Gathering. Anhuja (2000) emphasizes the importance of networking for

access to information resources. In business, a professional network is critical for the stages of information gathering and data processing. Firms can choose to make use of their network connections in order to gather this necessary information from the sources holding the information (Anhuja, 2000).

Additionally, the entrepreneur’s network serves as a social source of information necessary for opportunity identification. Relevant information can be obtained through working with mentors, participating in professional forums and creating informal professional networks. Ozgen and Baron (2007) state that the more an entrepreneur participates in such activities, the more valuable information they will collect. As a result, they will also be more successful in identifying potential business opportunities for new ventures (Ozgen & Baron, 2007).

Not only is it important to understand professional networks, but also their structure is important in and of itself. Glasmeier (1991) refers to direct and indirect ties, presenting the potential downside in professional networks. According to the study, there is a limit to the effectiveness of direct ties. In other words, when a firm has too many direct ties, they experience information overflow and are not able to absorb it as well. With less direct ties, a firm is more flexible in their ability to make use of the information shared with them (Glasmeier, 1991). This should be taken into consideration when creating co-working spaces, as the tenants’ interaction may be affected negatively if there are too many members in the space generally, or too many members from complimentary industries.

Legitimacy. Hoang and Antoncic (2003) determine that the environment of uncertainty

surrounding entrepreneurial activity lead to the entrepreneur’s search for legitimacy. By establishing networks with well-regarded individuals or organizations, the entrepreneur may reduce the perceived risk associated with their new venture and increase their attractiveness to possible stakeholders. As a result of the network linkages, additional exchanges of resources may occur and benefit the entrepreneur in the long run. This is also referred to as signaling content, where the linkages between the firm and external figures signals to stakeholders that they have potential (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003).

Other studies dive into this topic as well. New ventures are not viewed as accountable as established organizations, thus creating a need for legitimacy. Once a venture can be well perceived, it will be easier to obtain the proper resources and survive in the market. Moreover, the success of ventures in early stages highly depends on stakeholders’ perceptions rather than financial performance (Delmar & Shane, 2004).

Co-working spaces are able to provide a company an initial form of legitimacy by providing them with an office space, meeting rooms, professional network linkages and more. This may be perceived highly by potential stakeholders, and be especially helpful in the early stages of ventures.

Establishing Trust. A benefit of interconnected networks is the reduced risk of ‘deviant

behaviour.’ When a company is connected to various networks and partners, they will likely act in a way that is not opportunistic in order to avoid damaging their reputation (Anhuja, 2000). Hoang and Antoncic (2003) discuss the positive effect of trust on new ventures. When two parties have a trusting relationship, they can assume that the other party will act in a way that is acceptable. This minimizes the transaction costs of their activities, seeing as they require less

negotiations and supervision. Additionally, it deepens their exchange relationship and paves room for more information sharing.

Therefore, by creating an environment of businesses working alongside each other, or an interconnected community, the co-working spaces are able to promote trust and help develop successful business relationships and transactions.

Knowledge Spillover. Anhuja (2000) researched collaboration networks within firms,

discovering that collaborative links may be associated with two types of network benefits. One is the newly available combination of knowledge, skills and assets, which makes use of tacit knowledge. The other is the occurrence of knowledge spillovers, where more explicit information and ‘know-how’ is transferred between firms. Knowledge spillovers can be related to work methods, breakthroughs, insight or organizational information (Anhuja, 2000). Within the context of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, the presence of knowledge spillovers has been shown to create opportunities in entrepreneurship. A knowledge spillover occurs when there is access to knowledge that hasn’t been exploited or commercialized by others, and is therefore available for exploitation by a new venture. In the field of entrepreneurship, this process comes across in “The Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship.” According to this theory, creating new knowledge helps increase technological opportunities. Therefore, entrepreneurial activity requires that an entrepreneur exploit the information obtained through knowledge spillovers (Acs, Audretsch, & Lehmann, 2013).

In another study, this comes across in relation to innovative performance. Innovative performance is an outcome derived from combining multiple sources of knowledge. The knowledge must be dissimilar enough to create new combinations, but not too dissimilar that it is not possible to bridge between the information (Nooteboom, 2000).

