Next Article in Journal
The Ecological Criteria of Circular Growth and the Rebound Risk of Closed Loops
Next Article in Special Issue
Mutual Support, Role Breadth Self-Efficacy, and Sustainable Job Performance of Workers in Young Firms
Previous Article in Journal
A Comprehensive Framework for the Analysis of Industry 4.0 Value Domains
Previous Article in Special Issue
Surviving through Incubation Based on Entrepreneurship-Specific Human Capital Development: The Moderating Role of Tenants’ Network Involvement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/su11102959
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Coworking and Sustainable Business Model Innovation in Young Firms

by
Sarah Cheah
1,* and
Yuen-Ping Ho
2
1
Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119245, Singapore
2
Entrepreneurship Centre, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119245, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(10), 2959; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11102959
Submission received: 1 May 2019 / Revised: 16 May 2019 / Accepted: 22 May 2019 / Published: 24 May 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability of Young Companies–Contemporary Trends and Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In larger cities, we see a rising trend of more people working outside their traditional offices, and engaging in a practice called co-working by sharing office space. The public policy makers of innovation-driven economies, on the other hand, have been availing co-working spaces and related support to promote innovation and entrepreneurship. Despite the growing significance of this area, there has been limited research on the link between coworking and innovation among young firms. This research examines the relationship between coworking space and innovation, particularly business model innovation (BMI) for sustainable performance. Based on an empirical study of 258 young tenant firms operating in 13 coworking spaces in Singapore, we establish that the space creativity of coworking spaces is positively related to the BMI outcome of tenant firms. Tenant firms’ opportunity recognition and exploitation (ORE) process positively mediates the relationship between the space creativity of coworking spaces and the BMI outcome of tenant firms. While the social climate of the coworking space is found to have no direct effect on the BMI outcome of tenant firms, tenant firms’ ORE process positively mediates the relationship between the social climate of coworking spaces and the sustainable BMI outcome of tenant firms.

1. Introduction

Since the global financial crisis of 2008, a new economic order has been taking shape and is characterized by low-level growth equilibrium, affecting the business climate that firms operate in. This has brought about not only fundamental changes in the governance and structure of many organizations, but also significant shifts in the policies of many governments in the 21st century. A phenomenon that has emerged, particularly in innovation-driven economies, is the rising popularity of coworking spaces and their increasing association with innovation and inclusive growth. We observe that the new economic conditions contribute to the growing significance of coworking and innovation in several ways.
First, the reduction in foreign direct investment and capital flows between countries after the 2008 crisis has increased the cost of capital for the business community. This has precipitated the expansion of the role of governments in finding alternative engines of economic growth, such as innovation and entrepreneurship [1]. We have seen the introduction of new public policies that encourage coworking as low-cost alternatives to office spaces in support of the formation of new ventures and the sustenance of existing businesses. The deliberate co-location of coworking spaces with key innovation ecosystem stakeholders such as public research institutes and institutes of higher learning underscores the importance the governments have accorded to their roles in fuelling innovation-driven economic development.
Second, the decline in trade in goods and services in the new economic conditions would spell increasing burden of regulation and taxation [2]. The increasing rigidity of labour markets in response to populist opposition in many countries have led to a shortfall in the global supply of engineers and technical professionals [3]. As firms find it more challenging to deploy fund and shift activities across borders in the traditional way, they look towards coworking as alternative channels to acquire resources such as space, professional talent, and value chain partners [1].
Third, in the face of economic volatility pursuant to the worldwide financial crisis, companies have become more wary of making investment in capital assets such as land, buildings and equipment. As these capital assets take a longer time than current assets to recover the cash investment used to acquire the assets, the investing firms are exposed to monetary policy risks (e.g., interest rate and exchange rate changes) that may devalue their assets. To minimize such risks, firms prefer to rent coworking spaces that come with a range of facilities and services to support their operations, an expense that can recorded immediately for computation of their net profits [4].
Fourth, before the crisis, multi-national enterprises (MNEs) were welcome as benefactors that could provide opportunities for the local communities to get employment and upgrade skills. However, after the crisis, the political sentiments have shifted to support local businesses and community. To respond to this change, MNEs take their cue from the local communities for their stakeholder engagement strategy. MNEs begin to tie up with coworking space operators to gain visibility in supporting local innovation and startup ecosystem stakeholders. For example, Procter and Gamble and JP Morgan have collaborated with coworking space operator, Impact Hub Singapore, to introduce innovation and impact laboratory programs to grow the local startup landscape [5]. Other MNEs such as L’Oréal have partnered coworking space operator, Block71 Singapore, to launch startup challenge to invite collaboration with early-stage startups and small enterprises in the Asia Pacific region [6].
All these developments emphasize the increasing significance of coworking space and innovation in new economic conditions, especially for innovation-driven economies that are characterized by intense rivalry among firms in wages as well as the development of new products, production processes and business models [7]. However, there is limited research on the link between coworking and innovation. Is this just about locating firms in the coworking space where they will flourish automatically? Are there specific characteristics about the coworking space that encourage certain types of innovation among tenant firms? Do tenant firms need to have certain processes in place to optimize their innovation outcome for sustainable performance at the coworking space?
The purpose of our study is to examine and explain the relationship between coworking space and innovation, particularly business model innovation (BMI) in innovation-driven economies. We also examine the key process that enables tenant firms to enhance and sustain their BMI outcome at the coworking space.
Empirically, we conducted a survey on 258 tenant firms operating in 13 coworking spaces in 2016. Our analysis of the survey results establish that the space creativity of coworking spaces is positively related to the BMI outcome of tenant firms. Tenant firms’ opportunity recognition and exploitation (ORE) process positively mediates the relationship between the space creativity of coworking spaces and the BMI outcome of tenant firms. While the social climate of the coworking space is found to have no direct effect on the BMI outcome of tenant firms, tenant firms’ ORE process positively mediates the relationship between the social climate of coworking spaces, and the sustainable BMI outcome of tenant firms.
Our findings contribute to the management literature in several ways. First, our research has shed light on an emerging topic in the study of firm-level innovation, namely BMI by demonstrating that the coworking space creativity can have important effects on the BMI of tenant firms. Prior research tends to examine the activities and outcome of BMI in general, rather than investigating the antecedents of BMI in the context of firms located in coworking spaces. Second, our empirical study of 258 tenant firms across 13 coworking space operators will extend and add generalizability to the extant coworking studies. Extant studies have largely focused on conceptual models and qualitative studies of the coworking spaces, rather than quantitative research of their tenant firms. Third, we complement current research on entrepreneurship by considering the tenant firms’ ORE process within the coworking space under the conditions of the new economic conditions that are characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, rather than in a general environment.

2. Background and Hypotheses

The conceptual framework in this paper uses as a starting point Assenza’s [8] proposed model for empirical measurement of the interaction between spatial dimensions and economic value creation. Drawing on Assenza’s theoretical propositions, we develop and test hypotheses examining whether the innovation outcome of firms is influenced by coworking space characteristics. Innovation is a well-established antecedent for firm’s economic performance in the literature [9]. An original contribution of this paper is the focus on an emerging topic in the study of firm-level innovation, namely BMI. The empirical literature, although sparse, shows that business model design and innovation have an impact on firm performance [10,11].

2.1. Business Model Innovation

The concept of the business model (BM) has only recently received growing scholastic attention although business models have been an integral part of economic behavior even in ancient civilizations, as noted by Teece [12]. In their wide-ranging review of the management literature, Zott, Amit, and Massa [13] linked the growth in BM studies to the broad diffusion information and communications technology, especially the Internet. These technological advances transformed how businesses use and share information, leading the way to more experimentation with BMs and the way that business activities are organized and structured [14].
There are multiple conceptualizations of the BM as pointed out by Zott et al. [13] and Massa and Tucci [15]. However, by synthesizing the commonalities across multiple views, a broad definition is derived: a BM is a systemic understanding of how an organization orchestrates its activities for the purpose of value creation. A BM is not just what the firm does, but how it does it. A more in-depth definition provided by Amit and Zott [14] (p. 511) describes the business model as ‘the content, structure, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value through the exploitation of business opportunities’. In studies of BMs and firm strategy, the perspective is widened to encompass the firm’s exchanges with external parties, in service of delivering customer-focused value [16,17].
There is general consensus in the literature that innovation and the BM are related concepts. One strand of the literature views the BM as a vehicle for firms to commercialize innovative ideas. By designing and implementing appropriate BMs, firms can better translate technology into value creation [17,18,19]. Technology and innovative ideas in and of themselves have no economic value. The BM is the mediating mechanism that connects technologies and ideas to the market.
A second complementary strand of the literature posits that the BM represents a new dimension of innovation [15]. In this view, firms consider the BM itself as a subject of innovation [20]. The term BMI emerged from this school of thought and is gaining increasing prominence. The BMI concept argues that a firm can compete through its novel business model [21] and that the business model can be part of a firm’s intellectual property [22]. In fact, Chesbrough [23] suggested that BMI may be more important strategically than other forms of innovation, as having a better business model than competitors is more advantageous than possessing a better idea or technology.
Researchers have developed different approaches to examining the BMI phenomenon, reflecting the multi-dimensionality of the concept. Massa and Tucci [15] propose that BMI may refer to (1) business model design (BMD), which is the entrepreneurial activity of creating a business model in a new firm, or (2) business model reconfiguration (BMR), which is the process of changing an existing business model. Zott and Amit [24] view the BM as a system of boundary-spanning interdependent activities and suggest that BMI can be achieved by (1) adding new activities, (2) linking activities in novel ways, and (3) changing which party performs the activity. Giesen, Berman, Bell and Blitz [25] adopt a more outcome-driven perspective, classifying BMI into three groups: (1) industry model innovation, which consists of innovating the industry value chain by moving into new industries, redefining industries or creating new industries, (2) revenue model innovation, which innovates the way that revenues are generated, and (3) enterprise model innovation, which changes the role the firm plays in its value chain.
In this paper, we examine the outcome of BMI in firms. We adapt from the three categories of BMI proposed by Giesen et al. [25] to derive three groups of outcome, namely (1) new or expanded markets, (2) new sources of revenues and profit, and (3) improved efficiency and productivity.
Several studies have established that BMI is key to firm performance [25,26,27]. This justifies the focus on BMI outcome as the dependent variable in our conceptual framework. Research on antecedents of BMI has identified the importance of leadership and management agenda [28] and configuration of resources [29]. Cheah, Ho and Li [30] have demonstrated that the positive mediating role of BMI in the relationship between industry turbulence and firms’ sustainable competitive advantage in the retail and hospitality industries. Significantly, no prior studies have examined BMI in the context of firms located in coworking spaces, nor of the role of space design in fostering BMI in firms.

2.2. Coworking Space Characteristics

Coworking spaces are designed to be extremely open and inclusive. The space is shared by people from all walks of life with different backgrounds and fulfilling distinct economic roles: entrepreneurs, freelancers, artists, researchers, students, and so on. Flexibility is inherent to coworking spaces as tenants can rent a table in an open space for any desired period. Many coworking spaces feature movable dividers and desks that allow for reconfiguration of work areas to adapt to developing businesses as well as community activities such as physical or online conferences [31].
The modern coworking space has evolved beyond its beginnings as a “desk share” space providing independent contractors with professional settings to work and meet customers. It draws inspiration from open sources, human interaction and professional training. The principles of co-location, collaboration and shared resources explain the economic rationale for firms to choose coworking spaces [32,33]. However, the physical design of the space itself and the community in the space are often highlighted by coworking space operators as important factors [34]. Open areas, modern furnishings, bright colors, architectural lighting, access to amenities such as coffee and tea, games and videos are all common [8]. Tenants also seek a sense of community from the space [35], to make connections, foster collaboration, and share knowledge.
The characteristics of coworking space are based on important values of openness, interaction, sharing and participation [31]. We will introduce two aspects of space characteristics, which we postulate to impact on the BMI outcome of firms in coworking spaces.

2.2.1. Space Creativity

Previous studies have inferred that the design of a work place, including architecture and layout, can inspire and motivate people to be creative [36]. In the framework of coworking space, we focus on the physical aspect of space creativity, which can affect an enterprise’s performance through space structuring [37].
Many organizations are now paying attention to the design of the physical environment to raise their levels of innovation [38]. The work areas in most coworking spaces are designed to stimulate creativity, modelled after the offices in high-tech corporations such as Apple and Google [8]. These design elements are intended to interact with the cognitive and social functioning of tenants to generate novel ideas and foster collaborative connections. The structural configuration of a space in terms of architecture, decoration and layout influences the behavior of occupants [39]. Kristensen [40] and Magadley and Birdi [41] found that the design and configuration of physical space influenced the creativity and idea generating process of individuals. Spaces designed to encourage creative thinking, such as innovation labs and brainstorming rooms, would eliminate elements of the traditional office environment such as rectangular rooms and tables [42]. Coworking spaces have borrowed these ideas and typically feature multiple working rooms, round tables, exhibition spaces, refreshment areas, and creative cues such as pictures or irregular geometric shapes.
A conducive physical design also allows tenants to easily and effectively exchange existing knowledge. The overall “openness” of the coworking space layout creates potential opportunities for interacting in a spatial environment. In addition, the space visibility has been found to promote both team communication and interaction [43]. By facilitating tenants’ participation in community activities and personal interaction opportunities, the spatial space design can afford unplanned interaction that allows for creative “collisions” that can increase the transfer of ideas [8,44,45]. Space creativity in coworking space is also important to provide a basis for value creation. The space is designed not only as physical space, but also as a lived social context and as a conceptual space, within which production or individualized personal practice occurs [8]. The physical proximity in the coworking space also provides additional space for informal communication and resource acquisition [37,43].
The physical design of a coworking space is intended to anticipate the needs of the participants, providing a work environment where multiple creative and ultimately productive activities are encouraged. Spatial design should attract entrepreneurs and other participants who feel comfortable enough to interact with the space [8]. Space creativity stimulates the cognitive process of tenants to actively seek new knowledge and materialize new ideas and concepts [40]. Additionally, space creativity encourages informal knowledge exchange in the coworking space. By effectively acquiring internal and external information from noncompetitive, complementary tenants within the community, innovative ideas are more likely to emerge. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1a).
Space creativity of coworking spaces is positively related to sustainable business model innovation outcome of tenant firms.

2.2.2. Social Climate

Several previous studies have produced results that support the relationship between social climate and innovative outcome. Innovation often occurs in the cyclic and iterative process which is established and maintained in collaborative environment through social interaction [46]. Thus, innovation is considered a social process in which social interaction provides a variety of input and improvement [47].
To some extent, the coworking space arrangement brings socialization back into the workplace. A coworking space can be seen as a work community that can be instrumental to enrich networks [48]. Coworkers are attempting to work in flexible ways, seeking workplaces that are used by other creative self-employed people who understand the value of forming networks and the power that derives from collaboration [48,49]. In the coworking space, entrepreneurs can share their experience in a harmonious social environment of like-minded individuals [31]. The formation of networks and collaborations is enhanced by a favorable social climate.
An essential purpose of coworking is the community that is constructed by physical co-location and as such, relationships within the community are less confounded by external motivations roles, and structures [35]. A community is a mode of relating [50]. According to McMillan and Chavis [51] the sense of community is characterized by four basic properties: membership, influence, integration and emotional support. This view of community underlines our conceptualization of social climate, which emphasizes interpersonal relationships [52] and trust [53]. Coworking can be seen as trust-based community-oriented environments which stimulate encounters and collaborations inside [54]. Trust supports learning and continuous improvement innovation development, and encourages greater information sharing and improved coordination between partners [55].
A favorable social climate fundamentally contributes to the well-being of tenant firms by reducing or eliminating workplace frictions. Psychological security confers a common understanding that coworkers can safely take risks, express opinions, share knowledge and try new ideas [56,57]. When there is overlapping knowledge and opportunities for spillovers, a positive social atmosphere and sense of trust enhance the capabilities of coworkers to adopt others’ views and ideas [58].
The coworking space is a convergence of creators and innovators. It is believed that this concentration of creative types will shift the interpretation of a task towards a cognitive frame that desires creativity over routine performance, and may motivate creative actions [59,60]. Previous studies established that creative emulation is linked to an increase in creative potential [61]. Creative emulation among coworkers is facilitated by a positive social climate as there are less relational tension and struggle between proponents of established versus novel approaches.
Thus, we find the theoretical evidence supports a hypothesis that a positive social climate will positively influence the sustainable BMI outcome of firms in coworking spaces. We propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2a).
Social climate in coworking spaces is positively related to sustainable business model innovation outcome of tenant firms.

2.3. Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation

The process of identifying and developing opportunity process is a key part of entrepreneurship [62] and innovation strategy of established firms [63]. Timmons argues that an opportunity “has the qualities of being attractive, durable, and timely and is anchored in a product or service which creates or adds value for its buyer or end user” [64] (p. 87). Opportunity recognition is defined as an individual’s efforts in searching and identifying opportunities [65,66], which has been argued as a key contributor to competitive advantage and superior performance [67,68]. Opportunity development is centered on seeking and gaining information. Firms have long tapped different external sources of knowledge to develop new products, processes, systems, and business models. Much knowledge-based research has suggested that firms access external knowledge in order to deploy such knowledge in the context of innovation [69,70,71,72], thus linking the opportunity process to innovation.
Tapping into external knowledge sources may help firms not only to recognize new strategic opportunities [62,73] but also to exploit them to gain competitive advantage [63]. As argued by Ardichvilli, Cardozo and Ray [74], opportunities are intended to deliver value and the opportunity process should therefore extend to the implementation of the opportunity. There are three important concepts in the opportunity process: Opportunity recognition, development, and evaluation. We adopt this wider view of opportunity, which we term opportunity recognition and exploitation (ORE).
The fundamental nature of coworking is aligned to the conditions for ORE to take place. Coworking provides a creative physical space which promotes collaboration, networking and incubator-like sharing of ideas. By engaging in peer-to-peer interactions in different configurations, coworkers can network their activities and activity systems within the space [75]. Activities such as organizational design, networking, and knowledge management [63,76,77] aid firms in exploiting opportunities.
We posit that the ORE process positively mediates the relationship between coworking space characteristics and BMI outcome. The reinvention of a business model requires the firm to build a boundary-spanning business network with its external stakeholders to effectively exploit opportunities and capture value [78].
As earlier hypothesized in H1a, space creativity is associated with better BMI outcome. Drawing on conceptual and empirical studies, Ardichvilli et al. [74] concluded that creativity is one of five key factors in the opportunity development process. Specifically, it is proposed that creativity is related to “alertness” which is the propensity to be sensitive to information about unsolved problems, unmet needs and novel combination of resources. Coworking firms that engage in ORE are able to capitalize more on the creative design of the physical space. As such, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1b).
Opportunity recognition and exploitation positively mediates the relationship between space creativity of coworking spaces and sustainable business model innovation outcome of tenant firms.
The quality and strength of social ties are important to the opportunity identification process [74,79]. Gravonetter [80] argues that more distant or casual acquaintances are bridges to information that may not be available within a strong-ties network of close friends or family. Extended networks contribute to higher levels of opportunity discovery.
Coworking spaces are carefully designed to foster connections and to increase opportunities for collaboration and conversation among tenants from vastly disparate backgrounds. Coworkers operate in different industries and markets, and have different strategies and business models. Such heterogeneity can lead to the discovery of potential collaborations and innovations on the peripheries [81]. The community aspect of coworking facilitates the formation of informal networks by promoting a friendly and trust-based social environment. In short, a favorable social climate can help a tenant firm to improve its ORE process.
Mu and Di Benedetto [82] hypothesized that opportunity discovery mediates the relationship between networking capability and the firm’s performance in new product development. They argue that the network serves as a conduit of information through which important technological news can be brought to the early notice of the firm. In this way, the opportunity discovery process helps firms to validate technology trends and reduce the probability of errors on untried projects. As a corollary, we propose that the social climate in a coworking space provides the setting for a firm to interact with an extensive network of coworkers and to obtain unique information. The diversity of coworkers provides insights on different business models for value creation and value capture. At the same time, a positive social atmosphere and sense of trust enhance the firm’s capability to exploit opportunities by adopting new ideas [58] and practicing creative emulation [59,60]. The ORE process therefore increases the likelihood of BMI in the firm. We thus hypothesize that firms that engage in ORE can better leverage on social climate to achieve sustainable BMI outcome.
Hypothesis 2 (H2b).
Opportunity recognition and exploitation positively mediates the relationship between social climate in coworking spaces and sustainable business model innovation outcome of tenant firms.
The conceptual model and hypotheses developed in this paper are summarized in Figure 1.

3. Methods

3.1. Data Collection and Sample

Singapore is an ideal research context. The Singapore government has long understood the important role of entrepreneurship in maintaining Singapore’s leading position as an innovation-driven economy. Due to the lack of natural resources, Singapore has no choice but to rely on its human resources and intellectual capital as a source of competitive advantage. As part of the effort to develop a dynamic entrepreneurship ecosystem, its policy makers have invested in building infrastructure to support the formation and growth of new enterprises, including coworking spaces.
This research adopts the quantitative research method to understand the impact of coworking on the tenant firms and their business model innovation outcome. As of March 2016, we scanned the coworking landscape in Singapore and found a total of 36 operators from a variety of sources such as major media channels that focus on startups and innovators. Of these operators, there were two broad categories. The first category was made up of 13 operators that catered mainly to individuals such as professionals, hobbyists, freelancers and craftsmen, while the second had 23 operators that targeted at setups, startups and small businesses. As our study focuses on companies as units of analysis, we reached out in August 2016 to the second group, of which 13 responded positively to our request for surveys. After we had explained to them the purpose and scope of our study, 13 operators welcomed and supported our survey of their 447 tenant firms. By November 2016, we collected responses from 279 tenant firms, of which 21 were unusable due to errors. The final sample size thus consisted of 258 company responses, which falls within the recommended range of 30 to 500 that is appropriate for most research studies [83]. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the sample size by coworking space operator.

3.2. Measures and Variables

We use innovation performance as the dependent variable, specifically focusing on sustainable performance in business model innovation (BMI). The independent variables are two characteristics of coworking space – space creativity and social climate. The process of opportunity recognition and exploitation (ORE) is included as a mediating variable.
The dependent, independent and mediator variables are measured using multi-item constructs scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). In order to ensure the reliability and discriminatory validity of items included our survey questionnaire, we draw on the literature and adapt items that have been successfully used in previous studies. The items and measures of construct validity are shown in Table 2.

3.2.1. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is a construct that measures the sustainable outcome of BMI in coworking tenant firms. We developed items by adapting from the three categories of BMI proposed by [25]. We derived six items that encompass three groups of outcome from achieving BMI, namely (1) new or expanded markets, (2) new sources of revenues and profit, and (3) improved efficiency and productivity.

3.2.2. Independent Variables

We developed items that measure space creativity and social climate in coworking spaces. Space creativity items capture the extent to which the physical design and configuration of the space encourage creativity, playfulness and idea generation [41]. Social climate items measure the congeniality of atmosphere of the coworking community and the degree of trust among tenant firms, reflecting the interpersonal relationships in the coworking space. Items are drawn from adapting previous studies by Erdil and Ertosun [52] and Daly and Finnigan [53].

3.2.3. Mediating Variable

ORE is included as the mediating variable in our analysis framework. Six items were used to measure the tenant firms’ process for opportunity recognition and exploitation, adapted from Mu and Di Benedetto [82].

3.2.4. Control Variables

Control variables are included in the analysis in order to control for structural differences in the survey sample. As innovation performance can be affected by industry and business characteristics, we use industry, firm size and firm age as control variables. We use 11 dummy variables to control for the industry classification of the focal firms following Mu and Di Benedetto [82]. Firm size is measured as a firm’s annual revenue in natural log form. Firm age is measured as the squared term of a firm’s number of years since founding.

4. Results

To determine the adequacy of our hypothesized measurement model, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in MPlus 7.0 [84]. Items for the two components of space characteristics (space creativity and social climate), ORE and BMI were included in the CFA. The results shown in Table 3 suggest that a 4-factor model provides a good fit to the data (c2 = 759.069, df = 224, CFI = 0.878, RMSEA = 0.096, SRMR = 0.062). We also tested a series of alternative models, all of which provide a significantly worse fit. The results of our CFAs consistently suggested that the hypothesized measurement model provides the best fit to the data.
Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables. It shows that the independent variables (space characteristics) are positively related to the mediating variable (ORE) and dependent variable (BMI). Moreover, the mediator variable ORE is also positively related to dependent variable BMI.

4.1. Main Effect Hypotheses

To validate the main effect Hypotheses 1a and 2a, we tested our proposed model using path analysis in MPlus 7.0. We included all possible direct paths between the space characteristics constructs and the mediator and dependent variables, controlling for the possible influence of firm age, firm size and industry. The results are summarized in Table 5. The direct path between space creativity and BMI was significant, and the estimated coefficient was positive (β = 0.222, p < 0.01), thereby supporting Hypothesis 1a. In contrast, social climate does not have a significant direct effect on BMI (β = −0.009). Thus, Hypothesis 2a is not supported.

4.2. Mediating Effect Hypotheses

To test the mediating effect Hypothesis 1b and 2b, we estimate the mediating effects, also known as indirect effects, of space creativity and social climate on BMI. The indirect effect of each independent variable is the product of coefficients from regressing (1) the mediator ORE on the independent variable, and (2) the dependent variable BMI on the mediator ORE. We used the bootstrapping approach for mediation analysis to test for the significance of the indirect effect [85,86,87]. In this non-parametric approach, the indirect effect of independent variables on the dependent variable is estimated multiple times by resampling with replacement from the dataset. A sampling distribution is generated from the multiple estimates and forms the basis for significance testing of the estimated indirect effect. The bootstrapping approach has been used extensively in empirical studies in sociology, psychology, and management research [88,89,90].
This approach is implemented using bootstrapping procedure in MPlus 7.0 (across 10,000 samples) to estimate indirect effects for each of the space characteristics on the dependent variable BMI, through the mediator variable ORE, as depicted in Table 6. Space creativity is found to have a significant indirect effect on BMI (unstandardized indirect effect 0.120, 95% CI 0.029, 0.228) through ORE, showing support for Hypothesis 1b. Similarly, our results suggested that social climate had a significant indirect effect on BMI (unstandardized indirect effect 0.370, 95% CI 0.262, 0.526) through ORE, in support of Hypothesis 2b.
The path coefficients computed using structured equation modelling for our conceptual model are presented in Figure 2.

5. Discussion

Prior studies on BMI have largely focused on the activities and outcome of BMI in general [24,25]. In contrast, our research considers the relatively understudied antecedents of BMI in the context of firms located in coworking spaces in the innovation-driven economy Singapore. We begin to examine the link between coworking space and BMI. Our research illuminates not just the relationship between coworking space characteristics and BMI outcome, but also the key process that enables tenant firms to enhance and sustain their BMI outcome at the coworking space.
In this study, it is evident that the mere provision of coworking space is not enough to foster BMI. The empirical results support our view that a coworking space design that encourages creativity can drive BMI outcome. Our survey results support our hypothesized relationship between the space creativity of coworking spaces and the BMI outcome of tenant firms (H1a). The physical design of the space plays a role in not only encouraging creative thinking and playfulness, but also generating ideas of higher quality, thereby helping tenant firms achieve greater levels of BMI.
We then proceed to address the key mechanisms that firms employ at the coworking space to optimize and sustain their BMI outcome. Our empirical results support our arguments that tenant firms’ ORE process positively mediates the relationship between the space creativity of coworking spaces and the sustainable BMI outcome of tenant firms (H1b). As creativity is one of the key factors in opportunity development [74], tenant firms that have internal ORE process in place are in a better position than those that have not, to identify, evaluate and commercialize the higher-quality ideas generated in a coworking space that is well-designed for creativity.
The internal ORE process of tenant firms is also instrumental in enabling them to harness the power of a favorable social climate provided by the coworking space. Our findings lend support to our postulations that tenant firms’ ORE process positively mediates the relationship between the social climate of coworking spaces and the sustainable BMI outcome of tenant firms (H2b). A conducive social climate in a coworking space enables tenant firms to interact with extensive network of other tenants to provide useful social ties and knowledge, which are the key factors of opportunity development process [74]. To maximize the benefits of a conducive social climate, tenant firms should have established ORE process to leverage the social ties and market and technology knowledge that are pivotal for enhancing and sustaining their BMI outcome.
We had anticipated that the social climate of the coworking space would be important to allow tenant firms to freely exchange ideas for opportunity identification and evaluation, as well as facilitate discussion for collaboration on idea exploitation, thereby positively impacting their innovation performance [59,60]. Contrary to the expectations we formulated in Hypothesis 2a, the social climate is found to have no direct effect on the sustainable BMI outcome of tenant firms. This finding could reflect the challenges that coworking space operators face in configuring their social climate to meaningfully support the ORE process of their tenant firms. To address this challenge, the operators should develop greater familiarity and empathy with their tenant firms’ profiles and processes, before working closely with their event partners to ensure their activities, such as hackathons, idea pitching sessions and investor presentations, seamlessly address the needs, goals and opportunity development processes of their tenant firms [91].

5.1. Policy Implications

This study has important policy implications, particularly for innovation-driven economies. First, to improve the social climate of coworking space in support of ORE and BMI of tenant firms, the public policymakers can play a more active role to enhance the quantity and diversity of tenant firms. Applying the principles of co-location, collaboration and shared resources [32,33], the government may formulate policies or programs to encourage the inshoring of foreign ventures in local coworking space. In Singapore, for example, the government has funded the operation of several coworking spaces (e.g., Block71 Singapore) to attract foreign ventures to use these sites as a launch pad to enter the Southeast Asian market.
Second, in a similar way, the government can support offshoring of domestic ventures into overseas coworking space. By supporting the construction of overseas coworking space facilities (e.g., Block71 San Francisco, US), the public policymakers can enable domestic ventures to use the overseas site to make foray into foreign markets.
Third, the government can provide incentives to encourage coworking service providers to offer a range of complementary services to meet the needs of young tenant firms to foster innovation. Operators granting access to physical resources and office support are found to enhance the survival rate of the tenant firms, while those offering programs to gain access to venture capital and supply chain network are more likely to increase investment in new ventures [1,54,92].

5.2. Managerial Implications

Our research has identified implications for management practice. First, coworking space operators should understand that the physical design and social climate of their space can play a bigger role than merely providing colocation for economic reasons [8]. While the tenant firms value a conducive environment for generating and bouncing off ideas, they also demand some form of idea protection. Further thoughts should therefore be put into the design, policies and practices of coworking spaces, which are expected to balance between the collaboration and privacy needs of the firms. Coworking space operators should also be mindful of increasing cost pressures as they face the need to differentiate themselves from the growing population of coworking spaces fueled in part by the new economic conditions [4].
Second, as MNEs partner local coworking spaces to engage innovators and entrepreneurs, it is inevitable that differences in their culture and approaches to innovation may give rise to tension and conflicts, thereby adversely affecting the quality of new knowledge shared and new ideas generated [57]. To effectively leverage the partnership to achieve their objectives, the MNEs should define and implement appropriate internal processes to guide their interactions with their coworking space partners and the tenant firms.
Finally, even the best coworking space boasting creativity-enhancing design and favorable social climate can be lost on a firm that has under-developed process for opportunity development. It is therefore imperative for tenant firms to establish efficient and effective ORE process internally to optimize the benefits of operating in a coworking space.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

Although this research offers illuminating insights into the relationships among coworking space characteristics, tenant firms’ ORE process and their BMI under the new economic conditions, it has several limitations, which open up opportunities for future research.
First, we used cross-sectional data, where the results represent only a snapshot perspective of dynamic processes. Although this limitation does not invalidate the basic logic of our argument, we recommend future research to employ a longitudinal study design, where the dynamic phenomena may be observed and causal relationships investigated.
Second, survey-based studies traditionally suffer from common method bias. Due to systematic measurement error, the estimates of self-reported data could be biased [93]. To ascertain such bias, this study adopted the guidelines of Radicic and Pugh [94], where Harmon’s one-factor test was used to check the validity of our data with exploratory factor analysis on all the independent variables. From our unrotated principle component factor analysis, the first unrotated factor was found to account for only 47.4 per cent of the total variation in the other independent variables of our conceptual model, suggesting that the common method bias is unlikely to take place.
Future studies could use more objective data (e.g., percent of sales from new products also known as innovative sales) to measure the innovation performance of the tenant firms, as a proxy for commercial success of innovation. Third, this study focuses on tenant firms that are already operating in coworking spaces. Further research should find matched sample of companies that are not located in coworking spaces so as to control for possible factors that contribute to variances in their BMI performance.

6. Conclusions

We make at least three significant contributions to the literature on management. First, we investigate the relatively understudied antecedents of BMI in the new economic order prevailing for innovation-driven economies. Prior research tends to examine the activities and outcome of BMI in general, rather than investigating the antecedents of BMI in the context of firms located in coworking spaces. We establish empirically that the coworking space creativity can have important effects on the BMI of tenant firms. The physical design of the space is found to play a role in not only encouraging creative thinking and playfulness, but also generating ideas of higher quality, thereby helping tenant firms achieve greater levels of BMI. Our empirical results support our arguments that tenant firms’ ORE process positively mediates the relationship between the space creativity of coworking spaces and the sustainable BMI outcome of tenant firms. This process is also found to positively mediate the relationship between the social climate of coworking spaces and the sustainable BMI outcome of tenant firms. Tenant firms that have internal ORE process in place are in a better position than those that have not, to identify, evaluate and commercialize the higher-quality ideas generated in a coworking space that is designed for creativity. To benefit from a conducive social climate, tenant firms should have well-defined ORE process to leverage the social ties and market and technology knowledge that are pivotal for enhancing their sustainable BMI outcome. Second, our empirical study of 258 tenant firms across 13 coworking space operators will extend and add generalizability to the extant coworking research. Current studies have largely focused on conceptual models and qualitative studies of the coworking spaces, rather than quantitative research of their tenant firms. Third, we complement prior studies on entrepreneurship by considering the tenant firms’ ORE process within the coworking space under the conditions of the new economic order, rather than in a general environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C. and Y.-P.H.; Methodology, S.C. and Y.-P.H.; Software, S.C.; Validation, S.C.; Formal Analysis, S.C. and Y.-P.H.; Investigation, S.C. and Y.-P.H.; Resources, S.C.; Data Curation, S.C.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, S.C.; Writing-Review & Editing, S.C. and Y.-P.H.; Visualization, S.C. and Y.-P.H.; Supervision, S.C.; Project Administration, S.C.; Funding Acquisition, S.C.

Funding

This research was funded by Ng Teng Fong Charitable Foundation (NTFCF) Research Funding, grant number R-317-000-133-720. The APC was funded by NTFCF Research Funding, grant number R-317-000-133-720.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Cheah, S.; Ho, Y.P.; Lim, P. Role of public science in fostering the innovation and startup ecosystem in Singapore. Asia Res. Policy 2016, 7, 78–93. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sharma, R. The Rise and Fall of Nations: Forces of Change in the Post-Crisis World; W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Autor, D.H.; Dorn, D.; Hanson, G.H. The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Merkel, J. Coworking in the city. Ephemera 2015, 15, 121. [Google Scholar]
  5. Impact Hub The Hub Singapore Expands to Support the Growing Number of Startups and Entrepreneurs 2015. Available online: http://singapore.impacthub.net/impact-hub-singapore-press-room/the-hub-singapore-expands-to-support-the-growing-number-ofstartups-a (accessed on 12 December 2017).
  6. Block71. L’Oréal Innovation Runway. Available online: http://www.blk71.com/events/l%E2%80%99or%C3%A9al-innovation-runway (accessed on 12 December 2017).
  7. Crowley, F.; McCann, P. Firm innovation and productivity in Europe: Evidence from innovation-driven and transition-driven economies. Appl. Econ. 2018, 50, 1203–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Assenza, P. If you build it will they come? The influence of spatial configuration on social and cognitive functioning and knowledge spillover in entrepreneurial co-working and hacker spaces. J. Manag. Policy Pract. 2015, 16, 35. [Google Scholar]
  9. Klomp, L.; Van Leeuwen, G. The importance of innovation for company performance. Neth. Off. Stat. 1999, 14, 26–35. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zott, C.; Amit, R. Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organ. Sci. 2007, 18, 81–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Patzelt, H.; Zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, Z.; Nikol, P. Top management teams, business models, and performance of biotechnology ventures: An upper echelon perspective. Br. J. Manag. 2008, 19, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Teece, D.J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zott, C.; Amit, R.; Massa, L. The business model: Recent developments and future research. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1019–1042. [Google Scholar]
  14. Amit, R.; Zott, C. Value creation in e-business. Strat. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 493–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Massa, L.; Tucci, C.L. Business model innovation. Oxf. Handb. Innov. Manag. 2013, 20, 18. [Google Scholar]
  16. Zott, C.; Amit, R. The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strat. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chesbrough, H.; Rosenbloom, R.S. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind. Corp. Change 2002, 11, 529–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jabłoński, M. Value migration to the sustainable business models of digital economy companies on the capital market. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cheah, S.; Wang, S. Big data-driven business model innovation by traditional industries in the Chinese economy. J. Chin. Econ. Foreign Trade Stud. 2017, 10, 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mitchell, D.W.; Bruckner Coles, C. Business model innovation breakthrough moves. J. Bus. Strat. 2004, 25, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Casadesus-Masanell, R.; Ricart, J.E. Competing Through Business Models; IESE Business School: Madrid, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rappa, M. Managing the Digital Enterprise-Business Models on the Web; North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  23. Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strat. Leadersh. 2007, 35, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zott, C.; Amit, R. Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Giesen, E.; Berman, S.J.; Bell, R.; Blitz, A. Three ways to successfully innovate your business model. Strat. Leadersh. 2007, 35, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Demil, B.; Lecocq, X. Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. IBM Global Business Services. Expanding the Innovation Horizon: The Global CEO Study 2006. Available online: http://www-07.ibm.com/sg/pdf/global_ceo_study.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2017).
  28. Svejenova, S.; Planellas, M.; Vives, L. An individual business model in the making: A chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 408–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cheah, S.; Ho, Y.P.; Li, S. Business Model Innovation for Sustainable Performance in Retail and Hospitality Industries. Sustainability 2018, 1011, 3952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Leforestier, A. The Co-Working Space Concept: CINE Term Project; Indian Institute of Management (IIMAHD): Ahmedabad, India, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  32. Capdevila, I. Different Inter-Organizational Collaboration Approaches in Coworking Spaces in Barcelona; ESG Management School: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  33. Capdevila, I. Co-working spaces and the localised dynamics of innovation in Barcelona. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2015, 19, 1540004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Koh, C.; Cheah, S. Co-working and the creative space—Designing the future organization. In Proceedings of the DRUID-Asia Conference on Asian Innovation, Singapore, 23–25 February 2016. [Google Scholar]
  35. Garrett, L.E.; Spreitzer, G.M.; Bacevice, P. Co-constructing a sense of community at work: The emergence of community in coworking spaces. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NU, USA, 2014; Volume 1, p. 14004. [Google Scholar]
  36. Haner, U.-E.; Bakke, J.W. On how work environments influence innovation—A case study from a large ICT company. In Proceedings of the XV Annual Conference of the International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM), Oslo, Norway, 20–24 June 2004. [Google Scholar]
  37. Haner, U.E. Spaces for creativity and innovation in two established organizations. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2005, 14, 288–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bauer, W. Innovations in Office Design as a Strategy for Survival. In Office 21®—Push for the Future: Better Performance in Innovative Working Environment; Spath, D., Kern, P., Egmont, V., Eds.; Cologne: Stuttgart, Germany, 2004; pp. 6–11. [Google Scholar]
  39. Holahan, C.J. Environmental Psychology; Random House Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kristensen, T. The physical context of creativity. Create. Innov. Manag. 2004, 13, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Magadley, W.; Birdi, K. Innovation labs: An examination into the use of physical spaces to enhance organizational creativity. Cret. Innov. Manag. 2009, 18, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lewis, M.; Moultrie, J. The organizational innovation laboratory. Cret. Innov. Manag. 2005, 14, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stryker, J.; Farris, G. Designing the Workplace to Promote Face-to-Face Communication in R&D Project Teams: A Field Study; Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sailer, K. Creativity as social and spatial process. Facilities 2011, 29, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Taylor, S.; Spicer, A. Time for Space: A narrative review of research on organizational spaces. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 325–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kanter, R.M. The Change Masters; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  47. Weiss, M.; Hoegl, M.; Gibbert, M. Making virtue of necessity: The role of team climate for innovation in resource-constrained innovation projects. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2011, 28, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rus, A.; Orel, M. Coworking: A community of work. Teor. Praksa 2015, 52, 10. [Google Scholar]
  49. Davies, A.; Tollervey, K. The Style of Coworking—Contemporary Shared Workspaces; Prestel Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  50. Calhoun, C. Community without propinquity revisited: Communications technology and the transformation of the urban public sphere. Soc. Inq. 1998, 68, 373–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. McMillan, D.W.; Chavis, D.M. Sense of community: A definition and theory. J. Commun. Psychol. 1986, 14, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Erdil, O.; Ertosun, Ö.G. The relationship between social climate and loneliness in the workplace and effects on employee well-being. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 24, 505–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Daly, A.J.; Finnigan, K.S. Exploring the space between: Social networks, trust, and urban school district leaders. J. Sch. Leadersh. 2012, 22, 493–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fuzi, A. Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: The case of South Wales. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2015, 2, 462–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bunduchi, R. Trust, partner selection and innovation outcome in collaborative new product development. Prod. Plan. Control 2013, 24, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  57. Abu El-Ella, N.; Bessant, J.; Pinkwart, A. Revisiting the honorable merchant: The reshaped role of trust in open innovation. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Un, C.A. An empirical multi-level analysis for achieving balance between incremental and radical innovations. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2010, 27, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Unsworth, K.L.; Clegg, C.W. Why do employees undertake creative action? J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Madjar, N.; Greenberg, E.; Chen, Z. Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Simonton, D.K. Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A transhistorical time-series analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1975, 32, 1119–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Venkataraman, S. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Adv. Entrep. Firm Emerg. Growth 1997, 3, 119–138. [Google Scholar]
  63. Foss, N.J.; Lyngsie, J.; Zahra, S.A. The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation. Strat. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 1453–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Timmons, J.A. New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century, 4th ed.; Irwin: Burr Ridge, IL, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ozgen, E.; Baron, R.A. Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums. J. Bus. Vent. 2007, 22, 174–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ucbasaran, D.; Westhead, P.; Wright, M. The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. J. Bus. Vent. 2009, 24, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chandler, G.N.; Hanks, S.H. Founder competence, the environment, and venture performance. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1994, 18, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gielnik, M.M.; Zacher, H.; Frese, M. Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationship between business owners’ age and venture growth. J. Bus. Vent. 2012, 27, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cohen, W.M.; Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Quart. 1990, 35, 128–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Foss, N.J.; Laursen, K.; Pedersen, T. Linking customer interaction and innovation: The mediating role of new organizational practices. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 980–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Laursen, K.; Salter, A. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strat. Manag. J. 2006, 27, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zahra, S.A.; George, G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shane, S.; Venkataraman, S. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ardichvili, A.; Cardozo, R.; Ray, S. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. J. Bus. Vent. 2003, 18, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Spinuzzi, C. Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 2012, 26, 399–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Vasilchenko, E.; Morrish, S. The role of entrepreneurial networks in the exploration and exploitation of internationalization opportunities by information and communication technology firms’. J. Int. Mark. 2011, 19, 88–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dencker, J.C.; Gruber, M. The effects of opportunities and founder experience on new firm performance. Strat. Manag. J. 2015, 36, 1035–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zott, C.; Amit, R. The business model: A theoretically anchored robust construct for strategic analysis. Strat. Organ. 2013, 11, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Hills, G.E.; Lumpkin, G.T.; Singh, R.P. Opportunity recognition: Perceptions and behaviors of entrepreneurs. Front. Entrep. Res. 1997, 17, 168–182. [Google Scholar]
  80. Granovetter, M.S. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Soc. 1973, 78, 1360–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Surman, T. Building social entrepreneurship through the power of coworking. Innovations 2013, 8, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mu, J.; Di Benedetto, A. Networking capability and new product development. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2012, 59, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Roscoe, J.T. Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  84. Muthén, L.K. Mplus User’s Guide; Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  85. Bollen, K.A.; Stine, R. Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Soc. Method. 1990, 20, 115–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Bolger, N.; Laurenceau, J.-P. Intensive Longitudinal Methods: An Introduction to Diary and Experience Sampling Research; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  88. Bear, S.; Rahman, N.; Post, C. The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. De Jong, B.A.; Elfring, T. How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 535–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Peng, J.; Li, D.; Zhang, Z.; Tian, Y.; Miao, D.; Xiao, W.; Zhang, J. How can core self-evaluations influence job burnout? The key roles of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. J. Health Psychol. 2016, 21, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Cheah, S.; Koh, C.; Ho, Y.P. Understanding the models of coworking space in Singapore. In Proceedings of the Asialics Conference on Area-based Innovation in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand, 3–4 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  92. Schwartz, M.A. Control group study of incubators’ impact to promote firm survival. J. Technol. Transf. 2013, 38, 302–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Radicic, D.; Pugh, G. R&D programmes, policy mix, and the ‘european paradox’: Evidence from European SMEs. Sci. Public Policy 2016, 44, 497–512. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 11 02959 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Sustainability 11 02959 g001
Sustainability 11 02959 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural equation modeling results. Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Structural equation modeling results. Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 11 02959 g002
Table
Table 1. Breakdown of Sample Size by coworking space (CS) operator.
Table 1. Breakdown of Sample Size by coworking space (CS) operator.
Coworking Space (CS)Population of CSNo. of Responses Collected at CSResponse Rate of CS
CS13267%
CS2332061%
CS3623353%
CS4603050%
CS510990%
CS68450%
CS7564377%
CS8603253%
CS9201365%
CS10201050%
CS1115853%
CS12703854%
CS13301653%
Total44725860%
Table
Table 2. Measures and validation.
Table 2. Measures and validation.
ItemsLoading
Space creativity (Alpha = 0.829; CR = 0.840; AVE = 0.642)
Our coworking space design encourages creative thinking0.863
Our coworking space design encourages playfulness0.627
Our coworking space design generates idea of higher quality0.887
Social climate (Alpha = 0.895; CR =0.895; AVE = 0.518)
In our coworking space, the coworking community has a full sense of cooperation among members0.747
In our coworking space, mutual aid, sharing and cooperation is important in the coworking community0.679
In our coworking space, there is a friendly atmosphere0.531
In our coworking space, the relationships in the coworking community are close and cosy0.737
In our coworking space, there is a sincere relationship in the coworking community0.744
The coworking community members can depend on one another even in difficult situation0.791
The coworking community members typically look out for one another0.805
The coworking community members have faith in the integrity of one another0.687
Opportunity recognition and exploitation (Alpha = 0.916; CR =0.917; AVE = 0.648)
We can take advantage of product development opportunities with the help of the coworking community0.789
We are very responsive to the technological opportunities that circle in the coworking community0.762
We can develop new products to catch market opportunities with the help of coworking community0.848
We get insights into new ways to approach product development0.794
We can make several alternative solutions for each problem the project team encountered with the help of coworking community0.861
We can learn the technical know-how held by the coworking community0.769
Business model innovation (Alpha = 0.922; CR =0.921; AVE = 0.665)
The coworking space services enabled us to open new market(s)0.786
The coworking space services enabled us to increase market share0.867
The coworking space services enabled us to generate new sources of revenues0.951
The coworking space services enabled us to generate new sources of profits0.939
The coworking space services enabled us to improve operational efficiency0.660
The coworking space services enabled us to raise productivity level/reduce reliance on manpower0.631
Table
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis.
ModelX2DfX2/DFCFITLISRMRRMSEA
1759.0692243.3890.8780.8620.0620.096
2949.6902274.1840.8350.8160.0720.111
31372.5772295.9940.7380.7110.0940.139
41994.5642308.6720.5960.5560.1100.172
Note: CFI = comparative factor index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root of approximation; Model 1: Space creativity, social climate, ORE, BMI; Model 2: Space creativity + social climate, ORE, BMI; Model 3: Space creativity + social climate + ORE, BMI; Model 4: Space creativity + social climate + ORE + BMI.
Table
Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables.
Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables.
Variables(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)MeanSD
1. Size (log)1 5.9690.629
2 Age (squared)0.241 **1 97.28853.078
3. Industry−0.0520.0711 6.602.759
4. Space creativity0.0110.0790.0551 3.6800.860
5. Social climate0.0870.093−0.0320.585 **1 3.7280.715
6. Opportunity recognition and exploitation−0.0090.005−0.0080.475 **0.595 **1 3.3090.875
7. Business model innovation0.0920.080−0.0340.467 **0.459 **0.655 **13.2730.955
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; all two-tailed tests.
Table
Table 5. Results of path analysis.
Table 5. Results of path analysis.
Dependent VariableIndependent VariableEffect
Opportunity recognition and exploitationSpace creativity0.195 **
Social climate0.600 ***
Business model innovationSpace creativity0.222 **
Social climate−0.009
Opportunity recognition and exploitation0.616 ***
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 6. Results of mediating effect.
Table 6. Results of mediating effect.
RelationshipEffect95% CI
Space creativity → Opportunity recognition and exploitation → Business model innovation0.120 *[0.029, 0.228]
Social climate → Opportunity recognition and exploitation → Business model innovation0.370 ***[0.262, 0.526]
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheah, S.; Ho, Y.-P. Coworking and Sustainable Business Model Innovation in Young Firms. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2959. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11102959

AMA Style

Cheah S, Ho Y-P. Coworking and Sustainable Business Model Innovation in Young Firms. Sustainability. 2019; 11(10):2959. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11102959

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheah, Sarah, and Yuen-Ping Ho. 2019. "Coworking and Sustainable Business Model Innovation in Young Firms" Sustainability 11, no. 10: 2959. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11102959

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop