Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2015) 13, 261–271
© 2015 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 1477-8238/15
Coworking: assessing the role of proximity in
knowledge exchange
Lucia Parrino1,2
1
Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano,
Milan, Italy; 2Department of Sociology and Social
Research, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca,
Milan, Italy
Correspondence: Lucia Parrino,
Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano,
via Durando 38/A, 20158 Milan, Italy.
Tel: +0039 3398659392;
E-mail: luciafilippa.parrino@polimi.it
Received: 5 November 2012
Revised: 12 August 2013
Accepted: 15 August 2013
www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp/
Abstract
This article contextualises the rising phenomenon of coworking in the theoretical
framework of proximity and knowledge exchange. We present an empirical
study through which we were able to assess if the physical co-presence of
coworkers in these shared environments stimulates knowledge exchange among
them. After identifying two different configurations of coworking spaces from
the perspective of the forms of proximity that they involve, we designed a
research project aimed at isolating geographical proximity and studying its role
in facilitating the transmission of knowledge. The qualitative study of these two
configurations of spaces underlined the importance of elements of organisa-
tional and social proximity in stimulating collaboration among coworkers and in
promoting exchange of other forms of knowledge.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2015) 13(3), 261–271.
doi:10.1057/kmrp.2013.47; published online 30 September 2013
Keywords: coworking; proximity; organisational platform; knowledge exchange; knowl-
edge flows
Introduction
The article examines the role of proximity in facilitating interaction and
transmission of knowledge among those working within specific shared
work environments: coworking spaces.
In the context of the contemporary economy, characterised by the
centrality of knowledge and cognitive skills of workers (Scott, 2008), there
is the widespread idea that proximity matters (Amin & Cohendet, 2004).
Our research interest proceeds from the wider reflections on the value of
proximity in the contemporary economy and blends them with the issue of
relational potential of coworking spaces.
The research presented was developed from a preliminary-exploratory
phase aimed at understanding the nature of coworking space. Subsequently,
with the aim of shedding light on the relational potential of physical co-
presence among coworkers (Jones et al, 2009), we observed coworking spaces
from the viewpoint of the kinds of proximity that they involve and we
selected two maximum-variation case studies (Flyvbjerg, 2011). In order to
evaluate the role of physical co-presence in stimulating knowledge exchange
among coworkers, we compared the knowledge networks of a selected
number of workers belonging to these two different configurations of
coworking spaces.
Proximity and knowledge exchange
The issue of proximity among economic actors is central to contemporary
urban economic research that identifies the constant creation and mobilisa-
tion of knowledge as crucial processes for development (Amin & Cohendet,
2004; Amin & Roberts, 2008). It is indeed an economy that is characterised
262 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity
not only by the growth of the economic weight of some
knowledge sectors, but also by the proliferation of know-
ledge-intensive activities across all sectors of the economy
(Eliasson, 1990; Foray, 2004; Scott, 2008). At the base of
contemporary literature in the field of economic geogra-
phy is the idea that the proximity matters and that it
‘underpins the joint production, circulation and sharing
of knowledge’ (Gertler, 2008, p. 203). According to a
widely shared view, the geographical agglomeration
among economic actors facilitates the exchange of knowl-
edge among them, both through market and non-market
relations; this can be planned or spontaneous, formal or
not, and is supported by that interaction among actors
made possible by the spatial concentration (Gertler, 2008).
The contributions of the literature on what Amin and
Cohendet consider a spatial turn in innovation studies are
varied and focused on different aspects and dimensions of
proximity (Amin & Cohendet, 2004). Lundvall (1988)
and Gertler (1995) stress the link between collaboration
and supplier–customer connections and the establishment
of learning processes through these interactions. Porter
(2000) instead places the emphasis on competition
between companies that are geographically clustered and
belonging to the same industries: this condition increases
the ability of firms to learn from each other through
mutual observation and monitoring, and generates an
overall situation of innovative dynamism. Lorenzen and
Foss highlight the social nature of learning processes: these
processes are more fluid among entrepreneurs within
a cluster, because of the abundance of strong and weak
ties among them, facilitated by geographical proximity.
This favours face-to-face interactions, as well as the spread
of information and the sharing of experiences and points
of reference (Lorenzen & Foss, 2002). Similar to this vision
is that of Leamer & Storper (2001), for whom the exchange
of local knowledge in industrial clusters is supported by
the existence of common agreements and standards, by
the availability of information on credibility and reliability
of economic actors and by the opportunity to fully
use both verbal and non-verbal forms of communication.
This localised flow of knowledge is defined by some
scholars as a ‘buzz’, which is characteristic of economically
dynamic centres of innovation (Storper & Venables, 2004).
In these local contexts, the co-presence and the frequent
opportunities of face-to-face interactions not only pro-
mote, but theoretically provide economic actors benefits
in terms of knowledge acquired (Storper & Venables,
2004).
Scholars working on the advantages of co-localisation
have pointed out that, in addition to geographical proxi-
mity, there are other forms of proximity fundamental to
understanding the dynamics of knowledge exchange,
innovation and interactive learning. In the 1990s, the
French School of Proximity Dynamics made a significant
contribution to the literature proposing different dimen-
sions of proximity (Gilly & Torre, 2000; Torre, 2010).
According to this approach, there are two forms of proxi-
mity: geographic and organised. The first is related to the
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Lucia Parrino
distance between two entities in space, while the second
concerns the ways in which two actors may be close
regardless of the kind of geographical relationship.
