Search results

This paper aims to underpin the importance of the availability (or absence) of campus management information (CMI) in supporting universities’ goals.

Four perspectives of campus management were used to develop a structured survey enquiring campus managers about universities’ goals, finances, users and spaces. Its descriptive analysis distinguishes two domains: campus strategy and CMI.

A total of 14 participant universities in nine countries provided substantial data, increasing the available CMI in each of the four perspectives compared with previous research. Three goal-related patterns driving the strategies of universities and their campuses were identified across competitive, social, economic and environmental performance aspects. Accordingly, particular CMI is discussed.

The paper’s overarching approach in four perspectives challenged the collection of data, which needed to be retrieved from different departments in the organisation, with different domains (human resources, finance, facilities and organisational strategy), lingo and accountability cultures.

These findings improve the current understanding of university campuses as strategic resources enabling a variety of university goals and missions in today’s knowledge-based economy, society and cities. Moreover, the authors discuss that a more structural approach to collecting CMI may benefit universities to identify critical aspects of campus management supporting their strategies from which performance indicators can be derived and shared among campus managers with similar strategies to make better future decisions.

This paper aims to model the relationship between innovation and real estate, providing campus managers with a tool that illustrates how campus development stimulates innovation and that guides them to add value to their organisations.

The authors review previous research and build theory from the study of two cases. They shape a hypothesis by linking various theoretical concepts and by verifying it with empirical data to finally model how campus development stimulates innovation.

Findings suggest that campus development facilitates five conditions required to stimulate innovation through decisions and interventions over long-term periods. These findings acknowledge that location is key to explain campus development as a catalyst for innovation. In addition, this paper identifies potential issues in decision-making processes that can inhibit the facilitating role of real estate in innovation.

A framework clarifying the path to stimulate innovation through real estate will allow campus managers to steer their real estate strategies in line with this specific organisational goal and to better communicate how their decisions add value to their organisations.

Findings advocate a more effective and efficient resource allocation for campus development in and around cities.

Until now, studies on stimulating innovation through real estate have focussed on workplace level. A core theoretical contribution of this paper is enlarging the application scope of CREM theories to the urban level involving multiple organisations.

This paper aims to describe the different locations of campuses developed to stimulate innovation. The paper aims at supporting strategic decisions in the development of new and existing campuses and similar innovation-driven areas. Additionally, it aims to outline the key role of location for urban and regional competitiveness in the knowledge economy.

This paper tests an existing planning tool that proposes location and connectivity as key aspects to stimulate innovation in campus development. This tool is used to analyse and compare 39 campuses with different locations characteristics worldwide.

Findings describe five types of location characteristics in existing campuses developed to stimulate innovation. These characteristics are dynamic, and exhibit differences in connectivity aspects enabling more or less efficient access to amenities and knowledge networks.

Empirical findings were used to revise and improve the planning tool. Further research exploring the relation between connectivity aspects and innovation processes is recommended.

This paper supports decision-makers of new and existing campuses struggling with location decisions, by outlining that campus’ connectivity is crucial regardless of whether the campus is in an inner-city or a peripheral setting. Improving campus connectivity may be an efficient way to spend the many public and private resources invested on campus development to stimulate innovation.

This paper provides a unique comparison of cases that can be useful to planners of existing campuses to benchmark their current locations in relation to their ambitions on innovation.