Chapter 3 What Is Museum Innovation? an Integrated Perspective of Innovation by Museum Organization

Universitat de València Institut Interuniversitari de Desenvolupament Local

AN INSIGHT INTO MUSEUM INNOVATION THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPIRICAL STUDY IN THE CASE OF MUSEUMS FROM VALENCIA REGION OF SPAIN

TESIS DOCTORAL

Presentada por: Chuan Li

Dirigida por:

Pau Rausell Köster Sanchis RaúlVicente Abeledo Coll Serrano Valencia, mayo 2017

ABSTRACT

Scholars and policy- the

makers have been stressing the transformation of competitionthe cultural andmodel creative for state industries and regional in the recentdevelopment years. Asby an innovation important based cultural on heritage institution, museums can innovation

strategies to support social inclusionbecome and regionala significant development vehicle in forSpain and the other Mediterranean region lenge recent

economic crisis. However, in the face of the chal s created by the underdeveloped and the understandingthe study ofmuseum innovation innovation in museumsis only nascent. is still of ation This thesis aims to expand our understandingquestions: of innov(1) What byis museum innovation?organizations (2) by Howfocusing do museumon three basic cultural production? (3) What determines s innovate in terms ofThis research is a theory- oriented the outcomeempirical of museum innovation? Valencia region. study based on the case of Spanish museums in the The study work to explain museum

develops a new theoretical frame ctors innovation in phenomenon, definition, taxonomy and determinant fa fromOn a comprehensive perspectiveoretical development, integrating a dichotomy of existing explanations. theand basisconclusions of the are further empirical studies are, survey conducteds and statistical approaches. drawn from a multitude of case studies On the one hand three patterns – -depen, the study reveals that museums innovate by following– self dent, collaborative, and adoptive innovation based onhand the, the domain study of cultural that production organizational and the characteristics type of innovation. (i.e. ownership, One the other size, and geographic distance)testifies and ion can enhance innovation depending collaborat the outcome of museum “ ” to the on the type of innovation, and the contribution of collaboration innovation outcome differs based on with whom museumsademic collaborate.sector, as wellThese as management conclusions and have policy important development implications in relation for the to acmuseum innovation. It is for this reason that this thesis presents recommendations directed at improving performance on these three levels. i

RESUMEN

En los útimos años, tanto desde el mundo académico como entre los responsablescompetitivo, para polı́ticos, el desarrollo se ha puesto nacional énfasis o regional, en la transformación a partir de la delinno modelo vación basadainstituciones en los contenedoras sectores culturales de patrimonio, y creativos. pueden En este convertirse sentido, losen unmuseos, importante como

vehı́culodesarrollo de reg transmisión de la innovación que apoye la inclusión social y el ional, tanto en España como en las distintas regiones mediterráneas, ahora que se enfrentan a los desafı́os provocados por la reciente crisis. Sin embargo, el estudio y la comprensiónciales. de los procesos de innvoación en los museos está todavı́a en sus fases ini Esta tesis pretende ampliar el conocimiento de la innovación por parte de los museos centrándose en tres cuestiones básicas: (1) ¿En qué consiste la innovación en el entorno de los museos? (2) ¿Cómo innovan los museos en el ámbito de la producción cultural? (3) ¿Qué determina el resultado de la innovaciónuna en los museos? La presente investigación es un estudio sustentado en caso concepciónde los museos teórica en la queComunidad se evidencia Valenciana. a partir de análisis empı́ricos para el El

estudio desarrolla, integrando las explicaciones dicotómicas existentes, una nueva estructura teórica para explicar y entender la innovación en los museos,determinantes. tanto Partiendo como fenómeno,de ese desarroll definición, taxonomı́a y sus factores o teórico, se realizan un conjunto de estudios empı́ricos adicionales, y se extraen conclusiones derivadas del análisis de mútliplesPor una casos parte, de estudioel estudioencuestas revela que y análisis los museos estadı́sticos. innovan de acuerdo con tres tipos de patrones – - – en

innovación auto suficiente, colaborativa y adoptiva funciónel estudio del evidencia área de producción que las carac cultural y del tipo de innovación.es de Porcir, propiedad,otra parte, terı́sticas organizativas ( tamaño y la distancia geográfica) y la colaboración, pueden mejorar el resultado de la innovación en los museos“ en función” del tipo de innovación. Además, la contribución que el factor colaboración hace a los resultados de la innovación difiere dependiendo de con quién colaboren los museos. Estas conclusiones ii

tienen importantes implicaciones para el sector académico, de gestión y polı́tico en relación a la innovación en los museos, por lo que laa estos tesis tres plantea niveles. las recomendaciones necesarias para un major aprovechamiento

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to first thank my advisors Pau Rausell Köster and Raú l Abeledo Sanchis for their guiding and supporting over eldthe without years. I preciouswouldn't opportunitieshave had any achievement in either academic or practical fi that they have offered me. patient I would like to thank my advisor’ Vicente Coll Serrano for his teachingwithout his and spur careful and encouragement. guidance. I can t imagine that I would finish this thesis I am very gr colleagues and

ateful to my friends Julio Montagut, not Marqués only in and OÓsacr Blanco Sierra, who have given me great help and support the reseach but in my life as well. GregoriMy special gratitude also goes to artist Antonio Camaró and directorts, Joan Berenguer for selfless assistance out of the goodness of their hear as well as to all people who have lend me a favor during the investigation.heir silent Last but not least, I feel extremelyarance. grateful to my parents for t support and unconditional forbe

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... v LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii LIST OF TABLES ...... viii LIST OF IMAGES ...... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH ...... 1 1.2 OBJECT AND QUESTIONS OF RESEARCH ...... 3 1.3 METHODOLOGY ...... 6 1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ...... 12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 13 2.1 TECHNOLOGICAL ORIENTATION VERSUS CULTURAL ORIENTATION ...... 18 2.2 TECHNOLOGY-PUSH VERSUS DEMAND-PULL ...... 20 2.3 MANAGEMENT VERSUS CURATORSHIP ...... 24 2.4 A CRITICAL CONCLUSION ...... 26 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? AN INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE OF INNOVATION BY MUSEUM ORGANIZATION...... 29 3.1 THE OBSERVATION OF THREE INNOVATION CASES IN THE MUSEUM COMMUNITY ...... 30 3.1.1 Computerization and digitalization: technological innovation in museums ... 30

...... 35 3.1.33.1.2 TheDesignated birth and Manager diffusion’ of new museology: museum innovation in arts and innovationhumanities ...... fields ...... 39 3.1.4 What do these cases show?s System ...... in Japanese public...... museums:...... an organizational.. 41 3.2 THE DEFINITION OF MUSEUM INNOVATION ...... 43 3.2.1 ...... 44 ...... 46 A brief introduction to innovation ...... 47 3.33.2.2 THE Defining TAXONOMY museum OF MUSEUM innovation INNOVATION ...... 51 3.3.3 Characteristics of museum innovation ...... 51 n ...... 57 3.3.1 Theoretical and empirical bases for classification ...... 68 3.43.3.2 DETERMINANT Three types ofFACTORS museum OF innovatio MUSEUM INNOVATION ...... 72 3.3.3 Relationship between three types of museum...... innovation...... 74 ...... 78 3.4.1 Determinant factors at individual level ...... 89 3.4.2 Determinant factors at organizational level ..... 92 3.53.4.3 CONCLUSION Determinant ...... factors at systemic...... level ...... 95 3.4.4 Different impacts of determinant factors on different types of innovation CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE? A MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY OF THE INNOVATION PROCESS IN FOUR DOMAINS OF CULTURAL PRODUCTION IN MUSEUM ORGANIZATIONS ...... 97 4.1 DYNAMICS OF INNOVATION PROCESS AND OPEN INNOVATION MODEL...... 99 4.1.1 The emerg organizations ...... 103 ence of the open innovation model and its application to cultural

innovation model ...... 106 4.1.34.1.2 Interaction,Knowledge forms,institutions learning and process innovation and systeminnovation ...... modes in the...... open 109 4.2 CULTURAL PRODUCTION AND INNOVATION IN MUSEUMS ...... 112 ...... 113 4.2.2 Matching production domains with innovation types ...... 119 4.2.1 Complexity of cutural production by museum organizations ...... 121 4.3 COMPARISON OF INNOVATION PROCESSES IN THE FOUR DOMAINS OF 4.2.3MUSEUM Four functional PRACTICES: activities A MULTIPLE in the museum-CASE STUDYorganization ...... 125 4.3.1 Case, data and methodology ...... 125 4.3.2 Single case descriptions ...... 126 -case analysis...... 132 4.4 CONCLUSION ...... 137 4.3.3 Results of cross CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION? EXPLORING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE DETERMINANT FACTORS OF INNOVATION FROM THE STUDY OF VALENCIAN MUSEUMS IN SPAIN ...... 139 5.1 MUSEUMS IN THE VALENCIAN COMMUNITY OF SPAIN: POPULATION AND HYPOTHESIS ...... 140 ...... 142 ...... 147 5.25.1.1 DATA Basic AND character METHODSistics ...... of museum organizations...... 152 5.2.15.1.2 DataSystem collection of innovation and sample in museums characteristics ...... 152 ...... 154 5.2.3 Data processing ...... 159 5.35.2.2 RESULT Measurement AND DISCUSSION of variables...... 169 5.4 CONCLUSION ...... 175 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION ...... 177 6.1 MAIN CONCLUSIONS ...... 178 6.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR ACADEMICS, MANAGEMENT AND POLICY-MAKING ..... 181 6.3 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH ...... 187 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 191 APPENDIX A THE LIST OF MUSEUM IN THE VALENCIAN AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY ACCORDING TO GENERALITAT VALENCIANA ...... 211 APPENDIX B OUTLIER FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ...... 218 APPENDIX C INVITATION LETTER FOR PARTICIPANTS ...... 219 APPENDIX D REMINDER LETTER FOR PARTICPANTS ...... 220 APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 221

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 FLOW CHART OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 7

FIGURE 2 ADOPTION OF COMPUTERS IN THE MUSEUM SECTO (2000-2014) ...... 32

FIGURE 3 ADOPTION OF DIGITAL HERITAGE IN TERMS OF R BY COUNTRIES

ES (2002-2014) ...... DATABASE...... FOR ELECTRONIC...... INVENTORY BY 35

FIGURECOUNTRIES 4 T BY COUNTRI TAGE OF MS ADOPTING DMS ...... 40

FIGURE 5 MHEUSEUM NUMBER INNOVATION AND PERCEN AS INTERACTIONJAPANESE OF INNOV PUBLICATION MUSEU AND MUSEUM ...... 48 FIGURE 6 K SPANISH MUSEUMS ...... 55

FIGURE 7 THENOWLEDGE TAXONOMY BASES OF MUSEU OF M INNOVATION ...... 57

FIGURE 8 THE ILLUSTRATION OF OPEN INNOVATION MODEL...... 104

FIGURE 9 FOUR DOMAINS OF CULTURAL PRODUCTION IN TE ES AND VALUE

CREATION ...... RMS OF KNOWLEDGE...... BAS ...... 119

FIGURE 10 THE COMPARISON OF VALENCIAN COMMUNITY AND SPAIN S AVERAGE LEVEL IN VISITORS,

PERSONNEL, MUSEUMS AND MUSEOGRAPHICAL COLLECTIONS ON' THE YEAR OF 2014 ...... 141 FIGURE 11 THE OWNERSHIP OF SPANISH MUSEUMS ...... 144

FIGURE 12 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SYSTEM OF INNOVATION OF MUSEUMS IN THE VALENCIA

REGION ...... 148

FIGURE 13 INDEPENDENT-SAMPLES MANN-WHITNEY U TEST FOR INDIVIDUAL SPECIALIST FACTOR ...... 173

FIGURE 14 INDEPENDENT-SAMPLES MANN-WHITNEY U TEST FOR MUSEUM FACTOR ...... 174

vii

LIST OF TABLES

T 1 THE CORE AND EXTENDED LITERATURE ON MUSEUM INNOVATION STUDIES...... 16

TABLE 2 C W MUSEUMS AND TRADITIONAL MUSEUMS IN TERMS OF THE

ABLEADOPTION OMPARISON OF NEW BETWEEN MUSEOLOGY NE ...... 37

T 3 CATEGORY, ALTERNATIVES, DESCRIPTION AND EXAMPLES OF INNOVATIVE DIGITAL HERITAGE

ABLESOLUTIONS FOR MUSEUMS ...... 65

T 4 SUMMERY OF DETERMINANTS OF MUSEUM INNOVATION ...... 93

TABLE 5 FIVE GENERATIONS MODELS OF INNOVATION PROCESS ...... 101

TABLE 6 KNOWLEDGE FORMS, LEARNING PROCESS AND INNOVATION MODES IN OPEN INNOVATION109

TABLE 7 THE COMPARISON OF THR E ...... 115

TABLE 8 MARCHING PRODUCTION DEEOMAINS BASES WITHOF KNOWLEDG INNOVATION TYPES ...... 120

TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWED MUSEUMS ...... 125

TABLE 10 THE MATRIX OF INNOVATION PROCESS PATTERNS IN TERMS OF INNOVATION TYPE ...... 135

TABLE 11 POPULATION DESCRIPTION ...... 142

TABLE 12 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (1) ...... 153

TABLE 13 INDICATORS OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION ...... 155

TABLE 14 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTIC PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS FOR

ABLECULTURAL AND ORGANIZATIONALS AND INNOVATION RELIABILITY ...... OF ...... 157

T 15 CORRELATION MATRIX OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS ...... 157

TABLE 16 TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED FOR PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS ...... 158

TABLE 17 ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX FOR PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS WITH VARIMAX

ABLER OTATION ...... 158

T 18 DESCRIPTIVE AND COLLINEARITY STATISTICS FOR MULTIPLE REGRESSION ...... 161

TABLE 19 CORRELATIONS FOR MULTIPLE REGRESSION ...... 162

TABLE 20 MODEL SUMMARY FOR MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODELS ...... 163

TABLE 21 ANOVA FOR MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODELS ...... 163

TABLE 22 ESTIMATED MODELS ...... 164

TABLE 23 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (2) ...... 165

TABLE 24 SHAPIRO-WALK TEST OF NORMALITY ...... 166

TABLE 25 TEST OF HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCES ...... 167

TABLE 26 ANOVA AND NONPARAMETRIC TEST RESULTS ...... 168

ABLE

viii

LIST OF IMAGES

IMAGE 1 THE COLLECTION WALL AS DIGITAL DEVICE INTEGRATING DIGITA L

NETWORKS FOR ENHANCING DIGITAL EXPERIENCE ...... L OBJECTS AND DIGITA...... 62

IMAGE 2 A TOUCH SCREEN PLAYER IS UTILIZED FOR AUDIO GUIDE IN THE MUSEUM ...... 64

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH

the creativeThe exploratory economy transformation of competition this model research. from manufacture to the recent economicis an crisis unignorable that started background in 2008, to the conventionalIn the competition context of decreasing

model of manufacture, based on increasing productivity; whilst and the rapidly growinoperationalg creative costs, haseconomy been challengedhas for its unsustainability become one of the most plausible vectors of European specialization in the global competitiveness (Rausell Köster & (RausellAbeledo Sanchı́s 2013). and one of the fastest routes to overcome the crisis Kösterthose co 2013)untriesThis and trendregions brings that newpossess opportunity and comparative advantage to relatively weak rich iscultural the case and creativewith Spain resources and butthe Mediterranean region.industrial As a bases,response such to astackling this emerging trend, several ly- INNOVA 1, 3c4 incubators 2 and Creative Med 3,

public funded initiatives, such as the understanding havethe been launchedthein creative the latest economy five years on so regional as to strengthen development of influence of , and to identify 1 INNOVA (

the socio-http://www.ub.edu/innovare) is a coordinated project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.creativity It aims and to culture address on the regional complex development. problem of economic model for Spain in the aftermath of the economic crisis, through 2 analyzing the influences of innovation, 3c4promote incubator 3c (culture, (http://www.3c4incubators.eu) creativity and clusters is a transnational project financed by European Union through the MED program, one major object of the project is to creative SMEs. ) as a factor of territorial development and an engine of economic and social innovation so as to support European cultural and 3 Creative Med (http://www.creativemed.eu covering 12

Its principle purpose is to leverage Mediterranean) is an internationalcultural capital project to co -design new Mediterranean regions with the support of the European Regional Development Fund. entrepreneurship ideas into economic well- region.service and business models for the transformation of innovative and creative being and prosperity of the Mediterranean

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

somecreative specific industries.sustainable At last socio economic models basedupon on thenew cultural competitive and strategies and innovative ,strategies this transformation on the political has called agenda to support culture, innovation and regional development. Museums are an important cultural heritage within the creative economy1. A museum is not only a social cultural enlightenment and

agent for growth through cultural tourism.education but also an economic engineed for the regional uts Although during museums the crisis suffer, thefrom significant c in publicdid andnot decreaseprivate funding proportionally and instead, morenumber peopleof visited museum museums visitors during the crisis government on the museum sector. Indecr Spain, for instance, the budget of central the tota museum visitorseased byincreased 22.9% (Bustamante Ramı́rez 2013) but l number of by 6% during 2008 and This 2012 may according indicate to that the museumsSpanish Ministry could make of Education, a consistent Culture and Sport. contribution to social and economic development.appealed to the For European this reason, Union the and International regional and local Council governments of Museums to support (ICOM) museum in the the crisis, and to

2 2013 . face of build the future in the Lisbon Declaration In sum, museums may play a particular role in this

process of 1 Museum is i “heritage and cultural sites” UNCTAD, Spanish dentified as group in the creative industries by most of classifications including OCED, Eurostat, KEA European Affairs, (Boix & Lazzeretti 2012). However, the Department of Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS) of UK and WIPO excluded museums from their creative industries classifications. In the case of the DCMS, it is rare to neglect the economic contribution of its museum sector since there are a lot of museums and galleriesyear, which like directly British Museum, National Gallery, the Tate and Victoria and Albert Museum so on that attract toenormous political numberconsideration of local that and“ international visitors every contributes to tourism economy. So there exists a popular‘old cou suspicionntry’”(Flew that 2012)might be due it reflected the modernization drive of the Blair rationera to understand Britain- in terms other than those’t list of the an whole “heritage and cultural. Assites for” groupWIPO 1classification, it mainly defined and classified creative economy in conside of Copyright based industries. WIPO didn the partial in the classification because of the weak connections“ between these sites and matterscopyright” (WIPO matters, 2003 but) . on the other hand, it specially identified museums in copyright industries for their partial attribution to works and other protected subject 2 http://icom.museum/news/news/article/the- -declaration-to-support-culture- and-museums-to- -the- -crisis-and- -the- lisbon face global build future/ 2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

through integrating culture, innovation and growth, particularly

transformation Two implications : inat thethe aftermathorganizational of the level, economic museums crisis. should initiate the arenecessary derived innovativefrom this strategy to

improve their management; and efficiency at regional and level, operational appropriate performance cultural for their survival and developmenthe agenda to strengthen the innovativeness and policiescompetitivenes should be the on museum t system as a whole. s of socioBecause-cultural of , the to vitalthe contributioneconomic growth of innovation,and social bothprogress, technological many countries and draw up policies to support their

corresponding nationalcultural and regional system of innovation, r among encouraging which innovation in museums andpolicies other cultural are also sector. on the agenda fo

1.2 OBJECT AND QUESTIONS OF RESEARCH

innovation in museum organizations.

This study focuses on Innovation, in brief, refersFage to something new and its commercialization (Dosi & Nelson 2010; rberg 2006); in the mainstream of innovation studies, most of the literature concentratessector. Similarly, on technologicalinnovation in changesmuseum basedorganizati on R&Dons, activitiesor museum in theinnovation, private can d as new ideas and methods that are created and adopted

also be understoo hrough intra- and inter- museum networks. there existby museumss and diffused t But literature.a dichotomy of explanations for museum innovation in the existing s as a productive unit and museum

The first explanation regards museum innovationthe commonality as a microeconomic with innovation activity i of museum organization. By emphasizingis seen as technology-orientation n firms, museum innovation a technological ; the process of innovation is mostly characterized by push; the andorganization. studies of museum innovation t focus on the management of Therefore, there is no muchsame difference analysis paradigmsbetween museum innovation and firmnova innovationtion studies in also nature, are applied and to the study for the mainstream of in

3 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

museum innovation. For example, many scholars analyze museum innovation

of in accordance with the taxonomy of technological (product and - process)oriented Osloinnovation Manual. and organizational innovation, which originated from firm The second explanation arts and

views museum as a component of culturalorganizations frameworks with emphasis on the peculiarity of artsy addressing and cultural the and how they differ from profitable art enterprises.s and cultural B organizations, theydifferenc are eseen innovation as non in- profit enterprises and in “meaning” and “ ”profitable organizationss and focusing cultural on organizations the generation, which of are culture-oriented;symbol theand innovation by art pull; process of innovation is characterized by demand andmuseographical studies of museumworks. innovation often concentrate on the curatorship in innovation are n Therefore, conventionalmuseum analysis innovation paradigms and instead, about museum innovationot applicable is researched in the study of artistic and cultural dimensions with emphasis on the common characteristicsin terms of including extension and audience development etc., which also are valueshared creation, with other artform arts and cultural organizations. the

researchThe perspectives. divergence ofTh two explanations usually mostly exists depends in th one differentcultural economics literature and thee second first perspective one in the cultural and creative industries and museology literature. the two regard museum innovation as

an independent But neither of s are treated as a -like organizationsobject of research, or arts and andinstead, cultural museum organizations in the existingcase of eitherliterature firm, which leads in-depth explanation museum innovation. to the lack of systematic and of As a result, s is

the understanding of innovation in museum organization oftenmuse vague and fragmented. First, there is a lack of scientific definition of um innovation. Because museum innovation often is studied under the paradigm of either technological innovation or cultural innovation by arts and cultural organizations, the characteristics of innovationond, withthere referenceis to museumcomprehensive organization clas per se tend to be neglected. Sec a lack of sification of museum innovation, because most of the 4 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

only

taxonomiesin the particular for innovation studies. Asin museumsa result are tactful so as to facilitate analysis , most of the cultural economics studies identify technological and organizational innovation with the neglect of cultural innovation in museums; whilst many studies of the cultural and creative industries focus on artisticn museographical and cultural works. innovation Third, there without is little considering mention technologicalto the scarce literatuinterference recenti museum innovation. In consequence, there is a re of ovation in museum needorganizations. for a clear and comprehensive understanding about inn In order to response to such

main questions. need, this thesis attempts to focus on three The first question is if it is possible to explore a third perspective on which museum innovation experience can also be tellsexplained us th inat aninnovation integrated takes manner. place Not in only the the theory but the he third perspectiverealms of bothshould technology involve an and in -depth culture and in comprehensive museums. Therefore, opinion tthat can the dichotomous explanations. This study assimilateattempts to and develop integrate an integrated above theoretical work frame existing explanations.for the study Such of museum innovationwork on also the constitutes basis of the rethinking theoreticalstudies in the frame research. analytical basis of further empirical Second, how do museum organizations innovate production? in the field of cultural This question is mainly based on the fact that the understanding of the process of museum. Theinnovation is obviously lagging behind the development“technology- pushof innovation” and “demand models-pull” popularizedactual understanding during 1950s still and focuses 1980s (Rothwell on 1994), nnovation process have experienced a rapid butdevelopment. new explanations of i tion is evolved knowledge; To be exact, the impetus ofchanged innova a linear processfrom R&D to an to interactive network;the mode of innovation has from has expanded organisms to open systemand thes. In scope sum, of “open innovation innovation” constitutesfrom a closedm charact the innovation process. Peacock (2008)ajor eristic ofa the current model of on proposed, from sciological perspective, that the process of museum innovati was a social construction by conversational interaction for the exchange of 5 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION internal ideas. Where does such interaction take place?

With whomand externaldoes a flowsmuseum of interact? And how does interaction lead to innovation in the museum environment? This study tries to explain the process eking anwers to these questions he ofconventional museum perspectives. innovation by se beyond t Third, what determines organizations? Following thethe second outcome question, of innovationthe third question in museum is put on from forward to identify some particular determinantsone of innovation in museums. Identifyingreseach in influencingthe cultural factors economics of innovation literature is. Althoughof the many central theore topicstical of have propositions about determinants of innovation(e.g. by cultural organizations been2014) put forward by different scholars Castañer empirical & Campos studies. 2002; This Castañer study mostly, only some of them have been tested by teristics concentrates onthe some one hand, factors relating to organizational characcome drivers and collaboration. On ugh innovativeif museums strategy are, will supposed such innovative to be strategies of local development thro be affected by the organizationales are characteristcs of museum per se? On the othern hand, if innovation process characterized by interaction,? doesAnd collaboratiohow? These contributequestions may to aprovide greater clear degree implications of innovation to management in museums and pocily-making in supporting innovation in museum organizations. terms of 1.3 METHODOLOGY

To answer the the empirical study designed on the

aboveal development questions, . Museum organizationhass beenare basis of theoretic oaches are adopted in thethe study, unit depending of study. Both qualitative and quantitativeA multiple appr case study and various statistical tests are onapplied the typeto of question. museums registered in the Valencian A empirical data collected frometailed methodologies theutonomous Community of Spain. D a collection andcan data be analysis.described The in three dimensions of research design, dat flow chart of research methodology is illustrated in the figure 1.

6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1 Flow chart of research methodology

Research design

Research design depends on the question

“who”, “what”, “where”, “why” and “how” in thebeing research researched questions. The are attributes the key to of decision- what particular research strategies to adopt (Yin 2009).

making about the “how” and “what” Our questions can be characterized by two attributes oflysis. and thus, they are associated with two main strategiesmuseum of anas innovate is “how- orientedTo” and be exact,more theexplanatory,first question so the that ca how tegy; the second question that what s museumse innovation study is a is suitable “what- oriented stra ” and more exploratory, so a surveyinfluence strategy is more appropriate (Yin 2009). Focusing on the innovation in the museum organizations, we regard museums as the unit case study and survey strategy are theory- . of study in theoretical the research. development, Both essential propositions and hypothesesbased are Based on ysis. proposed firstly, followed by data collection and propositions anal and hypotheses was not an overnHowever,ight the development of theory, continuous process and instead, it was the result of a process of 7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION revision and improvement in a one-way

volved in all stages of research. It wasn't gave process either; the process of data collection and analysis also useful feedbackhypotheses. to our work for developing related theories, propositions, and

Data collection

Museum innovation faces a challenge in the s collection of data. Firstly, there is neithermuseums common data elements and definition; secondlynor, many the museumshabit of data are collectionreluctant toin share their(Wharton managerial & DeBruindata, and 2005) the low response rate to the questionnaires sent out is an example; third

ly, not all countries publish statistics about their museums, and even if they are available, the onnel indictors and visitors are mostly etc., limitedwhich are to generalhard to information apply in such as infrastructure, persly, existing innovation surveys innovation study; fourth involve arts and cultural organizations exclusivelylike museums. focus on enterprises and don't innovation, whichTherefore, may explain the the lack of data hinders the study of museum In order to over relative scarcity of publications in this area. come the limitation of data collection, multiple processese dataof data sources, collection including have been semi designed-structured to makeintervie good use of the existing accessibl records, questionnaires al statistics. ws, direct observation, archived • Semi-structured interviewand offici

Interviewing is the main method collecting qualitative data; and semi- structured interviews take a place for and unstructured interviews, and usually consist eralbetween key questions structured that help explored and allow the interviewerof sev to diverge in order to pursuedefine an the idea areas or toresp beonse in more detail. However, interviews are usually time-consuming and deliver deep insights. hence, interviews are mostly applied in a small sample butcases ) were selected in In this study, a total of sevenership, museums and geographic (including locationpilot . General directors or termspersons of insize, char type and own -to- interviews wergee fromconducted the selected in the museums selected were interviewed face face. All museums so as to offer the

8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

-site. All i interviewer chances to observe the objects onmuseum innovation,nterviews suchusually as begantheir withattitude some to inn questionsovation, aboutand then cognition additional of questions were raised according to actualincluding replies, conservation most of questionsand restoration, centered curating on four aspects of museum activities visitor services. exhibition, digital museum and •

Direct observation

Direct, in observation which the researcheris an effective can watch method of collecting evaluativeir natural informationenvironment without altering that environment, sothe it has subject the strength in the high external validity (Drury 1995) of undertaking. In our research, direct observations were wereconducted quite beforean or afterway the and ofevaluate interviews the in the museums; ICTs in they the effective to observethe adoption of museum and verify the validity of information offered by directors in the interviews• Archived objectively. records

Some archived records such as work summaries and internal reports view, they also constituted weresupplemental supplied material by some museums during the inter . • for the author to understand some specific cases studies

AQuestionnaire questionnaire is idely used methods to collect

one of the most w s have severalquantitative advantages. data from First a, they large cannumbe gatherr ofstandardized respondents. data Questionnaire and are easy to analyze; second therefore, respondents; third, an , data can be gathered quickly from a large number ly of. On the ot online survey can be conducted at relatively inexpensive her hand, its disadvantages are obvious too. First, a reasonable sample size is required to represent a population as a whole; second, responses may be inaccurate; third, response rates can estimates be low in some cases, which may lead to tthe to theincrease target of population. sampling variance of and bias of estimates in contras Most questionnaires relating to museum innovation used to concentrate

9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION on the target population, with a relatively poor response rate, i.e. globalan average museums as . This might have led to undercoverage and response rate of 16% used in nonresponsethis study. One bias. was To to overcomedownsize the these target problems, population two alternativesso as to decrease were the risk to increase the response rate in order to reduce of undercoverage; another was the risk of nonresponse bias. a regional phenomenon (Porter 1990, 1998; Because innovation and is the Spanish museum system is regionalized Breschi & Malerba 1997), the study mainly on the museums located and (Gilabert González 2016) focuses A registered in the territory of the Valencian Autonomous Communitydeveloped oftheoretical Spain. questionnairework on and was the firstly early designed on the basis of then it was revised frame casethe researcher study of local’s tutors museums; and colleagues as well as a pretestafter several with discussionsthe deputy with director a questionnaire was sent out of local museums art foundation; through the lastlyonline, asurvey final tool LimeSurvey to a total of 121 . , followed by telephone communication with respondents After removingquestionnaires incomplete. This suggested and repeated that the response responses, rate it was finally 4 gatheredIn sum, this 59 survey had 9%. a small, definite population± of 121 museums, a sample size of 59 means Inthat addition, confidence the intervalauthor’ sis long 9 -atterm 95% working confidence experience level. as a curator and educator in the museum sector also provided a precious

insider perspectiveopportunity on innovation for participantur in observation museum organization. and provided an behavio Data analysis

Detailed analysis approaches are question and th ectivbased on the nature of data, the, to typeanswer of the “how” question,e particular text and audio obj dataes ofwere research. collected More through specifically interviews, direct s and archived records, and a case-study technique was the most observationappropriate approach to data mining and analysis to arrive at exploratory conclusions. Meanwhile, statistical tests were utilized to deal with standardized numerical data so as to explore the “what” quest

ion by testing the difference in 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

innovation• Case between study different categories of factor

The case study approach is a research strategy entailing an empirical

investigation of a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence, and is especially valuable(Yin 2009) when. theThe boundariescase study approachbetween thise particular phenomenonly relevant and context to are blurred museum innovation reasons. On the one hand, innovative activitiesthe study are of a contemporary phenomenonfor two that is -economic system; on the otherstrongly hand, innovationinfluenced processby and esembedded are in the socio ur and the , a multipleinvolved-case in complexstudy was behavio interactionc of agents. Therefore processes conducted for omparativel analysis of various of innovation involved atternin four-matching domains oftechnique cultura. Multipleproduction- among five museums by means - ofcase p study, and the pattern-matching case study is more robust than single the study’s results (Yintechnique 2009). can greatly strengthen the internal validity of • Statistical tests

A statistical test is a quantitative technique that

provides information fromresult which we can . judge For data the significance reduction purpose of the increases, the principa (or decrease)l component in any analysis(Kanji was 2006)ru innovation. In ordern on to five indicators measuring cultural and organizational determine the impact of organizational, characteristicsnd andnonparametric collaboration tests on are the utilized outcome of museum innovation both parametric a In detail, three inmultiple accordance regression with the models distribution were estima of datated and to typeexplore of variable.the relationship ANOVA and Man-Whitneybetween U tests predictor were used variables to determine and innovation the di outcomes. innovation outcomes fference in whether between different categories of factors depending on variance areassumptions met or not. of outliers, normal distribution, and the homogeneity of

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

This thesis is structured around four main sections. The first existing section, correspondingstudies to chapter 2, focuses on literature review about the of museum 1989 innovation. and 2017, Based the reviews on 23 will core concentrate and extende ond publications identifieddicho between three pairs of tomous orientations of study induced from the existing literature to reflect the state quo of the research, followed by a critical conclusion that summarizes the limitationsThe s of the existing studies. a econd section,work referring to chapter 3, focuses on the construction of innovationtheoretical in the frame museum. community, Starting with the thesection description attempts to of explain three casesmuseum of tion, taxonomy a

innovation along the aspects of defini nd determinants ofal innovation from an integrated perspective, on the basis of essential theoretic and empirical bases. empiricalThe analyses third section, consisting of chapter 4 and 5, concentratesmuseum innovation, on the of the process and determinant facors in how respectively. To be exact, chapter 4 aims to answer the question of museums innovate for cultural production. By introducing the open innovation modelorganizations, and the a discussionmultiple- of the complexity of cultural production of museum case study is conducted to identify innovation patterns involved in restoration, exhibition, digital museum and visitor service as fourand representativevalue creation didomains of culturalthe pattern produc-matchingtion in terms technique. of knowledge base mensions by Chapter 5 aims at the determination of influencing factors of museum innovation by testing as set of hypotheses relating to organizational characteristics of museum and the frequency and object of collaboration based on the survey of museums in the Valencia region of Spain. not onlyThe draws fourth the section, chapter 6, is the conclusionthe of the thesis. Thisempirical chapter main conclusionses important from academic,above theoreticalmanagerial and and policy studies but also discuss , it concludes stating the implications this from study findings and and conclusions. Finally limitation of of any further research in the future. 12

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Innovation is a newly emerging economic and social phenomenon to which much -makers in the last decades. attention has been-a-century paid by history, both scholars and policy Within its half the study-cen of innovation has been increasinglyd exploredon its own and right extended (F from an economics tric. subject to a new academic fiel th As early as agerbergthe 18 century, & Verspagen, many 2009)scholars have noticed human innovative practice in the production activities. At that time, innovation was mostly

associatedtechn with invention and adoption of new industrial machinery, revolution. science, andFor example,ology Adam because Smith of argued the emergency that all the of improvements the first in machinery were not the invention of those who(Smith had 1776, occasion pp 12to -use13) the machines but the improvement of science asthe a whole ; Friedrich List presented a broad agenda for German government to address mentthe importance (Lundvall 2007) of infrastructure; Karl Marx construction to contribute to technical advance d the emphasizedproduction relations the importance in the inn ofovation the psystemroductive and forcesthus promoted that determine the economic growth and all-around social progress; “science” and “technology” were important “ ” in his discourse 1976, Lundvall 2007).

th forces of production (Rosenbergn But special studies on innovation stated ca date innova back to the beginning of the 20 century long -whenrun econJosephomic Schumpeter growth infirst a Capitalist society.tion to beSchumpeter the ultimate’s sourcetheory ofemphasized on innovati large companies as well as on by innovation process in individualthat played entrepreneurs the decisive androle their “creative efforts, wheredestruction there” werein the innovative economic activities system of a “ within the economic because innovation in essence was source of energy 13 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW system which ”

(Schumpeter, 1937would, quoted of itself in disrupt equilibrium that might). Later, be his attained theory Fagerberg & Verspagen, - 2009centric innovation; and Schuminspiredpeter, many in successorsthis sense, onis theseen further as study of firm ( . the father of innovation study Hall & Rosenberg,However, 2010) Schumpeter’s innovation theory didn’t cause many repercussions his innovative explanation or economic growth didn’t agree with the because - f mainstream of neo classical economics at that time. He had few followers until after the Second World War when a relatively modest research effort began to- emerge among the Rand Cooperation,-operation Federation and of Development British Industry (OECD) and etc. Paris in basedthe United Organiza Statestion and for Europe Economic ( Co . A landmark Fagerberg, Martin, & Andersen, 2013) earch Unit of innovation study was the establishment of the Science Policytopher Res Freeman (SPRU)in 1965, at which the University was of Sussex under the leadership of Chris the first academic unit devoting especially to the study of science, R&D, innovation and related policy issues in the world. intended Since the revival of innovation study in the 1960s, scholars have tothe research science, R&D and innovationa cross-disciplinary under multiple research disciplines. sta For example, SPRU was composed of luding economics, sociology, psychologyff with different and academic backgrounds inc engineeringinnovation research from its centers formation, and andinstitutes it soon around became Europe the role and model elsewh forere many that were on the one hand,

established subsequently. on i Multidisciplinary researches, and on the other contributehand, result to in rich a more literature diverse understandingnnovation in different contexts; perspectives. on the same subject with different Innovation study that concentrates particularly on the museum sector emerged quite later. s

(1989) a bit One of the earliest paper may date back to Noblerange , who studied the impact of turnover of museum directors on a broad of categories of innovation implemented by museumsh 25 according museum todirectors a sample in survey of 400 museums and telephone interviews wit the United States of America. But the museum community didn't draw much attention of innovation scholars as an object of study afterwards. 14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Innovation in cultural organizations has tradition a special

economists , it alsoally has been attracted the interest of cultural ologists as a(Castañer category 2014) ; besides attentionliterature searching, of muse with particular emphasisof museumon the Journal studies. of Culture On the Economics base of and the Museum Management and Curatorship, 23 relevant

during 1989 and 2017, which demonstratewe finallys that found the literature on publicationsmuseum innovation is relatively scarce in comparison with innovation in other - erprises. sectors, like for profit ent literatureFurthermore, – we classify these articlesinnovation into in twomuseums, categories and extended of core literature – the content of study is about the content of study overlaps with museum innovation and its finding canin benefit, greatly the understanding of innovation in museums. As summarized table 1 there are only 12 core publications of the total relevant literature. Most of the core publications are the quantitative papers written analysis under the cultural economics discipline and mostly focus on about the relation between innovation,survey and managerialstatistical method, methods, and and ma operation performanceCamarero through and sample her colleagues jor contributors are (Camarero & Garrido 2008; Garrido & Camarero 2010; Camarero et al. 2011; Camarero et al. 2015; Vicente et al. 2012; Camarero & Garrido 2012) from theare University of Valladolid,logy discipline Spain. Meanwhile and concentrate most of on the several extended themes publications such as based on museo changes in organizational and managerial modes, generationcase study and method, diffusion and of cultural meaning, and the explorationed. of ICTs through contributors also are scatterin the purpose owing to The difference and method of study thedifferent nature, disciplines finally leads to the divergence of the understanding about origin and drivers of innovation in museums, which can be analyzed from the following three aspects.

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Table 1 The core and extended literature on museum innovation studies Author Innovation type Highlight Sample Noble, 1989* Eight broad categories The impacts of turnover of museum 400 museums and in a museum setting directors on the kinds of innovation 25 museum directors in implemented by museums. the USA Heilbrun, 1993 Artistic & Technological innovation provides an Theoretical analysis technological aesthetic opportunity and a source of innovation competition for traditional forms. Wijnberg, 1994 Artistic innovation The legitimacy of art policy based on Theoretical analysis art education and conservation and support for highly innovative art is discussed in terms of the dynamic, Schumpeterian, approach. Castañer & Artistic innovation The testable propositions are developed Theoretical analysis Campos, 2002 as a comprehensive framework on the determinants of artistic innovation by arts organizations. Camarero & Technological & Market orientation contributes to 135 Spanish and 141 Garrido, 2008* organizational economic and social performance of French museums innovation museums through technological and organizational innovation. Peacock, 2008 Technology-related The possible approach is discussed to Theoretical analysis organizational change managing and sustaining technology- related change within museum organizations. Verbano, Technological The adoption of new technology in 100 Italian art Venturini, innovation cultural institutions is determined by restoration firms Petroni, & several factors, including collaboration Nosella, 2008 and clients’ demand. Dawson, 2008* The adoption of Reviewing broader business models of Canada Science and technology and the nature of innovation and how Technology Museum product development organisations innovate, and how these Corporation models may be applied to a cultural institution. Corte, Savastano, Discontinuous Service innovation in archaeological Hercolaneum (Italy), & Storlazzi, innovation involving sites can be achieved by the use of ICT Masada (Israel) and 2011* technological, techniques and the enrichment of Petra (Giordania) experiential and “integrated and complex” offers beyond systemic innovation. existing goods. Lusiani & Zan, Managerial Analyzing and reconstructing The reform of Heritage 2010 innovation managerial change at the organizational Malta, especially its level in the case of Heritage Malta in museum department comparison with British Museum and Pompeii cases. Garrido & Product, technological Analyzing the link between British, French and Camarero, 2010* and organizational organizational learning orientation, Spanish museums innovation innovation and performance for cultural organizations using museum size as the control variable Bakhshi & Innovation in Proposing a new framework of The National Theatre Throsby, 2010* audience reach; innovation in arts and cultural & the Tate Gallery artform development; organizations and its implication of value creation, and digital technologies for cultural and

business models. economic opportunities.

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Camarero, Technological, The impacts of size and funding 491 British, French, Garrido, & organizational, and structure on innovation and Italian and Spanish Vicente, 2011* value creation performance of museums are conducted museums. innovation through survey and statistical analysis. Camarero & Organizational & Analyzing the different impacts of 491 British, French, Garrido 2012* technological market orientation and service Italian and Spanish innovation orientation on organizational and museums. technological innovations implemented by museums. Vicente, Technological The various impacts of cultural Art and history innovation in policies, mode of governance, modes of museums in France, Garrido, 2012* management & in finance and size on museum Italy, Spain and the Camarero, & visitor experience, innovation. United Kingdom organizational innovation Søndergaard & Cultural-driven A joint venture model for culture-driven Danish museums in the Veirum, 2012 innovation innovation in a public private northern Jutland region consortium as a solution to overcome institutional barriers of cross-sector collaboration between museums, universities, and SMEs. Litchfiel & The generation of Regarding museum and curatorial Theoretical analysis Gilson, 2013 creative idea activities in the shape, maintenance, and usage of collections as metaphor in the management of creativity and innovation. De-Miguel- Beautiful innovation Examining the drivers of beautiful Restoration and molina, Hervás- as product and innovation in artworks restoration by conservation oliver, & Boix, process innovations in museums. departments in 167 2013* the cultural and museums in 43 creative industries countries Costa Barbosa, Technological & Examining how museums innovate by The selected 2013* organizational the use of ICTs in terms of a new Norwegian and innovation typology of ICTs’ use presented by Spanish museums author. Castañer, 2014 Cultural innovation Analyzing the determinants of cultural Theoretical analysis innovation by cultural organizations in terms of the sociological and economic perspectives. De-Miguel- Product, process, Examining the proportion of four types Spanish firms in the Molina, Hervás- organizational and of innovation in art, heritage and arts, heritage and Oliver, De- marketing innovation recreation industries. recreation industries Miguel-Molina, & Boix, 2014 Camarero, Technological Exploring the relation between visitor 491 British, French, Garrido, & innovation orientation and performance in Italian and Spanish Vicente, 2015* museums with emphasis on museums. technological innovation and tradition as two alternative strategies to respond to visitor expectations. Corte, Aria, & Smart, open and use Examining the role of innovation in 23 global museums Del Gaudio, innovations determining competitive advantage for topping in the 2017* museums and heritage sites. international ranks.

content Note: * core literature: the content of study is innovation in museums; whilst extended literature: of study overlaps with museum innovation and the finding benefit greatly the understanding of innovation in museums. 17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 TECHNOLOGICAL ORIENTATION VERSUS CULTURAL ORIENTATION

Whatgives isquite the natureopposite of answers.innovation The in thetechnology museum- orientedcontext? viewThe existing tends toliterature regard innovation in narrative content, which is close to the mainstream viewpoint that

the essence of innovationlogies isand something knowledge; relevant and to the creation, application and diffusion of techno the number of R&D activities fundamentally affect the opportunities for technological innovation within a specific context (e.g. firm, industry, region, nation or global), which in turn. determinesSimilarly, the outputs Camarero of innovation and her andcolleagues its performance argue that (Becheikh the most et al. common 2006) innovation in museums is “changes in certain service aspects and advances in the technology used” (Camarero et al. 2011). Innovative activities in museums are, to

some(ICTs) extent, equal to the use of Information and Communication Technologies (Corte et al. 2011; Costa Barbosa 2013) on the purpose of improving exhibitions and scenography, making the museum more accessible to a wider audience,Garrido 2012) and attracting funds from donors and sponsorsa as well (Camarero & in the museum. settingIn some in sense, the digital technology era. itself becomes synonym of innovation -oriented view emphasizes the artistic and cultural

Differently, the culture properties of innovation by cultural organizations. The conventional definition of innovation cannoted. be Forapplied example, in the museum(1989) sector asserted and instead, that: a new definition should “be develop Noble

It would be most inappropriate to attempt to apply definitions of innovationand commercial which application focus almost in the exclusively marketplace on invention,to museums. new Museums technology do roducts. Museums are not research

not manufacture or market goods or p centers devoted to the development of new technologies. Museums are service organizations. The field of social work provides a set of basic objectives that are not dissimilar to those found in a museum setting. The use of exhibits as a means of mass interpretation and education, as well as

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

thenew activitiestechniques, of new museum ideas, education and promoting departments new programs in terms” of promoting1989) (Noble

Here, Noble distinguished museum innovation from innovation in manufacturing and other business sectors in terms of the nature of organization, but he also emphasized the possibility to redefine innovation in a museum setting because of the similarity in the diffusion of novelty in accordance with the objective of the organization. Campos (2002) Castañer and referred in particular to innovation in art organizations by artistic innovation, which was defined as the introduction in the field (or market) of the newness of artistic outputs by the three referents of cosmopolitan, local, and individual perspectives.– r Theyeper toire can beinnovation further classified as the programinto two categories of content innovation ovation – ming of contemporary works, as well as form inn the new form of presentingMore recently, both old and new (works.2014) cultural organizationsCastañer and develeped textended the scope of artistic innovation in to “ he concept of cultural innovation, referring” with particularinnovations relation in theto repertoire goods or servicesor programming offered byinnovation a cultural. He organization also pointed out ed externally rather than thatgenerated most internally of the cultural in the cultural innovations organizations, were adopt thus reducing the uncertainty . greatly in the process of innovation (Castañer 2014) ological innovation.Generally, Not until most very of therecently existing have literature some cultural focuses economics on techn scholars -related innovation. Their arguments can inspire developed the concept of culture us to understand artistic and cultural innovation by arts and cultural organizationsartistic and cultural beyond theinnovation technological are closely dimension. associated But the with definitions repertoi ofre bothand programming because of their focus on theaters. This seems too narrative for us to cover the features of innovative activities involved in museums, because programming is essentially a managerial means of content innovation adopted theexternally content by innovations theaters (Castañer – & Campos 2002; Castañer 2014) whilst most of as examples – exhibition, educational programs, collection catalogue are generated internally in and by museums, even most tour 19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

exhibitions that a museum introduces from outside are generated by other museumsthe museum too. context. Therefore, these definitions should be revised if they are applied in Culture-oriented innovation is also the cultural products and services. viewed from development regarded of as product innovation, which isProduct “linked development to providing innew museums services, can activities be and ” ; it, improvementsmea or variations“ in exhibited works” and(Garrido “value & creation Camarero” 2010) nwhile, also. refers to extending the(2010 artform) stated that “extend (Bakhshi &” Throsbyis a particular 2010) Bakhshi and Throsby ing the artform ence artisticaspect oftrends innovation and lead relating to new to artistic the development directions whistof new “innovation work that mayin value influ creation” means new ways of expanding cultural values of the arts not only in terms of economic profit butitors also and by society a wider at range large. of community benefits so as to meethshi the and needs of both’s vis cultural-oriented innovation is widely cited inBak museum innovaThrosby conception of to mentioned that their tion literature. But it needs be – o e top art findingsmuseums are in basedEngland on and the the case wor study of the Tate Gallery ne of th s are universal theld, museumit is doubt communityful whether as asuch whole, finding especially enough to be applied to in Europe are small and local museums (Vicenteconsidering et thatal. 2012) a majority. A counter of museums-example is that most history museums and ancient and classic art museums like the Louvre and el Prado may not innovate in any avant-garde extendingartworks. the artform because they hardly collect or exhibit

2.2 TECHNOLOGY-PUSH VERSUS DEMAND-PULL

innovation as

“Innovationtechnology literature-push” and identifies “demand the-pull major” drivers of the success in , which are (Schmookleralso 1966; Mowery & Rosenberg museum1979; Berkhout innovation. et al. 2006) reflected in the existing studies about

On the one hand, many studies have emphasized the decisive role of

20 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW technology, particularly creation, and cultural productsICTs, and in services fostering in innovationmuseums. in organization, value Peacock (2008) asserted that museums. He analyzed theoreticallydigital the ICTs relation act as catalysts for changelogy within and organizational change in museums social constrbetweenuctionism techno perspective. He pointed out that technology wasfrom a organizational c not an ed external or accommodate force leadingd the inv toasion the hange ead,by which the impact museums resist y on museums were ofin technologyits involvement and inst in “the everyday ofconversational technolog interactions o embodied within the organization” (Peacock 2008), which stimulated technologyf individuals-related innovation resulting from new ideas through such conversation-induced innovation about new(the authorpossibilities calledoffered it “disruptiveby technology, innovation and finally”) technology organizational purpose and meaning and reshaped individual and organizationalredefined identities. Corte et al. (2011) stressed advanced technologies in value creation the importance of the use of in the business sector and tourist involvement-related by analyzinginvestment the in main thre eforms cultural of the archaeological utilization of technologiessites located andin thetechnology Mediterranean area, and they argued that new technological applications encouraged a change in visitor roles as users were involved in interactive processes and museums, which in turn led to innovation in value creation. between visitors More push

often the emphasis on technological has been placed through the descriptive and analytical studies about(vom theLehn influence 2005; Ioannidis, of technology Toli, et al. in accordance2014), visitor with experience its effects on exhibitions , and heritage conservation (Karp(Camarero 2004; De & - GarridoMiguel- Molina, 2008; Costa De-Miguel Barbosa-Molina, 2013) et al. 2014). As Peacock (2008) mentioned, the impact

covered completely existingof technology literature. on In innovation most in museumsexisting literature, hasn't been technology is treated as byan that naturallyof the leads to innovation; innovation occurs when technologyexogenous is variable incorporated into the developmenttechnology in ofinitiating new products innovation or processes.and even mixes This up simplifies innovation the with decisive technology. role of

21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

We think technology itself is not innovation, and the diffusion(Rogers of innovation 2003), which and haventhe adoption of technology are affected by many factors 'tOn been the well other studied hand, in many the museum studies context.also mention the demand- that museums innovatepull factor so as of museumto meet the innovation by highlighting the presumption : needs of visitors and society. Museums confront two types of demand private demand exerted by the visitors and social demand. With basedregard ons to external private effects and/orvisitors, effects many on markets studies (Freymention & Meiered that 2006) museums were witnessing a demand by a custodial orientation to a visitor orientation fundamentalin recent year transformations from et al. 2015). This(Camarero means that & Garrido understanding 2008; Camarero the & Garrido 2012; Camarero the needs and wishes of potential visitorsGarrido is2012) at the, heartand ofthis mayfina ncialconstitute and social a goals of a museum (Camarero & innovation, visitor demands, and audience developmentcertain in link the museum between practice. museum For example, (1993) emphasized

Heilbrunnnovations in museums. He arguedthe positive that artistic impact innovation of visitor preferencehelped art museumson artistic to i attract a younger g were more open than the elder to explore an audience because the youn Camarero and Garrido (2012) emphasized the importantd appreciate role new workse ofdemand art. on museum innovation in of privat and S an empirical study based onout a that samp visitorle of 491 orientation British, French,had a positive Italian impactpanish on museums,organizational and theyinnovation found and it only impacted technological innovations when coupled with cooperation with other museums or leisure alternatives. Camarero et al. (2015) arrived to the ion that visitor orientationBut had a conflicting conclusin terms positive influence on technological innovations of the same sample of European museums. This paradox may be explained by the employment of different indictors or statistical methods in’s twodemands studies. is challenged However,(2014) this, wholink betweenstated th innovation and visitor on promoting innovationby Castañer could at the impact of private demand any government belevel distorted, he pointed by the politicalou orientation of the governing reluctant party toat t that public fundersed were to serve the local encourage innovation because publicly funded museums need 22 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW population as widely as it was were experim possible and they not supposed to offer population.ental and innovative products for the sake of a small portion of With regards to the social demand, innovation museums to social requirements or market pressure.can be seen (as1993) a response asserted by that artistic and technological innovation had Heilbrun museums compete to attract a become the means by which concerts, dance, theatre and newopera audience in his withtheoretic live forms such as symphonic art, technology, and innovation in theal high discourse arts. about the relationshipLusiani between and Zan (2010) demonstrated that Management ector had the introduction of New Public (NPM) in the public s brought the increasing call to museums and other public cultural organizations foroperation innovational cost in sorganization, increasing and management on the purposestrengthening of decreasing competitive advantage in comparison outputwith the accountability, private sector . andThey disclosed how government- managerial change at the orga dominated reform led to Heritage Malta nizational its level museum in the department.case of the transformation They conclude ofd that governmentwith- a special focus in dominated reform wasn't a sufficient condition organization for the matters. success of organizationalIn addition transfor to mationthis, other and financialscholars autonomy also noticed in technology advancement and social demands on innovationthe dualin the impacts museum of community. For example, (2010) stressed the political

Art Bakhshi and Throsby and the advancement orientation of funderses and policymakers of technology driveas thers majorin the impetuschanging environmentof innovation that in arts museums and cultural by identifying organizations four major have d in the United Kingdom recently. face To what extent does demand drive innovative activities in museums? What is the mechanism innovative

by which museums respond to external demands ofLusiani and activities?Zan (2010) The study existing does literature imply that hasn't socialgiven demand us any doesn answer’t constitute yet. But a condition 's sufficientexisting literature for organizational regards technology innovation-push of museums. and/or demand Considering-pull as that a precondition most of the in their studies and limits it/them to the descriptive analysis, so this theme

23 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

deserves to draw more academic attention in future. 2.3 MANAGEMENT VERSUS CURATORSHIP

ng literature can also -

Thecentric orientation and man agement of the existi-ce be classified in as curatorship We regard management is anntric organization in terms- of the domain which studies focus. based domainsactivities involving such as mission, a set of issuesvalue, purposeabout organizational management and marketing models, , and work new process, marketing collaboration, strategies new etc. organizationalCuratorship, on forms, the other new businesshand, is regarded as a collection-

based domainition, embracing and education a series in museums. of functional works such as conservation, research,that exhib It is obvious most of the cultural economicanagement publications,-centric literature which constitute the majority of the core literature, are m that mainly concerns managerial, economic and institutional factors on which innovation are reliant within museums. These factors cans along normally the beprocess grouped into three dimensions of inputs, outputs, and outcome of innovation. In detail, inputs include managers, organization size, funding sources, organizational learning, marketing strategies etc.; outputs involve different types ofcreat innovation in various dimensions such as technology, organization, and value ion etc.; outcomes are composed of economic and social performance. These publications usually take advantage of sampletcomes. survey andExamples statistic are methods the impact to test correlations betweenmuseums inputs, ’outputs, and ou (Camarero et al. 2011;of sizeVicente and fundinget al. 2012) on innovation and performance innovation , the correlations between market strategy and , museum or the (Camarero & Garrido 2008; Camarero & Garrido 2012) influencesmuseums of knowledge bases and organizational-Miguel-molina learning et al. 2013) on . innovatio n of Contrary(Garrido to &this Camarero, 2010; De - centric literature, whichmost places of themore museology attention publications on relations arehips curatorship museological practices and technology, with particular emphasis on the betweenchanges in a museum’ like conservation techniques (Karp 2004;

s functional work

24 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Ioannidis, Toli, et al. 2014), interpretive methods (vom Lehn 2005 -Tost

2011), curatorial authorities ; Pujol (Kéfi“innovation & Pallud ” 2011) by the use of ICTs. These publications seldom use the term directly but emphasizemuseological some works. new techniques, methods, procedures and designs of detailed “innovation” and Here“change the” attention needs to be paid on the difference between In insome the context studies, by suchreaders. orientation is regarded as an that exerts a dichotomyimpacts on of innovation. One example is opposingleadership factor in artistic organizations.different It is assumed that curators and managersabout are two leaders with co “curators seek

nflicting objects in the museum, wherein that they autonomythemselves fromconsider the boardsimportant to ” pursue research andwhilst acquire managers works aim at the (Zolberg 1986) achievement of organizational goalsand theyassociated always with go profitability against artistic and effectiveness innovation (Castañer & Campos 2002). As a result, Cas Campos (2002) proposed (DiMaggiothat managers & Stenberg wit 1985) tañer and less likely to encourage h only managerial background were artistic innovations. than curators or managers with both managerial and artistic backgroundAnother example has to do with marketing strategies that museums may adopt. Camarero and Garrido (2012) museum marketing into market

classified d market orientation as the orientationorganizational and philosophy service orientation.with the highest They priority define o nd n the profitable creation a ’ maintenanceneeds, and service of superior orientation customer as curatorialvalue and philosophywith the aim valuing of meeting the high customers artistic custodial works quality2012) of the exhibitions that andthe socialcustodial value orientat of ion and visitor(Camarero orientation & Garrido had . They found accosubstantially different impacts on organizational innovation and performance museumsrding, to an empirical study based on 491 British,d that French,curatorial Italian philosophy and Spanish only met t on the basees andof which, didn’ t they conclude he needs ofttract elit a address the needsed of the massmuseums public,’ innovation and thus its inability to a new(Camarero audience et finally al. 2015) affect. and performanceSuch a dichotomous negatively orientation may arouse in us a new question.

25 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Considering that museology literature depicts many innovative practices relating to a curatorial perspective, why does culturalthe functionaleconomics workliteratureof museums arrive to the from opposite conclusion? This contradiction perspective managementcannot be explainedare two domains by differing that co-exist and interplay,s because rather curatorship than mutually and exclude each other within a museum. Instead,

we think that a possible to under explanationstand and ismeasure the utilization innovation of in different definitions and indictors used museums by different studies. 2.4 A CRITICAL CONCLUSION

the three aspect that a

In short, from s discussed above, it is clear binary discourse and ispurpo pervasiveses in the existing literature in terms of different disciplines, methods understandingof studies,with regards which to proves museum that innovation. there still The is limitation a lack of commonexisting l spects. s of iteratureFirst, are culture embodied-oriented in four innovation a is less developed in museum innovation literature. Museums are important cultural heritage institutions. I that culture- t is no doubt related production and its outputs are major sources of cultural innovationcultural in a museum. The use of technology equal to can technological facilitate the innovation process. In of innovation, but technology doesn't s are addition, it is reasonable to believely exclusive that cultural in museum and technologicals, and such coexistenceinnovation has compatible rather than mutual been ignoredSecond, by the existing literature. there is a lack museum of detaileds discussion about the influencing factors oftechnology innovative-push activities or demand in - . th Most of the existing literatureprerequisite describes, which constitutes a start pull, or bo , astheir a kind exposition. of background As some or innovation ing point for literature shows, technology and demand exert (Schmookler different impacts on different types of innovation under different conditions 1966; the Moweryimpact & Rosenbergtechnology 1979). Therefore, such transcendetalism about . There ofis and demand on museum innovation needs to be challenged

26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW no need to mention that mainstream innovation literature regards innovation as a dynamic and c the technology-pushyclical and demand interaction-pull ( beyond traditional). linear thinking of Third, there still is no clearBerkhout answer etto al. the 2006 question how museums theof processes and innovate,mechanism whichs is a vital theme of innovation studyAlthough revealing some studies have tried to descr of innovation in a museum setting. ibe ands analyzea resouce the process- of change in organizational forms and, businessas well asmodel the from newbased ideas view in curatioral(Dawson 2008;works Lusiani in museum & Zan s2010) knowledge manacreationgement perspective of from on the ind (Litchfiel & Gilson 2013), more effort should becases. made uction of the generalized explaination from these empirical a systematic perspective is a

Last but the not existing the least,literature the . absenceP of drawback of rior studies of museum innovation are limitedorganization to thes organizationalainstraim level innovation and focu s literature mostly on shows the internal that innovative factors of activiti . But m es are not isolated but integrated in an interactive systemns (Edquist of innovation, 1997, which2005) . is composed of different actors, knowledge and institutio -sector Although some studies have noticed the importance of cross 2012collaboration) and institutionsbetween (Vicente museums et al.(Verbano 2012) et al. 2008; Søndergaard & Veirum , more attention should be paid on the jointmuseums impacts’ of collaboration, organizaional learning andes. institutional factors on In conclusion,innovation behavior by systematic approach thea limitations of prior studies about museum innovation implymuseum an sector, ugent needwhich of at leastnew anayalicalincl framwork for innovationthe studycultural in and the technol udes (1) the integration of e ogical dimensionsinnovation of innovation, (2) the clear identification’ pecularities, of(3) th a drivers/determiantsgeneralized explanation of to help tin terms of museums es and mechanisms he understanding of the process approach. of museum innovation, and (4) the employment of a systematic

27 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? AN INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE OF INNOVATION BY MUSEUM ORGANIZATION

As many scholars have noted, innovation is a pervasive phenomenon in today’s society (Stoneman ). Innovation is not limited to and machinery produ2010;ction Fagerberg in et al. 2013 it is R&D in all arts andthe humanitiesprivate sector, research but pervasively embedded, Non- walks of life, such as (Bakhshi et al., and2008) cultural andprofit creative organizations production (Zimmermann & Mmermann 1999; Gorp 2012). As an important cultural heritage institution,(Stoneman museums 2010; a reMiles a non & Green- 2008) engaged in cultural and creative sectors and, hence,profit the makingmuseum organizations community, theoretically,

The keyalso issue embraces a wide range of innovative activities. not all newnessis is how innovation; to identify innov innovationation is something in museums. new As that discussed can above, market and society . Stoneman (2010) proposed twobe adoptedcriteria to by the innovation; successfullyone was “novelty”, and the second was the “ judge changethe” to first which the “novelty” led, and that was measured significant contentmarket of impact, or aesthetics. Similarly, otherin terms scholars of have also statedfunctionality, that technology, its , successful innovation(Rogers 1983 depends not only on profitability1991) measured by costs and benefits , (Meyer 2003; Abrahamson and Rowan , but also on its institutional outcome, and like worthiness legitimacy ( Hatimi 2003). 1977; DiMaggioAccording & to Powell this criterion 1991; Scott, some 2014) new museological concepts and methods should are

be excluded from the recognition of museum innovation because they

29 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

still no an “exit price” or “pay as you go

pricing”t out of the picture. A good charging example visitors is when they leave museums. , (Freymany &periodical Steiner marketing 2012) and educatio Besidesduring International Museum Day, or weekend concertsnal events in museum like frees entrance museum innovation noveltycannot value be identifiedalthough they as manage to attract manybecause visitors to these the museum. events lack his chapter aims toBy re - exploringthink innovation the question in museums of what is museum innovation, t search so workas an independent object of re The aschapter to build a new theoretical frame from an integrated perspective. museumstarts community, with the whidescription of three observed cases of innovation in thet ch brings us some perceptual knowledge abou museum innovation. On the basis of such perceptual knowledge, ition, taxonomy,we attempt and to analyzedriver museum innovation by the three parameters of defin l s of innovation. The explanations. of each aspect is based on essentia empirical and theoretical base 3.1 THE OBSERVATION OF THREE INNOVATION CASES IN THE MUSEUM COMMUNITY

It will be easy to approach a whole picture of museum innovationn this section, by somethree observation of innovation cases in –the computerization museum community. and I digitalization, the cases of museum innovation organizational developmentstructures in the of newmuseum museology, community and – the introduction of new displaying some are to be described, respectively, thus technological and nonimportant-techno logical features dimensions of museum. From innovation these cases in, some terms clues of racted to help us understand innovation phenomenon in museum

mayorganizations. be ext

3.1.1 Computerization and digitalization: technological innovation in museums

traditionally

The museum community has been regarded as a generation behind 30 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

the museums are

pace-intensive of technological (Piekkola et development al. 2014) andconsidering most the fact that labor an engineeringmuseum professionals kn don't have museumsan affinity with science, technology, or technical progressowledge so base.that theyBut can keep pacealso benefitwith the from changing the spillo socialver effectdemands of placed on them . option in the museum(Bakhshi sector can & Throsby 2009) The history of technological ad be summarized“ by a brief timeline‘automat of theion ’last (as fewit was decades then called) of development: in the 1960s; the

The first adopters of emergence of standards and professional bodies related to museum- information management in the 1970s; the rise of local networks, multi mediainteropera and microcomputingdigitization in the 1980s; the advent of the Web, bility and mass in the 1990s; and the” (Parry evolution 2010 )of. the mobile and social media at the starttechnological of the new century adoption in museum

Generally, innovation characterized by sectorThe computerization can be classified into two categories: computerization and digitalization.consistent of museums was the consequence of the to developmentmicrocomputers, of then computer minicomputers. technology from mainframe computers computer was invented in 1941, not untilAlthough the 1960s the – first automatic digital invention – did the museum community start to utilizetwo computers decades afterin their its operations. In the United States, the irst adopters were leading museums

with very f nage the large collections. They attempted considering to makethat these use ofmuseums computers to ma collectionthe increasing information requirements system on the maintenance and managementcouldn't o deal with (Williams 1987). f collection datawasn ’ witht widely the sp growing objects in museums “ But” thiscomputer practices – the early equipmentread inamong 1960s museums – were “justvery because large and mainframes costly and required the -processing operators, programmers, and systems

servicesanalysts ”of (Williams highly trained 1987) data. In addition to the constraint computer hardware, of softwarecomputers is in another the museum important sector. factorSome computer influencing- the successfuls adoption of to oriented project faileds. mostly because of the lack of suitable software meet the needs of museum

31 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

During 1960s and 1980s, there were n four managementmajor projects system focusings, including on softwareSelf Generating development Master (SELGEM) of museum informatio Smithsonian Institution, General Retrieval and Information Processorcreated for Humanitiesby the Oriented Studies (GRIPHOS) ions and initiated by the Indexing and Retrieval- sed DivisionMuseum ofComputer the United Network, Nat Arizona Stateendorsed Museum and ’diffuseds Interactive by New Registration York ba System (REGIS) Arizona State Museum, as well as Detroit Arts Management Informationdeveloped System for (DAMIS) as package p 1980s, a vitala business role in the program popularization ublishedcom in the early ll of which played a mation management system,of amongputers, museums particularly in the inUnited the field States. of collection infor

100%

90%

80% BulgariaCzech 70% Latvia Portugal

Rate of adoption 60% Spain 50%

40% 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 30%

Figure 2 Adoption of computers in the museum sector by countries (2000- 2014)

Source: European Group of Museum Statistics (EGMUS) In contrast to traditional paper- actices, computer-

storebased unlimited pr collection data eabasedsily, systemupdate for information management can time, cross- records of the location of objects at any in referregistration the lists so of as objects to allow for researchregistrars, and curators exhibition and administrators flexibly, and save to spen timed more time on other activities. This encouraged more and more museums to adopt com work. Figure 2 puters forin theirEuropean daily illustrates the rate of adoption of computers

32 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

museums and shows a rising tendency in the adoption o over the last

two decades, although the which museumsf mcomputers countries, contentamong whichfor ake use of computersn variesextremely bewteen high adoption rate close to one hundredBulgaria, per Latvia and Spain enjoy a Portuguese museums use computers. cent whilst only half of all The digitalization is the

extension of the computerization of museums because it is deeply reliant on the popularization of computer equipments). and the attemptdevelopment at digitizing of Information in the heritage and Communication institutions emerge Technologiesd in the (ICTearly 1990s.The first In 1991, t

he International Council of Museums (ICOM) establishedd Technologies the International (AVICOM) Committee for Audiovisual and New Image in the and technology Soun used in museums; in with1992, the t purpose of promoting knowledge (UNESCO)he launched United Nations t Educational, Scientific and to Culturaladvocate Organizationand support he Memory of the World Program; in the same year, Apple Computerthe digitalization releas and preservation of cultural heritage as a CD-ROM allowing users toed move the first virtual museum and of tothe select world, which w more detailed examinationfrom (Miller room etto alroom. 1992). any exhibit in a room for The digitalization at least

of museums embraces three major practices: (1) digitalizingthrough digital heritage, techniques; focusing (2) on constructing the conservation the virtual and usemuseum, of cultural concentrati heritageng on the d

istribution utilizing and sharing of museum informationmarketing through, and the to World strengthen Wide Web; (3) social media for the their purpose audience of s. the interactionThe earliest between physical museums museum and to digitize its cultural heritage was the in the

University,Museum of which the History of Science in Oxford, withacademic detailed collections setting of Oxford- content and high-inaugurated a virtual exhibition ; esides,based the Smithsonian resolutionInstitution ’images of artifacts in 1995 (Bowen 1998) b museum to digitize its entires Nationalart collection Museums of Asian Art was the first (Taboh 2015), and the - Brooklynoriented Museum in New York was the first museum to produce crowdsourcing through contemporarysocial media art exhibitions by. means of digital networks, particularly (Chae & Kim 2013) 33 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Like computerization,

in the case of museum there are obvious. The EU obstacles’s report preventingThe Cost of museums Digitising from Europe developing’s Cultural digital Heritage practices (Poolefurther 2010) described the obstaclesrepr as the high cost of digitalization, - the complexity of scanning and. In othoduction,er word sand, the the digitalization difficulty in dependsbatch processing mostly on for thethe creation of metadatanical and human resources to which a museum can have access. financial, tech As a consequence, the pioneers in the digital era are and a large

size, as well as museums and technologicalfew enterpriseof s 1 (e.g. partnerships greater between and technical leverage. Meanwhile, Google Art Project ) for financial asupported large number at a oflocal small or museums, regional whichlevel, areare eitherlacking commercially in necessary independent resources or digitization (Poole 2010). Considering that museums and high-tech enterprisefors partnerships only develop -known museums, this usually excludes mostfor digitizingsmall museums, masterworks and andhence well digitization among them is mostly reliant on international , or the nat diffusionional digital of initiatives, such as the Europeana program in the Europe Union,

2 project funding . or NationalFigure Survey 3 shows of Movable the e Cultural Relics in China s volution of digitalization in terms of the use of database for electronic inventory in four European museums between 2002 andlow overall,2014; it even reveals in industrialized that the rate countries of adopt likeion ofFinland digital and heritage Spain, is relatively the museums digitalized their collection whilst less than 50% of Eastern European the high rates of adoption in countries like Bulgaria and Latvia countries. may be The more repo thert Theconsequence Cost of Digitising of the small Europe number’s Cultural of the Heritage museums (Poole in those 2010) estimated that the

1 - Google, in cooperation with 17 internationalThe Google museums,Art Project including (https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/project/art the Tate Gallery, the , andproject the) was launched on 1 February 2011 by expanded to 744. Metropolitan Museum of Art Uffizi. Up to January 2016, the partner museums / cultural institutes have been 2 ) FNSMCR is China’ First National Survey of Movable Cultural Relics (http://web.wwpc.net.cn/gjwwjgzw/ s national initiative for surveying and digitizing cultural heritage during 2012 and 2016, it covers over one hundred million objects from 1.5 million public agencies including all public museums in Mainland China. 34 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

percentage s

of digitalized collection was still small, In only consequence, accounting forthey 20% oth of illustrateall collections that museums in European’ digitization museums activities by 2010. are still at an early stage. b

100%

90%

80%

70% BulgariaFinland Latvia 60%

Rate of adoption Spain 50%

40%

30% 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 20%

Figure 3 Adoption of digital heritage in terms of database for electronic inventory by countries by countries (2002-2014) Source: European

Group of Museum Statistics (EGMUS)

3.1.2 The birth and diffusion of new museology: museum innovation in arts and humanities fields

Museums have experienced three revolutions.

aroun The first revolution took place d the year of 1900 with the advent revolutof theion institutionalizationhappened in the 1970s, and whenprofessionalizati the collectionon -of museums; the second - (Mensch 1992); thebased third museums revolution were occurred replaced more by functionrecently,based with museumsmuseum . Among the three

practicesrevolutions, as the a toolsecond for may social have development a more -(Heijnen 2010) -positioned th far reaching influencemuseum on thes museumthrough communityadvocating a becausenew approach it re to museology.e nature and role of The early

1970s witnessed countries a series and ofthe social increasing crises characterized by unevencultural developmentdevelopment, between tension between and economic growth, urbanization, and scientific 35 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

technological progress. How the museum community responded to the challenges the social crisis was at the

grou created by the Round Tablecore ofon discussionthe Role of Museums among a in Santiagop of Latin (Chile) American in 1972. museologists Their disc at ed on the argument that the ourse was bas awareness of the problems of the rural environment, of the urban environment, ofstrengthened scientific and in Latintechnological American development society, and of lifelong education shouldrelied onbe the solution of such problems , and thepolitical understanding aspects involved by the, and community hence, museums of the technical,could and social,should economicplay a decisive role i

awareness.n the education of the communities to assist in the creation of such The gave rise to s

Round Table of Santiago a series of furthermmunity, discussion which and practices about the linkage new between museology museums as a new and museological the co approach. Newfinally museology led to the emphasizesemergence ofa museum’s and , with priorities such as thesocial relevance a society in its and objectives community, basic principles devising identitys, and of achieving the integrated tackling problems and possible solutionHauenschild 1988). developmentICOM ofplayed a region an andactive its populationrole ( in the diffusion (Chile) in of 1972, the newICOM museological sponsored a approach. Following the Santiago Rounddevelop Table st series of internationals and conferences practices to throughout the thetheme world, of new such museology as the for1 furtherInternational discussion- 1984, the OaxtepecEcomuseums/New Meeting (Mexico) Museology in Workshop1984, and inthe Quebec Caracas (Canada) Meeting in (Venezuela) in 1992. In addition, ICOM also legalized International Movement for New Museology organization in 1985.

(MINOM) as its affiliated museums,The like new the museology “ecomuseum theory”, “ contributedintegral museum to the”, emergenceand “community of new mu typesseum of” (Santos Primo 2007). Thes

the newe new museolo typesgy of approach, museums whichwere establisheddistanced them in pursuitselves of the application of s, as summarized in . from the traditional museum table 2 The diffusionmuseums of new’ social museology roles also aroused different interests and concerns about among different regions of the world: 36 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

inequalityand social andinclusion injustice policies in Latin in America,the UK, theemancipation sustainable movements development in agendaNorth America, and the growing multiculturalism in Europe (Santos Primo 2007; dos Santos 2010) dependent paths to tackle these

concerns and, develop which in turn formed different example, the Latin school gave priority to development,possible i.e. heri solutions. For whilst the School emphasized “an tageawareness as a - tool for empowerment” Britishaudience, a based institute to broaden the 2010). ccess, participation and social inclusion as its focus points (Heijnen

Table 2 Comparison between new museums and traditional museums in terms of the adoption of new museology New museum Traditional museum

Social development a given material heritage Objectives Coping with everyday life Preservation and protection of

principles orientation Basic TerritorialityExtensive, radical public Protection of the objects Little institutionalization Institutionalization organization Financing through local resources Structure & Decentralization Participation Government financing HierarchicalCentral museum structure building Professional staff Approach Teamwork based on equal rights Interdisciplinary ThemeSubject: orientation complex reality DisciplineSubject: extract-oriented from reality Linking the past to the present restrictiveness(objects placed in museums)

Cooperation with local/regional Orientation to the past andorganizations future Orientation to the object Tasks Collection Collection Documentation Documentation Research Research Conservation Conservation Mediation Mediation Continuing education Evaluation

Source: Hauenschild 1988

37 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

In Asia and other regions where the new museology movement was relatively less active, initially spread through

international cooperation.the new The model early of ecomuseums museums was in China, such as Soga ’an Dong Ecomuseum

Qingmiao Ecomuseum, Zhenshan Buyi Ecomuseum, Tang -Norwegian coopand Longli Han Castle ecomuseum,etween resulted 1997 exclusively and 2004, from where the Sinothe Norwegian erative cultural project b governmentand the provided the initial funding and professional support of ecomuseum,continue to Chinese government provided the following funding to develop them. But even this ecomuseum project witnessed the divergence of the conceptspreserve andtraditional methods culture among stakeholders: the European professionals; the aimedChinese to government regarded it in the face of industrial development living c asly diverse a component ethnic ofgroups; an economic and local policy villagers for developing saw it as economiconditions resource of to local improve living standards . (Jin 2011) commuNowadays,nity. Some newregional museology and national has more museum and more associations influence, suchon the as museumin Latin America and Spain, list other museum associationsthe advocate promotion social of newvalue museology and as a major mission; more prominently. the social role(2008) of museums talked For example, American Alliancein the of geop Museumsolitical and economic landscape.about trends The and Netherland potential futuresMuseum of Associationmuseums (DSP-groep 2011) emphasizes the fiveeconomy types ofas value including collection, connection, museums education,. The Museums experience Association and (2013) in thethe UK socialhighlights significance the for museums and propose to adapt museum s increased impact of contribution to contemporaryw museology life.is . The new museo But the influence of ne replacenot straightforwardthe traditional roles and logical approach and model doesn't tension persists in the functionsmuseum’s daily of museums routines and instead, the new an model element and of the traditional one in terms between oflimitation professionals, and hierarchical differentiation, organizational and managerial and t ambiguous policy discoursesnew museology and effectivenessis reliant on the of implementation,value and status that ahe museum practical works application hold and of how they act at the ground level ( McCall & Gray 38 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

2014). -

governmentIn anys, case,and thepolitical far reaching agenda influences egional of new museologydevelopment on is museums, largely for r responsible for inspiring the third revolution of museums. 3.1.3 Designated Manager’s System in Japanese public museums: an organizational innovation

stagnation since the early part

Japanthe 1990s. has been As a experiencingresult, a severe economic pressureof to reduce its large the Japanese government has suffered increasing – budget deficit. a New The P Hashimoto Government (11 January 1996 the 30 July 1998) h introduced the aims downsizingublic Managementgovernment, slashing (NPM) reform spending for and publici sector wit of (Yamamoto 2003). mproving management performance introducing the DesignatedThe NPM Manager reform’s st affectedSystem (DMS) the museumto the community bysystem at century. public museums’s Social Educat the beginning of the 21 the According to Japanlocal governments at ion Act, public mu museumsnicipality level, are so museumson. founded by prefecture and Public museums used to be directly managed by local governmentsa or by the external organizations of local governments, and private man gers couldn't be employed by public museums. Because local governments had been a hefacing increasing fiscal deficits ands, it local cultural facilitates were regarded as ouldavy reduce burden cost ons publicand maximize finance the wasutilization expected that the introduction of DMS w se The DMS allowed of the facilities by overcoming theto managebureaucratic defects.ms through private managersthe to Local be designated Autonomy Law in 200public3. Local museu governors and thecouncillors partial had revision the right of to make deci ed DMS or kept the direct management the localsions governmental about whether museums they adopt and how to designate private of adopted. The introductionabout proceeded at a rapid managerspace if DMS was of DMS. A relevant survey in the first two years after the act came into effect based on 479 museums showed that the rate 2006 of adoption(Science doubled from 11.5% of public museums in 2004 to 28.8% in

39 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

. the

Council of Japan 2007) The Social Education Survey conductedhnology by (MEXT)Japanese also Ministrydemonstrated of Education, that Culture, Sports, Sciences experienced and Tec consistent growth in Japanese public museums in over the bothlast decade the number and the rate of the adoption of DMS public museums , as showed in figure 4.

Number The rate of adoption

200 184

158 30% 150 134 25%

20% 100 93

15%

50 10%

5% 0 2005 2008 2011 2015 0%

Figure 4 The number and percentage of Japanese public museums adopting DMS

Source: Social Education Survey, MEXT. Japan The relevant study showed that DMS improved the productivity and under certain conditions, including (1) the designated

managersefficiency ofwere museums selected through an open recruitment process, and (2) the designated managers were deeply

(Taniguchi 2016). As a top- engaged in the planning of museums governments, down organizational innovation the dominated by local museums; on thethe adoptionother hand, of DMShowever, strengthened it political legitimacy of a also the brought museums a lot of uncertaintylocal government because and of designatedsymetric information manangers, and which, building in turn,of inducedtrust between some id sudden institutional

museumschanges to take several makeshift measures. to avo (Science Council of Japan 2007) 40 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

3.1.4 What do these cases show?

It is commonly accepted that today’

s museums innovate through the use of computers and Information and. As Communication a whole, the museum Technologies community (Costa really Barbosa has 2013;greatly Bakhshi changed & Throsbythe way 2010) i the t works in terms of administrative tasks, in restoration and conservation of collections, in exhibition technique, as well as in marketingation throughManagement the adoption System, ofp olymer Office materials Automation and System, X-ray Collectiondetection technologies,Inform Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR) technologies,

Instantaneous messaging (IM) and Social media. Therefore, innovation through thecharacterist adoption of existing techniques and technologies has become an important Moreover,ic of museum museums innovation. innovate through research in the related arts and humanities fields. Research is one of the basic functions of a museum. An important mission of a museum is to expand the artistic and humanistic knowledge by investigating, exhibiting and promoting its collection of objects. Thishistory, knowledge anthropology, may embrace archeology a wide and range museology, of disciplines, and so such on, aswhich, art, language, in turn, nourishes our cultural existence and inspire , as well as

innovative goods and services” creative behavior innovation le (Bakhshi et al. 2008). As a result, this kind of ads to significant change in aesthetics or meaning by its institutional context. However, many outputs of arts and“ humanities research like exhibitions,pre- conferences-conceptual and even conte movements”, are a specific articulation of the invitesreflective, “ non ” nt of art which is not formal knowledge but innovationunfinished is mostly thinking“hidden” (Borgdorff 2011). Therefore, such kind of (Miles & Green 2008), and the significance is innovation of innovationin museology can –only be observed in the long term. A typical example– that has greatly the birth and adoption of new museology changed the social role of museums during the last half century. organizationalLastly, manystructures innovative in activitiesmuseums. also Organizational are embodied innovation in the changes usually of

happens when the existing organizational structure of a museum cannot be

41 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

adapted to changes in external conditions. Large-scale organizational innovation conomic transition occurring(Chekova 2004)in the Russian state museums during the period of e isorg aanization typical example.al settings These innovative activities involved broad adjustments in -oriented multi-skilled, including teams, theadvisory establishment councils , ofvirtual new departments, project -organizational structure in management, museum franchising, as well as multi theand formdecision of museum- societies and foundations, which greatly improved efficiency Moreover, somemaking, top- generated revenues, and diversified museum activities. down reforms in the public sector also contributeduction to organizational innovation’ in the public museums. For instance, the intro of Designated Manager s System (DSM) in Japanese public museums can be seen as the consequence of a broad response of the New Public Management (NPM) initiated in the Japanese public sector. also contain some important clues that may Furthermore, the aboveinto museum cases innovation. regards to the give rise to further probeis clearly First of all, with typetechnological of innovation, innovation, it and innovationthat museum in arts innovationand humanities can be research,comprised and in of organizational change. Most innovation studies that on museum

organizations in relation to the u neglect thefocus non-technological dimension, such as cultural innovationse of technology and production. Considering that museums are cultural heritage institutions, innovation in cultural production regarded as important as technological innovation in the museum

shouldsector. be is demonstrated that

museumSecond, innovation regarding occurs to at the multiple level of levels innovation,; it includes it at least individual, organizational, and systematic levels. For example, innovation in new museology researches, and innovations

theoryin technology was firstly adoption initiated and by in individual organizational thinking changes of were mostly determined - m

byinno the decision making of useums are great at organizational level. But the success of individualvations and its diffusion ly reliant onthe the government, interaction as between well as the i , museums, professional associations and level. nterplayThird, of economic, social and institutional factors at the systemic adoption is an important means of innovation in the museum 42 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

community. Adoption is not a simple imitation process, learning,

assimilating, and re-innovating according to the particularbut aneed process ofa museum. computerization has showed that the simple s of technologyThe case ofhardware lead to technological innovation inintroduction museums, the of doesn'tre related to museological work is a necessary condition development of softwa for the success of innovation; the divergent recognition and application implications of new museologyartistic and inhumanistic different innovationregions also implies that the content and adoption process.of Fourth, organizationa are transformed duringa museum the ’ innovation. The cases show l that factors innovations may influence usually s capacitylarge for take place first in lative museums in respect of ancial technological strength , innovationtechniques and because skil of their re advantagethet have inover terms small of finmuseums. Inter-museum organizationsled (e.g.workforce ICOM thatand Museum Computer Network), museum and enterprise partnership (e.g. Google and governmental agenda (e.g. EU’s Europeana program, China’s

Art Project) ’s NPM movement) also play Nationalvital roles Survey as of Movable Cultural Relics and Japandisemination museum communifacilitators in the introduction and of innovation in thet, and rmulatingty, standard through, and financial so on. support, collaborative R&D engagemen by fo 3.2 THE DEFINITION OF MUSEUM INNOVATION

There like innovation that are so widely used without a

social consensusare few words . The word innovation broad synonym about its meaning l, industrialis often policy, mentioned and even as a dail of novelty and change in the business mode y conversation around us, but it is also thought of too broad and ambiguous to be defined by people actwhen that they in are asked what innovation is. socialThis dilemma science, mostly results from the f novation is an emerging field in ingeography, which different management, disciplines history, are humanities, involved, includingsociology, economics,psychology, engineering,and science and technology studies, and so on. Each discipline has its particular academic an integrated paradigm on innovation study, yet

perspective and there is a lack of

43 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

some scholars don’t regard themselves

( as innovation researchers. even if their area of work relate to innovation Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009) 3.2.1 A brief introduction to innovation

In its simplest terms, ethod, idea or product.

As early as Schumpeterinnovation, briefly refersnovation to a new study m the father “new of inness”. attempted to define Cyclesinnovation (1939) from its characteristic of In his influential book Business , Schumpeter wrote that innovation could cost. be In definedterms with the referencepr to both the production function the development and monetary of oduction function, innovation was of a new commodity, a new process, a new form of organization, monetary cost, opening innovation up of new destroyed markets the and old new total source or ofmarginal supply; cost In termscurve and of put a new one in its place where “whenever a given

quantity of output costs less to” (Schumpeterproduce than 1939 the same). or a smaller quantity did cost or However,would have not cost all beforenew methods, ideas or products are innovations. First,

innovation should be distinguished from invention. Invention is the first occurrencecommercialization of new methods and ideas while innovation is the ,first so innovation emphas of them (Dosi & Nelson, 2010; Fagerberg, 2006) izes the reaching market of invention. Second, innovation is also different from imitation. Innovation is an introduc in thetion market. of a truly The novel item whilst imitation“new to the is theorganizati adoptionon”, of “new an existing to the industry item ”, and “new to the world” as wellcan be . An innovation at organizational level could also (Castañer imitation & at Campos the industry 2002) and the world levels. Greenhalgh and beRogers an (2010) argued “new to the organizationTherefore,” was utthat a “ being ”. However, Stonemannot a sufficient (2010) testviewed for innovation innovation as b a dynamicdiffusion process of innovationand it wa , namely, invention, innovation, s no longer one of the elements changeof three in stages Schumpeter’s literature, and diffusion of technological s and everythingbut involved a term innow it. Aswidely a used to encompass, innovation all stageshas various of this practical proces explanations; “new to the organizationmatter” ofalso fact is treated as inno “new to the industry” and “new to the world”

vation to its broad sense while 44 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

as innovation in the narrative sense. Further, many innovation studies set organization (OECD .

s as the unit for empirical study & Eurostat 2005) revival Truly, innovation has been understood in different contexts. After ore the of innovation study to inexpress the second particularhalf interests of the 20th in the century, innovation m definitionsphenomenon have emerged (1981) dby researchers from various perspectives. For example,: “ there Kimberly are define innovation with reference to the type of innovation three stages of innovation: innovation as a process; innovation as a discrete item includingorganizations. products,” Van de programs Ven (1986) or emphasize services; d and innovation as an attribute“as long of as the idea is perceived as new to the people involved,the novelty it isof an innovation: ‘innovation ’ even ‘imitation’

though(1996) itstressed may appear innovation to others as toa be an of“change something.”, he Damanpourstated that “ mechanism for responseinnovation to ischanges conceived in the as external a means environment of changing or an as organization, a pre-emptive either action as to a t”. Plessis (2007) saw innovation as the creation and

influence the environmen “ ew diffusion of knowledge, he noted that innovation as the creation of n knowledge and ideas to facilitate new business outcomes, aimed at improving internaland services business”. Rogers processes (1998) and argued structures that innovation and to create shou marketldn’ driven products it had t be identified until been implemented or commercializednew in products some way, or thusprocesses the creation was only of abstract knowledge, or the invention of enterpriseconsidered’s activities. innovation if it had been productively incorporated into the said opportunityIt may to well present be that these different definitions together offer a new analysis on a re a panoramic picture of innovation. Based on the content presentative pool of literature about organizational innovationconcluded betweenwith an 1934 and 2008, Baregheh, Rowley “ andthe multi Sambrook- (2009) integrated definition of innovation: stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, service or processes,in their marketplace in order to”. advance, In sum, compete“novelty” and and differenti “ ate themselves successfully” are always emphasized successful commercialization as two necessary conditions of innovation (Dosi & Nelson 45 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

2010; Fagerberg 2006) 3.2.2 Defining museum innovation

The word innovation is used together with to convey some

often other attributes. For example, open particularinnovatio conception of innovation under a specified domaincompany’s n refers to the innovation that occurs beyond a boundaries (Chesbroughand intellectual 2003a) activities; soft iinnnovation the creative means industries the innovation (Stoneman based 2010) on aesthetic; social innovation

structure (Phillsstresses et al. the 2008) innovation; or local that innovation combats emphasizessocial problem the innovation in the societal that , and s (Moulaert et

al.origins 2005) from. delivers its benefits at local and community level Similarly, museum innovation is used to in the

museum sector in various studies. For instance, Camarerostand for et al. innovation (2011) d museum innovation as “changes in certain service aspects and advancesdefine in the technology used (digital catalogues, ”; De-

Miguel-molina et al. (2013) viewed virtualit as changes visits or in web the publications)aesthetic context, (2013)

stressedspecially inmuseum the restoration innovation and conservationas technological of artworks; changes Costa in Barbosa organization, management and visitor experience to meet current he

In short, existing studies have quite diverse de requirementss museum of innovation,t public. finition ofovation butangles, nevertheless which reveals contribute that innovation to the understanding is closely associated of inn withfrom an aesthetic different the service sector, and has a

significance,On public orientation. the the ationbasis of thisideas, discourse, theorieswe or tend approaches to define intomuseum new innovationor improved as culturaltransform products, servicesof or processes in order to by museum organizations in advance,society. compete and differentiate themselves successfully in the market and . First,

This definition can be understoods, whichthrough implies the following that innovation elements is an the subject of innovation is museum some innovative activities organizationaln at indivibehavior. This doesn't deny the fact emphasizesthat its adoption and can begi dual or sectorial level, but 46 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

application at the

museology, which wasorganizational initially level. For example, the initiative, of newt innovation until the museumproposed community by a group accepted of museologists their idea andbut didn'put it becomeinto practice. cultural products, services and

processes.Second, Museums the objectare important of innovation cultural isheritage institutions; the peculiarity ganizations, which distinguish themselves

oforganization cultural ors, is that they exist to produce and provide culturalfrom otherand emotional types of goods that develop and nourish a community’ , as

well as to generate emotions in those who are sexposed culture to and them sense of identity . “cultural products and process” (Castañer 2014) asThe cultural focus onorganization s. highlights the nature of museums Lastly, the “ (to) market and (to) society”.

This mostly correspotargetsnds to of the innovation dual demands are both placed on museums, which means visitors and a social role

thatgoing a museum has both private demand exerted by creates social value, beyondwhich cannot the consumption of inmuseum monetary visitors terms themselves and . be expressed (Frey & Meier 2006) 3.3.3 Characteristics of museum innovation

As discussed above,s the scarce literature offers little valuable information about the characteristic of museum innovation. Here we propose that the domaininnovation of study museum and innovationmuseum study should be viewed as the intersection As ofa widespread phenomenon, inn , which is illustrated in figure 5. ovation in the museum sector is characterized by both the unspecificity as a heritageof innovative institution activities. in common and determines the particularity the nature of a museum itself The unspecificity technologiesof museum innovationand knowledge as the in the creatio museumn, application sector, whilst and diffusionthe particularity of new cultural

embodiesorganizations, and reflectscultural theand unique creative connection industries between, and non innovation- and zations (NPOs), which in turn shape and consolidate the source,profit type, organiprocess and

diffusion of museum innovation. From the perspective of the relationship between cultural organizations 47 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

regarded a

and innovation, the external adoption of the generated innovation is . major source of innovation in cultural organization (Castañer & Campos 2002) There are two types of external innovation that cultural organizations can adopt. The first is artistic and cultural innovation, most of which doesn't take place insidecultural formal organizations organizations at arm and,’s length instead, are led by individuals who usually keep theaters, (Castañer 2014). Examples are plays for museums,novels and sofor on.publishing, The other music is formanagerial recording and companies, technological and artworks innovation for

(Castañerturing 2014) teams,. Cultural and they organizations innovate through have neither“ internal R&D nor externalmanufac innovation” (Damanpour 1991 organizational2002). adoption of ; Castañer & Campos

Museums as cultural organizations

Innovation Museums Museum Museums as the as NPOs study CCIs study

Figure 5 Museum innovation as interaction of innovation and museum

the relationship industriesFrom and the innovation,perspective ofnon-technological betweeninnovations the culturalare emphasized and creative to “creativity” in the cultural and creative industries. The capture the peculiarity the of cultural and cre the rest is creativitydistinction, and between the generation or communicationative industries from mass production . On theof symbolic one hand, meaning involved in (Galloway & Dunlop 2007) symbolic products enjoy both economic value and additional cultural value, which can be 48 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

deconstructedspiritual, historical, into social a series and educational of components, value including( aesthetic,2001); on the symbolic, other hand, the “ ” Throsby, ideas ratherfirst than use a of ionalsymbolic value goods and services is the communication of in cul funct (Bilton & Leary 2002). Therefore, innovationthe tural and creative industries displays special features as opposed to technological(1) “content creativityand functional” (Handke dimensions. 2004) –These features can been summarized as creative industries, wherein creativity and theother special case of innovation in the into each other; (2) “hidden innovation” modes of innovation - the innovation may feed that isn’t registered (Miles & Green 2008) in external by traditional innovation indicators and is reflected, mostly,novel product design, organizational forms or, and business innov models, - combinationssolving; and (3) of “ existing technologies” (Stoneman and processes2010) – the innovationative in goods problem and services that primarilysoft innovation impact upon the aesthetic or intellectual appeal rather than .

how it performs at a functionalthe levelrelationship the “notFrom- - the perspective” characteristic of has importantbetween implication NPOs and innovation,- making infor innovation.profit NPOs, also known as the “third sector” s for decision market and government mermann 1999;, areGui found 1991)between, whose (Zimmermann & M s and a emergence is considered to fill thethe gap government between market such asfailure social service,shortfall health, in theculture supply and ofthe public goods by at they - maximizing institutionsarts. The and nature of NPOs determines th are not profit , outside the , instead, they have a multiplicity , of objectives - joint maximization of output and quality of, output subject to a breakaudienceeven maximization budget constrain and (Throsbyquality maximization & Withers 1979) (Hansmanna continuum 1981) between, to a

spectrum1986). rangingthe from service maximization to budget maximization (Steinberg Because (McDonaldorganizational 2007) objective is closely linked “not to - innovation- ” challengesbehavior inthe NPOs , the characteristicas a means of tofor improveprofit econom traditional discourse about innovation . Institutional researchersic performance assert that (Rogersinnovation 1983, decision 2003;-mak Abrahamson 1991) constructed institutions, outside ing is determined a ’ by socially the rational calculation of firm s profitability 49 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

(Meyer and Rowan 1977). In detail, these social institutions include “legitimacy” n 1995; Scott 2014),

(Meyer“worthiness and ”Rowan (Hatimi 1977; 2003) DiMaggio, or the Scott & Powell- 1991; Suchma normative and cultural-cognitive dimensionscalled (Scott institutions 2001). defined by regulative, From the integrated perspective

discussed above, we can summarize several• As characteristics cultural organization of museum innovations, museums as follows:adopt externally generated innovation as an the artistic domain,

museums may innovateimportant in source of innovation. In extending the the museum artform rather by exhibiting than new artworks created by artists outside of by ced the museumser museums themselves,. In or the by technological hosting a new domain, temporary museumsexhibition in the produ digital byera othare active in developing conservation and display techniques, new

wayscommunication of managing visitors and organizing displays,In the organizational and in information domain, and by the use of new ICTs. museums innovate through adopting similar managerial methods by drawingsectors, such lessons as government. from the New Public Management reform in other public • As creative institutions, museums innovate in the “content creativity” and “ ” dimensions in a “hidden” manner. Many product and process

soft innovationscreativity, such by museumsas new aretheoretical based onviewpoints the production in art of history content and education programs, new

museology, new storytelling in exhibition and s and communicationscientific findingss, and popular discourse in publication are aesthetic- and so on. It is obvious that- these innovative activities oriented a rather than function oriented, and thus they belongthe topro soft innovationin certain sense. In addition, most of ionthem process, refer to and blem solving can also innovation embedded in the product • Astherefore, not- it- be vieweds as, museums hidden innovation. innovate in pursuit social for profit organization more of value than economic value. A museum has at least four levels of objeconsolidatingctives including organizational executing legitimacy, basic functions, and increasing achieving management social goals,

50 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

ives

efficiency (Asuaga & Rausell Köster 2006)-making. These in innovatio multiplen, objectwhich are determinelargely reliant the factorson social that institutions,guide decision such as strengthening legitimacy, pursuing organizational notoriety, enriching the cultural supply etc. than it may also matter considering pressures

on profitability ( percentagethe obudgetary that museums face and the increasing f total funding that needs to be generated as revenue). 3.3 THE TAXONOMY OF MUSEUM INNOVATION

Innovation varies (Schumpeter 1943; Hauknes 1998;

based on sector ), content Zimmermann(Galenson 2008 &; Stoneman Mmerman 2010;n 1999; Martin &, and Moodysson 2011 Green 2008) Castañer(2014) suggests 2014) thatmeasurableness it is necessary(Miles to& make a precise; therefore, taxonomy Castañer museum, first, innovation. for a better understanding of 3.3.1 Theoretical and empirical bases for classification

cation that are mainly utilized in current

Thereinnovation are studies two types concerning of classifi museums. In terms , some studies product,of processvalue chain and organizationalof innovation innovation classify museum innovation as -Miguel-molina et al. 2013; De-Miguel(Camarero- et al. 2011;-Oliver, Costa et Barbosa al. 2014) 2013;. This taxonomyDe can to the Oslo ManuaMolina,l ( Hervás 1996, 2005), which aimed date back OECD & Eurostat ting and interpreting innovationto define, data. Accordingclassify and to measure the Oslo innovationManual by collec , (OECD & Eurostat 2005) four types of innovation can• be Productdifferentiated: innovation, which

is the introduction of a good or service that is newintended or significantlyuses, including improved with respect to its characteristics or technical specifications, components and materials,characteristic incorporated; software, user friendliness or other functional • Process innovation, which is

the implementation of a new or significantly 51 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

improved production or delivery method, including changes in techni

• Organizationalques, equipment innovation and/or, software; a new organizational method in thewhich refersess practices, to the implementation workplace organiz of ation or external relations; busin • Marketing innovation

refers to the implementation of a new marketing methodproduct placement involving ,significant product promotion changes or in pricing. product design or packaging,

measuringThis museum type of innovation taxonomy. First, has obviousthe Oslo drawbacksManual was for aimedclassifying and enterprises alone, at non business- cultural organizationsand itlike is dubious museums; that second,it can be a applied effectively to profit Oslo Manual to “technological product and processmajor (TPP) concer innovationn is given”, bywhich the completely neglects the involved in the va symbolic, aesthetic and/or emotional, not to mention significance the lue“ chain of” cultural goods (Throsby 2001) , measurement of first use of cultural; last , goodsthe p and services easurementbesides their is functional value (Bilton & Leary 2002) recision of the m alsoinnovation in doubt in culturalbecause and this creative taxonomy organizations. cannot capture the fundamental feature of In addition to this ing arguments innovation studies relating, the toamount museum of contradicts productsummarized innovation by (Kloosterman 2008), process innovation ( on the Lio basis 2006) of , and organizational and marketing innovation (De-Miguel- Hull & -Oliver, et al. 2014) demonstrate that nnovationMolina, Hervásmay lead to g and conclusionssuch concerning taxonomy ofmuseum i innovation. Truly,conflictin Lewandowski confusing(2015) tends to ducing three additional types, namely compensate for this deficiency by intro , functional, cultural, and perception innovations on the basis of the Oslo Manual taxonomy, but without providingn, museumempirical innovation verification. is also In terms of the object of innovatiodiverse domains in which innovative classifiedactivities into different categories by(1989) listing into innovation in Americaare embedded.’ Noble's probe the United States of categories,s museums by classifying museum innovation into eight broad can be summarized as innovations in the following areas: 52 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

• Administration; • Collections management; • /Security;

• ExhibitsEducation or interpretation; • Fund-raising and revenue generation; • arketing;

• PublicTrustee relations/m and volunteer recruitment, training and relations; • Facilities maintenance/management.