Another important perspective to the debate on proximity
is that offered by the literature on communities of practice
(Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger,
1998; Wenger et al, 2002; Gertler, 2008). As an approxi-
mation, these can be defined as groups of workers who
share experiences, expertise and engagement in common
initiatives and projects; shared production and exchange
of knowledge within these communities occur through
collaborative moments and practices of problem solving
and with the support of different media and forms of
communication that allow the circulation of knowledge
(Gertler, 2008). According to this view, the creation and
diffusion of knowledge within and among organisations is
easier when it is mediated by these communities. More-
over, if relational proximity is strong enough, flows of
knowledge can transcend local and national boundaries;
in other words, in the presence of relational proximity the
processes of learning and sharing of tacit knowledge do
not necessarily have to be spatially constrained (Gertler,
2008). Moreover, Amin & Cohendet (2004) underline
the role of relational proximity, seen as the component
underlying successful dynamics of knowledge exchange
among several actors. According to the authors, this is
based on many factors: common cultural references and
experiences, organisation and practices that strengthen
actor involvement, advanced communication technolo-
gies in support of virtual interactions and travel that allow
face-to-face meetings if necessary. Boschma (2005) further
disaggregates the dimension of organised (Gilly & Torre,
2000; Torre, 2010) or relational proximity (Amin &
Cohendet, 2004; Gertler, 2008) considering five forms of
proximity: cognitive, organisational, social, institutional
and geographical. The articulation of proximity in these
five dimensions is functional to the study of the role
played by each of them and of the ways in which they
interrelate: the different dimensions of proximity should
not be intended as mutually exclusive categories; on the
contrary, it is important to consider their intersections
(Boschma, 2005).
In the context of knowledge management, this complex
interplay and its impacts on knowledge dynamics have
been addressed from different angles, both focusing on
intra-organisational and inter-organisational contexts.
At the inter-organisational level, for example, Messeni
Petruzzelli et al (2009) observe how geographical, cognitive
and organisational proximity explain the acquisition of
external knowledge by firms within technology districts.
At the level of intra-organisational and interpersonal
dynamics, Nonaka & Konno (1998) suggest the impor-
tance of the relational dimension in enabling knowledge
creation and dynamics. If on the one hand, the concept of
ba acknowledges the role of physical proximity in support-
ing relational proximity and knowledge, on the other
hand, the idea of virtual and mental ba refers to other
forms of proximity (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). According to
 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity
Cohen & Prusak (2001), face-to-face contacts support
serendipitous knowledge and, most importantly, stimulate
and strengthen other forms of proximity pivotal in
enabling knowledge exchange within organisations. In
fact, those elements of social capital (e.g., trust and cohe-
sion) that, according to the two authors, permit knowledge
flows and learning can be attributed to the dimension of
social proximity, defined as ‘socially embedded relations
between agents at the micro-level’ (Boschma, 2005, p. 66).
In terms of facilitation and management of knowledge
dynamics, systems based on different dimensions of proxi-
mity are considered. If Cohen & Prusak (2001) stress the
importance of engineering shared spaces as sites for chance
face-to-face contacts, other scholars identify strategies
aimed at intervening directly on the organisational and cog-
nitive dimensions, such as the use of intra-organisational
knowledge enablers (Ichijo et al, 1998) or that of translators
between different communities of practice (Brown &
Duguid, 1998). This brief review shows how the multi-
disciplinary debate on the different dimensions of proxi-
mity and on the possible interrelations between them is
open. Our study on coworking responds to the invitation of
Boschma (2005), who sees as a challenge for research the
exploration of how geographical and other forms of proxi-
mity interrelate: the impact of geographical proximity can
only be assessed through empirical research that allows
control of other forms of proximity.
Methodology
First phase: defining coworking
The research presented in this article was developed from
a preliminary-exploratory study phase. With the aim of
understanding the nature of coworking spaces, we ana-
lysed literature and documents on coworking and we
participated in seminars and events on the topic. Further-
more, from July 2010 to April 2011 we identified and
examined coworking spaces in the areas of Milan (27
spaces) and Barcelona (31 spaces). Since there is not an
official–institutional definition of coworking, nor a register
of the spaces, we included in the mapping those spaces
communicated or perceived as coworking spaces. We
gathered information on them by combining several
qualitative tools: interviews with managers/owners of the
spaces, consultation of documents, site visits, participation
in events organised by the spaces. This preliminary phase
was pivotal in moving from a generic interest in coworking
in the knowledge economy to the well-formed and
investigable research question illustrated in the next
subsection.
Second phase: studying knowledge exchange
This phase was aimed at studying the role of the co-
presence of coworkers (geographical proximity) in the
processes of knowledge transmission among them, even-
tually by stimulating the establishment of other forms
of proximity.
Lucia Parrino 263
For this purpose we analysed two different configura-
tions of coworking space:
1. Space A – characterised by the co-presence of coworkers
(geographical proximity) and
2. Space B – characterised by the co-presence of coworkers
(geographical proximity) and by the existence of an
organisational platform aimed at creating synergies
among them and thus stimulating other forms of
proximity.
The two spaces represent two maximum variation case
studies (Flyvbjerg, 2011), selected with the aim of evaluat-
ing the significance of geographical proximity. The com-
parison between these two different configurations
allowed us to isolate and control for geographical proxi-
mity and to study its role in facilitating the transmission of
knowledge among coworkers. Both spaces in which we
conducted the research are located in the municipality of
Milan. The information-oriented selection (Flyvbjerg,
2011) of the two spaces was based on what emerged during
the preliminary-exploratory phase of the study. Inside
each space we selected five workers on whom we focused
our attention; following a micro approach, we considered
as units of analysis, the coworkers and the flows of know-
ledge among them. In choosing the respondents we
gave priority to heterogeneity in the professional profiles;
moreover, we tried to have a mix of similar profiles for
the two spaces. However, concretely, in choosing the
10 interviewees we had to reconcile these two ideal guide-
lines with the constraints imposed by the two contexts
studied: on one side the people actually present in the
spaces and on the other the versatility and complexity of
contemporary professional identities.
Drawing from the approach of Social Network Analysis,
we studied the knowledge flows among coworkers in
terms of ties between actors (Chiesi, 1999). We only
observed those flows of knowledge that in the eyes of the
coworkers had significant implications for their work
activities.
Huber (2011) notes that studies on knowledge flows
among close economic actors do not fully investigate what
kind of knowledge is exchanged; in order to overcome this
limitation, we have chosen to study the processes of
transmission of knowledge among coworkers according to
the categories of know-what, know-why, know-how and
know-who proposed by Johnson et al (2002). Furthermore,
based on their multifaceted description of know-who
(Johnson et al, 2002, p. 251), we broke down know-who
in four dimensions:
1. communication of contacts of third parties or introduc-
tion of/to third parties;
2. collaborative or supplier–customer relationships;
3. potential collaborative or supplier–customer relation-
ships, that is those situations in which workers are
exploring opportunities of collaboration and/or of sup-
plier–customer relationships;
4. occasional help (given/received) for specific issues.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
264 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity
Table 1 Themes of the interviews with coworkers
Section Contents
1 Background information
(age, occupation, reasons for the choice of the coworking space)
2 Individuals with whom there has been transmission of knowledge
(articulated according to the dimensions of know-what/who/why/how)
3 Knowledge transmission ties between the persons listed above
(regardless of the dimensions of know-what/who/why/how)
4 Experience in the space from the point of view of knowledge transmission
On the definition of knowledge, it is important to point
out that in the study we did not consider that kind of
information with the character of an order for the carrying
out of a task, such as, for example, the transfer of informa-
tion for the editing of a press release or of instructions for
the realisation of a service/product. Furthermore, since our
focus was on proximity introduced by coworking spaces,
we excluded from the study knowledge flows among
coworkers working in the same company (i.e., already
existing relational proximity). Finally, we restricted the time
horizon of the reconstruction of the knowledge flows to the
10 business days preceding the day of investigation, carried
out through interview. We used the tool of Social Network
Analysis with a qualitative approach: adopting the perspec-
tive of egocentric or personal networks (Wellman, 2007), on
the one hand, we drew the knowledge transmission net-
works of the selected coworkers and on the other we
investigated the nature of the knowledge exchanged. The
choice of a qualitative approach is because of the desire to
investigate thoroughly the knowledge flow content. Thus,
information obtained is not generalisable, but it sheds light
on the kind of knowledge transmitted and on the percep-
tions and interpretations of coworkers with regard to it. The
adoption of the perspective of personal networks and the
consequent inclusion in the study of the ties that go beyond
coworking spaces presented a double advantage: on the one
hand made it possible to assess the ‘weight’ of the internal
ties in the wider context of coworkers’ knowledge transmis-
sion networks, on the other hand, it allowed the investiga-
tion of the role of coworking spaces as gateways to people
external to the spaces, whose knowledge had favourable
professional outcomes for coworkers. We conducted the
study of knowledge flows among coworkers integrating two
qualitative research techniques: covert participant observa-
tion and in-depth interviews. Seizing the suggestion of
d’Ovidio (2010), who points out that interviews only may
be ineffective for studying the role of face-to-face relation-
ships as a vehicle for creativity or innovation, we chose
to conduct a period of covert participant observation of
approximately 50 hours (distributed over several days and
time slots) in each of the two spaces. This allowed us to have
a thorough look at working situations within the coworking
environments. Furthermore, from this step, we obtained
information useful both for selecting the coworkers to be
interviewed and for conducting the interviews in a way that
would stimulate reflection on their knowledge transmission
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Lucia Parrino
Time horizon of the information collected
In general
Ten business days preceding the day of investigation
Ten business days preceding the day of investigation
In general
networks. The qualitative interviews were structured around
four themes (Table 1).
Information collected during the interviews was pro-
cessed and analysed with software for the visualisation of
egocentric networks that allowed us to have for each
coworker:
1. egocentric knowledge transmission network (distin-
guishing between actors internal and external to the
coworking space);
2. know-who transmission ties between the respondent
and other actors (distinguishing between actors inter-
nal and external to the coworking space);
3. know-who transmission ties between the respondent
and other actors disaggregated into the four operational
dimensions of know-who (distinguishing between
actors internal and external to the coworking space);
4. know-what transmission ties between the respondent
and other actors (distinguishing between actors inter-
nal and external to the coworking space);
5. know-how transmission ties between the respondent
and other actors (distinguishing between actors inter-
nal and external to the coworking space);
6. know-why transmission ties between the respondent
and other actors (distinguishing between actors inter-
nal and external to the coworking space).
The quantitative reconstruction and visualisation of these
networks was not meant to have any statistical value. It is,
instead, a methodological tool to organise and visualise
the knowledge flows collected, it being understood that
their meaning for this study is not only because of their
existence, but also because of the qualitative information
connected to them: contents, contexts, enabling factors,
possible role of the organisational platform.
The conclusions on the role of proximity in knowledge
exchange among coworkers are based both on the qualita-
tive study of these knowledge networks and on what
emerged through the reflections of the coworkers on their
own experience and through the observation period spent
in the two spaces.
Defining coworking
In recent years, at an international level, we are witnessing
the rapid spread of the practice of coworking and a
growing attention towards it.
