REPORT MARKETING RESEARCH DETERMINANTS OF MOTIVATION THAT MAKE ENTREPRENEURS CHOOSE CO WORKING SPACES THE CASE IN DANANG, VIETNAM

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG
UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS


REPORT MARKETING RESEARCH

DETERMINANTS OF MOTIVATION
THAT MAKE ENTREPRENEURS
CHOOSE CO-WORKING SPACES:
THE CASE IN DANANG, VIETNAM

Class:
41K12.3-CLC
Lecturer: Bao Quoc Truong-Dinh, MBA

Danang, December 2017

download by :


DETERMINANTS OF MOTIVATION THAT MAKE ENTREPRENEURS
CHOOSE CO-WORKING SPACES: THE CASE IN DANANG, VIETNAM
MEMBERS
Hang Thi Nguyen (Leader)
Anh Ngoc Quynh Nguyen
My Thi My Nguyen
Mi Thi Diem Le

download by :

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................3

2.

LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................4

3.

2.1.

CONCEPTS.........................................................................................................................4

2.2.

RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES.....................................................................7

METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................14
3.1.

SAMPLE CONSIDERATION..........................................................................................14

3.2.

DATA COLLECTION.......................................................................................................14

3.3.

ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATION.................................................................................14

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................14

download by :


1. INTRODUCTION
With the popularity of sharing economy phenomenon, the number of co-working
spaces has been rapidly growing over the past years. More than 500,000 individuals
use more than 2,000 co-working spaces worldwide (Johns and Gratton, 2013). Besides
the requirement of human resources, entrepreneurs also need a physical environment
where creativity, innovation can flourish (Anita Fuzi, 2015). Successful
entrepreneurial behavior is also supported by a strong and diverse knowledge base,
well-developed business and social networks, and an ability to identify opportunities
(Lee, Florida, & Acs, 2004). The shared-workspace model are designed to encourage
collaboration, creativity, idea sharing, networking, socializing, and generating new
business opportunities for small firms, start-ups and freelancers (Anita Fuzi, 2015).
Compared to project teams or virtual teams in the often rigid hierarchies of established
firms (Chesbrough and Teece 1996; Pawar and Sharifi 1997) co-working users can
more flexibly choose teams and work processes.
It is estimated that the number of entrepreneurs and start-up companies in Vietnam are
increasing substantially. More than 1,500 startups have come in to play. Many coworking spaces appear in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city. These workspaces offer
startups and entrepreneurs office communities, tele-centers, telework, virtual work,
virtual teams, incubators, and communities of practices but specifically offers a crosssectoral working community with more flexibility, autonomy, and opportunities for
social interaction. (Anita Fuzi, 2015). Nevertheless, co-working spaces are still
relatively new and not well-established in Danang, which is one of potential city that
entrepreneurs choose to start their businesses. We concern whether these workplaces
do not meet needs and requirements to support entrepreneurial activities or
entrepreneurs do not know how these spaces actually work.

There is neither not much knowledge about why entrepreneurs engage in co-working
spaces nor why some of them are still hesitant to participate in this type of workspace.
In fact, previous research only focuses on isolated determinants, instead of assessing
them and their relative strengths holistically by using quantitative methods. In
addition, many research contributions do not explicitly differentiate between various
forms of services and industries in the sharing economy as well as their scope in
Eastern nations such as Vietnam. Recent empirical research also do not consider the
role of working inspiration and networking as determinants of motivation that make
entrepreneurs choose co-working spaces. To response to these research gaps, this
paper aims to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: What are determinants of motivation that make entrepreneurs choose in
co-working spaces in Danang city?
RQ2: What are the most important determinants that make entrepreneurs
choose co-working spaces in Danang city?
The findings from this research will support co-working space providers engaged in
the management of co-working spaces services in different industries and locations to

download by :


understand the reasons of usage. With this knowledge, they will be able to offer better
working environments that meet the needs of co-workers, especially entrepreneurs.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. CONCEPTS
Sharing economy
Driven by technological (Belk, 2014; Oskam and Boswijk, 2016), economical (Hartlet
al.2016; Moehlmann 2015), and environmental (Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014; Hamari
et al.2015) considerations, people increasingly participate in collaborative
consumption system to exchange goods and services in the internet (Belk, 2014). This
system enhances the capacity of utilization and increases the environmental

sustainability. Cohen and Kietzmann (2014) describe the sharing economy as a system
where people share underutilized resources in peer-to-peer networks. The sharing
economy includes “peer-to-peer-based activities of obtaining, giving, or sharing the
access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services”
(Hamari et al.2015, p. 1). The sharing economy relates to the perceived value of
ownership. Consumers enjoy goods and services only when they are required or
desired without obtaining ownership and the involved obligations (Belk, 2014).
The sharing economy estimated to be worth 100 billion USD in 2010 (Lamberton and
Rose, 2012) and serves a range of business areas such as food, accommodation,
traffic, entertainment media (Hartl et al.2016). The business areas traffic and
accommodation offer sharing economy show cases. For example, shared mobility
offers economic and environmental advantages, as the total number of cars and the
produced emissions are reduced (Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014). Another prominent
example is Airbnb, a web-based network that enables peer-to-peer accommodation
sharing. Airbnb can directly compete with traditional hotels, leading to decreasing
occupancy and turnover while users can profit from declining prices (Oskam and
Boswijk, 2016).
The trend of sharing also facilitates collaborative creation (co-creation) of goods and
services. Customers become part of the value creation (Oskam and Boswijk 2016).
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) noted co-creation as new source of competitive
advantage as the direct interactions between firms and their customers have the
potential to create unique experiences. Crowdsourcing refers to the participative
completion of a task against some kind of economic or psychological compensation
(Estelles-Arolas and Gonzalez-Ladron-de-Guevara, 2012). Self-organizing crowds do
not even need focal firms for value creation. Instead, communities with motivated and
creative members offer support for ideas and innovations (Franke and Shah, 2003).
However, using the wisdom of the crowd for co-creation is not limited to a virtual
environment. Co-creation activities can be transferred to real settings (Schopfel et al.
2015). For example, the website Meetup () enables internet groups,
the crowd, to organize meetings in the real world. Bilandzic and Foth (2013) highlight

download by :


that Meetup enables motivated, often highly creative and skilled individuals, groups
and crowds to meet and collaborate on specific tasks. These groups need a suitable
place with appropriate infrastructure and equipment to support the completion of
tasks. Public libraries as well as co-working spaces can host such groups. It is unclear
how such spaces should be set up, how the inherent communities work, and which
business models suit the users and providers of coworking-spaces (Franke and Shah,
2003; Frankenberger et al. 2013; Gandini, 2015).
Entrepreneur
Entrepreneurs is someone who exercises initiative by organizing a venture to take
benefit of an opportunity and, as the decision maker, decides what, how, and how
much of a good or service will be produced. He or she could be sole proprietor, a
partner, or the one who owns the majority of shares in an incorporated venture. An
entrepreneur supplies risk capital as a risk taker, and monitors and controls the
business activities. (Business Dictionary).
Entrepreneurs play a key role in any economy. These people have the necessary skills
to anticipate current and future needs that can bring new ideas to market.
Entrepreneurs prove to be successful in taking on the risks of a startup are rewarded
with profits, fame and continued growth opportunities (Black, Ervin L. et al 2010.).
The entrepreneur assumes all the risks and rewards of the venture and is usually the
sole proprietary, a partner or the owner of the majority of shares in an incorporated
venture. As the main decision maker the entrepreneur monitors and controls the
business activities.
According to economist Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950), entrepreneurs are not
necessarily motivated by profit but regard it as a standard for measuring achievement
or success. Three thinkers were central to the inclusion of entrepreneurs: Joseph
Schumpeter, Frank Knight and Israel Kirzner. Schumpeter suggested that

entrepreneurs – not just companies – were responsible for the creation of new things
in the search of profit. Knight focused on entrepreneurs as the bearers of uncertainty
and believed they were responsible for risk premiums in financial markets. Kirzner
thought of entrepreneurship as a process that led to discovery.
What is co-working space?
Co-working spaces are shared workplaces for freelancers and workers working in
various industries. These spaces can be seen as office-renting facilities where people
such things like a desk and a wifi connection. More importantly, these places also
encourage independent professionals live their daily routines side-by-side with
professional peers from the same sector to share knowledge, ideas and allow them to
enhance collaborations and synergies. (Gandini, 2015)
The first co-working space originates in 2005 in San Francisco. It brought the
possibility of envisaging a ‘third way’ of working, halfway between a new work style

download by :


within a traditional, well-delimited workplace in a community-like environment.
(Gandini, 2015). Entrepreneurs and freelancers mainly choose these spaces because
they are cheap and flexible. Besides, it can be lonely and challenging when working at
home as they find it difficult to manage work and private life. (Meel, Juriaan van;
Berg, Rikke Brinkø, 2014)
Since the idea of co-working has quickly spread, ultimately, a ‘trendy topic’ bearing
huge expectations concerning the future of knowledge work. Johns and Gratton for
instance, define co-working as the ‘third wave of virtual work’ (2013: 1), that seeks to
restore ‘co-location’ in the digitalizing mode of production where tasks can be
performed anywhere, anytime. A proliferation of co-working initiatives and ventures
can be currently witnessed in different cities worldwide, for a somewhat selfproclaimed ‘co-working movement’ that now aligns with other similar ‘trendy’
concepts which flourished in the post-crisis economy, such as ‘startups’, ‘social
innovation’ or ‘sharing economy’ (Botsman and Rogers, 2011).