Similarly, (2010) innovation in arts and

cultural organizationsBakhshi (museum and Throsby and theater in typifiedparticular) along four domains: (1)innovation innovation in value in audience creation, reach, an (2) innovation in artform development, (3) technology is a d (4) business model innovation. Furthermore, imposed n exogenous variable that overcomes the traditional constraints by physical location so as to expand audience reach, to develop the artform,models. to create new economic and cultural value, and to spur new business Such taxonomy relying on the domain listing also has its limitations. First, the taxonomy is incomplete. It is hard to give a complete list

museum sector. For example, innovation of innovation “enhancing in the visitor experience” (Camarero et al. 2011also; exists in the domains Ioannidis of et al. 2014) and “archiving and preservation” Costa Barbosa 2013; De-Miguel-Molina et al. 2014) as well. (KokaljSecond, etinnovation al. 2013; Ioannidisper se is eta al.dy namic2014; concept , so any

dyna (Baregheh et al. 2009) classification method should take this museumsmic factor innovated into in consideration. the past rather This thantaxonomy what muse is justums a canreflection innovate of in what the the state

future and Lastthus,, suchthe list taxonomy needs to is b tooe enlarged inaccurate from, to time some to timextent,e to toreflect applied in of the art. For example, be alldevelopment; types of museum. many ancient and classicnot artall museumsmuseums likehave the innovation Louvre and in elartform Prado

seldommore likely collect to take or exhibitinnovation artworks in “artmemory of living ” artists, rather than which “ means ”. that they are artform We propose a new taxonomy of museum innovation in accordance with

53 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

the tive activities rely.

knowledge base on which andinnova a knowledge- This method. Learning is based theory on argueslearning that theory innovation of innovation is a learning process (Lichtenthalerbased approach 2013). Learning is the acq s, and it encompasses two meanings: (1) the

uisition of “ knowledgeknow-why ”, or skill acquisition of which; and implies (2 the ability to articulate“know - ahow conceptual”, which impliesunderstanding the of an experienceity to produce some) the actions acquisition (Kim of1993) . Many scholars point out thatphysical abil R&D and product innovation processes themselves are, essentially, incremental learning processes because they have a primary rolee inorganization, generating newwhere knowledge the development and distributing and accumulation the knowledge throughout th of knowledge is synonym; of learning (Carlsson et al.. S1976; Nelson & Winterrequires 1982; Harkema 2003 Gieskes & van der Heijden 2004) uccessful innovation efficient knowledge management,he wherein knowledge is acquired, absorbed, assimilated, shared and theused “cognitive with t aim of creating new” rather knowledge, than only which procedural stresses aspects the importance (Harkema of 2003) . This is, aspectsomehow, of people consistent with economic thinking. Economists also regard learning as knowledge anconstitutes internal anda critical microscopic input mechanismand a of production. As a result,underlying the (Arrowprimary 1962) source and thus, of value they lay emphasis on production function at any moment the knowledgeA knowledge dimension- of innovation and production. – analytica based approach classifies – knowledge into three bases l, synthetic, and symbolic knowledge in terms of the diversity of professional and occupational groupsovation and competenciesprocess in the thatcultural are and involved creative in differentindustries modes and phases of the inn . Analytical knowledge th(Asheim et al. 2007; new Asheim knowle & Hansen 2009) is refers to synthetice development knowledge of dge about the natural system, and scientific;existing knowledge in new ways,refers and is to the application-solving; or combination of meaning, desire, ae problem symbolic knowledge and refers to creation of restoration andsthetic, conservation: qualities, affect, analytical intangibles, knowledge symbols.includes Takechemistry, for example s physics and biology etc.; synthetic knowledge include engineering etc.; and symbolic knowledge includes fine arts, art history, history 54 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

and photography etc. (De-Miguel-molina et al. 2013). Synthetic and analytical

knowledge relate to the scientific and technological. component of innovation whilst symbolic knowledge relates to creative process

Geography & histroy 62,5%

Philosophy & literatureFine arts 8,3%

Philology 7,7%

Humanities 1,4%

Symbolic Anthropology 1,0%

Architecture 1,0%

1,0%

Translation & interpretationSociology 0,5%

0,4%

Library science & documentationTeaching 2,4%

Law 2,1%

2,1%

Journalism 2,0%

Managerial Economics & businessPolitics 1,6%

0,6%

Business managementToursim 0,5%

Cultural management 0,4%

0,4%

BiologyGeology 2,6%

Analytical Psychology/pedagogy 1,3%

Chemistry 1,1%

0,5%

Conservation &Engineering restoration 7,7% Synthetic

others 0,6%

2,5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 6 Knowledge bases of Spanish museums Source: ( los- -de-los- Spanishmuseos -Ministryun-estudio of -Education,-el-sector Culture-en -andespana/museos/14316C Sports ) https://sede.educacion.gob.es/publiventa/ profesionales sobre

55 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Note that any innovation is based on specific routines,- procedures, mechanisms(Grant 1996) and structures considers of organizations an organization. as knowledge The knowledge-integratingbased institutions, view of the firm which integrate the specialized knowledgesynthetic, possessedanalytical by a number of knowledge individual professionals. This means that and symbolic contribute to innovation only when they can be integrated efficiently by the necessary collaboration mechanism under certain organizational structure, wherein coordination can be best achieved knowledge through (Grant the direct 1996)involvement, like curators of specialist coordinators who have specific andi exhibition managers in the museum analytical community. Yet, this kind of knowledge s not characterized by synthetic, or symbolic bases and instead, it specializesmanagerial inknowledge the organizational base. management; and hence, can be regarded as the vely in the Asmuseum a matter sector. of fact, Figure these 6four types of knowledge bases exist pervasi depicts percentages of analytical, synthetic, symbolic and managerial knowledge bases in Spanish museums in terms of the qualificationsknowledge stock of thein museum professionals employed. It shows that a majority of s is symbolic knowledge (76.1%), followed by managerial (12.1%), synthetic (8.3%), and analytical (5.5%) knowledge. This distributionas cultural productive of knowledge organizations bases is mostly consistent with the nature. of museums (Johnson & Thomas 1998) Empirically, relevant studies have demonstrated that differentDe types-Miguel of- knowledgemolina et exertal. (2013) a different revealed impact tha t on technological innovation. Forprocesses example, and product innovationspecialists in artworkrestoration restoration technologies are positively in the museum. correlated with the number of (1985) DiMaggio-makers & in Stenberg the art found that the educational background of decision organizations played a decisive role in the mode of innovation: directors who onlythose had who managerial had an artisti knowledge would exhibit higher conformity levels, whilst innovation c background were more likely to be engaged in artistic (Castañer & Campos 2002). These results offered us empiricals and evidence about the existence of a close connection between knowledge base the type of innovation seen in museums. 56 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

3.3.2 Three types of museum innovation

Oninnovation the basis into of knowledge three types: bases cultural discussed innovation, above, technological we tend to classify innovation museum, and organizational innovation,

dimensions, and each type of innovation further involves more

as illustrated in figure 7. Innovation in

services cultural goods & Cultural innovation Innovation in arts

researches & humanities

Internal R&D Museum Technological innovation innovation Innovationtechnologies by the use of external

Innovation in

business practices Organizational Innovation in innovation organizational methods

Innovation in external relations

Figure 7 The taxonomy of museum innovation

Cultural innovation

Cultural innovation is the innovation that relies on the

and leads to anges in the symbolicaspects knowledge base production andsignificant outputs chin museum. aesthetic and symbolic of cultural Cultural innovation in museums is compris

dimension is innovation in cultural goods and services.ed of two Museums dimensions. are The culture first

57 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

producing organizations , which produce

(Johnson & Thomas 1998)exhibitions (permanentbroad and categoriestemporary exhibitions, of cultural on goods-going and and services,out-going including exhibition s etc.), research (scientific and popular articles etc.), publications (catalogues, magazines, journals, manuals, brochures etc.), education activities (educational programs, courses, conferences, workshops, concerts etc.), digital-born resources (texts, images, audios, videos etc.) and visitor services (guided visit, catering services, museum shops etc.). Cultural goods and “creativity” and “the

services” are characterized by , which distinguishes themgeneration of symbolic meaning (Biltonphysical & Leary 2002) the additional culturalfrom values ordinary commoditiescultural and products. manufacture by Cultural embeddedvalue in can be deconstructed into a series of components, including( aesthetic,2001). This symbolic, is consistent spiritual, with historical, the knowledge social and- educational value Throsby cultural production is a creative process and culturalbase view, products which are argues reliant that on symbolic (art) base (Asheim & Hansen 2009). The “ ” value of cultural products, which is different from other

commoditiesfirst (Galloway use and Dunlop 2006) , implies that the novelty of cultural goods and services should not be measured by functional changes but by changes in symbolic and aesthetic elements. Such“stylistic changes”, “haveaesthetic been”, explained“ ”, “ contentin many” andempirical “ ” studiesinnovations by the (Cappetta introduction et al. of 2006; Alcaide- formal -Esparza soft Marzal & Tortajada. Yet, the 2007; Handke 2004; Bianchi & Bortolotti 1996; Stoneman 2010) symbolic and aesthetic elements are embedded in the content and form of cultural products. Thus, innovation in cultural goods and services can be further observedAccording through, to at least, two2014) dimensions: , innovationcontent innovation in content andis the in form.new Castañer's ( defintionnents (or genres) combination of different existing compo that have not been previouslyinn combined, or that deviated from existing genres; while form ovation is the new way of presenting the contents. Some examples are given below:• Innovation in

− The the content of cultural product curating and inauguration of a new exhibition with different 58 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

;

− collection objects with new knowledge that The development of educational; programs − has not been discussed before The publication with new of images new collection and articles catalogues; or updated volume of − journals museum; − The adoptioncreation andof a newupload visualing identity by- a exts, images, shape and color of digital born t • Innovationin in the th website. s − e form of cultural product an The development and adoption of a new storytelling approach for − exhibition; − The launchnew artistic of a new visiting routine for existing exhibitions. collection elements.design of museum souvenirs based on, or inspired by The second dimension is innovation in arts and humanities research. According to ICOM’s museums. Many

definition, research researchers is a basic function and cura oftors to undertake museums artsemploy and fulltimehumanities conservators, research on collectio museums, among scientific, arts and humanitiesn objectsresearchers in with whom the vast majority are literaturesymbolic to knowledgearts, photography bases,, spanninganthropology various and disciplines architecture from, as historyshown inand Figure 6. fine characterized as an individualisticMuch of arts and humanities research is inside often and outside museums are getting moreprocess, and more but common collaborative projects . Furthermore, sy (Bakhshi et al. 2008) mbolic phknowledge emerges from the interpretation of cultural content, form, artsenomenon and humanities and value toresearch enrich creativityneither entirely and innovativeness, depends on so thelarge fruit-scale of , as are requi accumulationnecessarily supersedes of knowledge existing knowledge inred arts in and the humanities scientific research nor 2008). This implies in museums is not(Bakhshi as high as et the al. co - that the cost of enterprises arts research and, hence, innovation in arts and humanitiesst of R&D researches in for profit is presentprivate in most museums.

59 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

museumIn largecollection museums, and theresearch researchers responsibility specialized isin dividedd by categories. For of by ifferent subjects 1 example, the British Museum has ten curatorial and research departments; in small in accordance with geographic distributionis and types of its collection museums,divisio the research responsibility often undertaken, which through means simple that n of labor among a limited member of museum staff research tasks- are fulfilled by individuals and research activities usually are exhibition oriented. On the other hand,other museumsmuseums, also universities collaborate andwith researchexternal scholarsinstitutions and, or researcherseven independent from curators in developing arts and humanities

researchtime researchers. projects, especially in small museums that are not equipped with full Innovation in arts and humanities research concludes in research either

findings, which can be scientific or popular articles available to the general public in publications like scientificcome journals, magazines, books,“intermediate newspapers product and” museum websites; or can be internal reference as facilitating other cultural production. Technological innovation

Technological innovation is innovation that depends on analytical and synthetic with cultural

prodknowledgeuction in bases museums. and contributes to functional changes involved Although museums are, typically, not technology-intensive organizations according to in

– the distribution of knowledgels have stock a intechnology the museum-related sector education shown al figure 6 only 14% of the professiona“conservation and restoration and background with disciplines, the specific thefocus essential on analytical and synthetic” (7.7%)knowledge biology (2.6%)determine technology- bases still related activities that a museum is able to perform by defining its internal R&D capability and absorptive capacity for 1

TenPrehistory; curatorial (5) and Coins research and Medal departments of the British Museum are (1) Africa, Oceania and the Americas; (2) Ancient Egypt and Sudan; (3) Asia; (4) Britain, Europe and Drawing. s; (6) Conservation and Scientific research; (7) Greece and Rome; (8) Middle East; (9) Portable Antiquities and Treasure; and (10) Prints and

60 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

external technological innovation (De-Miguel-molina et al. 2013). For this reason, technological innovation in museums can

be further classified into two dimensions: innovationinputs based. With on regard internal to aR&D museum and innovation’s internal by the use of external technological“conservation and restoration” devoted to R&D, a major proportion of technologicaldepa knowledge bases implies in the that museum. the conservation According and to restorationDe-Miguel- molinartment et al. ( is2013) a major R&D section • Methods and, instrumentsinternal R&D activities may span the following fields:

• P used to examine and analyze art objects;; • Techniquesroducts and or reagents procedures used used to examine in restoration and analyze; art objects • Tools or instruments used in restoration; • C ;

• Donsumablesisplaying art (glazes, solvents, biocides, etc.) used in restoration ligh works in exhibition halls (in terms of the microclimate, • Storint, mountingg artworks or in substrate, climate-controlled etc.); stor ; • Transporting artworks. age facilities Additionally, a museum’s also

internal R&Dpa may be responsible forin the developmentmuseum’s operations of software in aiming order atto fulfilling rticular needs and functions external technologies, techniques andfacilitate equipment. the For adoption and integration of a museum’s example, thesome software leading of museums, likeinformation the Smithsonian management Institution system and Arizona developed State byMuseum , played a decisive role in th as shown in the

section 3.1.1. e computerization of American museums, In reality

, not all museums can afford internal R&D activities because of theleading lack museumsof necessary at national financial, and knowledge regional levelsand human mostly resources. engage In most cases, in internal R&D as a formal function inside the organizations, wherein the output of R&D not onlyin benefitssurrounding cultural museums production. S per se, but also exerts’t homed spillover in the effects museum directly and, instead, ometimes, the R&D function independent isn and is performed through publicly funded 61 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

specialized in heritage restoration and conservation, professionalwhich are at institutions regions. Examplethes serviceinclude ofthe the museums located in the same administrative the ) Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico(Castro (IAPH)- establishedmartínez & byFernández Andalucı́a-baca Casaresregional 2012)government and (theJunta Instituto de Andalucı́a Valenciano de Conservación y Restauración established by the Valencia regional government (Generalitat Valenciana) (Li et al. 2016) in Spain. logies is the

In comparison with internals R&D, the usecal of innovationexternal techno in the museum sector.most common Museums means are typical and form“technologyof technologi users” (Evangelista 2000) the “supplier dominated sector” (Pavitt 1984). The open innovation orview belong argues to “ ” s than to develop them thatinternally it is cheaper and better to buy R&D outcome . Museums tendbecause to adopt of the e xisting enormous technologies cost of internal through R&D market (Chesbrough mechanism 2003b) relevant the market and purchase cost is lesss if than the technology developing is available it internally in . This explainsif the ’t thepervas costive ofin the museum community and why internal R&D isn in museums concentrate in the highly specializedwhy most ofheritage the R&D restoration activities and conservation that usuall fields of whilst the technologies that museums adopt y is unavailable in the, such market as the ICTs. are commercially available

Image 1 The Collection Wall as digital device integrating digital objects and digital networks for enhancing digital experience Source: The Cleveland Museum http://www.clevelandart.org/gallery- one/collection-wall) of Art (

ICTs are the key technologies in the latest decades. Many empirical studies museums into an realm have shown that the use of ICT brings inexhaustible of

62 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

possibilitycommunication in termss and ofvisit technologicalor experience innovations enhancement for heritage conservation,-Tost . (Karp3 2004;summarizes Pujol the 2011; Kéfi & Pallud 2011; Costa Barbosa 2013) Table s utilized in the museumcategories, sector. alternatives, As seen descriptions, we and examples“ of populars” ICT categories tend toinnovation. define the use of ICT by identifying four • Digitalin terms object of. theIt object of a surrogate (Parry 2007)focuses. Digital on the imaging digitization is a oftypical certain “digital object, surrogate i.e. digital” digitally capturing (Dean 2003), and is a widely adoptedby museumsartifacts to archive their collection. Many museum alternative for that digi professionals, however, consider tal objects cannot replace original objects for preservation because a digitalactual copy physical can hardly heritage bear the( artistic, historical. or scientific value of • DHäyrinen,igital network 2012) . It emphasizes pl atform constructionmmunities for connecting etc., and stakeholders including museum staff, visitors, and co distributings and. The sharing intranet information is a typ amongical internal these stakeholders network, aim by ingmeans at ofmaintaining the ICT and knowledge,an opencoordination communication flow, easier sharing of information museum (Anderson 1999). Digitalof operations/virtual museum,among departments social media, within Apps a are popular external digital networks at

the service of visitors fors information(Russo et al. 2007) sharing,. museum marketing and educational objective • Digital experience. It

refers to the augmentation of visitor experience via thetridimensional right digital imagery solutions, holography, for that virtual experience. reality These and augmented solutions includereality, and so on. For example, the interactive digital storytelling1 at

the Acropolis Museum in Athens (Greece) not only showed firstwhat tested visitors

1 augmented reality (AR - One of the most successful real world uses of interactive digital storytelling is ). One of the successful applied projects is the EU funded Chess project that takes digital storytellinghttp://www.chessexperience.eu much further and plans to. make interactive content such as games and augmented reality available to the entire museum sector. The website of the Chess project is 63 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

cho sent visitors additional relevant ased on what

theyse had but shown also an interest in information. b • Digital device. It works (Ioannidis, -Balet, et al. 2014) programmed di as both on site and portable carriers of gital information and contents. Traditional devices ants are information(PDAs) and audio stations, guides kiosks. Personal and docks, and Personals such digital as smartp assisthones computers are mobile devices the and tablet rapidly becoming the preferred option for public when wandering in a museum, accompanieddirect lin by the use of QR codes that scanning give from a basic- information and ks to Apps and web pages appliances.by bi dimensional barcode detected by some digital mobile

Nowadays, the digital devices with the integration of digital objects and digitalvisitors networks an enhanced are becoming digital experience. an emerging The tend Collection for innovative Wall museumsin the Cleveland to offer

Museum of Art is the best example that not only facilitates discovery and dialoguedownload with existing visitors tours as or an creates orientation their experienceown to take but out also into allows the galleries visitors on to the

ir smartphone or tablet as an interactive app.

Image 2 A touch screen player is utilized for audio guide in the Museum Source: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston ( )

http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/goya

Table 3 Category, alternatives, description and examples of innovative digital heritage solutions for museums

Category Alternative Description Example

Media art Film, video, digital arts and new media arts. presentation process. Connections are emphasized Digital object Media as an essential part of the creative or practices using those technologies. between changes in technology and the artistic Digital imaging High- -D

The digital capture of the artifact. resolution images of paintings, or 3 and the scannedConference model information of a vase. in the Prado Museum on the webpage. Webpage Web document for the World Wide Web web (https://www.museodelprado.es/actualidad/activi browser to inform visitors about practical information dad/georges-de-la-tour/d17fb102-ae70-4d48- surrounding the museum and its exhibitions. a903-275a2c88cbc2) Digital network Intranet (https://intranet.guggenheim.org) An internal network system for maintaining an open Intranet system of the Guggenheim Museum departmentscommunication within flow, a museum easier sharing of information and knowledge, coordination of operations among Digital/virtue museum (https://www.museodelprado.es) An information network service system that is Website of the Prado Museum human constructed for collecting, preserving, managing and (http://www.europeana.eu) utilizing information resources of Europeana as a born digital museum cultural/natural heritage, including digital footprint of Social media networks a physical museum and born digital.

Platforms that combine with many of the technologies Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Wechat,

treated previously with the intention of promoting full Weibo, and blogs. communication with the public and the environment, as well as to reach and create new groups of users and Apps even new marketprogram possibilities downloaded at App Store: theAn softwareuser, it serves asdesigned pocket- size to perform docents, a guiding specific https://itunes.apple.com/es/app/museoThe application of the Prado can be - function directly in the smartphones and tablets for nacional-del-prado./id623358752?mt=8 visitors through exhibits and crowded halls, offering audio tours, expanded information about particular works and helpful maps.

Digital technology Tridimensional (3-D) 3- Palace Museum in Taipei. Geometric models created basedconserve on the real or contextallow (hDttp://tech2.npm.edu.tw/da/3d/en/intro.ht models of collections in the National where it can reproduce width, length, and depth of the m) chosen object in order to manipulation while protecting the real object. It is andused images. both to create a model based on a physical object, and to visualize dimensional levels in graphics Holography 2D Holographic Studios gallery in New York city. (http://www.holographer.com) projection of light in space, which the human eye can see and understand as 3D projections without the Virtual reality (VR) use of special apparatus like 3D glasses. Science Museum in London preserves Shipping It collects real world information to compose synthetic hardtridimensional to interpret contexts merely inwith which conventional the public methods. can better FZl9I)Gallery by virtual reality. understand and experience what sometimes can be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDTbFh Augmented reality (AR) “ ” original (real) imagery and elements put together to The combination of virtual reality (synthetic) and uan.html)Exhibition Ana Juan, Dibujando al otro lado (http://unitexperimental.com/web_unit/AnaJ Digital device complement each other for a full experience. and docks Information stations, kiosks, Information appliances that often are installed in the Image 1 & 2 reception hall of museums to offer simple programmed information and interaction with audience by joysticks, keyboard,These devices and touch screens etc. Image 3 PDAs, tablet, audio guides interplay and stimulation.work as interlocutors for visitors in search of extra knowledge on the way and inspire

Digital mobile appliances customizedDigital mobile navigation appliances through that the allow museum, the according public to Smart phone, tablet, laptop etc. toacquire their interests. complementary information and create a

- Quick Response code QR codes give from basic information to direct links to applications and webpages through scanning bi dimensional barcode detection of an image by digital mobile appliances.

CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Organizational innovation

Organizational innovation is innovation that is reliant on managerial knowledge expressed as organizational changes that improve organizational and base and is Organizatio whichbusiness is managementalways linked performance. to organizational structurenal (routines change is and a broad procedures), concept, administrative practices, strategic planning, human resources, internal communications, external relationships, (Damanpour 1996;

and business models. Miles &Museums Green 2008; are Peacock well stocked 2008; withOECD managerial & Eurostat 2005)knowledge, second only to a museum’s symbolic knowledge; managerial knowledge base spans from library management,tourism as well teaching, (see law to), whichbusiness constitute management,s the cultural management and figure 6 prerequisite for the success of organizationalFollowing innovations.the Oslo Manual , we can organizational innovation as the(OECD implemen & Eurostat 2005) identify methodologies in museum’ tationworkplace of new organization models and external relations. Thus, it distinguishess business organiz practices, dinary organizational changes through an emphasis onational the introd innovation from or and methodologies that had uction of new models. Yet, notnnovation been adopted is to improveby museum museum managers before reducingthe objective administrative of organizational costs, i increasing productivity, performance by facilitating internal collaboration (learning by doing) and external cooperation (learning by using and by Organizationalinteracting). innovatio impleme n in business practicess, procedures refers and to tactics the 1 in administrativentation of and new marketing methods fortask organizings . Innovative routine activities in administrative task the

s include, for instance, the implementation of new methods to strengthen

1 Marketing innovation was included in the organizational innovation in the second (1996) (2005) edition of Oslo Manual , and is identified as a separate innovation type arisonin the third edition(Kawashima of Oslo 1998) Manual . Consideringe to consider that marketing most museums innovation are publicly within thefinanced organizational and have domain.traditionally been less exposed to market principles in comp to firms , so it is suitabl

67 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

(e.g. training programs) and to improve interactivecapability buildingmechanism of smuseum staff sharing knowledge and experience (e.g. - forE learning and nnovative activities in marketing tasks project based teamwork). xamples of i the audienceare the introduction- of new methods for expending, as wellaudience a base (e.g. based services) (Bakhshi & Throsby 2010) s for increasings, lending operationalactivities etc.) revenues (e.g. charging. for entrance, itinerant exhibition I (Frey & Steiner 2016) nnovation- in workplace organization refers to the implementation of new- methods for re designing division of labors and among their workersgovernance. as well as for re constructingre- the structure of organization the “visitorAn example-oriented of approachdesigning” division of labor tha is the introduction of in t (Kéfi & Pallud 2011)- t encourages managers to become involved he process of decision making (Camar for programmingero et al. 2011) exhibitions, which is traditionallyre- dominated by curators . Another example of theconstruction Designated Managerof organization’s System and (DMS) governance in structure is the introduction of in chapter 3. Japanese public museums described Organizational innovation in external relations means new approaches implemented to develop organizational ties institutions. Examples include with other-private firms en orterprises public partnerships the establishment -of museum s (e.g. museum (e.g. Google Art Project), museum university collaboration internship for collaborative universities),’ association for the dinteraction museums between museum and visitors (e.g. museum s friends club), franchise ), and (e.g. Guggenheiminter museums-museum in’s ticket New York,-sales Venice,revenues Bilbao (e.g. city and tourism Abu Dhabi card). cooperation for 3.3.3 Relationship between three types of museum innovation

Thereorganizational are both innovati differencesons inand the connections museum context. between Det cultural,ailed discussions technological are given and

as follows.

68 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Differences between cultural, technological and organizational innovation

In some cases, technological innovation with cultural and

is easily confused sive in the productiveorganizational and innovationmanagerial becauseprocesses the use of technology is perva the technological,of museums, cultural andwhich organizational is liable to blur domains. around the boundariesIn regards between to the technological and cultural innovation, ormer concentratesdifferentiation on the between change in the which culturalthe content f is organized and presented while means and form by cultural the latter refers to the emergenceand communicated. of Incontent, the museum by which context, new meaning d and symbol are expressed . Anyigital digital heritage heritage may is be composed the most confusing item, which deserves to be clarified varied and includes of a digital form and heritage content. The digital form can, still be and moving images, any media of digital technology, such as texts, databases words, audio, graphics, software and web pages; heritage content embraces shape, color, design, symbol, meaning and other qualities that are intrinsic tovalue. the original object and contain certain historical,rge extent artisticlinked to or the scientific change in the Therefore,heritage content cultural whilst innovation technological is to a innovation la is mostly associated with the change in the at.

More preciselydigital form and digital surrogate , digital heritage. is“ orn classified digital into” is the two type typ es:where born “there digital is (Häyrinen 2012)” (UNESCOB 2003), which means that it is no other format but the digital object createdresource directly. by digital means without the need for an original analogue Born digital objects place more emphasis on the symbolic meaning;ural they are created mostly for the communication of ideas, just like otheras cultcultural products,innovation. and E hence, the creation of born digitalresources should in be the identified mus digital contentxamples existing areexclusively World Widein the Web virtual world that do not haveeum a website,physical copy existence in the material world. On the contrary, a “digital surrogate” converts an existing analogue (Parry 2007) an

resourcesoriginal resource into digital. A “d igital form surrogate”, which, which lacks refers the changeto a digital in aesthetic copy of and

69 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

is heritage conservation symbolic dimensions, often created for the purpose (Parrof y 2007) with the emphasis on copy, share ands reuse functions a technological. Therefore, theinnovation. introduction Examples of digital include surrogate a digitalizedshould collection be considered or as , a high- 3-D exhibitions a virtual rresolution image of a painting,. a scanned model of a vase and epresentationIn terms of a relicdistinguishing technological innovation organizational innovation, of in techniques fromand equipment on which managerialthe former process stresseses rely the, whilst change in managerial methods, routine the latter refers to the change col s and procedures per se. Take for example the lection management system of a museum. The effective operation of collectionand management systems is baseds and on otherganizational integration methods. of computer Among hardware which, the networks, software computer program- traditional substitutionpaper- by basedseen collection as organizational management innovation, systems of whilst the based practice can be and the attending adoption of hardware and necessary softwareare technological development innovation. development of the necessary software Lastly, the difference between cultural and organizational innovations can beThe further constructio clarified by distinguishing cultural innovation from innova innovationtion has culture. drawn much attention namong of an scholarsorganizational and practitioners culture that in favors recent years. An innovation culture xt shared in the workplace that usuallys employeesrefers to a ’certain avior organizational and value towards conte innovation (Valencia et al. 2010)influence; cultivating a cultubeh innovativ re of innovation often requires the intentionurs necessary to be e, new infrastructuremarket and valueto support orientation, innovation, and new a newbehavio environment to toimplement influence innovation a . Contrary to this, cultural innovation is essentially(Sharifirad & Ataei 2012) product and process innovation what couldcultural be production called a embedded in thethe dimensioncategor of . Therefore, innovation culture belongsorganization. to y of organizational innovation instead of cultural

70 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

The connection between cultural, technological and organizational innovation

Cultural,museum innovatio technologicaln; they and are organizational rwinded innovations and interplay are three with dimensions each other in of practice. For example, often inte an ex the three museum innovationthe execution all at of the samehibition time –may embrace dimensions of the new combinationthe of collection objects that ing a museumequipment exhibits is an cultural innovation; introductionand the of new light structucanre be seen as technological innovation;s that the museum adoptscollaborative teamwork of international curator belongs to organizational innovation. shown Inthat terms new oftechnologies, technological especia and cultural innovation, manys, studies“provide have an aesthetic opportunity” lly , theand utilization of ICT uct (Heilbrunresearch 1993) into arts contributeand humanities to new (Karp prod 2004; development-Tost 2011; and facilitate the ; ). Pujol Bakhshi & Throsbythe 2010 arts Costais Barbosa 2013 A notable example of technology stimulating the emergency of media art th exhibition, by which media art became the the focus early of contemporary20 art exhibitions as an important art form evolved from century because of the development of. On mu theltimedia other technologieshand, arts and in cultural the creation innovation of arts also (McCarthy inspires to &a Ondaatjecertain extent 2002) technological innovation . For example, visitor’s (Castañer 2014) novel visitor experienceand social s demandsspur museums of fresh to contentadopt newof cultural technologies products to meet and their needs, especially in the digital era (Ch’ng et al. 2013). With respect to technological and organizational innovation, empirical studies show that they can . As Camarero and Garrido

(2011) concluded in an innovationbe mutually survey reinforcing on European museums, technological andthe argument organizational that: innovations are positively correlated, which is explained by “Adopting a

fresh organizational approach that is more open to new ideas is a prerequisite to the adoption of technical innovations: the greater the presence of business management skills among museum managers, the 71 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

innovative technologies. Moreover, when a museum

greaterwishes to the acquire use of and use new technologies unrelated to its ongoing

activity, it must develop” absorptive capacity 2012 and ) investment in human The evidencecapital becomesis also critical. (Camarero & Garrido

organizational innovatgivenions at by the the Canada interrelated Science growth and Technologyof technological Museum, and which witnessed how integrated strategic planning, process improvement, and new technology and product development

activities in the museum (Dawson 2008). interplayed to facilitate innovative cerned,

As far as cultural innovation and organizational innovation are con l ainnovation more effective may provide organizational an appropriate structure channe resulting from organizationa- l for interaction and knowledge sharing,thus it may which exert contributes an indirect to impactthe creation on cultural of variety innovation. in content A vivid and knowledge,example this d in the of can-private be observe consortia Danish North Jutland consortium as athat innovative lead to thepublic renewal the museumbetween’ museums, universities, and SMEs nating of externals cultural cooperation capital (intangible a heritage) by elimi institutional barriers to nd strengthening. Garrido the and capacity Camarero for learning(2010) also by state interacting that (Søndergaard & Veirum 2012) undertake product organizational innovation is the basis to development,product innovat andion they through prove aan positive empirical correlation study encomposingbetween organizational 386 Spanish, and French and UK museums.

3.4 DETERMINANT FACTORS OF MUSEUM INNOVATION

Factors that determine the decision-

which innovation take place vary dependingmaking on ofthe innovation sector and andtype the extent to Damanpour (1991) innovation determinantsof innovation. in organizationsBut do not varysuggests greatly that the effects of a re across different studies, which indicates that it is possible to develop levant theory such about as determinant museums, factors throughof innovationevidence in certain type of organizations,

72 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

accumulation based on reliable literature. The relevantly, limited literature and concentrate about determinants factors of museum innovation and is,market unfortunate- – mostly on the impact of resource marketingoriented strategies variables – o such as size, ownership, funding structure and n technological innovation of museums at the micro-Miguel level- (Camareromolina et al.et al.2013) 2011;. Camarero & Garrido 2012; Vicente et al. 2012; De But determinants micro of- to museum meso- and innovation macro- areenvironmental more than micro variables; they rangeCampos from 2002) factors (Castañer and cultural and, many not - of - which have been tested by creativeempirical sectors. studies focusing on may foralsoprofit constitute organizations, to a large and extent the These findings, we think, reliable references to understand the factors affecting n museum innovationrlier. according to the characteristics of museum innovatio identified ea Therefore, we tend to identify a wider range of potential determinant factors of museumliterature innovationand the relevant on the literature basis ofregarding a review cultural of both organizations, museum innovationNPOs, and the creative sectors.

An important consideration Campos is what ( 2002) approach suggest shoulded that be macro, adopted meso to classify these factors. Castañer and and micro environmental factors should be identified to distinguish different dimensions of determinants. Butal such classificationding structure seems toin overlaptheir discourse. in some variablesT such as organization size and fun (2014) turned to id ing his might be the reason why Castañer and entifyexternal determinants a recent of innovation study. We in t culturale organizations by internal along factorsindividual in, organizational, and systemicnd to classifylevels; each the determinantlevel is summarized factors into sever ; and each category .

This alis majorakin to categories Evanisko (is1981) composed of a range of factors individual, organizationalKimberly andan 's method, which identified technological and administratived innovations contextual in factorshospitals as in the determinants United States. of researchers to examine the separate

They believed that such method allowed andorganizational combined innovation effects of individual, organizational and. contextual variables on (Kimberly & Evanisko 1981) 73 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Clearly, the rs varies depending on the type

innovation influence of facto aggregate withof special notes. We on firstly discuss the impact of variables in the d; the type of innovation at which the relevant heliterature impac tis aime anddeterminants then followed by an additional discussion about t of the factors on the types of innovation. 3.4.1 Determinant factors at individual level

The i

decisionndividual-making level and focusesthe execution on the individual factors that may influence theere are two main of innovative activities in a museum. Th ismfactors. identified among the relevant literature: leadership and professional Leadership

-makers to

initiateLeadership and/or measures adopt the innovation. power, willingness As Anderson and ability (2004) of decisionasserted, “strong ional

leadership is critical for leading a museum through any degree ofeum institut through change, and visionarynge”. The leadership studies on is the essential impact for leading a mus in museumsfundamental cha exclusively on the of leadership on innovationand the focus duration of leadership of leadership characteristic of leaders. a. The duration of leadership

400 museums and 25 museum directorsOn in the the basis United of anStates, empirical survey(1989) of among Noble innovationexamined implemented the impact in of museu turnoverms. museum that there directors was on the kinds of Hemuseum found direc a curvilinear correlation. Medium between-term the stayerslength of(4 service-6 years) of tended to innovatetors and more the thanrate ofshort innovation-term Stayers (1-3 years) and long-term stayers (7-10 years). Short-term stayer tended to innovate less whilst long-term stayers showed a decreasing tendency in s. This

the number a oflearning innovation perspective. phenomenonInnovation is canan incrementalbe explained learning by innovation proce ss,th eorywherein from learning has a primary

74 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? role in generating new knowledge and disserminating that knowledge throughout the organization

(Carlsson. Knowledge et al. is 1976; accumulated Nelson &with Winter time. 1982; New Gieskesdirectors & have van derless Heijdenknowledge 2004) on , and hence, they innovate less. This which to base innovation – a new museum director who was appointedis only also observed in our investigation commented: “ committedfive months to tech beforenological being innovation interviewed since I in

I have been have been charge of the museum. We’t are working on a pilot experience with an APP for the museum, but it isn available yet. I have had some meetings about workingyears (the with museum digitalization, will adopt 3D these and augmentedtechniques). reality.” Maybe the next few Meanwhile, the learning curve exerts a diminishing marginal utility once it has passed a certain point. Considering that innovation is an incremental conception that emphasizes “new arrival” , this

(Castañer & Campos 2002)novation diminishingamong long- serving marginal managers utility is. embodied in the decreasing rate of in

innovation.Furthermore, According theto duration (1989) of r lesearch,eadership short also-term affects stay ers the were type moreof likely to innovate inNoble Education/Interpretation,'s Administration, and -term stayers innovated

FundExhibits/Security-Raising/Revenue areas Generation,whilst long more in Trusteethe areas and of Volunteer Recruitment, and TrainingPublic and Relations/ Relations hips Marketing,. This can the also be explained in terms of learning perspective. Because of the lack of knowledge accumulation, museum innovation is characterizedand humanity by radical research, innovations, and suchnew asproduct the adoption development of external that isn innovation,’t strictly reliant arts on accumulated knowledge. On the contrary, museums in the long term tend to turn to incremental innovation on and the knowledge as individualbased and organizationalproblem solving learning over time.accumulation of b. Characteristics of leaders

Additionally, some studies suggest that the characteristics

of key

75 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? organizational players innovation should not be overlooked as a factor correlated; to Campos 2002)(Kimberly & Evani sko 1981; DiMaggio & Stenberg 1985 Castañer & theaters have . dual It has leadership been observed structure that – many with cultural organizations likean administrative director and an artistic director thewho m coexistence are key decision of - makers in the arts organizations. Administrative, bothdirectors, of typically are in charge the organization, are more likely to ofimproved the management of innovate in pursuittors, who of organizational efficiency and profitability, whilst artistic direc s that areenrich responsible for artistic activities, are more interested in innovation authoritiesartistic result quality and form. As a consequence, such arrangement of dual organizations. DiMaggioin conflicting and goals, which(1985) further influenced this innovation to the relative within Stenberg dattribute powerthe administrative that different director directors over enjoy. the They artistic state director,that the thegreater less thethe power theater of innovated Campos (2002) tended to explain this the educational. But Castañer and ast experience that leaders had. They proposeby d that leaders backgroundwho have primarily and p a less likely to engage in artistic innovation than thosemanagerial who had background an arts were , or , background both artistic and managerial background.think that this explanation is also museumIt context. is reasonable Many m touseums also have dual leadership structuresapplicable in day in - theto- day operations although A typical the organizational m structure of a museum is different from that of a theater.collections, activitiesuseum and can administration be divided into three divisions by, functions,p40). Collections namely (research, conversation and documentation)(Lord and& Lord activities 1998 to a theater’s

(exhibitions,artistic activities education that relate and to publications) cultural production, are key which functions akin parallel structure reflected in the collectionsadopted and activities by the Metropolitanare under the Mu seum of Art in Newa director York, wherebyand the admi thesupervision president of(Chekova 2004). Such nistration is the responsibilityin of the div managersdivision of and power curators is also seen reflected in other literatureision of labor between museum 2015). To (Zolbergal 1986; Camarero et al. this end, the weight of power, education background, and past 76 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? experienc -makers is regarded as museum

e of decision an important factor- in the innovation.administration It is division proposed (i.e. that presi thedent greater or managers) the power over of decision the thatmakers from - makers in collections and activities divisions (i.e. director or curator),of the the decision less the ation; decision-makers with a involvementpreeminently of a museum in cultural innov s are less likely to engage in cultural innovationmanagerial than those background with an andarts skillor , or with , humanistic background both arts and humanistic and managerial background. Professionalization

innovation.

