Purpose The purpose of this paper is to create an overview of current literature and identify gaps in what is known about stimulating interaction through spaces and services provided on university campuses. Design/methodology/approach The authors used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement methodology for systematic literature review. In total, 3,616 articles were screened, 31 articles were included. Facility Directors from 13 Dutch Universities were asked to define the search terms related to services. Findings Spaces and services were mostly studied separately. The majority of papers (18/31) were based on perceptions (surveys or interviews). The following critical success factors were identified in the literature: geographic proximity, cognitive proximity, scale, transitional spaces, comfort and experience, shared facilities and events, local buzz and networks. These factors are interrelated. The authors present a new relational model, from spaces and services, through interaction to innovation, visualising how the identified papers are related. Research limitations/implications The scope of possible findings may have been narrowed because prior relevant studies were rather limited and as a consequence of the search strategy designed to limit the number of unrelated hits. Some knowledge gaps may not have been identified, as only a few mainstream concepts related to the critical success factors were used for comparison. Nevertheless, the literature review provides a reliable overview of current academic knowledge regarding critical success factors for spaces and services that stimulate interaction on campuses. Originality/value This paper offers a novel perspective by emphasising the relational chain from interaction to innovation, visualising the large diversity in research fields and summarising the critical success factors in the literature.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate which critical success factors (CSFs) influence interaction on campuses as identified by the facility directors (FDs) of Dutch university campuses and to discuss how these compare with the literature. Design/methodology/approach All 13 Dutch university campus FDs were interviewed (office and walking interview), focussing on CSFs relating to spaces and services that facilitate interaction. Open coding and thematic analysis resulted in empirically driven categories indicated by the respondents. Similarities and differences between the CSFs as previously identified in the literature are discussed. Findings The following categories emerged: constraints, motivators, designing spaces, designing services, building community and creating coherence. The campus is seen as a system containing subsystems and is itself part of a wider system (environment), forming a layered structure. Constraints and motivators are part of the environment but cannot be separated from the other four categories, as they influence their applicability. Research limitations/implications This study was limited to interviews with FDs and related staff. The richness of the findings shows that this was a relevant and efficient data collection strategy for the purpose of this study. Practical implications By viewing the campus as an open system, this study puts the practical applicability of CSFs into perspective yet provides a clear overview of CSFs related to campus interaction that may be included in future campus design policies. Social implications This (more) complete overview of CSFs identified in both literature and practice will help FDs, policymakers and campus designers to apply these CSFs in their campus designs. This improved campus design would increase the number of knowledge sharing interactions, contributing to innovation and valorisation. This could create a significant impact in all research fields, such as health, technology or well-being, benefitting society as a whole. Originality/value This study provides a comprehensive overview and comparison of CSFs from both literature and practice, allowing more effective application of CSFs in campus design policies. A framework for future studies on CSFs for interaction on campuses is provided.

As campuses wish to stimulate interactions among different campus users, we aim to identify why some locations are successful in fostering unplanned meetings while others are not. This can help campus managers, directors, and other practitioners to optimize their campus to facilitate unplanned meetings between academic staff and companies. Findings of a previous survey were discussed in five focus groups, which were transcribed and thematically coded. Three separate theme groups were identified: function (food, drinks, events, work, facilities), space (distance, experience, accessibility, characteristics), and organization (coherence, culture, organization). Time was an overarching constraint, influencing all other themes. There were three natural moments for unplanned meetings: during short breaks, lunch breaks, and events. The outcomes suggest a 5-minute campus as the environment of interaction; a campus where natural moments, locations, and travel time for unplanned meetings are designed and aligned: (1) under 5 min walking for short workplace breaks, (2) approximately 5 min travel time for lunch breaks, and (3) over 5 min travel time for events, depending on the event length and anticipated knowledge gain.