Additional research shows that a business’s innovative performance is influenced by numerous factors. According to Anhuja (2000), there are three dimensions: direct ties, indirect ties and connections between partners. Indirect ties bring access to knowledge spillovers, while direct ties take this to another degree by adding benefits of resource sharing. The third aspect, the partners’ network, has most benefits and provides novel information to the company by introducing knowledge from the partners’ partners.

Bringing this into the context of co-working spaces, the ties between tenants of the spaces likely drive innovative performance. The co-working spaces bring together like-minded individuals of various industries. This creates an immediate professional network, with new direct ties. The co-working spaces give them a place to make new direct ties and exchange information and knowledge within the community created. As a result, new indirect ties are made available to the tenants as well.

IIIPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The innovation process is influenced by the space in which it takes place, with a connection between physical space and interaction. This allows workspaces to be designed in a way that promotes interaction, communication and effective group work. The physical space refers to the following: geography location, scale, real or virtual, flexibility, design values, IT resources, data, visualization resources, constraints and evolution (Moultrie et al. 2007).

Taylor and Spicer (2007) further discuss this topic, claiming that workplaces that choose to incorporate a layout and design supporting innovation are usually doing so with the intention of creating a ‘directed space.’ In other words, the physical space directs the interaction of the inhabitants in the space, which can also reinforce the organization’s structure and dispersion of control (Taylor & Spicer, 2007).

Many organizations have started to focus on creating effectively designed workspaces in order to foster interactions and, in a broader view, innovation. Moultrie et al. (2007) emphasize the effect of infrastructure on work and communication. In addition, physical locality is considered to be a catalyst for creativity by use of visual materials, social activity and inspirational sources (Moultrie et al. 2007).

When it comes to the physical attributes of the workspace, there are a number of elements commonly found amongst co-working spaces. This includes open layouts, modern design and furniture, bright colors, architectural elements, kitchen amenities and games. By providing this, the designers are creating constraints on entrepreneurial activity. This can prove beneficial by promoting economic growth, which is the desired outcome, or instead act as a limitation on the entrepreneurial activities (Assenza, 2015).

To conclude this section, it is important to point out that there is much research available on the components that are found within co-working spaces as depicted above. It also becomes apparent that the professional network is of great importance to the entrepreneurial process. Although there is relatively abundant studies that explore the business incubators, there is little research available that ties the listed components directly to co-working spaces. Moreover, little research has been conducted that connects the field of co-working spaces to entrepreneurship. The next section will aim to outline the methodology used to connect said topics in this study.

3.

M

ETHODOLOGY

As shown in the Literature Review, the field is lacking in research and for this reason, the study conducted used a Grounded Theory method. More specifically, in order to gain understanding on the co-working space concept and its growth, the research conducted is an inductive and qualitative mixed-case study.

The case study methodology is used with the purpose of examining ongoing phenomena within their natural setting, which is fairly common in new research fields. The use of multiple cases enables the researcher to observe in depth, as numerous settings are observed simultaneously (Yin, 1994)..

The following method was used to execute an exploratory study of entrepreneurial ventures in both Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Tel Aviv, Israel. Each of the ventures are current members of co-working spaces and have shown growth while working at the co-working space. These two cities were chosen with the following reasoning. First, both are main cities of relatively small countries. Second, both Amsterdam and Tel Aviv are showing growth in their entrepreneurial ecosystems and innovations, as determined in Section X. An asset to the study is the author’s background, having lived in both cities and being exposed to both of the ecosystems being studied. This was a point of advantage, as it broadened the scope of the research conducted and added a cultural context to the findings and discussion. By studying two distinct cultures, one can observe the differences in the co-working spaces themselves, but also in the different entrepreneurial processes and mindsets of the regions.

There are two units of analysis for this study: managers of selected co-working spaces and entrepreneurs of ventures working from the corresponding co-working spaces. In order to provide data triangulation, primary data in the form of observations was collected, as well as secondary data collected through reliable sources on the internet, such as official websites. The

secondary data collected was in regards to the chosen co-working spaces and ventures, but also to additional co-working spaces in both cities.

By researching both units (co-working space managers and tenant ventures), the research may provide insight into gaps between the perception of both sides regarding the components of the co-working spaces. In a study conducted by Mian (1996), a similar technique was selected in regards to researching the value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. A multiple case-study was conducted by interviewing both the incubator proprietors (managers and staff) and the ventures that were tenants of their incubator. As explained in Section 2, co-working spaces may be regarded as a variation of the incubator business model, providing limited incubation services. Therefore, using a similar research structure in this study may derive relevant insight on a new and rising business model.

3.2

R

S

Selective sampling, a non-probability sampling technique, was used to select the tenant ventures and managers interviewed for this research. This method allows the researcher to conduct an information-rich case study, helping to better understand the issue of importance to the study (Patton, 2005). In this mixed-case study, the selective sampling was used to understand the important components of the co-working spaces and their business model, in effort to understand their impact on the tenant ventures.

Data saturation may be achieved by gathering data that can be grouped into different categories and used to conduct a thorough data analysis. This relies on the researcher’s perception of data saturation, which guides the selection of the sample size (Elo et al., 2014). In

order to provide a trustworthy analysis for this case study, a number of entrepreneurs and co-working spaces were researched until the author had perceived that data saturation was achieved. The total sample size consists of nine interviews. Five interviews were conducted with entrepreneurs working at one of the four chosen co-working spaces in either Amsterdam or Tel Aviv. The remaining five interviewees were managers of the chosen co-working spaces: WeWork or SOSA in Tel Aviv, Israel and WeWork or B. Amsterdam in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The author constructed the sample in two stages. First was the selection of the co-working spaces to be studied (leading to their managerial staff). Next, by using specific guidelines, the entrepreneurs were chosen through the nomination of the managers. The following two subsections will further detail the sampling criteria of this study.

3.2.1SELECTION OF CO-WORKING SPACES

In order to select fitting subjects (co-working spaces) for the study, the author conducted primary research. An extensive list of the co-working spaces located in both Amsterdam and Tel Aviv can be found in Appendix I. The selection of the cases (co-working spaces) was based on the following sampling criteria. First, the co-working spaces chosen were for-profit and privately owned businesses. Second, each one must provide the following: a paid membership for a flexible workspace, an element of design and professional networks (in correlation to the characteristics listed in the Literature Review and later reviewed in the study). Third, for each city, a global co-working space and local co-working space were to be chosen. The criterion selected aimed to broaden the scope, while maintaining similarities between the co-working spaces and thus providing more focused findings. After narrowing it down using this criteria, there were two local co-working spaces selected, both of which were large players in their local

entrepreneurial ecosystem and both planning to expand globally in the upcoming year: B. Amsterdam in Amsterdam and SOSA in Tel Aviv. When selecting the global co-working space, each city had two main players in their ecosystem. In Amsterdam, the two spaces were Spaces and WeWork. In Tel Aviv, the two spaces were Mindspace and WeWork.

Although all four co-working spaces were contacted, only WeWork locations responded and agreed to participate. Of the WeWork locations, the ones selected for the study were the pioneers of the region. Being the first to open in the corresponding cities, these spaces are more established and stable and therefore preferable for research. Despite having two WeWork spaces selected, both under one global corporation, the two were treated as separate spaces due to the complete separation in their management. This separation also comes across in the interviews with the managers of the two locations. Last, using a brand that operates in both countries also allows us to better compare the findings and understand cultural differences. As a result, four co-working spaces were chosen and then interviewed: WeWork Weteringschans, WeWork Dubnov, B. Amsterdam and SOSA. See Section 4 for in-depth information regarding each of the chosen co-working spaces.

3.2.2SELECTION OF TENANT VENTURES

Five entrepreneurs, each from separate ventures, were chosen for this study. In order to meet the research objective and understand how co-working spaces influence the growth of entrepreneurial ventures, it was crucial that the ventures chosen show growth during their time at one of the four chosen co-working spaces. Another factor was that all subjects have a full membership for a private office, ensuring a portion of similarity between them. A limitation for this research came across when selecting the tenant ventures. Co-working spaces are extremely

dynamic workspaces, with tenants entering and exiting often. For this reason they do not list their tenants in any official resources such as their websites. In order to find promising ventures that have shown growth (in size & economic growth) while at the co-working space, managers were asked during their interview to list three of the tenant ventures that have done so. This was asked of them within Part D: General Information About Members (see Table 2). Following the gathering of this information, the tenant ventures were contacted and five of them were interviewed, where the author had felt that data saturation had been met. In effort to provide a variety of input for the research, each of the ventures was different in team size and field. Additional details regarding the chosen ventures can be found in Table 4.

