Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector [1st ed.] 9783030467951, 9783030467968

Citation preview

Martin Piber  Editor

Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector

Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector

Martin Piber Editor

Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector

Editor Martin Piber Department of Organisation and Learning University of Innsbruck Innsbruck, Austria

ISBN 978-3-030-46795-1 ISBN 978-3-030-46796-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8

(eBook)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lucia Biondi, Paola Demartini, Lucia Marchegiani, Michela Marchiori, and Martin Piber Part I

1

Cultural Heritage and Museums

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberto Romolini, Silvia Fissi, Elena Gori, and Marco Contri

11

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laura Corazza, Maurizio Cisi, and Simone Domenico Scagnelli

33

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deborah Agostino, Michela Arnaboldi, and Eleonora Carloni The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the Archaeological Park of Paestum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Francesca Manes-Rossi and Marco Bisogno Part II

61

79

Cultural Entrepreneurship

Evaluating Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector: Experiences from Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Nathalie Colasanti, Rocco Frondizi, Marco Meneguzzo, and Lavinia Pastore The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Roberta Bocconcelli, Fulvio Fortezza, Francesco Petrucci, and Alessandro Pagano v

vi

Part III

Contents

Enabling Participation

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre Makovecz’s Work Within the Faluházak Project . . . 141 Pierluigi Catalfo and Martina Giustra Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of Culture 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Paola Demartini, Lucia Marchegiani, and Michela Marchiori Part IV

Evaluation and Learning

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative Industries Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Marge Sassi, Kristiina Urb, and Ülle Pihlak Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector: State-of-the-Art in Theory and Practice and Prolegomena for Further Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Leticia Labaronne and Martin Piber

Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector: An Introduction Lucia Biondi, Paola Demartini, Lucia Marchegiani, Michela Marchiori, and Martin Piber

Abstract The purpose of this book is to support academics and practitioners involved in cultural organisations and cultural initiatives in their aim to create valuable societal impact by addressing these fundamental questions: What are the major challenges and transitions for cultural organisations? What role can cultural heritage play in contemporary societies? And what societal changes impact the relevance of culture and the arts in general? Organisational and societal change require a solid base of knowledge and experience, as well as their continuous reinterpretation and reflection. Arts and cultural artefacts highlight fundamental questions of economic and social developments and provide reflective platforms for societal discourses. The contributions of this book will address the relevance of culture, cultural entities and heritage as collective memories and reservoirs of experience for other social systems, change and societal innovators like entrepreneurs. Insofar, cultural activities can be understood as a bridge between past experience and future challenges. A special focus is dedicated to managerial practices, participation and entrepreneurship, as well as their inter-relations.

1 Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship Cultural management (also known as Arts management, especially in North America) has emerged as a distinct field of study in the second half of the twentieth century (Ebewo and Sirayi 2009). Various stakeholders in the field of culture and the arts increasingly emphasise the need for managers of cultural institutions (Dewey

L. Biondi · P. Demartini · L. Marchegiani · M. Marchiori Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy M. Piber (*) Department of Organisation and Learning, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_1

1

2

L. Biondi et al.

2004) to possess new skills. This publication aims to contribute to this specific field of knowledge by providing empirical evidence and theoretical reflections. Management and participation have an ambivalent relationship. On the one hand, established management practices often don’t facilitate participation, but on the other hand, the full potential of participatory processes for several stakeholders needs as well managerial and organisational efforts. This fine line has not been sufficiently enlightened so far. To close this gap, we need the expertise of different scientific disciplines. The authors are aware of the complex and special situation of governing and organising in the arts and relevant cultural sectors. Therefore, it is not surprising, that this edition encompasses various theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. Cultural heritage includes both, tangible and intangible aspects of culture (Bouchenaki 2003). More precisely, cultural heritage encompasses tangible cultural goods, such as buildings, archaeological sites and artefacts, cemeteries and artworks, as well as intangible cultural goods, for example, languages, music or customs and traditions. Cultural heritage is preserved, exhibited, elaborated and communicated to and for the public via cultural organisations and initiatives. Most of them don’t have a profit orientation. Nevertheless, cultural heritage, and various organisations in charge of it, also need managerial and organisational know-how in order to support their key activities. On the one hand, this concerns traditional management activities such as organising, planning, leadership and monitoring/evaluation. On the other hand, there are more contextual activities concerned—such as representing and maintaining local identities, promoting audience development, assessing community needs, improving community well-being, etc. (Ebewo and Sirayi 2009; Dewey 2004). The arts and cultural sector, and in particular the creative industries, are growing in Europe and in other western societies, as well as in Asia. Cultural entrepreneurship has become a topic of high interest in debates around innovation and growth in the context of the creative industries. Studies on these issues have been undertaken by management and sociology scholars, as well as scholars in business but with interest in arts and culture. However, to face the new challenges, a new entrepreneurial spirit can open new windows of opportunity and connect contemporary societal problems with past experience and allegedly forgotten expertise in archives, museums and other cultural heritage sites. Hence, we will emphasise the seminal relevance of this expertise for the creation of new ideas in various societal and economic fields of interest. Cultural heritage is conceived as the contemporary use of the past, and its meanings are defined in the present. The needs and demands of our present societies define the purposes of cultural heritage management. Therefore, culture can be conceived as a “social construction, imagined, defined and articulated within cultural and economic practice” (Graham 2002, p. 1003). From this perspective, the strength of relations within a given community allows for the sharing of values and common goals, increasing the opportunity to interact and exchange experiences over time and the likelihood to enhance consolidated current knowledge and skills (Liu 2018). In cultural and creative organisations, learning processes help to “develop the

Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative. . .

3

capability to obtain, identify, integrate, and utilize acquired knowledge to improve internal skills and adapt to external environmental changes” (Liu 2018, p. 258). Knowledge can thus be analysed at different levels: (a) in participatory cultural initiatives, knowledge sharing and new knowledge creation lead to community building and collective wisdom; (b) the individual contribution in terms of knowledge sharing in culture emphasises a sense of belonging and collective identity; (c) vibrant cultural activities contribute to urban development via the actors’ participation and knowledge sharing processes, as described in the literature on Smart and Knowledge Cities and Knowledge-Based Urban Development (Carrillo 2004). Nevertheless, effectively capturing and conveying this knowledge to the deployment of the cultural initiative may be complex and difficult. The involvement of citizens and stakeholder communities in cultural activities is considered a crucial driver for urban regeneration processes and the social and economic development of local communities (Stolarick and Florida 2006; Sacco et al. 2014). Participatory Cultural Initiatives (Biondi et al. 2020) enable an intensive collaboration between various actors and combine elements of grassroots initiatives as well as planned activities. Institutions and policy and cultural organisations have recognised the value of participatory approaches in order to involve different actors and stakeholders, who might contribute commitment, passion, expertise and/or their knowledge in various processes. Nagy (2018) underlines that the impact of citizen and community participation in public decision-making processes can have different faces, going from very light forms of participation such as “consultation” (when citizens contribute with their opinions) to large-scale partnerships in which citizens and policy-makers cooperate on an equal level of involvement in terms of planning and/or policy-making activities. Therefore, it is important to understand how participatory processes develop and which conditions favour or hinder their dynamics. Finally, since we became aware of living in an audit society (Power 1999), we see a continuously rising momentum of performance measurement and evaluation—also in the area of arts and culture. Considering the fact that, in this specific context, resources are particularly limited and results are intangible, we understand that we need a fundamental shift of performance measurement and evaluation approaches (Chiaravalloti and Piber 2011). There is a huge space for improvement. The project of the book is linked to a research team of scholars working in the areas of management, organisational design, accounting and strategy, combined with a strong focus on the field of organising and managing cultural organisations. Insofar, the book spans up an open space to cross-fertilise the humanities and social as well as management sciences. The initial research team was formed in 2016 by a group of thinkers belonging to the University of Innsbruck and the Roma Tre University, who started working on the guidelines of an ambitious, long-term project on cultural initiatives. The basic idea started on the belief that cultural heritage and contemporary culture had become a challenging research topic and a relevant field of experimentation—also for practitioners, policymakers, managers and entrepreneurs. Culture as an important background for the economic and social development of communities and territories is more and more the subject of attention of governments and supranational organisations. Among these, it is worth to remember that in 2010

4

L. Biondi et al.

the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) network advocated for culture to be considered as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. This is even truer for Europe, whose cultural heritage is not only a tangible asset that should be preserved for new generations but also the common factor of our identity as European citizens. Culture therefore also contains knowledge, expertise and other hidden artefacts to be transferred both in time, from one generation to another and in space, allowing the fruition of culture to an increasing number of people. For these underlying reasons, the research team was interested in understanding and mapping out the societal impact of arts and culture with two focus points. On the one hand, we focus on the participation of people in various contexts, initiatives and projects. This participation unleashes creativity and connects different societal layers: culture, economy and innovation. On the other hand, we put the focus on knowledge and ideas originating in the area of arts and culture and being shared and translated into practice in other sectors and contexts. In this vein, the research team has continuously interacted during several meetings to shape the design of the project, and has carried out different initiatives, by also involving colleagues from other universities over time. To name but a few, it is worth to mention the IFKAD Conferences 2018 (St. Petersburg) and 2019 (Matera) with the special tracks on “Good for (He) art and Good for Society: Mapping the Corporate Impact of Knowledge, Participation, and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector” and “Managing, Organizing and Evaluating European Capitals of Culture: Praxis, Theory Development and Knowledge Ecosystems”. These tracks not only represented an opportunity to discuss the design and the progress of this publication, but they were also opportunities to present some of the contributions of the book.