According to an article on Network World, co-working is perceived as a ‘movement’
or a ‘philosophy’ characterized by four common values: collaboration, openness,
community and sustainability (Reed, 2007).
Alongside practitioner-oriented research, a growing stream of academic empirical
work has arisen concerning co-working practices. In a study of collaborative
production in Berlin, Lange (2011) outlines a definition of co-working spaces as
bottom-up spaces participated by workers who strive for independence, collaborative
networks and politics, and that share a set of values in a ‘collective-driven, networked
approach of the open source idea translated into physical space’ (Lange, 2011: 292).
The idea underlying this assumption is that social relations are the main factors of
productivity across co-working spaces, conceived as collaborative environments
where microbusinesses and freelancers deploy new production opportunities in nonhierarchical situations. Those accessing co-working spaces are mostly
‘culturepreneurs’, a term Lange coined to identify knowledge professionals with
multi-functional skills and irregular career paths, operating as self-entrepreneurs
within scarcely-institutionalized economies (Lange, 2006). This term stresses both the
cultural’ dimension that connotes coworkers, and the eminently entrepreneurial trait of
their activity, that is framed into a non-competitive and largely ‘socialized’ philosophy
of work perpetrated into a production context made of small-size actors, which does
not imply hierarchical relations and where organizational arrangements are constantly
renegotiated (Lange, 2006, 2011).
In a study of co-working spaces in Austin (Texas), Spinuzzi (2012) provides a more
business-oriented and entrepreneurial perception of co-working practices. The
coworkers in Spinuzzi’s account are not just ‘workers’ or ‘professionals’ – rather,
mostly ‘non-employee enterprises’, meaning individuals who run a self-enterprise
with no employees, looking to increase profit and business turnover through a
managerial cultivation of social relations. Spinuzzi calls this a logic of ‘good

download by :

neighbors’ or a ‘good partners’ approach, a partially communitarian organizational
rationale by which business outcomes are pursued through temporary partnerships and
collaborations among peers working in the space, resulting from a combination of
complementary skills and social relations (Spinuzzi, 2012). Tracy Foster of ONA said,
“In a co-working space, there’s an opportunity to develop relationships with other
small business owners and learn from their experiences. We’re constantly meeting and
learning from other entrepreneurs in the fashion and tech space.”
Co-working spaces offer entrepreneurs opportunities to interact with others and
develop professional relationships. They can interact, collaborate, meet potential
clients by chances and engage in informal market research, which are highly
beneficial by participating shared workplaces. Sam Saxton of Salter Spiral Stair and
Mylen Stairs stated, “Co-working spaces are alive with entrepreneurial spirit, making
them ideal sources of inspiration both in terms of motivation and creativity.”
2.2. RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Figure 1 displays the model on the determinants of choosing co-working spaces,
indicated through nine factors with direct effects on the likelihood of choosing a coworking space. These nine determinants are sense of community, economic benefits,
sustainability, enjoyment, service quality, trend affinity, networking, working
inspiration and trust.

Factors

Items

Statement

Nhận định

download by :

Adapted

The use of CWS
allows me to be part
SOC1 of a group of
likeminded people.

The use of CWS
allows me to belong
SOC2
to a group of people
with similar interests

Sense of
comm-unity

Contributing to my
CWS community
SOC3 improves my image
within the
community.
I gain recognition
SOC4 from contributing to

my CWS community.
I would earn respect
from others by
SOC5 sharing with other
people in my CWS
community.

People in the
community who
SOC6 contribute have more
prestige than those
who do not.
Economic
benefits
EB1

For the given price, I
rate the CWS offer as
good.

EB2

For the given quality

from
HenningViệc sử dụng CWS cho
Thurau et
phép tôi trở thành một
al.(2007);
phần của nhóm những
Lamberton
người có chung chí
and Rose
hướng.
(2012)
HenningViệc sử dụng CWS cho Thurau et
al.(2007);

phép tơi thuộc về một
Lamberton
nhóm những người có
and Rose
chung sở thích.
(2012)
Kankanhal
Sự đóng góp của tơi
li et al.
vào cộng đồng CWS
(2005);
cải thiện hình ảnh của
Wasko &
tơi trong cộng đồng.
Faraj
(2005)
Kankanhal
li et al.
Tơi được cơng nhận từ
(2005);
những đóng góp của tơi
Wasko &
vào cộng đồng CWS.
Faraj
(2005)
Kankanhal
Tơi có thể nhận được
li et al.
sự tôn trọng thông qua
(2005);

việc chia sẻ với mọi
Wasko &
người trong cộng đồng
Faraj
CWS.
(2005)
Kankanhal
Những người đóng góp
li et al.
trong cộng đồng CWS
(2005);
thường có nhiều uy tín
Wasko &
hơn so với người
Faraj
khơng đóng góp.
(2005)
Fornell et
al., 1996;
Lamberton
Với mức giá hiện tại,
tơi đánh giá những dịch and
Rose( 2012
vụ mà CWS cung cấp
); Bock et
là tốt.
al. (2005).
Với chất lượng hiện tại

download by :

Fornell et


of the CWS offer, I
mà CWS cung cấp, tôi
rate the price as good. đánh giá mức giá là tốt.

EB3

I can save money if I
participate in CWS

EB4

My participation in
CWS benefits me
financially.

EB5

My participation in
CWS can improve
my economic
situation.

EB6

My participation in
CWS saves me time.

Tôi có thể tiết kiệm
tiền nếu tham gia vào
CWS.
Sự tham gia của tơi vào
CWS đem đến cho tơi
nhiều lợi ích về mặt tài
chính.
Sự tham gia của tơi vào
CWS có thể cải thiện
tình hình tài chính của
tơi.
Sự tham gia của tơi vào
CWS giúp tôi tiết kiệm
được thời gian.

