Purpose
To plan the future university campus, campus executives need decision-making support from theory and practice. Matching the static campus (supply) with the dynamic (demand) - while safeguarding spatial quality and sustainability - requires management information from similar organizations. This study presents an evidence-based briefing approach to support decision-makers of individual universities with management information when making decisions for their future campus.

Design/methodology/approach
For the proposed evidence-based briefing approach, the continuous Designing an Accommodation Strategy (DAS) framework is used in a mixed-method research design to evaluate the past to plan for the future. Five campus themes and three campus models (solid, liquid, and gas) are introduced to describe the development and diversification of university campuses and their impact across different university building types. Based on this theoretical framework, first, qualitative interview data are analyzed to understand which standards campus managers expect; second, a quantitative project database is used to demonstrate what is actually realized.

Findings
The findings demonstrate that remote working and online education will become more common. Academic workplaces and learning environments are more adaptive to changes than laboratory spaces. The analyses reveal different effective space use strategies to meet the current demand: they include space-efficient mixed-use buildings, and mono-functional generic educational and office spaces. These results show that operationalized evidence-based briefing can help design the future campus.

Originality/value
The study adds knowledge during a critical (post-COVID) period when decision-makers need evidence from others to adapt their campus management strategies to hybrid and sustainable ambitions.@en

The built environment significantly contributes to current socioenvironmental crises, necessitating systemic change. Circularity and the commons are re-emerging as potential pathways for such transition. A circular built environment (CBE) aims to close resource loops, but its implementation is often slow and neglects social and local aspects. The commons framework emphasizes local involvement and sustainable self-management of shared resources. However, the intersection of circularity and the commons in spatial production is underexplored. This paper explores their relationship as “innate spatial tactics,” referring to the ways ordinary people interact with the built environment to meet their daily needs. Through a literature review, we developed a conceptual framework of “circular commoning,” encompassing three dimensions: resources, people, and governance. We applied this framework to analyze 16 empirical examples of circular commoning in contemporary urban settings. Our research shows that circularity and the commons are closely linked and mutually beneficial. Circular commoning involves diverse resources, changing social roles, and innovative governance. We identified three forms of circular commoning as innate spatial tactics: building circular, circular use of space, and creating spaces for circular activities. The framework developed here provides a basis for further action research. The practice review demonstrates that circular commoning is not only a distant utopian ideal but is enacted daily in diverse urban contexts. Such often-overlooked innate spatial tactics can offer valuable lessons for pathways toward a CBE involving principles of a circular society. Additionally, they can help shape new narratives and channel hope for practical progress towards circular futures.@en

Following the Covid-19 pandemic, an increasing number of individuals are expected to engage in remote work. Consequently, the hybrid working paradigm, characterized by a combination of office-based and remote work, is gaining prominence. Despite the governments awareness of this phenomenon, comprehensive policy framework remains absent, leaving determinations to the discretion of individual sectors and entities. Whereas studies focused on diverse sectors in this matter, not much is known regarding hybrid working within the university environment. This study is part of the Campus NL project, aiming to investigate management and strategies across all the 14 universities in the Netherlands. The specific focus of this study was to examine hybrid working and its ramifications within the university landscape in the Netherlands. We asked universities to provide us with information concerning policies and financial allocations related to hybrid working, spatial utilization, energy consumption, and prospective strategies related to sustainability and mobility. Furthermore, we aimed not solely to delineate the present state of hybrid working within Dutch universities but also to enhance future strategies in this domain to provide a better working space in the universities.@en

Purpose
Corporate real estate management (CREM) is complex due to an increasing number of real estate (RE) added values and the tensions between them. RE managers are faced with trade-offs: to choose a higher performance for one added value at the cost of another. CREM research mainly deals with trade-offs in a hypothetical sense, without looking at the characteristics of the RE portfolio nor the specific context in which trade-offs are made. The purpose of this paper is to further develop the concept of real estate value (REV) optimisation with regard to tensions between decreasing CO2 emissions and supporting user activities.

Design/methodology/approach
Mixed method study. REV optimisation between user activities and energy efficiency for police stations in the Netherlands built between 2000 and 2020 is analysed. This is complemented by interviews with an RE manager and senior user of police stations and analysis of policy documents.

Findings
The characteristics of the police station portfolio indicate no correlation between user activities and energy efficiency for the case studied. This is complemented by interviews, from which it becomes clear that there was in fact little tension between supporting user activities and energy efficiency. The performances of these two different added values were optimised separately.

Originality/value
This study combines different scales (building and portfolio level) with different types of data: portfolio analysis, document analysis and interviews. This creates a comprehensive image of whether and how the Netherlands police optimised the two RE values.@en

Dilemma’s rond hybride werken en on- en off-campus studeren zijn slechts twee van de grote uitdagingen waarvoor universiteiten staan. Andere collectieve opgaven zijn de grote aantallen instromende studenten (maar mogelijk ook krimp), de krappe (studenten)- woningmarkt, verduurzaming en een gezond werkklimaat. Crises waaronder de coronapandemie, torenhoge energieprijzen, materiaalschaarste en personeelstekort hebben de urgentie om campuskennis te delen alleen nog maar versterkt. Onderzoeksproject Campus NL brengt inzichten uit theorie en praktijk bij elkaar, met als doel het campusmanagement aan elk van de veertien Nederlandse universiteiten (nog) e!ectiever en efficiënter te kunnen organiseren.@en

Introduction: The challenge of the energy transition in the built environment has, in recent years, been exacerbated by rising awareness of the material resource limitations we face on the path towards sustainable development. In this context the concepts of Circular Economy (CE) and Product-Service Systems (PSS) have emerged as potentially complementary industrial and business strategies to overcome the interdependent material resource and clean energy challenges.

Research significance: Research in the field of circular and PSS-based construction frequently centres on the design and engineering of products, mainly through technical strategies such as design for disassembly and adaptability, and the use of the different “R’s” (Reuse, Repair, Remanufacturing, etc.) to extend and/or reset the service lives of building materials and components. Such an approach often ignores the fact that these strategies require changes in the management, financing, and governance aspects of products and therefore buildings, throughout their entire service-lives. This paper will focus on the systemic administrative (i.e. management, financing, and governance) challenges of the circular and servitisation transitions in the building and construction sector, to enable products which are “Circular by Design”, to effectively support regenerative processes.

Research question: The paper asks how traditional building products’ management, financing, and governance processes prevent or delay the implementation of CE and PSS models. It explores the demand side’s perspective (commissioners, building owners and facility managers), taking a systemic view to the search for new practical, strategic, and scalable administrative models.

Methodology: The research method applies the DAS model (De Jonge et al., 2009; Van der Zwart et al., 2009; den Heijer, 2011; den Heijer et al., 2016) to data gathered from focus group discussion and co-design sessions involving multidisciplinary teams of experts from both academy and industry, as well as literature. The research was conducted within the context of the TU Delft Facades-as-a-Service full-scale pilot project.

Results: The research has shown that, while PSS models to enable material circularity can be partially implemented within the current managerial, financial, and governance framework, this implementation is not efficient, effective, or scalable. This is because standard modes of operation in these disciplines are misaligned with that goal. The practical barriers resulting from this misalignment increase the complexity, risk perception, and therefore cost of PSS alternatives, and thus prevent their organic adoption despite increasing market interest. Recommendations are made for policymakers, financiers, suppliers, and building owners to overcome these barriers.@en

Campus decision makers are increasingly expected to adopt ‘campus innovations’ (affecting real estate and different facilities), not only from the market and demand-led (external campus innovations), but also developed by the university's own scientists (internal campus innovations). The adoption of the latter can be driven and hindered by many unique factors that campus decision makers have not dealt with before. To provide insight into them, qualitative data were collected from 13 out of 14 Dutch research-intensive universities. The results indicate that internal campus innovations are driven by co-creation stimulation, collaborative partnership, transparency and accountability, and local development contribution. Their adoption, however, may be obstructed by barriers embedded in the interaction between campus decision makers and scientists, organizational university context, funds unavailability and innovations' supply-pushed characteristics. An increased understanding of these barriers and the practices to overcome them is crucial for universities' campus decision makers to actively engage in the adoption of internal campus innovations.

@en

Campus as inter-disciplinary technological playground for sustainable technology experiments and implementation is a dream TU Delft strives for. However, innovation implementation on the university campus is nonetheless considered a risk due to the embedded uncertainty of any innovation. This uncertainty leads to several questions about the decisions to implement innovations on campus. Answering this question is the motivation behind this study, aimed at enabling effective implementation of innovation on our campus. We identified the decision making criteria used by a variety of employees who regularly face innovation implementation challenges on campus on campus.