2 Outlining the Book With the book, we highlight four streams of thought: cultural heritage, participatory cultural initiatives, cultural entrepreneurship and learning from evaluation. These four streams also represent the main parts of the book. In all areas, critical studies are and have been encouraged. Notably, the encroachment of managerial paradigms and technologies in cultural heritage as well as in our (European) identities is subject to critical reflection. With the four major streams of thought, a platform is provided, in order to better understand, reflect and discuss the sometimes clashing, sometimes mutually fertilizing arenas of arts, culture, business, management and innovation. The first part of the book covers the management of cultural heritage and museums in general. The contribution by Alberto Romolini, Elena Gori, Silvia Fissi and Marco Contri addresses the issue of fundraising strategies for cultural organisations. The chapter is entitled “Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy”. Based on a cross-case analysis focused on a group of 40 Italian State museums, the findings of the study confirm that the financing of museums is still based on the prevalence of public contributions. However, in order

Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative. . .

5

to address the progressive decline in public and government funding as a consequence of the recent crisis, the authors show, that a growing role appears to be played by self-generated revenues. The second contribution of Laura Corazza, Maurizio Cisi and Simone Domenico Scagnelli, entitled “Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of Universities”, focuses on the current debate on universities’ heritage assets (UHA) value measurement, concerning the transition to accrual accounting in Italian public universities. The dichotomy between the economic value (in museology) vs financial value is presented and discussed in the light of Shapiro’s theory of social constructivism in financial reporting. The following chapter by Deborah Agostino and Michela Arnaboldi “Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready?” provides a critical perspective on big data for decision making in museums by acknowledging the centrality of human resources, the importance of the external environment and the need to combine big data with traditional data. While the majority of academic contributions claim the benefits of big data, this study offers empirical insights into the difficulties and required challenges raised by big data usage. The study also provides practical insights for the use of big data in the cultural sector. The fourth chapter by Francesca Manes Rossi and Marco Bisogno “The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the Archaeological Park of Paestum” analyses the influence that managerial autonomy may play in enhancing human resources’ skills and competences. Based on the case study of the Archaeological Park of Paestum, one of the new autonomous museums created by the 2015 Reform of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Tourism, the chapter unveils the implications of managerial autonomy on the organisational rules and routines and the resulting effects on the overall performance of the organisation. The second part of the book includes contributions in the area of cultural entrepreneurship, which has become a broadly discussed topic around innovation and growth in the context of the creative industries. The chapter, entitled “Evaluating Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector: Experiences from Italy”, by Nathalie Colasanti, Rocco Frondizi, Marco Meneguzzo and Lavinia Pastore analyses how Public Administration can start to map cultural participative and entrepreneurial activities, promoting the region’s cultural heritage, by adopting a benchmarking approach. The authors present the case of a call launched by the Lazio Region to include the best initiatives in the collection of “BuonePratiche-Best Practices”, a publication by the Regional Directorate for Culture. Notably, the four objectives identified by the Lazio Region, i.e., “enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets”, “innovation and inclusion”, “entrepreneurship” and “working in networks” indicate that the Lazio Region strongly values cross-sector cooperation and social innovation as relevant features for the development of the territory and the enhancement of its cultural heritage. The second chapter in this part is entitled “The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network Perspective” and written by Roberta Bocconcelli, Fulvio Fortezza, Francesco Petrucci and Alessandro Pagano. The

6

L. Biondi et al.

authors highlight the network perspective, which characterises many cultural organisations. Two crowdfunding projects are analysed: the RATATÀ Festival and the BRUTI card game. They are conducted on the ULULE platform. In line with the mainstream literature, the cases show how digital platforms work if a passion-based community is involved and mobilized—as it is often the case in cultural ventures. Participation and the participatory approach in culture have become increasingly important. Both at the European and national levels, participation is encouraged to foster socio-economic development, urban regeneration and capabilities development through art and culture. How participation unfolds in cultural events and what impacts it can bring in the medium term is discussed in the third part of the book. The chapter by Pierluigi Catalfo and Martina Giustra discusses the social, cultural and economic value originated by cultural projects, with a particular focus on the Hungarian Organic Architecture of the architect Imre Makovecz. Through the rich analysis of multiple sources of data and with a mixed-method approach, the authors give us a valuable example of a multidisciplinary and participatory approach to encourage cohesion and social engagement. In the following, Paola Demartini, Lucia Marchegiani and Michela Marchiori propose a chapter that explores the conditions for developing an effective participatory process in cultural projects, focusing on the case of Matera as European Capital of Culture 2019. By analysing the whole process that led to the nomination of Matera as ECoC, the study shows that participation declined over time. The authors discuss these declining dynamics of participation, which causes the society to be discontent and risks losing the social capital that had been created in the previous phases. At odds, territorial development models driven by investments in the cultural sector, such as the ECoC-project, may be successful only if public administration strives to guarantee the sustainability (i.e., cultural, social and economic) of these initiatives on a long-term basis. In the final part of the book, we explore innovative paths to account for and to evaluate cultural initiatives in their multifaceted dimensions—also providing some starting points to develop further research in the area. In the first contribution, Marge Sassi, Kristiina Urb and Ülle Pihlak analyse the evaluation of Estonian cultural organisations. Based on 460 questionnaires, they describe, what “missing skills” and other challenges have the biggest impact on the evaluation of performance in cultural organisations. The results give much food for thought—not only for the Baltic context. Last but not least, Leticia Labaronne and Martin Piber problematise the current status of performance measurement and evaluation in the arts and cultural sector. Based on case studies in two world-renowned opera houses (Vienna and Berlin) and in a European Capital of Culture (Matera 2019), they state that the current evaluative practices are still strongly influenced by positivist thinking. Reflecting the current practices, the authors draw critical conclusions and offer new perspectives going beyond the current paradigm. This book is the result of a collective effort by many supporting hands. Apart from the authors, we would like to thank the 34 anonymous reviewers, who have carried out a double if not a third review of the contributions. Many other people have been involved in the preparation of the book and have contributed with ideas,

Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative. . .

7

comments, and suggestions. A big thank you to all of you! Last but not least, we are very grateful to our great publisher, Springer, and we personally would like to thank Maria Cristina Acocella, Prashanth Mahagaonkar and Srinivasan Manavalan who, in their respective roles, were very supportive in helping us to achieve this goal. Currently, we see various promising fields of further research at the dawn: the cross fertilization between humanities and social science will certainly nurture several nascent streams of research. First of all, it would be interesting to deepen the understanding of how knowledge is leveraged and collective knowledge is formed and treasured for urban socio-economic development. Additionally, further investigation is required on the current challenges in organizing and managing innovative practices in cultural organizations, also in light of the digital transformation. Furthermore, the debate around new possibilities for financing cultural initiatives is worthy as well as the theoretical underpinning of the evaluating practices. Finally, we still don’t know enough about the transformative power of managerial and organizational action in art and cultural contexts. Therefore, we definitely encourage empirical studies highlighting such change processes and their multifaceted impact. This book contributes to set up the stage for these ongoing changes and debates. We would be glad to engage in further conversations and reflections with artists, cultural practitioners and (lateral) thinkers in all related fields. Finally, we wish all readers excellent inspirations and food for thought to face our contemporary challenges.

References Biondi, L., Demartini, P., Marchegiani, L., Marchiori, M., & Piber, M. (2020). Understanding orchestrated participatory cultural initiatives: Mapping the dynamics of governance and participation. Cities, 96, 102459. Bouchenaki, M. (2003). The interdependency of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage. ICOMOS XIV General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, pp. 1–5. Carrillo, F. (2004). Capital cities: A taxonomy of capital accounts for knowledge cities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(5), 28–46. Chiaravalloti, F., & Piber, M. (2011). Ethical implications of methodological settings in arts management research: The case of performance evaluation. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 41(4), 240–266. Dewey, P. (2004). From arts management to cultural administration. International Journal of Arts Management, 6, 13–23. Ebewo, P., & Sirayi, M. (2009). The concept of arts/cultural management: A critical reflection. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 38(4), 281–295. Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as knowledge: Capital or culture? Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 1003–1017. Liu, C. H. S. (2018). Examining social capital, organizational learning and knowledge transfer in cultural and creative industries of practice. Tourism Management, 64, 258–270. Nagy, S. (2018). Framing culture: Participatory governance in the European capital of culture programme. Participations, 15(2), 243–262. Power, M. (1999). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sacco, P., Ferilli, G., & Blessi, G. T. (2014). Understanding culture-led local development: A critique of alternative theoretical explanations. Urban Studies, 51(13), 2806–2821. Stolarick, K., & Florida, R. (2006). Creativity, connections and innovation: A study of linkages in the Montréal region. Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1799–1817.

