It is recommended to integrate specific management competencies in academic education to support the transition towards environmentally sustainable practices, particularly in the construction and real estate sector. This paper explores how architectural management education can integrate environmental sustainability within its current university programmes. In recent years TU Delft explored and experimented with various education initiatives to bring forward environmental sustainability knowledge and to connect with policy, societal and industry practices. This paper describes what we learned from both bottom-up and top-down initiatives implementing environmental sustainability in construction and real estate management education. Bottom-up educational initiatives show that knowledge about transition policies, stakeholder experiences, business models and management practices from a European perspective can help students across the globe to apply knowledge into their local context, reflecting on the overarching management principals across stakeholders, institutions, academic disciplines and cultures. Top-down initiatives show that the university has a vision on integrating sustainability in its curriculum, but that integrating environmental sustainability in construction and real estate management education is still challenging. Adapting the academic curriculum to integrate building and portfolio responses to environmental challenges might be a way forward and the experiences from numerous elective courses and educational initiatives can be a basis to identify the development of a future standard curriculum.@en

The very purpose of management is to achieve desired goals. Management ensures that planes fly, the sick are healed, or peace is maintained. Management in the built environment ensures that the built environment fits with user requirements, during operation and (re-)development. Management needs feedback on whether its area of attention is moving in the right direction and the desired goals are reached. Performance measurement provides that feedback. Performance, as used in this textbook, is the extent to which the current state of a focus area corresponds to its desired state. The concept is very familiar to all of us: we check performance naturally and frequently throughout the day as we examine whether our actions have produced the desired results and use this information to plan new actions. For example, when preparing a meal, we frequently check that the vegetables are cooking according to the recipe (performance measurement) and appropriately adjust the heat of the oven (performance management). This textbook focuses on the technique of performance measurement, with occasional references to what management can do with the results of performance measurement.@en

Purpose: Since corporate real estate management (CREM) emerged in the 1990s, it has been modelled in many ways. The Delft model views the corporate real estate management function as a coordinator of four distinct accommodation perspectives. Although the model has been used in education and practice for years, there is no consensus on its interpretation and application, and various versions circulate. This paper aims to first reconstruct the history of the conceptualisation of the Delft CREM model and then seeks to develop an understanding of its nature that provides clearer interpretations of the model. Design/methodology/approach: Because the developers of the Delft CREM model did not maintain archives, the reconstruction of the model’s genesis is based on the developers’ publications from 1985 to 2015 and eight semi-structured interviews conducted with these developers in 2017 and 2018. The collected information, which was by its very nature incomplete and imperfect, was triangulated, contextualised and assembled chronologically. This served as the basis for an analysis of the model’s nature, which in turn generated a list of practical implications for its future application. Findings: The historical reconstruction revealed two parallel but distinct lines of reasoning, whose resulting models appear similar but are distinct. One line of reasoning models CRE viewpoints, while the other models CRE management activities, i.e. the first line of reasoning models CREM across the organisation, while the second models CREM within the function. These two lines of thought have converged in the research-through-design approach of the developers, which evolved against the backdrop of a growing interest in the contribution of organisational resources to organisational objectives and the emergence of the demand-supply model in management practices in general and in the built environment in particular. Research limitations/implications: The research is limited to reconstructing the genesis and analysing the nature of the Delft CREM model. It is not intended to provide a conclusive narrative, update the model or compare it to other CREM models. As is typical in oral history, it is based on imperfect documentary evidence and imperfect recollections. The reconstruction and analysis are stepping stones towards a more precise interpretation and application of the model in both research and practice, and may eventually contribute to its evolution. When using the model, it is recommended to (1) be clear about whether the model applies to the CREM department, the entire organisation or the organisation’s environment; (2) be clear about what is being modelled (activities, viewpoints or something else); and (3) use labels that reflect the selections made in (1) and (2). Originality/value: The value of this paper lies in the historical reconstruction of the intentions of the developers of the four-view scheme, including the detailed analysis of its consecutive graphical representations and the investigation of its relationship with the seminal strategic alignment model.

@en

Purpose
Triggered by public concerns over office workplace safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study sheds light on the office workplace environment and aims to investigate how organisations respond to forces from the external environment (impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic) and how they modify their office workplace management strategically and operationally to suit the stakeholders’ needs and future development in the post COVID-19 period.

Design/methodology/approach
A desktop study was conducted to provide the framework for the in-depth interviews with five corporate real estate (CRE) managers and three workplace consultants. Thematic analysis including coding technique was adopted to analyse the qualitative data.

Findings
The findings show that during the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the intended and implemented office workplace modifications are mainly related to two types of risk control: administrative control and personal protection. At a strategic level, organisations react to the external forces by re-modelling their businesses and working towards re-orienting their CRE strategies, such as portfolio transformation, agile portfolio strategies and redesign of the office workplace, etc.

Originality/value
This is a topical and timely study that presents the general practice of office workplace modification during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the related CRE management (CREM) strategies developed for the new normal. The findings obtained through in-depth interviews have well supported the CREM strategic alignment theory. It is foreseen that office workplace management will encounter other challenges due to uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of this study provide a practical lens to look at the future changes of office workplace environment.
@en

This research aims at developing a real estate management theory that overarches the different classes of real estate management like e.g. corporate real estate (CRE) management and housing management, who all operate within a specific narrative, apply a particular range of concepts and terminology, and refer in their own way to general theories like asset and portfolio management. These specificities create barriers for communication between the different classes of real estate management and hamper the exchange and development of knowledge in the field, what we consider undesirable. The challenge of developing a broad real estate management theory is to avoid that little more is done than to repeat general management, economic or sociological theories. The aimed broad real estate management theory should approximate the concreteness of the specific theories and cover their core, while still being relevant for practice, research and education. For this research, real estate management is considered the ongoing process of aligning the built environment and the needs of users, which happens at all scales of the built environment, for all types of users, and for all real estate aspects such as location, cost, function, time and quality. Based on this definition, the research will addresses three components: demand side, supply side and the delivery models that coordinate both sides. The research on the side of the real estate demander searches for similarities and differences between e.g. the way the demander is organised internally, the real estate procurement is executed, what is outsourced and why, what performance criteria are used, how financial markets are accessed. The research on the side of the supplier of the built environment may address topics like e.g. what is the relation of the supplier with the user, what drives production, what are context constraints, what is the status of the sustainability discourse. The search for similarities and differences in the delivery may address e.g. what models are in place, what types of institutions operate in this delivery, who intervenes in this alignment and why, what is the nature of the markets, what is the role of state intervention, what type of alignment is searched for, what performance criteria are used. The comparison of different classes of real estate management may reveal e.g.: that theories on CRE management subsequently position the CRE management department inside the user’s organisation boundary, whereas theories on housing management position this group most often outside the households’ boundary; that current practices in CRE and housing management both strive after a portfolio of conventional assets and keep away from the representative objects like monuments; that there is a trend that households want to be more involved and co-producing their house than before and thereto want to bypass the current institutional setting (sort of insourcing, self-production), whereas within organisations the trend has been for decades to less involve in the management of their accommodation and to rely on the possibilities offered by the CRE and related services market, although since a few years in-sourcing and self-provision seem to be revalued; that there is recent trend that private companies engage in the delivery of housing for their employees to deal with failing housing markets like they did in the beginning of the 20th century, and that households are re-initiating work at home, for which they need a different type of dwelling; both types of users seem to breach the institutionalised division of actors by real estate function installed for almost a century. This type of observations – and many more and of very different natures – trigger an explanation of causes and mechanisms, and together with the main theories used in the different classes of real estate management (Pestoff, 1993; Brandsen et al., 2005; Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993;…) they are the basis for building the aimed broad real estate management theory. In concreto the research method consists of theory design, academic literature study and interviews with academics. @en

