38 Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 77, Nos.

1/2/3, 2018

University coworking-spaces: mechanisms,

examples, and suggestions for entrepreneurial
universities

Ricarda B. Bouncken
University of Bayreuth,
Prieserstr. 2, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany
Email: bouncken@uni-bayreuth.de

Abstract: Universities can take the recent global trend of coworking-spaces

to establish university coworking-spaces and build integrated concept for
entrepreneurial universities. This conceptual paper discusses how university
coworking-spaces can enrich entrepreneurial universities using the
development of a new venture community, entrepreneurial self-efficacy,
inspiration, autonomy, and knowledge flows, even international ones.
Examples show how universities are pioneering with coworking-spaces. This
paper also suggests how university coworking-spaces can integrate
entrepreneurship education, linkages to firms, and admission structures, and use
synergies through proper governance.

Keywords: entrepreneurial university; coworking-spaces; coworking; new

venture; student entrepreneurship.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bouncken, R.B. (2018)

‘University coworking-spaces: mechanisms, examples, and suggestions for
entrepreneurial universities’, Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 77,
Nos. 1/2/3, pp.38–56.

Biographical notes: Ricarda B. Bouncken has been a Chair Professor of

Strategic Management and Organisation at the University of Bayreuth,
Germany since 2009, Chair Professor at the University of Greifswald in
2004–2009 and Chair of Planning and Innovation Management TU Cottbus
(2002–2004). Her research centres on coopetition, corporate strategies,
organisational design, and the management of innovation, particularly in
alliances and supply chains.

1 Introduction

The concept of entrepreneurial universities assumes that universities foster

entrepreneurship leading to improvement of financial performance and economic
performance in the region and elsewhere (Etzkowitz, 2003; Guerrero et al., 2015; Gibb
and Hannon, 2006). Entrepreneurial universities can use and move beyond the ‘classical’
mechanisms of entrepreneurship education, its entrepreneurship courses, and the
facilitation of new venture teams and their business plans (Pittaway and Cope, 2007).
Bramwell and Wolfe (2008) for example illustrate how the entrepreneurial university of

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 University coworking-spaces 39

Waterloo became a focal entrepreneurship hub in the regional economy. Research has so
far ignored that with university coworking-spaces universities can tap into a new holistic
opportunity for improving entrepreneurship and new venturing.
Embedded in the sharing economy (Richter et al., 2015), coworking-spaces build a
new worldwide trend that provides their users with dedicated office space and
additionally a social space, which provides different services for example a cafeteria.
The first ideas about coworking-spaces developed around 2007 in Silicon Valley,
leading to an increase in the prevalence of coworking-spaces until 2012, increasing
dramatically after 2012 (Jackson, 2013). Academic research neither focused on university
coworking-spaces nor on their potential within entrepreneurial universities. Yet in the
real world, universities conceptualise or have established coworking-spaces attached to
their campuses. The first prominent examples are the Blackstone Launchpad formed a
group of mainly US-based universities (e.g. Cornell University, UCLA, New York
University), the i-Lab in Allson at the Harvard University, the day-office in Ashburn at
the Lakeview University, the start-up Sauna in Helsinki at the Aalto University, and the
coworking-space at the University of Tübingen. Very recently, in 2016, several
universities have and started coworking-spaces. The high importance of coworking in
general, but specifically for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial universities, demands a
better understanding of how university coworking-spaces operate and how universities
can implement coworking-spaces. The potential of coworking-spaces lies in how they
combine spaces for work, their communication of business ideas, access to additional
technology infrastructures, entrepreneurial education courses, coaching, and linkages to
external organisations, particularly to incubators and firms that provide ideas and aim to
insource knowledge and business ideas themselves. Additionally, university coworking-
spaces allow returns from renting out space, from successful entrepreneurship initiatives,
and from improving new venturing in the region. Thus, this paper assumes coworking-
spaces universities will specially improve regional and economic performance and their
own financial performance, the core idea of entrepreneurial universities (Etzkowitz,
2003; Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008; Gibb and Hannon, 2006). This paper aims to integrate
the idea of coworking-spaces into entrepreneurial universities and to develop a concept of
how universities can do so. This paper will explain, analyse, and provide suggestions
about how university coworking-spaces can implement the idea of entrepreneurial
universities that pursue positive effects on the financial situation of the region and the
university (Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008; Etzkowitz, 2003).

2 Conceptualisation of coworking-spaces

Depending on availability, coworking-spaces offer office space to their users/members,

mostly with the character of open offices similar to a campus, and additionally places
(e.g., a café) for social interaction (Gandini, 2015; Moriset, 2014; Pohler, 2012; Spinuzzi,
2012; Bouncken and Reuschl, 2016). Coworking-spaces specifically allow the co-
presence and interaction among their users in the office space and also in the social space
(Bilandzic and Foth, 2013; Spinuzzi, 2012). Coworking-spaces contribute to the trend of
the re-entering of physical presence in work-places by bridging the often virtual digital
work with direct interaction among coworkers in the physical room.
40 R.B. Bouncken

