Why Is Technological Innovation Emphasized More Than Symbolic
Innovation in Art and Cultural Organizations? Analyzing the
Sectoral System of Innovation in Museums
Chuan Li
Óscar Blanco Sierra
Pau Rausell Köster
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
PhD. Student at Econcult
PhD. Student at Econcult
Professor at Econcut
2P05, Department of Applied Economics, University of Valencia Av. Tarongers s/n 46022 Valencia
Abstract. Traditional innovation studies concentrate on technological changes whilst
innovations in the cultural and creative industries stress content, symbol and other
non-technological dimensions. Existing literature shows particular concerns on
symbolic innovation in art and cultural organizations. But a contradictory
phenomenon was observed that many art and cultural organizations like museums
emphasize technological innovations over symbolic innovation. Why is there a gap
between theoretical interest and practical cognition? This article attempts to explore
the reason resulting in the contradiction between theory and practice.
This article begins with the discussion of cultural and technological dimension
of innovation in the art and cultural organizations; then analyzing innovative activities
involved in the process of production and distribution of museums from the aspects of
knowledge creation and innovation in service area, and followed by identifying four
subsectors of product and process innovations in museums, including technologydominant production (e.g. restoration), technology-dominant service (e.g. digital
museum), symbol-dominant production (storytelling of exhibition) and symboldominant service (e.g. visiting experience); and it continues with a case study of the
sectoral system of innovation in museums based on the Valencia Autonomous
Community, and comparing the patterns of innovation involved in the four subsectors.
At last, a conclusion is arrived to stress innovation features (perception factor) as well
as market factor and bureaucratic management system of museums (institutional
factor) as contributions to the emphasis on technological innovation over cultural
innovation in Spanish museums.
Key words: innovation, sectoral system of innovation, technology, symbolic
innovation, museum
1
1. Raising the question
Great concerns have been paid on innovation in the Cultural and Creative Sectors
(CCS) in the recent years. Briefly, innovation refers to something new. Joseph
Schumpeter (1939) defined innovation as a new commodity, a new process, a new
form of organization, opening up of new markets and new source of supply. More
studies regarded innovation more than novelty; they strengthened innovation as the
first commercialization of new method and idea (Dosi & Nelson, 2010; Fagerberg,
2006). At this sense, “first reaching market” becomes a key criterion to distinguish
innovation from invention and imitation, where innovation is an introduction of a
truly novel item while imitation is an adoption of existed items in the market. A
technique or product can be new to the world, to the domestic market, and to the firm.
Greenhalgh and Rogers (2010) pointed out that being “new to the firm” is not a
sufficient test for innovation, but it is “diffusion of innovation”. While Stoneman
(2010) argued that innovation is a dynamic process that encompasses all stages of
invention, innovation and diffusion, and everything it involves in.
Traditional innovation studies and surveys1, no matter whether Schumpeter’s
theory or recent studies, place emphasizes on technological production and process
innovation in manufacturing, it is always connected with the analysis of process of
technological change (Dosi & Nelson 2010); the essence of innovation is something
relevant to the creation, application and diffusion of technologies and knowledge.
R&D is seen as a vital source of knowledge, the number of R&D activities
fundamentally affect the opportunities for technological innovation within a territory
(e.g. firm, industry, region, nation or global), which in turn determines the outputs of
innovation and its performance (Becheikh et al. 2006).
However, the cultural and creative sectors (CCS) are characterized by
“creativity” and “symbolic meaning” involving in the mass production of cultural
products and services (Bilton & Leary 2002). Symbolic goods and services in the
CCS have as “first use” the communication of ideas, rather than functional goods and
material manufacture (Galloway & Dunlop 2006). The former usually is reliant on the
symbolic (art) base whilst the latter on analytic (science) and synthetic (engineering)
1For example, the Oslo Manuel that is widely adopted as guidance for measuring
innovation in enterprises by many countries has been focusing on the technological
product and process (TPP) innovation since its first edition. In the present third
edition, organization and marketing innovation is added as complements.
2
bases (Asheim & Hansen 2009). Theoretically, innovation in the CCS is characterized
by symbolic dimension instead of technological dimension. For example, “aesthetic”,
“hidden”, “content” or “soft” innovation are proposed, from the perspectives of input,
output, process and measurement of innovation, to capture the unique nature of
innovation in art and cultural organizations.
Contrary to it, in the practical and empirical level, high priority is given to the
technological innovation in many art and cultural organizations. Digital technologies
are disrupting established practices and creating new opportunities for innovation
across the creative economy (Digital R&D Fund for the Arts 2013), and a majority of
organizations treated new technologies as the essential driver in marketing, archiving
and preservation, as well as operations. Our interviews about museum innovation also
suggested that technological innovation was much emphasized over symbolic
innovation among museums. They are not individual cases; actually, many museum
and cultural heritage institutions innovate with technologies (Ioannidis et al. 2014).
This article aims to tackle the contradiction between theoretically symbolic
innovation and practically technological innovation in the art and cultural
organizations and to explain the gap between theoretical interest and practical
cognition in reality though a case study of the sectoral system of innovation in
museums.
2. Cultural Dimension of Innovation
Creativity and the generation of symbolic meaning are the core features of the
CCS (Bilton & Leary 2002). Culture is the expression of its creativity, and it is linked
to meaning, knowledge, talents, industries, civilization and values (KEA 2006), whilst
cultural products have additional cultural value besides economic value, and this
cultural value can be deconstructed into a series of components, including aesthetic,
symbolic, spiritual, historical, social and educational value (Throsby, 2001). There is
a close connection between the CCS and innovation. The essence of any innovation including scientific and technical innovation - of any sort in any industry is creative
(Galloway & Dunlop 2007), and hence, the CCS should be innovative essentially.
Furthermore, the main outputs of a cultural and creative institution are symbolic
goods and services, whose “first use” is the communication of ideas, rather than a
functional value (Bilton & Leary 2002), therefore innovation in the SSC displays
special features as opposed to technological and functional dimensions.
3
Prior studies have proposed different types to describe the symbolic
component of innovation according to different perspectives, specifically to the
cultural and creative industries. From the perspective of inputs of innovation, there
are “stylistic innovation” that is the changes in the aesthetic and symbolic elements of
goods and services (Cappetta et al. 2006), “aesthetic innovation” that increases the
perceived value and satisfy customer demands concerning taste, social image, and
performance for novelty (Alcaide-Marzal & Tortajada-Esparza 2007), and “content
creativity” where creativity and other innovation may feed into each other in the
creative industries (Handke 2004); from the outputs of innovation, there are “formal
innovation” that changes product form without any necessary changes in product
functions and production methods (Bianchi & Bortolotti 1996), and “soft innovation”
that is innovation in products that primarily impacts on aesthetic or intellectual appeal
rather than functional performance (Stoneman 2010); from the measurement of
innovation, it is “hidden innovation” that is not recorded by traditional innovation
indicators and mostly involves in the five aspects: outside product design,
organizational forms or business models, novel combinations of existing technologies
and processes, and innovative problem-solution (Miles and Green 2008).
In the art and culture organizations, Bakhshi and Throsby (2010) identified
four dimensions of innovations as extending audience reach, artform development,
value creation, and business model, all of which stress non-technological dimensions
in the cultural generation and distribution. There is, however, a comment that new
technologies are a vital factor that provides new opportunities and demands of
innovation in the art, culture and creative organizations (Bakhshi & Throsby 2009;
Miles & Green 2008).
3. Innovation Through New Technologies
Cultural innovation is stressed theoretically, but innovation through
technologies is widespread practically in the CCS. Actually, the advent of the
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and digitalization constitutes
both the context and the means of technological innovation in the art and cultural
organizations.
Two viewpoints can be summarized in the prior literature. The first one sees the
adoption of technology itself as an innovative activity; it is not a simple imitation of
the existing business model – “there is not the same commercial imperative to adapt
4
to the technology that exists in business… (and) to be seen as benefits in the public
sector” (Fopp 1997), this means that the cultural organizations have to form their own
business models in the process of absorbing technologies. For example, the
preservation and application of digital heritage (e.g. born-digital contents and virtual
museum) greatly change the areas of museum activities from physical site to
cyberspace, and allows museums to increase interest and real visit through offering
online access to their digital resources (Fopp 1997; Karp 2004).
The other one regards technologies as the tool and means of innovation. They
emphasize the construction of technological infrastructure to facilitate other process
or product innovations rather than technological progress itself. Art and cultural
organizations can rely on the ICT to develop innovative management practices in
operation (Marchant 1999), heritage preservation (Navarrete 2014), exhibition and
storytelling
(Pujol-Tost 2011), visiting experience (Kim et al. 2015), and
communication and mediation (Kéfi & Pallud 2011). The report How arts and
cultural organizations in England use technology (2013) suggested that digital
technologies had a positive impact on audience development, creative output and
operating efficiency but lower impacts on revenues in arts and cultural organizations;
it also pointed out that museums are less engaged with digital technology than other
art and cultural organizations. This implies that the extent to which technology is
adopted also varies from the type of organization.
4. Museum production and innovative activities
4.1 Museum production and distribution
Museums are an important art and cultural organization. According to the
International Council of Museums (ICOM), museum is “a non-profit, permanent
institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which
acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and
intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education,
study and enjoyment”. The essential role of museums is the creation and sharing of
knowledge through the generation and distribution of cultural product and service
related to cultural heritage (Museum association 2013). Fig.1 depicts the process of
the production and distribution in a museum. From the perspective of the value
creation, this process begins with the objective setting, through inputs, process, and
outputs, and finally ends up with exerting impacts.
5
Fig. 1 The generation and distribution of cultural products and services in the
museum
•
Objectives Four types of the objective can be identified in museums (Asuaga
& Rausell Köster 2006). Intrinsic objective is to accomplish the basic
activities defined by ICOM, it defines museum’s cultural role in heritage
preservation; extrinsic object is to meet the social expectation of a museum, it
defines the social role of impacting on community where the museum situates;
internal objective is to reach the sustainability of a museum, it determines the
legal status of museum; external objective is to optimize the efficiency of
museum management, it defines the economic role for development.
•
Inputs Museums are labor- and knowledge- intensive organizations
(Friedman 1994; Järvenpää & Mäki 2002). Museum’s operation requires a
large amount of human and knowledge resources besides ordinary physical
and financial capitals. Whilst museums are not traditionally technologyintensive institutions, new technology can drive a museum to adopt innovative
technological solutions in museological works so as to keep pace with the
changing social demands on museums (Bakhshi & Throsby 2009).
•
Process It reflects the detail methods and process of creating and sharing
knowledge flow, through executing essential activities defined by the ICOM.
•
Outputs Museums output both cultural products and services at the same time.
Museum products refer to tangible outcomes of their activities, e.g. digitized
6
image, exhibition, publication and conference are the outcomes of
digitalization, curation, and storytelling, investigation and communication
respectively. Whilst museum services refer to the visiting experience (e.g.
guided visit) and consumption (e.g. catering and shopping) online and on site.
•
Impacts Museums’ impacts can be classified into four values: i.e. public,
private, personnel and institutional values, which are created by museums and
transmitted to the audience and local community (Jacobsen 2016).
Clear and motivating organizational objectives can facilitate innovation in art
and cultural organizations, which is a key mediating step in achieving superior
organizational performance (McDonald 2007). But most innovative activities occur in
the production step covering from inputs to outputs. For example, the new source of
technologies and other capitals, the new cultural products and services, the new
process and expanding new market like audience reach. At last, well-identified
impacts can be good indicators to measure and evaluate the efficiency of innovation
and organization performance.
4.2 Knowledge, technology and innovation
Knowledge and technology are both the essential inputs of museum production
and the important drivers of innovation (Jensen et al. 2007; Karlsson et al. 2011).
Innovation traditionally concentrates on technological progress, where R&D activity
determines the intensity of technology and further fuels innovation. Technology in
museums has two resources: in-house R&D and imported technology. It is not
widespread to own R&D departments or be engaged in the R&D activities in the
museum sector, except for some large museums that own facilities for conservation
and scientific research, such as the British Museum. Whilst most of the technologies
adopted by museums are imported from external sources. At this sense, each
technique update or the introduction of new technology is an innovation in
technological dimensions. For example, the “automation” in the 1960s; museum
information
management
in
the
1970s;
local
networks,
multimedia
and
microcomputing in the 1980s; the Web, interoperability and mass digitization in the
1990s; and the mobile and social media at the start of the new century (Parry 2010).
In the digital era, many museums innovate by employing digital heritage solutions to
protect the natural and cultural heritage, reach potential audience to a great extent, and
7
attract tourists who may simply not have been aware of the opportunity to visit
(Kokalj et al. 2013)
Museums are knowledge-intensive; many innovative activities rely on
knowledge flow and exchanges. Asheim and Hansen (2009) classified knowledge in
the CCS into three bases: analytical, synthetic and symbolic bases. Analytical
knowledge refers to developing new knowledge about natural system and the
knowledge is scientific; synthetic knowledge refers to applying or combining existing
knowledge in new ways and it is problem-solving; symbolic knowledge refers to
creating meaning, desire, aesthetic, qualities, affect, intangibles, symbols. Take an
example of the restoration and conservation: analytical knowledge includes chemistry,
physics and biology etc.; synthetic knowledge include engineering etc.; and symbolic
knowledge includes fine arts, art history, history and photography etc. (De-Miguelmolina et al. 2013). Synthetic and analytical knowledge relate to the scientific and
technological component of innovation whilst symbolic knowledge relates to creative
process.
Innovation is a learning process (Lichtenthaler 2013), and the learning relies on
the exchange and acceleration of knowledge flow. Similar to investing R&D,
investing in knowledge (learning) occurs to two types of activities: “to improve the
quality of intermediate goods… then produce actually their intermediate goods
serving as inputs of in the production of the final good” (Esso 2010). In the case of
museum, many academic achievements through research activities, based on symbolic
knowledge like art history and museology etc., firstly improve the understanding of
museum staff on museum collection and management, and then the staff make the use
of these achievements as new theory or method in the production process like
storytelling, educating and communicating to product related final products like
exhibitions, popular publications and guide service for the public.
Therefore, symbolic innovation or symbolic component of innovation deals
with the changes in symbolic meanings and contents of cultural generation and
distribution of museums; it includes extending the understanding of museology, art
history or other disciplines; designing the storytelling for exhibitions and visiting;
preparing educational programs for study and communication and so forth. All of
these works are based on creativity and symbolic knowledge and focus on
“collection”, “educational”, “connecting” and “communication” values rather than
economic value (DSP-groep 2011). Their contribution to society usually is cumulative
8
and the improvement in aesthetic and symbolic dimension is not as easily judged as in
function dimensions. In another word, symbolic innovation is a “hidden innovation”
(Miles & Green 2008). Opposite to hidden innovation, technological innovation or
technological component of innovation is more “explicit” because it is output-based
(e.g. new technology and devices) and may lead to great social-economic outcomes.
4.3 Innovation in service areas
Service is an important output of museums; museums also innovate to improve
audience engagement and visiting experience (Bakhshi & Throsby 2009). Service is
the transformations of people, things and information (Tether & Metcalfe 2004).
Different from a tangible product, service is characterized by intangible, ephemerality,
co-terminality of production and consumption, and intensive user/producer interaction
(Hauknes 1998). Firstly, intangibility suggests that service usually is problem-solving;
it reflects “customization of specific technologies, pieces of equipment, organizational
models and strategies, to answer to a wide range of users' needs” (Evangelista 2000),
and the customization can be seen as a process innovation. Secondly, the nature of
ephemerality and co-terminality of production and consumption means that
production and consumption of service are closely connected and occur at the same
time, and therefore, it is hard to distinguish between process innovation and product
innovation, and some scholars introduced “delivery innovation” to represent service
innovation (Miles 1993). Thirdly, user/producer interaction suggests that the process
of innovation is not one way but a loop of try and feedback for learning by doing and
by interaction, and therefore, cooperation between producers and users is an important
source of innovation.
Fig. 1 identifies different activities in the service area in the museum, and these
activities can be categorized in accordance with different criteria. According to
service objects, they can be classified into backstage service that mainly offers
administrative and informative supports to production process, and service objects are
internal personnel within a museum, and front stage service that mainly creates an
experience business from guided visits to creativity-oriented museum shopping and
the service object is the public. According to inputs of service, they can be classified
into technology user and symbol user. “Technology user” resembles the similar
concept by Evangelista (2000) or the supplier dominated concept by Pavitt (1984),
and mostly refers to the service that relies on technologies developed outside.
9
Computerization of administrative system, digitization of the interactive manner, and
the usage of self-help devices like kiosks and audio tour has been an innovative
tendency in the museum service, and they are heavily reliant on the investment and
the acquisition of new machinery, equipment and the setting up of several kind of
technological infrastructures” (Evangelista 2000). On the contrary, symbol user
reflects the traditional service that relies on symbolic knowledge. For example,
reception desk, guided visit, catering service and museum shop etc. Most of these
services are labour-intensive, and require not only basic knowledge of art, history and
museology etc. but also necessary demands, preference and taste of the public.
Therefore, employee training is an important investment than technology acquisition
in this catalogry.
Traditional opionion thinks that an important characteristic of innovation in
service is non-technological or “soft”, meanwhile technology also plays a significant
role in shaping service in some service areas like “technology user” catogory.
4.4 Subsectors of product and process innovations in museums
The realm of museums spans across the creative economy, cultural institutions and
service sector; and the complexity of museum production determines the variety of
innovation patterns in the museums. As discussed above, innovation relies on many
factors, like technology, knowledge base and sector. As a consequence, it is useless to
adopt a single pattern from manufacturing or service sector to summarize a panorama
of innovative activities in museums; on the contrary, the “heterogeneous” production
and distribution of museums requires analysis on different patterns of innovation, and
hence, identifying homogeneous components from the heterogeneity is of significance.
Based on section 4.2 and 4.3, four sub-sectors of museum production can be
categorized according to the value creation and innovation inputs (see tab. 1).
•
Technology-dominated production refers to the process and output stages
where the production process relies heavily on technology and analytical and
synthetic knowledge, and the final products are function-oriented. A
representative of the technology-dominated process is the restoration that
involves precision instruments and intensive knowledge like color, pigment,
spectral and geology etc.
•
Symbol-dominated production refers to the process and output stages where
10
production process is based on the symbolic knowledge, and “first use” of the
final products is the communication of ideas instead of functional value. Many
collection-centered activities and outputs, e.g. research, exhibition, and
educational courses, fall into this sub-sector.
•
Technology-dominated service refers to both backstage and front stage
services that mainly rely on the adoption of new technologies. A
representative of backstage service is office automation and the usage of
Intranet; whilst the utilization of digital museum, virtual visit, and social
media communication belong to the technology-dominated front stage
services.
•
Symbol-dominated service mostly refers to the traditional front stage
services in museums such as information desk, guided visit, catering and
shopping services that mainly rely on symbolic knowledge.
Service, theoretically, is a part of production in a museum, but here we
differentiate service from production, which is restricted to two stages of process and
output in the categories, for emphasizing the “co-terminality” and interaction
characteristics of service, and this will help us to identify certain patterns of
innovation. At this sense, this classification is more tactical than theoretical.
Two differences should be emphasized here. Firstly, it should differentiate
“technology” from “symbol”. In most cases, production activities and their final
products (or services) contain both technological and symbolic components at the
same time, so the criterion of classification is to see which component plays a
dominant role in the production process or value composition. Secondly, it should
differentiate “product” from “service”. Many creative products also serve users, some
educational programs like course and conference are accomplished by the interaction
between educators and audience. The criterion lies in if the production process and
delivery can be separated. Most educational programs require a good plan and design,
and many innovations in educational programs are embodied in the new and creative
design and contents that are determined prior to their delivery to the final users.
Because of the curriculumization of the educational programs like courses and
workshops, museum education becomes a cultural product that can be delivered to
different users at the different time and places. On the other hand, some educational
11
Tab. 1 sub-sector of museum production for innovation pattern analysis
Service
Value creation
Production
Innovation inputs
Technology
Technology-dominated production
− Preservation
− Conservation
− Digitization
− Restoration
− New forms of born-digital and digital
surrogates
Symbol
Symbol-dominated production
− Research & investigation
− Curating & storytelling
− New storytelling of exhibition
− New design of catalogue
− Original publication
− New guidance for educational
programs/courses
− New contents of born-digital objects
Technology-dominated service
− Office automation / intranet
− Instant communication
− Virtual exhibition/visit
− Social media connection
− Online ticket/shopping
− Digital interactive technologies and
devices application
Symbolic-dominated service
− Front desk service
− Guided visit
− Catering service
− Museum shopping
− Conference & concert
programs like conferences and concerts are one-time performance and concentrate on
“live” and interaction between producers and users. Therefore, they are regarded as
service.
On this basis, it supposed that technological innovation involve in the
technology-dominated production and service whilst symbolic innovation involves in
symbol-dominated production and service subsectors
5. Sectoral system of innovation in museums: a case of Valencia Region
5.1 Sectoral system of innovation approach as methodology
The sectoral system of innovation (SSI) approach is an effective conceptual
framework to analyze innovation and production process as well as policy
implications (Edquist 2005), and it is the application of the system of innovation
theory in the boundary of a product or product group (Coenen & Díaz López 2010).
The sectoral system of innovation can be regarded as a set of new and established
products for specific uses and the set of agents carrying out a market and non-market
interactions for the creation of one or a number of innovation within a framework of
instructions (Malerba 2002). The products here are stressed to delimit the sectoral
boundary distinguished from the national and regional boundaries delimited by
geographical criterion. Agents include individual, firms and non-firm organizations
12
like universities, research centers, government bodies, and even firms’ sub-units like
R&D and production departments. The institution is defined by its broad sense as law,
social conventions, contracts, and traditions.
The SSI approach is adopted to analyze such questions as the structure and
boundary of the sector, agents and their activities, and learning and innovation
process. This analysis can be achieved through the following three building blocks.
•
Knowledge base and learning process Knowledge is relevant for explaining
innovative activities in a sector; learning process is an important resource of
knowledge, different combinations of degrees of accessibility, cumulativeness
and appropriability of knowledge lead to different patterns of innovation
(Malerba 2002). Considering that knowledge and technology domains of
innovation process vary across the sectors, they are significant factors to affect
the boundary of the innovation system.
•
Actors and networks Actors are heterogeneous because of their types,
competencies, organizations, beliefs, and behaviors. The types and structures
of networks (i.e. links among artifacts or relationship among agents) differ
from sector systems, so they also affect the boundary of the sector. Knowledge
involves the network and interaction of these different actors, and new or
existing knowledge can be acquired through “monitoring”, “mobility” and
“collaboration” by the process of learning by doing, by using, by interacting
and by cooperation (Tether & Metcalfe 2001).
•
Institutions Institution may be both national and specific to the sector; it
shapes the network and interaction of actors, and then further influence the
process of innovation.
The basic logic is that the SSI is composed of actors and their networks shaped
by national and sectorial institutions; the boundary of the sectoral system are
determined by the knowledge and technology domain as well as the link and
complementary among artifacts (e.g. a product or a technology) and activities; the
heterogeneity of actors within a sector results not only from different cognitive
degrees but also from different demands of users, therefore the process of systematic
innovation is the interplay of the process of variety creation and the process of
selection; at last, changes in the knowledge base change the type of actors and the
structure of networks, and further affects the boundaries of the sectoral system
13
(Malerba 2003). Because “often the most appropriate units of analysis in specific
sectoral systems are not necessarily firms, but individuals or firms’ sub-units”
(Malerba 2002), an attractiveness of the SSI approach is to describe and compare the
similarities and differences of operation, dynamics and transformation of sub-sectors
within a sector.
In order to apply the SSI approach in the museum sector, the following process
will be followed. Firstly, sorting out the agents and networks in museum sector and
defining its boundary of sectoral system of innovation; secondly, identifying the types
of knowledge, the sources of knowledge (monitoring, mobility, collaboration) (Martin
& Moodysson 2011), and learning processes (learning by doing, by using, by
interacting, and by cooperating) (Arrow 1962; Rosenberg 1982; Lundvall 1988;
Bureth et al. 1997) of four sub-sector of museum production, and summarizing
patterns of innovation of each sub-sectors; thirdly, analyzing the state of arts of the
infrastructure and structure of the sectoral system of innovation and discussing how
they affect the innovative activities of different sub-sectors within the museum sector.
5.2 The boundary of the sectoral system
Regional boundary may be more appropriate than national boundary to be regarded in
the analysis of the sectoral system because a sectoral system usually is highly
localized (Malerba 2002), and empirical studies also suggested that knowledge flows
and exchanges mostly happen within the same region in the “symbolic” industries
(Martin & Moodysson 2011). In Spain, there is no influential national organization or
alliance for museums, the operation, and networks among museums are highly
conformed to the territorial of autonomous communities. This article basically focuses
on the sectoral system of innovation in the Valencia Autonomous Community, semistructure interviews were conducted with museum directors, professionals and
independent curators from seven museums (see appendix), and the questions
principally focused on the four working field: restoration, digital heritage, exhibition,
and investigation, and visit service and quality evaluation system.
According to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of Spain2, Valencia
Community owns 190 museums, only second to Castilla y Leon (195) in the number
2See Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, Museum and Museological collection
Statistics 2014:
http://www.mcu.es/culturabase/cgi/um?M=/t11/p11&O=culturabase&N=&L=0
14
whilst they attracted the forth largest amount of visitors in 2014, only inferior to
Madrid, Cataluña, and Andalucía. In Valencia, 78% museums are public museums,
among which there are 4 national museums, 9 autonomous regional museums and 132
local museums, whilst private museums only sum up to 21% and the two residues are
public-and-private-mixed museums. Besides museums, the sectoral system of
innovation also consists of diverse agents including public-funded institutions for
heritage conservation and restoration, e.g. Instituto Valenciano de Conservación y
Restauración and Instituto de Restauración de Patrimonio de UPV, Fine Arts School
and art history departments of local universities, associations for museums and
museum professionals, high-tech enterprises as technology and service suppliers as
well as cultural and heritage authorities of regional and municipal governments.
There are two types of interactions among agents according to the links between
products. On the one hand, museums as cultural producers interact with the suppliers
that provide inputs to production. Suppliers may be research centers and universities
that provide human and symbol capitals, museum service firms and (high-)
technology firms that offer technology and physical capital, and government bodies
that offer financial capital. On the other hand, museums also interact with visitors as
users of cultural products and services, many museums attach importance to the
feedback from visitors in order to improve the service quality through the widely
adopted quality evaluation system.
In the technology and knowledge regime, in-house R&D activities are not
common and most technologies and equipment are imported from other sectors, and
hence museums can be seen as Pavitt called “supplier-dominated sectors” (Pavitt
1984). Analytical, synthetic and symbolic knowledge are scattered among different
production segments owing to different natures of works. Analytical base (e.g.
chemistry, physic and biology) and synthetic base (e.g. engineering) constitute
scientific knowledge that mostly involve in some technology-oriented works for
examination, analysis, conservation, restoration and digitalization (De-Miguel-molina
et al. 2013) while symbolic base mainly involve in the creative process, including
symbolic meaning production area that refers to the contents of fine arts, history,
photography and museology, and visit service areas that are reliant on the
understanding of demand, preference and habit of visitors. These knowledge flows
and exchanges are the outcome of the interaction and learning process. According to
Martin and Moodysson (2011), the sources of knowledge are diverse in terms of:
15
(1) Monitoring: searching for knowledge outside the organizational boundaries of
the museum, but without direct interaction with these external sources, e.g.
fairs, magazines, surveys, and journals. This knowledge may be technological,
and symbolic as well. A good example is that such research activities as art
history studies and art critics require solid review of literature that mainly
from journeys and surveys.
(2) Mobility: retrieving knowledge input thought the recruitment of key
employees from other organizations. In the curatorship of an exhibition and
educational program, it is a widespread practice for museums to recruit
independent curators, university professors or experts in specific sectors
temporarily; museums also recruit volunteers and memberships of museum
friends club from different careers.
(3) Collaboration: exchanging knowledge though direct interaction with other
individuals and organizations.
Innovation as a learning process is implicit in the interaction and
interdependence of agents, and thus gives importance to the patterns of learning
processes. Although cultural production of museums is similar to a certain extent to
in-house R&D in symbolic dimension and stresses the importance of learning by
doing and by using; the close linkages between museums and suppliers and users also
implies the existence of learning by interaction and by cooperation.
5.3 Patterns of innovation in four subsectors
Tab.2 describes the basic elements of the sectoral system of innovation and
innovation patterns of four subsectors of museum production.
In the technology-dominated production subsector, we focus on the restoration.
Many museums set up restoration departments or employ restoration professionals,
who are in charge of daily maintenance of collections. In the case of a complex
restoration, they tend to search external service from professional institutions such as
Instituto Valenciano de Conservacion y Restauración de Bienes Cultural (M1, M2,
M5), or self-employed specialists (M6, M7). Therefore, “outsourcing” is a common
feature in the field of restoration, which suggests an intensive producer-supplier
interactions based on commercial contracts and market mechanism. Additionally,
there also exist some informal exchanges and diffusion of tacit knowledge about
certain small-scale and new restoration technique and skills among employees from
16
different museums (M2, M5, M7). So knowledge may come from two sources:
cooperation with suppliers and monitoring by seeking and imitating among
employees. Innovation in restoration is the outcome from learning by interaction and
by cooperation.
In the symbolic-dominated production subsector, we focus on the storytelling of
exhibition 3 . Museum exhibition is of academic and educational significance,
involving a new method of story-telling, or a new idea on nature, history, humanity,
and artform etc., and hence, it faces small-scale, accumulated, and content dominated
innovation. An exhibition usually is a project-oriented collaboration, involving
internal collaboration among conservators, curators, and educators, as well as external
cooperation with independent curators, university professors, collectors and artists etc.
Internal collaboration is of institutional division of labor, whilst a large amount of
external cooperation is based either on contract with independent curators, artists and
collectors or on informal network and trust with scholars or art critics. Therefore, in
the symbolic-dominated production, monitoring and mobility are two principal
sources of the knowledge; the relationship among agents still belongs to producersupplier interaction, and innovation is the outcome of learning by doing and learning
by interaction.
In the technology-dominated service subsector, we focus on the digital
museums. Digital museum is an information network service system constructed for
collecting, preserving, managing and utilizing information resources of human
heritage (Chen & Zhu 2013). It may improve the museum experience particularly by
ICT, such as wireless communication, VR, 3D and intelligent terminals so as to reach
a wide and deep audience by means of the creation, dissemination and (re-) usage of
digital heritage resource. Therefore, the driver of innovation mainly comes from the
lifestyle and demand from visitors. But museums belong to the supplier dominated
sector, and technological innovation in museum are restricted by the R&D and
commercialization of new technology from other sectors, so service innovation in
technological dimension also relies on the cooperation of other agents like (high-)
technology firms (M4, M5, M7), or universities (M1, M5, M6). This particularity
forms a special loop of user-producer-supplier interaction, i.e. the advent of new
3Exhibition usually is a systematic project, which embraces both symbolic meaning
component (e.g. storytelling) and technological component (design, installation and
conservation of exhibits).
17
technologies leads to new usage habit and demand (e.g. smart mobile devices) of
visitors, which encourages technological innovation (e.g. seeking wireless
communication solution for enriching visiting experience) to meet new needs of users,
and this in turn forces museums to cooperate and interact with high-tech suppliers for
importing and adopting new technologies. The knowledge sourcing is based on
collaboration, and innovation is the outcome of learning by interaction and by
cooperation.
In the symbolic-dominated service subsector, we focus on visitor service and
quality evaluation system. Visitor service is the front house job about meeting and
greeting visitors to provide them favorable visiting experience, it often involves the
guided tours, information desk, answer general enquiries, shop and coffee etc.
Innovation in visitor service is small scale and problem-solving. The innovation
process is usually associated with the effective operation of the quality evaluation
system adopted by many museums (M3, M7). The system embraces a typical
producer-users interaction, which requires a museum to response to visitors’
feedback for tackling the deficiencies and problems in order to improve the quality of
visitors’ experience. In this subsector, the knowledge sourcing is collaboration, and
innovation is the outcome of learning by interaction.
Based on the above description, it is summarized that innovation in the cultural
production of museums consists of both technological component and symbolic
component. In the technological component, most innovative activities are radical and
outcome-oriented because technological innovation in museums relies heavily on the
importation and integration of technologies supplied by other sectors, which requires
intensive interaction and cooperation between museums and technology suppliers.
During the direct interaction with outside agents, innovators acquire essential
knowledge and technology resources though the necessary processes of learning by
interaction and cooperation. In the symbolic component, innovation appears as a
process-oriented and problem-solving activity. Symbolic innovation also emphasizes
the interaction of agents and exchange of knowledge, but linkage types and
knowledge sourcing are various from areas of value creation. In the production area,
many symbolic innovations are initiated from key employees such as researchers and
curators. This implies the importance of mobility as a knowledge sourcing, and the
interaction and learning process are somehow of individualism and rely on informal
relationships among the academic community or peer groups, whilst organizational
18
Tab. 2 basic elements of the sectoral system of innovation and innovation patterns according to four subsectors of museum production
Technology-dominated production
Symbol-dominated production
Technology-dominated service
Symbol-dominated service
Example
Restoration
Storytelling of exhibition
Digital museum
Visitor service / quality evaluation
system
Actors
Museums, research centers,
universities, technology suppliers
Museum, university, independent
curator, artists, collectors
Museums; high-tech firms; universities;
museum visitors.
Museum, visitors, consulting company
Knowledge
type
Synthetic and analytical base (3D print,
X-Ray examination, lon-exchange
chromatography…)
Symbolic base (fine arts, art, art history,
design)
Synthetic base (informatics,
engineering)
Symbolic base (demand, preference and
habit)
Knowledge
source
Monitoring (search and imitation)
& collaboration.
Monitoring & mobility
Collaboration
Collaboration
Learning
process
Learning by interaction, by cooperation
Learning by doing, by interaction
Learning by interaction, by cooperation
Learning by interaction
Network
Supplier-producer interaction
Suppliers-producers interaction
Informal network
Users-producer-supplier interaction
Producer-user interaction
Institution
Contract
Many museums set up restoration
departments or employ restoration
professionals, who are in charge of
daily maintenance of collections. In
case of a complex restoration, they tend
to search external service from
professional institution or companies,
or self-employed specialists. Therefore,
outsource becomes a common feature
in the field of restoration. Besides, the
informal exchanges of information
between museums also exist in the
diffusion of small-scale and new
restoration technique and skills.
Contract
The advent of ICT helps museums to
reach a wide and deep audience by
means of the creation, dissemination
and (re)usage of digital heritage
resource. The object is to improve the
museum experience particularly by
ICT, such as VR, 3D, intelligent
terminals etc., and hence the drive of
innovation comes from the lifestyle and
demand from visitors, especially young
generation who deeply involve in the
social media, mobile phone etc. But
museums are supplier dominated sector,
and hence technological innovation are
restricted by the R&D and
commercialization of new technology
from other sectors. E.g. mobile
operators and university. Therefore,
innovation requires intensive
interaction between users-producerssuppliers.
Regulation
Visitor service is the front house job
about meeting and greeting visitors to
provide them favorable visiting
experience, it often involves the guided
tours, information desk, answer general
enquires, shop and coffee etc.
Innovation in visitor service is small
scale and problem solving. The
innovation process is usually associated
with museum quality and evaluation
system, which is based on the feedback
from visitors, and museums proceed the
feedback and end up with improvement
of service quality.
Innovation
pattern
Trust
Museum exhibition is of academic and
educational significance, involving new
method of story-telling, or new idea on
nature, history, humanity, and artform
etc., and hence it faces small-scale,
accumulated, and content dominated
innovation. An exhibition is usually
project-oriented collaboration,
involving internal collaboration with
research and education department, as
well as external cooperation with
independent curators, university
professors, collectors etc. Internal
collaboration is of institutional division
of labor, whilst a large amount of
external cooperation is based on
informal and individual networks or
contract between museum and
independent curators and scholars.
19
institutions and culture may favor or hamper this interaction and network. In the
service area, innovative activities involve in organization process that determines how
a museum and visitors interact.
5.4 Cultural institutions as a key of shaping sectoral system
Specific culture institutions (Hasitschka et al. 2005) play an important role in shaping
the existing interaction and relationships among museums, individuals and other
organizations, and further influences innovation in the sectoral system. In Spain, there
is a common understanding that cultural resources are publically owned and shared by
the whole society. This cognition leads to at least two outputs of local cultural
institutions.
On the one hand, the state rather than market dominates the production,
distribution, and reception/consumption of cultural heritage products and services in
Valencia region. It is generally regarded that market is an effective mechanism of
resources allocation but the market mechanism is a failure in such a public sector like
cultural heritage, and hence government intervention is necessary for the production,
allocation and consumption of cultural production and services. Government
intervention incurs two outcomes. Firstly, the sustainability of museums relies heavily
on public support. Public funding accounts to near 90% revenue of museums in
Valencia Community 4 . Secondly, the operation of museums leans towards
institutional interaction instead of market interaction. Take an example of exhibit loan
policy, many western museums have market-oriented exhibit loan policies that allow
museums to charge loan fees for lending their collections to other cultural institutions
whilst exhibit loan activities in Spanish public museums are restricted to nonprofitable bilateral agreements between governments or museums and the existing
policy doesn't allow public museums to charge loan fees for lending exhibits.
Whilst in the technology-dominated areas, museums rely on market exchange
mechanism because the essential techniques or machines need to be imported from
other agents or even other sectors. In the digital era, museums have increasing
demands on such digital technology as 3D, VR, and AR etc. Under the existing
producer-supplier interactions, the extra demands of museums will lead to the
4
Considering that the data source includes both public and private museums, the real
proportion of public funding to total revenue will be higher than 90% in the public
museums.
20
increase in supply by attracting more specialized supplier firms (mostly are high-tech
SME dedicating to museum sector) to enter this emerging market, which forms the
process of variety creation. At this sense, market mechanism helps to expand the
boundaries of a sectoral system by introducing emerging actors of the museum sector.
On the other hand, museums are categorized by the administrative management
system. At the organizational level, each museum belongs to a certain bureaucrat
classification corresponding to its governing body if it is central government,
autonomous community government, municipal government or private entities. In the
Valencia region, museums are heavily dependent on their governing bodies not only
for fundraising but also for organizational decision-making. The bureaucracy of the
museum sector incurs two outcomes. Firstly, most museums interact with other
museums from the same category, so the interaction among museums usually is
horizontal. Secondly, the vertical interaction of museums across different categories is
limited, partly because of the lack of powerful national museum associations like
Museum Association of UK or the American Alliance of Museums to unite and
cohere museums at national or regional territorial. At the individual level, most
museum professionals are civil servants. It is not easy for a museum to hire key
employees for knowledge seeking as firms do under the existing system. Therefore,
the mobility as a knowledge sourcing is temporary, informal and unstable.
6. Conclusions
Why is technological innovation emphasized more than symbolic innovation in the art
and cultural organization? This is not a perception issue, but a matter of choice, that is,
which innovation is easier to implement. In the existing sectoral system, different
innovative activities are reliant on different knowledge bases, learning process, actors’
network and institutional restriction; and different combinations of these elements, in
turn, shape various path dependences for innovation. Yet the similar institutional
environment may encourage some kinds of innovative activities and hamper the
others. Based on the above analysis, the conclusion of this question that this article
aims to answer may be arrived at by the perception and choice aspects.
From the perception aspect, technological innovation usually is output-oriented
and radical whilst symbolic innovation is process-oriented and problem-solving,
therefore it is easier to identify and concentrate on the technological innovation than
symbolic innovation.
21
From the choice aspect, as Schumpeter’s innovation theory suggested, “creative
destruction” is realized by effective resource allocation through market (Schumpeter
1939). This may also work in the art and cultural organizations, because the market
may facilitate the interaction and network of the sectoral system of innovation
effectively, and further attracts cultural actors to innovate with the help of market.
This is proved in the case study of the sectoral system of innovation in museums,
where technology absorption depends on collaboration through market mechanism,
which plays a significant role in attracting new technology supplier firms to enter the
emerging technology market for museums through adjusting the demand and supply
relationship. This process of variety creation actually is similar to the Mark I pattern
of Schumpeter innovation and contributes to the expansion of the boundaries of the
sectoral system of innovation in museums.
The analysis of the sectoral system of innovation in museums shows that
government intervention is widespread in the production, distribution and
consumption of cultural products and services; but this intervention may limit the
autonomy and self-determination of museums and their innovation, for example, the
administrative management system of museums actually weakens the mobility as
knowledge sourcing and vertical interaction and cooperation. On the contrary, market
mechanism plays an important role in the areas of technology dominated production
and service; collaboration between museums and technology suppliers are dependent
on the market-centered interaction. This may explain why more concerns have been
paid by art and cultural organization on technological rather than symbolic innovation
from the market perspective.
Appendix
Code
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
Summary of interviewed museums
Type
Ownership
Decorative arts
National
Fine arts
Regional
Image and visual arts
Municipal
History & monument
Municipal
History & anthropology Municipal
Contemporary arts
Private
Others
Private
22
Interview date
28/07/2015
01/12/2015
20/10/2015
02/12/2015
20, 21/10/2015
18/11/2015
13/11/2015
References
Alcaide-Marzal, J. & Tortajada-Esparza, E., 2007. Innovation assessment in
traditional industries. A proposal of aesthetic innovation indicators.
Scientometrics, 72(1), pp.33–57.
Arrow, K.J., 1962. The Economic Learning Implications of by Doing. The Review of
Economic Studies, 29(3), pp.155–173.
Asheim, B. & Hansen, H.K., 2009. Knowledge Bases, Talents, and Contexts: On the
Usefulness of the Creative Class. Economic Geography, 85(4), pp.425–442.
Asuaga, C. & Rausell Köster, P., 2006. Un Análisis de la gestión de instituciones
culturales: el caso específico de los Museos. Revista Iberoamericana de
Contabilidad de Gestión, 4(8).
Bakhshi, H. & Throsby, D., 2010. Culture of Innovation An economic analysis of
innovation, (June). Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/cultureinnovation.
Bakhshi, H. & Throsby, D., 2009. Innovation in Arts and Cultural Organisations,
Becheikh, N., Landry, R. & Amara, N., 2006. Lessons from innovation empirical
studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from
1993-2003. Technovation, 26(5-6), pp.644–664.
Bianchi, G. & Bortolotti, F., 1996. On the Concept of Formal Innovation. In
European Regional Science Association 36th European Congress ETH Zurich,
Switzerland 26-30 August 1996 Giuliano. Zurich,.
Bilton, C. & Leary, R., 2002. What can managers do for creativity? Brokering
creativity in the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy,
8(1), pp.49–64.
Bureth, A., Wolff, S. & Zanfei, A., 1997. The two faces of learning by cooperating:
The evolution and stability of inter-firm agreements in the European electronics
industry. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 32, pp.519–537.
Cappetta, R., Cillo, P. & Ponti, A., 2006. Convergent designs in fine fashion: An
evolutionary model for stylistic innovation. Research Policy, 35(9), pp.1273–
1290. Available at:
Chen, G. & Zhu, K., 2013. Analysis of digital museum and the related problems.
Digital Committee, Chinese Society of Museums. Available at:
http://www.digitalmuseum.org.cn/xszz/content/2013-08/26/content_58895.htm
[Accessed February 27, 2016].
Coenen, L. & Díaz López, F.J., 2010. Comparing systems approaches to innovation
and technological change for sustainable and competitive economies: An
23
explorative study into conceptual commonalities, differences and
complementarities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12), pp.1149–1160.
De-Miguel-molina, B., Hervás-oliver, J.L. & Boix, R., 2013. Drivers of Beautiful
Innovation: Artworks Restoration by Museums. In 35th DRUID Conference.
Barcelona.
Digital R&D Fund for the Arts, 2013. Digital culture: how arts and cultural
organizaciones in england use technology, London.
Dosi, G. & Nelson, R.R., 2010. Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as
Evolutionary Process. In B. Hall & N. Rosenberg, eds. Handbook of the
Economics of Innovation. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 51–127.
DSP-groep, 2011. The social significance of museums: more than worth it,
Edquist, C., 2005. System of innovation: perspective and challenges. In J. Fagerberg,
D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–208.
Esso, L.J., 2010. Human Capital, R&D and Endogenous Occupational Choice.
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, (2).
Evangelista, R., 2000. Sectoral Patterns Of Technological Change In Services.
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 9(3), pp.183–222.
Fagerberg, J., 2006. Innovation: A Guide to the Literature. In J. Fagerberg, D.
Mowery, & R. Nelson, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Fopp, M. a., 1997. The Implications of Emerging Technologies for Museums and
Galleries. Museum Management and Curatorship, 16(2), pp.143–153.
Friedman, R., 1994. Museum people: the special problems of personnel management
in museums and historical agencies. In K. Moore, ed. Museum management.
London: Routledge, pp. 120–127.
Galloway, S. & Dunlop, S., 2007. A CRITIQUE OF DEFINITIONS OF THE
CULTURAL AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES IN PUBLIC POLICY.
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(1).
Galloway, S. & Dunlop, S., 2006. Deconstructing the concept of “Creative Industries.”
Cultural Industries: The British Experience in International Perspective, 1(May),
pp. 33–52.
Greenhalgh, C. & Rogers, M., 2010. Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic
Growth, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Handke, C.W., 2004. Defining creative industries by comparing the creation of
novelty, Vienna.
24
Hasitschka, W., Goldsleger, P. & Zembylas, T., 2005. Cultural Institutions Studies:
Investigating the Transformation of Cultural Goods. The Journal of Arts
Management, Law, and Society, 35(2), pp.147–158.
Hauknes, J., 1998. Services in innovation - Innovation in services, Oslo.
Ioannidis, Y. et al., 2014. Using ICT in cultural heritage, bless or mess? Stakeholders’
and practitioners' view through the eCultValue project. In EuroMed 2014,
International Conference on Cultural Heritage, 3-8 November 2014. Lemessos,
Cyprus.
Jacobsen, J.W., 2016. Measuring Museum Impact and Performance: Theory and
Practice Reprint., Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Järvenpää, E. & Mäki, E., 2002. Knowledge-Sharing in Networked Organizations. In
N. Bontis, ed. World Congress on Intellectual Capital Readings. Boston: Taylor
& Francis, pp. 374–383.
Jensen, M.B. et al., 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research
Policy, 36(5), pp.680–693.
Karlsson, C. et al., 2011. Innovation, Technology and Knowledge, Stockholm.
Available at: http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:485022/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
Karp, C., 2004. Digital Heritage in Digital Museums. Museum International, 56(221),
pp.45–51.
KEA, 2006. THE ECONOMY OF CULTUREIN EUROPE,
Kéfi, H. & Pallud, J., 2011. The role of technologies in cultural mediation in
museums: an Actor-Network Theory view applied in France. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 26(3), pp.273–289.
Kim, S.-R. et al., 2015. The mediation of information technology on visitors’
experience at a cultural heritage site. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
1665(March), pp.1–16.
Kokalj, Ž. et al., 2013. Crossing Borders: A Multi-Layer GIS Mapping Framework
for the Cultural Management of the Mundo Maya Region. In E. Ch’ng, V.
Gaffney, & H. Chapman, eds. Visual Heritage in the Digital Age. London:
Springer, pp. 327–348.
vom Lehn, D., 2005. Accounting for New Technology in Museum Exhibitions.
International journal of arts management, 44(0), pp.1–19.
Lichtenthaler, U.L. and E., 2013. Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding
Design Thinking. California Management Review, 53(1), pp.154–170.
Lundvall, B.-Å., 1988. Innovation as an interactive process: from users-producers
25
interaction to the national system of innovation. In G. Dosi et al., eds. Technical
Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 349–369.
Malerba, F., 2003. Sectoral Systems and Innovation and Technology Policy. Revista
Brasileira de Inovação, 2(2), pp.329–375.
Malerba, F., 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy,
31(2), pp.247–264.
Marchant, D., 1999. Data Management. Museum Management and Curatorship, 18(2),
pp.197–201.
Martin, R. & Moodysson, J., 2011. Innovation in Symbolic Industries: The
Geography and Organization of Knowledge Sourcing Roman. European
Planning Studies, 197(October 2014), pp.1183–1203.
McDonald, R.E., 2007. An Investigation of Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations:
The Role of Organizational Mission. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
36(2), pp.256–281.
Miles, I., 1993. Services in the new industrial economy. Futures, 25(6), pp.653–672.
Miles, I. & Green, L., 2008. Hidden innovation in the creative industries,
Museum association;, 2013. Public perceptions of – and attitudes to - the purposes of
museums in society, London.
Navarrete, T., 2014. Becoming Digital: A Dutch Heritage Perspective. The Journal of
Arts Management, Law, and Society, 44(3), pp.153–168.
Parry, R., 2010. Introduction to Part One. In R. Parry, ed. Museums in a Digital Age.
New York: Routledge, pp. 11–14.
Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of innovation; Towards a taxonomy and a theory.
Research Policy, 13, pp.343–374.
Pujol-Tost, L., 2011. Integrating ICT in exhibitions. Museum Management and
Curatorship, 26(1), pp.63–79.
Rosenberg, N., 1982. Inside the black box: Technology and economics, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1939. BUSINESS CYCLES. A Theoretical, Historical and
Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process Abridged, New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Stoneman, P., 2010. Soft Innovation: Economics, Product Aesthetics and the Creative
Industies, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Tether, B.S. & Metcalfe, J.S., 2001. Innovation Systems & Services: Investigation
“Systems of Innovation” in the Services Sectors - An Overview, Manchester.
26
Tether, B.S. & Metcalfe, J.S., 2004. Services and systems of innovation. In F.
Malerba, ed. Sectoral Systems of Innovation: Concepts, Issues and Analyses of
Six Major Sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–
322.
Throsby, D., 2001. Economics and Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27