Sustainability

Choosing CWS helps
SUS1 save natural
resources.

Lựa chọn CWS giúp
tiết kiệm các tài
nguyên tự nhiên.

CWS is a sustainable
SUS2
mode of workplaces.

CWS là một mơ hình
khơng gian làm việc
bền vững

SUS3

CWS is ecological.

CWS là một hệ sinh
thái.

SUS4

CWS is efficient in
terms of using
energy.

CWS sử dụng năng
lượng một cách có hiệu
quả.

CWS is
environmentally

CWS thân thiện với
môi trường.

SUS5

download by :

al., 1996;
Lamberton
and
Rose( 2012
); Bock et
al. (2005).
Bock et al.
(2005)
Bock et al.
(2005)
Bock et al.
(2005)
Bock et al.
(2005)
Juho
Hamari,
Sjoklint,
and Antti
Ukkonen
(2016)
Juho
Hamari,
Sjoklint,
and Antti
Ukkonen
(2016)
Juho
Hamari,
Sjoklint,

and Antti
Ukkonen
(2016)
Juho
Hamari,
Sjoklint,
and Antti
Ukkonen
(2016)
Juho
Hamari,


ENJ1

ENJ2
Enjoyment
ENJ3

ENJ4

ENJ5

SQ1

SQ2
Service
quality
SQ3

SQ4

Trend affinity

TA1

Sjoklint,
and Antti
friendly.
Ukkonen
(2016)
van der
I think CWS is
Tôi nghĩ CWS thú vị.
Heijden
enjoyable
(2004)
van der
Tôi nghĩ CWS hào
I think CWS is
Heijden
exciting
hứng.
(2004)
van der
I think CWS is fun
Tôi nghĩ CWS vui.
Heijden
(2004)
van der

I think CWS is
Tôi nghĩ CWS thú vị.
Heijden
interesting
(2004)
van der
Tôi nghĩ CWS thoải
I think CWS is
Heijden
pleasant
mái
(2004)
Parasuram
an et al.,
The design of the
Thiết kế của các dịch
(1985,
CWS offer/ website is
vụ CWS/ website của
1988);
appealing to me.
CWS hấp dẫn tơi.
Seiders et
al. (2007).
Parasuram
an et al.,
Tơi nhanh chóng và dễ
I have quick and
(1985,
dàng truy cập vào các

easy access to CWS
1988);
dịch vụ CWS cung cấp.
offers.
Seiders et
al. (2007).
Parasuram
The customer service Dịch vụ chăm sóc
an et al.,
khách hàng của CWS
of CWS] is
(1985,
đáp ứng được các nhu
responsive to its
1988);
cầu của khách hàng.
customer’s needs.
Seiders et
al. (2007).
Parasuram
an et al.,
Tôi tin rằng CWS nhận
I believe that CWS
(1985,
knows about he needs biết được các nhu cầu
1988);
từ khách hàng của họ.
of their customers.
Seiders et
al. (2007).

Moeller
Việc cùng nhau sử
The collaborative
and
dụng CWS cho phép
consumption of the
Wittkowsk
CWS offer allows me tôi bắt kịp những xu

download by :


TA2

NW1

NW2

Networking

NW3

NW4

Working
inspiration
WI1

WI2

WI3

to keep up with the
latest trends.

hướng mới nhất.

Using CWS shows
that it is important to
me to use the newest
consumer goods.

Sử dụng CWS cho thấy
rằng, điều quan trọng
là tôi được sử dụng
những hàng hóa tiêu
dùng mới nhất.

i (2010)
Moeller
and
Wittkowsk
i (2010)

Constructe
d by the
Tơi thích tương tác và
I like to interact or
authors –
giao lưu cùng với các

socilizing with other
Please
đồng nghiệp khác tại
coworkers
refer to
CWS.
this study
Tơi có thể thu thập
Constructe
I can gather specific
thông tin phản hồi cụ
d by the
feedback and learning
thể và học tập các kỹ
authors –
techniques from
thuật từ những người
Please
others coworkers in
đồng nghiệp trong
refer to
my field
cùng lĩnh vực tại CWS. this study.
Constructe
d by the
CWS give me
CWS tạo cơ hội cho tôi
authors –
chances to meet my
gặp gỡ được các khách

Please
clients
hàng.
refer to
this study.
Constructe
CWS tạo cơ hội cho tôi d by the
CWS give me
thiết lập các quan hệ
authors –
chances to form my
đối tác trong kinh
Please
business parnerships
doanh.
refer to
this study.
Constructe
d by the
I like to work when I Tơi thích làm việc khi
authors –
take part in CWS
tôi tham gia vào CWS. Please
refer to
this study.
Constructe
Không gian và thiết kế d by the
The space and design
của CWS tạo cho tôi
authors –

give me inspiration
cảm hứng.
Please
refer to
this study.
The space and design Không gian và thiết kế Constructe

download by :


make me more
creativity
I trust that the offered
CWS will be
TRU1
displayed as
expected.
The other users of
CWS are truthful in
TRU2
dealing with one
another.
The other users of
CWS will not take
TRU3
advantage of me.
I trust that the CWS
provider provides
enough safeguards to
protect me from

TRU4
liability for damage I
am not responsible
for.