Specialised commercial organisations run coworking-spaces as their core business

model by renting out the space to their members for a fee. Additionally, public
institutions (e.g.,chambers of commerce or libraries), companies (e.g., Google, TUI),
even universities (e.g., Harvard University, Lakeview University, Tübingen University,
Aalto University, Berlin Technical University) operate coworking-spaces besides other
targets, operations, and business models, either only for their members or for externals,
too. Some big IT companies in Silicon Valley, for example Google, use their corporate
coworking-spaces as an open office concept for their employees. Corporate coworking-
spaces can also include externals, e.g., microenterprises, freelancers or students.
Covering the diverse institutions that offer coworking-spaces we introduce the term
‘coworking-space provider’. Coworking-space providers can offer the space for free, but
typically charge a fee for their members, using a membership model including flexible
memberships of hours, days, and weeks, or rent out the space for a flexible hourly or
daily fee (Gandini, 2015; Garrett et al., 2014; Moriset, 2014; Spinuzzi, 2012). We use the
term commercial coworking-space provider for firms that run coworking-spaces as their
(core) business model, aiming for revenues through fees for space and other services
(Bouncken et al., 2016a). For firms that offer coworking-space to their employees and to
externals we use the term corporate coworking-space provider. Corporate coworking
providers might also rent out office space to externals for a fee or service – as
commercial coworking-space providers. Yet often they aim to increase creativity and
innovativeness through the inspirational advantages and through knowledge flows by
embedding external creative and innovative users. Coworking-spaces that are open to
everyone are public coworking-spaces. They might be run by commercial, corporate, or
non-profit coworking-space providers, for example universities.
Garrett et al. (2014) and Spinuzzi (2012) describe differences among coworking-
spaces by centering on the specificities of the design, interior, opening hours, location,
homogenous values and the degree of professionalisation of and in coworking-spaces.
Gandini (2015) focuses on a classification scheme, distinguishing coworking-spaces
according to their participants (knowledge professionals, freelancers, peers, remote
workers, entrepreneurs), the degree of co-presence and collaboration (work in parallel,
social interaction, networking, side-by-side working) among coworkers, the quality and
nature of the infrastructure (desks, Wi-Fi connection, conference rooms, kitchen, office
supplies), and the existence and form of a community (daily routines, sense of
community, social environment).
Coworking-spaces might exist for an unlimited period, as a trial period or as
intermediate business model for a vacant building. Very temporary coworking-spaces
that are open only for a short period of time are called pop-up coworking-spaces. Trial,
ad-hoc, sparse, temporarily, or causal use of coworking-spaces can be called ‘jellies’.
Coworking-space providers, especially for publicity and marketing targets, might offer
short-term or trial coworking memberships. The coworking community calls a trial
membership a ‘jelly’ and the offer of a trial period ‘jelly weeks’. Jelly relates to the idea
of meeting for a bowl of jellies with friends, thus highlighting the community and
collaborative aspect of coworking-spaces (Sundsted et al., 2009). Users of a coworking-
space can regularly use it as a full-time workstation, only sporadically (part-time and
flexibly), or as visitors to events without having access to workstations (Fabbri and
Charue-Duboc, 2014). Coworking-spaces have some analogies to BarCamps in which
entrepreneurs or those with an entrepreneurial intention meet to define and discuss new
 University coworking-spaces 41

business ideas. Coworking-spaces might from time to time offer additional BarCamps
organised as conferences and for the promotion of new business ideas.
Coworkers have autonomy about their targets, their tasks, and the duration of their
memberships. They also have autonomy in forming and developing relationships to
exchange resources with other coworking-users. The sharing of the office and of the
social space is important for resource sharing and community building among the
coworking-users (Capdevila, 2013). Coworking-user’s social interactions can take
diverse forms and may vary in intensity. Interactions can even endure beyond the
coworker’s presence in the specific space. Thus, the coworking-space can bring
inspiration and increase knowledge sharing among coworkers during the physical co-
presence in the coworking-space and afterwards.
Coworking-spaces extend the idea of an adhocracy where the operating core of an
organisation very flexibly takes upon projects and merges available knowledge for
specific tasks (Mintzberg, 1993). Extending this organisational concept, this paper argues
that coworking-spaces are only a home of the diverse organisations which have their own
strategic apex or middle line. The self-employed coworkers, microbusinesses, and new
ventures that typically use coworking-spaces have an operating core, a middle line, and a
strategic apex in one team. They will typically act without hierarchical boundaries,
focusing on the division of tasks among team members. Furthermore, coworking-space
users and venture teams might merge their teams, step out of a team and join another one,
or leave the coworking-space. Thus, the organisation(s) within a coworking-space
(organisation) is/are very fluid and flexible.
This paper builds on the idea that coworking-spaces offer great potential for
entrepreneurship. Schmidt et al. (2013) in an exploration of the Berlin area categorise
grassroots labs, coworking labs, company-owned labs, and research labs and university
affiliated labs. Grassroots labs, organised typically as small associations and with limited
members, follow a non-commercial, collaborative approach. Grassroots labs provide
infrastructure of digital and machine-aided work with computers, 3D-printers or CNC
milling technologies to their selected members (Schmidt et al., 2013). The very
heterogeneous forms of coworking labs are run by a commercial provider that equips a
location (often with a particular focus, e.g., on media, film and design) with its core
technical equipment, and provides further expert supervision, additional services, e.g.,
themed workshops, consulting, training and further education. Company-owned labs
(corporate coworking-spaces to the prevalent definition) aim to transcend routine patterns
of thinking to avoid cognitive and technological lock-ins of their internal structures.
Company-owned labs establish a space outside the core company where internal staff and
external specialists can work together. These labs additionally allow companies to
flexibly integrate interdisciplinary and novel creative processes and/or to follow open
innovation approaches. The labs provide a content base for the development of business
models (Clauss, in press; Clauss et al., 2014). Coworking-spaces, particularly the
corporate ones will allow for a high degree of flexibility in promoting the integration of
fresh ideas and talents (e.g. scientists and scholars, freelancers and start-ups) into new
business models (Bouncken and Fredrich, 2016a, 2016b). Schmidt et al. (2013) assumes
that research and university affiliated coworking labs aim at quickly transferring results
from research into marketable solutions. Research and university affiliated labs purposely
integrate industrial partners.
42 R.B. Bouncken

