I think Joel's point below is really important as it highlights two
opposing approaches that each have strong, but opposing, costs and
benefits: (1) From a data collection/systematic comparison point of
view, it's hard to beat set categories for coworking spaces. And as
there are more and more spaces, being able to systematically compare
them will become more and more valuable. (2) On the other hand, with
coworking spaces offering perhaps hundreds of different kinds of
memberships, to limit the categories to just a handful will clearly
limit the ability to compare in an unacceptable. There's no point in
limiting the categories if the majority of spaces won't be
represented. My space's membership options wouldn't fit into any I've
seen on any of the space listing sites (and that's understandable,
some of them might be a feature of less than 1% of coworking spaces;
but this might be the rule rather than the exception).
My thought is there might be a creative solution to both problems, not
to dissimilar from current calendar software that provides incredible
flexibility about recurring events and dates that meet almost
everyone's needs. Could we do something like that, where the user
defines each of their membership options, but with a set of pre-
existing fields that together allow us to cover all the variety? For
example:
Membership type 1:
Name
Cost
Days 1: Here with the option to either choose a certain number of
days or to choose particular days of the week
On Feb 28, 1:26 pm, Joel Haasnoot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Make the fields fillinable and you'll find more adapters."
>
> I'm all with you on that from the perspective of coworking spaces.
> However, it's painfully hard software-wise to compare dissimilar
> options.
>
> I'm developer for a booking portal for coworking spaces, and we
> decided to standardise on workspace categories (i.e "open
> workspace"/desk, "closed workspace"/an office, or "meeting rooms" of
> various sizes). This makes price comparisons between different spaces
> much much easier, and per category spaces can still specify the
> facilities that are available to that category of workspace. If you
> allow spaces to provide their own categories it becomes very
> complicated very quickly, and it's almost impossible to compare price
> because of the dissimilarity of what's offered.
>
> I'd stick with a couple of standardized options for the
> coworkregistry, or risk not having a good comparison tool.
>
> Joel Haasnoot
> Developer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 02:28, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Our 2cents. One size fits all does not fit coworking. When it comes to
> > membership costs there are Different models, different overheads,
> > different cultures, different economy, diffferent values, etc. Even when
> > it comes to naming levels. Hotdesk vs Flexdex, and so on. Make the
> > fields fillinable and you'll find more adapters.
>
> > Chad
> > The Creative Space
> > Barrie, Ontario, Canada
> > Www.thecreativespace.ca
>
> > Jonathan,
>
> >> I caution against any form of standardization. I know it makes it easier
> >> for the software, but this is a community of individuals that can't even
> >> decide on the definition of coworking. We each know it in our hearts, and
> >> that is enough. I'm trying to summarize quickly for the sake of fitting
> >> this into an email but that right there is a crucial factor in how this
> >> community sticks together. It's a subtle nuance that can be really
> >> difficult to wrap your head around but it's critically important. That
> >> might sound like something that is difficult to work with but it is also
> >> really easy to make solutions with this in mind if you don't try to fight
> >> it. Our current tools, the google group and the wiki page, are
> >> all-inclusive and neutral and no one has to conform to any standard to
> >> participate. I've spent a lot of time studying why these tools work for
> >> us,
> >> despite all the drawbacks people love to debate.
>
> >> Again, it's really tricky for me to explain this via email and I look
> >> forward to talking about this more over beers in Austin. Am I just being
> >> cryptic here or does this make sense to people? Anyone care to paraphrase
> >> what I'm trying to get at here?
>
> >> Jacob
>
> >> ---
> >> Office Nomads - Individuality without Isolation
> >>http://www.officenomads.com- (206) 323-6500
>
> >> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Yankovich <
> >> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Hi All,
>
> >>> I'm working on adding more metadata to coworkingregistry.org and one of
> >>> the things we identified was having rates information for various
> >>> membership
> >>> levels. Now, I KNOW that each facility has different membership levels
> >>> that
> >>> offer different levels of service, access, etc, but for the purposes of
> >>> standardization and communication, I'd like to identify some common
> >>> membership levels.
>
> >>> Currently, when I look at most spaces' web sites, I see the following
> >>> levels:
>
> >>> 1) Drop-In - A one-day pass to work while the space is open, like a
> >>> 9-5
> >>> Hotdesk member but for one day. (No storage.)
>
> >>> 2) Hotdesk 9-5 - Access to a desk/chair/resources every day that the
> >>> space has open hours. No key. Bring your laptop, take it when you
> >>> leave.
> >>> "Leave no trace" coworking, unless a project locker is provided.
>
> >>> 3) Hotdesk 24/7 - Access to a desk/chair/resources as well as a
> >>> key/card/code so you can access the space whenever you want.
>
> >>> 4) Permadesk - Your own established desk with whatever storage is
> >>> provided. Commonly you might leave a laptop or desktop computer at your
> >>> desk. Permadesk generally includes 24/7 access (key/card/code).
>
> >>> There are generally higher "tenant" or "anchor tenant" types of members,
> >>> but these are usually custom/contract relationships and not something
> >>> that
> >>> needs advertising. It might be valuable to have a "Looking for anchor
> >>> tenant" option on coworkingregistry, but saying more than that is
> >>> probably
> >>> not necessary.
>
> >>> So what does everyone think of these 4 general levels of membership?
>
> >>> Are these good names, or are there better names for these things? Do
> >>> these
> >>> names translate well into other languages?
>
> >>> Remember that the exact offering will vary from space to space in terms
> >>> of
> >>> the hours of availability, additional amenities, access to
> >>> meetup/conference
> >>> room spaces, and so on. I dont propose that we try to agree on those,
> >>> or
> >>> get spaces to change what they offer. What I'm trying to establish is a
> >>> few
> >>> general/base levels of membership that we can use to talk about
> >>> membership
> >>> across spaces in a general way. For example, everyone generally knows
> >>> what
> >>> a day-pass or drop-in is. Does this make sense?
>
> >>> See you in Austin,
>
> >>> --
> >>> -Jonathan Yankovich @tronathan
> >>> Community Advocate, Madison Coworking
> >>> Preferred contact:
> >>> 1. skype: jonathanyankovich
> >>> 2. twitter: tronathan
> >>> 3. gtalk/email: [email protected]
> >>> 4. phone: (608) 513 2012
> >>> more info:http://coworkingregistry.org
> >>> more info:http://madisoncoworking.com
> >>> please follow @tronathan @coworkregistry @coworkmadison
>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>> Groups
> >>> "Coworking" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> [email protected].
> >>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Coworking" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> [email protected].
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Coworking" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > [email protected].
> > For more options, visit this group
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