Het is niet zo gebruikelijk om een onderzoek te typeren als een informatieverwerkingsproces. Maar toch is dat wat een wetenschapper doet: hij verzamelt, analyseert en structureert informatie waardoor er nieuwe inzichten ontstaan die hij rapporteert. De input en output van onderzoek is informatie. En daartussen ligt een systematisch proces van informatieverwerking en –productie (Levy & Ellis, 2006), dat transparant moet zijn zodat het bekritiseerd kan worden (figuur 6.3.1). Om die redenen wordt van een wetenschapper verwacht dat hij vaardig is met informatie.@en

Het onderzoek naar smart tools is gestart naar aanleiding van een probleem dat bekend is bij zowel studenten en docenten als bij campusmanagers: gereserveerde maar (deels) ongebruikte of onderbenutte ruimte. Dit probleem is een grote ergernis, vooral in geval van ruimteschaarste. Bij de campusmanagers van de Nederlandse universiteiten, en bij de onderzoekers die zij daarover contacteerden, leefde de veronderstelling dat het ruimtegebruik op hun campussen aanzienlijk efficiënter kon.

Het eerste onderzoek over smart tools aan de Nederlands universiteiten vond plaats in 2016. Het definieerde het begrip en inventariseerde het gebruik, de verwachtingen en mogelijkheden. Vervolgonderzoek in 2017 (gerapporteerd in voorjaar 2018) verkende het gebruik van smart tools bij buitenlandse universiteiten en bedrijven, en verdiepte zich in enkele cases bij de Nederlandse universiteiten. Dit artikel bouwt voort op het eerste onderzoek.

In corporate real estate management waren smart tools tot voor het onderzoek uit 2016 nagenoeg onbekend. Onderzoekers definieerden een smart tool als een dienst of product dat op een niet gangbare wijze informatie over ruimtegebruik verzamelt en verspreidt ter verbetering van het huidige ruimtegebruik en ter ondersteuning van besluitvorming over het toekomstige ruimtegebruik. Dit artikel beschrijft 15 dimensies waarmee smart tools kunnen worden onderscheiden van andere tools voor campusmanagement.

Bij de Nederlandse universiteiten zijn anno 2016 26 verschillende smart tools in gebruik, waarvan 12 zelf ontwikkeld. Het precies en doorlopend meten van het feitelijke ruimtegebruik op een lage resolutie wordt nagestreefd, maar er is ook veel interesse voor het vergelijken van het geplande en feitelijke gebruik. Twee soorten smart tools zijn dominant. De eerste soort zijn tools die studenten en medewerkers helpen om beschikbare ruimten te vinden of te boeken. Ze zijn ingevoerd als gevolg van de groeiende campuspopulatie. De tweede soort zijn tools die het gebruik van onderwijsruimten monitoren. Doelgroep van deze tools zijn de vastgoedbeheerders en de medewerkers die de roosters opmaken.

Het onderzoek komt tot de conclusie dat smart tools waardevolle informatie aanbrengen voor ruimtegebruikers en -beheerders en bijdragen aan de functionele en strategische doelstellingen van het campusmanagement.@en

Purpose: The objective of corporate real estate management is to optimally attune corporate accommodation to organisational performance. At universities, the dynamic process to match supply and demand is often hindered by difficulties in the allocation and use of space. This is a challenge for the Dutch universities and perhaps also European universities, which own large and ageing real estate portfolio’s in need of (re)investment: how can universities invest their resources as effectively as possible and not in space that will be poorly used? The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of smart campus tools to improve space use on campus. Design/methodology/approach: First, a survey at 13 Dutch universities is conducted, consisting of a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with Dutch campus managers. Then, semi-structured interviews are held with a number of parties in other industries to explore the use of smart tools in other contexts. Findings: The universities’ demand for smart tools is mainly directed at the automatic and continuous collection of real-time space use data for education spaces and giving students insight into the availability of study places on campus. The tools at the Dutch universities focus largely on effectiveness: helping their users in their search to find a space that supports their activities. In other industry sectors, the results suggest that the use of smart tools is more directed towards efficiency: maximizing the use of existing space or optimising the operations of the organisation. Originality/value: Although the use of smart tools in practice has gained significant momentum in the past few years, research on the subject is still sparse. By providing a framework for smart tools, as well as exploring the work done in theory and in practice, the authors hope to increase discussion and research on the subject from the perspective of corporate real estate.

@en

Since Freeman (1984) stakeholders are an established concept in management sciences and practices. This is not different in the field of corporate real estate management, where stakeholder analysis and administration became an essential tool for strategy design and execution. Delft scholars traditionally divide corporate real estate stakeholders in four groups – general management, asset management, facility management and technical management. More recently Den Heijer (2012) reframed these groups and positioned the stakeholders external to the corporationin the same four groups. She then used these extended groups to categorise all stakeholders of the accommodation of universities. More applications or critical publications of the early four group categorisation technique or the extended version of it don’t exist. This is a lacuna for the development of the corporate real estate management discipline and for its education.This paper aims at deepening the understanding of the four group categorisation technique as used by many scholars in the field of corporate real estate management, and at checking its applicability. The research starts with a short survey, through literature and interviews, into the current issues on the categorisation of corporate real estate stakeholders and the four group categorisation in particular. Thereafter the five cases published by Edwards & Ellison (2004) are analysed using the four stakeholder group technique. This leads to an assessment of the perspectives and categories used for each group and the fit between them. The outcome is a series of five well-considered examples that can be used for further research and for the education of the four group stakeholder categorisation technique.@en

Het ‘Smart tools on campus’ onderzoek is gestart naar aanleiding van een probleem dat bekend is voor zowel gebruikers als campus managers: gereserveerde maar (deels) ongebruikte of onderbenutte ruimte. Gebruikers zijn geregeld op zoek naar een studie, werk- of vergaderplek, maar alle plekken lijken bezet: zalen zijn ingeroosterd voor een college en werkplekken zijn geclaimd met boeken op tafel of een jas over de stoel. Grote delen van de dag zijn ze echter niet in gebruik. De analogie met het ‘handdoekje leggen’ bij het zwembad (zie figuur M.1) geeft dit probleem goed weer: “gereserveerd maar ongebruikt” is een grote ergernis in geval van ruimteschaarste. Zo ontstaat er bij studenten en docenten een vraag naar meer ruimte, terwijl de campusmanagers tegelijkertijd weten dat de beschikbare ruimten niet volledig gebruikt worden. Het lijkt erop dat smart tools een belangrijke bijdrage kunnen leveren aan het oplossen van voorgenoemd probleem en daarmee van toegevoegde waarde voor verschillende stakeholders op de campus. Door gebruikers te helpen bij het boeken of het vinden van een ruimte kunnen zij in de huidige situatie de beschikbare ruimte beter gebruiken. Door de facilitair- en vastgoedmanagers te voorzien van (real-time) data over het werkelijke gebruik van verschillende ruimtetypen op de campus, worden zij geholpen in de besluitvorming over toekomstige investeringen. De hoofdvraag van het onderzoek is: Aan welke smart tools hebben de universiteiten behoefte en welke zijn er beschikbaar? Een smart tool is een dienst of product waarmee (real-time) informatie verzameld wordt om enerzijds ruimtegebruik op de huidige campus te verbeteren en anderzijds de besluitvorming over het toekomstig ruimtegebruik te ondersteunen. Een smart tool wordt beschreven in drie onderdelen: 1. Waarom deze tool? – doelstellingen - de redenen waarom de smart tool wordt ingezet 2. Wat meet deze tool? – informatie ruimtegebruik – het type data dat wordt verzameld 3. Hoe meet deze tool? – meetmethoden - de manier waarop of sensor waarmee wordt gemeten @en