Collaborative Capability in Coworking Spaces: Convenience Sharing or Community Building?

Coworking spaces are gaining strength worldwide as a collaborative phenomenon in a network economy in which competitiveness is based on knowledge and continuous innovation. The emergence and rapid expansion of those spaces (Ross & Ressia, 2015) stem from interconnected factors, such as technological changes, new generation lifestyles, the increased complexity of globalized business, and the increasing isolation of people. Together, these factors sharply restrict opportunities for collaboration and networking, and they reduce the ability to build trust and relationships with others, leading to the emergence of values related to a shared economy culture (Spinuzzi, 2012).


Introduction
Coworking spaces are gaining strength worldwide as a collaborative phenomenon in a network economy in which competitiveness is based on knowledge and continuous innovation.The emergence and rapid expansion of those spaces (Ross & Ressia, 2015) stem from interconnected factors, such as technological changes, new generation lifestyles, the increased complexity of globalized business, and the increasing isolation of people.Together, these factors sharply restrict opportunities for collaboration and networking, and they reduce the ability to build trust and relationships with others, leading to the emergence of values related to a shared economy culture (Spinuzzi, 2012).
Coworking spaces have multiple popular definitions, and they could be viewed basically as shared offices that offer mostly operational efficiency (Stumpf, 2013).In that sense, coworking as an activity is a promise of sharing, where a space means a physical structure able to promote personal benefits among its participants (Moriset, 2013).But it may also present the opportunity to build an innovation ecosystem of mutual benefits (Spinuzzi, 2012).Thus, in a broader sense, coworking spaces offer the promise of a collaboration capability that generates benefits in terms of firm competitiveness.For the purposes of this study, a coworking space is not defined simply as a service or platform for those who want to share resources (Gandini, 2016), but as an organization that hosts and promotes a collaborative capability, defined as the ability to build and manage relationships, linked to a broader social complex phenomenon (Blomqvist & Levy, 2006).
The theoretical study of capabilities is in an early phase -there is no consensus on their key concepts or how they should be operationalized (Blomqvist & Levy, 2006), and the same applies to collaboration as a capability (Allred et al., 2011).Thus, this research might con-This study explores the development of collaborative capability in coworking spaces.It is based on the perception of collaboration among 31 coworking founders, community managers, and coworkers of those spaces.In-depth interviews around the meaning of collaboration and its challenges were conducted in 14 coworking spaces located in six Asian countries.A set of factors was identified and a model was proposed based on a set of four dimensions: enabling knowledge sharing, enhancing a creative field, enhancing an individual action for the collective, and supporting a collective action to an effective execution.The "Convenience Sharing" and "Community Building" coworking types based on Capdevila (2014) suggest different conditions under which collaborative capability develops.Convenience Sharing coworking spaces tend to foster collaborative capability through knowledge sharing and effective execution, whereas Community Building coworking spaces tend to foster collaborative capability by enhancing a creative field and individual action for the collective.Overall, this study contributes to a theoretical model for coworking spaces to help coworking founders and community managers make strategic decisions.The findings suggest that collaborative capability in coworking spaces depends on the interlacing of a set of factors along four dimensions that relate in varying degrees of intensity to a two-fold coworking space typology.
It is not about a business transaction, it is about social support... needing and being needed.
Andrew Jones Coworker, Singapore Impact Hub

" "
timreview.catribute to this effort through the identification of specific collaboration factors that characterize this capability in coworking spaces.Hence, this article aims to explore the development of collaborative capability in coworking spaces, as a conceptual framework that might help investors, coworking founders, and community managers with their strategic decisions in order to achieve more sustainable firm competitiveness.
This research is exploratory.It uses semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and is based on a multidimensional intra-organizational collaboration model proposed by Quandt and Castilho (2017).The study represents an additional effort to understand collaborative capabilities in the context of firm competitiveness intertwined with other capabilities -innovative, absorptive, and adaptive -that support sustainable innovativeness.
The structure of the article is as follows.First, a literature review summarizes how coworking spaces relate to collaboration as a capability.Then, based on a previous study on the relationship of collaboration and innovativeness at the intra-organizational level (Quandt & Castilho, 2017), a set of collaboration factors are presented as a reference point for the current study.Next, a content analysis of the interviews yields a broader set of proposed collaboration factors, which then is used to develop a concept formed by four collaboration dimensions.A "Convenience Sharing" and "Community Building" model based on Capdevila (2014) suggests different conditions where collaborative capability develops from those four dimensions.In the concluding remarks, the limitations of the results are discussed and further research topics are suggested.