3.3

D

C

The research data was collected between March and May of 2016. The research subjects were contacted through email or social media platforms (specifically Facebook). The subjects

located in Israel were interviewed by Skype whereas the subjects located in Netherlands were interviewed in face to face meetings at their office, within the studied co-working space. There was one exception where, due to injury, one interview in Amsterdam (Tenant 3) was conducted through Skype. One interview (Manager 3) was conducted in the Hebrew language, as a result of the co-working space location and the preference of the interviewee. The author speaks both Hebrew and English fluently and has translated the transcript to English.

The interviews were developed based on previous literature and were conducted in a structured form, with the purpose of allowing subjects to expand on their thoughts. A semi-structured interview guide was established, displaying the main topics covered in correspondence

to the literature review (see Appendix II). More specifically, the interview guide has been divided into the following sections:

Managers Tenant Ventures

A. General Characteristics of the Co-Working Space A. General Characteristics of the Venture

B. Services Provided to Members B. Motivation Behind Choosing a Co-working Space C. Physical Workspace Characteristics C. Conditions of the Co-Working Space

D. General Information About Members D. Services Offered

E. Network Structure E. Network Structure

Table 2. Categorization of interview guide

All interviews were recorded and transcribed, with additional notes and observations recorded at the time of the interview. The duration of the interviews was between 25 to 40 minutes, with an average of 29 minutes in length. This length provided each participant with enough time to expand on the topics they found to be important. The goal of the study was introduced before each interview, as stated in the Interview Guide (see Appendix II). Participants were asked if they agree to be recorded and all accepted to participate.

The following tables outline the characteristics of the interviews conducted for data collection, separated according to co-working space managers and their tenant ventures. Further information can be found in Appendix III.

Interviewee Position Gender Co-Working Space Location Duration of Interview (in minutes) Manager 1 Community Manager Female WeWork Weteringschans Amsterdam, Netherlands 30

Manager 2 Facilities Manager

Male B. Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands 40 Manager 3 Community Manager Female WeWork Dubnov

Tel Aviv, Israel 25

Manager 4 General Manager

Male SOSA Tel Aviv, Israel 25

Table 3. Interview Participants, Co-Working Space Managers

Interviewee Venture Position Gender Co-Working Space

Location Interview Duration (in minutes) Tenant 1 Startup: Big Data

Analytics

Product Designer

Male WeWork Amsterdam, the Netherlands

20

Tenant 2 Startup: Software Development

Founder & CEO Male B. Amsterdam Amsterdam, the Netherlands

35

Tenant 3 Startup: Online Retail

CTO Male B. Amsterdam Amsterdam, the Netherlands

30

Tenant 4 Startup: Marketing Agency

Co-Founder Female WeWork Tel Aviv, Israel 30

Tenant 5 Startup: Database Management

CEO & Co-Founder

Male SOSA Tel Aviv, Israel 30

3.4

D

A

The data collected from the interviews was analyzed using coding themes. This is a core component of content analysis, which helps strategically categorize the research findings. Coding categories are used to sort the descriptive data obtained in qualitative research and distinct between the types of information that arise. Organizational categories are often established before collecting the data, appearing as topics that later ease the process of further sorting the data for analysis (Maxwell, 2012).

In this study, organizational categories were determined based on the literature review. This was then used to structure the interviews for both tenant ventures and co-working space managers. Such categories described motivation for joining the co-working space, network structure, venture characteristics, co-working space services and more (see Appendix IV for coding list). Following the interviews, inductive coding took place in order to further compartmentalize the findings of the research and ease the process of data analysis. Different codes were used to distinguish between managers and tenants of the co-working spaces researched.

Following the transcription and coding of each interview conducted, the data was analyzed and searched for recurring patterns and themes. Each case was analyzed independently for patterns, and later coupled with a cross-case search for patterns. The goal of the findings is to discover the components of the co-working space business model that impact entrepreneurs and their ventures’ growth, as well as spot potential gaps between the perspective of the co-working space tenants and management. Furthermore, the cross-case analysis was used to identify potential differences between the two cities, Tel Aviv and Amsterdam.

4.