ProfessionalismFrom the knowledge measures- the capacity of museknowledgeum staff creation to implement is an individual based perspective,a dge activity and the primary role of firm is to integrate the specialized(Grant knowle 1996). possessed by individuals into the production of goods and services Because innovation can be viewed as a process of creation of knowledge, (Carlsson et al. 1976; Nelson & Winter 1982; Gieskes & van der Heijden 2004) individualsessentially reliantconstitute on innovative the subjects activi of innovationt and organizational innovation is to which an organization innovates iesdepends by individual on the professionals. extent to whichThe extent this organization can integrate the specialized knowledge .

of its individual employeesDe- Miguel-Thismolina deduction et al. (2013) is corroborated on by an empirical study conducted by the identification of drivers of technological and cultural innovation involved in the restorationed department of 167 museums throughouttechnologies theand world.knowled They confirm that the variety and combination of ge dbases were positively correlated with the number of innovationinnovations. was But indirec they argue that the impact of the diversity the of knowledge amount and on knowledge thatt because a museum size determinede, they thought that size diversity of museum hosted. Therefor wasmore the decisive factor . The impact of size on innovation is to be discussed in detailHowever, below. it is plausible- that the influence of size on thea diversityient and of knowledge base is over estimated. This is because size is not suffic necessary condition for diversity in knowledge. Firstly, the stock of knowledge 77 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

r than diverse; secondly,

thattraining a large can museumalso improve hosts may be homogeneous rathe the diversity of knowledge base by learning different technologies and knowledge without increasing the number of museum staff. Forthe this reason, it is proposed that there is a positive correlation between diversityprograms ofcan knowledge improve and the extent to which museums innovate; traininging the the diversity of knowledge, thus indirectly affect number of museum innovations. 3.4.2 Determinant factors at organizational level

Organizational le a

museum’s willingnessvel concentrates and capacity on to theinnovate organizational factors that affect . There are three categories of organizationalmanagement, and factors market. summarized as characteristic of organization,

Characteristics of organization

large or small depending on the

Museumsorganizatio can be classified pr as the ownership.the size of Many studies shown, orthat as publicinnovative or activitiesivate museums vary dependingin terms of museums, among which size and ownership are key. the characteristics of

a. Size

The size-innovation relationship is on that innovation

literature has e o ofrganizational the key elements size s on the degree to whichutilized innovation to describe occurs in how a museum ainfluence museum is 1 the nu . The size literature of . There oftenhave measured byl empiricalmber studiesof employees showing in most research a museum has a been severa on innovative activities inthat that the size of significant effect museum. For example, both 1 Garrido and Camarero (2010) Some scholars also measure the size of museum by the number(Camarero of visitors, et al. such 2011; as . Meanwhile the amount of visitors is often utilized to organmeasure museum performance as well in other studies Camarero & Garrido 2008). This will lead to problem in the case of the impact of izational size on museum performance because visitor number cannot be used as both dependent and independent variables at the same time. So we incline to measure museum size with the number of employees to avoid the potential problem. 78 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Camarero et al. (2011) and De-Miguel-molina et al. (2013) concluded that a museum’s organizational size had a positive impact on the degree technological and organizational innovatio of sampling surveys in n on the basis of statistical analysis of museums from different countries. museumsThis have relationship more potential can to be realize attributed the economies to several reasons. First, large and the adop of scale ;in second, internal larger R&D tion of technologies (Kimberly & Evanisko 1981) museumsinnovative haveactivities, more than financial, smaller human museums and (Camarerosymbolic resourceset al. 2011), essential; last, large for museums are usually divided into activity entiation withina number the oforganization subunits according is also regarded to functional as a ; functional differ ). key driverThis of raises innovation the question (Kimberly & Evanisko 1981 in a museum is directly related to the size inof the whether museum the in degree question.of innovation In other words, is the proposition that the larger a museum is, the more it innovates, true? Camarero et al. (2011) argued that there was a curvilinear correlation

s that growing museumsbetween requiremuseum more size andreso theurces degree to keep of innovation,equivalent paces which in implie Corte et al. (2017) also showed that some superstarinnovation. museums A recent such publication as the Louvr by e and State Hermitage Museum were not as innovative as they were

relation to their size when compared to other museums. supposed to be in Although some discourses argue that

adapt and improve more easily, as well as acceptflexibility and implement allows smallchanges firms more to read show a proportionally higher degree

thanily larger so that ones small in relation firms to their size n-Zornoza et al.of 2004) innovation, this propositio (Camisó museum innovation. On the contrary,n has not been proved yet(2008) by existing regard literatureed the limitation in in size as a resist Verbano innovation et al. out that smaller arts organizationsance factor to were less likelyin arts to organizations. adopt external They technologies found than larger o

nes according to an empirical survey on Italian art restoration firms.“cost disaster” This observation . isConsidering consistent the with the implication of quite a (Baumol d& cosBowen 1966) fact that museums usually lface salaries in high fixe t in maintaining facilitaties, exhibitions and personne 79 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? any case,

but the relatively low variable and marginal costs. Small museums may suffer from heavy burden of fixed costs and increasing salaries with little growththe motivation in productivity to innovate. over time so that they don't have sufficient resources and b. Ownership

ownership situation is ten closely

Ownership describes the of a museum, which of associatedmuseu with the explicit mode of governance of. For the example, museum. there Modalities of modalities:m governance “Line department vary from”, “countryArm’s length to country institutions”, “Private ownershipare four”, and “Not-p - ” among European museums

(Vicente etrofit al. 2012)making; whil or Charitablee panese organization Museums are divided into “registered museums”, “museum-e Ja ”, and “museum-l ” Museum Act quivalent facilities . ikeAlthough facilities thereby theare (Japanese Associationeum governance, of Museum they are 2008) usually c categories:different modalities of mus , in accordance with the lassifiedownership into two museum. public and private museums of the

Researchers believe that the ownership of museum determines the extent ofto innovationthe by affecting the aspirationecision and -willingnessmakers can of only a museum. seek to arriveAccording to a bounded rational hypothesis, the lackingd atsatisfactory the optimal solution one (Simon because 1959) of . Similarly,of museumsthe ability are and resources to arrive rather than optimal solutionssubject. Theto a decisionbounded- rational and pursue satisfacty innovation depends on weighing up current making of a museum in terms of in performance and organizational aspiration. A museum tends to be engaged innovativewhile it is le activities if it is aspires to achieve better than current performance, or higher, than organizationalss likely toaspiration be innovate if current performance is close. Furthermore,to (Castañerd that privat & Campose museums 2002) were - Castañerori and Campos (2002) argue displayed higher economic aspirationmore profit and lowerented artistic than aspiration. public ones, and thus technoloTherefore,gical and itmanagerial is supposed innovation that private museums are This more proposition engaged inis than public ones. 80 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

partially Vicente et al. (2012), who

discoveredevidenced that private by themuseums empirical invest studyed much of more in new management technologies than , among arts and history museums in France, Italy,

Spain and the Unitedpublic King onesdom. Further, they discovered that private ownership encouraged museums to develop more varied app task echnologiesroaches to more their actively functional in managements beyond andexhibition interaction display (Vicente and to et apply al. 2012) new. t On the other hand, s to provide the population and the primary role of public museums i museums have communitya more cultural goods and services; and hence, public higherc museums cultural are aspirationmore likely than to enga privatege in cultural ones. Therefore, innovations. it is proposed that publi Management

In most cases, success in

innovation is inseparable from effective managementnnovation within the organization. Favorable managerial practices may facilitate i by creating incentives and efficient routines. The existing literature focuses on three(3) custodial factors orientationof (1) clarity with of organizational regard to management. mission, (2) market orientation, and

a. Clarity of organizational mission

Organization theory states that the mission of organization is influential(McDonald in developing2007) and adopting innovation in the nonprofit organizations non- . Different from profit enterprises, that pursuit the maximizationthe sectors ofin profit,which they profitare located organizations have multiple objectives; Hansmann in terms 1981 of ; ). (Throsby & Withers 1979 Steinberg 1986- Therefore,organizations a clear to allocate and motivating scarce resources mission ison an the important activities driver that forsupport non profittheir mis -

States,sions. McDonald Based on ( the2007) empirical study that of nona clearprofit hospitalsorganizational in the mission United confirmed attention on the contributed to innovation by helping organizations focus their developmentIn more and adoption of innovationsthe that organizational will support mission their mission. on innovation detail, the influence(McDonald of 2007). First, the clearer mission an can be attributed to three aspects 81 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

organization has, the more easily i

innovative activities that are more likelyt identifies to achieve and its concentrates mission; second, resources it also on ws innovation to succeed;

lastcreates a favorable climate in the organization that allo , a clear and motivating mission is beneficial to the recognition in of organizational members, whichation andwill innovationprevent distractions and lead themcaused to by obstacles the process of experiment their objective successfully. zing visitor Museums to often socialhave aidentity, broad range promoting of missions cultural from tourism, maximi regenerating numbers area, andaffirming so on r 2006). Each concrete mission can varyurban (Asuaga & Rausell Köste museum in a may from museums ’oves landmarkr time. For to example, attract amore flashship tourists, while a bigsmall city-scale aimmuseum to be in a the remote city local citizens strengthening community identity. townPerhaps may the be missionat the service in a museum of also changeby s as director changes that there is

. Therefore, it is important for a museum clearly to make sure Sclarity in its mission. But we shouldn't take acommentdefineded that mission they didn for granted. exactlyome museum what missions professionals their museums interviewed had. This suggests that there are't knowsome museums that do not have clear missions or whose missions are not known

by their staff.In sum, as non- should also pay close profit organizations, museumsa attentioninnovation. on A their clear missions, and motivating which are mission supposed will to help be themajor muse driver of museum limited resources on the innovative activities that support that mission,um to focusand vice its versa.

b. Market orientation

It is widely considered that there is a close relationship

(Atuahene-Gima 1996;between Grinstein market 2008; orientationOzkaya et al. and 2015) innovation. This relation in the firms the museum sector. ntationship on can museum also be innovationapplied to The“visitor impact orientation of market” and orie “donor orientation” focuses mostly on Cama ; Camarero et al. 2015). (CamareroVisitor orientation & Garrido means 2008; that rero & Garrido 2012 82 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

a museum’ ’ needs, and museum’s activities ares financial aimed at and social goals are based on visitors Garrido 2012). Th satisfying the-oriented needs museumsand wishes tend of visitorsto not only(Camarero improve & erefore, visitor a visitor- service quality by facilitating(Reussner access 2003) to collections and establishing-adding goods and friendlyservices through environment educational and recreational, but also programs offer value (Welsh 2005). Potential and donors of a museum include privaterientationindividuals, stresses foundations, the prio businesses the publicexpectation administrations,s and demand ands donor o rities set by ( of donors). As who a consequence constitute ,a donor vital - sourceoriented of museums museum fundinglean towardsCamarero the programs & Garrido and 2012 ac their donors, such as adopting new managerialtivities thatmethodologies are considered to improve valuable economic by and incorporating areaperformance to show (Camarerothe innovativeness & Garrido that 2008) their donors expect ICTs in functional 2010). (Bakhshi & Throsby Such relationship is in evidence

Camarero and Garrido (2008, 2012), whoin argue the empiricald that market studies orientation conducted was by a it was in the spirit starting point for innovation because of doing something new or2008) different to respond toed changeable market conditions r orientation(Camarero and & Garrido donor orientation. They furtheron technological detail the differentand organizati impact ofonal visito innovation respectively. 491 European museums, they

Accordingconcluded that to the a donor examination orientation of ahad sample a of and organizational innovations whilst a visitorpositive orientation impact on had both technological on or echnological innovationa positive unless effect ganizational innovation but didn't the affect museum t and other actors. externalFollowing collaboration the logicexisted andbetween conclusion s a market-oriented strategy will lead to demandtated-pull innovation, above, it is which deduced starts that with and (i.e. donors) theand recognitionends with of private demand (i.e. visitors) and socialologies dem that the implementation of new method satisfy these demands identified by museums. In the process of such innovation, the interaction between museums and their visitors and donors plays a vital role in the transformation of relevant information and knowledge. Innovation theory 83 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? states that inno

(Lundvall 1988; vationFreeman is aet process al. 1982: of 124)interaction. between producers and users Market orientationarding can contribute to successful innovation by focusing on knowledge reg . Onthe needsthe other of potential hand, usersinnovation through theory learning points out by that using intra (Rosenberg- 1982) s and rewards ve activities, thusfirm decreasing collaborations the uncertainty can share theresulting cost of innovati . from innovation (Bureth et al. 1997) Consideringmay incur thata large both amountinternal R&Do and thel adoption of external technologies makes sense thatf financiaa visitor expenditure and uncertainty technological for a single museum, it orientationother institutions. doesn't result in innovation without collaboration from c. Custodial orientation

Opposite to market orientation, custodial orientation means that museums are

moredemands committed and the toservice artistic, rendered historical, to society and scientific missions than market. Custody- the (Camarero & Garrido 2012)their collectionsoriented, and the museums usually focus on heritagewhich significance of academic quality of exhibitions, museumis mostly lovers for and the benefitother elite of acommunities small number of students, arts professionals, ason, custodial orientation instead of ordinary visitors. For this re (Camarero et al. 2015). Thisis regarded as the opposing side of visitorHauenschild orientation (1988), who distinguished is consistent with the discourse of new museologynew and museums argued fromthat traditional traditional museums ones in terms were of custody the adoption-oriente ofd whilst new museums usually were visitor-oriented. Although Camarero et al. (2015) assumed custodial orientation as the antithesis n, there is no empirical evidence showing that there is any

of innovatio negativeGarrido 2012) correlation between custodial orientation and innovation (Camarero & missions will encourage. On the contrary, museu msthe to emphasis allocate onmore artistic, resources historical, to research and scientific in arts and humanities, spur new ions, and so on.

From a knowledge- new scientific publications, a museumexhibit’s investment in based innovationge domain perspective, will constitute an incentive to symbolic meaning and knowled 84 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

a custodialinnovation orientati in symbolicon may goods also underpin and services. cultural As innovation a result, it in is museums. proposed that

Market

innovationMarket forces in and market structure are regarded as important factors of arts and cultural organizations by cultural theeconomists demand (Castañerand supply & Campos 2002; Castañer 2014). The. Market demand forces- refer to work to factors thattheaffect museums supply model is a basic frame usuallyprobe into productive activities of firms in microeconomics. Market structure refers to the competitive environment in which firms operate; it also is associated2014). with collaboration in the case of cultural organizations (Castañer a. Demand

Itdemand is widely accepted by economists; Kle thatin innovation is a function) , ofespecially market local demand(Mowery, that & determines Rosenberg the1979 knecht & Verspagen 1990 Thomas 2012). The cultural economicspattern perspective of innovation is concerned generation with(Fabrizio the impact & arts and cultural organizations in ofrelation market to demand private inand terms social of d innovationemands in 2014). (Castañer & Campos 2002; Castañer In regard wi the

th private demand, demand more ,attention and a strong has emphasis been paid has to features of local population in terms of s artisticbeen placedinnovation on howin cultural the size organizations and educational and level of population influence (Pierce 2000 14). Such theoreticalthe performing linkages, artshowever, field inare particular tenuous ; Castañer 20 practitioners and not supportedthe by aging empirical population evidence. Inas thea changing museum context sector, that requires oftenmuseums emphasize to take action to addressof a such change (Hsieh 2010; er 2016). We think that the aging Hamblindemand & Harp to of population gives rise to a special museumsadopt visitor by-theoriented elders, strategies which may affect innovative activities when museums the idea that , lybut in there a population is less evidence is a determinant supporting the proportion of the elder factor of 85 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

innovation in museums.

As far as social demand is concerned, cultural economics literature focuses on the financial structure of museumsmuseum and examiness. Generally how thespeaking, sources the of funding influence innovative activities of sourcesand sponsorship of funding (Vicente are composed et al. 2012)of own revenue, public subsides, endowments , which are grouped into two types of funding:were more public likely and to private.engage It used to be believed that privatelying funded is museums to a market orientation thatin spurs innovation innovation because, wh private fund often linked were ingilst did publicly funded museums reluctant to innovate because public fund n't provide any incentives forMeier museums 2003; Camareroto take risks et al.such 2011) as the and introduction of new technologies (Frey & , worse, even prevented museums from implementing(Camarero et al. changes 2011). in managerial methodogies and organizational forms However, such opinions may over-

structure on innovation in the museum sector.simplify On the one the hand, impact mostof museums financial , comprising ,

whichhave multiple means that sources the of revenues both public and private funding, financial structure usually has a mixed effects on Camarerothe mode ofet innovational. (2011) in museums; that this “m isuseums partially that evidenced by the findings of , who found depend too much on private funding or too much on public”. funding have greater difficulty innovating than those that have access to both On the other hand, the impact of funding onchnologica innovationl mayand organizationalbe indirect bec innovationause private only funding when contributesmuseums toadopt both market te -oriented or -liked approaches (Vicente et al. 2012) -

businessinnovation relationship actually implies the assumption. Therefore, that museums the funding are donor-oriented and that a museum’ u

their donors. This logic c s behavio r depends(2014) on , thewho expectation argued that of a an be contributed associat to Castañer that consequencesponsored a museums:of private fundinghigh-tech was companiesed and with companies the type ofin corporation sector the distribution may contribute to innovation differently, whilst the influence of public fundinga given governmental is exclusively level.determined by political orientation of governing parties at

86 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Neverthel

ess, the empirical studiesl and have organizational shown a significant innovation correlation betweenMeier 2003 private; Camarero funding et and al. 2011; technologica Vicente et al. 2012); European museums(Frey show & that investment

public funding does support in the digitalization of works and catalogues,and training the programs computerization (Vicente of et day al. to 2012) day operations,, which are as mostly well as related educational to a museum’ emphasis on heritage conservation and citizen learning.s functional For this function, reason, with it is anproposed that the higher the nding museums rely on, the more museums engage in proportiontechnological of privateand or ganizational fu innovations; while the higher the s have, the more they innovate in the culturalproportion and technological of public domain.funding museum b. Supply

Cultural economists study supply in the market structure in which museums operatemuseums. Some scholarsfrom the perspectiveargue that museumof s are situated in a highly competitive market, wherein not only visual arts that

museumsconcerts, concerts, exhibit havedance to and compete opera with other art ; forms such as ) symphony compete with other leisure activities(Heilbrun such as going 1993 toThrosby the ci nema, 1994 ,shopping, but also sports and theme parks (Message 2006) many art organizations like museums are. monopolistic However, other suppliers, scholars which believe are thatnot s, espcially in small and medium-size cities affected by overall demand. condition (CastañerAs a& consequence, Campos 2002) the i the question which market structurempact of is supply more onlikely innovation to stimulate has transformed innovation: a monopolisticof market or open competition competition and innovation, especially technologicalHowever, innovation, the relationship is the between (Tang 2006). For example, Schumpeter (1943) statedsubject that of intensetemporary debate monopoly provided an incenti tated so thatve innovators for innovators collected because mon o itpolistic could protects innovation from being imi ora monopoly power is also profit from thattheir can innovative hinder innovation activities temp in rily. But . On the an obstacle other firms (Weinberg 1992) 87 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

other hand, competition can stimulate innovat

to innovate and, at the same tie reduceion the by incentive increasing to innovate the cost to those that fail post- . because of its negative effect on innovationngs, profitshowever, (Gilbert do not 2006) apply to the museum These arguments and findi sector because neither monopoly nor competitionir non - constitute- economic. This incentivesis consistent for withmuseums to innovate Campos considering (2002) the viewpointfor profit that naturethe market Castañer and 's u rts perspectiveand c is not an appropriate way to model the empir innovationical evidence behavio to supportsr of a any clearultural impact organizations the because there is little cultural organizations.of market structure on artistic and cultural innovations by d

Even so, it is possible that the relation between competitionmple, anthe innovation in museums is demonstrated through other factors, for exa differenceare usually in scattered geographical at small location and . remoteAs discussed above, monopolistic museums cultural organizations including museumscities are whilst concentrared most of thein competitvelarge and metropolitan cities

(DiMaggio & Stenberg and innovation 1985). There in the may empirical be some evidence linkages, observed between geographicdiscussion. location which is the subject of later c. Collaboration

at relationship culturalAs a matter organizations of fact, cultural is economists believe th s between competition best characterized by collaboration; rather than 2008). In comparison(Liao et al.with 2001; competition, Castañer &it is Campos clear 2002 Camarero & Garrido that collaboration(Lundvall promotes 1988) innovation, because (1) innovation is a process of interaction an andorganization collaboration with ex constitutesternal individuals a majo andr means organizations of direct interaction by ; (Bureth et al. 1997) andorganizational (2) innovation learning is reliant (Harkema on the transfer2003) and creation of knowledge through source , and collaboration-organization is an interaction important of knowledge flows and. exchange through inter (Martin & Moodysson 2011) Empirically, the beneficial role of collaboration has drawn attention to 88 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? some researchers such as Camarero and Garrido (2012), that unless museums colla whod culturalfound activities, visitor-orientedborate strategies with other did museumsnot have in jointa leisure an technological innovation. significant correlation with In the museum community, there are many with types of visible collaborations enterprisesindividuals and andthe government.institutions, likeFor culturalinstance, organizations, cooperating universities,with independent profit curators to orga mu nize museum exhibitions; borrowing artworks from other seums and private collectors cooperation is a usual practice with the to improve the quality of exhibitions;travel agencies; promoting incorporating museum new technologies in the museologicallocal tourist works office with and -tech companies etc. particularthe help of high Such collaboration s usually make, on up which for a deficiency in terms of technology and knowledge bases or museums depend for the improvement of existing products and methodogies theproposed development that the ofmore new active products. Based on the reasons discussed is involved, above, itthe is greater extent to which it will innovate.collaboration in which a museum

3.4.3 Determinant factors at systemic level

From a systemic perspective, innovation is not an isolated activity complex “socio-economic” system, in which , but part of a research institutes, and several other a group of private firms,within public an insti facilitators of innovation interact 2013)tutional framework (Beije, 1998, cited in Schrempf, Kaplan,the internal & Schroeder, . Therefore, innovation is determined not only by factors, discussedand above, but also by external factors such as boundaries of the system institutions. The existing literature identifies geographic proximity and cultural policy as two major determinants of innovation in the museum sector. Geographical proximity

Innovation literature emphasizes the in the

importance of geographichips factors system of innovation by addressing the potential relations between regions, clusters, and innovation demonstrated in the empirical observation. On the one

89 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? hand, innovators are geographically concentrated ; on the other hand, (Breschi & Malerba 1997) s, innovative(Porter 1990; activities Porter are 19 embedded98), such inas regional and local systemICTs in based“Silicon on Valley clusters” in , or new media in Hollywood,biotechnology Los Angeles and and “Silicon Alley” in NewCalifornia York . A similar phenomenon is in the museums(Cooke sector. & Memedovic A good example 2003) is the so-called Golden also visible - Triangle of Art of the gatheredPrado Museum, around the the ReinaPaseo Sofde ı́aPrado Museum, in the and historical the Thyssen center Bornemisza Museum ’ - of Madrid. Another example is Berlin s Museum Island embracing five. world renowned museums on the banks ofs the River Spree in the heart of Berlin and economicBased on development such observation to geographic, scholarsal proximity. tend to attribute local innovation (1997) pointed out that product innovation, Malmberg and Maskell skills new forms of organization or new are involved in interactive- d cultural processes and within institutional industrial context, systems whilst embedded shared in a broader and space base spatial embeddedness such as proximity, affinity and trust, d in that turn, the contribute modern profoundly to the success of innovation. They furthertion argue could not replace the development of transportation and- to telecommunica- persistent,knowledge exchange regular and direct face face contact tacit on which knowledge information is involved, and the more important isare geographic based. Therefore,al p the more in the interaction. Generally, roximity between actors whoparticipants, partake the less costly and smootherthe i shorter the spatial distance between that innovation succeeds. s the interactive collaboration, and the more probable Perhaps proximity matters in arts and cultural organization cultural innovation and production are greatly reliant on because the arts and humanitiessymbolic knowledgeknowledge and(Asheim skills, & Hansenwhich are2009) deeplythat istacit embodied in and must be accumulated. and transferred graduallyh arts and between humanities individuals research (Bakhshi et al. 2008) In the case of museums, bot as well as the development of new cultural withproducts, suppliers and the(e.g. adoption high-tech of companies external technologi and universities)es require and frequent users (e.g interaction. visitors and community), which can grow in intensity

if these suppliers and users are 90 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

close to the museum geographically. This explains to some extent why many arts

andcorre cultural organizations, such as Italian art restoration firms, display positive lations between the number of innovationthe and the distance to their suppliers/distributorsand research centers as well as the extent. of collaboration with universities (Verbano et, al.we 2008) may propose that geographical proximity is positivelyOn thecorrelated basis of withthe above the ation in museums; the closer a museum is to relevant researcherextent centers of innovor technological suppliers, the more it engages in innovative activities.

Cultural policy

FromThe impact the micro of institutions perspective, on institutional innovation scholarscan be explained view innovative with two activities arguments, like , as an

R&D institutionalized category of organizationalMeyer and Rowanactivity 1977)that has meaning anddecision value-making in many with sectors regard ofto societyinn ( ; therefore, (Hatimi 2003) ovation within Scott the firm (2001) is determined institutional by institutionalramework, empirical factors studies were. conducted On the basis of 's f d innovation. The resultsto demonstratetest the relationshipsd that regulative, between normativeinstitutional and forces co an d to innovation and gnitive institutions contribute the choiceorganizatio of ns and sectorsperformance of various items from different individuals, (Shane. 1993; Shane et al. 1995; Berrone et al. 2007; Alexander 2012; Lee & Pan 2014)From the macro perspective, Schumpeterian scholars place the emphasis on the institutional network in the production and innovation systems, in particular the . This

National System of Innovation (A� lvarez & Marı́n 2010) networkindustrial of policy institutions and science embrace poli the whole complex of factors ranging from taxation systems and wage incentivescy to basic education, industry structures, the system such as the inter- , which shape a series of interactions within research, design and productionfirm cooperationin cooperative in research clubs, the integration of (Dorerelations 1988) between the divisions withincomparative a firm, studies or the on firms industrialized within a keiretsu counties, these scholars. Through arrive a seriesd to the of

91 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

conclusion that it was ed industrial competition

and favorable institutions that benefit levelseconomic (Freeman performance 1987; through innovation at national, regional, or sectorial; Cooke et al. 1998) Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993; Breschi & Malerba 1997

Cultural economics literature concerns itself with institutional forces of museumpolicy on innovation technological by concentrating and organizational on the impact innovations of different in modesmuseums of culturalacross

countries.continental In European detail, cultural model policies and the related Anglo to-Saxon museums mode can be classified into the ulturall in management terms of the, andnature in and extent of governmentaltate intervention play in the c (Vicente et al. 2012). termsMuseums of the under role thethat Anglo the S-Saxon modes in terms of funding a high managerial autonomy,l (e.g. British museums) enjoy degree of and financial as well as multipledel (e.g. sources French of funding, whilst museums under the continental the Europeangovernment mo at various levels museums) are controlled to a large extent by and rely mostly on public funding. de An empirical study shows European that there countries, is a significant am difference in the gree of museum innovations in , ongthe technologicalwhich the British and organizationalmuseums exhibit domains the highest whilst levelthe French of innovation museums in show both the lowest (Vicente et al. 2012). Lusiani and Zan (2010) gave particular emphasis to

autonomy in managerial decision-making and the high degreeas of a budgetingl innovati of surpluson in fundingthe cultural necessarysector condition for the success of organizationa . These findings may suggest thatgovernme a favorablental culturalintervention policy and for innovationincreased could be benefit from reduced . organizational jurisdiction in both management and finance 3.4.4 Different impacts of determinant factors on different types of innovation

It is expected that the impact l, organizational and systemic s

of individua factor on museum innovation vary according to the type of innovation although“dual-core we primarily focus on such impact of variables in the aggregate. As the

92 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION? model” implied

of organizationalrative and innovation technical innovation(Daft 1978) , the differentiation between administ es -makingis important and becauseassociated they with are embedded in different process. On the contrary,of decision Damanpour (1991) points out that differentthere is nofacilitating stati factors in the e stically significant difference ffects of organizational-analysis on determinants on different types of innovation on the basis of a meta relevant the relevant literature published between 1960 and 1988. However, the discussion in the aforementionedechnologicalliterature is mostlydimensions, based onand the innovation classification is betweenneglected at administrative its artistic and and cultural t dimensions . So the effectscultural of determinants innovation inis termsconsider of ed.the types of innovation are still ambiguous when that

As far as museums are concerned, we think the difference in the effects of relevant determinant factors on different types of innovation are mostlythe embodied in the extent to which they may affect rather than the direction of effectorganizational (i.e. posit iveinnovations or negative) are because interlinked of the and fact interplay that cultural, with technologicaleach other, as and is on discussed above. Summarizing, different impact of determinant. factors different types of innovation call for further empirical research Table 4 Summery of determinants of museum innovation

Category Factor Explanation / proposition

Individual level Leadership the leadership Duration of There is a curvilinear correlation between -term stayers (4-6 years) innovatelength of moreservice than of museumshort-term directors Stayers and (1- 3the years) rate andof long innovation;-term stayers mid (7-10 years)

leader decision-maker; leaders with managerial Characteristic of Innovation is related with the background of

innovation than those with arts and humanistic background are less likely to be engaged in cultural

background.Museum innovation knowledge

Professionalism The diversity of museums have access.is The reliant more on diverse staff capacityknowledge of innovation in terms of knowledge to which the museum is engaged in innovation. stock of a museum is, the greater extent to which

93 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Organizational level Organizational Size characteristics Staff number of museum has a positive influence on the amount of technological and organizational Ownership O innovation by museums.

Privatewnership museums determines display the degree higher of innovation economic by aspirationaffecting the and aspiration lower artistic and willingness aspiration, of so museums. they are more active in technological and managerial innovation, and less active in cultural innovation

Management A clear and motivating mission helps museums to than public museums. organizational missionClarity of activities that support its mission. focus their scarce resources on the innovative Market orientation Market-oriented strategy leads to demand-pull

private demand (i.e. visitors) and social demand (i.e. innovation, which starts with the recognition of

donors) and .ends up by the implementation of new methods that will satisfy these demands identified Custodial by museums orientation missions encourage museums to allocate more resourcesThe emphases on the on arts artistic, and historical,humanities and researches, scientific

thus spurring cultural innovation. new scientific publications, and new exhibitions, Market Demand

Social demand affects museum innovation;ed in technologicalmuseums relying and on organization a higher proportional innovation; of private and funding are more likely to be engag to innovate in cultural and technological dimensions.those depending on public funding are more likely Supply related to monoply and

Supply of museum is multiplecompetition and incomplex, the context the e of market structure. The impacts of market structure on innovation are museums. conomic motives behind monopoly and competition are not applicable in The

Collaboration relationship between museums is characterized by collaboration more than competition. The more collaboration in which museums are engaged, the Systematicgreat extent level to which they will be of innovation. Geographic The distance to proximity suppliers and research centers Geographic proximity benefits the interaction of

themuseums; more extent the closer to which the locationit is engaged of a museumin innovation. to its technological suppliers or research centers nearby, Cultural policy governance Models of museum A favorable cultural policy for innovation should be beneficial to reducing governmental intervention- and increasing organizational jurisdiction at both innovatemanagerial th an and the financialcontinental dimensions; European model. the Anglo Saxon model is more favorable for museums to

94 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

3.5 CONCLUSION

Museum innovation, or innovation muse

by roachesum into organizations, new or improved refers cultural to how museumsproducts, transformservices or ideas, processes theories in orderor app to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in the market and society. It is an emerging field that can be viewed as additional the intersection innovation of innovation studies relating and museum to cultural studies organi andzations, stand the to benefitNPOs, and from the cultural and creative industries. Museum innovation is a phenomenon that is pervasive in the museum community throughout theglobal world. The computerization and digitization in the United States, the emergence and d ofin museumsEurope and the iffusion of new museology’s ’ Latin America, and the reform of the Designated Manager the System in Japan s public museums are some observed cases that show universalitythat museum and innovation diversity of innovation in the museum as sector. This also means research. deserves to be treated an independent object of It is clear that museum innovation may take place at multiple levels. On the knowledge- the basis of learning theory of innovation and based approach, museumtechnological innovation innovation can beand classifiedorganizational into threeinnovation. types: culturalCultural innovation,innovation involves innovation in cultural goods and services and innovation in arts and humanities research; technological innovation include the

s internal R&D within museumthe organization; organization organizational and the adoption innovation, of external among technologieswhich we include from theoutside digital of main object, digital network, digital experience and digital device are four categories of ICTs by means of which museums innovate; organizational innovationand in external refers relations. to innovation in business practices, in workplace organization,the vation. There are both differences and connections among three typesThe determinaof inno multiple and complex, and nts an of individual, museum innovation organizational are , and systemic perspective can be identified from rom an based on existing theoretical propositions. As table 4 summerized, f 95 CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

individual perspective, the characteristic and duration of leadership as well as the diversity of knowledge that museum professionals possess are importantan organizationalfactors that mayperspective, influence the degreeorganizational of museum characteristics innovation. (size From and

ownership), management features (clarity of organizational mission, market orientation and custodial constitute orientation) vital conditions and market that determine attributes the (demand, extent to supplywhich andmuseums collaboration) will engage in innovative activities. From a systematic perspective, geographical -

proximity is the basis of collaboration and interaction of inter agentsi in the systemreducing of governmental innovation, and intervention favorable culturaland increasing policies organizational also support nnovation by , . jurisdiction at both managerial and financial dimensions

CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE? A MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY OF THE INNOVATION PROCESS IN FOUR DOMAINS OF CULTURAL PRODUCTION IN MUSEUM ORGANIZATIONS

How do museums innovate? The existing li little to answer this question. Many scholars argue that museumterature innova has tionoffered is technology- “ characterized by technologiespush” (vom in Lehn terms 2005; of the organizational adoption of external 2004; De-Miguel-Molina, De-MiguelCorte-Molina, et al. et 2011; al. 2014) Costa in Barbosa the museum 2013; sector Karp. -pull in stimulating innovatio

Others emphasizethe the role of demand n from the perspective of ; social mission of museums to meet privaterido and 2012; social Camarero needs et(Heilbrun al. 2015 1993) Camarero & Garrido technology2008; Camarero and dema & Garnd-driven innovations . Both streams take such the analysis at forthis granted, question, and i.e. thuswhat neither is the way pays in muchwhich attention innovation on developes in museums.the core of Generally, most studies into innovation process technological

focus on process developmentto technological and change industrial R&D in manufacturing by. linkingAlthough innovation innovation process saw(Cooke innovation & Memedovic as a linear 2003) con early models of activities: either sequence of functional and r to theadvent marketplace, of new ortechnology else change from in R&Dmarket pushes needs its application the efinement new market opportunityexert (Tidd pull for2006), arrival of new solutions to a problemon process or literature mostly emphasizes “open innovationthe recent model stream” of innovati ; Du Preez et al. (Chesbrough 2003a; Berkhout et al. 2006 97 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

2010) innovation as an open system in which , internal and

externa, by viewing bothnetworking and l ideas and technology contributeorganizations. to innovation through collaborationNevertheless between the and culturalwithin sector has drawn little attention innovation scholars to study the innovation process in cultural organizations.from Aoyama and Izushi (2003), Zukauskaite (2012), Castro- -

(2012), and Castro- (2013)martı́nez, among and othersFernández, have attemptedbaca Casares to understand innovationMartı́nez in the cultural et al. and creative industries under the placing the

open innovation perspective by emphasis on various, industry, forms and of interactionuniversities in and know collaboration between cultural organizations ledge transfer andship new product development. This indicates the existence of a close relation between open system and successful innovationPeacock (2008) in the proposed cultural and creative industries as eumwell. innovationIn the case ofwas museums, a social that the process of mus construction by conversational interactions of individuals with the museum by innovationfocusing on through internal daily and externalconversation. flow Hisof ideas argument and perspectives is more or less as a consistent source of the common emphasis withon interaction,the viewpoint thus of open going innovation in accordance -withpush and demand pull beyond technology nteraction, to which perspectives.Peacock attr But d the innovation term conversation as the means of i ibute , seems to be too abstract and parochial to explain the process of innovation. analyze innovation processes in museumThis organization chapter aimss tothe describe open innovation and perspectiv the , learnifromng process es and interaction modees by focusing on the knowledgeinnovation basesystem. To achieve embedded in innovation model in the c this the objective, dynamic we innovation firstly introduce process, thethen open we ontext of s and innovation in museum stress the complexity of cultural product the production input and organizationsvalue creation by dimensions identifying four domains in termsor of an in-d the . This complexity asks f epth exploration of innovation process by matching four production domains with corresponding innovation types, followed by the descriptions including of four“restoration selected”, functional activities of museum organization 98 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

“ ”, “digital museum”, and “visitor service” to represent the

exhibition a multiple-case study is conducted to compareabove four the domains. On this basis,in to be , and to process of innovationpatterns five involved museums in in the the domain city of Valencia identify thedifferent pattern innovation-matching technique. of cultural production by

4.1 DYNAMICS OF INNOVATION PROCESS AND OPEN INNOVATION MODEL

“

Innovationemerge, are process developed, is defined and are as implementedthe sequence of events that unfold as -party ideas networks, and within communities” (Garud et al.within 2013) firms, across multi that innovation is a development process rather than an. accomplishmentThis definition implies at one three aspects. First, stroke.innovation The isdevelopment perceived ashere a concan be understood in terms of (Tidd 2006); sequence of functional activities second,covering the invention consequence of functional activities often involves multiple stages, (i.e. the creation of new ideas), development (i.e. the elaborationthe innovation) of the(Garud ideas), et andal. 2013) implementation (i.e. the widespread acceptance of- ; third, the set of stages might be either one way and sequential, or looped and cyclic. in terms of innovation process models (BerkhoutInnovations et al. 2006; are Rothwell developed 1994) at multiple levels – including individual, organizational and systemic level. “Schumpeter Mark I”

the innovationon focuses (Schumpeter on the 1912)role of, whichentrepreneur is viewed as and“ its individual continuous effort in struggle innovati in historical time the outcome of between individual entrepreneurs,” ( advocating. S noveluccess solutions to particular problems and social inertia Fagerberg,o 2006) commercial practice,ful innovation which is refers mostly to the translation fromentrepreneurial new discoveries skill intand capacity. Furthermore, “Schumpeter Markdetermined II” by ith research innovation technological concentrates innovation on the importance (Godin 2008) of large. Large firms corporations w are laboratories in “creative destruction” seen as innovating firms engaged in the process of

99 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

(Schumpeter 1937) and organized research and experimental

proposed by synonym developmententrepreneurial (R&D) work ( activities become. Additionally, a todayof ’ thiss Schump cooperativeeterian Fagerberg, 2006) economists stress the influence of institutions on political economy of innovation in national system of innovation, wherein innovation is the consequence of interactiveinstitutions (Freeman learning 1987; and Nelson collaborative 1993; Lundvall networks 1992) shaped. Path dependence by nationwide and divergent outcomes

of innovation (Edquistcan be concluded 1997). from historical processes in different countries and economies processInnovationes evolves with is a social complex and process.economic The development understanding as well of as innovation with in- the innovation phenomenon. Rothwell (1994), a key researcherdepth exploration at the of SPRU – ofa widelythe University cited of Sussex, identified five generations of modelsAccording of innovationto Rothwell (1994) classification in “thetechnology innovation push literature. model”, which regards innovation as, the first generation is a linear process from basic research,nal sale thein preparatorychronological phaseorder; ofthe production, second generation manufacturing, is the “demand marketing pull to model fi ”, which stresses market pull as

the starting point followed by single; the chronologicalthird generation phases is including“coupling developing,model”, which manufacturing emphasizes andthat finals sales is essentially uccessful innovation based on feedback loops and interaction“integrated with market model needs”, which and concentrates state of the arton technology;knowledge asthe a fourthnecessary generation is innovation that involves prerequisite for successful , and the coordinated and parallel processes with the integration of“system research integration links and externalnetworking research model ”, environment; the fifth generation is - which focuses on the role of an integrated, flexible and open the end collaboration of external research facilities and cooperation with marketingmethods. area 5 in summarizes the process of innovation by means of IT andgraphic networking models Table the background, basic features and of five generations of models of innovation process. In sum, the evolution of innovation process models is embodied in the dynamics of its characteristics.

100

Table 5 Five generations models of innovation process Generation Background Description Model 1st generation The post-war period witnessed economic growth It assumed that “ ” led to “ Technology push largely through rapid industrial expansion and new new products out”. was understood Marketing Sales more R&D in more successful science engineering turing model technological opportunities. The market was simply a Therefore, innovation Basic Design & Manufac (1950s – mid- saleas a inlinear chronological process from order. basic research, the preparatory 1960s) place where outcomes of research and development phase of production, manufacturing, marketing to final were captured, i.e. customers only bought what firms 2nd generation del, the second Market need Development Sales offered currently. linear market pull “market pull”, model It witnessed increasing manufacturing productivity Different from the first generation mo Manufacturing (mid-1960s – early- and industrial concentration while manufacturing chronologicalgeneration stressed phases on the functionincluding of developing, employment was relatively static. Firms began to face which was the starting point followed by single New 1970s) New products were intro existingthe rising technologies, pressures from so customer competition’ and diversity. need duced mainly based on manufacturing and final sales in this linear model. Needs of society & the marketplace shares, thus market and its needs needsconstituted became a Idea Research, genera Prototype Marketing Marke very important for firms to capture more market tplace tion production -turing 3rd generation d market need pull development Manufac determinant in decision making of firm innovation. design & coupling model & sales New (early 1970s – mid- structuralThe western unemployment economy suffered since 1970s. from Companies high rates had of andIt combined market technologyneeds was push required an throughout the 1980s) inflation, saturation of the market and growing models, stressing that knowledge about both technology tech cost control and reduction. It was clear that neither State of the art in technology and production “totechnology adopt strategies push” nor of “ consolidation,market pull” strategies rationalization, were innovation process; in order to obtaincess thiswas knowledgeessentially networks were formed with internal and external Market need partners. Successful innovation pro. Research and development sufficient to deal with innovation successfully; instead based on feedback loops and interaction with market the further detailing of the phases and the needs and state of the art technology Product development 4th generation Knowledge was integrated in all implementation of feedback steps were needed. Product engineering integrated model (early 1980s – early This period featured economic resurgence. Much phases of the innovation 1990s) competenceattention had beenand giventechnologies, to strategic emphasized management the of process from marketing to manufacture (but mainly in

firms, which concentrated on core business innovationthe research involved phase) coordinated and, therefore, and parallel considered processes as a Parts manufacture (suppliers) the shortening o -to-market withnecessary the integration prerequisite for innovation; successful Manufacture importance of technological accumulation. Because of adopt team- f product lifecycle,- time of research links and external Marketing Launch became more important; organizations tended to research environments. Coordinated processes referred Joint group meetings (engineers/managers) based and project based structure; to the system integration of innovation network of Competitors strategic alliance between companies and external sopartners as to increase from key development engineers tospeed. sales managers; parallel networking also became new focuses of firms. processes referred to the involvement of multiple actors S&T Infrastructure 5th generation system integration - P1 P3 and networking Globalization is the characteristiccross companies, of this period; sectors the metIt essentiallyhods in the extended innovation the parallelprocesses, development it stressed of that the Key Leading edge advent of Information and Technology (IT) facilitated fourth generation by the emphasis on the role of IT model suppliers customers (mid-1990s – early remainedthe diffusion committed of knowledge to technological accumulation and open- P2 2000s) and evenstrategic countries networking, than everand before.speed to Companies market innovation processes should be more integrated, flexible end by collaboration of external research Aided Design (CAD) and Computer-aided engineering facilities and cooperation in the marketing area; Literature, Strategic partnerships, remained of importance. IT methods such as Computer networking was of importance with the involvement of including equity both vertical linkage with suppliers and customers, and marketing alliances, etc. venture and alliances along the whole innovation process. patents Acquisitionsinvestment & (CAE) was widely adopted for internal databases (e.g. horizontal linkages in a variety of forms such as joint manufacturing) and external data link (e.g. customer interface) in companies. CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

knowledge.First, The the impetusearly models on which linked innovation innovation relies processes evolves exclusively from R&D to

technological change with particular emphasis on the fundamental effects of the amount of R&D activities on the opportu Soetenities 1997) for technological innovation in large firms and industry (Freeman & . For example, both technology push and demand pull models regarded R&D activities as a key intermediate stage of the innovation process. On the contrary, later models dedicated introducing some effortknowledge to broaden in its widest the sense concept and oftreating technology knowledge and –product by – as an important input in innovation and production both codified and. tacit (Berkhout et al. 2006) processSecond, to an interactive the mode bynetwork. which Einnovation is developed evolves from linearan innovation “ the initial idea or opportunityarly models through emphasized to the the lifecycle of new innovationfrom in the market”(Du Preez et al. 2010) exploitation of the innovation (e.g. Rogersby 1983) identifying. Even thethrough stages the of coupling model andUtterba the ck & Abernathy 1975; “loop” and “cycle”, the looped andintegrated cyclic interactions model developed took the concepts of the innovation process. Whileplace the withinlater system and between different stages of of the integration and networking model updated conventional recognition of the chronologicallinkages phases by interactive network - throughventure s integratingand alliances widespread along the whole innovationof the firm process. with users, Interactive suppliers, network joints s also imply that the innovation process is c instead of sequential chainvariety and selection haracterized by the creation of (Rothwell a 1994) of behaviors owing to interaction and collaboration rather than lifecycle of product development. organismThird, to open the scopesystem. in The which early innovation models isemphasizing fostered evolves internal from R closed, and &D focusedthrough mostly on how innovationr-departments is developed within by organizationsan organization. themselves, While the or -generationcooperation model of turned inte to more inte -ended fifth ex grated,cooperation flexible andas open collaborationinnovation and, with thus ternal, research facilities and thethe innovationsources of broke the organizationalmodels and regarded boundary innovation of as an open process established by the earlier 102 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

system.

4.1.1 The emergence of the open innovation model and its application to cultural organizations

The open innovation model was an attempt at modell

st century. Althoughing the process of innovation atscholars the beginning have of the 21 ious modelsthe generation to capture of attempted to identify var changing innovation environment and new approaches to“open innovation, innovation most” of( e.g.the emerging models involve; Du Preez the commonet al. 2010) feature of “open Berkhoutinnovation et model al. 2006” 2006 , or can be 2014 summarized). as (Chesbrough et al. ; Brant & Lohse The concept of it open as “ innovation dates back to Chesbrough (2003a; 2003b)knowledge, who to accelerate defined internalthe in use of purposive inflows and outflows of ” novation, and expand. Open the innovation markets isfor supposed external use of innovation,ith respectively“closed innovation(Chesbrough”, which 2006) emphasizes internal innovation to be an ant esis of the employees based on all knowledge and R&D activities03a). On produced the contrary, internally open innovationby places of an organization (Chesbrough 20 through particularexternal path emphasiss to the onmarket, external or on ideas external commercialized channels through by deploying which internal ideas are commercialized in order to generate value. Alt the open-closed houghover such- approach of thedichotomy innovation gives riseprocess to debateand becausedisregards it cooperationsimplifies and the complexity of in the closed innovation paradigm (Marques 2014)partnership between companies tackling, it the has open attracted academic and practical attention to open innovation by property of industrial R&D and market exploration in the processThe of innovation. and externalOpen ideas innovation and paths model to emphasizes market so the as combinationto advance oforganizational both internal innovation, and it is relative to

the earlier closed networks of innovation resting mostly on internal generation of knowledge and internal market channels; hence,. open innovation is regarded as a new generation of innovation process model

103 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

Figure 8 depicts the open innovation model with a

clear picture of inflows and outflows of ideas and technology that are acknowledged by the organization with the aim to multiply opportunities in the market. Networking and collaboration are at the center of open innovation processes. Making use of external sources of knowledge and external paths of market requires the participation, such of theas organizationcrowdsourcing, in open essential s collaboration or innovation networks ouring and R&D clusters. Such collaboration furthers the costsdivision as of welllabor asand innovation specialization while in R&D, which in turn reduces time and laborand innovation processes improving absorptive capabilities (Brant & Lohse 2014). Moreover, it also calls for open logic and strategies for innovation by (1) emphasizing an early interaction between knowledge and business; (2) consolidating intensive networks with specialized supplierstechnology and and early markets users; (3) integrating both. hard and soft knowledge about (Berkhout et al. 2006)

Figure 8 The illustration of open innovation model Source:

Brant & Lohse 2014

104 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

In the cultural and creative sectors, the open innovation model is

employed by empirical studies to analyze the framework and structures of networksinnovation andwithin collaborations, and across cultural that promote organizations learning and cultural production et al. 2012; Castro-m - aca Casares(Aoyama 2012; &Castro Izushi- 2003; Jaw al. 2013). For example,artı́nez Aoyama & Fernández and Izushib (2003) pointed outMartı́nez that the et a emergence of successful video game industry in Japan was the consequence of the combination of creative resources originating in popular cartoons and animationindustry. Castro sector- and technological knowledge- from the ( consumer2012) electronicsd and analyzed martı́nez and Fernández baca Casares describe the knowledge bases and interactive collaboration involvedarriving into the innovationconclusion processthat knowledge of a Spanish-sharing heritage through restoration the interaction institution o the sector was , fthe professionals technological in a necessaryCastro condition- of innovati(2013)ons in stressed both the interaction and symbolic dimensions. Martı́nez et al. between creativity and scientific knowledge in the cultural industries throughtion the analysis the of interactivemusic industry collaboration, and t heyand reachlearninged processthe conclusion in the innova that the systeminteractions of among cultural heritage entities, universities and other knowledge production organizations should play an institutional role in improving innovation processes in the cultural industries.

These examples emphasize the importance of interaction and collaboration in cultural production and innovation bythe culturalICTs as organizations.an important Most of the studies view the integration of art and the characteristicexternal knowledge of innovation that cultural process organization in cultural s organizations. seek is mostly As ascience result, and technology-

based knowledge; and the mode of interaction mostly goes to the combination of creativity and scientific and technological knowledge. But the nature of cultural production also prompts researchers to take the importa nce of symbolic knowledge in the process of open innovation into consideration.

105 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

4.1.2 Knowledge forms, learning process and innovation modes in the open innovation model

Many scholars state that different forms of knowledge are associated to the difference in the modes of learning and innovation (Asheim & Coenen 2005; Jensen et al. 2007). Knowledge can be identified as different forms in terms of differingknowledgeperspectives, such as explicit and implicit knowledge, codified and tacit (Polanyi , 1967;analytical Jensen and et synthetic al. 2007) knowledge, global and local knowledge (Jensen2005), and et al. 2007) (Asheim & Coenen so on. Such dichotomy doesn't mean that different forms of knowledge are in opposition and instead, they are complementary(Howells because 2002) tacit. knowledge is a prerequisite for interpreting explicit knowledge Inthe many same cases,time. knowledge may embrace both implicit and explicit elements at are mutually dependent. For exampleIn, most addition, analytical different knowledge forms ofis knowledge on codified and explicit because it is based , scientific knowledge resulting from deductive processes and formal models on whilst most of the synthetic knowledge is tacit andnteractive implicit learning because with it rests clients theand applicationsuppliers of existing knowledge through i knowledge more(Asheim explicit so & as Coenen to enhance 2005) . Furthermore, codification makes large the ability ,to whilst share tacit it with knowledge society atis , thus becoming more or less globally accessible oftenthrough rooted practical in localwor experience and implicit significance is only acquired 2007). ks and interactive collaboration at local level (Jensen et al. From a knowledge- learning process (Lichtenthalerbased 2013) view, innovation canth be understood as a and (Harkema, involving 2003). Onboth the onee transfe hand,r of knowledgeD and new productthe creationdevelopment of knowledge are rational plans, and organizational learningR& is a predict in the learning takes place

able and controllable process where most of before the execution phrase of new product. On developmentthe other hand, (Brown & Eisenhardt innovation1995; Gieskes processes & van themselves der Heijden are, 2004) essentially, incremental learningR&D and processes product

106 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

becausethe knowledge they have throughout a primary the role organization in generating that new knowledge knowledge deve andlopment distributing and accumulation is synonym with learning

. (Carlsson et al. 1976; Nelson & Winter 1982; Gieskes“From whom& van derto learn Heijden” and 2004) “how to learn” the are two basic issues related to learning process. With respect to the first issue, knowledge can be learnt by oneself or from others. Concerning the former, R&D laboratories of large industrialarte firms have been righta up major until sourcetoday of developing knowledge about facts and techniques ten a (Jensen et al. 2007). In monitoring, respect of mothe latter, knowledge is of . Accordingcquired fromto Martin external and sources Moodysson by (2011), knowledgebility and is sourced collaboration in t • Monitoring he following manners: side the organizational

, searching for knowledge out boundariessources, including of the primary firm without source direct(e.g. competitors, interaction suppliers, with these and external users, etc. .

• Mobility) and ,secondary retrieving sources knowledge (e.g. scientificinputs through journals) the recruit or ment of key • Collaborationemployees from, externalgathering ganizations,knowledge likethrou universitygh the and firms. . exchange betweens or actorsorganizations. by direct interaction These actors can be individual Regarding how to learn, the existing literatur to e identifies three approaches learning process, including learning by doing, by using, and by interacting. They• areLearning described by as doing follows., also known as “on-the- -training”, is regarded as job (Lucas 1988). important as schooling in the formation of human capital dge is Learning by doing emphasizes that the acquisition of knowle associated(Arrow 1962) with the accumulation of production experience by ces a firm the incentives to . innovateIt implies the importance of experience-product that influenproduction . Knowledge is the by of experience;and production a firm process mayes gather information about product performance during manufacture; and this, in turn, helps the firm to improve the quality and production process of the next generation 107 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

• ofLearning products. by using, as a term, goes , who argued that “ back to Rosenberg (1982) the performance characteristicsr prolonged of a durableexperience capital with good it” often(p.122), cannot which bestresses understood that knowledge until afte and experience are involved in the ion processes

utilization by the final user rather than product . A firm their can learn from the feedback providedto innovate by final with users regarding experience,meeting user which needs. helps the firm the purpose of better • Learning by interacting

and users in the innovationfocuses process on the (Lundvall interaction 1988) between producers -way rather than unidirectional. . Lundvall The process (1988) of learningassumed shouldthat innovation be two was and users; producers had strongreliant incent onives knowledge to monitor from what both was producers going on in user units to user needs and their

receptiveness to adoptacquiringing new information products; meanwhile about users also needed detaile new and in-use value

d knowledge from producers given that characteristics relate to their specific needs. es

Linking to knowledgees (2007) forms and learning process described above, modeJensen is and the his Science, colleagu Technology andidentified Innovationtwo (STI)modes mode of innovation., which is The firstn based o theThe formal other processesis the Doing, of R&D Using in order and toInteracting produce explicit (DUI) andmode, codified which knowledge. relies on experience- competencebased- learning from informal interaction so as to strengthenes, and innovation modesbuilding. are connected Therefore, under knowledge the open forms, innovation learning model. process As discussed above, open innovation model integrates internal and external We assume sources that ofinternal ideas, technology, and market paths of innovation processes. sources in the open innovation model mostly create global,es, thus codified, relating explicit to the andSTI analytical knowledge through internal R&D processthe open innovation model mode of innovation; meanwhile external sources of concentrate on local, tacit, implicit and synthetic knowledge sourced by

108 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

es,

monitoring, mobility and collaboration through informal learning process includingto the learning byinnovation doing, by ( using, and). by interacting; and hence, it is related DUI mode of see table 6 Table 6 Knowledge forms, learning process and innovation modes in open innovation Open Knowledge From whom to Innovation How to learn innovation forms learn mode Internal STI mode sources explicit, process analytical.Global, codified, By itself Formal R&D External Local, tacit, Monitoring, DUI mode sources implicit, synthetic interactingBy doing, by mobility, using, by collaboration

Source: elaborated by author

It is worth noting that this ass an ideal model

umption is based on for facilitating(2003a) our understanding in terms of the principles that Chesbrough(Marques 2014) raised to distinguish open innovationween open from and closed closed innovation innovation . In reality, the relationship bet , further between external and internal sources of knowledge in the open innovation model, is more like a continuum. For example, internal R&Dom social activities interaction belong to thecreate scope opportunities of closed innovation, to exchange but thoughts, R&D also ideas benefits and opinionsfr (Marques 2014). It is the same with arts and humanities research. Although arts and humanities researchers have long “lone scholars”, currently they keep

been work perceiveding as abreast of the times by increasingly in collaborativei et teams al. 2008) inside. and outside academia to solve complex societal problems (Bakhsh 4.1.3 Interaction, institution and innovation system

Innovation, to a large that, nowadays, manyextent, innovative is an interactiveactivities are process involved in accordance in interactions with theamong fact innovation agents in - and inter- . First, in an

both intra firm collaborations economy characterized by vertical division of labor and placeby ubiquitous in unites innovativeseparated activities, a substantial part of innovative activities take 109 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

from the users of innovation ilst a successful(Lundvall innovation 1988; must Freeman be based et onal. 1982:knowledge 124) about the needs of potential users r and “ . Second,” the cost ofs than R&D to is develop enormous, it internally and it is oftenand, on cheape the other hand,better man to buy R&D outcome y firms patent their Intellectual Property and profit from others using thatarrangements technology through licensing. Third, agreements, inter- joint ventures and otherhelp share the cost(Chesbroughs and reward 2003b)s firm collaborationss decrease can the uncertainty surrouding of innovative activities, and. thu from innovation (Burethsed to etopen al. 1997) innovation evidence the opinionSuch that marked changes from clo ny single nowadays (Chesthe scope of innovation, which, is beyondin turn, theconsolidate boundarys of a firm brough 2003a) the importanceodes of interaction in promoting user- producerinnovation. interaction The existing mode literature identifies twoLundvall m of(1988) interaction. The the , first proposed bycess es as a micro- in the discoursea about interactive aspect of innovation pro foundation of national system of innovation, stresses the interaction between producers andin- potential users of innovation so as to transmit information about the the innovation. use value He of thearguednew characteristics cessof a productand product to the finalinnovations users were of reliant on user- that both pro within user producer interaction if they were unitsdemand or- pull at user innovations level. Producers need informationtheir willingness about potential and capacity users forto accept these innovations, whilstand for users monitoring require direct cooperation with producers to receive the necessary services during the pre-, in- -sales phases, as

“trustworthiness” so as to reduce, and afteruncertainty owing to well as for establishing -way interaction constitutes asymmetric information) soon products. This two on w Arrow'sknowledge (1974 can to takecalled place channel and andlearning code of informati here a flow of by interacting can increase the effectivenessThe supplierof the process-producer of innovation. interaction mode (1996; 1997) cross- , which dates back to Dyer's country comparisons of industrial development and competitionnetwork relations patterns underlying in the United supplier States-producer and Japan,interaction focusess that on may the peculiarlead to

110 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

technologicalstructures advantage and influence the co evolution of innovation and market (Malerba & Orsenigo 2009). The supplierssuch as universities in the interaction and research can be componentinstitutions). producers According and to R&D Dyer institutions (1997) ( -producer , an effective supplier interaction can simultaneously achieve the twin benefits of higher productivethe efficiencysame suppliers, and lower (2) high transaction cost through (1) repeated transactions with volume of exchange between transactors, (3) extensive- information sharing- reducing asymmetric information, (4) the use of non contractual,investments selfin coenforcing-specialized safeguards assets. forUnder an indefinite the supplier time-producer horizon, andperspective, (5) joint -

particular emphases have been given on such inter firm transaction arrangement in both upstream and downstream industries and the vital role of innovation the integration that of production, education the Silicon and research Valley model in the national system of. has been proven by a variety creation(Chesbrough proc 2003a) Interaction furthers ess by creating opportunitiess and formodeinformations sharing between innovation agents. Effective channel prevent ofthe information o benefit the smooth transmission of information and. pportunistic behavior resulting from-producerasymmetric and user information-producer interactionsTherefore, a is prerequisite to set up certain for successfulinstitutions supplier that s and modes Lundvall (1988) andguarantee effective channel argued that purelyof information hierarchical. Both relationships – Chesbrough (2003a) e.g. unequal cooperationnce, or in viewcontact of financialconstraints power – were and scientific and and, instead, technological trustworthi competeness was necessary to inefficient overcomemutual trust the will uncertainty lead to extra and setupopportunistic cost behaviors time involved. an But establishing and hence, user-producer interaction and supplier-producerin terms interactionof d finance roles in rapid and radical technological changes and in theplay long more-term efficient time horizon (Dyer 1997). lating to innovation aren’t limited to trust at

organizationalBut institutions level. Innovation re system literature points out that such interacti ns at

macroscopicons and are systemic shaped and influenced by a wide’s industrial range of competition institutio and level. In a study of Japan 111 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

, Freeman

(1987)economic performance ’ durings economic the 1970ssurge in and the 1980s post- for example, attributed Japan war period to a set of successfuleducation, institutionsindustry structures, ranging from tax systemsindustrial and policy wage and incentives science , policywhich to greatly basic ured the inter- favo firm cooperation in research clubs, the integration of research, design and production in cooperative (Dore relations 1988) . betweenNelson (1993) the divisions also pointed within out a firm,that nationwide or the firms institutions within a keiretsu determined governments within the interaction of firms, universities and 15 prominenta national and largeinnovation market system-oriented with industriala number ofcountries case studies and basedregions on. Even in the cultural sector, Vicente et al. (2012) , in a cross-country that dfound comparisond the of innovation in European museums, ifferenttheir cultural incentives policies to influence . In short,innovation the innovation output of system museums viewpoint by altering argue s that interaction collaborateconstitutes an exclusive environment where innovation takes place, success system are reliant on ful continuouss of innovationknowledge production, knowledgethe existence use and of aninnovation environment whilst of institutions willu shape the interactionons will of actors within the system innovative of innovation activities by(Edquist which 1997)favo rable. instituti benefit the existence of

4.2 CULTURAL PRODUCTION AND INNOVATION IN MUSEUMS

As (2009) pointed out, produ

Sundbo ct innovationseral characteristics vary from are sector more to or sector less but innovation processes and their gen similar accross sectors. Therefore, it is possible for researchers to describe and analyze the process of innovation in museum organizations on the basis of the open innovation model by focusing on the settings of knowledge form, learning process, interactive networks and innovation modes embedded in the course of culturalWe production concentrate by museums. on cultural production in museum organizations as the tion unit of analysis in guiding the process of innovation. The process of produc

112 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

and the proc dependent (Lundvall 1988). Production

ess of innovation are closely es developed through prior isinnovation. a repetitive On process the one on hand, the base of certain routin innovations usually take place in the process of production;that restructur on the other hand, innovation is the single most important factor es the system of production (i.e. process(Lundvall innovation) 1988) and. This reforms also the outputs of production (i.e. product innovation) signifies that our study will mostly focus on technological and cultural innovation rather than organizational innovation.ction inputs Different and domains of production, in essence,learning requireand interaction, different thusprodu corresponding involve different approaches to to different modes of innovation. Our effort is therefore to match innovation types with productionlearning domains process thatand differentiallyinteraction embrace the combinations of knowledge base, the comple types. In order to enable this matching, weproduct begin inputs by analyzing and value creationxity mode of cuturalwith emphasis production on withthe reference to analytical/synthetic four dimensions of knowledge, symbolic knowledge, production and experience in museum the dimensions context; we then identify four domains of cultural productionwe select inand terms des of of product activitiesinputs and as value illustrative creation samples.; finally, cribe four concrete functional 4.2.1 Complexity of cutural production by museum organizations

The cultural production process is more complex in museum organizations when compared to the ctor, or even to other cultural organizations.

This manufacturing se s and value creation modes.complexity is embodied in both production input

ur Asand far knowledge as production- intensive input organizations is concerned, scholars regard museums as labo u (Friedman 1994; Järvenpää & Mäki 2002). We think that labo r and knowledge are two sides of the same coin. Labor is the purveyor of knowledge;urers. From knowledge a resource embodies- the capacity for’s learning and production of labo based view, museum production relies on a larger amount of labor accompanied by other production

113 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

essentials such as money and technology. From knowledge-

production (Grant 1996)based, wherein view, knowledge is the major input in museum the knowledge stock in symbolicmuseum organizations knowledge constitutes whilst analy a largetical and proportion synthetic of knowledge represents a smaller proportion is still ltural production as well, as has

in but 6. necessary for cu been evidenced figure The innovation process differs greatly among various industries and sectors whose innovation activities are based on specific knowledge bases (Asheimsynthetic &knowledge Gertler 2005) . On the basis of the, Asheim classification et al. ( of2007) analytical expanded and (Asheim the & Coenen 2005) “the this dichotomy by adding symbolic knowledge base, equivalent to creation of meaning and desire, as well as in the aesthetic attributes of products, producing designs, images,” and symbols, and in the. economic use of such forms of culturalknowledge artifacts -intensive(Asheim organiza & Hansentions, 2009) whoseTo cultu be precise,ral meaning museums does not are symboliconly originate from certain historical, artistic or scientific value that the original objectsthat how of museum collection contain, but is also created by the interpretation museum staff define specific meaning to an object as well as by the translationduring the interactionfrom defined meaning of objects to understood meaningand with by guide audiences and educators in the museumof visitors with exhibits themselves, “ knowledge is (Kéfi & Pallud 2011). This ist and because is usually symbolic highly context- characterized” by a distinctive tacit componen specific (Asheim & Hansen 2009). As a result, the creation and diffusion-toof symbolic knowledge is reliant on informal and interpersonal (face face) interaction in the professional community. Analytical and synthetic knowledge is different from symbolicle knowledge 7 shows, on account of their scientific and engineering attributesains the. Asnatural tab world, and analytical knowledge is scientific knowledge universities that expl and research teams that comes from theoretical studies of ; therefore,-related itknowledge is highly that codified applies and to, universal. Synthetic with knowledgeexisting knowledge is engineering in new ways, or combines -solving through whichinteractive often learning results with from supplier applied studiesand customers; aimed at and problem hence, it is partially

114 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

ly tacit. In the museum context, analytical and synth

codified and strong etic bases of knowledge stock are relatively scarce. Analytical knowledge is demanded. For mainlyexample, b ymany those natural specific science museums museums relating require to that science and technology a Synthetic knowledge is intensivetheir in the staff restoration should have and biologyconservation background. department s require museums to seek andof museums.apply existing Heritage knowledge restoration and techn and iques conservation in new so as to recovery and maintain the

ways whenever possible enable the ance of originalpieces owing status to of inadequate heritage as storage well as or to reduce the risk of damage to heritages, it is exhibition. In many circumstance rks necessary to incorporate symbolic knowledge in the restoration of artwo whenconsidered symbolic (De- Miguel meaning-molina and et cultural al. 2013) value. that artworks contain should be

Table 7 The comparison of three bases of knowledge

Analytical knowledge Synthetic knowledge Symbolic knowledge (Science Based) (Engineering Based) (Arts Based) Developing new knowledge Creating meaning, desire, existing knowledge in newApplying ways; or know combining how knowabout whynatural systems by images;aesthetic know qualities, who affect, applying scientific laws; intangibles, symbols, nowledge, Creative process models, deductive inductive, custom Scientific k productionProblem solving, Interactive learning with customers and suppliers Collaboration within and Learning by doing, in between research units studio, project teams knowledge, strong tacit interpretation, creativity, universalStrong codified knowledge component,Partially codified more context culturalImportance knowledge, of sign content, highly abstract, values, implies strong

specific Meaning relatively constant Meaning varies context specificity

places genderMeaning highly variable between places substantially between between place, class, and Drug development Mechanical engineering Cultural production, design,

Source: brand

Asheim & Hansen 2009

115 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

the

The scarcity of analytical and synthetic knowledge doesn't imply rejectiontoday’s museums of science incorporate and technology technology, by museum particularly organizations. ICTs, to aOn large the extentcontrary,, in their day- -day works (vom Lehn 2005; Ioannidis, Toli, et al. 2014; Karp 2004;

De-Miguelby-Molina, De-Miguel-Molina, et al. 2014). s also creates more opportunities The exploitation of ICT technological advances for museums to innovate by taking advantagethe of (Bakhshi & Throsby 2010; Costage Barbosa 2013). But limited analytical and synthetic bases of knowled employed by museums revealsmuseums that and such, instead, technologies they are are mostly seldom imported developed throughother internal industries R&D and by sectors through external sourcing, which requires museumsfrom to participate in

interactive networks and collaboration with their suppliers. Furthermore, many Garridostudies focus2008; on Camarero technologic et al innovation as the unit of their studies (Camarero & 2015) concern has al. 2011; Camarero the extent & Garrido to which 2012; museums Camarero innovate et al. , but little ICTs. Thebeen report given toHow Arts and Cultural Organizations in Englandby the utilization Use Technology of disclosed that museums were less engaged(Digital with R&Ddigital Fund technologies for the Artscompared 2013) to other art and cultural organizations. This suggests that technological innovation in museums

by the useProposition of external 1 technology: the more might a museum be overestimated., or a department in a museum, utilize knowledge inputs, the more tacit, implicit and local

s symbolicow they involve, the more extensively their employees knowledgeengage in close fl and intensive interaction with other actors. The more a museum, or a department in a museum, use analytical knowledge inputs,

themore more extensively codified, explicit and global knowledge flows they embrace, the their employees focus on internal R&D activities or collaborate with universities or research institutions. value creation process is concerned, museums are

As far as the – on the one hand, a museum is a productive unitcharacterized by dual properties (Johnson & Thomas 1998) that produces manufactured products- by which consumers can construct distinctive forms of individuality, self affirmation and

116 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

social display (Scott 2004); on the other hand, a museum

institution that supplies experience consumptionis a public concentrating experience (Sundbo 2009) (Scott 2004). on entertainment, edification and information into outputs.As productive Museum units, production museums relies produce on a bywidemeans ran of transforming inputs human capital (e.g. general, speciliazed, auxiliary andge voluntar of inputs, including capit y staff etc.), discourse),financing andal (e.g.technology funding as and well revenues as the etc.), knowledge (e.g. museolgical p a necessary infraestructure for Hereroduction we (e.g. building, equipment, install tion and collection objectsa museum etc.).’s delimit outputs of production to tangiblery outcomes ofs, educational functionalprogrames, activities,catalogues, suchscien as digitized, and image so on., Each exhibition has its own in-use tific“communication articles ” as cultural products ( Learyvalue; 2002 but their). first value is Bilton & Thus it can be seen that“communica productiontion is value the crucial” in cultural phrase products of the creationand services. of both functional value and As experience institutions, museums outputs, i.e. experience. According to (supply2009) , the public with intangible and immaterial service sold on the marketSundbo, or producedexperience and pro is an intangible - vided freely by the public sector. Experience is co produced thus by consumers, through theirits “involvementephemeral” innature the process and “ ofco - consumptionterminality” and it is characterized by (Hauknes 1998). The experience takes placeof productionin the mind and consumption; , it is mental consumption. In the museum context, experience(Sundbo is mostly 2009) 1 therefore such as visiting s embodiededucational byevents,intangible museum servicesshops exhibition ,d on joining site. 2 and catering services, both online an For example, an exhibiton is a cultural product , but visiting the exhibition is an

Experiencedomination, can consumption be seen as sites a particular and technology form of densityservice. Although scholars distinguish 2009)experience from service by emphasizing its peculiarities in terms of supply – (Pine & Gilmore 1999; Sundbo , we tend to focus on the common characteristics of experience and service and view them as two sides of the one thing service is discussed from the side of 2 producers, and experience from the side of consumers. ’s production

Exhibition is a cultural product on accounts of the fact that (1) exhibition 117 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

“mental

experience”, reaping consumption new knowledge because theor simple process spiritual of visiting pleasure. usually is a journey is the individual level, Therefore,depending theon utilitywhether of his experience or her needs often were evaluatedmet or not. at This requires suppliers , i.e. museums, to of experience, such as a offer different services to different types of visitor the peacefulition environment’ to appreciate exhibits, int extra information to understand , orexhib easy accesss background, to opportunities fors, eraction to make visiting enjoyable experience is a exhibition sourvenir and so on. In sum, the , utilitywhich ofis linked to value-addingfunction of the quality (not quantity) of experience targe services that the public service department can offer by tingProduction different socialand groups.ex productio perience reflectare different components of cultural n; they are not of conflict but two sides of thes museum. Productionies are and experience can be seen as two functions of museum , whose boundar more or less embodied by differenton, research functional and activities education in a the museum organization.activities relating Conservation, to production exhibiti, re functional whilst communication and public service are associated with experience. Production and experience haves more different or less implications for innovationtu asring, well. innovation If innovation in experience in production is, in icontrast, quite similar to that in manufac (2009), innovation processes in experiencedifferent ins some aspects. According to Sundbo are mostly basedomer on - quick ideas and - employee and customer orinvolvement curator-oriented and based new on product cust developmorientedent. problem The increasingsolving rather importance than R&D experiences A marketof also may influence the process of innovation in production.nventional curator- orientationoriented produ strategyction to encourages visitor-oriented museums production to transform co , thus stre - (Camarero & Garrido 2012) innovationngthening in cultural the production. vital role of user producer interaction in fostering Proposition 2: In museum organizations, the

the restoration, conserv production function is embeddededucation domains; in the ation, research, exhibition andthe

experience function is embeddedlasting. in

is separated from its consumption, and (2) exhibition is tangible and 118 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

communication and public service domains. 4.2.2 Matching production domains with innovation types

the

On the basis of above– i.e. discussion,(1) analytical/synthetic we can deconstruct knowledge cultural-driven production production, into four(2) analytical/synthetic major domains knowledge- - driven experience,-driven (3)experience symbolic – knowedge drivenkowledge production, and (4) symbolicand knowledge value creation. in terms of contains input of production modesies in ofmuseums Each domains further different functional activit respectively, as exhibited in table 8. But it doesn't mean that these functional activities grouped inthe the pattern same domain are totally homogeneous in the utilization of knowledge and of value creation. On thee spectrumcontrary, they are scattered in the domain according to where they fall along th of the two dimensions, illustrated in figure 9.

Figure 9 Four domains of cultural production in terms of knowledge bases and value creation

119 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

Furthermore, knowledge base is the theoretical basis and starting point to classifying the type of museum innovation in our study, technological innovation isinnovati defined in terms of anaytical and synthetic olic knowledge knowledge bases and cultural on is defined th e in accordance to symb . Therefore, It is withreasonable their to match four production domains– i.e. technologicalthat we have innovationidentified above takes place in correspondinganalytical/synthetic types ofknowledge innovation- domains, whilst cultural innovat based production and experience ion in symbolic knowledge is based on the production and experience domains, as shown in table 8. Table 8 Marching production domains with innovation types Value creation Production Experience Analytical/ Production- Experience- synthetic technological innovation innovation based based technological • Conservation • Intranet

• Restoration • • Preservation • • • SocialDigital media museum application & exhibition • Digital surrogate making • Digital device & experience Logistics & installation Production- Experience- Symbolic Online ticket & shopping innovation innovation

Knowledge base Knowledge • based cultural • Front deskbased service cultural • • Guided visit • Research & investigation • Catering service • EducationalCurating & storytelling activities • Museum shopping • Publication-digital making •

Born Conference & concert

It is worth to stress

that our objective isthe not to match cultural production ondomains sp with innovation types, but to analyze innovation process by focusingelp ecific domains where different types of innovation take place with the h of such matching. To– r achieve this objective, we further select four concretes functional– activities estoration, exhibtion, digital museum, and visitor service as our unit of analysis.

120 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

4.2.3 Four functional activities in the museum organization

Restoration

Restoration, which ,

refers to museum the repair’ and reconstruction of precious objects hasin the been last a coreone hundredactivity in years a (Michalskis responsibility 2004). Restoration for the care is ofusually its artefacts in the a collection ma the museum. In large

charge of -timenagement restorers department dedicating or tounit restor of ation work; in small museums,and medium there-size are museums full and restorer that one or twothere people are just share; different in roles of registrar, conservatora conservation department or team, restoration i museums that don't have independent specialists or, in some countries suchs also as Spain available and byItaly, contract of by state sponsored conservation facilities. 1 Restoration involves actionsrder thatto return are taken it to to a modifynew or theoriginal existing condition material . andSuch structure material andof an structure object in include o “ de-coloration, color, form, signs of aging and 2 content of salts” and , which contaminations, cover a wide biodegraders, ra damage and deformation, and signs of usageog nge of analytical knowledge, such as applicatiphysics, biol y and chemistry. The process of restoration laser also technology relies on and the high poweron of microscope synthetic knowles. In short,dge base restoration such as wouldis an anybe altical and synthetic knowledge-intensive activity. A restoration process aims to revert an

condition with minimal intervention, which requiresobject, in toessence a known, to develop earlier De-

optionsMiguel-mo forlina improvement et al. (2013) by employingd innovation new knowledge in restoration and resources. as “ innovation” define beautifula new , which is embodied in three aspects: (1) the development of

1intermediate product that facilitates or enhances examination, analysis, and conservation- Seerestoration the Help-preservation Sheet about- restoration- defined by the government of South Australia, available at http://community.history.sa.gov.au/files/documents/ 2 definitions pdf.pdf - -icom- Detailedcc/what -is information-conservation/conservation of conservation :- andwho, restoration-what-amp; is- available at Committee for Conservation of the ICOM, available at http://www.icom cc.org/330/about why/#.WJg5LXeZNE5 121 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

restoration; (2) an increase in

restoration; and (3) an increase in thethe quality speed or of ac examination, analysis, and analy curacy of the examination, containssis, aesthetic and restoration or historic process.al value, Yet, thus the incorpo originalrat condition of objects often (De-Miguel-molina et al. 2013)ing symbolic knowledge in restorationthe process isof notrestoration to create new meaning or value, a . But the significance of used to provide restorers the nd symbolic knowledge is necessary background forion restoration.- Therefore, innovation.innovation in restoration is characterized by product based technological

Exhibition

the most r museums at the

Exhibitions are one of d societyemarkable in which culturalthey are products located of an service of the public an that includes planning, research/interpretation,. The making of exhibition is a complex process the ur design,involving production, and installation stages based on division of tion labo is usually reliantthe wholeon museum.ect- In large museums, the making of exhiepartmebi nts , suchproj as orientedthe a collaboration between different, directord and or professionalsager), specialist (e.g.dministrator curator, conservat (e.g. boardor, designer, member and educator, exhibitionetc.), techniacians man (e.g. photographer, lighting engineer, and sound engineer etc.), and cr

team etc.)aftpeople (Herreman (e.g. 2004) preperators,. In small electricians, and medium security-size museu guard,ms, and curators mounting may take a more comprehensive role administrative,

includingilities. different Additionally, degrees some of museums also academicengage and developmental responsib independent curators to produce a museum exhibitions for their storytelling institutions. 2001) Thealthough fundamental technologies nature andof techniques exhibitionalso play isimportant roles(Bedford in the i ition, an

production and “installation of exhib tions. In view of its nature andcts defin and their exhibtioncomplementary is aelements, communication presented medium in a predeterminated based on obje space, that uses special intepretation techniques and learning sequences that aim at transmission ” (Herreman 2004).

Thand communication of concepts, values and/or knolwdge is emphasizes the cultural properity of exhibitions. New exhibition 122 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

developmentcommunic refers to new concepts, values and/or knowledge transmitted and approacheateds rather on the than basis theof adop new projects exhibited in terms. The of new introdu storytelling new technologies in an existing tion of new technologies ctionence, of exhibition mayi improve the visitor experi butcreate it doesn'tmeaning alter and thevalue. nature For ofthis the reason, exhib tioninnovation because technologiesi cannot delimited as a productionin exhib tion can be based cultural innovation, which is mainly embodied in the generation, development, curators and are application of storytelling in the makingtate of the exhibition, in which the key person to undertake or facili innovation in exhibitions. Digital museum

The digital museum is an works made

emerging ICTs domain of museographical possible by the advancement of andtechnologies the popularization can help ofm computersuseums provide in the last twenty years. Because digital accessibilitydemographic to(Ch’otherwiseng et al. 2013) inaccessible, the digital museum museum collection practice acrosshas played a wide an increasing role in delivering cultural services in museum organizations. In the narrow sense, digital museum

refers to the digital footprint of a physical museum, an example is the website of a museum; in the broad sense, it meansritage theand digitalizationdigital techniques of museums, with which stresses the integration of digital he enhance the visitor experiencefunctional, activities to facilitate communication and 1 museums like the Tate museum for instance.-time In somedigital largespecialists and pioneeringand even a , there are full digitalspecialized department digital insolut chargeions ofand th eservices overall digital in the strategy museum for; inth esome development small and of medium museums, they tend to outsource all digital works to external IT providers. Digital museu cultural heritage and digital media (Parry 2007) m is at the intersection of

and hence, it is characterized by scientific and technological 1 See Tate Digital Strategy 2013–15: Digital as a Dimension of Everything, -papers/19/tate-digital-strategy- 2013-15-digital-as-a-dimension- -everything available at http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate of 123 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

the cultural domain (UNESCO 2003). Innovation in digital

featuresmuseu beyond m practice is mainly encapsulated by the development ands utilization of construction),digital objects digital (e.g. exp digitalizederience (e.g. objects), 3D and VR digital in display), network and digital(e.g. websitedevices

(e.g. information station and QR in visitor service) with the aim of narrowing the distanceintellectually, between as well museums as enrichin and theirg the actual visiting and experience. potential visitors, T physically and regarded as an experience- herefore, it can be based technological innovation. Visitor services

Visitor services

visit to museumrefer goers to thein theprovision physical, of anintellec informative,tual and pleasant social senseand comfortable (Woollard 2004). In its the

broadest sense, any part of a museum,s to visitor where servicestaffs, including can meet, notpubl limitedic face toto ,face on a regular basis, belongd visits, the catering service, museumbut shop, front desk service, guide s and concerts. andVisitor other service specials eventsplace such as conference experience. Good visitor experiencequality allows and accessibilityvisitors to at the center tionsof every and events without enjoy the exhibiWell-designed becoming visitorsfrustrated, to have easy uncomfortable access to orthe fatigued.museum ’ accessibilityphysical and allowssocial and cultural levels. In order to improve s quality facilities and at rvices, museums have to investigate actual and potential visitors,accessibility understand of visitor their se services that are adapted to needs, and provide differente differentVisitor visitor service groups.s involve a large amount of daily interactionnowledge between- museumintensive stafdomainf and invisitors; any museum therefore, organization. they are viewed Many asmuseums a symbolic collect k relevant visitor structure and needs through direct questioning visitorsinformation during about the ir innovate in visitorof services interaction. On this basis, museums by the improving experience quality and by enhancing audience reach on the basis of local, tacit and symbolic knowledge acquired from visitors.

124 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

4.3 COMPARISON OF INNOVATION PROCESSES IN THE FOUR DOMAINS OF MUSEUM PRACTICES: A MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY

In this section, a detailed description and comparative analysis innovation

of restoration, processes in four domains of museum practice is conducted:a multiple-case sexhibition,tudy, which digital is regarded museum, as and visitor services, on-case the studybasis (ofYin 2009). more robust than single 4.3.1 Case, data and methodology

In multiple-case study design, the

a replicationselection logic rather of cases than is basedstatistical on theoreticalsampling interests(Kauremaa and et al. follows 2009). size, type and ownership,In and this geographic study, fiveal museumsproximity .were selected9 summaries in terms, all of As table e museums are locatedal in the cityon the center cases; of all Valencia, museums which are small can eliminateand medium th - impactsize, this of isgeographic factors l and medium in consistent with the fact that a majority of museums are smal scale. Meanwhile the cases are- classified into public and private impact.categories, which can facilitate the cross cases study in terms of ownership

Table 9 Summary of interviewed museums Museum Interview Case Type Ownership Staff Interviewee Length C1 Natural history Municipal 2 Director 40 min. C2 Ethnology Municipal 24 Director 120 min. C3 Contemporary Arts Private 2 Deputy director 40 min. C4 Specialized Private 10 Director 110 min. C5 Fine arts National/Regional 17 Director 70 min.

selectedData museums is collected and theirby three w sources: (1) direct observation by visiting directors; the and (3) archived records ebsites; (2) som interviewse interviewed with museum directors r interviews. All interviews weresupplied by afte conducted between July of 2015 and January of 2017, including four pilot interviews with a museum director, a conservator, a 125 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

qualitypilot intervie evaluationw specialist and seek aning independent curator respectively questions because sand are effective in information inquiry about relevant (Yin 2009). for a specificRelying field, on theoreticalabout the logisticsproposi tionsof the i field of analyzing case study evidence (Yins regarded 2009) as the first and preferred strategytheory-oriented; for the open innovation model guides. Therefore, our analysis is the analysis to focuss attentionin each case on, evidenceto the detriment about innovation process patterns in-matching four functional technique area is of other data. Then pattern ally utilized to compare empirically based innovation patterns with theoretic guidedstudy results patterns. (Yin This2009) technique. can greatly strengthen the internal validity of

4.3.2 Single case descriptions

Case 1: A small municipal science museum

C1 is a municipal science museum dedicated to conserving ing the

natural world. It has over 90000 pieces in its andcollection exhibit, ranging history of the s to animal and plant specimens. However, the museum only from dinosaur fossil a contac hasthere two staff, one of whom is multiplet roles worker as fromregistrar, a private conservator, company; and curatorfore, the director actually has . In orders to overcome thes in lack of manpower, the museum makes full use oflocal internship universitiesand collaboration almost all functional activities. Students are from the traineeswith academic backgrounds are in biologyimportant and in museology assisting museum main nsource restoration, of digitizing,for the guide museum,d visits, and staff i and other technical assignments. But therole collaboration in some technique with universities-intensive activities and public such heritage as restoration. facilities playsThe ma useumdecisive’s restoration work is exclusively reliant on support

universities. Upon the director’s requests, a temporaryfrom relevant restoration faculties team of local is and students assembled,restoration withwork. university The team professorswill provide several repair, and plans will andundertake corresp specificonding the

experimentuniversity’s results to the museum; the director, together withthe the head of team, has to make decisions about the selection of final solution, 126 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

techniques,The museumand materials is very of restoration. active in updating its pe organizing new temporary ones. There are, on averagermanent, exhibitionsten temporary and

exhibitions every year. These exhibitions have a broad, rangeand of themes, such as climateare planed change, an nature and art, and sustainable society so on, ownmost interests, of which d curated by the director herself on the basis of her learninginteraction and with research. other cultural But the institutions, making of especially the exhibitions in collection involves rental frequent and dditionally, the museum also hosts

exhibits on loan. A some exhibitions produced exclusively by external organizations. n Although the director emphasizes the importance of virtual museum isn’t muchas a innovativeapplicat means ICTs toin the bridge museum the collection except some and outdated the public, multimedia there machines ion of have an installed in the exhibition– hall. For example,p the museum doesn't independent website the actual web age (not website) is or hosted within the website of municipal government and only provides brief visit information; the digitized collection is not accessible to the public either. Conversely, the museum delivers“touch” particular an element high of- stimulationinteractive experiencee onsitet a real by sense encouraging experience visitors to, Olorama.xhibits to ge of thes, -to- developed by the company , Regular satisfaction survey and face evaluateface communication visitor needs with in order visitors to areimprove two majorservice ch quality.annels forThe the directo museum to talks to r often she has visitorsto s in person so as to canvas opinions among the visiting public. But ift throughes suggestions and decision and- recommendations because the quality of the information. vari making should be only based on useful information Case 2: A medium-size municipal ethnology museum

C2 is a municipal ethnology museum concentrating on collecting, restoring, resources, documentation, studying, and exhibiting audiovisual and othern objectsregion. reflecting popular and traditional society and culture in the Valenciaare conservators Thereworking is ain totalthe restoration of 24 members and ofinvestigation staff, nearly departments. half of which Although the two

127 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

departments have , they usually play complementary roles and

a different focus at collaborateconservation forwork conservation requires a high and exhibition.ialization Considering and each the conservator fact th level of spec s specializes in his/her field of collection, especially and knowledge, when the museum still suffer fromre an understaffing of restorers faced with a largedays amount of inaugurationstoration work and approaching deadlines, for example, only before the its of an exhibition. Therefore, the museum tends to alloutsource the necessary a part of work to other professional time. restoration companies so that work canThe be museum completed director in considers innovation the develop museum, and an important strategy for ment of the the development the of newmuseum formatss, for value transmissionamong others, for are its neighborhood and society.where to At innovate. Accordingexhibitions, to the director, innovating inan importants is format the exchange exhibitions and collectionembodied in content museums.innovation throughMeanwhile, technologyof is exhibitionr s of between segarded in the museum as an efficient is modest, means only forlimitedvalue emphasis transmission. is given But to the adoptioninteractive of experienceICT in their d an traditionalwebsite. For instance, the museum release a local technologyinteractive partners game about. herbal remedies with the help of In the museum, the cultural products and

visitor services is pursuedobjective through ofinnovation. higher quality In order in to conduct quality evaluations, the museum adopts two main approaches. The one is to

independent consultancy the introduction firstISO 9001:2008 collaborate withment an Systems to the museum. forAnother is to interact directly with Quality Manage s s and suggestionvisitors to tracksystem. their preference and needs by means of the formal claim

Case 3: A small contemporary art museum affiliated to a private foundation

C3 is a small-sized

undation in the city.contemporary The is composed art museum affiliated to thewho first are private in charge art fo staff of five members of direction, administration, exhibition,um communication, on contemporary and institutional arts, the relations, respectively. Because the muse is focused 128 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

restoration of contemporary arts- timeis not restorer;so complicated it hires as thatan externalof antiques. one The as museum doesn't have any full independentlongstanding restorercooperation temporarily started in when 2005 objects when needthis museum to be restore was inauguratedd. But their and hence, such employment relationship mutual

trust. has achieved a high degree of The museum aims to disseminate an

organizing collection- d promote its collection by nbased is mostly exhibitions done as aunder curator different’ themes. In the museum,a team curating an exhibitio s solo effort rather than effort. The sole curator, who is responsiblered his work for tothe mental planning mapping: and development of exhibitions “W in the museum, compa the d artists,

hen you read books and Internet, or visit exhibitions an youcan drawarrange what these you findideas interesting in your atown just likemanner a conceptual through map;such then mental you diagrams that you

; after making more of an effort, you might change all plannedthe original theoretically” and get new ideas which are totally different from (cited from the interview). year. InIn th addition,is case, t the museum also hosts one or two roving exhibitions every thehe role of the curator the is external more akin producer. to that of a coordinator of the installation of exhibitions with s as an innovative strategy to reach to a widerThe audiencemuseum, viewswith particularthe adoption emphasi of ICT the s on the role of digital online platform visitor (e.g. website and blog) and virtual exhibition in strengthening-oriented virtual engagement.ns aiming An ongoing to conserve digital projectand disseminat is the developmente physical exof 3D physically exhibitiosited in the museum hibitions, the museum team has outsourced, allwith IT the-driven help work of an to external external IT technology provider. In providers fact . Lastly, the museum also emphasizes the importance

service to its visitors. On the one hand, the museum has developedof interaction a so- incalled the “dynamic visits” (Visitas dinamizadas) approach to strengthening visitor

engagementthe museum byalso encouraging evaluates anddebate imp during the guided visits. On the other hand, roves the quality of visitor services in an

129 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

s and a suggestions

interactive manner by means of survey box. Case 4: A medium-sized private specialized museum

C4 is a private specialized museum displaying a toy tin

soldiers. Although the museum has private collection of contracts, the collector – who is a total of ten staff on different types of museum – plays a decisive role in alsothe the director, curator, and restorer of the museum’s is mostly reliant onmanagement revenue of the museum. Becauseand private sponsorshipfunding the collector’ from emphasizes ticket sales particularly operational from s family, innovative the museum collection preservation and marketing. In performancerespect to the throughpreservation, the ca toy tin soldiers owing to humility, temperature rbonatizationand wooden of the ambient structure of the buildingtechniquesis involving the main risk that the museum faces. As a marginal subject, those the restoration s of, sculpture tin soldiers and are other totally ordinary different heritage from in the restoration of painting experiences objects; and there are no prior s andto learncustom from.- In consequence, the museum had tolearning invent rel specificevant chemical solvent knowledge, andmade bathtubs forl and the restorationerror with byexperiments. In respect to marketing, it by their own tria was the first museum in- Valenciapromotion to andutilize to socialattract media a young (e.g.er Facebookgeneration and o Tweet) and. Due YouTube to his workingfor self experience at an IT company during the 1990s, fthe visitors director has an in-depth knowledge his museum. He not only constructs andof the maintains application the museumof digital’ technologies to nd social s digital networks actively (e.g. with website the a mediaFoundation platforms) to install by wireless himself in, but also liased Vodafone a Wi- Fi service within the museum. frastructure to offer visitors free access to an antique collection, the museum is also engagedIn in addition deve to exhibiting to social demands. An example is the loping new exhibitions respondingly -oriented s in traditionalongoing Silkmuseums, Road project. the Different fromin developm collectionent here is exhibition new exhibition new “package ” that is composed characterized by the design and production of a scenes under of new tin figures and new scenes with the purpose of reproducing 130 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

historical times, and regions. T differentcurating the civilizations, herefore, the core of , customnews, social exhibition outlook typically, and so on. consists In most ofcases, historical the director research works about as a fashiontypical “lone scholar” s, he immersedelists with in whom books. he On has occasion a longstandingalso relationship. asks for advice from professorsConcerning and visitor nov service, the collector visitor- thinks that he is familiar with oriented trends in the museum community and is confident to know what different groups of museum visitors need on the basis of his personal knowledge. Besides, the museum also attempts to collect feedback through online and onsite interaction between the museum and its visitors. Case 5: A medium-sized art museum under the joint management of the national and regional governments

C5 is a state- government. Suchowned “ art museum” system under com the plicates administration decision -making of regional and two in one box regards innovation as management of the museum greatly.rough The artistic museum collection, director which can improve the a transformation of knowledge th demotivation and mediationnegative attitudes between torwards museum collectionsthe and the public. But impediments to innovation in thebureaucratic museum. According system have to the become director, serious the are andobstacles “civil servantsbest exemplified are an by three aspects. First, all staff are” civil servants; interview); second, in theory,inconvenient (factor) to museumsworking (citedat the museum from the, there are a total of 17work, staff “ the museum is kept alive but some are hardht orat workten civil and someservants are slackwho instill work here” becauseinter of eig a clear mission and(cited workers from are the demotivated,view); third, “(thei ther) w museum doesn't have , they go there in a trance and ork is” always substandard the time seems to be eternal (cited from the interview).developing Asthe a digitalresult, agendathe museum, or in isinteracting less active with in producing visitors to new imp roveexhibitions, service inquality. On a more positive note, the museum has a rich and high-quality artworks, as museum . The collectionadvantage ofthat the museumbefits has is a itsfine strength art in restoration,of national with caliberan especial

131 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

on painting restoration. Even so, the demand some essential

analyticalfocus techniques utilized in restoration work stills placed requires by the museum to

collaborate with other research(IPCE). institutionsIn su like universities and Cultural Heritage Institute of Spain m, the museum director faces the big challengeenvironment of overcoming theinnovation. deficiencies in the system and to fostering an favourable to 4.3.3 Results of cross-case analysis

these es

On the basis of five cases, different patterns of innovation process can be describedtypologies ( and summarized in a matrix of categories in terms of innovations vary see table 10). This Innovations table reveals relating that innovationto process pattern fromproduction types ofare innovation. different domains of culturales, interaction modecompriseds and, thus ofcorrespodifferentnd knowledge basses, learning process In the analytical/synthetic knowledgeto different-driven innovation production modes. domain, taking restoration as an example, innovation relies kno and technologyon both-intensive internal activity and external with a highwledge. degree Restoration is a scientific specialists whoof specialization, are so restoration workt. Closed in the inn museumovation onlyalways takes requires place in museums that havehighly their qualified own restoration specialis department or museums that are directly employ restorerswho are have not limitea teamd toof restorers.closed innovation; But even they also engage through within learningexternal agents, by doing including and by universities interacting processes of collaborationCase C2 and C5 are two examples. This and public restoration facilities. restorersphenomenon cannot can cope be explained with all bythethe restoration following work;(1) staff and is(2) limited, knowledge existing is limited, the actual to deal with all restorationstock work. of In knowledge those museums in the that organization is insufficient restoration work and innovation in restorationdo still not haveexist sa, termwhich of restorers, literature -Miguel-molina et al. has2013) been. In ignoredthis case, by the previous (for example, De knowledge seemsopen innovationthe optimal throughoption. Th directlyese resources adopting may externalinclude independent sources of specialists, restoration companies, universities and public restoration facilities. 132 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

Generally speaking, closed innovation in r cumulative innovation -solvingestoration in the is context characterized regular by based on problem more ofradical in restorationutilizing work; whilstnew materials, open innovation techniques is more and likelyapproaches to be , and terms of the by taking advantageIn the of technical strength- ofdri externalven production institutions. domain, the planning and symbolic knowledge , interpretationopen and closed of exhibitionmodalitiess, concurrently for instance,. Generallyinnovation speaking, may take in place the museum in both community -produced

s , new exhibition development takes two forms: self-produced exhibition and imported exhibition. In most museums, self exhibitions are the main form of new exhibition development, which is that mostly the characterizedcreation and dissemby closedination innovation. Although relevant literatures on stresses interpersonal interaction of symbolic, knowledgeour cases dependshow that planning and (Asheim & Hansen 2009) interpretationthrough a of exhibition is a process a ofnd codifyingmuseum tacitcurators symbolic are akin knowledge to “lone scholars” (specific storytelling .approach This process usually involves arts and humanities research andBakhshi attaches et al. great 2008) importance to the utilization of the results may of also the researchcontains forthe visualnecessar presentation. Although the making of an exhibition galleries, and other collectiony collaborations institutions) with an d collectors services (e.g. (e.g. logistics, private insurance, collectors, and installation), they aren’ - occur in the production andt symbolic knowledge based activities and they often they are installation phrases of the exhibition, meaninglopment that is similaroutside to new the product scope develof this study. As a result, new exhibition deve processes (i.e. arts and humanitiesopment research) in manufacturing, whereby formal R&D in the laboratory (i.e. library) plays a fundamental role. Definitely, arts and humanities research’ doesn't equal and to scientificclosed process and , technological research because the former isn t an absolute“monitoring” throu but often involves external and knowledge other study source methodsd from dependant on gh interview, bibliometric studies the nature of the disciplinary in question (Bakhshi et al. 2008). In the finalthe analysis,curators’ the planning and interpretation of an exhibition is mostly based on sole effort, which may belong to Science Technology (Symbol) 133 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

Innovation mode, i.e. ST(C)I mode. On the other hand, an

imported exhibition mis an important source of open aninnovation existing because it allows museums to progra newor cultural exhibitions organizations, by plugging such as an it exhibition directly. from other museums Furthermo -producerinerant exhibition interaction and user-producer re, both supplier In most cases, supplier- interactionproducer innovation are observed takes in theplace process when of innovation.curators interact with university sts and other intellectuals to ask -producer

professors, arti for advices.ition User to meet the specialinnovation occurs when curators plantheir andclients. develop The anclients exhib are organizations,requirements and also or visitors needs ofin a often museumtion making is still primarily curator-orientedfew in cases. most Our museums cases show, although that the exhibi visitor (Camarero et al. 2015). This is also

orientation strategyHerreman is highlighted (2004) by scholars evidencedwere museum by directors rather than, who visitors. argued that the clients of an exhibition In the analytical/synthetic knowledge-driven experience domain with the a

example of digital museum, innovation is reliant on both internal and externalion in source of knowledge. The ICTs existing developed literature in the has other emphasized industries open innovat museums2013) by the use of (Costa Barbosa whether. This the is evidenced in the case study. Most of the museums, no matter technology suppliersy are equipped to investigate with IT staff newor digital not, tend to collaborate with external have IT engineers, monitoring (e.g. a contracted independentsolutions. For IT those engineers) that don't and the

collaborationmain channels (e.g. to gain collaborating access IT- withrelated IT knowledge.companies inFor a concretethose t project) are-time hat have full IT engineers or staff with IT knowledge, they tend to develop and, maintain basic digital museums (e.g. website and social media) by themselves to out of economicernal considerationIT suppliers to (C4 develop is an example);advanced butdigital they device still needs (e.g. Freecollaborate Wi- with ext and digital experience Fi infrastructure) means to acquire news (e.g. technologies 3D and VR), and rending update collaboration knowledge a verystock important through cting in the supplier-producer interaction.

learning by intera

134

Table 10 The matrix of innovation process patterns in terms of innovation type

Production-based Production-based Experience-based Experience-based technological innovation cultural innovation technological innovation cultural innovation

Domain Analytical/synthetic knowledge-driven -driven production Analytical/synthetic - production knowledge-driven driven experience Symbolic knowledge experience Symbolic knowledge

Example Restoration Digital museum Visitor services With restorers No restorers -produced Imported Exhibition (planning & interpretation) From whom to Self Monitoring learn (C2, C4, C5) (C1, C3) (C1, C2, C3, C4) (C1, C2, C3) (C4) (C1, C2, C3, C4) By oneself Mobility ByMonitoring oneself Collaboration By oneself (C2, C5) (C1) (C3, C4) (C1) (C2) Collaboration Collaboration Mobility Collaboration (C1, C2, C3, C4) Collaboration How to learn (C2, C4, C5) interacting (C1, C2, C3, C4) interaction (C1, C4) (C1, C2, C3, C4) R&D process Learning(C1, C3) by R&D process Learning(C1, C2, C3 by) Learning by doing Learning by using (C2, C4, C5) (C1, C2, C3, C4) (C1, C2, C3, C4) (C2) Learning by doing Learning by doing Learning by interacting Learning by interacting interacting Learning(C2, C5) by

Interaction mode Supplier-producer Supplier-producer Supplier-producer Supplier-producer Supplier-producer User-producer (C2, C4, C5) (C1, C3) (C1, C2, C3) (C1, C2, C3) (C1, C2, C3, C4) (C1, C2, C3, C4) User-producer Supplier-producer (C4) (C2)

Innovation mode STI, DUI DUI ST(C)I DUI STI, DUI DUI

CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

knowledge-

servicesIn as the an example, symbolic innovation dependsbased experience mainly on external domain, knowledge. taking visitor On the one hand, monitoring through interpersonal user-producer interaction (e.g. es) is the commonest channel to access

satisfaction survey and service process service quality in information from final users (i.e. visitors)ion towith improve independent consultants museums.through supplier On theother hand, collaborat innovation employedproducer interaction is an, alternative source of knowledge fors by some museums like C2. Because visitor service innovationprocesses reflects process innovation, the former may improve service by users allowing experience museums to acquire vis itor useful’s informationgiven during about deficienciesvisits in highlighted by feedback experience, i.e. learning innovation by using, theory which is also consistent with the proposition of museums to improve service process(Sundboes 2009); whilst the latter facilitates theby assessing the actual norms and routines in the services in terms of specific standard introduced from outside, i.e. learning by interacting. Do institutions matter to museum innovation?

Many studies emphasize that institutions are an important actors that museum innovation. Good institutions spur

influenceinstitutions discourage innovation and bad innovation. For example, different cultural policies have differentthe Anglo effects-American on museum cultural policyinnovation; model museums are more underlikely tothe innovate administration that those of under the continental model (Vicente et al. 2012). In the continental model, the government t

akes full responsibilities for the managementatic rules ofstrongly museums restrict and staffcreativity in public and innovation museums, in meaningmuseums that bureaucr . This proposition is (Frey & Steiner 2016) brought to light in, andour thecase civil study, serving in which system it can may be observedlead to demotivation that workers and in negative public museums attitudes to work, which in turn prevents ing according to case C ’t clear yet to

public museums from innovat 5. But it isn what extent demotivation, and negative work exist in the public was museums only highly in terms of this case study considering the fact that this problem 136 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

terview.

stressedFurthermore, by one of three according public museums to the cross in thein private museums engage more in active digitalcases museum study, innovation it is observed through that the that use of ICTs than public museums, which might be explained by the, meaning fact privatethat they museums are more face likely more to operating innovate pressuresin museum than marketing; the public on ones the contrary,

publicprivate museums museums, have the reasonmore innovative activities in the area of restoration than human and knowledge capitals,for this andmight thus be resultsthat public in moremuseums innovation have more in comparison to private museums. This s on museum innovation is complicated;implies the extent that to the which influence of institutiona certain institution control by innovation. has an effect varies from museum to museum, and/or the type of

4.4 CONCLUSION

The multiple cases study clearly shows that innovation in cultural production s

byknowledg museum organization relies on both internal and external sourcesthe open of innovatione, model. and thus In practice, museum museum innovations innovate can be explained by is self-dependentin three innovation ways in terms of knowledge sources. The first way e developedbased through on internal knowledge; for instance, new exhibitions ar and storytelling approaches)internal R&D within process the museum. (i.e. arts The and second humanities way is researchcollaborative innovation baseduniversities on externaland p knowledge; for example, museums collaborate restoring with artworks. The thirdubli wayc restoration is adoptive facilities innovation to seek directnew methodsly importing for external innovation; i by codes, in this categorytinerant. exhibitions and many IT techniques like QR belong Indeed, the open inno

vation model in emphasizes both open and closed innovationmuseum components, cultural innovation that feature and technologicaldifferent process innovationes of, may innovation. take place In both

137 CHAPTER 4 HOW DO MUSEUMS INNOVATE?

in closed , mostly depending on where innovation occurs. As

culturaland openinnovation formats is concerned, new cultural pro far as clo -dependent innovation and open-endedducts adoptive can be innovationdeveloped bywhilst both culturalsed self experience relies mostly on open- rative innovation. In respect to technological innovation, openended- collabo , the production and experienceended collaborative domains. innovation plays an active role in both - Besides,technological internal innovation R&D and is direct an importance adoption is sourcealso pervasive of production in experiencebased-

based technological innovation. The choicecosts ofrelating innovative to innovation. manner, weAs shown think, canin the be attributed to the differenceinnovation inis usually adopted in technology-related or abovedemand cases,-oriented open

innovation,lower through wherein the acquisition the cost in of external related market knowledges than and ge technology is much themselves; the closed manner nerated-solving by ormuseums highly specialized innovation, where thereis employedis a in problem nication andlack coordination of supply inin theinter market-institutional or the opportunity cost of commu tha collaborationAdditionally is higher, the casen that study of internalevidences generation that the civil by the servantmuseum system itself. used attitudes to work, whichin public have museums a may lead to demotivation and negative negative influence on museum innovation. But further research is neededThis to evaluate such impact on public museums as a whole. conclusion contains threean implications. open innovation First, system the rather process than of museum innovation is characterizeda by linearstudy in process. order to Therefore, attach importance systematic to approach should be employed in the both factors and their linkages. Second, collaboration, individuals matters and in institutionalthe open innovation organizations environment,, like universities collaboration with both , public heritage facilities and technology companies should be encouraged to facilitate innovation in the museum community.at Third, capacity building, the particularly cultural focusing on symbolic knowledge, is the core of strengthening innovation ability so as to enrich cultural goods and services, which is a fundamental task of museums and other cultural organizations. 138

CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION? EXPLORING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE DETERMINANT FACTORS OF INNOVATION FROM THE STUDY OF VALENCIAN MUSEUMS IN SPAIN

This chapter aims to explore the

an factors that influence innovation by museum organizations on the basis of empirical study of museumson “what in ”the and Valencian “how” Community of Spain. The focus of the study is organizationalcultural innovation characteristics and organizational and collaboration innovation affect in the technological museum sect innovation,or. Scholars have proposed that certain orga , such as size, ownership, and geographical location, were determinantnizational factorsin arts and cultural organizations, and museums (Vicente et al. 2012; Camarero et al. 2011; . T

Verbano et al. 2008) , orhese other propositions cultural organizations. are based on It empiricalis clear that analyses museum of either global museums cultural policies innovation(Vicente et differsal. 2012)from, so country some determina to country,nts and that depending work in oneon country do not necessarily have the same impact in another country, let alone

tion to this, chapter 4 has revealed a different type innovationof organization. has a Inwide addi spread pattern that collaborative museums, the multiple-casein the domains of cultural i production of to test on the basis of study. Therefore, t is of significance such influencing factors because they may provide a solid basis for museumThis strategies study concentrates and policies foron innovation.museums in th note Valencian only on Community geographical of Spain as the object of study, which is based 139 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

the innovation

convenience but also on geographical boundaries by taking systemcountry of to museums country; Spanishinto account. museums As mentioned are less innovative above, innovation than varies from, (Camarero thoseet al. 2011)in Britain. On thebut othermore hand,innovative the cultural than French decentralization and Italian ones recent cultural policies have museum systemsbrought by museumled tointeraction the regionalization in Spain. To of this end, museum innovationas well as the is alsolocalization a regional of phenomenon (Porter 1990, 1998; . As a result, it is appropriate to study the Breschi & Malerba 1997) regional location, as is theinfluencing case in this factors study. of museum innovation on the basic Although this study emphasizes innovati located exclusively in a region in Spain, on by museumthe organizations innovation under a common cultural policyin order, and to to probe give an determinantsinsight into the of innova s are not limited in their

tion practices the of local museums, and the, instead, finding it also applicability to region oth ofer Valencia regional territories as well. has significance for referenceThis for chapter museum is organizedin useums in the Valencia regionas follows: firstly, the it starts with the descriptionand the ofdescription m hypothesesof Spain as population of study population; secondly,of essential it continues with a detailedfollowing discussion the characterization on data collectionof and analytical methods, as well as sequential results

based on statisitical analyses; lastly, essential conclusion and further discussion are presented. 5.1 MUSEUMS IN THE VALENCIAN COMMUNITY OF SPAIN: POPULATION AND HYPOTHESIS

al heritage in the world and museumSpain is s wellare known for its splendid cultur the an important partulture of its and cultural Sports, heritage. Spain has According to Spanishmuseums Ministry and museograph of Education, C nearlya 14,000 total of people 1522 and received over 58 millionical visitors exhibitions, in 2014. which employ The Valencian Community (Communitat Valenciana), located along the

140 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

region, with

Mediterranean coast of eastern Spain, only is the fourth most Andalusia, populated Catalonia and near five million inhabitants, and overtaken by the three Madrid.Alicante, The Castell Valencian Community, which is composed of regionsprovinces in Spain of, with its capital sitedón, andin Valencia Valencia, – the is onethird of largest 19 Autonomous city in the country.

This region is rich in its museographical resources. Inn, termsCulture of and the relatedSports, there statistics are published by Spanish Ministry of Educatio a total of 191 museums and museographicalCastilla y Le exhibitions Castillalocated -La in Mancha the territory (193), of and Valencia, 2.5 t only behind theón (196)country; and a total imesValencian more thanmuse averageums and for museograp hical staff count of 1473 work in level;exhibitions, this region which also doubles welcomedin the 4,792,135 average visitors number in of 2014 employees, which atwas regional higher thancompar the average museum amount ’ of visitors received by other Spanish regions. The Valencianison Community by and thes number, national average personnel is and visitors between the depicted in figure 10.

Figure 10 The comparison of Valencian Community and Spain's average level in visitors, personnel, museums and museographical collections on the year of 2014

Source: Spanish Ministry of Culture. Museum and exhibition statistics.

141 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

5.1.1 Basic characteristics of museum organizations

To concentrate exclusiv the Valencia

Community, essential dataely was on the museum facilitates of mined from the records of directors of museumsgovernment and permanent(Generalitat museographical Valenciana). exhibitions supplied by the regional corresponding to permanent museo After eliminating the records museums registered in the Valenciangraphical Community exhibitions, was collected, the datawhich of also all constituted the

population is giventarget in population. of this study. A detailed description of the table 11 Table 11 Population description

Total Alicante Castellón Valencia Type Archeology 46 (38%) 23 (19%) 23 (45.1%) 7 (36.8%) 16 (31.4%) Arts 23 (19%) Ethnography & anthropology 13 (25.5%) 3 (15.8%) 7 (13.7%) technology 13 (10.7%) 7 (13.7%) 5 (26.3%) 11 (21.6%)

historyScience & 9 (7.4%) 4 (7.8%) 3 (15.8%) 6 (11.8%) Natural sciences & natural History 3 (2.5%) 2 (3.9%) 1 (5.3%) 6 (11.8%) House-museum 2 (1.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (5.9%) Specialized 2 (1.7%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) Ownership National 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%)

3 (2.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (5.9%) Municipal Regional & provincial 11 (9.1%) 1 (2%) 2 (10.5%) 8 (15.7%) Private 74 (61.2%) 36 (70.6%) 13 (68.4%) 25 (49%) University 4 8 (6.6%) 5 (9.8%) 0 (0%) 3 (5.9%) Association 5 (4.1%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) (7.8%) Foundation 7 (5.8%) 5 (9.8%) 1 (5.3%) 1 (2%) Ecclesiastical 7 (5.8%) 3 (5.9%) 2 (10.5%) 2 (3.9%) Consortium 5 (4.1%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 4 (7.8%) Geographical Maximum 1 (0.8%)93 0 (0%)72 0 (0%)89 1 (2%)93 distance (min. Minimum 0 0 0 0 Mean 31 39 33 24 town to provincialspent from Median 30 37 24 19 Mode 0 30 0 0 Standard Deviation 23 17 24 26 capital by car) Total Source: Generalitat 121 (100%). 51 (42.1%) 19 (15.7%) 51 (42.1%)

Valenciana, elaborated by author

142 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

According , there are totally 121 museums registered in the

to table 11 Valencian Community; among which 51 museums are in the province As of 1 Alicante, 19 in the province of Castellón, and 51 in the province of Valencia. , far as museum typeare is“archeology concerned,”, museums“ are categorized ologyinto eight”, and types “arts ” mostmuseums, of whom making up ethnography & anthrop “ technology” and “natural76% scieof institutionas considered” museums,, followed which by science account & , whilstnce “history & natural”, “specialized history ”, and “house-museums” formuseums 18.1% only of theconstitute total a small proportion at 5.9%. varies depThereending hasn't on been the type any clear evidence under yet considerationthat the degree. Camareroof innovation et al. (2011) argued that, all else of museum innovative than art museums.being Ho equal, science museums wouldn't be more wever, thean assumptionover- of a dichotomous. In our case, classification between art andcategorized science seems into at least, simplificationthree -types in museums can be further including:other sub terms• ofArts the and similarity history of category fields in which they specialize,“arts ”, “history” and “house

museum”; , including types of • Archeology and ethnography category “archeology”

and “ethnography and anthropology”; , including types of • Nature and science category “ ”,

“ , including” and “ typesspecialized of science”. & technology natural science & natural history

knowledge,Different thus categories of museum may involve ,different and the integration bases of contributing to the diversity of knowledge ofrequire knowledge and technologies. For example, natural whist archeological science museums museums often staff archeologists, to have a backgroundthus natural inscience biology, museums always have a higher prefer to knowledge stock than archeological museums.proportion From of analytical a knowledge knowledge- in their De-Miguel-molina et al. (2013) base perspective,, knowledge andpointed technologies, out that the had variety a positive of knowledge on and the combinationnovation of in museums affect the amount of in 1

The type of museum is listed according to the registration. 143 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

s on the basis of an empirical study about the restorationsuggest department some certainof 167 museums throughout the world. This finding might relationship between the potential type of museumrelationship, and it the is deposited degree of that: innovation. In order toH1: explore A further a nature and science museums tend to engagell other more things in technological being equal, innovation (H1a), cultural innovation and

(H1b),ethnography and organizational museums and arts innovation and histor (H1c)y museums. than archeology

In respect of the ownership of museum , it clearly showss at all that levels, a majority among ofwhich museums municipal are underand local the museumsadministration constitute of government near onethird of all museums, whilst 20.6% of museums sortia are affiliated to universities, associations, foundations, churches and con , and only 6.6% of museums are private. In termsand provincial of geographical museums distribution, and all national museums,universities most andof the the regional church museums affiliated to ciation-run aremuseums concentrated are located in the province of Valencia whilst most of the asso in the province of Alicante.

museum managementModels of

Private Mixed museum museum museum Public

Regional / National Municipal / provincial museum local museum museum

Figure 11 The ownership of Spanish museums Source:

Gilabert González 2016

144 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

General

ly speaking, Spanish museums can be characterized as conforming to the continental European model, which emphasizes, as the well major as financial involvement of governments in funding public museums the strong intervention . ofAlthough governments more recent on the cultural management policies have of museums stressed (Gilabert González 2016) theare decentralization ofrun cultural through undertakings direc in Spain, most governments Spanish museums at all levelsstill public and t management by , and financed primarily with public funds (Vicente et al. 2012; Albi Ibáñez 2003). According to figure 11, the ownership of Spanish museums can be( classified into three categories in terms of models of museum management Gilabert• Public González museum 2016)s,, aswhich follows: are exclusively comprised

directly l, municipalof those museumsand local governments;controlled by national, regional, provincia • Private museums

management and decision, which-making enjoy as awell high as economic degree ofindependence; autonomy in • Mixed museums

private museums. , which are found somewhere between public and According to the -run museums regarded as mixed museumaboves classification, university the church or a consortiumcan be are private museums; association; museums affiliated to - grouped into either private museumands or mixed foundation museumrun s museumsdepending may on the be

degree Asof theirdiscussed managerial in the autonomysection 3.4.2 and economic independence. , the impact of ownership on museum innovationprivate museums depends are mainly more prupon -organizationaloriented and display aspiration. strong It iseconomic believed drive that ofit ; and lower artistic aspiration than publics museumsVicente et (Castañer al. (2012) &, whichCampos revealed 2002) thisthat isprivate also evidencedmuseums investedby the finding more inof new technologies for managementprivate and functionalmuseums are works more than engaged public in ones.technolo Therefore,gical and itmanagerial is supposed innovation that than . Contrary to that, the primary role public ones of public museums is to provide 145 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

cultural goods

theand populationservices; so and its surrounding community with la aspirationrange of s than private ones. Thus, public museums have supposed higher cultura to engage more in cultural innovation thanpublic private museums ones. are

H2Therefore,: A it is hypothesizedeing asequal, follows: private museums engage more in technologicalll other things innovation b (H2a), and organizational innovation museums.

(H2C), but less cultural innovation (H2b) than public With respect to geographic distance, 11 shows that the distance,

table 1 measured in driving time, that separate museums from their corresponding provincialminutes. Concerning capitals ranges provincial from 0 to 93 minutes , with an average of 31 difference, the average time that museums spendCastell is 39 minutes in the province of Alicante, 33 minutes in the province of ón, and 24 minutes in the province of Valencia. This meansCommunity. that museums are scattered throughout the territory of the Valencian Inthan general, in the museums other two are p closerrovinces to thewhile capital most city museums in the provincein the province of Valencia Alicante are situated in of capital. relatively remote towns that are far from the provincial In innovation literature, geographic proximity is thought

the most to be of one of important determinants of innovation and it has a positive influence on innovation7) because (1) innovators are geographical concentrated (Breschi & Malerba 199 , and (2) geographic proximity benefits knowledge exchange and. interactionSuch proposition involved was in evidencedthe process of innovation (Malmberg & Maskell 1997)an in the arts and cultural organizations by empirical study, disclosing that there is a positive relationship between laser adoption and proximity. In the to Valencia research region, centers the andthree suppliers/distributors provincial capitals – (VerbanoAlicante, Castell et al. 2008)n de la Plana, and Valencia – culture, educatioón, science and technology, and playare thehost regional to the centers for majority of universities and suppliers/distributors of technology and cultural resources. 1 0 minutes means that the museum is located in the capital city.

146 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

al regards to the

Therefore, geographic a museumproximity’s location can beand evaluated the corres withponding provincial distancecapitals. So between the hypothesis is expressed H3: The closer to the provincialas capital follows: that a museum is located, the more it will engage in technological innovation (H3a), cultural H3c).

innovation (H3b), and organizational innovation ( Additionally, museums also vary in size; size is an explicit characteristic s of museum(Camarero organization et al. 2011. Museum; Vicente size et can al. be2012) measured either by the numbers of staff . The size-innovationor by therelationship amount of visitoris still (Camarerocontroversial & in Garridoorganization 2012) studies. For ex ample, some scholars believe that largeadvantages firms are more innovative than sma ll ones because large firms enjoy an in terms of the economies of scale and functional differentiation over small firms (Kimberly & Evanisko 1981); others argue that small firms innovate in more easily organizational than large ones structure because, and small can firms are more changes agile more and quicklyflexible terms - ofZornoza et al. 2004). adjust to In(Camisón arts and cultural organizations, however, there it is not controversial to say that large organizations are more likely to innovate than smaller ones the one hand resource becauseadvantage of overtwo smthings:all organizations on (Camarero, large etorganizations al. 2011); on enjoy the other a hand, er ones largetaking organizations into account “ arecost better disasterable” in to arts bear and increasing cultural organizations cost than small (Baumol & Bowen 1966). Although we don't know the, distribution of the size of museums in the Valencian Community from table 12 it doesn'tng theoretical hinder propositionus from developings: the followingH4: The hypothesis larger a onmuseum the basis is, ofthe existi more it will engage in technological

innovationinnovation (H4c (H4a),). cultural innovation (H4b), and organizational

5.1.2 System of innovation in museums

s the multiple-

According to the finding of case study about innovation process 147 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

in the chapter 4, col spread pattern involved in

various laborative innovation is a wide From the systemicdomains of cultural production among in which Valencian mu seumsmuseums. are involved perspective, such collaboration constitutesmuseums. an important form of interaction in the system of innovation in According to Edquist (1997), innovation the inter organizationscan be accounted, andexplained individuals by, action between museums and other and with institutions that shape such interaction in the system of innovation. national The boundary of the system of innovation in museums can be set at and regional dimensions in terms of the scope in which institutions operate (Cooke & Memedovic 2003). As an museum institution, org anizations cultural policy in Europe is one owing of vital to factors that influence innovation in interventionthe fact that different ec onomic cultural independence policies require (Vicente different et al. 2012)degrees. of public s, and of

Policy: cultural descentralization

networks Administration: regionalization of museum

Interaction: localization of collaboration Figure 12 The characteristics of the system of innovation of museums in the Valencia region

and Spanish museums

Cultural policies vary from country to country, are less innovative than British(Vicente museums, et al. 2012) but more innovative than French and Italian ones, to be exact . In Spain, as figure 12 shows, the thesystem impact of innovati moreon in recent museums cultural can bepolicies explained by three theaspects museum in terms sector. of of the recent cultural policy gave greaterapplicable importance to to “cultural First of all, the 148 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

decentralization”, - the

state government whichover cultur startede undertakings a process of gradual(Vicente deet centralizational. 2012). The by state limited to large the culture, value

focus is now , andcultural delegates institutions control over that other reflect cultural institutions andto local identity administrations of the nation . This led directly to the (Gilabert González 2016) regionalizationSecond, of museum systems. museum systems two dimensions. Onthe the regionalization one hand, regional of and local goveisrnments characterized conducted by a large program s in the museum sector torwards the

th st 20 of investment the 21 century. The typical examplethe end ofis the century and the beginning of Valencian establishment of a series of(IVAM, modern 1989) art museumsand t such as the EnlightenmentInstitute of Modern and Modernity Art (MuVIM, 2001). Meanwhihe Valencianle, local museums Museum also of witnessed a rapid growth in or instance, regional, provincial and

number. F museums in the municipalValencian region museums according account to fo r a proportion. On the of other 70% hand,of all the normative table 11 on a regiojuridical and rather thanframeworks at a national for level. museums Examples were includeestablished the nal basis 1 2 Museums , Valencian , t System of 3 4 the National , System of Museums of Euskadi , and sohe on System of Museums of Navarra and Gallego System of Museums (Gilabert González 2016). This finally gave rise to the localization of museum interaction in the system of innovation. col Lastly, the localization of interaction usually means takes place that thewithi interactionn regional and locallaboration limits rather in which than museums nation engage al and administrative proximity. For example,al boundary many owing communication to both geographic and technology companies, with which museums interact, are local companies ru

municipal governments ate with nlocal by universities located in the. Museumssame province also and tend cros tos - collabor regional collaboration is 1 -cultural-y-museos 2 -vasco/centro-de-museos/ 3https://whttp://www.ceice.gva.es/web/patrimonio http://www.euskadi.eus/gobiernohtm 4 http://museos.xunta.galww.navarra.es/home_es/Temas/Turismo+ocio+y+cultura/Museos/museos.

149 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

uncommon. In the questionnaire conducted during this research

museums responded that it was , over 76% of under the same administrative structureeasier. to collaborate with other museums s is

All aspects point to the fact that the system of innovation in museum and basednecessary at regional level in Spain. This indicates that it is appropriate empirical studies.to explore museum innovation at a regional level with further

approach.The analysis on interaction is at the center of the system of innovation process (LundvallInteraction 1988) matters. Museum because innovation innovation is mostly itself open innovation, is an interactive which , and the

relies on external sources of knowledge The case stmarketudy has for already innovation revealed by means of interactioninnovation and collaboration. is an important pattern on which museums rely, andthat iscollaborative widespread in almost all the domai museum. ns of cultural productionthe in atte some researchersAlthough the like beneficial Camarero role and of collaborationGarrido (2012) has drawn thatntion unless of , who found museumsactivities that collaborated they undertook, with other the museums visitor-oriented in the jointstrategies leisure did and not cultural show novation in museums, and most significantdis correlationthe with technological-innovation in relationship still remain theoreticalcussions proposition about s incollaboration the arts and cultural organizations. To explore the potential impact

of collaboration on museum innovation, the hypothesis is developedH5: asThe follows: a museum is involved,greater the themore number that it ofwillcollaborations engage in technological in which innovation

(H5a),(H5c). cultural innovation (H5b), and organizational innovation

s cannot capture the div

However, thehich number museum of collaboration may engage. The actors in the s ersity of collaborationinnovation are in diverse w rather than monotonous. In the Valencia region,ystem ofa systemorganizations of innovation to individual in museumss (Li et may al. 2016) consist of various agents ranging from . On the basis of interviews with

150 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION? museum direc with which museums

whichtors, are we identify six main types of agent collaborate,• High -tech firmsas follows:, dedicated to provide ICT solutions to museums, , and

suchso on; as website development, digitalization, Augmented Reality • Museography-oriented firms, which are at the museums

complementary service such of as logistics, byinsur concentratingance, on areas of work, • Universitiesand and restoration research of heritagecenters ,and which artworks; are n ot only training institutions that supply manpower

, but also important sources of • knowledgeMuseological and asso technologiesciations, thatwhich museums make up adopt a network for innovation; within which

museums and staff connect for knowledge sharing and capacity • building;Individual specialists ersities or research resear, whoch-oriented are either consultancy from univ rt centers, and offer -employed workers specializing, like curators in forsome a exhibitions, or self ancient professionalarchitecture and jobs, cultural like heritage. restorers and conservators of • Museums and cultural institutions, which usually complement one another in museographical resources, such as collection rental

Althoughand collaborative there isn’t investigation. the particular agents on museumany innovation, empirical it evidence is assumed about that museumsinfluence can of enhance their innov agents, considering the

ation by collaborating with other importance of interaction andnce, collaboration six hypotheses in are the expressed innovation system. ThereforH6e, to explore such influe - as follows: : technological Collaborating inno with high tech firms helps museums to enhance organizational innovationvation (H6c). (H6a), cultural innovation (H6b), and H7 -

: Collaborating with museography oriented firms helps museums to enhance technological innovation (H7a), cultural innovation (H7b),

151 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

and organizational innovation (H7c). H8: Col

laborating with universities helps museums to enhance technologicalorganizational innovation (H8c). (H8a), cultural innovation (H8b), and H9

: enhanceCollaborating technological with museographical innovation (H9a) associations helps museums to and organizational innovation (H9c). , cultural innovation (H9b), H10

enhance: Collaborating technological with individualinnovation specialists (H10a), cultural helps museums innovation to

H11(H10b), and organizationalwith other innovation museums (H10c).helps museums to enhance : Collaborating technologicalorganizational innovationinnovation (H11c). (H11a), cultural innovation (H11b), and

5.2 DATA AND METHODS

5.2.1 Data collection and sample characteristics

The data collection the

is based on recordsthe ofValencian museums Community, and museographical which are exhibitions registered in the territory of provided by the regional government of ionValencias, only (Generalitat registered museValenciana).ums were As the study focuses on museum organizat selectedregistered from museums all records. through A questionnaire the online wassurvey sent tool to theLimeSurvey. directors ofThis all

questionnairemuseums; and was then firs tlyit designedwa on the basis of the early case study of localthe researcher’s tutors and colleaguess revised, as well after as a severalpre-test with discussions a deputy with director a 4 museums.of local art At foundation; the same attime, last, telephonea final questionnaire communic wasation sent was to attempteda total of 12 to conduct with each museum in order to seek elicit respondents. Such communication helped the cooperationresearcher ofgreatly potential in understanding the status quo Valencian museums talking with

e. Thereof were 20 museums that , after answer phone museum staff on the phon didn't 152 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION? calls and, at least, three museums that had more than a year.

been closed for This means that the actual number of museums is fewer than the number listed by the regional government. Table 12 Sample description (1)

Total Alicante Castellón Valencia Type Archeology

anthropology 22 (36.7%) 12 (44.4%) 3 (33.3%) 7 (30.4%) Ethnography & Arts 13 (21.7%) 8 (29.6%) 1 (11.1%) 36 (13.0%) technology 11 (18.3%) 2 (7.4%) 3 (33.3%) (26.1%)

naturalScience history& 5 (8.3%) 2 (7.4%) 2 (22.2%) 1 (4.3%) Natural sciences & History 5 (8.3%) 20 (7.4%)(0. 0 (0%) 3 (13.0%) House-museum 1 (1.7%) 0%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.3%) Specialized 2 (3.3%) 1 (3.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.3%) Ownership National 1 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.3%) provincial 1 (1.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.5%) Municipal Regional & 3 (5.2%) 0 (0%) 1 (11.1%) 2 (9.1%) Private 39 (67.2%) 20 (71.4%) 7 (77.8%) 12 (54.5%) University 1 4 (6.9%) 3 (10.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.5%) Association (1.7%) 1 (3.6%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.5%) Foundation 4 (6.9%) 3 (10.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.5%) Ecclesiastical 2 (3.4%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (11.1%) 0 (0%) Consortium 4 (6.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (18.2%) Maximum 35 19 12 35 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Minimum 1 1 1 1 Staff Mean 6 5 5 9 Median 4 4 5 6 Mode 3 4 5 6 Std. Deviation 6 4 4 8 Geographical Maximum 72 72 54 65 distance (min.) Minimum 0 0 0 0 Mean 30 39 28 20 Median 32 36 25 9 Mode 0 34 25 0 Std. Deviation 21 16 16 24 Total 59

(100%) 27 (45.8%) 9 (15.3%) 23 (39.0%)

Source: elaborated by author

153 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

After removing incomplete and repeated responses, this study finally gatheredresponse 59rate questionnaires, is much higher representing than that an actual response rate of 49%. This goals. In a words of other studies focusing on similar few , this study has a small, definite population of 121 museums with a sample size of 59,± signifying that the data margin collect of ing error lasted for p=q=0.5 at 95% confidence level is 9.2 %. The period of fromreport July 2016 to January 2017. The detailed description of the sample is ed in table 12. 5.2.2 Measurement of variables

ent to which museums utilize

ICTsTechnological in their daily innovation is measured by the ext Vicente et al. (2012) functioning , following the approach proposed by s, digital network. We s first, digitallisted technolog a seriesy and of potentialdigital devices, solutions which for aredigital summarized object in the 13, to enquire museums had adopted said technologies or not;

table if then an index of the sum of innovation was created on the basis of measuring the the number of technologies used in each domain, which actually reflected adoptionthink, not rateonly of measured different technologies in the museum sector. This index, the we the number of innovations but also representeds. The higher degreethe adoption of innovation rate is, the in termslower ofdegree different to which technological innovation domain is involved. So we furthertheir adop weightedtion rates identified, technologiesthe with relative five degree scales ino accordance with ent solutions represent.so as to Finally reflect, technolog ical innovationf innovationis measured that as differthe . weightedCultural sum innovation of the numbe is presentedr of ICTs that through each museumthree indicators adopts concerning the educational programs and

number of permanent and temporal exhibitions, activities,. Cultural as wellinnovation as academic is mea and professional articlesthe written by the museum three staffindictors. sured as the average of values of

154 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Table 13 Indicators of technological innovation Frequency Percentage Weight Digital object 49 1 Digitized collection 26 2 Web page 83.1% Digital network 44.1% Intranet 32 1 Social media 31 1 54.2% App 10 3 52.5% Digital or virtual museum 7 3 16.9% Digital technology 11.9% Augmented reality 4 3 3-D 2 4 6.8% Virtual Reality 1 5 3.4% Digital device 1.7% 18 2 Audio guide 6 3 Quick Response code 30.5% 2 4 10.2% Others Information station 3.4% Video Mapping 1 5 Diorama 1 5 1.7%

1.7%

Organizational innovation is represented against a scale of two indicatorsculture that that support evaluate innovation the degree in museums, of changes and in theorganizational degree was structuremeasured and on -point Likert scale, where 5 indicates “strongly agree” and 1 indicates a“strongly five disagree”. measure organizationalThis innovationmethod has in been the museumwidely used sector in the existing studies to 2008; Vicente et al. 2012). (Camarero & Garrido Furthermore, a Principal Components A indicators measuring the nalysis (PCA) was run on five PCA was assessed prior to innovativethe analysis. activities The correlation of museums. matrix The showed suitability that all of variablesKaiser-Meyer had- Olkinat least (KMO) one correlationmeasure was coefficient 0.526, greater than 0.3.“ The overall” meaning, according to Kaiser (1974) which is above unacceptable , whilst the individual KMO measure of the variableshould consider ORG_STRU this was indicator only 0.467, with representing caution. a low KMO measure, readers Bartlett's test of sphericity was 155 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION? statistically sign

PAC. Finally, PACificant (p

1 technology”, “ archeology & ethnography” and “museumsspecialized ” arescience grouped & into the third naturalcategor yscience as “ & natural history ”. nature & science museums “ museumsMuseum”, “private ownership museums is ” classifiedand “mixed into museums three categories” according as topublic the (2016). Respondents had to choose in the identification of Gilabert González questionnaire to which category their museums belonged so that private and mixed museums could be clearly identified. Museum size is measured in terms of theums number are small of staff. and Themedium variation size. rangesSome studies from 1 haveto 35, shown which meansthat the that size all-innovation muse relationship is curvilinear rather than linear (Camarero et al. 2011)

; therefore, a logarithmic transformation should be applied to the number of employees. This also might give rise to concerns such as that the logarithmic transformation is not necessary because of the narrow variation in size in this case. In this study, the size variable homoscedasticity was transferred by logarithmic transformation because of the multipleviolation regression. of if size wasn't transferred in the analysis of

1 The only specialized museum in the sample is chocolate-related museum, which can “nature and science” museum. be seen as something about food engineering, so it is categorized into

156

Table 14 Descriptive statistics and reliability of Principal Component Analysis for cultural and organizational innovation

Indicators Mean SD KMO

Cultural innovation 3.800 4.425 .523 17.051 38.632 .534 The number of permanent & temporal exhibitions inaugurated by the museum on 2015 (EXP) 2.420 4.044 .532 The number of educational programs & activities executed by the museum on 2015 (ACT) Organizational innovation The number of academic and professional articles published by museum staff on 2015 (PAP) 2.588 1.4748 .467

Generally speaking, significant changes have been introduced in organizational structure of the 3.185 1.3022 .552 museum toin thesupport latest creative years. (ORG_STRU) and innovative Generally speaking, an open and collaborative organizational culture has been formed in the activities in the latest years. (ORG_CULT) Note: KMO of Sampling Adequacy = 0.526; Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: Approx. Chi Square = 62.163, Sig. = .000

Table 15 Correlation matrix of Principal Components Analysis EXP ACT PAP Correlation EXP 1.000 .317 .144 -.125 .089 ORG_STRU ORG_CULT ACT .317 1.000 .695 .006 .253 PAP .144 .695 1.000 -.001 .195 -.125 .006 -.001 1.000 .454 .089 .253 .195 .454 1.000 ORG_STRU

ORG_CULT

Table 16 Total variance explained for Principal Components Analysis

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total Total Total 1 1.956 39.127 39.127 1.956 39.127 39.127 1.866 37.326 37.326 % of Variance Cumulative % % of Variance Cumulative % % of Variance Cumulative % 2 1.399 27.981 67.108 1.399 27.981 67.108 1.489 29.782 67.108 3 .881 17.612 84.720 4 .485 9.695 94.415 5 .279 5.585 100.00

Table 17 Rotated component matrix for Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation

Rotated Component Coefficients Items Component 1 Component 2 Communalities ACT .895 .150 .824 PAP .828 .141 .705 EXP .550 -.166 .330 -.160 .869 .780 .227 .815 .716 ORG_STRU ORG_CULT

CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Geographical distance is a

museum’s location to its correspondingmeasured provi by ncialthe time capital. it takes Exact to minutesdrive from were

recordedminute to by 72means minute ofs a search using Google Maps. The and variation ranges from 0 which implies with an average of 30 minutes are alocated mode atof or0 minute,around the capital cities.that most of the museums in the sample

The degree of collaborationd in isthe measured past 12 bymonths the amount of actors with. whomFurthermore, museums “actors collaborate” before including the (1) survey high- s, (2) museographycan be subdivided- into six categoriesdual specialists, (4) techuniversities firm , (5) associations, andoriented (6) other firms, museums. (3) indivi Each is treated as a ating = 1 and not

binary factor= 0 with. one of two options, i.e. collabor collaborating 5.2.3 Data processing

three models were the multiple regression approach to

Firstexplore of all,the r estimated by outcomes. To elationships between predictor variables and innovationapplied to “size”, “geographicimprove proximity model fit,”, the“technologicallogarithmic transformation innovation”, wasand “cultural innovation” Keene (1995) also argued that a log-

variables. continuoustransformed positive analysisdata measured was preferred on an tointerval an untransformed scale. Considering analysis that for museum type and ownership are two s, dummy coding was conducted and

polytomous variable constructed, i.e. mixed museum (yes =another 1; no = four 0), pdichotomousrivate museum va riables(yes = 1;were no = 0), arts and history museum (yes = 1; no = 0), natural and science museum (yes = 1; no = 0). To apply the multiple regression approach, the related assumptions were tested. In each estimated model, there was

- 2.329, 1.785,independence and 2.205, respectively of residuals,; assessedthere was by linearity a Durin Watson statistics of residuals against theassessed predicted by vapartiallues; regressiont plots and plots of studentized the he assumption of homoscedasticity was met,unstandard as testedized bypredictedinspection values; t here of plots was no of multicollinearity studentized residuals againste because non 159 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

had correlations greater than 0.7; all tolerance

ofvalues the were independent greater than variables 0.; all studentized deleted residuals were less than ±3 standard deviations, no leverage values were greater than 0.5

Cook’s distance 1; the residuals was , and values for according - were below normally distributed 2 to Q Q Plots of the studentized residuals.F1 (7, 51 All) = three 4.016, models p1 of multiple, adj. R 2 regression= .267; F2 ( 7, were 51) significantly= 3.974, p2 estimated,, adj. R = .264; F3 (7, 51) = 2.453< p .013 .05, adj. 2 R = .149. Corresponding data< and .01 models are reported in 18 - 22<. Then one-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U teststable were carried out to

determine if there were differences in innovation outcome between museums that collaborated with indiviudal actors and museums that didn't-parametric collaborate tests afterwards.(Cotton 1994 Parametric, p112) tests are often more robust than non . To verify the validity of the parametric analysis, three-way testsANOVA were method further was conducted met, and to non determineparametric if the analysis assumptions was conducted of the one in the -way ANOVA. Similarly,

case“technological of the innovation violation ” ofand assumptions“cultural innovation of one” variables were transferred by logarithmic transformation. First, the inspection of boxplots is assessed for outliers in each group of allones factors. that were Most less of the extreme outliers were modified by replacing their values with (Ghosh & Vogt 2012)“university, except” forand the “museum outliers” involved in technological innovation data for factors. The existence of these outliers-way ANOVA didn't with change and the without results the after outliers the comparisonas well as on of Man results-Whitney based U ontest. one Second, the Shapiro-

Wilk test of normality showed that the data of technological and cultural innovation was approximately normally distributed whilst the majority of organizational-Whitney innovation U testdata wasviolated utilized the assumptionto test the of normality. Therefore, the Mann “high- ”, “differencemuseography oforganizational”, innovation“individual basedspecialist on”, “universitytech ”, firmand “museum” oriented firm factors.

160

Table 18 Descriptive and collinearity statistics for multiple regression

Mean Std. Deviation Tolerance VIF N

Mixed museum .08 .281 .639 1.565 59 Private museum .19 .393 .731 1.368 59 Art and history museum .2373 .4291 .584 1.714 59 Nature and science museum .1864 .3928 .553 1.809 59 Size (log) a 1.4736 .8020 .737 1.356 59 Geographical distance (log) 2.7725 1.5898 .587 1.705 59 b 5.0169 4.4159 .690 1.450 59 Technological innovation (log) a 1.6437 .6373 Collaboration Cultural innovation (log) a 1.5979 .9750 Organizational innovation 2.8867 1.1849

al distance Note: a. ln (x) transformation is used.

b. ln (x +1) is used considering that value of geographic variable includes zero.

Table 19 Correlations for multiple regression

Mixed Private Art Science Size Geographical Technological Cultural Organizational museum museum museum museum (log) distance (log) -ation innovation innovation innovation Collabor (log) (log)

Correlation Mixed museum 1.000 -.146 -.027 .479*** .181 -.128 -.071 .325** .227* .226* Private museum -.146 1.000 .244* .106 -.118 -.128 -.211 .114 -.244* .161 Art museum -.027 .244* 1.000 -.267* .091 -.435*** .198 .057 .094 .023 Science museum .479*** .106 -.267* 1.000 .118 -.192 .058 .141* .248* .079 Size (log) .181 -.118 .091 .118 1.000 -.399** .372** .260 .486*** .099 Geographical -.128 -.128 -.435*** -.192 -.399** 1.000 -.353** -.174 -.265* .112 distance (log) -.071 -.211 .198 .058 .372** -.353** 1.000 .354** .283* .174

** * ** * * CollaborationTechnological .325 .114 .057 .141 .260 -.174 .354 1.000 .243 .272 innovation (log) Cultural .227* -.244* .094 .248* .486*** -.265* .283* .243* 1.000 .135 innovation (log) Organizational .226* .161 .023 .079 .099 .112 .174 .272* .135 1.000 innovation

Note: Sig. (1 tailed) *p ** p ***

Table 20 Model summary for multiple regression models

Model R R Square Square - Watson

1 .596 .355 Adjusted R .267 Std. Error of the Estimate.54564 Durbin 2.329 2 .594 .353 .264 .83642 1.785 3 .502 .252 .149 1.09298 2.205

Table 21 ANOVA for multiple regression models

Model Squares Mean square F Sig.

1 Regression Sum of 8.370 df7 1.196 4.016 .001 Residual 15.184 51 .298 Total 23.554 58 2 Regression 19.461 7 2.780 3.974 .002 Residual 35.679 51 .700 Total 55.140 58 3 Regression 20.512 7 2.930 2.453 .030 Residual 60.925 51 1.195 Total 81.437 58

Table 22 Estimated models

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Technological innovation (log) Cultural innovation (log) Organizational innovation

SE t. Sig. SE t. Sig. SE t. Sig.

B B B B Beta B Beta B Beta Mixed museum 1.138 .319 .502 3.567 .001 -.062 .489 -.018 -.127 .900 1.657 .639 .393 2.592 .012 Control variable (No=0, Yes=1) Private museum .598 .213 .369 2.804 .007 -.682 .327 -.275 -2.084 .042 1.119 .427 .371 2.618 .012 (No=0, Yes=1) Art museum a -.253 .219 -.170 -1.156 .253 .461 .335 .203 1.376 .175 -.062 .438 -.023 -.142 .888 (No=0, Yes=1) Science museum -.351 .245 -.216 -1.431 .158 .728 .376 .293 1.937 .058 -.363 .491 -.120 -.739 .464 (No=0, Yes=1) b Size (log) .065 .104 .082 .625 .535 .486 .159 .400 3.049 .004 .125 .208 .085 .599 .552 Geographical distance (log) .011 .059 .028 .192 .848 .006 .090 .010 .067 .947 .258 .118 .346 2.185 .034 .071 .020 .492 3.637 .001 .005 .030 .022 .160 .874 .102 .039 .382 2.617 .012

Collaboration a. It represents arts and history category B Note: B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error of the coefficient; Beta = standardized coefficient

b. It represents Nature and science category

Table 23 Sample description (2) Technological Cultural innovation (log) Organizational innovation innovation (log) Factor Group N Mean/mean Mean SE Mean SE rank ranks SE/Sum of Province Alicante 28 1.5212 .1363 1.3776 .1421 2.9877 .1949 Castell 9 1.6299 .1317 1.8235 .3472 3.1312 .4177 Valencia 22 1.7689 .1152 1.7860 .2489 2.6582 .2876 High- No ó n 48 1.5308 .0837 1.6511 .1530 29.03 1393.50 Yes 11 2.1364 .2013 1.3374 .0725 34.23 376.50 Museographytech firm- No 42 1.6053 .1055 1.6081 .1691 28.63 1202.50 Yes 17 1.7386 .1237 1.5727 .1468 33.38 567.50 Individual specialistoriented firm No 37 1.6299 .9634 1.4513 .1395 25.26 934.50 Yes 22 1.7288 .1272 1.7309 .1977 37.98 835.50 University No 19 1.2658 .1150 1.3158 .1887 27.18 516.50 Yes 40 1.8232 .0981 1.7032 .1515 31.34 1253.50 Association No 48 1.5867 .0927 1.3960 .1189 2.9962 .1623 Yes 11 1.8924 .1739 2.4358 .3295 2.4091 .4146 Museum No 7 1.0481 .2510 1.0637 .4180 17.79 124.50 Yes 52 1.7239 .0826 1.6546 .1252 31.64 1645.50

Table 24 Shapiro-Walk Test of Normality Technological innovation Cultural innovation Organizational Factors Groups (log) (log) innovation Statistic Sig. Statistic Sig. Statistic Sig. df Province Alicante 28 .974 .688 .975 .724 .952 .217 Castell 9 .884 .175 .944 .630 .960 .801 Valencia 22 .924 .091 .936 .163 .916 .062 High- No ó n 48 .961 .107 .969 .241 .939 .015 Yes 11 .890 .141 .936 .473 .931 .418 Museographytech firm- No 42 .964 .205 .953 .086 .945 .044 Yes 17 .924 .174 .951 .466 .924 .172 Individual specialistoriented firm No 37 .957 .160 .963 .244 .938 .040 Yes 22 .952 .349 .967 .645 .926 .104 University No 19 .945a .319 .930 .177 .911 .078 Yes 40 .956a .119 .966 .276 .941 .036 Association No 48 .966 .173 .968 .216 .954 .058 Yes 11 .958 .744 .928 .386 .856 .052 Museum No 7 .972 .913 .904 .358 .746 .012 Yes 52 .961a .085 .962 .095 .951 .033 Note: a. Outliers are -way ANOVA test and Mann- Whitney U test. remained; the results don't change before and after removing outliers based on one

Table 25 Test of Homogeneity of Variances Technological innovation Cultural innovation (log) Organizational innovation Factor (log) Levene Statistic Sig. Levene Statistic Sig. Levene Statistic Sig. df1 df2 Province 2 56 1.534 0.225 2.221 0.118 1.706 0.191 High- 1 57 0.296 0.589 10.352 0.002 0.075 0.785 Museography- 1 57 0.885 0.351 3.400 0.070 0.268 0.607 Individualtech firm 1 57 0.003 0.958 0.063 0.803 0.688 0.410 University oriented firm 1 57 1.107 0.297 0.816 0.370 0.550 0.461 Association 1 57 0.090 0.765 1.679 0.200 2.441 0.124 Museum 1 57 0.049 0.826 0.732 0.396 0.000 0.999

Table 26 ANOVA and nonparametric test results Technological innovation Cultural innovation Organizational innovation Factor (log) (log) F Sig. F Sig. F / U Sig.

Province .695 .503 1.383 .259 .988 .379 High- 6.838 .011 3.433a .069 217.500 .362 Museography- .525 .472 .016 .901 299.500b .332 tech firm Individual specialist .387 .536 1.397 .242 231.500b .006 oriented firm University 11.665 .001 2.297 .135 326.500b .382 Association 2.908 .153 1.679 .001 2.172b .146 Museum 7.744 .007 2.512 .119 267.500 .043c b Note: One- ’s ANOVA test. way- ANOVAWhitney is U used test. unless otherwise specified. c.a. ExactAsymptotically sig. (2 sided F distributed test) of Welch b. Mann

CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Third, Levene's test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met, with the“ highexception-t that” variances of cultural innovation wereA not equal for the groups of ech firm factor. As a result, the Welch ANOV“high- was used” to test the differences of cultural innovation between groups of tech firm factors on cultural innovation. ShapiroTable-W 23 displays the corresponding description’s test is re of the sample. The ilk test was reported in table 24. Levene ported in table 25. The results of ANOVA and nonparametric tests are described in table 26. 5.3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

the

Before testing the hypotheses, we checked the impact of provincial factor on innovationtechnological, outcomes, cultural and ANOVA result exhibited that there wa sAlicante, no difference Castell in and Valencia provinces. organizational innovation between ó n Hyp the

multiple regressionotheses are (see tested by observingas well as three the estimated models based on on one-way ANOVA and tableMann 22)-Whitney U test difference(see between. According groups tobased the estimated models, hypotheses table 26) evidence to prove that natureH1a, and H1b science and H1cmuseums are refused, engage there more is noin technological, cultural and organizational innovation than archeology and ethnography museums or arts and history museums.

There might be two possible explanations for this result. This first possibility is that the difference in variety of knowledge and the combination of knowledge and technology. The second is not so is remarkable as to affect innovative activitiesin innovation Valenican outcomes, museums thatanother the empirical type of museumstudy Camarero doesn't affect et al. (2011). as affirmed in Hypotheses by H2a, H2b and H2c are accepted.d organizational Private museums innovation, do display and a higherthey engage degree of technological innovationcultural innovation an in comparison to museums. Whenin a taking lower mixed degree museum of s into consideration, it clearly showspublic that with

both mixed and private museums are more innovative than public museums

169 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

regard to the adoption new

organizational structures andof newculture. technologies Furthermore, and all the thing explorats ion of s to the degre being equal, 2.59 the 1 contributiontimes greater of mixed museum s ,e which of technological implies that innovation mixed museums is make a muchthan great that of private museum technological innovation than private museums. er contribution to This demonstrates that private museums have higher economic aspiration in new

andtechnologies lower artistic and aspirationadopt new and organizational therefore, they methods are more so likely as to to improve invest their

performancesame cultural than aspiration public andmuseums; socia but private museums usually don't have the they have l mission as public museumsew cultur and,al conversely,goods and services. Consideringlower engagement mixed museum in the developments, they have even of n more advantage over private museums in technological innovation; this might

terms of be because mixedmuseums museums while enjoy a higher degree of more administrative autonomytha thann private public museums, which atis also the same time being consistently a funded evidencedechnological by the finding innovation that mixed than financial structures structure that isdepend more beneficial to spurring t Camarero et al. 2011). Alltoo much on either public or private funding ( roximity to the provincial hypotheses H3a, H3b and H3c are refused. technological, P cultural or organizationalcapital doesn't innovation. lead to On a the greater contrary degree, the res of ults reveals rther he greater extent tothat which the engage fa awayin organizational from the provincial innovation. capital Geographic a museum alis, t aphical proximity is a driver distance instead of geogr The geographicof culturalal innovation in museums. -edged sword – the negative side , distance, we think, is a doble centers and technologybeing hinders that museumsbeing located’ accessfarther to opportunit away fromies supplierfor -educationproducer interaction; on the positive side, a greater distance also ofencourages them to s

create more favorable organizational strategies and environment for 1 ( . 1 . The1 138 contribution of mixed museum1). to the degree of technological innovation is 212% 𝑒𝑒 − ); the contribution0 598 of private museum to the degree of technological innovation is 82% (𝑒𝑒 − 170 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

networking and interacting in order to make up y. It

seems that the advantages trump the disadvantagesfor their in geographic our case, deficienc which may

explainConcerning the positive the impact size -of geographica distance on organizational innovation. The larger a museum is, innovationthe more relationship,it will engage hypothesis in cultural H4b isinnovati accepted.on. Particularly, the model estimates that s

in the museum can increase the outcomea 10% growth of the number of employee (= . ( . ) 1) level. Hoof cultural innovation by 4.7% 0 468∙log 1 1 Large𝑒𝑒 museums− atare 95% no confidencemore innovative wever,than smaller H4a and museums H4c are refused.in the technological and organizational dimensions. The growth in employees helps museums to increase their

knowledge stock – terms of olic knowledge, thus leading to on arts and humanitiesespecially research, symb greater focus won’ and more development of new cultural products.and organizational But staff numberchanges, t influence the adoption of external technologiesCamarero et al. (2011) which coincides with the argument of external knowl. Thisedge might than be on because internal (1) knowledge, technological innovation reliesemployees more on won’t lead to a proportional increase in analytical(2) andthe expansionsynthetical of knowledge, and (3) decision- the

making about organizational changes usually depends on joint influence of stakeholders. s, hypothConsideringeses H5a and H5c the are impact accepted. of collaborationC on innovation outcome ollaboration can enhance thes outcome; the more of technological innovation and organizational innovation by museum collaborationwill engage inin whichtechnological a museum innovation involved, andthe moreorganizational likely it is thatinnovation. the museum The the higher frequency of collaboration can lead museums to more innovation in technological and organizational dimensions because collaboration e is a means of expandingrelations through sources inter of - knowledgeorganization flow interaction. and exchange However, by stablishing externalas the appear to H5b is refused, frequencycultural innovation. of collaboration T doesn't contribute particular to the outcomeural of innovation in Valencianhis museums might be, explainedwhere by the the new productpattern development of cult is dependent on closed innovat most of ion based on internal knowledge, which was 171 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

discovered in this thesis.

, as described above outcome,By comparing the impacts of size and collaboration on innovation it is obvious that innovation museum so as size to andachi e collaboration can constitute complementaryinnovation in the drivers museum. of This can al explainedve a greater degree pe of overall innovation processes, i.e. most technologicalso be innovationfrom thetakesrspective place in of

collaborative- and adoptive manners whilst cultural innovation mostlynizations. takes place in a selfThedependent impact way in the productionartners domain on museum of museum innovation orga is tested on of collaborative p thewith base a particular of a set of actor binary (= variables,1) or not (depending= 0). For high on whether museumss, hypothesis collaborate H6a is supported. tech firm the two groups, F=6.838,Technological p=0.011. This innovation means that differs high significantly- between tech firms do help museums to enhanceNeither cultural technological innovation innovation. nor org Butaniza hypothesestional innovation H6b and witness H6c are rejected. the two groups. significant differenceFor betweenmuseography - oriented firms, hypotheses H7a, H7b and H7c are rejected. None technological innovation, culturalen two innovation groups. This or organizational means that innovation differs with museography in their means- betwe es collaborationmuseum organizations. oriented firms do n't enhance innovation in For individual specialists, hypothesis H8c is accepted. According to Mann- Whitney U tes

are not similar,t, as distributions assessed of organizational13, and organizational innovation values inn for two groups with individualby figure specialists (mean rank=37.98)ovation valuesand notfor collaborating with individual specialists (mean ra , U=231collaborating.500, p nk=25.26) are significant =0.006. This means that collaborating with individual specialists does help museums to improve their’ organizational innovation. But hypotheses H8atechnological and H8b innovationare rejected. or Therecult isn t any significant differencethe two groups.in the means of ural innovation between

172 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

Figure 13 Independent-Samples Mann-Whitney U test for individual specialist factor

For universities, hypothesis H9a is supported. As the ANOVA result reveals, there is a

the two significantgroups, F=11.665, difference p in the mean of technological innovation between =0.001. Collaborating with universities helpsNeither museums cultural toinnovation enhance nortechnological organizational innovation. innovation H9b and H9cwhether are rejected. there with universities or not. differs is collaboration is supported. The For museological associations, hypothesis H10b the two groups in terms difference in cultural innovationp is significant between with museological associations ofdoes the help mean, museums F=1.679, to improve =0.001. their Collaborating cultural innovation. At the same time, H10a and H10c are rejected. Neither the technologicaltwo groups, which innovation means nor that organizational there is no differs significantly between evidence to support the hypotheses that collaborating with associations will enhance technological and organizational innovation by museums. Finally, for museums themselves, both H11a and H11c are supported. As the ANOVA result shows, the difference is significant betweenp=0.007. the Intwo accordance groups in termswith Mann of the-Whitney mean of U technological tes innovation, F=7.744, t, the distribution of organizational14, and innovation organizational values for the two groups is not similar, as assessed by figure innovation values for collaborating with other museums (mean rank=31.64) and not collaborating with individual specialists (mean rank=17.79) are significant, 173 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

U=267.500, p=0.043,

using an exact sampling distribution for U (Dinneen & Blakesley 1973). Both results evidence that collaborating with other museums does helps museums to enhance both technological innovation and’t organizational innovation. However, H11b is rejected. Cultural innovation doesn differor not. significantly regardless of whether museums collaborate with each other

Figure 14 Independent-Samples Mann-Whitney U test for museum factor

The influenceing factors relating . collaborative oth high partners- cans and be discusseduniversities in terms of the type of innovation First of all, b tech firm involved in theconstitute supplier - essentialproducer R&Dinteraction institutions in the system and technology o suppliers promoting technological innovation overall. Yet, museums themselves,f innovation, as thus an , s that inter-museum interaimportant factor enhancing technological innovation ignify in the ctionmuseum is an sector. important channel for the diffusion of technological innovation Second, museological associations are not suppliers to museums and,

instead, they serve as intermediary institutions for networking among museums andinnovation museum th rough professionals wider and so easier as to access strengt tohen external capacity channels building knowledge, of cultural and the market. of Third o , the degree of organizational. innovationIndividual onlyspecialists depends are on neither the factors the f individuals and museums themselves

174 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

D activities nor insiders -dependent

main forces behind R& on whom self , innovationespe can rely, but constitute essential important human supplementary resources and manpower cannot cially for the museums that lack inter-museum recruit moreions owingare institutionalized to staffing restrictions as certain, while alliance most ofs theunder the same collaboratadministration, and thus are Last, the result relatingan extension to museography of formal- organization. nces our theoretical proposal that service suppliers suchoriented as logistics, firms insurance evide and ic knowledge-

productioninstallation in firms museums only and play thus, an auxiliaryare not role in symbol based innovation. a determiant factor in the outcome of

5.4 CONCLUSION

This chapter attempted to identi determinant

fy some factors that influencea museumregional innovationphenomenon from (Porter a systemic 1990, perspective. 1998; Considering that innovation and isthe extent to which museums innovat Breschi & Malerba 1997)institutional context (Vicente et al. 2012) e differs based on country and , this empirical study focused exclusively on museumsmuseum innovat in theion Valencian was studied region whilst of Spainkeeping so cultural that the policy impact constant. of factors Aiming on at the main question at e chapter, eleven

hypotheses were suggestedput forward onthe existing beginning theoretical of th propositions, and then tested through multipleon theregressions basis , ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U tests

based on sample data collected from the questionnaire. First, the result clearly Ourshows findings thatcan organizational be summarized characteristics in the following and aspects. inter -organizational n small and collaborationmedium-size museums. determine Organizationalthe outcome characterist of museumics innovation include ownership, i size, and geographical location, and inter-

organizational collaboration covers the frequency and object of collaboration. Second, the impact of these determinant factors on museum innovation

175 CHAPTER 5 WHAT AFFECTS MUSEUM INNOVATION?

differsdetermines based the on outcome the type of innovation. For example, organizational size just of cultural innovation; geographic distance only drives organizational innovation; the frequency of collaboration ides merely with affects technological(1978) argument, and organizational innovations. This finding coinc Daft's which stressed the differentiation between administrative and technicalother words, innovation technological, in terms cultural of the impactsa of facilitating factors on them. In associated to nd organizational innovation may be Third, differentsome influencing factors in museum organizations. studies cross- determinant factors identified by prior based on For example,country sampleCamarero don't exert et al. anticipated (2011) and influence De-Miguel on- molina museum et innovation.al. (2013) both pointed out that organizational size determined the degree museumsof technological located and in organizationalvarious countries innovation based on sampling surveys of . But our study discovered that organizational size only had a positive relationship with the outcome of cultural innovation rather than technologicalgeographical proximity or organizational is not a innovation in Valencian museums. Besides, determinant factorregional of innovation and institutional to local museums. These conflictings findings may imply that the diversitymuseum community.also affect the mechanism of how innovation drivers execerise in In sum, these conclusions contain important academic, managerial and policy implications,

which is the subject in the following discussion. .

176

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

This research is a theory- study museums

based focusing on the empirical case of in the ValenciaThe studyRegion centers of Spain. on Innovation three main by museumquestions.organization First, i is the object to ofdevelop study. a new perspective that explains innovation in museumss it possible so as to conventional perspectives? Second, how do overcomemuseums innovate the limitations in the of ? And third, what determines innovation outcomedomainss in museum of cultural organizations? production Conventionally, a dichotomy

museum innovation used to be studied from ofunit perspectives,s or focusing either on technological innovation withinIn chapter productive 3, a third perspectivecultural on innovation museum byinnovation arts and is cultural proposed organization. by integrating the first two perspectivesdevelopment. onMuseum the basis innovation of essential empirical observation and theoretical study in a comprehensive and integratedis reformulated into an independent the object of ition, taxonomy andmanner determinants by exploring four aspects. This of phenomenon,constitutes the defin the empirical study in theof research innovation. Chapter theoretical4 concentrated basis ofon the explanation es in of innovation processthe cultural museumsproduction on process the basises of the open innovation model.s and By focusingtheir complexity, on of museum organization four domains of cultural production were identified in terms ofched knowledge with a particular base and value creation dimensions, each domain was further mat the typelearning of innovation process and so innovation as to facilitate mode the identification of knowledge form,- in four domains. By means of a multiple were casederived study and pattern matching technique, different patterns of innovation based on functional activities embedded in the domain of cultural 177 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

production. museum

Chapter 5 focusedsurvey on the approachidentification and ofstatistical influencing tests. factors in innovationtheoretical propositions by way of a discussed in the chapter 3, On s the the basis caseof and the finding concerningof the study in chapter 4, the study first proposed a series of hypotheses potentialinnovation influences outcome, and of organizationalthen each hypothe characteristicssis was and collaboration on the results the statistical tests. accepted or refused on the basis of of answerOn to the the questions basis of is theoretical quite clear. constructionIt is and empirical analyses, necessary the to not only possible but also explainconventionally museum di chotomous innovation explanations. from the thirdMuseum perspective innovation that is integratesan open innovation

production, whichand followsthe typevarious patterns for innovationYet, some based on the domain of s of innovation. basic organizational characteristics of museum andways collaboration. factors can affect the outcome of museum innovation in different 6.1 MAIN CONCLUSIONS

T the

questionshree main that conclusions motivated this can study. be extracted from the answers provided to F tegrated manner.

This irst of all, museum innovation can be explained in an in the integrationmanner of includesintension at least three dimensions. The first dimension isions, innovation means of museum innovation.ideas, theories To museum and approaches organizat into new/improved culturalthe transformation products, services of and processes so as to advance, ully in the market and society.

Museumcomplete, innovation and differentiate is complex; museums museum successfs innovate in “content creativity” and “ ” dimensions in a “hidden” mannerboth, and adopt externally generated innovationsoft as an important its source of innovation.et Successfulimpacts, innovation shouldtics be andvalued institutional not only byoutcomefunctionalitys in the museum and mark community. but also by aesthe

178 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

The second dimension is the integration of extension innovation. Museum innovation is a complex phenomenon that of museum technological and non-technological components. From a knowledgeinvolves- both based approach,innovation, museum cultural innovationinnovation, can and be organizational classified into threeinnovation. types: Te technologicalchnological the external innovationtechnologies; embraces cultural innovation internal include R&D ands arts and humanitiesadoption ofresearch new and new cultural product development; organizational innovation covers a range of innovationsThe inthird business dimen practices,sion is workplacethe integration organization of determinants and external relations. innovation. Theoretical propos of museum innovation itions about the influence of different factors onal, organizationalby museumand systemi organizationsc levels. The can existing be summed litera upture along discloses individu that leadership, onalization, organizational characteristics, management

professi features, market attributes, geographical proximity and cultural policy may contributeSecond to innovation, museum outcomesinnovation in varyingis an o ways.pen innovation involving various patternsinnovation. for As innovation open based on the domain of production and the type of external knowledge innovation, museumsIn small and often mid - relysize museumson both internal and our case study, for innovation. , as shown by the dependence of innovation. Inon general,knowledge there sources are three varies ways based in onwhich different innovation domains can of cultural production- innovation, and adoptivetake innovation. place, i.e. In self particudependentlar, most innovation, innovation collaborative relies on open- - producerended interaction sources ofis an knowledge; important e xternal knowledge based on supplier experience domains, such as digital museumconditions and for visitorsuccessful service innovations. Internal in knowledge through in more in production domains ternal R&D, however,. usually smatters innovation process pattern is concerned, such, most as restoration technological and innovationsexhibition As take far placea either in a col while productionlaborative- patterncultural innovation or by direct o adoption of external-dependent innovation; innovation through internalbased ften focuses on self arts and humanities research, but this doesn't prevent museums from 179 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

introducing new cultural products created outside as a complementary pattern - a

of innovation; and experiencewith the emphasisbased cultural on user innovation-producer interaction. normally followsThe case collaborativestudy also shows pattern that the civil service syste demotivation and negative attitudes at work,m inin publicturn museums may lead to innovation in . , acting e asmotiv a barrieration and to public museums But the breadth and depth of d her study. negativeLast work, seen in public museums is not clear, which calls for furt c basic organizational characteristics of museum and collaboration onstitute important determinant factors that influence the outcome of museum innovationmixed museums in different engage manners. in more All technological other things innovation being equal and, both organizational private and innovation t lic museums s undertake arts and

han pub and, butnew private cultural museum product developmentfewer, museumhumanitiess. Comparing research projects mixed museums with private museums than publicion , the contribut technologicalof the former innovation. is much greaterThe than thateographic of the latteral proximity to the on outcome museum of innovation is weak; museums impact gain ofa g their proximity to the corresponding provincialdon't capital citiesny advantage by way of technological innovation nor in cultural, and innovation render neither; on the a contrary, benefit ina termsgreater of distance may spur museums to implement changes in their organizational structur the

e and methods to make uporganizational for deficiency innovationof. collaborative opportunities, thus achieving a degree of Ascorrelated far as museum with cultural size is innovation; concerned, the the increa number of employees is onlymployees positively can strengthen a museum’s innovationse inin thearts number and humanities of e research and new product development.capability for Considering the factors relatingthe to extent collaboration, to which bothmuseums the frequency innovate. andThe diversitymore of collaboration may affect , the more likely it is to engage in technologicala museum and organizational is involved in innovation collaboration. Furthermore,

the contribution of collaboration to museum innovation differs based on with whom museums collaborate.- Technological innovation can be enhanced by collaborating with high tech firms, universities and other museums; organizational innovation can be achieved through collaborating with individual 180 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION specialists and museum organizations; yet museological associations helps museums to arrive to a higher joining degree of cultural innovation. 6.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR ACADEMICS, MANAGEMENT AND POLICY- MAKING

A set implications conclusions.of They can be inferred on the basiss, management of above findings and policy and- making relating implicationsreflect upon to museum possible innovation. academic

Academic implications

Academic and empirimplicationical study. With can regardbe discussed to theoretica in two laspects development, of theoretical museum development innovation isscholars becoming in an emerging topic of innovation study that draws attention from recenta years,narrative but andmost one of -thesided existing contex studiest. For example,only stress innovation byThomas museums (1998) in Johnson and put forward innovation as the first agenda of the economicsAlthough of museumssuch studies with may emphasis give a deep on technological insight on a innovation and –its e.g. diffusion. ICTs – it may to a greatspecific extentfeature the utilizationelieve of that museumof museum innovation innovation, equals to mislead readers to b museums. This is the adoption of new technologies by detrimental for the understanding innovationc. Our in research museum organizations by the museographical professionals anda more the publicomprehensive way showsintegrating that museum innovation can be explained ms,in thus providing a potential byresearch path theto expanddichotomy the of existing research research paradig paradigms and to make our explanation des reality more closely. Such a research path involves at least

dimensions.cribe four• An integrated perspective, innovation in museum organizations not only s to technologic o stresses

refer al innovation the and its diffusion, but als • Acultural complex innovation process out, the of wayattributes in which museumsof arts and innovate cultural organizations.is diverse and

181 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

varie

take s from the type “technology of innovation-push and” theand domain “demand of production;-pull” as it cannotthe processfores granted . being • A systemicof museumlevel, museum innovation innovation is more than an organizational

• Aprocess; regional it is basis embedded in the system of innovation in museums. and regions , the degree of museum innovation differs from countries owing to ralthe and differen technologicalce in cultural resources; policies t and infrastructure for educational, cultu he regional basis is ofstudy changeable aims extension practicallyrto 2005)in terms. For ofSpanish the object museums, at which it theis to(Doloreux analyze innovati & Pa preferable on at into autonomous innovation community at a national levels; level . for global museums,s this empirical it is better study to is probe concerned, t with

th As far a new findings that conflic investigatede prior propositions . For mayexample, imply although some potentialthe existing breaches viewpoints deserving regard to be organizationalfurther size and geographical both organizational in proximity as drivers of technological and gl novations according that to such the determinant prior empirical impacts studies were based weak onor obal museums, our study reveals negligiblepr among Valencian museums. The contradictionat between theoreticalum oposition and empirical finding suggests th determinantson innovation ofmay muse change innovation are not absolute and, instead, theirs. Why effect does such contradiction occur? based on other factors , e.g. regional factor s on innovation outcome? WhatHow do factors some lead pre -to change in the effect of determinant a particular region? These questions deserve identifiedmore attention determinants the functionacademic in community. from Managerial implication

Museumsmo and their directors attach importancea manager to innovation’s indiv management,idual experience but andst outdated of the managerial theory. As practices a result, innovationare based on management in the museum is d as such as constructing digitaloften simplifiemuseums, expandingconsisting of detailed behaviors s and activities. audience reach, or programming exhibition

182 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

In essence, “technology-push” and “demand-pull” used to

the museum community. be rules of thumbthe widelyopen innovation adopted for model, innovatio thisn study by discards conventional Byexplanation emphasizings the technology-push or demand-pull linear processesabout and innovation based on es, innovation stressespatterns the significance of knowledge source, learning process the ings mayand collaboration. Some managerial implications drawn museums. from find First, havemuseum a beneficial innovation impact hason innovationmultiple managementdimens in technological and cultural, to organizational aspects, thusions an ranging from museum innovation should tiple dimensionsassessment rather than ofa alsoical beor basedcultural on innovation.mul This case study shows single outcome of technolog that the pattern of innovation is associated with the dimension of innovationation depend and the domain where innovation takes place. Different- types of innov adoptiveon different patter patternsns); and hence, of innovation particular (i.e. type selfs dependent, collaborative and supporting the corresponding pattern of innovation can be achieved by However, through effective innovation management. a museum should supportthe diversity all innovation of museum patterns innovation equally so doesn't as to enhance mean that comprehensive innovation in the museum. On the contrary, it should prioritize innovation in museums owing to the certain typesstricted of clarity in a museumir organizational’ objectives and cons resources. Therefore, s mission and(McDonald objectives 2007) seem, towhich be a requisite for positiveeffectively to the innovation organizational management mission to innovate 'sin NPOs. contributes interactiveSecond, network the mechanismrather than of museumlinear process innovationes, thus is characterizedsuggesting that by conventional activities,

including the acquisition, are of new technologies do andnot identification of public and private demandinnovation. important this factors, the buts constituemuseum innovation sufficient is conditions also reliant for on knowledgeBesides management, organizationaluccess of learning and inter- networks in which museumsorganizational are involved. collaborat In particular,ion that maythe “open affect” interactive attribute of museumim innovation signifies that andexternal hence, knowledge expanding becomes external more source and morethe portant in fostering innovation; s for 183 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

acquisition of knowledge from other institutions is the key to successful innovation by museums. This furthers – inter relies- on two aspects. The first is the establishment of external channel organizational collaboration can be an efficient institutional channel for maintaining a stable and lasting flow and exchange of knowledge and technology between museums and– learning their suppliers/users; the second is the assimilation of externalthened knowledgeas essential learning by doing, using and interacting should be streng capacityThird, for innovation. internal knowledge also matters. The emphasis on external knowledge and inter-organizational interaction internal knowledge and instead, doesn't negate the importance of - the generation of internal knowledge is the basis programof production and based cultural innovation, like new investigation, exhibition, cultural innovationpublication suggestss. Besides,that interna the marked impact of museum associated size wi onth museums. At last, “humanl knowledge resource could” is at be staffproduct headcount development in in museum organizations; the core of new resources and strengthening human capital are key elementsoptimizing the allocation of innovation. to fostering cultural Finally, all concerning innovation determinants made explicit, findings can to be achieve , particularand practical and overall guidelines outcome for smuseum managers be producedTogether with boththe someof innovation detailed managerial in museums. implications and above managerial implications, practices• Formulating may be summed museum up strategas follows:ies tion as a practical guideline to innovation management in the museum,for innova such innovation strategy should, at least, include: a) the

the objectives of innovation in accordance with ch mission of organization; b) the typethe patternand domain of innovation on whi themuseum museum plans plans to achieve to focus; the desited c) innovation.of innovation by which the • an emphasis on the

Optimizing the allocation of resources with importance of human capital to cultural innovation.- In the case of- museumsor at full strength, internship program andto shortstrengthenterm andinnovation project iented employment can be alternatives 184 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

capacity for new museums. cultural product development by enlarging the number • Improvingof employees the in organizational function of internal knowledge generationent by enhancing individual-the- learning training. capacity through creating suffici • opportunities for on jobacquiring external knowledge Widening channels for - by promoting personal mobility and inter organizationalthe collaboration; establishing lastingtechnology and stablethrough mechanism seeking forinstitutional smooth agreements exchange of likeknowledge internship and agreements s and universities, partnerships

museums andbetween enterprises, museum and trust- between and service suppliers. based outsourcing with technology • rsities and research centers,

Intensifyinghigh- the collaboration other museums with to unive improve the museum’ technologicaltech firms, innovation; and participating in museological associationss ability forto enhance the museum’ cultural innovation; and strengthening

contacts with individuals ability specialists for and museum organizations to better meet the objective of organizational innovation. Policy implication

-making.

The implications fromt important most of implicationour findings is are t quite positive for policyseums to takeThe firstan andactive mos role as a social agent andhat economic it is possible engine for in mu territorial development through an in crisis the

“geographiccal proximity” novation strategy in times ofother creative. Different industries from effect, the on innovation ininnovation is less (Martingeographic & Moodyssonal distance 2011) in the museumoutcome sectorof most and, instead, suchaffected distance by a higher vation in museums. This contributessuggests that to degree of organizational inno other creative economy players, museums could be a preferred vector, over, an innovation strategy;of a Spanish museum specialization- in global competitionis a potentialbased on alternative to based innovationremote strategy municipalities territorial development for those have relatively weakthat educational embrace richand cultural and creative resources but 185 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

technological infrastructures. educational and technolHowever, the above discussion doesn't infer that ogical infrastructures are notrate importantit necessary. On and the contrary, the findings relatingintra and to inter collaboration-sector connection demonsts s significant to establish other sectors, including universities,and research collaboration centers andbetween high- tech museums industries and s because such collaboration can be beneficial to museum innovation by facilitating the acquisition of external knowledge and technology. ind Besides, a higher degree of administrative in museum autonomy innovation, and economic which is impliedependence can be an institutional strength private by our finding that mixed museums perform betters than. Considering both public that and a museums overall in terms of innovation outcome majority of museums in the Valencia regions, and arewith public no museums under direct managementwhatsoever, it ofseems public nece administrationssary to decentralize the currentfinancial independence museums and empower directors and management team system of public the the museums. On the other hand, the governmentresponsible also forshould administrationadapt its policies of and private museums in order to give funding to technologicalbetter support innovation , and encourage their full play to their strength in cultural in innovation. furtherLastly, engagement raising t museums to support socialhe numbercohesion ofand employees developmen cant. Many increase localthe governments ability of assume that municipal museums will strengthen cultural identities, support social cohesion, and create cultural tourism through enriching cultural goods and municipal museums services.endemic But many . Our in the Valencia region suffer from an growth inshortage the num of manpower finding clearly discloses that for a 10% innovation increasesber of employees in a museum the outcome of cultural that by 4.7% an appropriate, at 95% confidence level, which shows increasingoutput. museum staff in and effective way to enhance cultural In conclusion, some detailed policy implica as

tions can be summarized follows:• New regional strategies that include museums as vectors of specialization 186 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

and innovation should be on the political agenda for territorial • development and global competition. system museumsFurther cultural is necessary, reform with on theemphasis decentralization on empowering of regional museum directorss for and management teams in museum,

loosening government interventioncharge ofon the museums administration and of alternative sourc allowing for • es for museum funding to be explored. Supporting the development of private museums; the encouraging ’s interest privates museums to produce more cultural outputs based on public private museums.and needs by increasing political and financial supports for •

Promoting the integration of cultural heritage, education and technologies byresearch facilitating and educational the cooperation institutions and collaboration as well as attracting between investment museums and sponsorship ustries to the museum sector.

• from technologicalployees ind in the museum sector to strengthen Increasingthe sector’ the number of em s capabilities for cultural innovation, thus improving the impact of museums on social cohesion and local development. 6.3 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

This research recogni the geographical, content andzes research the limitation methodology that aspects. can be concluded from on , First, this study focuses sedmuseums on the in the Valencian Community Valencian of Spainmuseums.and theAs findings are mainly bamentioned, empirical analysis of it hasand alreadysome results been museum innovation to Spanish differs museums from country and not to so country, much to museums that mayare locatedbe only inapplicable other regions, such as the United Kingdom, other continental , the erences

Europeanin cultural countries,policies, governance America, Asia, structure Africas, orinnovation Oceania patternbecauses, ofand so diffon. the study

AlthoughThe this second study possible limitation comes from the content of itself. has put forward a set of theoretical propositions about the

187 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

were tested

determinant factors of museum innovation, only some of the factors results, bysome empirical theoretical data propositionsand statistical are analysis proved in and the the study. Based on statistical This implies the importance an overall test on the residualothers should be revised. of propositions and because revisedsome of them may. also be rejected by further empirical study may need to be Lastlyfurther, there are the research methodology. First, the the limitationsin the study imposed may by the resultsmalls size of sample affect negatively the reliability of Second, by increasing the confidence interval at a certain confidence level. the sample of the study doesn't cover large museums with reference to both the number of employees and prestige because there is a lack of the museumsValencia as large as the Prado Museum y and apply the to Reina similar Sofia regions Museum with insmall the and mid-region, thus our findings may onl or size museums. Third, the measurement of innovation in museum ganizations is incomplete because of difficult access to relatedl lim data;ited forto example, the actual ICTs without measurement considering of technological the innovation is stil the adoption of internal R&D dimension. need to undertakenIn order to inovercome several aspects.the above limitations, further researchesthe samplemay in thisbe study, the next step Consideringto expand the the current small size of the Valencianwould beautonomous community surveyto other of museumregional innovation from , so as to achieve a large size territories and even into the whole country of Spain si ofmuseum. sample with a wider range of museums in terms of ze, type and ownership of nded survey, an important the

Based on the cross expa- me deserving further research would be a regionala comparative study of museum innovation.s inA feasible plan of study might be comparative analysis of innovation outcome museums from different autonomous cance communities depending on in theSpain. comparison; The possible some findings could be of different signifi more generalized theories may be induced from the identification of the common characteristics shared by museums located in different autonomous communities, or some fundamental factors influencing museum innovation may be determined based on the difference in innovation outcomes of museums 188 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

. betweenAnother different regional territories eme also relates to the me museum innovation.possible research th innovativeasurement activities of in The lack of standard measurements for undertaking museum organizations has prevented scholars, as well as from cross-study comparisonfurthers empirical exploration of museum innovation and urgent to based on existing literature. Therefore, and itwell maybe appropriate develop a series of comprehensive defined indicators to capture all dimensionsFinally, and characteristics of museuminn innovation.ovation studied. This researchdeterminants may of museum , also deserve to be further propositions include both further ,development of theoretical based on multidisciplinary an empirical literature survey andand statistical the test analysis. of extensive theoretical hypotheses based on

189

190

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Academy of Management Review, 16(3), pp.586–612. Abrahamson, E., 1991. Managerial Fads and Fashions: the Diffusion and Refection of Innovations. Economía de las artes y política cultural, Madrid: Instituto Avai Albi Ibáñez, E., 2003. de estudios fiscales. lable at:

http://www.ief.es/documentos/recursos/publicaciones/libros/Est_hac_pu Alcaideb/Libros_estud_Hac_pub_EcoArtes_Indi.pdf.- -Esparza, E., 2007. Innovation assessment in ndicators. Marzal, J. & Tortajada Scientometrics, 72(1), pp.33–57. traditional industries. A proposal of aesthetic innovation i -Cognitive Institutions on Innovation in Technology Alliances. Management Alexander, E.A., 2012. The Effects of Legal, Normative, and Cultural International Review, 52(6), pp.791–815.

Journal of International Management, 16(4), pp.340–353. A� lvarez, I. & Marı́n, R., 2010. Entry modes and national systems of innovation. Museums & Society 2034: Trends and Potential Futures, Arlington. American Association of Museums, 2008. Anderson, G., 2004. Introduction: Reinventing The Museum. In G. Anderson, ed. Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift. Lanham: AltaMira Press, pp. 1–9.

museums practices. Deadalus, 128(3), pp.129–162. Anderson, M.L., 1999. Museums of the Future: the impact of technology on

Aoyama, Y. & Izushi, H., 2003. Hardware gimmick or cultural innovation? industry. Research Policy, 32, pp.423–444. Technological, cultural, and social foundations of the Japanese video game A The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), pp.155–173. rrow, K.J., 1962. The Economic Learning Implications of by Doing. The Limits of Organization Company. Arrow, K.J., 1974. , New York: W · W · Norton & Face-to-

Asheim, B., Coenen, L. & Vang, J., 2007. face, buzz, and knowledge bases: Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(5), pp.655–670. Sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy.

syst The Oxford Asheim, B. & Gertler, M., 2005. The geography of innovation: Regional innovation ems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson, eds. 191

BIBLIOGRAPHY handbook of innovation 291–317.

. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. Economic Geography, 85(4), pp.425–442. Asheim, B. & Hansen, H.K., 2009. Knowledge Bases, Talents, and Contexts: On the Usefulness of the Creative Class. systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), pp.1173–1190. Asheim, B.T. & Coenen, L., 2005. Knowledge bases and regional innovation tuciones Revista Iberoamericana de Asuaga, C. & Rausell Köster, P., 2006. Un Análisis de la gestión de insti Contabilidad de Gestión, 4(8). culturales: el caso especı́fico de los Museos. Atuahene-Gima, K., 1996. Market orientation and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 35(2), pp.93–103. Arts and Humanities Research and Innovation, London: NESTA Bakhshi, H., Schneider, P. & Christopher, W., 2008. Culture of Innovation: An economic analysis of innovation, London: NESTA Bakhshi, H. & Throsby, D., 2010. Innovation in Arts and Cultural Organisations, London: NESTA Bakhshi, H. & Throsby, D., 2009.

Management Decision, 47(8), pp.1323–1339. Baregheh, A., Rowley, J. & Sambrook, S., 2009. Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Performing Arts, the Economic Dilemma; a Study of Problems Common to Theater, Opera, Music, and Dance, New York: Baumol, W.J. & Bowen, W.G., 1966. Twentieth Century Fund.

iterature Becheikh, N., Landry, R. & Amara, N., 2006. Lessons from innovation empirical -2003. Technovation, 26(5–6), pp.644–664. studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the l from 1993 Curator: The Museum Journal, 44(1), pp.27–34. Bedford, L., 2001. Storytelling: The Real Work of Museums. Technological change in the modern economy: basic topics and new developments, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Beije, P., 1998. International Journal of Technology Management, 34(3/4), pp.390–404. Berkhout, A.J. et al., 2006. Innovating the innovation process. Can Institutional Forces Create Comprtitive Advantage? Empirical Examination of Environmental Innovation (working paper no. Berrone, P. et al., 2007. – U

723), Barcelona: IESE Business School niversity of Navarra European Regional Science Association 36th European Congress ETH Zurich, Bianchi, G. & Bortolotti, F., 1996. On the Concept of Formal Innovation. In

192

BIBLIOGRAPHY Switzerland 26-30 August 1996 Giuliano. Zurich,.

creativity in the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, Bilton, C. & Leary, R., 2002. What can managers do for creativity? Brokering 8(1), pp.49–64.

Investigaciones Regionales, (22), pp.181–205. Boix, R. & Lazzeretti, L., 2012. Las industrias creativas en España: Una panorámica. The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts. Borgdorff, H., 2011. The Production of Knowledge in Artistic Research. In M. London: Routledge, pp. 44–63. Biggs & H. Karlsson, eds. Museums and the Web. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, April 22- Bowen, J.P., 1998. Virtual Visits to Virtual Museums. In 25, 1998. Available at: .html. [Accessed April 15, 2016] http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw98/papers/bowen/bowen_paper The Open Innovation Model (Research paper 2), Paris:

Brant, J. & Lohse, S., 2014. The world business organization. Breschi, S. & Malerba, F., 1997. Sectoral Innovation Systems: Technological ed. Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. Regimes, Schumpeterian Dynamics, and Spatial Boundaries. In C. Edquist, London: Routledge, pp. 130–156.

Present Findings , and Future Directions. Academy of Management Review, Brown, S.L. & Eisenhardt, K.M., 1995. Product Development : Past Research , 20(2), pp.343–378.

- Bureth, A., Wolff, S. & Zanfei, A., 1997. The two faces of learning by cooperating: electronics industry. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 32, The evolution and stability of inter firm agreements in the European pp.519–537.

E., 2013. España: La cultura en tiempos de crisis Fuentes financieras y políticas públicas, Mad Bustamante Ramı́rez, rid: Fundación Alternativas Camarero, C. & Garrido, M.J., 2008. The role of technological and organizational cultural organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(3), innovation in the relation between market orientation and performance in pp.413–434.

orientation in European museums. Innovation versus custodial. Journal of Camarero, C., Garrido, M.J. & Vicente, E., 2015. Achieving effective visitor Cultural Heritage, 16(2), pp.228–235. ’ size

Camarero, C., Garrido, M.J. & Vicente, E., 2011. How cultural organizations 193

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Journal of Cultural Economics, 35(4), pp.247–266. and funding influence innovation and performance: the case of museums. Camarero, C. Market Orientation, Service Orientation, and Innovations in Museums. & Garrido, M.J.M.J., 2012. Fostering Innovation in Cultural Contexts: Journal of Service Research, 15(1), pp.39–58. -Zornoza, C. et al., 2004. A Meta- Organizational Size. Organization Studies, 25(3), pp.331–361. Camisón analysis of Innovation and

Research Policy, 35(9), pp.1273– Cappetta, R., Cillo, P. & Ponti, A., 2006. Convergent designs in fine fashion: An 1290. evolutionary model for stylistic innovation.

Systems. Sloan Management Review, 17(3), pp.1–15. Carlsson, B., Keane, P. & Martin, J.B., 1976. R&D Organizations As Learning

Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Castañer, X., 2014. Cultural Innovation by Cultural Organizations. In V. A. Volume 2. Elsevier, pp. 263–276. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby, eds.

Journal of Cultural Economics, 26, Castañer, X. & Campos, L., 2002. The Determinants of Artistic Innovation: pp.29–52. Bringing in the Role of Organizations. Castro- - La innovación en patrimonio cultural: un espacio de confluencia de diversas bases de martı́nez, E. & Fernández baca Casares, R., 2012. conocimiento (Working paper no 2012/07), Valencia:

Universitat Politècnica Castrode- València - Innovation systems in motion: an early music case. Management Decision, 51(6), pp.1276–1292. Martı́nez, E., Recasens, A. & Jiménez Sáez, F., 2013. Ch’ Visual Heritage in the Digital Age, London: Springer Verlag. ng, E., Gaffney, V. & Chapman, H., 2013. -Curated Contemporary Art MW2013: Museums and the Web 2013 Chae, G. & Kim, J., 2013. Tagging Artworks: Crowd -artworks- Exhibition. . Available at: crowd-curated-contemporary-art- http://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/proposals/tagging exhibition/ Russian [Accessed State March Museums: 2, 2016]. Recent Innovations. International Journal of Arts Management, 6(2), pp.44–53. Chekova, E., 2004. Organizational Structure of

Chesbrough, H., 2006. Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm Industrial Innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West, eds. . OxfordOpen Innovation: University Researching Press. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J., 2006. 194

BIBLIOGRAPHY a New Paradigm, University Press

New OpenYork: innovation:Oxford The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology Chesbrough, H.W., 2003a. , Boston: Harvard Business MITSchool Sloan Press. Management Review, 44(3), pp.35–41. Chesbrough, H.W., 2003b. The era of open innovation. Strategies for regional innovation systems: learning transfer and applications, Vienna: United Nations Industrial Cooke, P. & Memedovic, O., 2003. Develpoment Organization

evolutionary perspective. Environment and Planning A, 30(9), pp.1563– Cooke, P., Uranga, M.G. & Etxebarria, G., 1998. Regional systems of innovation: an 1584. Cor Museum te, V. Della, Aria, M. & Del Gaudio, G., 2017. Smart, open, user innovation and Management and Curatorship ISSN:, 32(1), pp.50–79. competitive advantage: a model for museums and heritage sites.

heritages management and valorization. International Journal of Quality and Corte, V. Della, Savastano, I. & Storlazzi, A., 2011. Service innovation in cultural Service Sciences, 1(3), pp.225–240. Innovation in Museums through the Use of ICTs (Master dissertation) Costa Barbosa, C., 2013. at: https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/35928. . University of Oslo, Autonomous University of Madrid. Available Experiment, Design, and Statistics in Psychology. Third Edition Third edit., London: Cotton, J.W., 1994. Penguin- Books. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), pp.193–210. Daft, R.L., 1978. A Dual Core Model of Organizational Innovation. Damanpour, F., 1996. Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42(5), pp.693– 716. Damanpour, F., 1991. Organizational Innovation: A Meta- Determinants and Moderators. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), Analysis of Effects of pp.555–590.

Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(4), pp.313–331. Dawson, B., 2008. Facilitating Innovation: Opportunity in Times of Change. De-Miguel- - - Understanding management innovation in the Spanish arts, heritage and Molina, B., Hervás Oliver, J. L., et al., 2014. Beautiful innovation: - -O -Ortiz, eds. Management innovation: Antecedents, complementarieties and performance recreation industries. In J. L. Hervá s liver & M. Peris

195

BIBLIOGRAPHY consequences. Cham: Springer, pp. 91–103. De-Miguel- -Miguel- -

Molina, B., De Molina, M. & Albors Garrigós, J., 2014. Journal of Administrative Museums: Not Just Visiting Spaces but a Driving Force for the Use of Sciences and Technology, 2014, pp.1–21. Advanced S&T in the Restoration of Artworks. De-Miguel- - Museums. In 35th DRUID Conference. molina, B., Hervás oliver, J.L. & Boix, R., 2013. Drivers of Beautiful

Innovation: Artworks Restoration by Barcelona. Library Trends, 52(1), pp.133–137. Dean, J.F., 2003. Digital Imaging and Conservation : Model Guidelines. Digital culture: how arts and cultural organizaciones in england use technology, London. Digital R&D Fund for the Arts, 2013.

eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W., 1991. Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio, 1–40.

University of Chicago Press, pp. Why Do Some Theatres Innovate More Than Others? An Empirical Analysis. Poetics, 14, pp.107–122. DiMaggio, P.J. & Stenberg, K., 1985.

-Whitney U Statistic. Journal of the Royal Dinneen, L.C. & Blakesley, B.C., 1973. Algorithm AS 62: A Generator for the Statistical Society, 22(2), pp.269–273. Sampling Distribution of the Mann

and unresolved issues. Technology in Society, 27(2), pp.133–153. Doloreux, D. & Parto, S., 2005. Regional innovation systems: Current discourse

lesson Research Policy, 17(5), pp.309– Dore, R., 1988. Book review: Technology policy and economic performance; 310. s from Japan: Christopher Freeman,.

Handbook of the Dosi, G. & Nelson, R.R., 2010. Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Economics of Innovation. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 51–127. Evolutionary Process. In B. Hall & N. Rosenberg, eds.

Evaluation of human work. A practical ergonomics Drury, C.G., 1995. Methods for direct observation of performance. In J. R. Welson methodology 45–68. & E. Nigel Corlett, eds. DSP-groep, 2011.. London:The socia Tylorl significance & Francis, pp. of museums: more than worth it. Amsterdam: Netherlands Museums Association.

Organization Science, 7(6), Dyer, J.H., 1996. Does Governance Matter? Keiretsu Alliances and Asset Specificity pp.649–666. as Sources of Japanese Competitive Advantage.

196

BIBLIOGRAPHY

transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic management Dyer, J.H., 1997. Effective interfirm collaboration: how firms minimize journal, 18(7), pp.535–556.

The Oxford Handbook of Edquist, C., 2005. System of innovation: perspective and challenges. In J. Innovation 181–208. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson, eds. . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. - Their Emergence and Characteristics. In C. Edquist, ed. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Edquist, C., 1997. Systems of Innovation Approaches Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter, pp. 1–35.

Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 9(3), pp.183–222. Evangelista, R., 2000. Sectoral Patterns Of Technological Change In Services.

Strategic Management Journal, 33(1), pp.42–64. Fabrizio, K.R. & Thomas, L.G., 2012. The Impact of Local Demand on Innovation in a Global Industry. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Fagerberg, J., 2006. Innovation: A Guide to the Literature. In J. Fagerberg, D. 1–26. Mowery, & R. Nelson, eds. . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. Innovation Fagerberg, J., Martin, B.R. & Andersen, E.S., 2013. Innovation Studies: Towards a Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges New Agend. In J. Fagerberg, B. R. Martin, & E. S. Andersen, eds. 1–17. . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. - The emerging structure –233. Fagerberg, J. & Verspagen, B., 2009. Innovation studies Flew,of T.,a new 2012. scientific The Creativefield. , 38, Industries: pp.218 Culture and Policy, London: SAGE

Freeman,Publication C., 1987. Ltd. Technology, Policy, and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan

, London: Pinter Publishers. Unemployment and Technical Innovation: A Study of LongWaves and Economic Development, London: Pinter. Freeman, C., Clark, J. & Soete, L., 1982. The Economics of Industrial Innovation 3rd ed., MIT Press. Freeman, C. & Soete, L., 1997. Cambridge MA: Arts & Economics: Analysis & Frey, B.S. & Meier, S., 2003. Private Faces in Public Places: A Case Study of the Cultural Policy 95–104. New Beyeler Art Museum. In B. S. Frey, ed. . Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Volume 1. Frey, B.S. & Meier, S., 2006. The Economics of Museums. In V. A. Ginsburgh & D. Elsevier, pp. 1017–1047. Throsby, eds.

197

BIBLIOGRAPHY F Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(3), pp.223–235. rey, B.S. & Steiner, L., 2012. Pay as you go: a new proposal for museum pricing.

Towse, eds. The Artful Economist. Springer, pp. 187–196. Frey, B.S. & Steiner, L., 2016. Towards More Innovative Museums. In I. Rizzo & R.

management in museums and historical agencies. In K. Moore, ed. Museum Friedman, R., 1994. Museum people: the special problems of personnel management. London: Routledge, pp. 120–127. Galenson, D.W., 2008. Analyzing Artistic Innovation: T Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and he Greatest Breakthroughs Interdisciplinary History, 41(3), pp.111–120. of the Twentieth Century.

c Policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, Galloway, S. & Dunlop, S., 2007. A Critique of Definitions of the Cultural and 13(1), pp.1477–2833. Creative Industries in Publi “Creative Industries.” Cultural Industries: The British Experience in International Galloway, S. & Dunlop, S., 2006. Deconstructing the concept of Perspective, 1(May), pp.33–52. Garr

ido, M.J. & Camarero, C., 2010. Assessing the impact of organizational International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15, learning and innovation on performance in cultural organizations. pp.215–232. en, A.H., 2013. Perspectives on Innovation Processes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), pp.775–819. Garud, R., Tuertscher, P. & Van de V Section on Survey Research Methods - JSM 2012. pp. 3455–3460. Ghosh, D. & Vogt, A., 2012. Outliers: an evaluation of methodologies. In

Creativity & Innovation Gieskes, J. & van der Heijden, B., 2004. Measuring and Enabling Learning Management, 13(2), pp.109–125. Behaviour in Product Innovation Processes.

Cuadernos de Arte de la Universidad de Gilabert González, L.M., 2016. Economı́a y gestión: reflexiones sobre las polı́ticas Granada, 47, pp.147–164. de los museos públicos en España. Competition and Innovation. Journal of Industrial Organization Education, 1(1), pp.1–23. Gilbert, R.J., 2006.

Minerva, 46(3), pp.343–360. Godin, B., 2008. In the Shadow of Schumpeter: W. Rupert Maclaurin and the Gorp,Study S.A. ofVan, Technological 2012. Innovation Innovation. in the nonprofit organizational context : examining the strategic significance of systems trust and individual resistance

198

BIBLIOGRAPHY to change (Doctorial dissertation). http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/3003. University of Iowa. Available at: Grant, R.M., 1996. Torward a Knowledge- Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp.109–122. based Theory of the Firm. Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Greenhalgh, C. & Rogers, M., 2010.

innovation consequences: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Grinstein, A., 2008. The effect of market orientation and its components on Marketing Science, 36(2), pp.166–173. “Third Sector.” Gui, eds. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics (special issue), The Gui, B., 1991. The Economic Rationale for the In A. Ben Ner & B. Nonprofit Sector in the Mixed Economy -Wesmael S.A. 59–80. . Bruxelles: BOECK Publishers, pp. Handbook of the economics of innovation Volume 1. Hall, B.H. & Rosenberg, N., 2010. Introduction to the handbook. In B. H. Hall & N. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 3–9. Rosenberg, eds. The UK’s Ageing Population: Challenges and opportunities for museums and galleries Hamblin, K.A. & Harper, S., 2016. http://www.ageing.ox.ac.uk/download/173. , London. Available at:

novelty. In Creative Industries: A measure for urban development?. Vienna: Handke, C.W., 2004. Defining creative industries by comparing the creation of

Austrian Society for Cultural Economics and Policy Studies. the Bell Jorurnal of Economics, 12(2), pp.341–361. Hansmann, H., 1981. Nonprofit enterprise in the performing arts. on Complexity Theory. In The Fourth European Conference on Organizational Harkema, S.J.M., 2003. Learning in Innovation Projects: An Approach Based Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities

Hatimi, I.E., 2003. Innovation Decision. Barcelona.Making: Toward a Socio-economic Perspective (Research Paper N ° 24-03) al

, Montréal: HEC Montré Canada, the United States and Mexico. Smithsonian Center for Education and Hauenschild, A., 1988. Claims and Reality of New Museology: Case Studies in Museum Studies http://museumstudies.si.edu/claims2000.htm#2. Elements [Accessed . Available at: y 9, 2016].

Februar Services in innovation - Innovation in services, Oslo: STEP Group. Hauknes, J., 1998.

199

BIBLIOGRAPHY Open Sourcing Digital Heritage: Digital Surrogates, Museums and Knowledge Management in the Age of Open Networks (Doctorial Häyrinen, A., 2012. dissertation)

. University of Jyväskylä. Available at: https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/40157. the 21th century Wilke. Sociomuseology III- Cadernos de Sociomuseologia, 37, Heijnen, W., 2010. The new professional: Underdog or Expert? New Museology in pp.13–24.

The Economics of Art and Heilbrun, J., 1993. Innovation in Art, Innovation in Technology, And the Future of Culture: an American Perspective 89–98. the High Arts. In J. Heilbrun & C. M. Gray, eds. Herreman, Y., 2004. Displa . Cambridge University Press, pp. Running a Museum: a Practical Handbook. Paris: ICOM, pp. 91–103. y, Exhibits and Exhibitions. In P. J. Boylan, ed. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), pp.871–884. Howells, J., 2002. Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Geography. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), pp.4831–4835. Hsieh, H.J., 2010. Museum lifelong learning of the aging people. - - Visionary, Strategic, and Financial Considerations. Journal of Change Hull, C.E. & Lio, B.H., 2006. Innovation in Non profit and For profit Organizations: Management, 6(1), pp.37–41. the Lisbon Declaration

ICOM Europe & ICOM Portugal, 2013. , Available at: , 2016] http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Statements/ENG/Lisbon_ Declaration_ENG.pdf. [Accessed July 3 Stakeholders’ and practitioners’ Ioannidis, Y., Toli, E., et al., 2014. Using ICT in cultural heritage, bless or mess? EuroMed 2014, International Conference on Cultural Heritage, 3-8 November view through the eCultValue project. In 2014. Lemessos, Cyprus.

technology in museums. The Guardian Ioannidis, Y., Balet, O. & Pandermalis, D., 2014. Tell me a story: augmented reality http://www.theguardian.com/culture- -network/culture- . Available at: - -augmented-reality-technology- professionals museums. , 2016] professionals blog/2014/apr/04/story [Accessed November 26 Present state of Museum in Japan, Tokyo. Japanese Association of Museum, 2008. Available at: [Accesse ] http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afi eldfile/2012/03/27/1312941_1.pdf. -Sharingd inJanuary Networked 12 , 2017 Organizations. Järvenpää, E. & Mäki, E., 2002. Knowledge

200

BIBLIOGRAPHY World Congress on Intellectual Capital Readings 374–383. In N. Bontis, ed. . Boston: Taylor & Francis,- pp. ovation in the creative industries – A cultural production innovation perspective. Innovation, 14(2), Jaw, Y., Chen, C. L. & Chen, S., 2012. Managing inn pp.256–275.

Research Policy, 36(5), pp.680–693. Jensen, M.B. et al., 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. imaginary destination in China: The “ecomuseum” Jin, L., 2011. The ecomuseum as an transition of the concept from France to China. In Paris: 1ères - DOCTORIALES du Tourisme de la Chaire , 14 16 septembre 2011. Perspective. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22(22), pp.75–85. Johnson, P. & Thomas, B., 1998. The Economics of Museums : A Research Psychometrika, 39(1), pp.31– 36. Kaiser, H.F., 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. 100 Statisitcal Tests. 3rd Edition 3rd Editio., London: SAGE

Kanji, G.K., 2006. Karp,Publication C., 2004. Ltd.Digital Heritage in Digital Museums. Museum International, 56(221), pp.45–51. -managed a multiple-case study. International Journal of Kauremaa, J., Småros, J. & Holmström, J., 2009. Patterns of vendor Operations & Production Management, 29(11), pp.1109–1139. inventory: findings from

Literature and Research1. Museum Management and Curatorship, 17(1), Kawashima, N., 1998. Knowing the Public. A Review of Museum Marketing pp.21–39.

K Statistics in Medicine, 14(8), pp.811–819. eene, O.N., 1995. The log transformation is special.

museums: an Actor-Network Theory view applied in France. Museum Kéfi, H. & Pallud, J., 2011. The role of technologies in cultural mediation in Management and Curatorship, 26(3), pp.273–289. MIT Sloan Management Review, 35, pp.37–50. Kim, H.D., 1993. The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning.

eds. Hand Book of Organization Design Kimberly, J.R., 1981. Managerial innovation. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck, 84–104. . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.

201

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kimberly, J.R. & Evanisko, M.J., 1981. Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Technological and Administrative Innovations. The Academy of Management Individual, Organizational, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Journal, 24(4), pp.689–713. - examined. Research Policy, 19(4), pp.387–394. Kleinknecht, A. & Verspagen, B., 1990. Demand and innovation: Schmookler re

“superdutch” Journal of Economic Geography, 8, pp.545– Kloosterman, R.C., 2008. Walls and bridges: knowledge spillover between 563. architectural firms. -Layer GIS Mapping Framework ’ng, V. Kokalj, ZŽ. et al., 2013. Crossing Borders: A Multi Visual Heritage in the Digital Age. London: for the Cultural Management of the Mundo Maya Region. In E. Ch Springer, pp. 327–348. Gaffney, & H. Chapman, eds. Lee, T.- -

P. & Pan, C. H., 2014. Institutional factors and innovation diffusion: the City, Taiwan. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 7(2), pp.154–168. diffusion of the Bookstart programme among township libraries in Taichung

International journal of arts management, 44(0), pp.1–19. vom Lehn, D., 2005. Accounting for New Technology in Museum Exhibitions.

International Journal of Contemprary Management, 14(1), pp.67–78. Lewandowski, M., 2015. Types of Innovations in Cultural Organizations.

Li, C., Blanco Sierra, O. & Rausell Köster, P., 2016. Why Is Technological Innovation eums. In Emphasized More Than Symbolic Innovation in Art and Cultural Young Reseach Workshop, 19th International Conference on Cultural Organizations? Analyzing the Sectoral System of Innovation in Mus Economics, 21st-24th June, Valladorid, Spain

. Valladolid, Spain. Available at: 2016] http://eventos.uva.es/file_manager/get_paper/6383. [Accessed October 12, Sargeant, A., 2001. Market versus societal orientation in International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Liao, M., Foreman, S. & Sector Marketing, 6(3), pp.254–268. the nonprofit context.

Design Thinking. California Management Review, 53(1), pp.154–170. Lichtenthaler, U.L. and E., 2013. Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding

Industrial Marketing Litchfiel, R.C. & Gilson, L.L., 2013. Curating collections of ideas: Museum as Management Curating, 42, pp.106–112. metaphor in the management of creativity. , 1998. Manual de gestión de museos

Lord, B. & Lord, G.D. Edición en., Barcelona:

202

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ariel.

Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, pp.3–42. Lucas, R.E., 1988. On the mechanics of economic development. - -producer inte Lundvall, B. AÅ., 1988. Innovation as an interactive process: from user Technical Change and Economic Theory 349– raction to the national system of innovation. In G. Dosi et al., eds. 369. . London: Pinter Publishers, pp. - Innovation System Research: Where it came from and where it might go (Working paper no 2007-01) Lundvall, B. AÅ., 2007. -A., 1992. National Systems of, Saratov:Innovation: Globelics. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning Lundvall, B. , London: Pinter Publishers. Lusiani, M. & Zan, L., 2010. Museum Management and Curatorship Institutional Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(2), pp.147–165. transformation and managerialism in cultural heritage: Heritage Malta. User-producer relationships, innovation and the evolution of market structures under alternative contractual regimes Malerba, F. & Orsenigo, L., 2009. (Working paper no 01/2009)

, Milan: Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi . specialization and industry agglomeration. European Planning Studies, 5(1), Malmberg, A. & Maskell, P., 1997. Towards an explanation of regional pp.25–41.

International Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), pp.196–203. Marques, J.P.C., 2014. Closed versus Open Innovation: Evolution or Combination?

European Martin, R. & Moodysson, J., 2011. Innovation in Symbolic Industries: The Planning Studies –1203. Geography and Organization of Knowledge Sourcing Roman. C., ,2014. 197(October Museums 2014), and pp.1183the “new museology”: theory, practice and organisational change. Museum Management and Curatorship, 29(1), McCall, V. & Gray, pp.19–35.

From Celluloid to Cyberspace: The Media Arts and the Changing Arts World, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. McCarthy, K.F. & Ondaatje, E.H., 2002.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector McDonald, R.E.., 2007. An Investigation of Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations: Quarterly, 36(2), pp.256–281. The Role of Organizational Mission. Mensch, P. van, 1992. Toward a methodology of museology (Doctorial dissertation). -van-Mensch- Zagreb: University of Zagreb. Available at: http://www.emuzeum.cz/admin/files/Peter disertace.pdf. 203

BIBLIOGRAPHY

as Myth and Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp.340– Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalised Organisations: Formal Structure 363.

Running a Museum: a Practical Handbook. Paris: ICOM, pp. 51–89. Michalski, S., 2004. Care and Preservation of Collections. In P. J. Boylan, ed. Hidden innovation in the creative industries,

Miles, I. & Green, L., 2008. The Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation, Miller, G.S.P. et al., 1992. The virtual museum: Interactive 3D navigation of a 3(3), pp.183–197. multimedia database. l Innovation. Urban Studies, 42(11), pp.1969–1990. Moulaert, F. et al., 2005. Towards Alternative Model(s) of Loca

Research Mowery, D. & Rosenberg, N., 1979. The influence of market demand upon Policy, 8(2), pp.102–153. innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Museum association, 2013. Museums change lives, London. Nelson, R.R., 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, New

York: Oxford University Press. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change,

Nelson, R.R. & Winter, S., 1982. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. innovation. International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, Noble, D.R., 1989. Turnover among museum directors and some implications for 8(2), pp.163–174.

Eurostat., 1996. Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation data, 2nd ed.. Paris. OECD & Oslo Manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd ed.. Paris. OECD & Eurostat, 2005. Ozkaya, H.E. et al., 2015. Market orientation, knowledge competence, and innovation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(3), pp.309– 318.

Parry, R., 2010. Introduction to Part One. In R. Parry, ed. Museums in a Digital Age. New York: Routledge, pp. 11–14.

Parry, R., 2007. Recoding the Museum: digital heritage and the technologies of change, New York: Routledge.

theory. Research Policy, 13(6), pp.343–373. Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a

204

BIBLIOGRAPHY

and Organisational Change. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(4), Peacock, D., 2008. Making Ways for Change: Museums, Disruptive Technologies pp.333–351.

Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall, pp.34–43. Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K. & Miller, D., 2008. Rediscovering social innovation. Economic impact of museums, Vaasa:

Piekkola, H., Suojanen, O. & Vainio, A., 2014. University of Vaasa, Levón Institute.- Journal of Cultural Economics, 24(1), pp.45–63. Pierce, J.L., 2000. Programmatic Risk Taking by American Opera Companies. The experience economy School Press. Pine, J. & Gilmore, J.H., 1999. , Boston: Harvard Business Plessis, M.D. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), pp.20–9. , 2007. The role of knowledge management in innoation. Polanyi, M., 1967. The Tacit Dimension

Poole, N., 2010. The Cost of Digitising ,Europe New York:’s Cultural Anchor Heritage: Book. A Report for the Comité des Sages of the European Commission, London. Porter, M.E., 1998. On Competition

Porter, M.E., 1990. The Competitive, Boston:Advantage Harvard of Nations Business, New School York: Free Press. Press.

Journal of High Technology Management Du Preez, N.D., Louw, L. & Essmann, H., 2010. An Innovation Process Model for Research, 3(12), pp.1–24. Improving Innovation Capability. - Museum Management and Curatorship, 26(1), pp.63–79. Pujol Tost, L., 2011. Integrating ICT in exhibitions.

overcome the crisis. Economía de la información, 22(4). Rausell Köster, P., 2013. Understanding the economics of culture as a way to

In A. Rausell Köster, P. & Abeledo Sanchı́s, R., 2013. La cultura, la innovación y la Impactos de la creatividad como retos y oportunidades para el futuro de Europa. dimensión cultural en el desarrollo. Girona: Documenta Universitaria, pp. (Cátedra U. Martinell (Ed.). In A. Martinell Sempere, ed. 101–126. -oriented museums. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1), pp.95–108. Reussner, E.M., 2003. Strategic management for visitor Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd Ed., New York: The Free Press. Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Ed.

, New York: Simon & Schuster

205

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ltd.

Rogers, M., 1998. The Definition and Measurement of Innovation (Working paper no 10/98).

Melbourne:Inside the The black University box: Technology of Melbourne and economics,

Rosenberg, N., 1982. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPerspectives Press. on Technology University Press. Rosenberg, N., 1976. , Cambridge: Cambridge -generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 11(7), pp.7–31. Rothwell, R., 1994. Towards the fifth Russo, A. et al., 2007. Social media and cultural interactive experiences in museums. Nordisk Museologi, (1), pp.19–29. dos Santos, P.A., 2010. To understand New Museology in the 21st Century. Sociomuseology III - Cadernos de Sociomuseologia, Vol. 37, pp.5–11. To think museology today. Sociomuseology, 1, pp.63–90.

Santos Primo, J., 2007. Invention and Economic Growth University Press. Schmookler, J., 1966. , Cambridge, MA: Harvard National, Regional, and Sectoral Systems of Innovation – An overview, Schrempf, B., Kaplan, D. & Schroeder, D., 2013. BUSINESS CYCLES. A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process - Schumpeter, J.A., 1939. Company. Abridged,., New York: McGraw Hill Book Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, London: Routledge.

Schumpeter, J.A., 1943. Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles and the Evolutions of Capitalism., Schumpeter, J.A., 1989. “Theorie der ”. In R. V. Clemence, ed. Theorie der Schumpeter, J.A., 1937. Preface to the Japanese Edition of Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung Schumpeter The Theory. New of Brunswick, Economic DevelopmentNJ: Transaction An Publishers. Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle , J.A., 1912. University Press. , Cambridge: Harvard Statement to overcome the crisis of museums, Tokyo. Science Council of Japan, 2007. ., 2004. Cultural- Urban Scott, A.J Products Industries and Urban Economic Development: Prospects for Growth and Market Contestation in Global Context.

206

BIBLIOGRAPHY Affairs Review, 39(4), pp.461–490. Scott, W.R., 2001. Institutions and Organizations 2nd Edition 2nd ed., Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, pp.59–73. Shane, S., 1993. Cultural Influences on National Rates of Innovation.

tion Championing Strategies. Journal of Management, 21(5), pp.931–952. Shane, S., Venkatarman, S. & MacMillan, I., 1995. Cultural Differences in lnnova

Leadership & Organization Sharifirad, M.S. & Ataei, V., 2012. Organizational culture and innovation culture: Development Journal, 33(5), pp.494–517. exploring the relationships between constructs. Simon, H.A., 1959. Theo - science. American Economic Review, 49, pp.253–283. ries of decision making in economics and behavioral Smith, A., 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and the Causes of the Wealth of Nations, -driven innovation –private consortia. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(4), Søndergaard, M.K. & Veirum, N.E., 2012. Museums and culture pp.341–365. in public The RAND Journal of Economics, 17(4), pp.508–526. Steinberg, R., 1986. The Revealed Objective Functions of Nonprofit Firms. Stoneman, P., 2010. Soft Innovation: Economics, Product Aesthetics and the Creative Industies

, New York: Oxford University Press Inc. innovation organisations. The Service Industries Journal, 29(4), pp.431–455. Sundbo, J., 2009. Innovation in the experience economy: a taxonomy of 15. American Museum First to Digitize Entire Art Collection. Voice of America. - Taboh, J., 20 museum- -to-digitize-entire-collection/2595555.html [Accessed March Available at: http://www.voanews.com/content/american 2, 2016] first Research Policy, 35(1), pp.68–82. Tang, J., 2006. Competition and innovation behaviour.

19th International Conference on Cultural Taniguchi, M., 2016. The Impacts of the Introduction of New Public Management Economics, 21-24 June. Valladolid. on Japanese Public Museums. In Economics and Culture Press. Throsby, D., 2001. , Cambridge: Cambridge University The Economics of the Performing Arts, London:

Throsby, D. & Withers, G.A., 1979. 207

BIBLIOGRAPHY Edward Arnold.

A Review of Innovation Models (Discussion paper), London: Imperial Collage London. Tidd, J., 2006.

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- UNESCO, 2003. Charter on the preservation of digital heritage. Available at: [Accessed FebruaryOrganizational 23, 2016]. culture as European Journal of Innovation Valencia, J.C.N., Valle, R.S. & Jiménez, D.J., 2010. Management, 13(4), pp.466–480. determinant of product innovation.

Management Science, 32(5), pp.590–607. Van de Ven, A., 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation.

Journal of Cultural Economics, Verbano, C. et al., 2008. Characteristics of Italian art restoration firms and factors 32, pp.3–34. influencing their adoption of laser technology.

European Museums. Public Management Review, 14(5), pp.649–679. Vicente, E., Camarero, C. & Garrido, M.J., 2012. Insights into Innovation in The Journal of Industrial Economics, 40(2), pp.135–146. Weinberg, J.A., 1992. Exclusionary Practices and Technological Competition. Welsh, P.H., 2005. Re- Museum Management and Curatorship, 20(2), pp.103–130. configuring museums. Museum Data Collection Report and Analysis,

Wharton, C. & DeBruin, T., 2005. Washington: Institute of Museum and Library. Legitimation. Journal of Cultural Economics, 18, pp.3–13. Wijnberg, N.M., 1994. Art and Technology: A Comparative Study of Policy

A Guide to Museum Computing Williams, D., 1987. A brief history of museum computerization. In D. Williams, ed. History, pp. 1–5. . American Association for State and Local WIPO, 2003. Guide on Surveying the Economic Contribution of the Copyright-Based Industries, Geneva. Running a Museum: a Practical Handbook. Paris: ICOM, pp. 105–118. Woollard, V., 2004. Caring for the Visitor. In P. J. Boylan, ed. Yamamoto, H., 2003. New Public Management - Japan’s Practice at: http://ww , Tokyo. Available Yin, R.K., 2009. Casew.iips.org/bp293e.pdf. Study Research: Design and Methods (fourth edition), Los

Angeles: Sage Publications.

208

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 70(4), pp.589–619. Zimmermann, H. & Mmermann, H., 1999. Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations.

DiMaggio, ed. Nonprofit Enterprise in the Arts. Studies in Mission and Zolberg, V.L., 1986. Tensions of Mission in American Art Museum. In P. J. Constraint

Zukauskaite, E.,. New2012. York: Innovation Oxford University in cultu Press. links. Innovation, 14(3), pp.404–415. ral industries: The role of university

209

210

APPENDIX A THE LIST OF MUSEUM IN THE VALENCIAN AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY ACCORDING TO GENERALITAT VALENCIANA

AGOST www.museoagost.com

ALACANTMUSEU DE / CANTERERIA ALICANTE D'AGOST www.marqalicante.com www.maca-alicante.es MUSEU ARQUEOLÒGIC PROVINCIAL (MARQ)

MUSEU D'ART CONTEMPORANI D'ALACANT (MACA) MUSEU VOLVO OCEAN RACE www.volvooceanrace.com/es/news.html MUSEU NOVA TABARCA www.alicante.es/medioambiente/museono ALAQUÀS www.castell.alaquas.org

ALBAIDACASTELL PALAU D'ALAQUÀS

MUSEU INTERNACIONAL DEL TOC MANUAL DE CAMPANES MUSEU INTERNACIONAL DE TITELLES D'ALBAIDA www.albaida.es/mita/mita.htm www.albaida.es ALCOID’ALBAIDA / ALCOY

www.alcoi.org/museu MUSEU ALCOIÀ DE LA FESTA (MAF) www.museualcoiadelafesta.com

ALMASSORAMUSEU ARQUEOLOGIC / ALMAZORA MUNICIPAL CAMIL VISEDO MOLTÓ torrello.museum.almassora.es

ALPUENTEMUSEU MUNICIPAL D'ALMASSORA www.museopaleontologicoalpuente.net

ALZIRAMUSEO PALEONTOLÓGICO SANTA BÁRBARA (MUPAL) www.alzira.es

ASPEMUSEU MUNICIPAL D'ALZIRA (MUMA) www.aspe.es/la-villa/patrimonio-historico- artistico/el-museo-historico-municipal MUSEO HISTÓRICO DE ASPE BANYERES DE MARIOLA

a=2 MUSEU ARQUEOLÒGIC MUNICIPAL TORRE FONT BONA www.museuvalenciadelpaper.comwww.portademariola.com/?pag=46&idiom

BEJÍSMUSEU VALENCIÀ DEL PAPER DE BANYERES DE MARIOLA - arqueologia MUSEO MUNICIPAL DE ARQUEOLOGÍA Y ETNOLOGÍA DE www.bejis.es/museos/etnologia BEJÍS

211 APPENDIX A THE LIST OF MUSEUM IN VALENCIA REGION

BENETÚSSER

BORRIANAMUSEU HISTÒRIA / BURRIANA DE BENETÚSSER www.benetusser.net/museo.php

MUSEU DE LA MUSEU ARQUEOLÒGIC MUNICIPAL DE BURRIANA www.mam.burriana.es/index.php?lang=ca

BURJASSOT TARONJA www.museonaranja.com MUSEU DE GEOLOGIA DE LA UNIVERSITAT DE VALÈNCIA www.uv.es/mguv

CALLOSA D'EN SARRIÀ www.callosa.es www.callosa.es MUSEU DE L' AIGUA

CALPMUSEU ETNOLÒGIC DE CALLOSA D'EN SARRIÀ www.aytocalpe.org

CANETMUSEU D'END'HISTOÒRIA BERENGUER DE CALP

CASTELLÓMUSEU ETNOLOÒGIC DE LA PLANA DE CANET D'EN BERENGUER www.canetdenberenguer.es www.dipcas.es/cultura/museos/

COCENTAINAMUSEU DE BELLES ARTS

MUSEU MUNICIPAL DE COCENTAINA - PALAU COMTAL www.cocentaina.es MUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC I ETNOLOÒGIC DEL COMTAT www.cecalberri.org

CREVILLENT CREVILLENT www.crevillent.es/pagina/museo- arqueologico MUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGICDE LA SETMANA DE SANTA DE CREVILLENT www.semanasantacrevillent.com/introducc ion2.html www.enercoop.es/minisite/

CULLERAMUSEU PINTOR JULIO QUESADA www.museoscullera.com

DÉNIAMUSEU MUNICIPAL D'HISTOÒRIA I ARQUEOLOGIA

eologia/index.aspx MUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC DE LA CIUTAT DE DEÉ NIA www.denia.es/es/informacio/cultura/arqu eologia/index.aspx MUSEU ETNOLOÒGIC DE DEÉ NIA www.denia.es/va/informacio/cultura/arqu EL PUIG DE SANTA MARIA MUSEU DE LA IMPREMTA I www.cult.gva.es/dgpa/imprenta/index.htm

ELDA DE LES ARTS GRAÀ FIQUES www.cult.gva.es/museus/m00068/ MUSEO DEL CALZADO www.museocalzado.com MUSEO ARQUEOLOÓGICO DE ELDA

ELX / ELCHE CENTRO DE CULTURA TRADICIONAL MUSEO ESCOLAR DE www.museopusol.com

212 APPENDIX A THE LIST OF MUSEUM IN VALENCIA REGION

PUSOL

www.visitelche.com/va/turisme- RAMOS cultural/visitas/elche/museos/museo- MUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC I D'HISTORIA D'ELX ALEJANDRO arqueologico-y-de-hist oria-de-elche-mahe/ FOLQUES (MAHE) www.visitelche.com/va/turisme- cultural/visitas/elche/museos/museo-de- MUSEU D'ART CONTEMPORANI D'ELX arte-contemporaneo/ / www.cidarismpe.org MUSEU MUNICIPAL DE LA FESTA D'ELX

ENGUERAMUSEU PALEONTOLOÒGIC D'ELX www.enguera.es

FINESTRATMUSEO ARQUEOLOÓGICO DE ENGUERA /

GANDIAMUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC I ETNOLOGIC www.magamuseu.org

GUARDAMARMUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC DEL SEGURA DE GANDIA (MAGA) www.magmuseo.com (MAG) MUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC DE GUARDAMAR DEL SEGURA IBI

MUSEU DE LA BIODIVERSITAT D'IBI www.museodelabiodiversidad.es

L'ALCOMUSEU R VALENCIA A À DEL JOGUET D'IBI www.museojuguete.com www.museulalcora.es

L'ALFÀSMUSEU DE DEL CERA PI À MICA DE L'ALCORA MUSEO DELSO www.museodelso.com -

LAMUSEU VALL A D'UIXÓ L'AIRE LLIURE VIL·LA ROMANA DE L'ALBIR www.lalfas.es www.lavallduixo.es

LAMUSEU VILA ARQUEOLOÒGIC JOIOSA / VILLAJOYOSA MUNICIPAL DE LA VALL D'UIXOÓ www. www.valor.es/museo/museodelchocolate.a CASA MUSEU LA BARBERA DELS ARAGONEÉ S sp fincalabarbera.com MUSEU VALENCIAÀ DEL XOCOLATE

LLÍRIAVILAMUSEU, MUSEU MUNICIPAL DE LA VILA JOIOSA www.museusdelavilajoiosa.com www.lliria.es/va/content/museu- arqueologic-de-lliria-mall MUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC DE LLIÍRIA (MALL) MANISES

ml MUSEU DE CERAÀ MICA DE MANISES www.manises.es/manisesPublic/museo.ht

213 APPENDIX A THE LIST OF MUSEUM IN VALENCIA REGION

MOIXENT / MOGENTE www.mogente.es

MONCADAMUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC MUNICIPAL www.moncada.es

MONFORTEMUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC DEL CID MUNICIPAL DE MONCADA

MORELLAMUSEO IÍBERO ROMANO www.marqalicante.com/monforte MUSEUS DE MORELLA www.morella.net/morella/conocenos/mus eus

NOVELDA noveldamuseoarqueologico.wordpress.com

NULESMUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC DE NOVELDA www.museoenriqueginer.org

OLIVAMUSEU DE MEDALLIÍSTICA ENRIQUE www.oliva.es/arees/vida- cultural/museus/museu-arqueologic- MUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC D'OLIVA doliva-2/

ONDA /

MUSEU D'ARQUEOLOGIA I HISTOÒRIA D'ONDA

ONTINYENTMUSEU DEL TAULELL D'ONDA MANOLO SAFONT www.museoazulejo.org www.turismo.ontinyent.es/val/museus/ma ova.htm MUSEU FESTARQUEOLOÒGIC D'ONTINYENT I DE LA VALL D'ALBAIDA (MAOVA)

ORIHUELA ER DEL SANTIÍSSIM CRIST DE L'AGONIA www.festers.net www.orihuela.es

ORPESAMUSEO ARQUEOLOÓGICO / OROPESA DEL COMARCAL MAR DE ORIHUELA www.oropesadelmar.es

PAIPORTAMUSEU D'ORPESA

MUSEU DE LA RAJOLERIA DE PAIPORTA www.paiporta.es/?s=lang/va/areas_munici PATERNA pales/cultura/museu.php&hl=va www.paterna.es/ca/municipi/cultura/mus eu-de-ceramica.html MUSEU MUNICIPAL DE CERAÀ MICA DE PATERNA PEDRALBA CASA- smil.es

PEGO MUSEO PEDRALBA 2000 www.pedralbado

MUSEU D'ART CONTEMPORANI DE PEGO www.pego.org/cultura/museu_art.html

214 APPENDIX A THE LIST OF MUSEUM IN VALENCIA REGION

PENÍSCOLA / PEÑÍSCOLA MUSEU DE LA MAR -el- Museo.html va.peniscola.org/ver/1345/Sobre PETRER

s.html MUSEU ARQUEOLOÒGIC I ETNOLOÒGIC DAMASO NAVARRO www.petrer.es/cas/monumentos_de_intere PILAR DE LA HORADADA MUSEO - www.pilardelahoradada.org

ARQUEOLOÓGICO ETNOLOÓGICO GRATINIANO REQUENABACHES www.requena.es FUENTE MUSEO DE ARTE CONTEMPORAENAÁ NEO FLORENCIO DE LA /

ROJALESMUSEO MUNICIPAL DE REQU

MUSEO DE LA HUERTA / MUSEO ARQUEOLOÓGICO Y PALEONTOLOÓGICO MUNICIPAL www.rojales.es

SAGUNT / SAGUNTO www.cult.gva.es/dgpa/sagunto/

SANMUSEU FULGENCIO ARQUEOLOÒGIC DE SAGUNT /

SANTMUSEO JOAN ARQUEOLOÓGICO D' ALACANT MUNICIPAL DE SAN FULGENCIO MUSEU "FERNANDO SORIA"

SANT VICENT DEL RASPEIG www.museofernandosoria.es MUSEU DE LA www.mua.ua.es

SEGORBE UNIVERSITAT D'ALACANT (MUA) MUSEO CATEDRALICIO

www.catedraldesegorbe.es/museo.php MUSEO MUNICIPAL DE ARQUEOLOGIÍA Y ETNOLOGIÍA DE www.segorbe.org SILLASEGORBE www.comsilla.org

TAVERNESMUSEU D'HISTOÒRIA BLANQUES I ARQUEOLOGIA DE SILLA (MARS) www.lladro.com

TÍRIGMUSEU LLADROÓ MUSEU DE LA VALLTORTA museuvalltorta.com www.museuhortasud.com

TORREVIEJAMUSEU COMARCAL DE L'HORTA SUD MUSEO DEL MAR Y DE LA SAL

VALENCIA www.torreviejacultural.com CASA- www.museosymonumentosvalencia.com/v

MUSEU JOSEÉ BENLLIURE 215 APPENDIX A THE LIST OF MUSEUM IN VALENCIA REGION

a/museus/casa-museu- INSTITUT VALENCIA www.ivam.es benlliure/

D'ART MODERN (IVAM) MUSEO CATEDRALICIO DIOCESANO www.catedraldevalencia.es JARDIÍ BOTAÀ NIC www.uv.es/jardibotanic / museotelecomvlc.etsit.upv.es MIRALLESMUSEO DE SEGARRACIENCIAS NATURALES PADRE IGNACIO SALA S. J. MUSEO DELDE HISTORIA VALENCIA DE CF LA TELECOMUNICACIOÓN VICENTE

cm/Museos/valencia/index.htmlwww.fundacionvalenciacf.org MUSEO NACIONALHISTOÓRICO DE MILITAR CERAMICA DE VALENCIA Y DE LAS ARTES mnceramica.mcu.eswww.ejercito.mde.es/unidades/Madrid/ihy

MUSEO TAURINO www.museotaurinovalencia.es SUNTUARIAS GONZAÁ LEZ www.mhv.com.es/mhv/ - UNIVERSITAT MUSEU D'HISTOÒRIA MUSEU D'INFORMAÀTICA DE L'ETSINF museu.inf.upv.es es POLITEÈ CNICA www.museosymonumentosvalencia.com/v MUSEU DE BELLES ARTS DE VALENCIA a/museus/museumuseobellasartesvalencia.gva.-de-ciencies-naturals/ MUSEU DE CIEÈ NCIES NATURALS - CIUTAT DE LES www.cac.es

MUSEU DE LES CIEÈ NCIES PRINCIPE FELIPE www.museuprehistoriavalencia.es ARTS I DE LES CIEÈ NCIES

MUSEU DE PREHISTO È RIA DE VALEÈ NCIA MUSEU DEL PATRIARCACONJUNT HOSPITALARI DE SANT JOAN DE www.valencia.eswww.sanjuandelhospital.es/museo/ L'HOSPITAL MUMA) riano.html MUSEU MARIAÀ ( www.museuvalenciaetnologia.orgwww.basilicadesamparados.org/museo_ma - www.naturamuseo.org MUSEU VALENCIAÀ D'ETNOLOGIA (MUVAET) MUSEU VALENCIAÀ D'HISTOÀ RIALUSTRACIO NATURAL I LAFUNDACIOÓ MODERNITAT www.muvim.es ENTOMOLOÒGICA TORRES SALA

VILAMUSEU-REAL VALENCIA À DE LA IL· MUSEU DE LA CIUTAT CASA DE POLO www.vila-real.es

VILAFAMÉS www.macvac.es

MUSEU D'ART CONTEMPORANI VICENTE AGUILERA CERNI VILLENADE VILAFAME É S www.museovillena.com

XÀBIAMUSEO / ARQUEOLO JÁVEA É GICO JOSEÉ MARIÉA SOLER -soler- o MVSEU ARQUEOLOÀ GIC I ETNOGRAÀ FIC MUNICIPAL SOLER www.ajxabia.com/ciutat/mvsev XALÓBLASCO blasc www.xalo.org

XÀTIVAMUSEU ETNOLOÒGIC DE XALOÓ www.xativa.es/pagina- - lalmodi/museo-lalmodi.html MUSEU DE L'ALMODIÍ web/museo

216 APPENDIX A THE LIST OF MUSEUM IN VALENCIA REGION

XIXONA / JIJONA www.museodelturron.com

MUSEU DEL TORROÓ

217

APPENDIX B OUTLIER FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

Interviewer: the auther Interviewee:

Date and time:director an appointment or person isin required charge of the selected museums Venue:

1. the selected museum is preferred Ask the director to introduce his/her museum in brief firstly; the 2. introduction should include history, ownership, collection, and staff etc.; Guid the director to give a detailed descriptiony, and knowledge about human structure resources, etc.; 3. including staff number, job responsibilit Ask restoration work in the museum. It may begin with the inquiry about job responsibility of restoration department and restorers (if no restoration department), or about how the museum restores its collection (if neither the department nor restorer is available); then more questions caninnovative be raised activities; based on the response of the interviewee, with emphasis on 4.

Askpermanent exhibition and work temporary in the museum.ex It may begin with the inquiry about hibitions in the museum and how curators work for the making of exhibition; then more questions can be raised based on the response of the interviewee, with emphasis on the 5. generationAsk digital ofmuse new idea and method in the process of story telling. - -the- um work. It may start with the inquiry of a state of art utilization of digital museum and technologies; then more questions are put forward, depending on the response, with the focus of the source 6. of technology and the channel of adopting technology. Ask visitor service work. It may start with the inquiry about the services that the museum offers to the public; then more questions can be asked depending on the response, with the concentration of how the museum improves the quality of service.

218

APPENDIX C INVITATION LETTER FOR PARTICIPANTS

Subject: museos Invitación para participar en la encuesta sobre la innovación y los Estimado/a (participante)

Ha sido invitado a participar en la siguiente encuesta: «Las Actividades Innovadoras en los Museos Valencianos».

Sobre la encuesta

Se trata de una encuesta académica sobre la innovación de los museosEconcult en el deterritorio la Facultad de lade ComunidadEconomía de Valenciana, la Universidad bajo de el Valencia. marco del proyecto “Culture, creative and clusters for incubators (3C 4 incubators)” coordinado por estrategiaEl objetivo degeneral la encuesta para es comprender el sistema sectorial de la innovación del sector de museos midiendo las actividades innovadoras con el fin de realizar una fomentar la capacidad innovadora de los museos valencianos. Los resultados de la encuesta beneficiarán tanto al output noimportante doctor en del la mismaproyecto universidad. “3C 4 incubators” como a la tesis doctoral del estudiante Chuan Li, que está realizando un doctorado y está trabajando como investigador

Le comprometemos que todos los datos serán guardados bajo la más estricta confidencialidad. Si tenga cualquiera duda, podria contactar con Señor Chuan Li Contactopara conseguir: Chuan más Li información. Móvil: ××× Teléfono: ××× Correo electronico: ××× Dirección: Campus dels Tarongers, Facultat d' Economia - 2P05, Avda. dels Tarongers, s/n, 46022, Valencia, España.

pulse en el siguiente enlace: http://www.econcult.eu/surveys/index.php/313379?lang=esPara hacerlo, por favor

Muchas gracia

Un cordial saludos por. su interés y colaboración.

Chuan

219

APPENDIX D REMINDER LETTER FOR PARTICPANTS

Subject: Recordatorio para participar en una encuesta Estimado/a (participante)

las actividades innovadoras de los museos». Recientemente se le invitó a participar en la encuesta de título «Encuesta sobre Sobre la encuesta Se

trata de una encuesta académica sobre la innovación de los museos en el deterritorio la Facultad de lade ComunidadEconomía d e Valenciana, la Universidad bajo de el Valencia. marco del proyecto “Culture, creative and clusters for incubators (3C 4 incubators)” coordinado por Econcult

El objetivo de la encuesta es comprender el sistema sectorial de la innovaciónlos museos del sector de museos midiendo las actividades innovadoras con el fin de realizar una estrategia general para fomentar la capacidad innovadora de valencianos. Los resultados de la encuesta beneficiarán tanto al output noimportante doctor en del la mismaproyecto universidad. “3C 4 incubators” como a la tesis doctoral del estudiante Chuan Li, que está realizando un doctorado y está trabajando como investigador

Le comprometemos que todos los datos serán guardados bajo la más estricta confidencialidad. Si tenga cualquiera duda, podria contactar con Señor Chuan Li Contacto:para conseguir Chuan más Li información. Móvil: ××× Telefono: ××× Correo electronico: ××× Dirección: Campus dels Tarongers, Facultat d' Economia - 2P05, Avda. dels Tarongers, s/n, 46022, Valencia, España.

Advertimos que aún no la ha completado, y de la forma más atenta queríamos

recordarle que todavía se encuentra disponible si desea participar. Para hacerlo, porhttp://www.econcult.eu/surveys/index.php/313379?lang=es favor pulse en el siguiente enlace:

Atentamente,Nuevamente le agradecemos su interés y colaboración.

Chuan

220

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE

Spanish version I. Identificación del museo

1 ¿En qué provincia se sitúa su museo? Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

o Valencia o Castellón o Alicante o Sin respuesta

2 ¿De qué tipo es su museo ? Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

o o Casa-museo Arte (bellas artes/ arte contemporáneo / arte decorativo) o Arqueológico / de sitio o Histórico o Historia o Ciencias Naturales e historia natural o Ciencia y tecnología o o Especializado Etnografía y antropología o General o Otro

: ______3 ¿De qué titularidad es su museo? Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

o - Administración general de estado o - Administración autonómica Pública o - Administración local Pública o - Otros Pública o Privada Pública o Mixta o Otro:

______II. Profesional y conocimiento

4 Número total de personas que trabajaron en el museo en la última

221

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE semana de mayo de 2016, las personas incluyen personal remunerado, no remunerado y voluntario, pero NO incluyen becarios ni estudiantes en practicas. Sólo se puede introducir un valor entero en este campo.

Su respuesta

______5 Número de profesionales según áreas de trabajo en las que desempeña sus funciones. Sólo se pueden introducir números en estos campos.

Gestión y Administración Exposicion Programación de actividades ______Documentación ______Comunicación y marketing ______Investigación ______Conservación ______Restauración ______Otros ______6 Número de profesionales según titulaciones académicas en las que gradúa últimamente. Sólo se pueden introducir números en estos campos.

Conservación y Restauración

Filología ______HumanidadesBellas Artes ______Traducción e Interpretación ______Gestión cultural ______Geografía y Historia ______Antropología ______CienciasFilosofía políticasy Letras ______Sociología ______Turismo ______Ciencias económicas y/o empresariales ______Adminnistración. y Dirección de Empresas ______Magisterio ______Derecho ______Periodismo ______Biblioteconomía y Documentación ______Geología ______Biología ______Ingeniería ______Química ______222

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE Arquitectura Psicología y/o pedagogía Otros: ______7 ¿Su museo ha ofrecido alguna formación complementaria para los trabajadores en los últimos doce meses?

o o No Sı́

8 Número de cursos de formación complementaria que han recibido los profesionales del museo según temas específicos en los últimos doce meses. Sólo se pueden introducir números en estos campos.

Archivos Seguridad Idiomas ______Turismo ______Accesibilidad ______Informática ______LegislaciónBibliotecas ______PropiedadMuseografía intelectual ______Gestión económico- ______Gestión de personas y equipos ______financiera ______RestauraciónEspecíficos relacionados con la colección ______MarketingEstudios de y públicoComunicación ______Gestión cultural ______GestiónEducación/Difusión de colecciones ______Conservación ______Museología ______Otros ______

III. La adopción de tecnología

9 ¿Hay alguno departamento o unidad de trabajo que especialmente se dedica a I+D en tecnología asociada a museología o al encargo de asuntos tecnológicos en el museo?

o Sí

223

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE o No

10 ¿Cuántas personas asumen responsabilidad en tareas de Información y Telecomunicación? Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

o 0 o 1-2 o 3-5 o 6-10 o o Sin respuesta >10

11 ¿Cuántos cursos de formación complementaria en temas específicos asociados a tecnología ofreció el museo a su personal en los últimos doce meces? Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

o 0 o 1-2 o 3-5 o 6-10 o o Sin respuesta >10

12 ¿Qué porcentaje del presupuesto anual del museo se dedica a I+D en tecnologías relacionadas a museos en el año 2016? Sólo se pueden introducir números en este campo.

Su respuesta

______13 ¿Qué porcentaje del presupuesto anual del museo se dedica a comprar maquinaria, equipo o tecnología a las empresas u organizaciones externas en el año 2016? Sólo se pueden introducir números en este campo.

Su respuesta

______IV. Red y cooperación

14 ¿Su museo colabora con alguna empresa de telecomunicacion para ofrecer servicios de conexión inalámbrica al público y a los trabajadores?

224

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE o Sí o No o Sin respuesta

15 Por favor, especifique el/los nombre/s de la/s empresa/s de telecomunicación Marque las opciones que correspondan

o Movista o o Orange Vodafone o Yoigo o Otro:

______16 ¿Su museo ha colaborado con alugna empresa de alta tecnología para cumplir las tareas de la Digitalización, Realidad Virtual, Realidad Aumentada, 3D u otras nuevas tecnologías?

o Sí o No o Sin respuesta

17 Por favor, especifique las empresas de alta tecnología.

1ª empresa 2ª empresa 3ª empresa ______4ª empresa ______5ª empresa ______6ª empresa ______7ª empresa ______8ª empresa ______9ª empresa ______10ª empresa ______18 ¿Su museo ha colaborado con alguna empresa especializada en museología, tales como almacenaje, climatización, logística, conservación preventiva y restauración en cualquier proyecto o actividad en los últimos doce meses?

o Sí o No o Sin respuesta

225

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE 19 Por favor, especifique las empresas especializadas.

1ª empresa 2ª empresa 3ª empresa ______4ª empresa ______5ª empresa ______6ª empresa ______7ª empresa ______8ª empresa ______9ª empresa ______10ª empresa ______20 ¿Su museo ha colaborado con algun profesional, tales como los curadores independientes o expertos en conservación, en cualquiera tarea o proyecto en los últimios doce meses?

o Sí o No o Sin respuesta

21 Por favor, especifique las ocupaciones de las individuales

Comisario independiente Investigador independiente Artista para realizar las exposiciones o los talleres ______Educador de los programas educativos ______Autónomo en conservación ______Autónomo en restauración ______Otro ______Otro ______Otro ______22 ¿Su museo ha colaborado con alguna universidad o institución académica en cualquier proyecto o tarea en los últimos doce meses?

o Sí o No o Sin respuesta

23 Por favor, especifique las univesidades Marque las opciones que correspondan

o Universidad de Alicante o Universidad de Valencia

226

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE o Universidad de Politécnica de Valencia o o Universidad Jaume I o Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo - UIMP Universidad Miguel Hernández o Universidad Cardenal Herrera- CEU o Universidad Católica De Valencia o Universidades de otras comunidades o Universidades internacionales o Otro:

______24 ¿Su museo está vinculado con o asociado a alguna asociación profesional?

o Sí o No o Sin respuesta

25 Por favor, especifique a las asociaciones Marque las opciones que correspondan

ANABAD. Confederación Española de Asociaciones de Archiveros, o ARMICE. Asociación de Registros de Museos e Instituciones Culturales Bibliotecarios, Museólogos y Documentalistas o FEAM. Federación Españolas o Española de Amigos de los Museos o ICOM. Consejo Internacional de Museos o AEM. Asociación Española de Museólogos o Asociación de Conservadores Restauradores de Valencia APME. Asociación Profesional de Museólogos de España o AGCPV. Asociación de Gestores Culturales del País Valenciano o AIP. Asociación para la Interpretación del Patrimonio. o o FEAGC. Federación Estatal de Asociaciones de Gestores Culturales AEGPC. Asociación Española de Gestores del Patrimonio Cultural o o Otro: GEIIC. Grupo Español de Conservación ______26 ¿Su museo ha tenido algún intercambio, interacción o cooperación con otros museos en los últimos tres años? Marque las opciones que correspondan

o Con otros museos estatales o Con otros museos autonómicos o Con otros museos locales o Con otros museos privados o o No tiene ninguna relación con otros museos Con otros museos extranjeros

227

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE 27 Según su experiencia, considera que es más factible establecer colaboración con: 1 2 3 4 5 Otros museos dentro de la misma institución gestora a la cual O O O O O pertenece su museo O gestora a la cual pertenece su O O O O O museotros museos fuera de la institución

5 = Totalmente de acuerdo 4 = De acuerdo 3 = Medianamente de Acuerdo 2 = En desacuerdo 1 = Totalmente en desacuerdo

V. Las actividades innovadoras

28 ¿Qué tipo de tecnologías se utilizan en el museo? Marque las opciones que correspondan

o Colección digitalizada o o Pagina web conectadas a uno o varios Intranet (Red informática interna de organismo, basada en los estándares de Internet, en la que las computadoras están o Museo digital o visual servidores web) o M o edia social (e.j. Facebook, Tweeter, Instragam, Youtube, LinkedIn etc.) o Tridimensional 3D Apps de museo para moviles o tablets o Holography o Realidad Visual o Realidad Aumentada o Estaciones de o Guias de audio información, kioscos, y los muelles o o Otro: QR code ______29 ¿Cuántas exposiciones temporales y permanentes se realizaron por su museo en el año 2015? Solo se puede introducir un valor entero en este campo.

Su respuesta

______

228

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE 30 ¿Cuántos programas de actividades se realizaron en su museo en el año 2015? (Las programas incluyen actividades educativas, conferencias, cursos/talleres/jornadas, pero NO incluye los conciertos.) Solo se puede introducir un valor entero en este campo.

Su respuesta

______31 ¿Cuántos artículos académicos y/o profesionales se publicaron por los autores del museo en el año 2015? Sólo se pueden introducir números en este campo.

Su respuesta

______32 En general, en los últimos años, se han introducido cambios significativos en la estructura organizativa del museo. Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

o Totalmente en desacuerdo o En desacuerdo o Medianamente de Acuerdo o De acuerdo o Totalmente de acuerdo o Sin respuesta

33 En general, en los últimos años, ha sido formado un ambiente abierto y colaborativo en la cultura organizativa del museo para favorecer las actividades creativas e innovadoras. Seleccione una de las siguientes opciones

o Totalmente en desacuerdo o En desacuerdo o Medianamente de Acuerdo o De acuerdo o Totalmente de acuerdo o Sin respuesta

VI. Actitud innovadora

34 ¿Qué importancia tienen los siguientes objetivos sobre la decisión de innovar en tecnología y contenidos creativos?

229

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE 4 3 2 1 0 por ICOM, tales como conservación, O O O O O exposición,Ejecitar las funcionesinvestigación básicas definidas y comunicación

Entretenimiento y la calidad de la vida( O O O O O de la comunidad local) ej. enriquecer la vida intelectual conocimiento O O O O O museológico Difusión del Democratización del acceso O O O O O

O O O O O

Creación / Reforzamiento de valores simbólicos e identidad. cultural O O O O O

Regeneración urbana O O O O O

PromociónTurismo y City del branding desarrollo de la O O O O O economía regional

Prestigio y reconocimiento O O O O O

O O O O O

Estabilidad/ seguridad recursos, autonomía financiera O O O O O

Eficiencia de la gestión 4 = Muy importante 3 = Importante 2 = Poco importante 1 = Nada importante 0 = Sin respuesta

35 Según su experiencia, ¿cuál es el nivel de incidencia de los siguientes obstáculos para el desarrollo de actividades innovadoras en su museo? 4 3 2 1 0

El coste de la adopción de nuevas tecnologías o la creación de los O O O O O contenidos creativos es muy alto

230

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE para invertir en nuevas tecnologias ni iniciarEl museo nuevos no tiene proyectos suficiente de investigación presupuesto O O O O O exposición ni programas educativos apoyan actividades innovadoras O O O O O Falta de cursos financieros externos que en la aplicación de nuevas tecnologías O O O O O Falta de profesionales técnicos expertos aumentar la capacidad de creatividad e O O O O O innovaciónFalta de la formación necesaria para

entre los O O O O O No hay suficiente colaboración trabajadores dentro del museo O O O O O

No es fácil para el museo emplear un profesionalNo hay certeza clave dedesde que fuera la aplicación del museo de O O O O O nuevas tecnologias pueda mejorar la eficienciaNo es seguro de laque gestión los resultados de nuevas investigaciones, nuevas exposiciones, o O O O O O programas educativos serán aceptados porEl museo los públicos no tuvo muchas actividades innovadoras antes, así que tampoco es O O O O O necesario que el museo innova ahora Poca interacción y cooperación con las O O O O O conocimientoinstituciones y la externas experiencia dificulta el intercambio y la difusion del O O O O O capacidad de la iniciativa innovadora El control burocrático excesivo limita la Los O O O O O incentivo y la voluntad de innovación funcionarios públicos carecen del

4 = Muy importante 3 = Importante 2 = Poco importante 1 = Nada importante

231

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE 0 = Sin respuesta

36 Según su experiencia, ¿cuál es el nivel de incidencia de los siguientes factores en el desarrollo de actividades innovadoras en su museo?

4 3 2 1 0 El museo en sí mismo es un espacio creativo, donde la apertura y la variedad de O O O O O . conocimiento crean un medio ambiente favoreciendoLa tecnología la adquiere innovación cada vez un papel . O O O O O más importante en la gestión del museo rendimiento del museo a través de la O O O O O innovaciónEl director. debería incrementar el tales como las nuevas exposiciones, nuevos programasA la audiencia educativos, le gusta nuevo más lamedios novedad, de O O O O O expresión artística, o la aplicación de nuevas tecnologías. través de la aplicación de contenidos digitalesEl museo y deberíala gestión atraer de redes público sociales juvenil ya a O O O O O que estas son parte importante del estilo . El patrimonio digital es una tendencia de vida de los jóvenes O O O O O global en las instituciones culturales, por lo tanto,La aplicación el museo debede desarrollarlolos ordenadores también ha O O O O O gestión del museo. aumentado bastante la eficiencia de la El patrimonio digital puede ayudar al O O O O O sitio. museo a atraer más visitantes en línea y en

O O O O O elNo museo es tan. difícil integrar las tecnologías con los trabajos museológicos tradicionales en Los políticos piden que el museo innove . O O O O O para obtener los apoyos políticos

232

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE Los patrocinadores piden que el museo O O O O O y privados. innove para conseguir los fundos públicos La innovación incrementa el prestigio y reconocimiento del museo en el territorio O O O O O nacional e internacional.

4 = Muy importante 3 = Importante 2 = Poco importante 1 = Nada importante 0 = Sin respuesta

VII. Número de visitantes

37 Número total de visitantes al museo Sólo se pueden introducir números en estos campos.

en 2015 en 2014 ______38 Número de visitantes con tarifa reducida Sólo se pueden introducir números en estos campos.

en 2015 en 2014 ______39 Número de visitantes con entrada gratuita Sólo se pueden introducir números en estos campos.

en 2015 en 2014 ______

233

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE English version I. Identification of museum

1 In which province does your museum situate? Choose one of the following options

o Valencia o Castellón o Alicante o Sin respuesta

2 Which type does your museum belong to? Choose one of the following options

o o House-museum Art (fine arts/ contemprorary art / decorative art) o Architecture / site o Historic o History o Natural sciences and natural history o Science and technology o Ethnography and anthropology o Specialized o General o Other

: ______3 Which ownership does your museum belong to? Choose one of the following options

o – State genenral administration o – Autonomous administration Public o – Local administration Public o - Others Public o Private Public o Mixed o Other:

______II. Profesional and knowledge

4 Total number of personnel who worked in the museum in the last week of May 2016, the personnel includes paid, no-paid, and voluntary personnel, but NOT include interns or students in practices. You can only enter an integer value in this field.

Your response

______

234

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE 5 Number of professionals according to areas of work in which they perform their functions. You can only enter an integer value in this field.

Management and administration

Activity programme ______DocumentationExhibition ______Communication and marketing ______Investigation ______Conservation ______Restoration ______Others ______6 Number of professionals according to academic degrees in which they graduate lately. You can only enter an integer value in this field.

Conservation and restoration Fine arts Philology ______Humanities ______Translation and interpretation ______Geography and history ______Cultural management ______Philosophy and letters ______Anthropology ______Political sciences ______Sociology ______Turism ______sciences ______TeachingEconomics and/or business ______LawBusiness administration and management ______Library and documentation ______GeoloJournalismgy ______ChemistryBiology ______Engineering ______Architecture ______Psychology and/or pedagogy ______Others: ______7 Do your museum has offered any complementary trainings for professionals in the last12 monthes?

235

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE o Yes o No

8 Number of additional training courses that museum profesionals have received according to specialized subjects in the latest 12 months. You can only enter an integer value in this field.