8

L. Biondi et al.

Lucia Biondi is Assistant Professor in Business Administration at the Department of Business Studies, University of “Roma Tre”, where she teaches Planning & Control and Accounting. She has been visiting scholar at the University of Edinburgh-Business School. Cultural heritage has been one of her main research topics since her PhD studies. Her research interests include also: Public Sector Accounting, Performance Management, Management Control, Fiscal Agencies. Paola Demartini is Full Professor of Managerial and Financial Accounting at Roma Tre University, Department of Business Studies. She is the Head of the Corporate Governance Lab, which includes a special section on the Governance of Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Culture. Since 2000, she is member of the supervisory committee of PhD courses on Financial Accounting and Governance disciplines, where she taught, among others, Performance Management and Business Evaluations. Since 2016 she is involved in the project “Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Culture: Transferring knowledge, Managing Outcomes, and Enabling Sustainability, a collaboration between Corporate Governance Lab. (Rome Tre University) and Institut für Organisation und Lernen (Innsbruck University). Currently she is member of the leading research team engaged in a H2020 project titled: SOPHIA—Social Platform For Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment. Lucia Marchegiani is Associate Professor of Business Organization and Human Resources Management at Roma Tre University, where she teaches Human Resources Management and Knowledge Management. Her research interests cover topics such as Creative and Cultural Industries, Innovations and Organizations, Experimental Organizational Behavior, Knowledge Management and Social Media, Participatory approaches in Culture. She has been Chair of the “International Conference on Sustainable Cultural Heritage Management”, (Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, 11–13 October 2013). Currently she is member of the leading research team engaged in a H2020 project titled: SOPHIA—Social Platform For Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment Michela Marchiori is Full Professor of Business Organization and Change Management at the Department of Business Studies in Roma Tre University. Since 2016 she is member of the project “Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Culture: Transferring knowledge, Managing Outcomes, and Enabling Sustainability” founded in collaboration between Corporate Governance Lab. (Rome Tre University) and Institut für Organisation und Lernen (Innsbruck University). She is the current director of the post-graduate, lifelong learning “Master in Management, Promotion, Technological Innovations in Cultural Heritage” and Director of the 2 years long post- graduate, lifelong learning “Master in Economics and Management of Culture Heritage” both founded by the Department of Business Studies. Currently she is leader of a research team engaged in a H2020 project titled: SOPHIA—Social Platform For Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment. Martin Piber is Professor at the Department of Organization and Learning at Leopold-FranzensUniversität in Innsbruck/Austria. He is and has been teaching in several bachelor, master-, PhD-, and further education programs in Austria, Germany, Italy, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. His research and his publications focus on theories and practices of the management of cultural organizations, management control and performance measurement, the relevance of art and culture for society, aesthetics, and business ethics. Among others he was visiting professor at the University of Cape Town, the University of Stockholm and the University of Pavia. He is scientific director of the executive MBA programme of the University of Innsbruck at the Center of Science and Training in Bregenz/Austria. Currently he is member of a project team to assess the impact of European Capitals of Culture.

Part I

Cultural Heritage and Museums

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy Alberto Romolini, Silvia Fissi, Elena Gori, and Marco Contri

Abstract In recent years museums are experiencing the progressive decline in the public and governmental funding as a consequence of the recent crisis. Museums are currently competing for innovative forms of funding in order to attract new sources of financing like sponsorships and donations. In this perspective, the aim of this paper is to analyse new approaches to museum financing and fundraising in context, like continental Europe, characterised by high levels of competition and the decrease in public policies and funds. The research adopts a cross-case analysis focused on a group of 40 Italian State museums. The research confirms that the financing of museums is based on the prevalence of the public contributions, however, a growing role appears to be played by selfgenerated revenue. Indeed, the Italian State museums are currently far removed from sufficient fundraising and they need to innovate to achieve this goal developing appropriate marketing and communication strategies. An innovative financing model for a museum needs to be based on public funds, self-generated revenue and fundraising. In this perspective, managers need to work more diligently to develop fundraising strategies that can support the museum financing. Keywords Museums · Fundraising · Sponsorship · Donations · Italy

A. Romolini (*) Facoltà di Economia, Università Telematica Internazionale Uninettuno, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] S. Fissi · E. Gori Dipartimento di Scienze per l’Economia e l’Impresa, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Florence, Italy e-mail: silvia.fissi@unifi.it; elena.gori@unifi.it M. Contri Dipartimento di Economia e Management, Università degli Studi di Pisa, Pisa, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_2

11

12

A. Romolini et al.

1 Introduction In recent years, the museum industry sector has seen considerable innovation and change. In particular, since the 1970s, the museum industry has seen a growth in the number of new institutions and in the role played in the market and in society (Burton and Scott 2003). The boom in numbers and the role of museums has pushed competition among the institutions, focusing more on visitor needs, on developing new services and products (Vicente et al. 2012), and on increasing their earned revenue (Fopp 1997; Misiura 2006). More recently, the museum industry has been experiencing a fast transformation of the business model as a consequence of the impact of digital technologies (Rifkin 2000) and new ways of communication, such as social media. Of relevance in the changing environment of the museum is the decline in funding of many institutions as a consequence of the recent crisis. Considering that the culture sector depends significantly on government funding policies, the museum industry has tried to compensate for the recent cuts through marketing strategies and new funding approaches (Bonet and Donato 2011), such as sponsorships and donations (O’Hagan 1998). Thus, museums are now competing not only in the fields of visitors, exhibitions and cultural activities, but also in terms of attracting new funds (Kotler et al. 2008). Museums are attempting to attract new sponsorship and patronage from companies at a national and international level in order to strengthen the budget and improve the possibility of new collection acquisitions. It is also clear that in years of economic crisis, like the present time, it has become even more difficult to find companies willing to finance museum activities, especially for the smallest collections (Garibaldi 2015; Hausmann 2012). At the same time, museums are trying to attract new international sources of public funds through the development of special projects. This process is particularly relevant in the European Union, considering the huge number of cultural projects co-financed by the European Union (Tobelem 2013). With museums competing fiercely for private and public funding with reduced support, especially from the national government, it has become of crucial importance to diversify income sources, to implement creative fundraising initiatives, and to create innovative sources of funding (Proteau 2018). However, according to Camarero et al. (2011), papers exploring the adoption, development and diffusion of new forms of fundraising among museums are scarce. It is therefore possible to identify a gap in the literature regarding innovation in the museum industry’s funding approach, especially considering new forms of attraction, such as fundraising. In a context like the museum industry, where public funds are crucial for the survival of the institutions and public policies are, at the same time, collapsing, innovation in the fundraising process is a main topic for analysis. Regarding the geographical contextualisation of the financing innovation, previous studies consider mainly Anglo-Saxon countries (the US and the UK) (Stanziola 2011; Yermack 2017) and, in just a few cases, continental Europe (Camarero et al.

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

13

2011). Thus, we can identify another gap considering the innovation in fundraising applied in single countries, especially within the European Union. European countries are indeed very relevant to museum management, considering the large number of institutions operating in these contexts. In particular, Italy has the greatest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the world and is therefore a relevant case by which to study new fundraising possibilities. Out of 1092 sites worldwide, Italy tops the list with 54 locations (i.e. archaeological areas of Pompeii, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata, Villa Adriana, Villa d’Este, etc.). Moreover, according to the Italian National Institute of Statistic’s latest data (ISTAT 2017), out of 55,000 museums worldwide, 4158 (about 7.6%) are in Italy. The aim of this paper is to analyse new approaches to museum financing and fundraising in a context, like continental Europe, characterised by high levels of competition and a decrease in public policies and funds. The findings are discussed through the analysis of Italy, in its European context and they are highly involved in the cultural sector. The paper is organised as follows. Following the introduction, there is a discussion of the review of the literature on new approaches to financing. The research method is then presented and the findings of the research regarding the Italian context are illustrated. Finally, a conclusion is drawn concerning the path towards new solutions for financing the museum industry in the coming years.

2 Literature Review The financial structure adopted by museums represents a crucial issue (Proteau 2018) and, on the income side, comprises both traditional sources (i.e. self-generated revenue and public contributions) and innovative ways of financing (i.e. donations and sponsorships) (Fedeli and Santoni 2006). Yet museums’ financial structure depends especially on where they are located, because the management and financing of cultural institutions are historically derived, and thus vary significantly amongst countries according to their history and traditions (Zan et al. 2007). In this respect, we can distinguish different financing models, each characterised by a diverse mix of income sources. In light of the above, in the following subsections we investigate in more depth the features of three models of financing for museums, before analysing the main income sources for these institutions, highlighting the need for museums to diversify their income sources.

2.1

Museums’ Financing Models

The cultural sector is strictly connected to government policies (Bonet and Donato 2011), and the role played by the public sector depends on the administrative context

14

A. Romolini et al.

and is historically derived (Zan et al. 2007). Three financing models have been drawn, differing significantly both in terms of the extent and nature of government intervention in the management of cultural institutions and how public funds are allocated. These different models are the following (Dalle Nogare and Bertacchini 2015; Vicente et al. 2012): • the Continental European model; • the British (or Anglo-Saxon) model; • the American model. The Continental European model is distinguished by a high degree of public authority involvement in both the management and the funding of museums (Bonet and Donato 2011) and of cultural institutions in general (Gstraunthaler and Piber 2012). Indeed, despite a considerable decrease in recent years (Naylor 2016), public funding remains high for all European continental museums (Camarero et al. 2011). Conversely, the British (or Anglo-Saxon) model is characterised by a low level of both public intervention and public spending. The government delegates the allocation of public funds among cultural institutions to “arm’s length agencies” (Hetherington 2017), and private funding from companies, foundations and individual donors plays a greater role compared to the first model (Tobelem 2013). Indeed, previous studies suggest that museums in the UK have increased funding from private donors and sponsorships in the past decades (Stanziola 2011) and have strengthened their marketing departments (Lang et al. 2006). This is consistent with several studies that point out that, when public grants do not cover their budget, public museums have more incentive to search for additional revenue sources, develop visitor-oriented activities, and hence engage in managerial practices and strategies to ensure the financial sustainability of the organisation (Bertacchini et al. 2018; Frey and Meier 2006). Finally, regarding the American model, museums are mainly private and supported by the state, albeit indirectly through tax breaks on private donations (Rosenstein 2010; Toepler and Dewees 2005). Indeed, US museums benefit from a long tradition of private contributions that represent the largest funding source (Bell 2012; Zan et al. 2007); in some cases, these even increased after the 2007/2008 financial crisis (AAMD 2018). These three financial models are no longer found in their pure form (Vicente et al. 2012). Indeed, because of the financial crisis and political events of recent years, most countries adopt a mixed model, combining different features of the traditional models (Dalle Nogare and Bertacchini 2015; Frey and Meier 2006). For instance, many public museums in Continental Europe have started to enjoy greater independence, moving from being government staff departments to being more independent public bodies through different organisational forms—such as foundation and consortium (Camarero et al. 2019)—despite being under public control (Vicente et al. 2012).

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

2.2

15

Traditional and Innovative Ways of Financing Museums

The financial structure adopted by museums represents a crucial issue for them (Proteau 2018; Woodward 2012): it not only influences their longevity but also contributes to defining their goals, strategies and mission (Kotler et al. 2008). In more depth, museum financing is based on a mixture of incomes (Hutter 1998), including traditional income sources—i.e. self-generated revenue and public grants—and innovative financing ways—i.e. private contributions (Fedeli and Santoni 2006; Schuster 1998; Toepler and Dewees 2005). Self-generated revenue is income earned by a museum through its activities, such as admission fees, museum shop and café sales, and space rentals for special events. However, as many studies have noted, self-generated revenue does not cover the expenses of fulfilling institutional tasks (Chatelain-Ponroy 2001; Fuortes 1998; Lindqvist 2012). The structural deficit of museums can be explained by considering, on the one hand, that these institutions have considerable fixed costs, in particular related to conservation, restoration and staff (Frey and Meier 2006), and, on the other hand, that they cannot increase the price of their services, for the benefit of the museum, without prohibiting some visitors, thereby worsening the museum’s performance (Chirieleison 2002). In sum, museums are usually unable to support their own activities independently; therefore, they need external funds from both the public and the private sectors (Lindqvist 2012). This also explains why most museums take the form of non-profit organisations (ICOM 2017), wherein social goals (conservation, education, etc.) prevail (Camarero et al. 2011). Public contributions comprise subsidies and grants allocated by a public authority. The particular nature of museums makes it essential for them to resort to public support (Camarero et al. 2011; Frey and Meier 2006), which can be justified by several arguments (Baumol and Bowen 1966; Duffy 1992; Heilbrun and Gray 1993)—first of all, the need to ensure free access to cultural services (Camarero et al. 2011). However, as pointed out earlier, the financial crisis has significantly reduced government funding for the cultural sector (Badia et al. 2015; Lord and Lord 2009), thereby challenging museums worldwide to diversify their income sources (Proteau 2018). This has deeply affected museums’ competitive environment, forcing them to compete with each other as well as with emerging leisure alternatives and other causes (social, environmental, humanitarian) for a limited market (Blasco López et al. 2018; Burton and Scott 2003; Johnson and Thomas 1998). In this challenging scenario, a museum can achieve its mission and ensure its survival only by raising additional resources from individual donors, companies and other funding bodies (Camarero et al. 2019). This explains the increasing importance of fundraising (Borin 2011; Sargeant and Jay 2014; Venturelli et al. 2015), which can be defined as “those activities directed at raising money from external organisations and individuals, whether for specific projects (capital or revenue) or for general funds” (Woodward 2012, p. 21). The main forms of fundraising for museums are the

16

A. Romolini et al.

following (Anderson and de Mille 2006; Borin 2011; Proteau 2018; Toepler and Dewees 2005): • • • •

corporate sponsorship and partnership; funds raised through philanthropic foundations’ grants; donations made by individual donors; donations made by companies.

Furthermore, Jung (2015) suggests the need for a more inclusive fundraising approach, highlighting that this activity should be seen as a relationship-developing practice with local community members rather than simply a money-raising process. This would also mean recognising the role that private actors can play in the development and management of cultural heritage (Badia et al. 2015). In this respect, several studies recommend the implementation of marketing strategies (Camarero et al. 2019) in order to make museums more market-oriented (McPherson 2006) and people-oriented (Cole 2008) and hence more “appealing” to potential donors (Siano et al. 2010). Indeed, raising funds from donors, enterprises and other entities entails a shift in museum management and involves a more business-like style (Vicente et al. 2012). Despite the reduction in public funds and consequently the increasing importance of fundraising for museums, literature has so far devoted limited attention to fundraising techniques within museums (Betzler and Gmür 2012; Fissi et al. 2018). Furthermore, most studies on fundraising are limited to the US and UK (Bizzarri et al. 2017).

3 The Italian Context: A Closer Look at Italian Museums Italy has 4976 museums and similar institutions, both public and private, including 4158 museums, galleries or collections, 536 monuments or historical complex, and 282 archaeological sites and parks. Thanks to this outstanding cultural heritage, Italy, as pointed out earlier, boasts more World Heritage Sites than any other country in the world. Regarding the financing model adopted by Italian museums, Italy has traditionally followed the Continental European funding model, with state and local agencies playing a fundamental role in the funding and management of cultural institutions (Fanelli et al. 2015; Giambrone 2013). Until the mid-1990s, public museums were not managed as autonomous units and were merely sub-units of the culture ministry. Consequently, they did not have their own budget, and their incomes flowed into the public budget (Bertacchini et al. 2018). Since the mid-1990s, in line with the need to reduce government expenditure to meet the Maastricht criteria, several reforms have designed a decentralised organisation for public museum management (Camarero et al. 2019; Vicente et al. 2012), leaving space for the growth of mixed public-private institutions whose founding members include both public partners (such as municipal, provincial and/or regional

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

17

governments) and private partners (such as banking foundations, companies and individual donors) (Dalle Nogare and Bertacchini 2015). In this vein, the Pompeii archaeological site in 1997 was granted scientific, organisational, administrative and financial autonomy by the central government, followed in 2001 by state-owned museums in Florence, Naples, Rome and Venice, which were gathered in “museum complexes” (Poli museali) (Bertacchini et al. 2018). In 2004, the Italian government decided to privatise the Museo delle Antichità Egizie in Turin, which, for the first time in the Italian museum sector, was handed over to a private foundation with participation from the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities (hereinafter, Ministry),1 the region of Piedmont, the province of Turin and the city of Turin, as well as local banking foundations (Compagnia di San Paolo and Cassa di Risparmio di Torino) (Bodo and Bodo 2016; Ponzini 2010). Therefore, the path towards new organisational models has been going on for more 20 years (Bertacchini et al. 2018), and the abovementioned institutions are just a few of the public museums that, over the years, have been granted greater autonomy thanks to which they can retain their revenue (including sponsorships and donations) and hence programme their activities more consciously. A more large-scale reform was designed and implemented starting from 2014, in line with the “spending review” measures planned by the Italian government at that time (Marzano and Castellini 2018). Such a reform led to a radical reorganization of Italian state museums by creating a national museums system and giving special autonomy to 30 state museums and archaeological areas (Casini 2018). First, the reform created a new general directorate dedicated to museums (Direzione Generale Musei) that deals with collections, regulates access to structures and enhances state cultural heritage. This office guides the national museum system through its own field offices—i.e. the regional museum complexes (Poli Museali Regionali)—which coordinate all the activities involved in the management, development and promotion of the national museum system within the region. The reform then gave scientific, financial and organisational autonomy to 30 state museums and archaeological areas, in addition to the archaeological sites of Rome and Pompeii. All of the 32 autonomous institutions have a director, a board, a scientific committee (including representatives of regional and local authorities) and an audit committee, as well as bylaws and a budget.2 However, it should be noted that these museums still remain ministerial offices and depend on decisions made by the Ministry in many crucial aspects, above all the number of employees and their wages (which are indeed paid at the central level). In sum, from a financial point of view, public funding remains the main income source for the majority of Italian museums (Fanelli et al. 2015; Fissi et al. 2018) and,

1 The Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities (in Italian, Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali, MiBAC) is the culture ministry of the Italian Republic. 2 New directors were announced between 2015 and 2017 after an international headhunt. The group is now composed of 14 women and 18 men, including seven foreigners from the EU (three German, two Austrian, one British, one French).

18

A. Romolini et al.

despite a substantial decrease in the years 2000–2016 (MiBAC 2018a), these funds have recently started to grow again (Federculture 2016). However, for the last few years, the government has been implementing favourable tax regimes in order to encourage patronage and philanthropy (Vicente et al. 2012), in line with other European public authorities (Tobelem 2013). In particular, this is the case for the so-called ‘Art bonus’, which was introduced in 2014 in favour of those non-profit organisations, companies and individuals who support the public cultural heritage with charitable donations. As of today, donations covered by the Art bonus have reached about 200 million euros, involving more than 6000 donors. In the light of these considerations, this chapter aims to contribute to fill the literature gap by exploring fundraising within Italian museums in order to verify whether (or not) they are turning to innovative financing methods (in addition to traditional income sources) to support their activities.

4 The Research Method The research is exploratory in nature and adopts a cross-case analysis conducted for the year 2017, which takes into account and synthesises the findings of more single cases (Yin 2018). In particular, the research was developed in two phases. In the first, museums’ 2017 annual reports and related documents were examined in order to investigate the income composition and therefore to verify the presence or absence of revenues from sponsorship, donations, etc. Furthermore, museums’ websites were analysed to explore whether museums had a specific section containing detailed information about fundraising activities. In the second phase, telephone interviews were conducted with key museum personnel, such as directors, marketing and fundraising officers, etc. In addition, secondary sources (ISTAT,3 MiBAC, newspapers, etc.) were used to supplement information obtained through the previous steps. Indeed, data triangulation is a common strategy for increasing the validity of research findings (Denzin and Lincoln 2018). The analysis focuses on Italian state museums. Indeed, the state-owned museums saw record numbers of visitors in 2017, with 50 million visitors (+10.5% compared to 2016). National statistics concerning the state museums (MiBAC 2018b) showed that visitors had increased in 4 years by about 12 million (+31%), in contrast to the general European trend, thanks also to the free admission established on the first Sunday of each month from 2014 (Cellini and Cuccia 2018). State museums are therefore institutions of great relevance not only in Italy, but also in the European cultural market. More precisely, our analysis focuses on a sample of 40 Italian state museums including those with special autonomy (Marzano and Castellini 2018), and

3

The Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT; in English, Italian National Institute of Statistics), a public research organisation, is the main producer of official statistics in Italy.

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

19

those under the control of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities through the general directorate dedicated to museums (Direzione Generale Musei, DGM) and contemporary art and architecture (Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura contemporanee e Periferie urbane, DGAAP)4 (see Table 1).

5 Results and Discussion Italian museums have traditionally adopted a Continental European funding model based mainly on public funding, primarily derived from the central budget of the state. However, as discussed before, it is necessary to develop new forms of financing, considering that public budgets for cultural activities are rapidly decreasing. In the following sections, we first analyse Italian museums’ current funding approach and then the development of new paths for fundraising.

5.1

The Current State Museum Financing Model

The first step in this research is analysis of the annual reports to describe the current financing model of Italian museums. Of the 40 museums being studied, 37 institutions publish their annual reports online. Analysis of these reports has allowed the investigation of income composition, and especially the presence or absence of fundraising activities. First of all, the analysis shows that public contributions make up approximately 62% of museums’ revenue (Fig. 1), confirming the fundamental role played by the state and local agencies in those countries that, like Italy, follow the Continental European financing model (Dalle Nogare and Bertacchini 2015). Moreover, in some institutions, public funds can even represent more than 90% of total resources: this is the case for Galleria Nazionale dell’Umbria, Fondazione Museo Nazionale dell’ebraismo italiano e della Shoah, and Fondazione La Quadriennale di Roma. The analysis also reveals that self-generated revenue—especially from admission fees, bookshops and cafés—accounts, on average, for barely 35.3% of a museum’s total income. Only eight cases show a significant degree of self-financing, with more than 70% of their income coming from self-generated revenue. Finally, only 2.7% of revenue comes from private funding. The analysis highlights how modest the role of fundraising is, with only 14 museums benefitting from these sorts of funds,

4

It should be noted that, among independent museums under the control of Direzione Generale Musei, there is also the Fondazione per la conservazione e il restuaro dei beni culturali La Venaria Reale. However, this institution was excluded from the analysis because it is not a museum but an institute for advanced training and research in the field of conservation and the restoration of cultural heritage.

20

A. Romolini et al.

Table 1 Museums under study Museums with special autonomy

Museum Parco Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei Reggia di Caserta Parco Archeologico di Paestum Parco Archeologico di Ercolano Galleria dell’Accademia, Gallerie degli Uffizi, Museo Nazionale del Bargello Palazzo Reale Palazzo Ducale Pinacoteca di Brera Gallerie Estensi Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Museo di Capodimonte Complesso Monumentale della Pilotta Galleria Nazionale dell’Umbria Parco Archeologico di Pompei Museo Archeologico Nazionale

Museums under DGM

Museums under DGAAP

Galleria Borghese, Gallerie Nazionali d’Arte Antica, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Moderna e Contemporanea, Museo delle Civiltà, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, Museo Nazionale Romano, Parco Archeologico dell’Appia Antica, Parco Archeologico del Colosseo, Parco Archeologico di Ostia Antica Museo Archeologico Nazionale Villa Adriana e Villa d’Este Musei Reali Museo storico e il parco del castello di Miramare Galleria Nazionale delle Marche Gallerie dell’Accademia Fondazione Museo Nazionale dell’ebraismo italiano e della Shoah Consorzio Villa Reale e Parco di Monza Museo storico della Liberazione Fondazione Museo delle Antichità Egizie Consorzio di valorizzazione culturale La Venaria Reale Fondazione MAXXI, Fondazione la Quadriennale di Roma Fondazione la Triennale di Milano

City Bacoli (Naples) Caserta Capaccio Paestum (Salerno) Ercolano (Naples) Florence Genoa Mantua Milan Modena Naples Parma Perugia Pompeii (Naples) Reggio Calabria Rome

Taranto Tivoli (Rome) Turin Trieste Urbino Venice Ferrara Monza Rome Turin Venaria Reale (Turin) Rome Milan

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

21

Fig. 1 Income composition

Fig. 2 Fundraising sources

diversifying their income sources and implementing initiatives to overcome public cutbacks. Therefore, this study highlights the prevalent role of public funding for Italian state museums, thereby confirming that the public sector remains their main financial supporter (Fanelli et al. 2015), in accordance with a traditional Continental European model (Vicente et al. 2012). However, self-generated revenues seem to be playing a growing role, constituting more than 30% of museums’ general income. As to fundraising, the research also investigates who are the main private supporters of Italian state museums (Fig. 2). The goal of this analysis is to understand more deeply the possible sources of private contributions that museum managers can activate to increase the fundraising capacity of such cultural institutions. In terms of funding, this analysis—in line with other studies (Comunian 2008; Fissi et al. 2018)—reveals that the major contributors are companies that, in different forms, support funding of the Italian state museums. Indeed, companies often develop philanthropic and sponsorship programmes in order to generate a positive return for their tangible and intangible assets (O’Hagan and Harvey 2000; Proteau 2018). Therefore, companies represent one of the most relevant sources to develop

22

A. Romolini et al.

marketing strategies for museum fundraising (Camarero et al. 2019; Fahy et al. 2004). The second source of contributions is represented by institutions belonging to the third sector, especially the banking foundations. Although these institutions are typical in the Italian context (Leardini et al. 2014), this finding suggests that non-profit entities represent fundamental donors to museums and, consequently, that museum managers should develop specific strategies to attract funding from these organisations. The third contributors are individual donors (including friend-of-a-museum associations). Encouraging visitors to become donors to the museum by a membership scheme, and therefore formally recognising their contribution and actively engaging them in the museum’s activities, might represent a good strategy for museums to increase their income (Cole 2008). In other words, museum managers should look at visitors not only as clients, but also as members of, and donors to, the cultural community. However, it should be pointed out that donors’ behaviour and preferences are affected by many factors (especially tax regulations) and are difficult to predict from a long-term perspective (Lindqvist 2012). Finally, fundraising is at an early stage and currently plays only a marginal role in supporting the financing of state museums. However, we believe that it could be interesting to study more closely the different approaches to fundraising that will play a growing role in the coming years.

5.2

Innovative Fundraising for State Museums

Examining the forms of fundraising for Italian museums in more depth, this study points out that private funds come mainly from corporate sponsorship and partnership (37.7% of the museums’ total private funding), followed by banking foundations’ grants (26.1%) and donations made by individual donors (21.4%) or firms (12.5%) (Fig. 3). Sponsorship is a form of financing that creates in the users’ minds an association between the sponsor (company) and the sponsored (museum) through the process of “image transfer” (Gwinner and Eaton 1999). Typically, the companies most involved in supporting museums are big firms operating in the food, insurance and fashion industries (Fissi et al. 2018). This is due to the availability of greater resources, compared to other firms, and the increasing development of “corporate cultural responsibility” (Civita 2017). For instance, Generali Italia is one of the main sponsors of Musei Reali, having supported many of its exhibitions, and, in 2019, Ferrarelle S.p.A. will support the restoration of the Belvedere fountain within Museo di Capodimonte. In other cases, museums create long-lasting partnerships with corporate sponsors (Proteau 2018). This form of public-private partnership has the potential to provide the cultural sector with more resources, competences and visibility (Badia et al. 2015). At the end of 2017, for example, in addition to sponsoring Galleria

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

40,0% 35,0% 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% 0,0%

23

37,7% 26,1% 21,4% 12,5% 2,4%

Corporate Donations sponsorship from and companies partnership

Donations Grants from Grants from banking other from individual foundations foundations donors

Fig. 3 The main forms of fundraising

Borghese’s Gian Lorenzo Bernini exhibition, Fendi launched a 3-year partnership (1.3 million euros) with the institution to create an international research centre dedicated to Caravaggio. Other significant examples of corporate partnership are Fondazione MAXXI and Fondazione la Triennale di Milano. Indeed, since 2015, Italian energy giant Enel has become a founder member of MAXXI and has supported its activities, donating 600,000 € every year. BMW-MINI, Eni, Illy and many other companies are partners of La Triennale, supporting its projects and exhibitions with 1.6 million euros in 2017. That said, it should be noted that the museums being studied are amongst the leading Italian cultural institutions and that smaller museums might not be able to obtain the same level of support from corporate sponsors (Stanziola 2006; Proteau 2018). Grants from banking foundations are confirmed as one of the most important funding sources in support of museum activities. As noted in other studies (Leardini et al. 2014), this study confirms that the cultural sector is an area of consistent intervention for banking foundations and, despite the slight decline compared to 2016 ( 4.4%), this industry is still the most financially supported by these institutions, gaining 24.1% of funding in 2017, or a total of 236.9 million euros (Acri 2018). For example, in 2017, Fondazione Museo delle Antichità Egizie in Turin received about 1.5 million euros from Compagnia di San Paolo and Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Torino (Intesa bank). Furthermore, the Turin museum had the highest benefit from the Art bonus, having received about 15 million euros since 2014. These sorts of contributions are usually aimed at specific projects. For instance, Consorzio di valorizzazione culturale La Venaria Reale received 400,000 € from Compagnia di San Paolo as a contribution towards an exhibition and another 50,000 € for an employee training course. Regarding individual donors, another 26 institutions are supported by Friends associations. This highlights the importance of the museums being studied, since only 30.2% of Italian museums have supporters’ associations (MiBAC 2015). In this respect, the cases of Fondazione MAXXI and Fondazione la Triennale di Milano are

24

A. Romolini et al.

significant: they have received 120,400 € and 409,600 €, respectively, from their Friends associations. In addition, for a few years, MAXXI has organised an annual Gala Dinner to increase the involvement of Italian and international supporters, companies and patrons. Through this event, the museum raised about 290,000 € in 2017. More generally, special events offer different positive effects: they serve as public relations and awareness tools, increase participation and the development of a sense of community with donors, and create a network between museums and potential supporters (Higgins and Lauzon 2003). Finally, the analysis reveals that citizens support museum activities as well, but, in line with observations in other studies (Federculture 2018), the amount of their donations is usually much smaller compared to those proffered by bank foundations and companies. To increase civic engagement (Piber et al. 2017) and therefore the contribution of individual donors, some museums have launched specific campaigns: such is the case of Parco Archeologico di Paestum. Through the Adotta un blocco delle mura campaign, donors can adopt a block of the city wall for a year; in return, they gain advantages such as free entrance to the park, special newsletters, etc. Among the initiatives promoted by companies, the case of Rivelazioni—Finance for Fine Arts, launched in 2014 by Borsa Italiana (Italian Stock Exchange) to encourage corporate philanthropy, is particularly interesting. This project engages the private sector in support of the Italian artistic heritage, gathering resources to finance the restoration and digitalisation of artworks. In its first edition, eight Italian companies ‘adopted’ artworks from the collection of Pinacoteca di Brera. Following the great success of the first edition, other important Italian museums have become involved over the past few years—i.e. the Venetian Gallerie dell’Accademia (2017), the Museo di Capodimonte (2018) and the Genoese Palazzo Reale, together with Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo Spinola (2019). Finally, it is interesting to note that only 15 museums have dedicated fundraising personnel and, even then, they often also oversee marketing activities. Marketing and fundraising are both valuable for audience and revenue maximisation and, in this respect, they can drive the museum’s economic performance (Turbide et al. 2008; Vakharia and Janardhan 2017). More precisely, the success of a museum depends on marketing strategies, these being are a fundamental tool not only for promoting the collections and the museum’s overall cultural activities, but also for building effective fundraising strategies (Besana et al. 2018). However, it should be noted that marketing and fundraising require different skill sets (Clohesy 2003) and ultimately aim at different targets. The first focuses on visitors and tries to increase both their volume and their satisfaction; the second specialises in funders and whoever is willing to invest their resources in the museum (Besana et al. 2018). In this sense, it is necessary that museums are furnished with professional staff (Ferri and Zan 2017; Manes Rossi et al. 2018) and fundraisers within their organisation who are able to contribute to preparing funding applications and raise additional income sources (Woodward 2012). For instance, most of England’s national museums now have specific departments dedicated to gathering grants, sponsorships and donations from public, private and charitable sources (Shaw 2006). In this sense, as AIM

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

25

Traditional sources Central, regional and local government funds Self-generated revenue Corporate sponsorship and partnership Grants from banking and other foundations Donations from companies Donations from individual donors

Innovative sources

Fig. 4 Sources of alternative financing for museums in Italy

(2017, p. 3) has noted, “it is now more necessary than ever to make sure that fundraising is taken seriously, with appropriate time and resources dedicated to the processes”. In sum, the findings of this study highlight that Italian museums are trying to encourage fundraising activities, thereby moving from traditional funds towards alternative and innovative forms of financing. The results can be summarised as in Fig. 4, adapted from the scheme developed by O’Hagan and Harvey (2000) and Stanziola (2011) with specific regard to the UK cultural market.

6 Conclusions According to previous research, museums in Continental Europe are traditionally financed with public funds; consequently, a fundamental role is played by public entities (Dalle Nogare and Bertacchini 2015). The Continental European model depends, in large part, on funds supplied by central administrations or on grants coming from municipalities, local agencies, etc. (Bonet and Donato 2011). However, as emerged from the literature review, considering the current financial crisis and the decrease in public funds (Naylor 2016) in all European countries, museums need to develop a new funding model, moving from traditional to innovative approaches, and more oriented to fundraising activities. In other words, museums need to compete seriously in the funding market (Blasco López et al. 2018), developing proper fundraising strategies (Proteau 2018). This research regarding Italian state museums confirms that the current financing model is based on a traditional approach, namely the Continental European model, with a prevalence of public contributions that currently account for 62% of total income. However, a growing role appears to be played by self-generated revenue, with funds contributing to 35.3% of the total. In this context, unfortunately, the innovative fundraising activities play only a marginal role, contributing only 2.7% of the total income.

26

A. Romolini et al.

Moreover, it is clear that the current approach to financing a museum needs to be based more on self-generated revenue emanating from tickets, services, shops, cafés and so on. Self-generated revenue is certainly playing a relevant part in state museums’ income, but it cannot sustain an innovative financing approach alone. Managers therefore need to work more diligently to develop innovative fundraising strategies that can support the financial system (Camarero et al. 2019). Finally, according to the results of this research, the Italian state museums are following the Continental European approach, trying to move from traditional financing sources (public and self-generated revenues) to innovative sources. However, museums are currently far removed from sufficient fundraising activity and they need to continue to innovate in order to develop a complete innovative financing approach. Looking into the possible sources of fundraising, this research reveals three different potential solutions: companies, non-profit entities and individual donors. They are potentially interested in financing cultural institutions for different reasons, with companies currently prevailing. However, the research also underlines the relevant role played by banking foundations in developing future strategies for the Italian state museums. Therefore, museum managers need to develop strategies to engage such philanthropic projects, and to involve visitors in funding activities. However, the huge amount of alternative sources of funding could bring to a high level of museum dependency from donors. In some cases, it could be difficult to balance the museum goals with the expectations of philanthropic players like companies, banks and others. The managers need to consider carefully this situation before to start the fundraising strategy. Moreover, considering the main forms of fundraising, the research highlights the role played by sponsorship and partnerships with companies, non-profit entities and individual donors. Considering sponsorship, the fundraising approach needs to be directed especially at big companies, more likely to link their brand to cultural activities. They are a good instrument to develop a stable form of collaboration with firms in order to attract relevant funds for projects aiming to increase the quality of the collection and to support the museum management. In this perspective, we can observe greater difficulty for the smallest cultural institutions to link their fundraising policies to large companies. The smallest museums ultimately need to develop robust fundraising policies to overcome the reduced visibility of their cultural initiatives. Furthermore, banking foundations play a relevant role in fundraising activities. Indeed, museums—and the cultural sector in general—represent a main field of activity for these entities (Ricciuti and Turrini 2018) and they are consequently one of the first targets of museum fundraising strategies. Finally, we can also observe an important role played by individual donors in fundraising campaigns: museums therefore need to increase their engagement strategies with donors, involving them in their management. Some approaches include the organisation of special events and the use of the digital technologies of Museum 2.0 (Lopez et al. 2010). More generally, the aim of these activities is to encourage

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

27

visitors to become members of the museums and donors, giving them a sense of involvement and engagement (Cole 2008). This study has several limitations. The first is that it is necessary to compare the results obtained up to now by expanding the period observed and the number of cases analysed in order to verify the possibility of disseminating and generalising the results. Moreover, the obtained results could change when considering different types of museum, such as other public institutions (local museums, university museums, etc.) and private ones. Finally, future research could investigate in more depth the role, and above all the motivations, inspiring individual donors to participate in fundraising campaigns promoted by public or private museums; indeed, this represents a largely unexplored topic and more studies would be needed to reach sound conclusions. Furthermore, it could be interesting to explore whether or not there is a relationship between the juridical status of museums and the nature of the resources obtained.

References AAMD-Association of Art Museum Directors. (2018). Art museums by the number. Accessed December 4, 2018, from https://hcommons.org/app/uploads/sites/1000580/2018/09/ArtMuseums-by-the-Numbers-2018.pdf Acri. (2018). Ventitreesimo rapporto sulle Fondazioni di origine bancaria. Anno 2017. Roma: Acri. AIM-Association of independent Museums. (2017). Success guides. Successful fundraising at museums. Accessed December 17, 2018, from https://www.aim-museums.co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2017/03/Successful-Fundraising-at-Museums-2017.pdf Anderson, E., & de Mille, A. (2006). Fundraising for museums. 2nd ed. revised. Gosport: AIM Focus Papers, Association of Independent Museums. Badia, F., Borin, E., & Donato, F. (2015). How the financial crisis affected models of public-private partnership in the cultural sector: Empirical evidence from France, Germany and Italy. Paper presented at AIMAC conference 2015. Accessed November 27, 2018. Baumol, W. J., & Bowen, W. G. (1966). Performing arts. The economic dilemma. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund. Bell, F. W. (2012). How are museums supported financially in the U.S.? Embassy of the United States of America. Accessed December 3, 2018, from https://static.america.gov/uploads/sites/8/ 2016/03/You-Asked-Series_How-Are-Museums-Supported-Financially-in-the-US_English_ Lo-Res_508.pdf Bertacchini, E. E., Dalle Nogare, C., & Scuderi, R. (2018). Ownership, organization structure and public service provision: The case of museums. Journal of Cultural Economics, 42(4), 619–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-018-9321-9. Besana, A., Esposito, A., & Vannini, M. C. (2018). Excellence behind masterpieces: Italian museums beyond crisis. In E. Christou, K. Alexandris, & Fotiadis, A. (Eds.), Tourman conference proceedings – “In search of excellence in tourism, travel & hospitality” (Rhodes, 25–28 October), (pp. 19–23). Betzler, D., & Gmür, M. (2012). Towards fundraising excellence in museums—Linking governance with performance. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17, 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1429. Bizzarri, A., Cardinali, S., Picciotti, A., & Gregori, G. L. (2017). The evolution of fundraising in the Italian non profit context: The “Lega del Filo d’Oro” case. Mercati and Competitività, 1, 76–96.

28

A. Romolini et al.

Blasco López, M. F., Recuero Virto, N., & San-Martín, S. (2018). The cornerstones of museum performance. A cross-national analysis. Museum Management and Curatorship. doi:https://doi. org/10.1080/09647775.2018.1516562. Bodo, C., & Bodo, S. (2016). Country profile-Italy. Compendium of cultural policies and trends in Europe. Accessed June 27, 2019, from http://www.culturalpolicies.net Bonet, L., & Donato, F. (2011). The financial crisis and its impact on the current models of governance and management of the cultural sector in Europe. Journal of Cultural Management and Policy, 1(1), 4–11. Borin, E. (2011). Fundraising opportunities for science and technology museums. Working Papers n. 12, University of Ferrara – Department of Economics, Ferrara. Burton, C., & Scott, C. (2003). Museums: Challenges for the 21st century. International Journal of Arts Management, 5(2), 56–68. Camarero, C., Garrido, M. J., & Vicente, E. (2011). How cultural organizations’ size and funding influence innovation and performance: The case of museums. Journal of Cultural Economics, 35(4), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-011-9144-4. Camarero, C., Garrido, M. J., Vicente, E., & Redondo, M. (2019). Relationship marketing in museums: Influence of managers and mode of governance. Public Management Review, 21 (10), 1369–1396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1550106. Casini, L. (2018). The long and winding road to the establishment of state-museums in Italy. Museum Management and Curatorship, 33(6), 546–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775. 2018.1537616. Cellini, R., & Cuccia, T. (2018). How free admittance affects charged visits to museums: An analysis of the Italian case. Oxford Economic Paper, 70(3), 680–698. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oep/gpy011. Chatelain-Ponroy, S. (2001). Management control and the museums. International Journal of Arts Management, 4(1), 38–47. Chirieleison, C. (2002). La gestione strategica dei musei. Milano: Giuffrè. Civita. (2017). Dalla CSR alla “Corporate Cultural Responsibility”: Come valorizzare gli interventi delle imprese in Cultura. Rome: Civita. Clohesy, W. W. (2003). Fund raising and the articulation of common goods. Non Profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0899764002250010. Cole, D. (2008). Museum marketing as a tool for survival and creativity: The mining museum perspective. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09647770701865576. Comunian, R. (2008). Culture Italian style: Business and the arts. Journal of Business Strategy, 29 (3), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660810873209. Dalle Nogare, C., & Bertacchini, E. (2015). Emerging modes of public cultural spending: Direct support through production delegation. Poetics, 49, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2015. 02.005. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage. Duffy, C. T. (1992). The rationale for public funding of a National Museum. In R. Towse & A. Khakee (Eds.), Cultural economics (pp. 37–48). Berlin: Springer. Fahy, J., Farrelly, F., & Quester, P. (2004). Competitive advantage through sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing, 38(8), 1013–1030. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410539140. Fanelli, S., Ferretti, M., Lanza, G., & Zangrandi, A. (2015). Le risorse per il sostegno della mission: Criteri per finanziare la gestione e l’innovazione. In B. Sibilio & F. Donato (Eds.), Governare e gestire le aziende culturali (pp. 80–99). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Fedeli, S., & Santoni, M. (2006). The government’s choice of bureaucratic organization: An application to Italian state museums. Journal of Cultural Economics, 30(1), 41–72. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10824-006-9005-8. Federculture. (2016). Impresa cultura. Creatività, partecipazione, competitività. 12 Rapporto Annuale. Roma: Gangemi.

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

29

Federculture. (2018). Impresa cultura. Comunità, territori, sviluppo. 14 Rapporto Annuale. Roma: Gangemi. Ferri, P., & Zan, L. (2017). Partnerships for heritage conservation: Evidence from the archeological site of Herculaneum. Journal of Management and Governance, 21(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10997-015-9332-2. Fissi, S., Gori, E., & Contri, M. (2018). Il peso del “privato” nei musei statali italiani: verso strumenti e figure innovative? Economia Aziendale Online, 9(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10. 13132/2038-5498/9.3.261-289. Fopp, M. A. (1997). Managing museums and galleries. London: Routledge. Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2006). The economics of museums. In V. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of arts and culture (pp. 1017–1047). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fuortes, C. (1998). La finanza del museo tra Stato e mercato: casi di studio internazionali. Economia della Cultura, VIII(2), 125–142. Garibaldi, R. (2015). The use of Web 2.0 tools by Italian contemporary art museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 30(3), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2015. 1043329. Giambrone, F. (2013). Politiche per la cultura in Europa. Modelli di governance a confronto. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Gstraunthaler, T., & Piber, M. (2012). The performance of museums and other cultural institutions. International Studies of Management and Organization, 42(2), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.2753/ IMO0020-8825420202. Gwinner, K., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–57. Hausmann, A. (2012). The importance of word of mouth for museums: An analytical framework. International Journal of Arts Management, 14(3), 32–43. Heilbrun, J., & Gray, C. M. (1993). The economics of art and culture: An American perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hetherington, S. (2017). Arm’s-length funding of the arts as an expression of laissez-faire. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23(4), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632. 2015.1068766. Higgins, J. W., & Lauzon, L. (2003). Finding the funds in fun runs: Exploring physical activity events as fundraising tools in the non-profit sector. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(4), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.226. Hutter, M. (1998). Communication productivity: A major cause for the changing output of art museums. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22(2–3), 99–112. ICOM-International Council of Museums. (2017). Statutes. Paris: ICOM. Istat. (2017). Accessed December 4, 2018, from https://www.istat.it/ Johnson, P., & Thomas, B. (1998). The economics of museums: A research perspective. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22, 75–85. Jung, Y. (2015). Diversity matters: Theoretical understanding of and suggestions for the current fundraising practices of nonprofit art museums. The Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 45, 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2015.1103672. Kotler, N. G., Kotler, W., & Kotler, P. (2008). Museum strategy and marketing. Designing missions, building audiences, generating revenue and resources. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Wiley. Lang, C., Reeve, J., & Woolard, V. (Eds.). (2006). The responsive museum: Working with audiences in the 21st century. Aldershot: Ashgate. Leardini, C., Rossi, G., & Moggi, S. (2014). Board governance in bank foundations: The Italian experience. Heidelberg: Springer. Lindqvist, K. (2012). Museum finances: Challenges beyond economic crises. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.644693. Lopez, X., Margapoti, I., Maragliano, R., & Bove, G. (2010). The presence of web 2.0 tools on museum websites: A comparative study between England, France, Spain, Italy and the USA.