Trust

của CWS khơi gợi
nguồn sáng tạo trong
tôi.
Tôi tin tưởng các CWS
sẽ vận hành đúng như
mong đợi.
Người sử dụng CWS
giải quyết công việc
kinh doanh với những
người khác một cách
trung thực.
Những người sử dụng
CWS khác sẽ không lợi
dụng tôi.
Tôi tin rằng những
người cung cấp CWS
cung cấp đầy đủ các
biện pháp bảo vệ để
bảo vệ tôi khỏi các
trách nhiệm pháp lý
hoặc là các thiệt hại mà
tôi không chịu trách
nhiệm.

CWS cung cấp một
CWS provides a
môi trường làm việc
robust and safe
TRU5
lành mạnh và an toàn
environment in which
nơi mà tơi có thể sử
I can use the service
dụng dịch vụ.
TRU6
Likelihood of
choosing
CWS

Overall, CWS is
trustworthy

All things considered,
I expect to continue
LOC1
participating in often
in the future.
I can see myself
engaging in CWS
LOC2
more frequently in
the future.
LOC3 I can see myself

Nhìn chung, CWS
đáng tin cậy.

d by the
authors –
Please
refer to
this study.
(Chai et
al., 2012;
Bhattacher
jee, 2002).
(Chai et
al., 2012;
Bhattacher
jee, 2002).
(Chai et
al., 2012;
Bhattacher
jee, 2002).

(Chai et
al., 2012;
Bhattacher
jee, 2002).

(Chai et
al., 2012;
Bhattacher

jee, 2002).
(Chai et
al., 2012;
Bhattacher
jee, 2002).

Tôi mong đợi được tiếp
Bhattacher
tục tham gia vào CWS
jee (2001)
trong tương lai.
Tơi có thể thấy bản
thân mình tham gia
nhiều hơn vào CWS
trong tương lai.
Tơi có thể thấy bản

download by :

Bhattacher
jee (2001)
Bhattacher


increasing my
participating in CWS
if possible.
It is likely that I will
frequently participate
LOC4

in CWS communities
in the future.
I am likely to choose
CWS or a similar
sharing option the
LOC5
next time I need a
workplace

thân mình đang gia
tăng sự tham gia của
tơi vào CWS.

jee (2001)

Tơi rất có thể thường
xuyên tham gia vào
CWS trong tương lai.

Bhattacher
jee (2001)

Tôi rất có thể lựa chọn
CWS hoặc một khơng
gian chia sẻ tương tự
vào lần tới nếu tôi cần
một không gian làm
việc.

(Lamberto

n and
Rose,
2012).

Sense of Community
The first component in the model is the variable sense of community. Community
memberships or the aspiration to be part of a group or community is argued to be one
determinant of practicing sharing or communicating at the co – working Spaces
(DeGuzman and Tang. 2011). In one of the book chapters, “From Generation Me to
Generation We,” Botsman and Rogers (2010:41) discuss a shift in society, which has
become evident in recent years. They argue that today’s Facebook generation seeks to
connect with like-minded people in online and offline communities. Albinsson and
Perera (2012) stress a sense of community to be a principle driver of (regular)
participation in sharing activities. They argue that people make use of community
gatherings to share knowledge and goods for ideological and practical reasons. This
leads to hypothesize the following:
H1.0: Sense of community has a positive impact on the likelihood of choosing
co – working spaces of entrepreneurs.
Economic Benefits
The second determinant illustrated in the model is economic benefits. One can argue
that cost savings account for an individual’s self-benefit and might thus be an
important determinant of collaborative consumption (based on Olson, 1965; Hardin,
1968; Rapoport and Chammah, 1970). In fact, many recent research contributions
have been addressing this topic. Lamberton and Rose (2012) find cost benefits of
sharing to be a key determinant of usage. Moeller and Wittkowski (2010) emphasize
sharing options usually to be cheaper than non-sharing options and consider price
consciousness to be a principle determinant of using sharing options. Thus, it is
hypothesized that:
H2.0: Economic benefits have a positive impact on the likelihood of choosing
co – working spaces of entrepreneurs.

download by :


Sustainability
Third, environmental impact is illustrated as one determinant in the framework. In
times of growing skepticism toward capitalistic structures and anti-consumption
movements, alternative forms of green, ethical or sustainable consumption become
increasingly important (Kozinets and Handelman, 2004; Newholm and Shaw, 2007;
Albinsson et al., 2010; Neilson, 2010; Ozanne and Ballantine, 2010; Albinsson and
Perera, 2012; Schuitema and De Groot, 2014). In particular, Hamari et al. (2013)
conceptualize ecological sustainable consumption as a key determinant of the
intention to share. Indeed, sharing solutions are generally considered to have a
positive environmental impact compared with non-sharing solutions because the
pooling of material goods leads to the increased intensity in the usage of one single
product entity. The material required for each episode is reduced, waste is avoided,
and overproduction is countered (Mont, 2004). This leads to the following hypotheses:
H3.0: Sustainability has a positive impact on the likelihood of choosing co –
working spaces of entrepreneurs.
Enjoyment
A fundamental dimension of intrinsic motivation is the autotelic nature of the activity
or the enjoyment derived from the activity itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lindenberg,
2001). In terms of intrinsic motivation, software developers contribute to open-source
projects as a result of enjoyment and a feeling of competence (Lakhani & Wolf, 2005;
Nov, 2007; Roberts et al., 2006; Wasko & Faraj, 2000; see also Ryan & Deci 2000).
Enjoyment has been regarded as an important factor also in other sharing-related
activities, such as information system use (Van der Heijden, 2004), and information
sharing on the Internet (Nov, 2007; Nov et al., 2010). Nevertheless, the initial
motivation to collaborate does not explain nor predict sustained participation (Fang &
Neufeld, 2009). A study on the continued use of social networking services established

that enjoyment is a primary factor, followed by the number of peers and usefulness
(Lin & Lu, 2011). Social networking services and similar service design used
elsewhere can be seen to especially promote relatedness (see Hamari & Koivisto,
2015 and e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000 on relatedness), which is a
major determinant for intrinsically motivated use such as enjoyment. Therefore, we
include enjoyment as an intrinsic motivation to our model. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H4.0: Enjoyment has a positive impact on the likelihood of choosing co –
working spaces of entrepreneurs.
Service quality
The perception about service quality depends on the experience a customer makes
when consuming a service (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Seiders et al., 2007). It is
an established opinion in consumer and service research that perceived quality is a

download by :


major antecedent to satisfaction and also the intention to use this service again (Cronin
and Taylor, 1992; Fornell et al., 1996). This relationship has been confirmed by
various empirical studies. In the context of the sharing economy, a user of co-working
spaces might be more likely to use the service again after having positive experience
with the customer service. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H5.0: Service quality has a positive impact on the likelihood of choosing co –
working spaces of entrepreneurs.
Trend Affinity
As applicable for many trends, participating users can primarily be found among
generation Y, a relatively young age group (Frost and Sullivan, 2010). The act of
consumption is connected to a user’s social identity and elicits a positive feeling
(Moeller and Wittkowski, 2010). In fact, Moeller and Wittkowski (2010) found that
consumers who seek to use trendy products were more likely to prefer sharing over

ownership. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H6.0: Trend affinity has a positive impact on the likelihood of choosing co –
working spaces of entrepreneurs.
Networking
Co-working spaces is a superclass that encompasses the good-neighbors and goodpartners configurations as well as other possible configurations that similarly attempt
to network activities within a given space (Spinuzzi, 2012). Networking is contacting
and communicating with relevant person via a network of associates (Andrew
Churches, 2008). This would help users add more relationships and enhance the
possibility of finding potential opportunities.
H7.0: Networking has a positive impact on the likelihood of choosing co –
working spaces of entrepreneurs.
Working Inspiration
Co-working spaces represent knowledge communities embedded in their local
environment. Many co-working spaces are founded by entrepreneurs living in the
same district where the co-working spaces are located. Co-working spaces are open to
the public and they are commonly organize events and projects for neighbors and local
organizations. Co-working spaces also can be perceived as spaces where different
communities meet. Each space attracts people with different interests but the daily
interaction between the “coworker” community and the “maker” community is the
source of inspiration and novelty for both (Ignasi Capdevila, 2013).
H8.0: Working inspiration has a positive impact on the likelihood of choosing
co – working spaces of entrepreneurs.
Trust

download by :


Trust is illustrated as the ninth component in the model. Ostrom (1990) delineates
several design principles for common pool resource institutions, which can be
interpreted as institutional structures that build trust (Slee, 2013). In her later work,

Ostrom emphasized trust and reciprocity to be a core variable explaining why
individuals tend to cooperate with each other (Cox et al., 2009). Likewise, in the
“commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing” Morgan and Hunt (1994)
theorize that trust is one major predictor of cooperative activity (Morgan and Hunt,
1994:26). Based on this background, it is hypothesized that
H9.0: Trust has a positive impact on the likelihood of choosing co – working
spaces of entrepreneurs.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. SAMPLE CONSIDERATION
According to Hair, Joseph F., et al. (2014), at least 350 questionnaires must be
completed to keep factors with factor loading from 0.3 (in exploratory factors analysis
step which will be mentioned in chapter 3.3). Thus, more than 350 entrepreneurs who
are taking part in co-working spaces will be surveyed. Each questionnaire includes 46
questions using 5-point likert scales (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree),
corresponding 46 items of the model. Hexagon, Da Nang Coworking Space, Enouvo
Space and The HUB Da Nang are the four big co-working spaces that we choose to
distribute questionnaires.
3.2. DATA COLLECTION
Authors will bring questionnaires to those co-working spaces above and survey
entrepreneurs in February and March 2018. In the first places, we will ask the
permission of co-working spaces provider/owner with a promise to give them good
recommend so that they can meet the needs and requirements of co-workers.
3.3. ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATION
To test these hypothesis, we use the quantitative research method. The model is
constructed by combining items from other models (Juho Hamari, Sjoklint, and Antti
Ukkonen (2016); Mereike Mohlmann (2015)) and constructing new factors with new
items. Therefore, in the first step, we will conduct The Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) to identify the underlying relationships between measured variables.
The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) allows us to evaluate two important values of
a scale, which are convergent value and discriminant value. It is an interdependence

technique, so there are no independent variables and variables relying on correlation
between variables. EFA is used to abbreviate a set of observation variables into a set F
(Frelationship of the elements to the original variables (the observed variables).

download by :


Authors Mayers, L.S., Gamst, G., Guarino A.J. (2000) mentioned that: In factor
analysis, the method of extracting Pricipal Components Analysis coupled with
Varimax rotation is the most commonly used method.
According to Hair & Ctg (1998, 111), factor loading is the norm to ensure the true
level of EFA:
•
•
•

Factor loading > 0.3 is considered to be the minimum
Factor loading > 0.4 is considered important
Factor loading > 0.5 is considered to be practical

The condition for exploratory factor analysis is to satisfy the following requirements:
Factor loading factor > 0.5.
0.5 ≤ KMO ≤ 1: The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) coefficient is an index used to
determine the suitability of factor analysis. Large KMO values have factorial analysis
as appropriate.
Bartlett's test is statistically significant (Sig. <0.05): This is a statistical item used to
consider the hypothesis of unrelated variables in the whole. If this test is statistically
significant (Sig. <0.05), the observed variables will be correlated in overall.
Percentage of variance > 50%: This represents the percent variance of the observed

variables. This means if the variance is 100% then the value indicate how much factor
analysis explains.
Next, the rest items (after EFA) need to be assessed the liability of scales by
conducting Cronbach’s Alpha. Criteria used when evaluating scale reliability:
- Types of observations with variable coefficients that are small (less than 0.3);
Criteria for scale selection when Alpha reliability is greater than 0.6 (the greater the
Alpha, the higher the internal consistency) (Nunally & Burnstein 1994)
- Alpha value is greater than 0.8 are good measures; 0.7 to 0.8 is usable; 0.6 or more is
possible in case the research concept is new or new in the research context (Nunally,
1978; Peterson, 1994; Slater, 1995, cited by Hoang Trong and Chu Nguyen Mong
Ngoc., 2005).
- Variable variables that are small (less than 0.4) are considered to be rubbish and will
be excluded and the scale accepted when the Alpha reliability coefficient is greater
than 0.7). Based on this information, the study conducted a scale evaluation based on
the criteria:
- The type of observations with a variable-total correlation coefficient of less than 0.4
(these are not significant contributors to the description of the concept under
investigation and many previous studies used this criterion).
- Choose a scale with Alpha reliability greater than 0.6 (the concepts in this study are
relatively new to the study participants when responding).

download by :


REFERENCES
Albinsson PA, Perera BY. 2012. Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: building
community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 11(4): 303–315
Albinsson PA, Wolf M, Kopf, DA. 2010. Anti-consumption in East Germany:
onsumer resistance to hyperconsumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9(6): 412–
425

Anita Fuzi, Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: the
case of South Wales, Regional Studies, Regional Science (2015),Vol. 2, No. 1, 462–
469 .doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1072053
Belk R (2014) You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption
online. J Bus Res 67:1595–1600. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001
Bilandzic M, Foth M (2013) Libraries as coworking spaces: understanding user
motivations and perceived barriers to social learning. Libr Hi Tech 31:254–273.
doi:10.1108/07378831311329040
Black, E.L., Burton, F.G., Wood, D.A. and Zimbelman, A.F. (2010), “Entrepreneurial
success: differing perceptions of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 189-198.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention
formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrin- sic motivators, socialpsychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.
Botsman, R. and R. Rogers (2011) What’s mine is yours: How collaborative
consumption is changing the way we live. New York: Collins
Chesbrough HW, Teece DJ (1996) Organizing for innovation: when is virtual
virtuous? Harvard Bus Rev 74:65–73
Cohen B, Kietzmann J (2014) Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing
economy. Organ Environ 27:279–296. doi:10.1177/1086026614546199
Cox JC, Ostrom E, Walker M, Castillo AJ, Coleman E, Holahan R, Schoon M, Steed
B. 2009. Trust in private and common property experiments. Southern Economic
Journal 75(4): 957–975
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika. 16, 297-334.
Cronin JJ, Taylor SA. 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing 56: 55–68

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self- determination in
human behaviour. New York: Plenum.

download by :


Estelle´s-Arolas E, Gonza ´lez-Ladro ´n-de-Guevara F (2012) Towards an integrated
crowdsourcing definition. J Inf Sci 38:189–200. doi:10.1177/0165551512437638
Fang, Y., & Neufeld, D. (2009). Understanding sustained participation in Open Source
software projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(4), 9–50.
Fornell C, Johnson MD, Anderson EW, Cha J, Bryant BE. 1996. The American
customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing
60(4): 7–18
Fornell C, Johnson MD, Anderson EW, Cha J, Bryant BE. 1996. The American
customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing
60(4): 7–18
Franke N, Shah S (2003) How communities support innovative activities: an
exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Res Policy 32:157–178.
doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00006-9
Frankenberger K, Weiblen T, Gassmann O (2013) Network configuration, customer
centricity, and performance of open business models: a solution provider perspective.
Ind Mark Manag 42:671–682. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.004
Frost and Sullivan (ed). 2010. Sustainable and innovative personal transport solutions
—strategic analysis of carsharing market in Europe. Available online: www.frost.com
(last access December 03, 2014).
Hair & ctg (1998,111), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall International
Hamari J, Sjoăklint M, Ukkonen A (2015) The sharing economy: why people
participate in collaborative consumption. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol.
doi:10.1002/asi.23552
Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 163(3859): 1243–1248

Hartl B, Hofmann E, Kirchler E (2016) Do we need rules for ‘‘what’s mine is yours’’?
Governance in collaborative consumption communities. J Bus Res 69:2756–2763.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.011
Henning-Thurau T, Henning V, Sattler H. 2007. Consumer file sharing of motion
pictures. Journal of Marketing 71: 1–18.
Johns T, Gratton L (2013) The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Bus Rev 91:66–73
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology: JASIST,
61(3), 555–566.

download by :


Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing knowl-edge to
electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1),
113–143.
Kozinets RV, Handelman JM. 2004. Adversaries of consumption: consumer
movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research 31: 691–704.
Lakhani, K.R., & Wolf, R. (2005). Why hackers do what they do: Understanding
motivation and effort in free / Open Source software projects. In J. Feller, B.
Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, & K.R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on free and Open Source
software (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lamberton CP, Rose RL. 2012. When is ours better than mine? A framework for
understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of
Marketing 76: 109–125.
Lange, B. (2006) ‘From cool Britannia to generation Berlin? Geographies of
culturepreneurs and their creative milieus in Berlin’, in C. Eisenberg, R. Gerlach and
C. Handke (eds.) Cultural industries: The British experience in international
perspective. Humboldt University Berlin.
Lange, B. (2011) ‘Re-scaling governance in Berlin’s creative economy’, Culture
Unbound, 3: 187-208
Lee, S. Y., Florida, R., & Acs, Z. (2004). Creativity and entrepreneurship: A regional
analysis of newfirm formation. Regional Studies, 38, 879–891

Lin, K.Y., & Lu, H.P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical
study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161.
Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos, 54(2–3), 317–342.
Meel, J. V., & Brinkø, R. (2014). Working apart together. EuroFM Insight,
(September), 10-11.
Meyers L.S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006), Applied multivariate research:
Design and interpretation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Canada.
Moehlmann M (2015) Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and
the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J Consum Behav 14:193–207.
doi:10.1002/cb.1512
Moeller S, Wittkowski K. 2010. The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring
renting. Managing Service Quality 20(2): 176–191.
Neilson LA. 2010. Boycott or boycott? Understanding political consumerism. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour 9(3): 214–227

download by :


Newholm T, Shaw D. 2007. Editorial: Studying the ethical consumer: a review of
research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6: 253–270.
Nov, O. (2007). What motivates Wikipedians? Communications of the ACM, 50(11),
60–64.
Nov, O., Naaman, M., & Ye, C. (2010). Analysis of participation in an online photosharing community: A multidimensional perspective.
Nunnally & Burnstein (1994),“Pschy Chometric Theory”, 3rd edition, McGraw Hill.
Olson M. 1965. The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups.
Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Oskam J, Boswijk A (2016) Airbnb: the future of networked hospitality businesses. J
Tour Futur 2:22–42. doi:10.1108/JTF-11-2015-0048
Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective

action. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Ozanne LK, Ballantine PW. 2010. Sharing as a form of anticonsumption? An
examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9(6): 485–498.
Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. 1988. SERVQUAL. A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64(1): 12–40.
Pawar KS, Sharifi S (1997) Physical or virtual team collocation: does it matter? Int J
Prod Econ 52:283–290. doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(97)89241-9
Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2004) Co-creation experiences: the next practice in
value creation. J Interact Mark 18:5–14. doi:10.1002/dir.20015
Rapoport A, Chammah AM. 1970. Prisoner’s dilemma. University of Michigan Press:
Michigan
Reed, B. (2007) ‘Co-working: The ultimate in teleworking flexibility’, Network
World.
Roberts, J.A., Hann, I.-H., & Slaughter, S.A. (2006). Understanding the motivations,
participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal
study of the Apache projects. Management Science, 52(7), 984–999.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist,
55(1), 68.
Schopfel J, Roche J, Hubert G (2015) Co-working and innovation: new concepts for
academic libraries and learning centres. New Libr World 116:67–78.
doi:10.1108/NLW-06-2014-0072

download by :


Schuitema G, De Groot, JIM. 2014. Green consumerism: the influence of product
attributes and values on purchasing intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, DOI:
10.1002/cb.1501
Seiders K, Voss GB, Godfrey AL, Grewal D. 2007. SERV-CON: development and

validation of a multidimensional service convenience scale. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 35(4): 144–56.
Slee T. 2013. Some obvious things about the internet reputation. Available online:
tomslee.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/09/2013-0923_reputation_systems.pdf (last access December 03, 2014).

Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704.

Wasko, M.M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: Why people participate and
help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 9(2), 155–173.

Wasko, M.M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–
57.

download by :