We used two decision support systems to identify and explain the relative importance of the decision making criteria. The first approach was executed by a TU Delft spin-off Councyl.ai. Councyl.ai’s decision support model was built to identify the decision-making criteria and then through a choice experiment identify the relative weight of those criteria.

In a second approach, the PAS design and decision approach, developed by Prof. Monique Arkesteijn from TU Delft (2019), was used to develop the decision framework and relative importance of each criteria.

This project has been successful in distilling the most important criteria used during implicit assessment of innovation projects on campus, a great achievement in itself. However these two approaches do not indicate the same relative weight of the decision-making criteria, suggesting that innovation projects are very diverse and the importance of criteria change along with the project description and context for implementation.

This brings us one step closer to clearly communicating to innovators and amongst ourselves which decision-making criteria are implicitly taken into consideration for implementation of innovation on campus. It clarifies the steps that need to be taken to manage and mitigate risk, and increase the likelihood of innovators registering their interest in placing their innovations on campus, as well as the likelihood that campus managers will allocate the necessary resources to the project.

We trust this report, in conjunction with the other research projects run at the Campus research team, will be beneficial in providing the necessary support for decision making about sustainable innovation on the university campus. Making the campus a reputable technological showroom of every aspirational clean energy, climate adaptive and circular innovation on the TU Delft campus and beyond.@en

Internationally, the ambition to achieve a sustainable built environment is becoming urgent. On the university campus, this vision, combined with unparalleled access to innovative technologies for sustainable development enables/urges universities to implement more innovative solutions more often. As a prime test location, the university campus is uniquely able to serve as a context for living labs, implementing and testing innovative technologies in a real-world environment. However, implementation of innovation on campus requires a clear vision, intentional action and transdisciplinary collaboration, while innovations themselves pose several challenges to the business-as-usual way of work. To explore the role of campus real estate managers in innovation implementation decisions on the university campus, a literature review and a qualitative study among campus managers of 13 Dutch universities were conducted. The research explored the innovation project types, risks, drivers and barriers and the real estate management responsibilities and decision criteria in innovation implementation projects. As one of the outputs of this research, a comprehensive categorization framework was developed. It clarifies campus managers’ decision-making dimensions for innovative sustainability project implementation on campus and highlights the sustainability objectives unique to universities. If implemented across universities, it could further strengthen the networked economy by identifying opportunities for cross-campus implementation of innovative projects for sustainability.@en

Purpose: Across the world, many universities are dealing with a pressure on resources, caused by both organisational developments and ageing campuses. Space utilization studies have a strategic role, providing information on how space is being used, thereby informing decisions about the type and scale of facilities that are needed. Design/methodology/approach: This study reports on the space use measurements conducted at TU Delft over the past five years, complemented by their use to make decisions about the university's real estate portfolio. Findings: The education spaces of the university are found to perform well in terms of frequency rates and can be improved in terms of occupancy rates. The information helped to support short- and long-term decision-making. The study places of the university have a satisfactory occupancy in some types of study places, while in others there is room for improvement. More research is needed here to understand the relationship between space norms and space use. Practical implications: The space utilization studies have supported discussions with the student council and decision makers on which interventions are required and which current facilities meet students' needs best. Originality/value: Not much space utilisation studies are reported in the academic literature, and those that do have several limitations. This study may serve as a best practice for benchmarking by other universities and as evidence in other research for the planned and actual use of university facilities.

@en

At the beginning of the 21st century many thought that bricks would be replaced by clicks on campus. However, the universities’ campus managers had a different story to tell. Indeed, there were more clicks to facilitate, but not to replace the bricks. The virtual campus would emerge, but the physical campus would stay. With increasing pressure on environmental and financial resources, strategic choices need to be made to preserve the university’s heritage and legacy, to accommodate the network organisations that universities have become and to support the mobile community that needs a home base to return to. The campus of the future is a combination of solid, liquid and gas. This metaphor from physics refers to three states of matter, resembling the traditional, network and virtual university. This book aims at reaching different kinds of stakeholders – policy makers, users, controllers, engineers, designers and other decision makers – by speaking their language and engaging them all in collectively shaping the campus of the future.@en