Coworking Spaces
Collaboration in coworking spaces may be subject to different interpretations.It may be seen either as a byproduct of the space, or as the very reason why such a place exists.However, a coworking space cannot be defined as just a place where diverse actors such as entrepreneurs, freelancers, and offsite workers interact.Different and often conflicting needs may yield a socially complex context where a community is formed and can be transformed by this socialization ( Van den Broek, 2013).
Coworking refers to a specific way of organizing people around work that, by its own nature, facilitates collaboration, characterized by the co-location of economic actors, leading in some cases to the emergence of a highly-collaborative community (Capdevila, 2014).In that sense, a coworking space nurtures business ecosystems, given the potential for knowledge sharing and learning practices in a particular space that results in opportunities for innovation in business, services, and products.
Some view coworking as more than a convenient way of sharing resource -they see it as a way to escape the isolation of working alone and feel it provides a convivial space to break the loneliness (Moriset, 2013).For others, coworking is a "state of mind" (Kwiatkowski & Buczynski, 2011).Finally, others even view coworking spaces as "serendipity accelerators" (Moriset, 2013).
The reasons to join a coworking space are mainly to access the space itself, the direct contact, the events, and the sense of the community or "home" that all of this provides (Stumpf, 2013).Ross and Ressia (2015) expand those reasons by considering four aspects that make a coworking space appealing: 1. Flexible, precarious working conditions associated with a broader macro-social economic reality.
2. The attractiveness of flexible alternatives to either working from home or a corporate office.
3. Opportunity for social interaction that brings also the benefit of a better separation of working and home activities.
4. Opportunity to participate in collaborative projects and put related skills into practice.
Coworking spaces are certainly places where a propensity for social interaction can be enhanced, as can a willingness to share resources.However, what actually differentiates a coworking space from other spaces for work and learning is its complex social concept (Waters-Lynch & Potts, 2017), which can be described in terms of motivation to work together in a "good neighbours" and "good partners" proposition (Spinuzzi, 2012).Good neighbours work alone, focusing on their own tasks, politely alongside others; good partners actively foster the trust required that can lead to formal work collaborations.
The good neighbours and good partners proposition suggests there are different levels of collaboration in coworking spaces.Capdevila (2014)  spaces, where building a community is non-existent and sharing knowledge is a secondary goal.The resource level is about a common physical space that attracts people or organizations that look for a mix of personal convenience and socialization advantages.In the relational level, the focus is on the synergistic effect of collaboration from a community shaped by a diverse social network of people with both strong and weak ties that choose to share resources serendipitously while in close proximity with each other.It often starts with a community, not a space, and it may take some time to build.
A relevant aspect of collaboration in coworking spaces is to understand the behavioural motivation behind the individuals' desire to share their resources and networks with each other (Kenline, 2012).In this sense, a coworking space is the reflection of a community wellbeing dependent on a common mental ground for emerging relationships (Stumpf, 2013).As a sociallyconstructed phenomenon, collaboration in coworking spaces is a product of cultural and social practices, as well as an expression of a shared mental space of values and beliefs.
A better comprehension of collaboration capabilities in the context of coworking spaces might boost, for instance, a diverse social network with some specific socialization advantages or through some community building strategies that sustain higher levels of motivation to work together.This highlights the importance of new sources of firm competitiveness through the identification of factors and dimensions related to collaboration in coworking spaces.