 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity
The first person who used the term coworking to
describe a place and a way of working was Brad Neuberg,
a computer engineer who in 2005 founded the coworking
space Hat Factory in San Francisco (Jones et al, 2009).
According to Neuberg, coworking is a remedy for the risk
of isolation that concerns many contemporary profes-
sions. He points out that in general workers are forced
‘to choose between working at home for ourselves or
working at an office for a company’ (Jones et al, 2009,
p. 9). In the latter case they enjoy a community and an
organisational structure, but they lose freedom and the
possibility to control their lives; in contrast, in the first
case, they ‘gain independence but suffer loneliness and
bad habits from not being surrounded by a work commu-
nity’ (Jones et al, 2009, p. 9). Coworking is seen
as a solution to this problem: sharing the same space
provides community to those workers who otherwise
would not enjoy the relational component associated with
a traditional corporate office. The words of Neuberg con-
jugate a key theme – community – which is also found in
other contributions (Centre for Social Innovation, 2010;
Forlano, 2011; Townsend et al, 2011) and in promotional
and explanatory documents about coworking practice and
spaces (see, e.g., the official Wiki dedicated to coworking:
http://wiki.coworking.info/w/page/16583831/FrontPage,
accessed 4 April 2011). The concept of community refers
to the possible relational implications of the co-location of
workers within the same space and emphasises the role
of coworking as a work context able to provide sociality to
coworkers; spaces appear as environments in which rela-
tionships and interpersonal interaction can develop, not
necessarily with effects in terms of professional relations
and exchange of knowledge.
By analysing the cases identified in the areas of Milan
and Barcelona, we saw how certain spaces invest in this
relational potential, providing activities and resources
designed to stimulate relationships and collaboration
among coworkers. In this respect coworking spaces may
be positioned along an ideal continuum, which sees at
one pole the presence of an articulated platform of tools
and initiatives designed to stimulate interaction and
collaboration, and at the other pole the total absence of
such offers; between these two extremes there are spaces
in which meetings, events or seminars, aimed – to a
greater or lesser degree – at promoting collaboration are
organised. The presence or absence of such initiatives
is not the only aspect in relation to which the various
coworking spaces differ: the few contributions identified
in literature (Forlano, 2011; Townsend et al, 2011) and
the definitions proposed by some people personally
involved in the practice or promotion of coworking
(Jones et al, 2009; http://wiki.coworking.info/w/page/
16583831/FrontPage, accessed 4 April 2011) show that
actually the term coworking refers to a range of types of
spaces, differing according to institutional purposes,
adherence to values and movements, coworker employ-
ment, level of relations with other spaces and other
aspects.
Lucia Parrino 265
For example, we observed that in Milan the concept of
coworking is mainly linked to already existing professional
spaces that opened themselves to coworking at a later
time. By contrast, in Barcelona it is mainly linked to the
creation of spaces intended from the beginning to be
shared working environments and there is a significant
proportion of spaces in which coworking is the main
activity of the owners/managers.
Another interesting aspect of coworking detected
through our preliminary-exploratory research regards the
kind of workers hosted: although coworking is frequently
associated with self-employed people (Jones et al, 2009;
Centre for Social Innovation, 2010), we saw heterogeneity
among coworkers from the point of view of their organi-
sational status. In particular, the organisational realities
observed in the studied spaces can be grouped into three
types:
1. freelancers in the strict sense;
2. microbusinesses that are based in the coworking spaces;
3. employees or self-employed workers, whose activity is
done on behalf of a company based outside the cow-
orking spaces.
In the latter case, coworking can be considered a mode of
telecommuting that allows companies to relocate part of
their activity to places distant from their headquarters to
deal with strategic and management needs or to meet the
needs of their employees.
Taking into account the definitional issues seen, for the
purpose of our study, we identified a working definition of
coworking space based on three traits emerging from the
contributions and reflections previously mentioned:
1. the co-localisation of various coworkers within the
same work environment;
2. the presence of workers heterogeneous by occupation
and/or sector in which they operate and/or organisa-
tional status and affiliation (freelancers in the strict
sense, microbusiness, employees or self-employed
workers);
3. the presence (or not) of activities and tools designed to
stimulate the emergence of relationships and collabora-
tion among coworkers.
These features and their consequences in terms of
knowledge exchange among coworkers represent the focus
of this study.
From a proximity perspective, depending on whether
or not there is an organisational platform designed to
encourage synergies among coworkers, we can identify
two different situations of coworking: one characterised
only by geographical proximity among coworkers and the
other one in which (in a more or less incisive way) the
establishment of other forms of proximity is stimulated.
From a knowledge management perspective, this means
observing if and how physical proximity – or rather
facilitation systems – can foster knowledge flows
among workers heterogeneous by occupation, business
sector, organisational status, affiliation and personal and
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
266 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity
organisational motivations for being interested in knowl-
edge exchange (Malone et al, 2009). In fact, both the
interpersonal and the inter-organisational levels are
involved, since the coworkers constitute, or belong to,
different organisations.
Introducing the case studies: Space A and Space B
Space A
Space A is attributable to a model of coworking based on
the ‘reconversion’ of already existing professional spaces
into shared workplaces. It is a model very popular in
Milan, where coworking was born and has spread mainly
in the context of already existing organisations, such as
architecture firms, advertising agencies, administrative
headquarters of companies.
In particular, Space A is the site of a design company
(Host Company) that made available to coworkers some
workstations in its studio.
From the spatial point of view, the working environment
is an open space. This is shared by the Host Company
workers and the coworkers, who occupy fixed workstations.
The five respondents in Space A were:
1. A.D. – 44 years old – is charter member and project
manager of a small (six members) strategic design
agency, based in Space A since January 2011. She works
in the space 2/3 days per week, especially when she
needs to work with her associates or to meet with
customers and partners;
2. R.S. – 39 years old – is an exhibition designer and
architect who moved to Space A in July 2009. He works
there almost every day, both as a freelance and together
with two partners who moved to the space with him.
Often, because of special projects or architectural com-
petitions, he spends some weeks/months in other
design studios, not working in Space A during those
periods;
3. G.M. – 44 years old – is a freelance food journalist,
writer and editorial project manager. She moved to
Space A in April 2009. Except for press conferences or
other business meetings, she works there daily;
4. D.F. – 26 years old – is a freelance graphic designer. She
moved to Space A in July 2010 and she works there
almost every day;
5. M.S. – 44 years old – is a freelance journalist, press
agent and PR officer, specialised in sailing. Since
October 2009, he works 2 days per week in Space A.
The rest of the week he works as a contractor in a sailing
company.
G.M., D.F. and M.S. decided to move to Space A because of
the need for a place where they could take up a new career.
They decided to work in a coworking space not only
because it is a low-cost office solution, but also because of
its relational component. They preferred it to the option of
home working, considered to be isolating and to have
negative impacts on work performance and organisation.
Despite the attention to the relational dimension, they did
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Lucia Parrino
not mention the prospects of collaborations with other
coworkers.
On the contrary, A.D. and R.S. decided to move to Space
A with the aim of being close to, and developing connec-
tions with, the Host Company and its work environment.
Space B
Unlike Space A, Space B was born as a coworking space
aimed at fostering connections and synergies among cow-
orkers. Consistently with this, it has an organisational
platform composed of:
a. online platform with coworkers’ profiles,
b. customised social network,
c. weekly newsletter with information and news about the
coworkers and the activities organised in the space,
d. possibility for the coworkers of sending group e-mails to
other coworkers (e.g., to introduce themselves or to
look for project partners),
e. welcome board with pictures and descriptions of the
coworkers, situated at the entrance of the space,
f. events designed to create connections among coworkers
(e.g., speed networking events),
g. staff who deal with the management and organisation
of space and with the facilitation of the interactions and
relationships between coworkers. In the knowledge
networks of the interviewees of Space B, we aggregated
these people into a single actor called Space B staff. In
fact, the respondents did not conceive them as char-
acterised by an individual personal and professional
identity, but as staff members.
Space B working environment is an open space, within
which coworkers do not necessarily have fixed worksta-
tions. Moreover, this kind of use of the space and the
presence of places of aggregation (e.g., the kitchen) are
meant to stimulate interactions among coworkers.
The five respondents in Space B were:
1. E.E. – 27 years old – is a communication designer who
moved to Space B in March 2011. He works there daily,
both as a freelance and together with another designer,
co-founder of their communication design agency;
2. F.L. – 31 years old – is a telecommunications engineer
who works in Space B every day. In July 2010, after
resigning from a big company, he moved there to
develop two information and communications tech-
nology startups;
3. H.N. – 27 years old – is member of a small (three
members) trendwatching and strategic consultancy
agency based in Space B since October 2010. She uses
the space approximately 50 hours per month, also
working from home or other meeting places. She is also
enrolled in a Master’s programme in informatics;
4. S.L. – 33 years old – is co-owner of a small (four
members) marketing and PR agency based in a North-
ern Italian city. She moved to Space B in April 2010 and
she uses it 2 days per week. The remaining days she
works from home or in the offices of her customers;
 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity Lucia Parrino 267

5. T.R. – 28 years old – is a theatre and music events

promoter and manager. He moved to Space B in
September 2010, together with his assistant. He works
there approximately 50 hours per month. The remain-
ing days he works in his home office or in the offices of
his customers and project partners.
For E.E., H.N., S.L. and T.R. the prospects of networking
and collaboration with other coworkers were important
for their decision of moving to Space B. For E.E., H.N. and
S.L. this motivation overlapped with the need of a space
for their activities.
For F.L. the need of a workplace was the only reason for
moving to Space B. His decision was not influenced by the
eventuality of interpersonal relationships or collaborations.

Knowledge exchange within the coworking spaces

In analysing knowledge flows in the two coworking envir-
onments, we start with the information gathered through
the reflections of the coworkers on their own experience Figure 1 Egocentric knowledge transmission network. D.F.,
and through the observation period spent in the two Space A.
spaces. Space A respondents did not describe the overall
experience of working in a shared working environment as
producing relationships significant from the point of view
of knowledge transmission. Space B interviewees, on the
contrary, painted their experience as absolutely relevant in
this respect. In particular, they focused on the implications
of coworking in terms of development of collaborative and
supplier–customer relationships and, second, of transmis-
sion of information useful for their jobs.
With regard to the relationships and interactions among
coworkers, in Space A we observed the almost total
absence of basic expressions of sociality. For the respon-
dents this is primarily because of the structuring of cow-
orking in the space: an ancillary activity, which results
only in the subleasing of a part of its studio by the Host
Company. This is not interested in socio-relational aspects
of coworking, nor does it promote initiatives or a working
atmosphere that encourages them; according to respon-
dents, this approach to coworking is one of the causes of
the weakness of the relational dimension inside Space A.