Na de verwoestende brand van het geliefde maar verouderde Bouwkundegebouw aan de Berlageweg in 2008, was de grootste uitdaging om de veelkleurige community weer een nieuw thuis te bieden. Een gebouw dat paste bij de identiteit van de faculteit, maar ook een gebouw dat groot genoeg was om te passen. Vanaf dag één hebben studenten en medewerkers - maar ook vaste gasten en eenmalige bezoekers - het gebouw aan de Julianalaan omarmd. Samen gaven zij nieuw leven aan academisch erfgoed dat nog maar net verlaten was door de universiteit. Generaties van BK-alumni en TU Delft-veteranen kwamen met grote groepen langs om ”BK City” te bewonderen en anekdotes te vertellen over de functies die het gebouw had gehad vanaf de bouw in de jaren 1920, nu honderd jaar geleden. Van opslag voor oorlogsmaterieel tot innovatief rekencentrum. Een plek waar iedere TU-student een collegekaart ophaalde, waar de struikelvakken van menig curriculum werden gedoceerd en waar het College van Bestuur de universiteit nog top-down bestuurde. Een gebouw met zoveel historie dwingt respect af en heeft al honderd jaar bewezen multifunctioneel te zijn.@en

Universities find themselves in a unique position where sustainability visions are increasingly clear and innovations to promote sustainability are ever more abundant. On some campuses campus real estate management units (CREM units) receive infrequent requests from academics for the implementation of small experiments, their decisions are ad hoc and easily hosted, participation is limited to the researchers with little impact on the build environment of the university campus. However, as research groups and knowledge centres increasingly look for more realistic experimentation grounds for demonstrations of their innovative solutions, the decisions made by CREM units need to become more strategic. Finally the growing demand for practical solutions from a network of societal partners to achieve sustainability targets also emphasise the need for strategic response from CREM units.

In this study, a qualitative research approach enabled a rich description of campus management’s experience in implementing campus innovation projects alongside researchers and external parties on campus. Through in-depth interviews innovation projects implemented by campus real estate management (CREM) units across 13 Dutch universities are categorized to provide a starting point for strategic management of innovation implementation on the Dutch campus.

The scope of innovation implementation requests dealt with by CREM units vary in terms of a few main categories:
1. The time span they are on campus (from 6 months to legacy projects),
2. The innovation stage (from data gathering in the fundamental stages of a study to testing the business case of mature smart metering system),
3. The physical impact (from small experiments in traditional laboratories to large new buildings on campus and even software projects in the cloud); and
4. The role the CREM unit is expected to play (from participating or hosting to implementing or being a key network partner).

We provide examples of projects throughout, linking the categorization and theoretical context to practical projects. A few drivers and many barriers to implementing innovation on campus was also identified. Mainly the strategic intent and organizational support of the innovation goals will enable and improve awareness and networking programmes or challenges that would enable innovators and implementers to find each other more often.

Management of uncertainty and risk in a transparent manner and addressing synchronicity problems within current projects could also improve innovation implementation on campus. Many campuses report the need for (and in some cases the use of) research coordinator specifically focusing on creating and managing implementation projects on campus.

A research coordinator would thus have the responsibility to facilitate networks of people where subject synergy may overlap with an overall understanding of both the specific research topics of a an academic research department and the.
They would play a role in linking people with each other but also to facilitate discussions around campus innovation implementation, to consider the innovation readiness level (TRL), understand and describe the risks involved, align project, finance, time schedule and research goals between different parties.

This report is the starting point for the development of a decision-making framework for CREM units on the implementation of innovation on campus. The potential benefits of decision making guidance would be:
• Problem identification and formulation
• Identification of clear goals
• Illumination of key questions about scope and management (who are the stakeholders)
• Application of analytical tools (assessing risk, actions, trade-offs and uncertainties)
• Connecting authorities to the outcomes of their decisions
• And transparency about the intentions

We would like to thank all the participants in this study who provided their time and insight during the interviews to assist us in improving our understanding and strategic decision-making about innovation generation, adoption and integration on our Dutch campuses. We also welcome your continued participation through recommendations and knowledge sharing.
 
@en

Na de brand die het Bouwkundegebouw van de TU Delft in 2008 volledig verwoestte, kreeg een projectteam van specialisten, ontwerpers en managers de taak om meer dan 3000 studenten en meer dan 800 personeelsleden opnieuw te huisvesten. Binnen tien dagen werd besloten een nieuwe - tijdelijke - thuisbasis (genaamd “BK City”) te creëren in een leegstaand monumentaal pand: het voormalige hoofdgebouw van de TU Delft dat net was verkocht en op het punt stond om te worden getransformeerd tot appartementen. De crisis werd aangegrepen om diverse innovatieve concepten te testen en te experimenteren met nieuwe manieren van werken. BK City werd een ‘living lab’: de ultieme casestudy voor onderzoek. Dit essay is gebaseerd op een hoofdstuk dat Alexandra den Heijer, die het programmateam van BK-City leidde, in 2017 heeft geschreven voor een boek over campusontwikkeling (zie achtergrondinformatie). Het beschrijft tien lessen van BK City voor de campus van de toekomst. De basis voor deze evaluatie zijn de gebruikservaringen, campusonderzoek en het oorspronkelijke programma van eisen voor BK-City uit 2008*.@en

At universities worldwide, the notion of a ‘smart campus’ is becoming increasingly appealing as a response to the multitude of challenges that impact campus development and operation. Smart campus tools are widely used to support students and employees, optimise space use and save energy. Although smart campus tools are supposed to support campus managers in their decision-making processes, the use of the information delivered by smart campus tools and their application in organisational processes has received little attention. In this paper, we focus on the use of dashboards in the connection of IoT information to strategic decision-making processes in the management of university campuses. To this end, we developed a briefing approach for dashboards that expresses the needs of campus management and matches the structure of decision-making processes. In two cases, dashboards based on this approach were use-tested by stakeholders for defining information requirements for IoT applications. The results suggest that users are able to use dashboards for assessing portfolio performance and determining interventions. Through iteration the usability of the dashboard is improved and information requirements are refined, resulting in a brief for a campus management dashboard. The results suggest that the briefing approach can be used to determine IoT information requirements, though further research is required to study indications and contra-indications of the proposed method.

@en

Purpose
The objective of stadium owners is to attract visitors to their stadiums and by this optimally use their business potential. Stadiums face increasing competition from home-viewing options, with which especially aging stadiums have trouble competing. This paper aims to study the concept of smart stadiums as a solution to this problem, adding the corona age as an additional challenge.

Design/methodology/approach
First, (smart) stadium literature and theories are reviewed. Then, a case study is conducted, consisting of document review, observations and semi-structured interviews with specialists. The case that is studied is the Johan Cruijff Arena in Amsterdam – the stadium has the ambition to be the most innovative stadium in 2020.

Findings
Nine different smart tools were identified in the case study, which supports the optimization of various processes in the stadium such as ticketing and crowd control. The findings from this case study showed the potential of the smart stadium concept and how it can add value for the stadium’s stakeholders. The use of smart tools can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of stadium operations, and it can be used to improve the visitors’ experience. However, concrete numbers of progress were difficult to obtain because the smart tools were only recently implemented.

Originality/value
As seen in the past few years, more and more stadiums are branding themselves as a smart stadium. However, research on this subject is still scarce: existing research focused on other types of real estate. By exploring the work done in theory and practice, the authors hope to increase research on the subject of smart stadiums.@en

Incentivising investment and long-term collaboration in high-performance facadeprojects. This technical report is an annex to the Facade Leasing Demonstrator Project 2019 performance report(2.7.3.FLD.D1). For general information on the Facade Leasing research project, its process, and objectives please refer to the aforementioned document. This technical delivery report focuses on the economic and business model aspects of the FLD project. The innovation behind the Facade Leasing research project lies not so much in the creation of new, energy-efficient facade technologies, but rather the creation of new investment and management processes leading to amore widespread and effective use of available and upcoming technology. The present report starts by describing the large, and growing, market for economically feasible facade renovation solutions. The research presently focuses on the Dutch non-residential, (semi-)publicly owned market, which has been identified as an ideal early adopter, but extrapolations are made to other European segments in the “Upscaling” chapter. The report then presents the work done by the research and practice consortium of the FLD project, represented by real estate owners/operators, facade fabricators, financial institutions, and other key stakeholders towards the definition of a promising business and financial model for the contracting of Facades-as-a-Service.@en