Collaboration as a Capability
Collaboration capabilities in the context of coworking spaces bring the opportunity to build and manage relationships based on mutual trust, communication, and commitment.Thus, such capabilities are linked to a broader social complex phenomenon and generate some specific socialization advantages for coworking founders, community managers, and coworkers of those spaces.
Collaboration is also a capability that allows organizations to adapt quickly to a changing economic environment and rely on "ingredients" of social interaction that have a strong impact on the innovative result.Among those ingredients are processes of shared creation based on shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could obtain on their own (Dalkir, 2011) and mutuality (Gray, 1989), which is highly dependent on formal commitment (Gray & Wood, 1989).
In a study aimed to identify the different factors that influence collaboration in an intra-organizational context (Quandt & Castilho, 2017), collaboration as a capability was translated into intertwined factors that influence collaboration and affect the ability of an organization to innovate.The proposed ten collaboration factors represented a specific form of collaboration in which the presence of barriers to knowledge sharing and mutual aid are minimized.
Collaboration capability could be described through the same intertwined factors as proposed by Quandt and Castilho (2017): as an integral component of other capabilities -adaptive, absorptive and innovative (Wang & Ahmed, 2004).In a coworking space, collaboration capability might evolve from collective action that supports innovation and firm performance to a generic meta-capability in uncertain and complex environments, which impacts the innovative results of an organization through the exploitation of combined and complementary capabilities.

Methodology
The proposed approach is exploratory; the aim is to propose a typology for coworking spaces that might help coworking founders and community managers make strategic decisions.It is based on the perceptions and experiences of collaboration among coworking founders, community managers, and coworkers of those spaces.It involved a combination of semi-structured interviews, secondary data related to the coworking spaces under study and their leaders, as well as direct observation and insights during the field research.Semi-structured interviews were conducted during a research trip in six Asian countries between November 2015 and January 2016 (Table 1).The choice of places was determined by convenience and accessibility, not due to any expectation that coworking spaces in Asia are typical or unique in some way, although this may be an area worthy of future research.Rather, it was assumed that coworking spaces mirror some common factor such as technological changes; new generation lifestyles; the increased complexity of globalized business that impact any space wherever the country it is located.The interviews included 31 individuals (P1 -P31) who were mainly founders of coworking spaces, community managers, and coworkers of those spaces.
The interview questions focused on four perspectives: the meaning of collaboration, challenges of collaboration, successful experiences with collaboration, and less successful experiences with collaboration.The selection of coworking spaces followed the opportunity to be in contact with a broader, diverse sample of a coworking ecosystem in each country.The preliminary selection of websites was based on the combination of at least one of three criteria: i) the ones that had the most relevance in terms of size or economic impact; ii) the ones that pioneered the activity in their region; and iii) the ones that could represent a diverse social network through a specific field or professional activity, such as a focus on creative industries.
All the interview data were transcribed and exported to Atlas TI software for the methodological procedures of content analysis, based on a method of collection, description and analysis (Figure 1) proposed by Friese (2010).This process involves: 1. Scanning the data, recognizing relevant points and giving them a badge or identity.
2. Digging into the data, associating, categorizing, and ranking it in order to describe it with the utmost accuracy.
3. Reflecting on the data, creating new meanings, and leading to new ways of understanding a reality.
The initial set of factors influencing collaboration was reviewed and refined in light of the encoding process of the interviews, according to the phases contained in the descriptive level (Figure 1).

Analysis and Discussion
The analysis is structured in four main phases: 1. Code creation: utilizes a ten-code system proposed by Quandt and Castilho (2017) in the context of the relationship between collaboration and innovativeness in a case study of an innovative organization to support the codification of the preliminary interviews and eventually the creation of new codes.

2.
Code consolidation: provides a refined coding system for the remaining interviews through the consolidation of a new set of codes along the set of ten original factors.
3. Code freezing: a more refined code system brings about a merger of the codes in four families.
4. Conceptualization: a new system of collaboration factors is proposed.