The other reason is related to the physical structure of
Figure 2 Egocentric knowledge transmission network. E.E.,
space and lies in the lack of a place of aggregation, such as
Space B.
a kitchen. On the contrary, Space B – in which we observed
interactions and relationships among coworkers even
without implications on the professional level – is char- The images (Figures 1 and 2) represent the visualisation
acterised by the substantial reversal of the conditions seen of the knowledge transmission network of D.F. (graphic
in Space A: coworking is intended as a means to stimulate designer, Space A) and E.E. (communication designer,
synergies among coworkers, both Space B staff and cow- Space B). The other actors represented are those with
orkers consider important the socio-relational aspects of whom D.F. and E.E. had situations of knowledge trans-
work practices and the internal structure of the space is mission in the 10 business days preceding the interview.
divided into work areas and places for more informal In surveying and representing these actors, we distin-
contacts. guished between internal (grey background in Figures 1
The results discussed above are confirmed by the infor- and 2) and external (white background in Figures 1 and 2)
mation on knowledge transmission networks (Figures 1 to the coworking space: in this way we assessed the weight
and 2) and their composition in terms of type of knowl- of the internal knowledge flows with respect to the total,
edge transmitted. In the rest of the section we will proceed being able to make a comparison between the diffe-
to the analysis of this information. rent respondents in the two spaces. We can consider the

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

268 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity
networks of D.F. (Figure 1) and E.E. (Figure 2) representa-
tive of the difference between the two spaces in terms of
presence of knowledge flows among coworkers. Figure 3
summarises the situation of all respondents, reporting for
each one the presence or not of knowledge flows inside
and outside the coworking spaces.
In Space A of the five coworkers interviewed, only two
reported knowledge transmission ties with other cowor-
kers (Figure 3). In Space B, instead, all respondents had
situations of knowledge transmission with other cowor-
kers (Figure 3). Actually, these knowledge flows affect also
the only coworker who in choosing to work in Space B had
not been driven by the search of professional relationships
Figure 3 Presence of knowledge flows outside and inside the
coworking space for each respondent, Space A and Space B.
Figure 4 Presence of flows of know-who/what/how/why outside and inside the coworking space for each respondent, Space A and
Space B.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Lucia Parrino
and interactions (F.L., telecommunications engineer). On
the contrary, those who settled in Space A also attracted
by the prospects for professional networking and colla-
boration (A.D., project manager of a design agency and
R.S., exhibition architect) had no significant results in this
regard. Hence, we can conclude that the sharing of space
has worked in producing interactions and promoting
knowledge transmission for workers in Space B but not
for those in Space A. A reflection of this is the fact that the
presence of knowledge flows inside the coworking space is
greater for coworkers of Space B rather than for those of
Space A.
The qualitative deepening of knowledge flow contents
and dynamics allowed us to further explore the relevance
of these flows for the coworkers, as well as the conditions
that enabled them. As a summarising overview (Figure 4),
we report, for each respondent, the presence or not of
flows of know-who, know-what, know-how and know-
why inside and outside the coworking spaces.
Comparing the types of knowledge transmitted, first we
note that the dimension of know-why only affects knowl-
edge flows within Space B. However, this difference seems
not particularly significant: it should be noted that the
transmission of this form of knowledge is present – rarely –
only in the overall egocentric networks of 3 out of 10
respondents (1 in Space A and 2 in Space B). Flows of
know-what within the space affect two out of five respon-
dents in both spaces and the overall situation for this kind
of knowledge does not present major discrepancies
between the two spaces. Flows of know-how within the
space concern only one of the five interviewees of Space A,
that is one of the two that exchanged knowledge with
other coworkers. In Space B, instead, flows of know-how
within the space were reported by three of the five
respondents. 2 out of 10 respondents (M.S., freelance
journalist and press officer, Space A and H.N., trend-watcher,
Space B) transmitted this kind of knowledge solely within
the spaces, with other coworkers.
 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity
Figure 5 Presence of flows of the different dimensions of know-who outside and inside the coworking space for each respondent,
Space A and Space B.
For respondents of both Spaces A and B flows of know-
who involve a large proportion of actors belonging to their
overall knowledge transmission networks. As previously
seen, for analytical purposes, we broke down know-who
in four dimensions. As a summarising overview (Figure 5),
we report, for each respondent, the presence or not of
flows of the different dimensions of know-who inside and
outside the coworking spaces.
According to the analysis of their whole networks, for
respondents the two most important dimensions of know-
who are those of providing contacts of third parties or
introduction of/to third parties and of collaborative or
supplier–customer relationships. It is precisely with regard
to this second dimension that the differences between the
type of knowledge transmitted among the coworkers of
Space A and among those of Space B are more noticeable.
Indeed, none of the respondents of Space A had such
relationships within the space, where, instead, few situa-
tions of one-time help occur. On the contrary, four of the
five respondents of Space B have collaborative or supplier–
customer relationships inside the space. The only excep-
tion is represented by F.L. (telecommunications engineer),
who, however, in his overall network has no transmission
of this dimension of know-who. For the other four res-
pondents of Space B supplier–customer relationships and
collaborations are quite significant; they also reported
some situations of transmission of know-what, how and
why occurred in the context of these professional rela-
tionships. The relevance of the aspect of collaborative or
customer–supplier relationships that emerged from the
analysis of knowledge flows contents is consistent with
what we saw previously in the considerations of Space B
respondents on their experience of coworking. In bringing
together the respondents with the other coworkers
with whom they established these relationships, both the
organisational platform of Space B (especially the staff
of facilitators) and the existence of other types of ties
(e.g., enrolment in the same degree course) played a key
role. Moreover, sometimes individuals known in this way
Lucia Parrino 269
acted as a bridge to other people – internal and external
to Space B – with whom further opportunities for colla-
boration were born; the same coworkers interviewed, in
some cases, enabled the rise of supplier–customer relation-
ships between their contacts inside and outside the space.
