Facilitating campus interactions – critical success factors according to university facility directors

Abstract

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.

On Serendipitous Campus Meetings: A User Survey

“…After indicating a location on the map, a pop-up followed asking to rate that location on a 7-point Likert scale for 20 spatial characteristics, based on the environmental descriptors as defined by Mehrabian and Russell [ 19 ]. Finally, respondents were also asked to indicate what 13 service variables contributed to these interactions, again on a 7-point Likert scale and based on the previous study mentioned above [ 18 ] (see Section 2.6 ). Participants were asked to answer all questions based on their experiences in 2019, to ensure the COVID-19 measures in place during the study would not influence the results.…”

“…For location and service variables, all variables were asked on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (see Table 2 ). These variables were selected based on Mehrabian and Russell [ 19 ] (for location variables) and a previous study by these authors [ 18 ] in which university facility directors identified key success factors for unplanned meetings (for service variables).…”

“…This may be because it is hard to identify these locations. Even though campus directors can identify locations where they expect these meetings to take place, or on which they have had a lot of positive feedback [ 18 ], they have no way of knowing how much better one location is over the other, let alone why these differences occur. Therefore, the user’s perspective is needed: which locations do campus users indicate they have had successful unplanned meetings in?…”

“…In a previous study by the authors of this paper [ 18 ], the facility directors of 13 Dutch university campuses were asked what they felt were critical success factors that influence interaction on campuses. These respondents reported that a campus should be seen as an open system where everything is affected by its context.…”

“…Within this context, six abstract categories that influence interaction were derived from the data: constraints, motivators, designing spaces, designing services, building community and creating coherence. These were further specified in variables such as coffee, meeting spaces, shared research facilities, event programming and networks [ 18 ].…”