3 How university coworking-spaces foster entrepreneurship

3.1 Entrepreneurship environment

Gohmann (2012) assumes that institutional frameworks build the basis for individuals’
entrepreneurial decisions and drivers of self-employment. Coworking-spaces, specifically
university coworking-spaces might contribute a brick to those institutional frameworks.
The social environment, the potential contacts with other entrepreneurs, the training,
coaching, workshops, and contacts with business angels and business partners in
university coworking-spaces can improve self-employment and ease the transition to
microbusinesses and further venture growth, specifically for university entrepreneurs
(Hayter, 2016). Entrepreneurs can enter the university coworking-space with a business
idea, and then by using contacts and services in the coworking-space, can further develop
their business model. University coworking-spaces can purposefully assist and advance
entrepreneurship programs, improving venture team formation and idea and knowledge
exchange, providing business development coaching, training, and linkages to external
institutions, specifically to technology incubators and firms which enrich the business
idea (Bouncken et al., 2016b).
University coworking-spaces can use what has been learned from past studies on
success factors for university entrepreneurship (Hmieleski et al., 2015). Scuotto and
Morellato (2013) stress the importance of improving entrepreneurial knowledge to build
student entrepreneurial intentions. Informal networks and digital competence increase the
entrepreneurial intent (Scuotto and Morellato, 2013). Pittaway and Cope (2007) highlight
entrepreneurship education which supports the formation of interdisciplinary teams,
mostly including students from different faculties, offers continuous coaching of new
venture projects, and provides contacts with firms. University coworking-spaces can
make entrepreneurship education happen while using knowledge and resource exchanges
in the coworking-space and with externals (Pittaway and Cope, 2007). University
coworking-spaces and the services offered within provide a helpful base for initiating and
progressing entrepreneurial activities (Philpott et al., 2011). Specifically, coworking-
spaces allow action-based entrepreneurship education because students are directly and
actively involved in idea development and progress, thus reducing their anxieties
(Rasmussen and Sørheim, 2006). Furthermore, entrepreneurial universities can build up
collaborative structures with incubators and accelerators which provide additional
infrastructure, coaching, and financial resources for selected new ventures (Peters et al.,
2004; Rice, 2002). Typically, the new venture teams set up in the entrepreneurship
courses follow an entrepreneurial idea which they have either identified themselves,
retrieved through contacts with others, or which they have selected from a range of ideas
provided by the university program and the network of firms and other stakeholders. The
university coworking- space will facilitate the selection, merging, and development of
these ideas. Coworkers with strong entrepreneurial intentions and spirit may socially
infect other coworkers in the university coworking-space, and specifically may spark
students’ latent entrepreneurial intent.

3.2 Entrepreneurial self-efficacy

The better conditions and atmosphere through the infrastructure, social exchange,
teaming with other coworkers, coaching and training, and the contacts with externals of
 University coworking-spaces 43

the coworking-space might improve the students’ and coworkers’ self-efficacy

(Kickul et al., 2009; Bouncken and Reuschl, 2016). Self-efficacy describes individuals’
evaluation of their ability to achieve targets, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy
characterises the perceived individual ability to succeed with entrepreneurial ventures
(McGee et al., 2009). Previous studies show that greater self-efficacy, specifically
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, improves the pursuit of entrepreneurial goals (Arora et al.,
2013; Baron et al., 2016) and start-up success (Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006). In the long
run, entrepreneurial self-efficacy has positive effects on the venturing success (Utsch and
Rauch, 2000) and the repetition of entrepreneurial behavior (Hsu et al., 2015).
Considering the high psychological and financial risks of new venturing (Holt, 1992,
1997) especially for students who have little previous work experience, any structures
that improve entrepreneurial self-efficacy and capabilities are very valuable for venture
success. In sum, the infrastructure and the physical environment, the home for the teams,
the interaction among individuals, team formation, and contact with externals in
university coworking-spaces will improve capabilities and provide synergies especially
for university entrepreneurship, finally increasing entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
success.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy might further take on the merits of cross-functional
teams of students from different faculties within the coworking-space. Cross-functional
and heterogeneous entrepreneurial teams increases the chance that a technology idea will
be paired with economic and management knowledge. Furthermore, heterogeneity is
understood as a driver of creativity which also improves the venture success (Bouncken,
2004). Therefore, the diversity, communication, cross-functionality and the availability of
coaching and training in coworking-spaces will have additional positive effects on self-
efficacy and thus on venture success (Zhao et al., 2008).

3.3 Community and culture

Moriset (2014) highlights the community-climate as a typical element of
coworking-spaces. 54% of the coworkers are freelancers, 20% are entrepreneurs (with
own employees), 20% operate as dependent contractors, and most belong to creative and
new media industries (Förtsch, 2011). The often creative or IT background associated
with the users’ desire for autonomy can develop a specific coworking-space culture
related to such personal backgrounds. The relatively homogenous professional
backgrounds, norms, values, and/or behaviors of coworkers might trigger socialisation
processes and foster development of the community of the coworking-space (Bouncken
and Reuschl, 2016).
University coworking-spaces located in the environment of a university will be
influenced by the university and its targets, strategy, organisational culture. These
university characteristics will also influence the culture and its coworking-space. Still,
coworkers come from different faculties and will have diverse technological and
professional orientations that might not completely correspond to the culture of the
coworking-space. The students’ academic and their faculty background might bring
heterogeneous sets of beliefs, norms, attitudes, and knowledge. Additionally, non-student
coworkers who also work in the university coworking-space will bring additional
diversity of other beliefs, norms, attitudes, and knowledge. Thus, as individuals who join
an organisational setting, individuals entering a coworking-space will have heterogeneous
and idiosyncratic beliefs, norms, attitudes, and knowledge that are all still influenced by
44 R.B. Bouncken

being located at the same university. While the coworkers interact with each other they
communicate and compare their belief sets with the others, stimulating a bi-directional
process. Especially when aiming towards entrepreneurship and new venture
development, individuals in coworking-spaces will compare the performance of their
belief sets with those of others. Even though many of the individuals’ beliefs, norms,
attitudes, and knowledge remain tacit and the venture process is highly uncertain,
individuals experiencing that others’ sets perform better may adapt parts of their own sets
to those of the others and even develop a shared understanding of each other, fostering
more homogeneous sets in the coworking-space (Klimoski and Mohammed, 1994;
Mohammed et al., 2000). Still, due to the tacitness and complexity of the sets, individuals
might not know why, how and which aspect exactly is better performing than the others.
They might use simplistic, explicit, or obvious criteria to systemise who and why one has
better performing beliefs. Nonetheless, individuals in coworking-spaces might have
several interactions in the work and social space but they typically cannot interact with
everyone. Coworkers will wander around and try to identify those who might be more
interesting, more sympathetic, have similar targets, complementary knowledge and might
according to their evaluations be better performing than others or themselves. Often,
because of the greater similarity, students will have a tendency to communicate with
those they already know or who come from the same faculty. Yet, through continuous
interaction in the coworking-space and the quest to insource others’ expertise (student)
coworkers will contact and also collaborate with coworkers showing greater diversity.
Communicating and teaming (student) coworkers from different faculties might develop
patterns or decision rules about the selection of interaction partners. Additionally,
coworkers will initiate and experience socialisation processes. The development of more
homogeneous sets of beliefs and behavior might influence the interaction schemes, the
socialisation processes in coworking-spaces, and ease the interaction within the venture
team (Rentsch and Klimoski, 2001). Although students and coworkers come and leave
university, coworking-spaces will develop joint decision rules, socialisation schemes, and
an organisational culture and community. These will influence the interaction, the
learning patterns and the formation and development of teams.

3.4 Inspirational drive

Coworkers typically show atypical career pathways coming from creative (architects,
designer, journalists) and digital professions (software developers, digital consultants,
social media agents) (Gandini, 2015). The typical coworker further aims for
independency, collaboration, and community (Lange, 2011), often exerting a volatile
‘start-up-lifestyle’ (Clark, 2007). Although individuals use coworking-spaces for
operating their business, many of them aim to benefit from the structure of the
coworking-space, and entrepreneurially develop their business. Typically, entrepreneurs
enter coworking-spaces with an initial business idea, searching for contacts with other
coworkers, using coworking-spaces’ qualification and workshop programs, and for
external linkages provided by the coworking-space.
University coworking-spaces at the core allow similar mechanisms as ‘normal’ public
coworking-spaces. Yet, students will aim for typical career paths, having selected a
specific university, a specific program, and specific internships. Additionally, they come
 University coworking-spaces 45

from diverse faculties, being less homogenous compared to the typical coworker. Thus
the typical body of coworkers in university coworking-spaces differs from public ones.
Moreover, university coworking-spaces may to some degree force students to enter the
coworking-space by integrating the coworking-space into structured lectures, courses,
and conferences particularly of their entrepreneurship program. The mandatory elements
may damage the freedom and autonomy, finally spoiling the inspiration in the
coworking-space. Nonetheless, universities establish coworking-spaces particularly for
improving the entrepreneurial intentions of students, increasing their risk taking, access
to new venture ideas, and preferences for independent work. Universities are carefully
protecting the inspirational force of the coworking-space.
Thus, university coworking-spaces should aim to push and pull students into the
coworking-space. While doing so they need to protect and foster the entrepreneurial
inspiration in the coworking-space. University coworking-spaces can increase inspiration
by the interior design of the coworking-space, non-mandatory or flexible structures of
project and team membership (e.g., cowork-jellies), and by encouraging the openness to
ideas from the outside, for example by establishing an internal bazar of venture ideas and
innovation problems.

3.5 Urbanisation and digitalisation as backgrounds

Coworking is developing along the actual trend of urbanisation and digitalisation. Young
people in particular aim to live and work in lively cities while performing creative
digitalised jobs. Coworking-spaces allow individuals to rent and share the rarely available
or hardly affordable office space and desks in the city centers or upcoming city areas.
University coworking-spaces do not directly address the need and desire to work in
fancy locations. However, the location of the university is one factor affecting students’
choice of university. When located in big and fancy cities, university coworking becomes
more attractive for students because they may only be able to afford very small student
housing or apartments which do not permit team work and new venture projects. The
availability of a coworking-space might also attract ambitious students. Yet even
university coworking-spaces in small cities might take on the urbanisation trend.
Coworking-spaces with modern interiors might evoke a feeling of living an urbanised life
in students – even when located in a smaller city.
The era of digital work provoked the idea of coworking-spaces. One driver of using
coworking spaces is the individuals’ isolation in home-offices or single offices and
‘garages’. Coworking-spaces combine digital-virtual work with social interaction that
reduces the problems of isolation and loneliness (Hill et al., 2003). Nevertheless, isolation
is not a typical problem of students, who experience almost the opposite. Students face
many possibilities for personal interaction with other students in lectures, teamwork, and
projects. Still, coworking-spaces relate to the global trend and lifestyle of a ‘sharing
economy’ driven by the digitalised world (Belk, 2014). Normally the sharing refers to
internet-based models of flexible property sharing, such as car sharing, accommodation
sharing, media sharing, and also sharing clothing. Thus it is the logical consequence to
share office space. The sharing economy and coworking relate to individuals’ search for
flexibility, taking on as few obligations as possible. The flexibility and sharing lifestyle
might appeal to students who gain stronger motivation by sharing a modern location and
form of work. Thus, coworking-spaces attract students aiming for a modern life.
46 R.B. Bouncken

3.6 Nomads and internationalisation

Coworking might take the form of ‘nomad coworking’ where coworkers travel around the
world operating in different coworking-spaces. Coworkers may also use shared living,
e.g. by Airbnb or couch-surfing or in coworking-spaces which offer co-living apartments.
The different environments provide additional inspiration from the geographical place,
people, and business environment. Initial motives might be the travel experience, the
inspiration, technology opportunities, business contacts, and work arrangements and
offers, for example moving closer to a customer. Coworkers move because of work
arrangements or jobs. This has some analogies to expatriates that change their location
but because of their employer’s wishes. Unlike expatriates, coworking-nomads are self-
employed persons or entrepreneurs who follow their own interests or specific offers when
changing their location (and thus the coworking-space).
University coworking-spaces might open themselves and their student housing to
nomad coworkers or international students to allow an additional flow of knowledge into
their (home) students and their coworking community. Universities might also open their
coworking-space to national and international professionals who as coworking-nomads
might transfer ideas and knowledge for entrepreneurship. Including nomad coworkers
will provide strong additional diversity in terms of professional backgrounds and
lifestyle, and thus stimulate knowledge flows, inspiration, innovation, and business
opportunities. Nomad coworkers’ access might be restricted and regulated through
admission rules, run by a process and a commission. Coworking-spaces might also
restrict the access of foreign students to such an application system. The system might
regulate the access not only to the physical space but also to specific entrepreneurship
programs, or to specific venture projects that need to insource external knowledge.
Universities might, with their partner universities or partner coworking-spaces, establish
internet platforms that announce vacant office-desks, application procedures, courses,
housing, or specifically advertise expertise needed for certain venture projects. These
venture projects might include the university students, post graduates, and post-docs
alongside members of technology institutions or firms. Thus, university coworking can
connect with the internationalisation of the student/coworker base which might trigger
the exchange of new ideas among different universities or places in the world.
Universities already have the necessary infrastructure at their disposal, consisting of
rooms, libraries, canteens, student housing, technological equipment, and international
offices. Their task is to integrate the stand-alone facilities into one university coworking-
space.