On the contrary, in Space A we did not detect these types
of situations.
In summary, key differences between Space A and B
cover two aspects. First, coworking space is an environ-
ment of collaboration and exchange of information and
skills for coworkers of Space B, rather than for those of
Space A. Second, the experience of coworking helped to
expand the networks of collaborations and labour services
of coworkers in Space B, but did not play this role in
Space A.
Conclusions
The comparison of the knowledge flows within Space A
and Space B allowed us to isolate geographical proximity
and to study its role in facilitating the transmission of
knowledge among coworkers. Returning to our initial
research question, we outline two different situations:
1. Where coworkers share only a physical space, few
manifestations of sociality and an absence of custo-
mer–supplier or collaborative relationships were found.
The experience in this space seems not to have played
any role in expanding the networks of collaborations
and labour services of the coworkers. The transmission
of knowledge among coworkers proved to be scarce and
episodic.
2. In the space characterised by the existence of an
organisational platform, all the respondents reported
knowledge flows with other coworkers, even recurrent
or placed in the context of collaborative relationships.
The manifestations of sociality among coworkers
were found to be frequent. On the professional level,
both collaborative relationships (sometimes potential)
among coworkers and the role of internal bonds in
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
270 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity Lucia Parrino

creating job opportunities with external parties proved in promoting exchange of other forms of knowledge;
to be significant: the experience in the space helped however, on the contrary, we cannot say that these kind
to expand the network of collaborations and labour of connections arise within spaces characterised by the
services of the coworkers. mere co-presence of coworkers. Particularly, in Space A
collaborations are absent and knowledge flows are
The dimension of collaborative relationships among
sporadic: coworking is ‘little “co” and very “working” ’
coworkers emerges as the key factor in differentiating the
(R.S., exhibition architect, Space A).
flows of knowledge transmitted in the two configurations
These conclusions are based on the qualitative study of
of space. The tools of the organisational platform of Space
two maximum-variation case studies (Flyvbjerg, 2011).
B (particularly the human component, that is, the facil-
The qualitative focus on the two spaces and on a limi-
itators) play a pivotal role in fostering exactly this kind of
ted number of coworkers allowed us to understand the
connection among coworkers. Facilitators and other tools
mechanisms of knowledge exchange enabled or not
favour the identification of points of contact among co-
by proximity. On the other hand, this kind of ‘concrete
workers, thus accelerating collaboration and the formation
case knowledge’ (Flyvbjerg, 2011 p. 304) is not formally
of elements of organisational proximity (Boschma, 2005)
generalisable. The issue of generalisation is especially
among them. In this regard, we saw how another element
problematic when studying such a multifaceted work
not explicitly considered in the formulation of the
arrangement as coworking.
research question was important to encourage collabora-
The spread of this practice and the type of workers and
tion among coworkers: social proximity (Boschma, 2005),
businesses that use them fit the contemporary post-indus-
namely, belonging to networks of relationships – direct
trial organisation of work. That being so, this phenom-
and indirect – pre-existing or external to the experience of
enon is worth considering.
coworking (e.g., enrolment in the same degree course or
The exploratory study of the cases of Milan and Barcelona
publishing in the same periodicals).
showed that the nature of coworking itself presents diffe-
In both spaces transmission of information and exper-
rences in the two areas. Comparative research inside co-
tise took place between respondents and other coworkers
working spaces in different regions and countries would
with whom, in addition to geographic proximity, they had
allow to understand the role of cultural and context factors
identified similarity or complementarity in the profes-
in shaping coworking spaces and practice and, conse-
sions. In none of the two spaces, however, did the simple
quently, the interactions among coworkers.
co-location facilitate accidental knowledge exchanges.
A more intensive use of ethnographic and biographical
Geographical proximity seems rather to have a key role in
methods and a wider focus on the workers’ ‘immersion’ in
favouring the exploration of similarities and contact
the coworking environments would allow to comprehend
points among co-workers only under certain conditions.
the impact of this work arrangement on the personal
Once again the difference between the two configurations
knowledge management of the coworkers.
of coworking can be attributed to the role of the organisa-
The study of the knowledge flows within the spaces
tional platform; the existence of an articulated system of
underlined the importance of the organisational platform
facilitation of relationships and interactions helps to
in fostering knowledge exchange among coworkers. An in-
define in Space B an atmosphere in which for coworkers it
depth analysis and comparison of the systems of facilita-
is normal not only to interact, but also to exchange
tion used by the different spaces could show which are the
information and to engage with each other on fields of
most efficient tools to unleash the potential of coworking
interest and possible points of contact. On the contrary,
spaces in terms of knowledge exchange.
this climate does not characterise Space A, where knowl-
edge flows are sporadic and involve a minority of the
respondents. Acknowledgements
On the whole, the results of the study contradict the The author is grateful to Serena Vicari Haddock, Marianna
image of coworking spaces as places for ‘natural’ relation- d’Ovidio, Marisol García Cabeza and Marc Pradel Miquel for
ships, collaborations and interactions among workers. their support and advice during the research process. Thanks
Indeed, according to what has already been stated, ele- also to the reviewers and the Editor for their constructive
ments of organisational and social proximity play a pivotal comments and to James Brady for the precious help in the
role in stimulating collaboration among coworkers and language review of the manuscript.

References
AMIN A and COHENDET P (2004) Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabil-
ities, and Communities. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
AMIN A and ROBERTS J (2008) Community, Economic Creativity, and Organi-
zation. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
BOSCHMA R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment.
Regional Studies 39(1), 61–74.
BROWN JS and DUGUID P (1991) Organizational learning and communities-
of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science 2(1), 40–57.
BROWN JS and DUGUID P (1998) Organizing knowledge. California Manage-
ment Review 40(3), 90–111.
Centre for Social Innovation. (2010) Proof: How Shared Spaces Are Chan-
ging the World. Centre for Social Innovation, Toronto.
CHIESI AM (1999) L’analisi Dei Reticoli. FrancoAngeli, Milano.
COHEN D and PRUSAK L (2001) In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes
Organizations Work. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
D’OVIDIO M (2010) Network Locali Nell’economia Cognitiva-culturale.
Il Caso Di Milano. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia 51(3), 459–484.

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

 Coworking: assessing the role of proximity
ELIASSON G (1990) The knowledge based information economy. In The
Knowledge Based Information Economy (ELIASSON G, FÖLSTER S, LINDBERG
T, POUSETTE T and TAYMAZ E, Eds), pp 9–87, Almqvist and Wiksell
International, Stockholm.
FLYVBJERG B (2011) Case study. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research
(DENZIN NK and LINCOLN YS, Eds), pp 301–316, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
FORAY D (2004) The Economics of Knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
FORLANO L (2011) Building the open source city: changing work environ-
ments for collaboration and innovation. In From Social Butterfly to
Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, Social Media, Ubiquitous Computing,
and Mobile Technology to Support Citizen Engagement (FOTH M, FORLANO
L, SATCHELL C and GIBBS M, Eds.), pp 437–460, The MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, MA.
GERTLER MS (1995) ‘Being There’: proximity, organization, and culture in
the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technolo-
gies. Economic Geography 71(1), 1–26.
GERTLER MS (2008) Buzz without being there? Communities of practice in
context. In Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization (AMIN A and
ROBERTS J, Eds.), pp 203–226, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
GILLY JP and TORRE A (2000) Proximity relations: elements for an analytical
framework. In Industrial Networks and Proximity (GREEN MB and
MCNAUGHTON RB, Eds.), pp 1–17, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.
HUBER F (2011) Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in
information technology? questioning the significance of technological
knowledge spillovers. Journal of Economic Geography 12(1), 107–126.
ICHIJO K, VON KROGH G and NONAKA I (1998) Knowledge enablers. In
Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge
(VON KROGH G, ROOS J and KLEINE D, Eds), pp 173–203, Sage, London.
JOHNSON B, LORENZ E and LUNDVALL BÅ (2002) Why all this fuss about codified
and tacit knowledge? Industrial and Corporate Change 11(2), 245–262.
JONES D, SUNDSTED T and BACIGALUPO T (2009) I’m Outta Here! How
Coworking Is Making the Office Obsolete. Not an MBA Press, Austin, TX.
LAVE J and WENGER E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
LEAMER EE and STORPER M (2001) The economic geography of the internet
age. Journal of International Business Studies 32(4), 641–665.
About the author
Lucia Parrino graduated in Economics and Management
of Cultural Heritage and received a Master in Tourism,
Territory and Local Development, with a thesis on
coworking in Milan and Barcelona. She has been and is
currently involved in research concerning different aspects
Lucia Parrino 271
LORENZEN M and FOSS NJ (2002) Cognitive coordination, institutions,
and clusters: an exploratory discussion. In Cooperation, Networks and
Institutions in Regional Innovation Systems (BRENNER T and FORNAHL D,
Eds.), pp 82–104, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
LUNDVALL BÅ (1988) Innovation as an interactive process: from user-
producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In Technical
Change and economic Theory (DOSI G, FREEMAN C, NELSON R, SILVERBERG G
and SOETE L, Eds.), pp 349–369, Pinter, London.
MALONE TW, LAUBACHER R and DELLAROCAS C (2009) Harnessing crowds:
mapping the genome of collective intelligence. MIT Center for Collec-
tive Intelligence Working Paper 2009-001, Cambridge, MA.
MESSENI PETRUZZELLI A, ALBINO V and CARBONARA N (2009) External knowl-
edge sources and proximity. Journal of Knowledge Management 13(5),
301–318.
NONAKA I and KONNO N (1998) The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation
for knowledge creation. California Management Review 40(3), 40–54.
PORTER ME (2000) Locations, clusters, and company strategy. In The
Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography (CLARK GL, FELDMAN MP and
GERTLER MS, Eds.), pp 253–274, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
SCOTT AJ (2008) Social Economy of the Metropolis: Cognitive-cultural
Capitalism and the Global Resurgence of Cities. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
STORPER M and VENABLES AJ (2004) Buzz: face-to-face contact and the
urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography 4(4), 351–370.
TORRE A (2010) Jalons pour une analyse dynamique des proximités. Revue
d’Économie Régionale & Urbaine (3), 409–438.
TOWNSEND A, FORLANO L and SIMETI A (2011) Breakout! escape from the
office: situating knowledge work in sentient public spaces. In Sentient
City. Ubiquitous Computing, Architecture, and the Future of Urban Space
(SHEPARD M, Ed.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
WELLMAN B (2007) Challenges in collecting personal network data: the
nature of personal network analysis. Field Methods 19(2), 111–115.
WENGER E (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
WENGER E, MACDERMOTT AR and SNYDER WM (2002) Cultivating Com-
munities of Practice. A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business
School Publishing, Boston, MA.
of culture and creativity, such as the European projects
‘ACRE – Accommodating Creative Knowledge’ and ‘MeLa* –
European Museums in an age of migrations’. She is
currently a Ph.D. candidate in Design at Politecnico
di Milano.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice