Since 2013, TU Delft’s Campus Research Team has studied various perspectives on (managing) the European university campus, from governance issues and workplace trend scenarios to energy-efficient strategies and smart tools. Results were published as journal papers and policy reports and in the 2014 book "The European Campus - heritage and challenges". Overall goal is to support and inspire European campus managers. This second book “The European Campus: management and information” (2019) contains case studies of 14 universities of technology, to illustrate similarities as well as differences in legacy, context and strategies. It is relevant for presidents, university board members and higher education policy makers (from university to European Commission members), but also for (future) students and staff who want to learn more about their working and studying environment.@en

The purpose of this article is to describe the effects of university governance on campus management based on the examples of the Netherlands and Poland. The study connected theory on campus management with a concept of five dimensions of university governance (autonomy, management, participation, accountability and transparency) into an innovative and coherent analytical framework. Based on a qualitative approach, legal regulations and all public universities’ campus goals in both countries were analysed. The results indicate that university governance and each of its five dimensions stir consequences on campus management. This suggests that any university governance reforms should take real estate and facilities into account. Disregarding them can lead to universities’ suboptimal decisions and consequently affect (directly or indirectly) their sustainable development, productivity, profitability and competitive advantage. An understanding of the presented conception is crucial for the construction of viable higher education policy and improvement of universities performance.

@en

Purpose: This paper aims to underpin the importance of the availability (or absence) of campus management information (CMI) in supporting universities’ goals. Design/methodology/approach: 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. Findings: 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. Research limitations/implications: 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. Originality/value: 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.

@en

Purpose: This paper describes the different locations of campuses developed to stimulate innovation. It aims at support 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.
Design/methodology/approach: 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 thirty-nine campuses with different locations characteristics worldwide.
Findings: 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.
Research limitations/implications: Empirical findings were used to revise and improve the planning tool. Further research exploring the relationship between connectivity aspects and innovation processes is recommended.
Practical implications: This paper support decision makers of new and existing campuses struggling with location decisions by outlining that campus’ connectivity is crucial regardless the campus inner-city or 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.
Originality/value: 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.@en

Purpose: This paper seeks 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.
Design/methodology/approach: 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: Findings suggest 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.
Practical implications: 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.
Social implications: Findings advocate a more effective and efficient resource allocation for campus development in- and around cities.
Originality/value: Until now, studies on stimulating innovation through real estate have focused 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.
@en

This chapter examines the university campus as a strategic organizational resource helping universities to adapt from a traditional to an entrepreneurial profile in order to remain competitive in today’s knowledge-based economy. The author links the concept of ‘dynamic capabilities’ with corporate real estate management theories to study campus development as a long-term process enabling universities to adapt to the changing environments in which they operate. This chapter illustrates this process with the case of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); a well-known entrepreneurial university. Findings describe how the MIT developed its campus and surroundings into a rich innovation ecosystem by reacting timely and adequately to technological, societal and environmental dynamics influencing its local context. Similarly, the author acknowledges differences in campus management strategies that can be perceived as risky for the competitive position of the MIT in the long term. These findings are particular important for two reasons. In general, they built upon theories emphasizing the role of real estate as organizational resource that need strategic management. In particular, they draw the attention to the adequate planning of environments fostering innovation ecosystem such as the so-called ‘innovation districts’ or ‘knowledge locations’.@en

In the global knowledge economy, attracting and retaining talent is the most important mutual goal of universities and cities. They work together in the worldwide competition for talent. The locations of universities play an important role in the competitive profile of cities and regions because they concentrate this human capital. Simultaneously, the ideal university campus is increasingly resembling a city, with hotels and housing, restaurants, cafés, cultural and sports facilities, business space, and the traditional office and academic space. The campus of the future could be “the city” or “a city” in itself. The authors of this chapter seek to deepen understanding of the dynamic campus–city relations by describing the past, present, and future trends of the physical settings and functional mix of campuses. They discuss two extreme campus models and their associated advantages and disadvantages. The chapter might help stakeholders in universities and cities improve decisions that support their mutual goals.@en

Cities and innovation have a long history. Whereas in the industrial era’s cities where basically configured around factories, the contemporary digital society has diverse uses of space and time. All across the world abandoned industrial districts quickly transform into buzzing innovation hubs. Strong examples exist in cities like London, Berlin and Boston, but also the South of Europe has great success stories of urban
regeneration that facilitates serendipitous encounters and so, urban innovation.@en

The relationship between (technology) campuses and cities was a central theme in Flavia Curvelo Magdaniel’s doctoral research, which was defended and published in September 2016. During her PhD study she collected data of thirty-nine technology campuses, which has been considered worth a spin-off publication. This publication contains descriptions of 39 international cases that accommodate tech-based research activities. These case descriptions (in part B) are introduced with background information about concepts and methods (in part A) and reflected upon in conclusions and recommendations (in part C). This book is part of a book series that combines insights from theory with references from practice, to contribute to smarter campus management.@en

This thesis examines the development of technology campuses and their role in stimulating innovation. The main result of this thesis is a model for understanding and managing the relationship between the built environment and innovation at the urban area level. This model developed mainly throughout an inductive approach in two core studies. The first is an exploratory research that uncovers and positions the link between innovation and the built environment by using inputs from theory (literature review) and empirical evidence (survey of 39 technology campuses). The second is an explanatory research that clarifies the relationship between innovation and the built environment based on empirical evidence in the practice of campus development (theory building from case studies). In this model, the built environment is a catalyst for innovation in technology campuses demonstrated by location decisions and interventions facilitating five interdependent conditions required for innovation in particular contexts. The empirical evidence supporting the model is structured and converted into information available to decision makers involved in the development of technology campuses. The so-called ‘campus decision maker Toolbox’ provides instruments that guide planners, designers and managers of campuses and cities during different stages of campus development. In theory, findings strengthen existing theoretical concepts connecting the fields of corporate real estate management, urban studies in the knowledge-based economy and economic geography. In practice, this understanding encourages the efficient and effective use of the many resources required to develop technology campuses. @en