3.7 Autonomy
In pure public coworking-spaces, users may autonomously choose when and with whom
they want to work and communicate. Coworking-spaces allow self-regulated working
hours, thus granting coworkers high levels of autonomy regarding the access to office
infrastructure and a social hub to meet and work when they want. This is especially
important for making coworking activities compatible with the normal university
program and other important deadlines for studies and research.
University coworking-spaces might define restricted access, e.g., around specific
hours or restricted space, particularly if some space is already reserved for specific
(mandatory) entrepreneurship courses and venture targets. University coworking-spaces
 University coworking-spaces 47

might not offer complete autonomy because teams or a part of a team might already have
been formed previously due to a course structure or a project they have been assigned.
Furthermore, students generally have higher degrees of autonomy compared to
employees. Thus autonomy has a smaller influence in university coworking-spaces
compared to commercial or corporate coworking-spaces. Still, the autonomy in pursuing
one’s own venture ideas in a good social space with the necessary infrastructure will
improve the new venture formation and progress.
Table 1 Forms of university coworking-spaces

Integrated and
Educational Technical Integrated
Type networked
coworking-spaces coworking-spaces coworking-spaces
coworking-spaces
Examples University of Friedrich-Alexander Technical Blackstone
Tübingen, Goethe University University of Launchpad
University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Munich, Technical
Frankfurt, European University of University of
Viadrina University Bayreuth Berlin, Aalto
University
Helsinki,
University of
Bayreuth
Characteristics Coworking-space Implementation of Coworking-space Open
integrated into an open fabrication in existing or newly entrepreneurship
existing university laboratory (FabLab). built facilities. program and
facilities (e.g., Focus on enabling Integration of software offered by
libraries). Focus on individuals to realise laboratories, a private company.
direct coworking technical ideas and working spaces, Participating
between students prototypes. coaching and universities provide
and entrepreneurial mentoring, and physical coworking-
education structured space
entrepreneurship
programs
Equipment Working space: Technical working Working spaces Website for online-
desks, offices, space: desks and a (desks, offices, community building,
meeting room variety of machines meeting-rooms), physical equipment
(e.g., 3D-Printer, and technical provided in different
CNC milling equipment (e.g., configurations by
technologies). 3D-Printer, CNC participating
milling universities
technologies)
Entrepreneurship Business and Coaching, courses, Technical and Technical and
research related and training for business-related business related
coaching, mentoring, technical equipment. coaching, coaching,
and structured mentoring, and mentoring, and
entrepreneurship structured structured
programs entrepreneurship entrepreneurship
programs, programs.
relationships to Additional
national and mentoring and
regional companies community building
through a
comprehensive
website
 48

Table 2
R.B. Bouncken

Core spaces of a university coworking-space Core governance issues

Office space Social space Educational space Technical space Co-living space Admission and fee Management Core linkages
Desks for single Cafeteria/bar/kitchen User: entrepreneurship Type: selection of Student housing Admission: free University heads and Companies
persons and courses/training in available spaces, e.g., admission/admission formal management
teams general or to specific machine facilities, according to a proposal team
different faculties and 3D printers,
student groups experimentation
room
Office (rooms) Lobby, meeting Content and form: Location: technical Guest house Fees: no fees, fees for Committees of Technological
of different sizes places, and waiting Covering large group space co-located or all services, fees for representatives from incubators
for individual areas lectures, coaching, off-coworking-space specific facilities, fees faculties and service
and team work training, improving in the university specified for different centers, students,
networks users partnering firms, and
partner universities
Open creativity Sports and leisure Provider: top-down Sharing: agreements Brokerage of Contingency: admission Formalized Other
rooms and area vs. bottom-up and on access to partner’s joint living or and fees according to management and universities
facilities offered by technical space (and free rooms in the proposal and the operational structures
externals/internals vice versa) student’s type of user/facility and processes
apartments
Spaces and core management issues of university coworking-spaces
 University coworking-spaces 49

4 Suggestions for the implementation of university coworking-spaces

The core of the university coworking-space seems to be the physical coworking-space

with its offices and social space, typically located on the campus. Table 1 shows a
classification containing examples of different forms of existing university coworking-
spaces.
Universities might establish coworking-spaces in a separate building or add the space
to their libraries, their faculty buildings, or to a technology incubator or research
organisation. The building also might host laboratories, machine trial halls, and sports
areas. Yet universities often face serious budget constraints and might require external
funding for financing or renting the building and offering their services. University
coworking-spaces might deliver refunds and revenues that finance the coworking-space.
A viable business model for university coworking-spaces demands the careful
development of courses, services, and linkages to other organisations, considering
synergies on the different fields. The following paragraphs give ideas for the exploration
and utilisation of synergies within the university and with external partners.

• Space. One field of synergies relies on the combination of the coworking-space with
the existing infrastructure or new infrastructure to be built. Facility management, the
library, books, IT, rooms, meeting places, labs etc. may be physically and virtually
connected. One alternative is the linkage to the library. University libraries have
already established models of access and control. These might be similarly used for
the coworking-space. Especially students who only live a small student housing
appartment already work in libraries. Still, the work in coworking-spaces differs
from libraries and requires some adaptations. Libraries typically have many silent
areas, but social interaction, experimentation, and team work of coworking requires
additional non-silent areas and more opportunities for team work. Especially as
research has already demonstrated the importance of social interaction in
entrepreneurial activities (Lechler, 2001). University libraries when connected with
coworking-spaces require an up-to-date, flexible and inspiring interior. University
libraries sometimes have a modern architecture, but very often they still carry the
spirit of a communal or state library which might not stimulate enough creativity and
entrepreneurship. Thus, traditional university libraries will need changes when
associated with or extended to a coworking-space. Small adaptations might not
provide enough change to move the focus of libraries from silent studying towards a
loud and active entrepreneurial atmosphere.
Coworking-spaces can be implemented in a separate building or adjoined to an
incubator building offering IT-workshops, labs or machine facilities, 3D printers, or
meeting places. Coworking-spaces might have an office space and social space in
one area/building and run the more technical spaces in other areas. Coworkers then
might be able to book the technical facilities space. The entrepreneurial teams might
then work in the office space, get access to others, and for specific slots get access to
the lab, machine rooms, conference areas and other facilities. This requires a booking
system connected to the often difficult facility and room management of universities.
50 R.B. Bouncken

The university coworking-space also might offer space for conferences and events.
Similar to BarCamps, university coworking-spaces might offer events where
coworkers and other selected start-ups explain their business ideas to externals
(investors, company, industry and technology experts). Conference space for
academic conferences and events can be used in and for coworking-spaces.
• Course structure. Another field of synergies comes from connecting
entrepreneurship, innovation, management courses, and trainings to coworking-
spaces. Guerrero and Urbano (2010) assume that an entrepreneurial university needs
structures that allow a connection between teaching, research and administration
functions. Universities need to coordinate their program across faculties. In the
university coworking-space they can offer entrepreneurship programs open to all
students of the university. Conceptualised as entrepreneurship ‘studium generale’
students from all faculties might come with entrepreneurial intentions, new business
ideas, or technology ideas and earn credit points while attending the classes and
progressing their business development.
Universities might organise top-down the key classes and courses in the coworking-
space and provide free space for the group work within the courses. Courses might
also be organised bottom-up. Students, faculty members and other stakeholders of
the university coworking-space might organise courses according to their ideas and
availability in the coworking-space. Public coworking-spaces already show that
additional coaching, training, and courses are successful. The Google Campus in
London is an example of a non-university coworking-space with an educational
target. The Google Campus in London offers about 500 workshops mostly focused
on IT qualification, some for free, some for a fee. Coworkers organise most of the
courses themselves. Similarly, university coworking-spaces might open some
courses for externals and provide vacancies for courses organised by students. Firms
might even initiate ideas about courses about company cases and consulting demands
of companies. Thus, companies get help with their problems while offering practice
insights and quasi-internships to the students.
• Admission. Universities might develop admission schemes allowing access to the
coworking-space and its services. Students and externals might be forced to develop
proposals about their business ideas, probably including the team structure and
linkages to externals. Coworking-spaces would then need to be formalised structures
and committees that select proposals. Universities also might develop parallel
structures. For example
1 granting free access without a proposal for basic services, such as the stages
before a business idea is developed
2 access to extended services for those with admission because of accepted
roposals.
• External linkages. University coworking-spaces take advantage of connections to
companies. Externals (e.g., firms, incubators) might rent offices, conference space,
labs or run workshops and projects in the university coworking-space. Several public
coworking-spaces organise events with incumbent firms or rent out their offices to
companies. For example, Betahaus Berlin offers the ‘Start-up-Etage’ or the Start-up
Sauna Helsinki offers ‘Start-up-Speed-Dating’. Bayreuth University follows the idea
 University coworking-spaces 51

that regional firms rent spaces and starts projects in its coworking-space. At the core,
incumbent firms use coworking-spaces to increase employees’ inspiration,
autonomy, creativity, and knowledge flows, which should benefit the firm’s
innovative capacity. University coworking-spaces might also actively open their
space to firms, research institutions, and technology incubators. Technology
incubators include new ventures in which entrepreneurs and investors test and
develop new business models and ideas while being collocated to other entrepreneurs
and start-ups. Incubators help to furnish selected new ventures with seed capital,
expertise, network access and infrastructure and thus provide opportunities for
collaboration, and connections to university coworking-spaces. Business accelerators
might be connected with university coworking-spaces. Accelerators offer training
courses of several months for selected start-ups, providing contact to seed capital,
mentoring and coaching. Accelerators typically demand fees in the form of company
shares. Universities might get payment for the access to the university
coworking-space and its educational services from organisations that take the
company shares.
The many opportunities of building linkages, renting out space, and providing
services, require university coworking-spaces to establish a management team that
initiates and draws up contacts, bargains fees, and develops joint project and venture
structures with externals. Externals entering (long-term) partnerships might rent
office space, offer internships to students, and host company contact fairs to students
in the coworking-space. University coworking-spaces might develop sponsorships or
fellowships with their partners. Consequently, university coworking-spaces can gain
advantages from merging the coworking administration with their office for
company affairs and internships. University coworking-spaces might offer different
forms and levels of services to companies, or insource business ideas from firms.
Furthermore, they might promote students’ participation in open innovation
programs of the companies which provide students with experience and potential job
offers from firms. Moreover, especially smaller universities within the same region
might establish close linkages between the coworking-spaces and thus achieve
synergies by offering access to each other’s labs or even open new venture teams for
students of partnering universities to gain specific expertise.
• Governance. Considering the high potential for entrepreneurship and the many
opportunities university coworking-spaces offer (e.g., providing renting space to
firms, selling courses to externals, or developing partnerships with firms, incubators,
and other universities) universities will need to develop a viable business model for
their coworking-space and governance structure. Guerrero and Urbano (2010) stress
the need for an entrepreneurial university to improve connections between teaching,
research and administrative functions. To organise the many opportunities,
universities might take advantage of a management team of faculty members,
students, and possible stakeholders from adjoined incubators or companies. The
coordinated approach might contribute to creation of a fertile environment for
entrepreneurship which can induce economic growth and regional development – the
core targets of an entrepreneurial university (Guerrero and Urbano, 2010).
Dependent on the design of the coworking-space, diverse forms of committees, and
boards with permanent and temporary members are possible. This entrepreneurial
university approach requires dedicated managers and administrative roles in part-
52 R.B. Bouncken

and full-time positions. University needs to establish internet platforms and social
media. The university needs booking systems for desks, rooms, team work facilities,
labs, 3D printer, tools and machines, conference rooms and coherentmandatory
course programs. The system should also include ideas and concepts from students
and companies – similar to a market place. Probably the access to those markets
needs to be restricted. When associated with university housing – co-living – offers,
universities need to adapt their booking systems. The availability and booking of
desks, rooms, specific infrastructure, courses, workshops, and probably even of
housing for students from the university, from partner universities, and from
externals thus require a complex internet platform.

5 Conclusions

Research is acknowledging the potential of the new trend of coworking-spaces embedded

in the digitalised sharing economy. Coworking provides specific opportunities for
entrepreneurship and new venturing, particularly when integrated in universities. Recent
examples show the dramatic rise of university coworking-spaces. In 2016, a large number
of universities are already experimenting with new and different service and
infrastructure configurations in their coworking-spaces. This paper aimed to
conceptualise university coworking, its mechanisms, examples and suggestions for
implementation. This paper is the first piece of research that conceptually explains how
entrepreneurial universities can establish coworking-spaces offering office infrastructure
and even lab facilities to their students and externals while promoting the interaction
among coworking-users and while also cultivating the interaction among coworking-
users and externals from technology incubators and firms, which might try to insource
entrepreneurial ideas, spirit, and new technology following a model close to open
innovation.
This paper’s discussion of the different advantages of coworking-spaces provides a
more detailed understanding about how university coworking can advance
entrepreneurship and new venturing. Coworking allows the improvement of
entrepreneurial structures and self-efficacy, community building, inspiration, and living a
digitalised and urbanised lifestyle. But the development of university coworking requires
new structures for using the available infrastructure and for developing synergies. This
paper suggests ideas for implementation of coworking-spaces in universities, focusing on
the integration in the university campus, the course structure, the contacts with externals,
and coworking-space governance. In the case of universities, coworking-spaces need to
include components besides the office and social space. Table 2 gives an overview of
how coworking-spaces can extend coworking by providing a technical space, an
educational space, and a co-living space and important governance structures.
In sum, this paper shows that university coworking-spaces improve the development
of an entrepreneurial university that targets regional and economic performance and
university financial performance (Etzkowitz et al., 2008). University coworking-spaces
allow the combination of entrepreneurship education in dedicated facilities fostering
knowledge and resource exchanges in the space and with externals. Thus, university
coworking-spaces connect entrepreneurship education with practice (Pittaway and Cope,
2007). The different spaces of university coworking-spaces and the services offered
 University coworking-spaces 53

within combine hard and soft factors that are assumed to be helpful for entrepreneurial
activities (Philpott et al., 2011). Coworking-spaces allow action-based entrepreneurship
education in which students are actively involved in the idea development and progress
leading to new ventures of students or involving students in entrepreneurship (Rasmussen
and Sørheim, 2006). Thus, university coworking-spaces allow a much stronger focus on
new venture formation and implementation than other forms of traditional teaching or
case-based teaching (Rasmussen and Sørheim, 2006). The specific location and having a
specific management team allow reduction of the bias in university thinking towards
production of entrepreneurial activities besides research and teaching (Philpott et al.,
2011). University coworking-spaces allow the formation of new venture teams from
different faculties, contacts among the new venture teams, and linkages to external firms
and incubators. They allow existing internal barriers to be overcome that otherwise would
reduce the natural emergence of entrepreneurial actions (Philpott et al., 2011). University
coworking-spaces with their different physical spaces that simultaneously separate and
integrate academic and business activities allow reduction of conflicting interests
concerning the processes and commercialisation of research (Etzkowitz, 2003).
This paper contributes to the concept of entrepreneurial universities, where
coworking-spaces provide a combination of hard and soft factors for entrepreneurial
activities (Philpott et al., 2011). The concept of university coworking contributes a
solution to the problem of conflicting interests concerning the processes and
commercialisation of research in universities (Etzkowitz, 2003). University coworking-
spaces allow simultaneous separation and integration of academic and business activities.
This paper further contributes to research on entrepreneurial universities by making
suggestions on how university coworking-spaces can integrate coworking in their
entrepreneurship program and how they can offer additional services in the
coworking-space, for example training, coaching, the facilitation of team formation,
provision of external contacts specifically to technology incubators, and the fostering of
collaboration among students from different faculties.
Subsequent academic research in this field needs to be carried out about how the
different courses and spaces, and under which conditions, contribute over time to new
venture generation and success.

References
Arora, P., Haynie, J.M. and Laurence, G.A. (2013) ‘Counterfactual thinking and entrepreneurial
self-efficacy: the moderating role of self-esteem and dispositional affect’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.359–385.
Baron, R.A., Mueller, B.A. and Wolfe, M.T. (2016) ‘Self-efficacy and entrepreneurs’ adoption of
unattainable goals: the restraining effects of self-control’, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.55–71.
Belk, R. (2014) ‘You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online’,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67, No. 8, pp.1595–1600.
Bilandzic, M. and Foth, M. (2013) ‘Libraries as coworking spaces: Understanding user motivations
and perceived barriers to social learning’, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.254–273.
Bouncken, R.B. (2004) ‘Cultural diversity in entrepreneurial teams: findings of new ventures in
Germany’, Creativity and Innovation Management (CIM), Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.240–253.
Bouncken, R.B. and Fredrich, V. (2016a) ‘Business model innovation in alliances: Successful
configurations’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 9, pp.3584–3590.
54 R.B. Bouncken