Phases 1 and 2: Code creation and consolidation (encoding the interviews)
A ten-code system proposed by Quandt and Castilho (2017) (Table 2) supported the codification of the interviews.As content analysis involves recognizing relevant points that bring new meaning to the data, additional codes were created in order to better explain specific aspects of collaboration capability in coworking spaces.This first phase was followed by a code-consolidation phase in which a new set of codes provided a refined coding system for the remaining interviews, forming an expanded code system (Table 3) together with the codes proposed previously by Quandt and Castilho (2017).

Phases 3 and 4: Code freezing and conceptualization (a system of collaboration factors)
A third step and fourth phase aimed at the creation of new meanings through the formulation of a concept that merged the codes along four dimensions.The creation of a set of four different dimensions followed an interpretive inductive-deductive analysis supported by a progressive refinement of the theoretical model of the factors influencing collaboration at a more conceptual abstract approach (Friese, 2010).From a combination       2).
The Convenience Sharing type of coworking space resembles the resource approach proposed by Capdevila (2014) as one of the three elements of a collaboration typology for coworking spaces -the other two approaches being cost and relational approaches.The resource approach is about convenience and socialization advantages, more adherent to enabling knowledge sharing and supporting a collective action to an effective execution.In Convenience Sharing coworking spaces, there is a tendency to defend self-interest, and the collective view is not fully internalized.Trust is built over time.Therefore, people are more attracted by personal convenience, and socialization advantages and community-building activities are necessary to keep the sharing mode alive.
In the Community Building type of coworking space, relationships based on collaboration are primarily an act of trust, which is highly dependent on formal commitment.Community-building tends to precede the space itself.It resembles the Capdevila (2014) typology in the sense that the relational level focus is on the synergistic effect of collaboration through a diverse social network of people.Community Building coworking spaces bring interdependence and formal commitments that stem from self-determination and a fearless positive perception towards the others, guided by a common mental ground for emerging relationships (Stumpf, 2013).People with both strong and weak ties choose to share resources serendipitously.A shared mental space of values and beliefs prevails, shaped by a diverse social network, less dependent on community building activities as the desire to share their resources and networks with each other (Kenline, 2012) is much more evident.Thus, the Community Building type tends to be more linked to enhancing an individual action for the collective and to enhancing a creative field.
This simplified representation of four dimensions -and their underlying factors -reflects the meaning and challenges of collaboration.These challenges are mainly expressions of the mutual adjustments being made by the main stakeholders: founders, community managers, and users, in order to deal with a highly complex social context.Mutual adjustments are necessary to keep a balance between conflicting mental models of sharing, privacy, and friendship, and needing and being needed, all within a space that is supposed to enact a more socially oriented approach as well as providing an expression for more privacy-oriented tasks.As the interview subjects indicated in this study, conflicting mental models drive a "stolen idea" culture, a mindset that prevents sharing (P22) as well as a culture of "being a friend of anyone" in clash with a culture of "do not talk to strangers" (P15).That explains the importance of the community builder role as a dialogue initiator (P4 ).These mutual adjustments reflect a polarity between concentration and sharing in a space where there is a double role of doing business as well as being a contributor to this larger "business" that is dependent on the way interaction happens among the members (P14) who are not convinced of the value of collaboration (P14).

Conclusion
This exploratory study proposed a set of dimensions linked to collaborative capabilities in coworking spaces in order to help strategic decision making among coworking founders and community managers.It suggests that collaborative capability in coworking spaces depends on four interconnected dimensions that relate to various extents to two different types of coworking spaces, where collaboration capabilities foster such spaces as enabling contexts to reconfigure organizational resources through knowledge sharing, enhancing a creative field, supporting individual actions for collective results, and supporting collective action towards an effective execution.This study also proposes that Convenience Sharing coworking spaces are mostly related to knowledge sharing and supporting a collective action towards an effective execution, whereas Community Building coworking spaces are more related to enhancing a creative field and enhancing an individual action for the collective.
The study was conducted only in Asian countries in a relatively limited sample of spaces.Possibly, the results would be different if the interviews were conducted in a different cultural setting.Additionally, there are several political, cultural, and social aspects that might reveal differences between developing countries and developed countries within Asia regarding collaboration in coworking spaces.Nevertheless, this study can contribute to the coworkers' perspective, helping them to decide whether a particular co-working space will be more aligned with their particular needs for collaboration.In a broader perspective, this research may also contribute to an evaluation of the level of collaborative capability that can be supported by different types of coworking spaces.This would also support decisionmaking processes linked to the configuration of coworking space strategies and their capability to promote collaboration among participants.Further studies could involve the application of the resulting model of two types, four dimensions, and underlying factors to coworking spaces in other regions to verify model validation and potential adaptations.• The TIM Review is published in association with and receives partial funding from the TIM program.

Academic Affiliations and Funding Acknowledgements
The Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario; feddevontario.gc.ca) is part of the Innovation, Science and Economic Development portfolio and one of six regional development agencies, each of which helps to address key economic challenges by providing regionallytailored programs, services, knowledge and expertise.
• The TIM Review receives partial funding from FedDev Ontario's Investing in Regional Diversification initiative. timreview.ca

2.
Factors that enhance a creation field: flexibility for shared creation (Opening) through continuous adjustments of expectations around different perspectives (Flexibility) supported by a flow of emerging interactions (Being Collective) in a social gathering (Partying) where a collective energy (Co-Creation) in a trustful field (Trust at First) provides a giving and receiving (Belongingness) good will (Friendship) attitude.3.Factors that enhance individual action for collectiveresults: mutual aid (Selflessness) based on autonomy and preservation (Self-Sufficiency) supported by a fearless behaviour towards the others (Being an Individual) and a process of free development as an individual (Self-Determination) and conscious of their own character, including feelings and behaviours (Self-Awareness).4.Factors that support collective action for an effective execution: a shared vision (Congruence) that brings a sense of legitimacy to manage tensions that are inherent to collaboration (Mobilization) supported by focus (Concentration) and determination (Purpose), and guided by an awareness of mutual reliance (Interdependence).

Technology
Innovation Management (TIM; timprogram.ca) is an international master's level program at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.It leads to a Master of Applied Science (M.A.Sc.) degree, a Master of Engineering (M.Eng.)degree, or a Master of Entrepreneurship (M.Ent.)degree.The objective of this program is to train aspiring entrepreneurs on creating wealth at the early stages of company or opportunity lifecycles.

Collaborative Capability in Coworking Spaces: Convenience Sharing or Community Building? Marcelo
F. Castilho and Carlos O. Quandt 35 timreview.caCollaborative Capability in Coworking Spaces: Convenience Sharing or Community Building?Marcelo F. Castilho and Carlos O. Quandt

Table 1 .
Coworking spaces visited by country and number of interviews

Collaborative Capability in Coworking Spaces: Convenience Sharing or Community Building? Marcelo
F. Castilho and Carlos O. Quandt of collaboration factors derived from the set proposed by Quandt and Castilho (2017), together with the new collaboration factors, four different code groups were created, considering the following statements (Table4):

Table 2 .
Factors that influence collaboration and associated indicators

Collaborative Capability in Coworking Spaces: Convenience Sharing or Community Building? Marcelo
F. Castilho and Carlos O. Quandt

Table 3 .
Additional factors that influence collaboration and associated quotations

Collaborative Capability in Coworking Spaces: Convenience Sharing or Community Building? Marcelo
F. Castilho and Carlos O. Quandt

Collaborative Capability in Coworking Spaces: Convenience Sharing or Community Building? Marcelo
F. Castilho and Carlos O. Quandt timreview.caCollaborative Capability

in Coworking Spaces: Convenience Sharing or Community Building?
Marcelo F. Castilho and Carlos O. Quandt ).A traditional organizational culture is replaced by the challenge of cultivating a sense of equals together with Figure 2. Prevalence of collaboration factors considering the Convenience Sharing and Community Building approaches