C

ASE

C

ONTEXT

4.1

E

E

N

When looking into the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the Netherlands, it is apparent that a transformation is underway. Research shows that over the past twenty years, the amount of new businesses and self-employers has increased drastically. Between the years 2002 and 2012, the rate of entrepreneurship1 has doubled to 10 percent of the economy (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012, Cited by Stam, 2014). This phenomenon is referred to as the “Dutch Entrepreneurship Miracle,” as no other innovation-driven economy has seen such a steep growth

rate in regards to entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship, according to Stam (2014), has made it possible for a country as small as the Netherlands to become “one of the most prosperous countries of the world for centuries.” The country’s role in revolutionising entrepreneurship began with the invention of the VOC

(joint stock corporation) in the year 1602 and, soon after, the first modern stock exchange. Throughout the years, entrepreneurship and innovation continued to develop and create national wealth with the founding of large multinationals such as Unilever, Philips and Shell.

The rate of entrepreneurship has continued to grow since the 1980s and accelerated since the internet bubble of the late 1990s. This can also be seen on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), in which the Netherlands rate of entrepreneurship showed growth mainly during the years 2005 to 2012 (see following Figure 1).

1

Total Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rate, which reflects the percentage of the adult population currently involved in starting a new business (nascent entrepreneurship) or that owns a business less than 42 months old, see the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012.

Figure 1: TEA1 rate from 2001 to 2013

Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012, cited by Stam (2014)

The GEM report for 2015 shows that 64.5% of society values entrepreneurs with high status, and 79% believe that entrepreneurship is a good career choice (Kelley et al., 2016).

In the research published by Stam (2014), it is recommended that the Netherlands support the entrepreneurial ecosystem creating ‘third spaces.’ These spaces are meant to bring together

the different actors of the local ecosystem and enhance their interactions by lowering barriers between them. Entrepreneurs are then able to come together, meet and learn from each other (ibid.). Incubators, accelerators and other workspaces, such as co-working spaces, can serve as ‘third spaces’ and support the growth of the local entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Focusing on Amsterdam. After understanding the growth of entrepreneurship within the

Netherlands, it is important to look into the capital city as well. Amsterdam itself is also considered to be an innovative region and was recently awarded the European Capital of

Innovation award (also known as iCapital) of 20162. This was awarded to the city by the European commission, for Amsterdam’s holistic vision of innovation and use of a bottom-up approach. The title of “European Capital of Innovation” relates to four areas: governance,

economics, social inclusion and quality of life.

On a global level, Amsterdam is ranked as number nineteen (out of twenty) on the Global Startup Ecosystem Ranking of 2015, with the fifth highest growth rate of the top twenty cities. The city is also impressive in market reach, with most startups starting as global businesses and with an average of 50% foreign customers. However, one area in which the city is lacking is in startup funding, both seed and growth capital. Overall, the report states, “Amsterdam is an

attractive location for tech startup founders due to its unique lifestyle aesthetic and great startup infrastructure, and while it’s not as big of a startup ecosystem as more prominent European counterparts like London or Berlin, it certainly has the ambitions to become like them.”

(Herrmann et al., 2015).

In addition, Amsterdam is home to over 1,100 startups and 136 investors, with assisting services from incubators, accelerators, corporations, universities and government. According to StartupAmsterdam, a unit of the Amsterdam municipality that invests in the local entrepreneurial ecosystem, there are five requirements for startups to grow: (1) Talent; (2) Customers and users; (3) Content; (4) Capital; (5) and Startup-minded environment. Based on the listed requirements, the StartupAmsterdam unit created measures to work by in order to boost the Amsterdam ecosystem (Who’s Who, 2016). This shows us that the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Amsterdam,

2

Amsterdam is the European Capital of Innovation 2016. (2016). Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=icapital

within the Netherlands, is highly valued and prioritized. For this reason, the city of Amsterdam was chosen to be studied in regards to the role of co-working spaces in entrepreneurship.

4.2

E

E

I

In under seventy years of existence, Israel has a country has developed at an unbelievable rate. Israel recognizes the importance of clusters for the innovation process, environments that support entrepreneurial ventures by increasing the mobility of resources such as talent, funding and information. Israel has developed to be a center for both innovation and entrepreneurship, specifically focusing on ventures in high-tech and investments in the ICT industry. The government supported this through use of public policies, R&D activities and enabling of labor mobility. (Engel & del-Palacio, 2011)

The innovation cluster, known as Israel, contributed to the commercialization of many innovations in telecommunication. For example, voicemail, instant messaging, VoIP telephony and more. Another strong field for Israel’s technology is biotechnology and medical devices,

with approximately 65% of Israel’s patents. Another interesting fact is that as of the year 2008, Israel became the country with the third largest amount of public companies listed on NASDAQ, after the Unite States and Canada alone (ibid.).

The success of a country as small as Israel is said to be a result of the cluster of world-class scientists, entrepreneurial engineers and technicians. Three factors being strong education, compulsory military service and a homogeneous culture. Cited by Engel & del-Palacio (2011), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that about 1,000 companies are created annually.

Today, Israel’s entrepreneurial ecosystem consists of more than 1600 technological

startups, 88 investors, 72 accelerators, 44 co-working spaces, 88 research and development (R&D) centers and 300 supporting services (Startup Map, 2016).

The IVC Research Center analyses Israel’s high-tech, venture capital and private equity

industries. According to their annual report, in the year 2015 Israeli high-tech exits totaled in over $9 billion, which was 16% more than the previous year. The top ten exits all exceeded $200 million and involved global multinationals such as Amazon, Microsoft, Amdocs, Blackberry and more (IVC Research Center Ltd., 2016).

Israel’s society appears to value entrepreneurs with a high status, at a percentage of 86.2%

(higher than the Netherlands). On the other hand, when looking at the portion of society that values entrepreneurship as a goof career choice, the percentage is surprisingly lower at 64.5% (lower than the Netherlands). Nonetheless, the rate of entrepreneurship continues to grow, as shown by the TEA measure of the GEM report. The rate has grown from 10% in 2013 to 11.8% in 2015 (Kelley et al., 2016).

Focusing on Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv, one of Israel’s most central cities, is considered to be

one of the most prominent startup ecosystems on a global scale. In the Global Startup Ecosystem Ranking of 2015, the city of Tel Aviv ranks number five out of twenty. Moreover, it is considered to be the third fastest growing ecosystem among the top ten, placing second in growth within Europe. With approximately 4,000 active technological startups, Tel Aviv is one of the largest startup ecosystems in the world, and was ranked second place in 2012 (first after Silicon Valley). According to the report, the ranking has dropped by three spots is due to the de-emphasis of the density metric of startups per capita.

Nonetheless, the city has a strong global presence and has a strong reputation among investors. The ecosystem is ranked number five in funding, with large amounts of capital for every stage of startup funding. Even more impressive is that 47% of the investment rounds include foreign investors, which is 38% more than European investment rounds on average. When looking at the city’s global market reach, Tel Aviv placed number one, successfully

reaching clients in the United States, Asia and Europe (Hermann, et al., 2015).

With a well-developed entrepreneurial ecosystem, the environment and culture of entrepreneurship in Tel Aviv is surely different than Amsterdam. By looking into both cities, it will be interesting to identify possible cultural gaps in relation to the topic at hand, co-working spaces and entrepreneurship.

4.3

B

O

S

C

-W

S

The following section will provide details on the co-working spaces studied in this case study. Two of the co-working spaces, although working separately and in different countries, belong to one global brand. The remaining two co-working spaces chosen were unique to their city (Amsterdam and Tel Aviv), yet aim to become global entities in the upcoming years.

4.3.1WEWORK

In the year 2010, WeWork opened their first location in the Soho district of New York City, USA. Between the years 2012 to 2016, the company underwent seven funding rounds, amounting to $1.43 billion. In 2016, the company reached over 90 global locations in more than

23 countries, with a valuation of $16 billion3. Also in 2016, the company launched ‘WeLive,’ a flexible-stay apartment building that is also built around the aspect of community (WeLive, 2016). The WeWork slogan is “Do What You Love,” which emphasizes the importance of the environment that the space provides for its members. The company invites designers, developers, marketing heads and entrepreneurs to collaborate in the co-working environment (WeWork, 2016).

WeWork in the Netherlands. There are currently two WeWork co-working spaces

located in the Netherlands, both within the city of Amsterdam. Both were opened within six months of each other in the year 2015. The first to open was WeWork Weteringschans, which was selected for this study. This building supports around 350 members and is located in central Amsterdam. The second location is WeWork Metropool, located East of Amsterdam’s center.

Although it was opened later in the year, WeWork Metropool is about three times larger in size and holds close to 1050 members. This study will examine the case of WeWork Weteringschans. See Table 5 for more information.

WeWork in Israel. The first WeWork location to arrive in Israel was in Tel Aviv during

2014. Since then, three additional locations have opened up, one in Tel Aviv, one in Be’er Sheva

and one in Herzliya. As stated, there are currently two locations with the city of Tel Aviv. The pioneer is WeWork Dubnov, located in the city center with the ability to host over 400 members. The second Tel Aviv location is WeWork Sarona, nearby to the other, which is a bit larger and able to hold 500 members. This study will examine the case of WeWork Dubnov. See Table 5 for more information.

3 _{Financial information extracted from official CrunchBase profile. Retrieved from:}

4.3.2B.AMSTERDAM

B. Amsterdam was founded in 2013 by three co-founders with the slogan “Building Businesses.” The large 28,000 square meter complex aims to be one of the biggest startup

ecosystems in Europe. The company defines itself as a creative working space for innovation, education and growth, bridging together startups, creatives and corporations. Although it is located outside of Amsterdam’s central area, it provides many services in order to be a city

within a city with all the knowledge under one roof. In addition to having a co-working space available for its members, the building contains a gym, cafe, rooftop restaurant, event hall, school for entrepreneurship and cinema.

The building serves approximately 700 members at the moment. In order to increase this number, B. Amsterdam is expanding and adding a new building to the existing complex. Furthermore, the company is planning a global expansion in the upcoming year. The first city for this expansion is New York, USA. See Table 5 for more information.

4.3.3SOSA(SOUTH OF SALAME)

Founded in 2014, the SOSA workspace hold between 100 to 150 people at any given time. This amounts to approximately 20 to 30 startups, which is their target audience. This fits well with their slogan, “An innovator’s community, established for the startup ecosystem.” The

space is located in a previously-industrial building in the Southern area of Tel Aviv and was designed with the mission of prompting interaction, creativity and collaboration among members. The key factor is creating a vibrant environment to meet, work and socialize. (See Table 5 for

The following table details the key characteristics and business models of the chosen co-working spaces:

WeWork Weteringschans

WeWork Dubnov B. Amsterdam SOSA

Location Central, Amsterdam Central, Tel Aviv Non-Central, Amsterdam

Non-Central, Tel Aviv

Year Founded 2015 2014 2013 2014

Number of Members 350 400 700 100 to 150 at any

given time Team Structure

(on-site)

Community Manager, Associate Community Manager & Front Desk Associate

Community Manager, Associate Community Manager & Front Desk Associate

10 full-time

employees including Operations,

Facilities & Events Managers; 15 interns

Small team

(no additional information available) Purpose Building a large,

connected community Create a community within Israel’s startup ecosystem To create a city within a city & large startup hub

Provide value for startups and Israel’s high-tech industry Target Members Community-driven

people in need of a flexible workspace Startups & supporting actors of the entrepreneurial ecosystem 50% startups, 30% corporations, 20% creative and supporting industries

Early stage startups with funding Services Flexible memberships on-demand or full time; Open Flexible memberships on-demand or full time; Open Flexible memberships on-demand or full time; Open

Full time flexible memberships; Open workspace; Private offices;

workspace; Private offices; Dedicated desks; Conference rooms; Free drinks; Online member network; Discount services; Weekly events workspace; Private offices; Dedicated desks; Conference rooms; Free drinks; Online member network; Discount services; Weekly events workspace; Private offices; Dedicated desks; Conference rooms; Free coffee; Gym; Cinema; Parking spots Conference rooms; Free drinks; On-site industry experts (also referred to as members) Main Form of Communication with Members Customised member network & newsletter Customised member network & newsletter

Emails, newsletter & Facebook group (customized member network in

development)

Emails, Whatsapp group & newsletter

Table 5. Characteristics of chosen co-working spaces

Source: Author’s construction, based on the primary research conducted

5.

C

ASE

A

NALYSIS

&

F

INDINGS

As identified in Section 1, co-working spaces present the consolidation of three main components: Professional services, Professional network and Physical Environment. Hence, the interviews conducted observed mainly these components amongst both managers and tenant ventures of the participating co-working spaces. See Table 2 for the categorization of the interview guide.

This section aims to present the findings of the multiple-case study, while identifying the factors that affect the entrepreneurial process of the co-working space tenants. To do so, the data