Bouncken, R.B. and Fredrich, V. (2016b) ‘Good fences make good neighbors? Directions and
safeguards in alliances on business model innovation’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69,
No. 11, pp.5196–5202.
Bouncken, R.B., Clauss, T. and Reuschl, A.J. (2016a) ‘Coworking-spaces in Asia: a business
model design perspective’, Paper presented at the SMS Special Conference Hong Kong 2016,
Hong Kong.
Bouncken, R.B., Lehmann, C. and Fellnhofer, K. (2016b) ‘The role of entrepreneurial orientation
and modularity for business model innovation in service companies’, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Venturing, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.237–260.
Bouncken, R.B. and Reuschl, A.J. (2016) ‘Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing
economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship’, Review of
Managerial Science, pp.1–18.
Bramwell, A. and Wolfe, D.A. (2008) ‘Universities and regional economic development: the
entrepreneurial University of Waterloo’, Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp.1175–1187.
Capdevila, I. (2013) ‘Typologies of localized spaces of collaborative innovation’, Available at
SSRN 2414402, pp.1–28.
Clark, J. (2007) Coworkers of the World, Unite! [online] http://prospect.org/article/coworkers-
world-unite (accessed 15 March 2016).
Clauss, T. (in press) ‘Measuring business model innovation: conceptualization, scale development
and proof of performance’, R&D Management, pp.1–19.
Clauss, T., Laudien, S.M. and Daxböck, B. (2014) ‘Service-dominant logic and the business model
concept: toward a conceptual integration’, International Journal of Enrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.266–288.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003) ‘Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial
university’, Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.109–121.
Etzkowitz, H., Ranga, M., Benner, M., Guaranys, L., Maculan, A.M. and Kneller, R. (2008)
‘Pathways to the entrepreneurial university: Towards a global convergence’, Science and
Public Policy, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp.681–695.
Fabbri, J. and Charue-Duboc, F. (2014) ‘Exploring the everyday life of entrepreneurs in a
coworking space’, in XXIIIème conférence annuelle de l’AIMS, pp.1–37, Centre de Recherche
en Gestion (CRG) de l’Ecole Polytechnique, Rennes, France.
Förtsch, C. (2011) The Coworker’s Profile [online] http://www.deskmag.com/en/the-coworkers-
global-coworking-survey-168 (accessed 09 March 2016).
Gandini, A. (2015) ‘The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review’, Ephemera: Theory &
Politics in Organization, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.193–205.
Garrett, L.E., Spreitzer, G.M. and Bacevice, P. (2014) ‘Co-constructing a sense of community at
work: the emergence of community in coworking spaces’, Academy of Management
Proceedings, No. 1.
Gibb, A. and Hannon, P. (2006) ‘Towards the entrepreneurial university’, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.73–110.
Gohmann, S.F. (2012) ‘Institutions, latent entrepreneurship, and self-employment: an international
comparison’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.295–321.
Guerrero, M. and Urbano, D. (2010) ‘The development of an entrepreneurial university’, The
Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.43–74.
Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J.A. and Urbano, D. (2015) ‘Economic impact of entrepreneurial
universities’ activities: an exploratory study of the United Kingdom’, Research Policy,
Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.748–764.
Hayter, C.S. (2016) ‘Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social
networks among academic entrepreneurs’, Research Policy, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.475–490.
 University coworking-spaces 55

Hill, E.J., Ferris, M. and Märtinson, V. (2003) ‘Does it matter where you work? A comparison of
how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of
work and personal/family life’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp.220–241.
Hmieleski, K.M., Carr, J.C. and Baron, R.A. (2015) ‘Integrating discovery and creation
perspectives of entrepreneurial action: the relative roles of founding CEO Human Capital,
social capital, and psychological capital in contexts of risk versus uncertainty’, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.289–312.
Holt, D.H. (1992) Entrepreneurship: New Venture Creation, 1st ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Holt, D.H. (1997) ‘A comparative study of values among Chinese and US entrepreneurs: pragmatic
convergence between contrasting cultures’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, No. 6,
pp.483–505.
Hsu, D.K., Wiklund, J. and Cotton, R.D. (2015) ‘Success, failure, and entrepreneurial reentry:
an experimental assessment of the veracity of self-efficacy and prospect theory’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 1 pp.1–29.
Jackson, K. (2013) Making Space for Others [online] http://www.makingspaceforothers.com/
(accessed 29 April 2016).
Kickul, J., Gundry, L.K., Barbosa, S.D. and Whitcanack, L. (2009) ‘Intuition versus analysis?
Testing differential models of cognitive style on entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and the new
venture creation process’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.439–453.
Klimoski, R. and Mohammed, S. (1994) ‘Team mental model: construct or metaphor?’, Journal of
Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.403–437.
Kolvereid, L. and Isaksen, E. (2006) ‘New business start-up and subsequent entry into
self-employment’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp.866–885.
Lange, B. (2011) ‘Re-scaling governance in Berlin’s creative economy’, Culture Unbound: Journal
of Current Cultural Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.187–208.
Lechler, T. (2001) ‘Social interaction: a determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success’,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.263–278.
McGee, J.E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S.L. and Sequeira, J.M. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurial self‐efficacy:
refining the measure’, Entrepreneurship theory and Practice, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.965–988.
Mintzberg, H. (1993) Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, 1st ed., Prentice-Hall,
Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R. and Rentsch, J.R. (2000) ‘The measurement of team mental models:
we have no shared schema’, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.123–165.
Moriset, B. (2014) Building New Places of the Creative Economy. The Rise of Coworking Spaces
[online] https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00914075 (accessed 29 April 2016).
Peters, L., Rice, M. and Sundararajan, M. (2004) ‘The role of incubators in the entrepreneurial
process’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.83–91.
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C. and Lupton, G. (2011) ‘The entrepreneurial university:
examining the underlying academic tensions’, Technovation, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.161–170.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007) ‘Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence’,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.479–510.
Pohler, N. (2012) ‘Neue Arbeitsräume für neue Arbeitsformen: Coworking Spaces’,
Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.65–78.
Rasmussen, E.A. and Sørheim, R. (2006) ‘Action-based entrepreneurship education’,
Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.185–194.
Rentsch, J.R. and Klimoski, R.J. (2001) ‘Why do ‘great minds’ think alike?: Antecedents of team
member schema agreement’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.107–120.
Rice, M.P. (2002) ‘Co-production of business assistance in business incubators: an exploratory
study’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.163–187.
56 R.B. Bouncken

Richter, C., Kraus, S. and Syrjä, P. (2015) ‘The shareconomy as a precursor for digital
entrepreneurship business models’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.18–35.
Schmidt, S., Brinkhoff, S. and Brinks, V.L. (2013) Berlin – a survey: Spaces and Events as
Interfaces for Innovation and Creativity, Berlin Government – Senate Department for
Economics, Technology and Research Projekt Zukunft Office, Berlin.
Scuotto, V. and Morellato, M. (2013) ‘Entrepreneurial knowledge and digital competence: keys for
a success of student entrepreneurship’, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 4, No. 3,
pp.293–303.
Spinuzzi, C. (2012) ‘Working alone together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity’,
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.399–441.
Sundsted, T., Jones, D. and Bacigalupo, T. (2009) I’m Outta Here: How Co-Working Is Making the
Office Obsolete, 1st ed., NotanMBA Press, Austin, TX.
Utsch, A. and Rauch, A. (2000) ‘Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achievement
orientation and venture performance’, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.45–62.
Zhao, X., Mattila, A.S. and Eva Tao, L-S. (2008) ‘The role of post-training self-efficacy in
customers’ use of self service technologies’, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.492–505.