30

A. Romolini et al.

Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09647771003737356. Lord, G. D., & Lord, B. (2009). The manual of museum management. Plymouth: Altamira Press. Manes Rossi, F., Allini, A., Spanò, R., & Macchioni, R. (2018). Performance management change in archaeological sites: The case of Herculaneum Conservation Project. Journal of Management and Governance, 22(4), 947–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9416-x. Marzano, M., & Castellini, M. (2018). The reform of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage: Implication for governance of the museums system. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 48(3), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2018.1450316. McPherson, G. (2006). Public memories and private tastes: The shifting definitions of museums and their visitors in the UK. Museum Management and Curatorship, 21(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.musmancur.2005.11.001. Mibac. (2015). I musei, le aree archeologiche e i monumenti italiani. Sistema Informativo Integrato. Accessed December 4, 2018, from http://imuseiitaliani.beniculturali.it Mibac. (2018a). Decreto di adozione del Piano della “performance” per il triennio 2017–2019. Accessed December 4, 2018, from http://www.beniculturali.it/mibac/multimedia/MiBAC/docu ments/1520944413826_Piano_della_performance_2018.pdf Mibac. (2018b). Tutti i numeri dei #museitaliani. Accessed December 4, 2018, from http://www. beniculturali.it/mibac/export/MiBAC/sito-MiBAC/Contenuti/visualizza_asset.html_ v249254064.html Misiura, S. (2006). Heritage marketing. Oxford: Elsevier. Naylor, R. (2016). Measuring the value of museums: Options, tips and benefits. In NEMO’s 24th annual conference “Money matters: The economic value of museums” (Karlsruhe, 10–12 November) (pp. 27–29). O’Hagan, J. W. (1998). The state and the arts: An analysis of key economic policy issues in Europe and the United States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. O’Hagan, J. W., & Harvey, D. (2000). Why do companies sponsor arts events? Some evidence and a proposed classification. Journal of Cultural Economics, 24(3), 134–148. https://doi.org/10. 1023/A:1007653328733. Piber, M., Biondi, L., Demartini, P., Marchegiani, L., & Marchiori, M. (2017). Pursuing civic engagement through participatory cultural initiatives: Mapping value creation, outcome, performance and legitimacy. In 12th international forum on knowledge asset dynamics (IFKAD 2017) Proceedings (St. Petersburg, 7–9 June) (pp. 731–748). Ponzini, D. (2010). The process of privatisation of cultural heritage and the arts in Italy: Analysis and perspectives. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(6), 508–521. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13527258.2010.505049. Proteau, J. (2018). Reducing risky relationships: Criteria for forming positive museum-corporate sponsorships. Museum Management and Curatorship, 33(3), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09647775.2018.1467274. Ricciuti, E., & Turrini, A. (2018). Foundations in Italy: What roles and challenges? American Behavioral Scientist, 62(13), 1822–1832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218773435. Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access: The new culture of hypercapitalism where all of life is a paidfor experience. New York: JP Tarcher. Rosenstein, C. (2010). When is a museum a public museum? Considerations from the point of view of public finance. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10286630902935178. Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2014). Fundraising management. Analysis, planning and practice. London: Routledge. Schuster, M. (1998). Neither public nor private. The hybridization of museums. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22(2–3), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007553902169. Shaw, P. (2006). The funding challenges. In V. Woollard, J. Reeve, & C. Lang (Eds.), The responsive museum. Working with audiences in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 153–164). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Financing Museums: Towards Alternative Solutions? Evidence from Italy

31

Siano, A., Eagle, L., Confetto, M. G., & Siglioccolo, M. (2010). Destination competitiveness and museum marketing strategies: An emerging issue in the Italian context. Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(3), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2010.498984. Stanziola, J. (2006). Private and public investment: How the cultural sector survives in a mixed economy. In J. Stanziola (Ed.), Investing in culture: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 40–47). London: Arts & Business. Stanziola, J. (2011). Some more unequal than others: Alternative financing for museums, libraries and archives in England. Cultural Trends, 20(2), 113–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963. 2011.563905. Tobelem, J. M. (2013). The arts and culture: A financial burden or a way out of the crisis? Journal of Cultural Management and Policy, 3(1), 52–60. Toepler, S., & Dewees, S. (2005). Are there limits to financing culture through the market? Evidence from the U.S. museum field. International Journal of Public Administration, 28 (1–2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-200044548. Turbide, J., Laurin, C., Lapierre, L., & Morissette, R. (2008). Financial crises in the arts sector: Is governance the illness or the cure? International Journal of Arts Management, 10(2), 4–13. Vakharia, N. K., & Janardhan, D. (2017). Knowledge-centric art organizations: Connecting practice to performance. International Journal of Arts Management, 19(2), 14–32. Venturelli, A., Caputo, F., Palmi, P., Tafuro, A., & Mastroleo, G. (2015). Measuring the multidimensional performance of a museum network: Proposal for an evaluation model. In 10th international forum on knowledge asset dynamics (IFKAD 2015) Proceedings (Bari, 10–12 June) (pp. 1582–1603). Vicente, E., Camarero, C., & Garrido, M. J. (2012). Insights into Innovation in European Museums. The impact of cultural policy and museum characteristics. Public Management Review, 14(5), 649–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.642566. Woodward, S. (2012). Funding museum agendas: Challenges and opportunities. Management Leisure, 17(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2011.638202. Yermack, D. (2017). Donor governance and financial management in prominent US art museums. Journal of Cultural Economics, 41(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-017-9290-4. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage. Zan, L., Bonini Baraldi, S., & Gordon, C. (2007). Cultural heritage between centralisation and decentralisation. Insights from the Italian context. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13 (1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630701201723.

Alberto Romolini is currently Associate Professor in Business Administration at the Università Telematica Internazionale Uninettuno, Rome, Italy. He is also Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Economics in the same university. He holds a Ph.D. in Public Management. His research interests are in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility and nonfinancial reporting, public management in local authorities and health-care entities, museums, history of accounting and tourism management. Silvia Fissi is Assistant Professor at the Department of Business and Economics of Florence University. She holds a Ph.D. in Planning and Control from the Università degli Studi di Firenze and a Laurea (Master degree) in Economics from the same university. Her research interests include public management, local authorities, tourism management, museums, corporate social responsibility, and accounting history. Elena Gori is Associate Professor of Financial Accounting. She holds a Ph.D. in Planning and Control from the Università degli Studi di Firenze. Her research interests include public management, local authorities, tourism management, museums, corporate social responsibility, and accounting history. She is director of the Centro Interuniversitario di Studi sul Turismo (Interuniversity Centre of Tourism Studies) of the Università degli Studi di Firenze.

32

A. Romolini et al.

Marco Contri is currently a Ph.D. Student at the Department of Economics and Management at the University of Pisa (Italy). He previously obtained a BSc. in Business Administration and MSc. in Accounting from the University of Florence (Italy). His main research interests include Public Management, Public Accounting and museums.

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of Universities Laura Corazza, Maurizio Cisi, and Simone Domenico Scagnelli

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. William Bruce Cameron (1957), “Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking”

Abstract The chapter contributes to the current debate on universities’ heritage assets (UHA) value measurement by shedding light on the potential role that accounting, and reporting can play in this context. This study provides an in-depth discussion on the existing taxonomies of values for heritage assets and focuses on economic and monetary values. An original vision is used to critically observe the accounting for UHA in light of the third mission of universities. The chapter explores the measurement of such values, under an accrual accounting mandatory transition, recently adopted by Italian universities, demonstrating how values have been distorted to match the accounting practice. Several accounting behaviours are discussed in the light of Shapiro’s (Objectivity, relativism, and truth in external financial reporting: What’s really at stake in the disputes? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 165–185, 1997) theory of social constructivism in financial reporting to offer a critique that can be useful to financial statement preparers to reflect on their decision. Keywords Universities heritage assets · Italian university museums · Third mission · Accounting · Book heritage, artworks, antiquities, and museum assets

L. Corazza (*) · M. Cisi Department of Management, University of Turin, Turin, Italy e-mail: [email protected] S. D. Scagnelli School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_3

33

34

L. Corazza et al.

1 Introduction In the broad view of universities as global leaders of teaching, learning and research providers, another mission, the so-called “third-mission”, is acquiring impetus. Third mission activities are defined as additional, transversal, softer and harder ways to transfer knowledge for societal impact and outreach (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1997; Laredo 2007; Leydesdorff 2012). Among these third mission activities, it is possible to include universities’ direct involvement, among others, in public hospitals, museums, patents, spin-offs, and in general, in public engagement (Rolfo and Finardi 2012). Engaging the whole public is a pivotal element of the third mission that can be further fostered when universities’ cultural heritage is accessibly displayed (Santagati 2017). This chapter presents a critical discussion on the role of accounting in valuing public Universities’ Heritage Assets (UHA), going beyond the mere measurement issue (i.e., identifying the proper book value) to embrace a more holistic approach on how value is measured in relation to such third mission activities, especially in the role of UHA in engaging the wider public. There are different varieties of UHA, such as a university collection (departmental, school or faculty), stand-alone university museums, and, finally, a network of structured museum systems (Bragança Gil 2002; Hamilton 1995; Martino 2016). The managerial complexity, behind collections, museums and cultural networks, is incredibly various. For instance, while a collection may fluctuate in terms of use, preservation and perceived value, museums fulfil and support the university’s pedagogical role through entertaining (Heesen 2018; ICOM 2007). Collections, monuments, libraries, buildings and archives constitute an exclusive model of knowledge transmission through teaching and learning (Sanz and Bergan 2002). Under a financial accounting perspective, public universities have been recently affected by a transition from cash-based accounting to accrual accounting (Adam et al. 2011; Agasisti et al. 2017; Becker et al. 2014; Feldman et al. 2010; Guthrie 1998). Such transition has required a general increase in reporting practices not only in financial terms but also in terms of intellectual capital production, knowledgetransfer, intellectual property value, as well as the creation of social value (Agasisti et al. 2017; English et al. 2005; Neumann and Guthrie 2002; Siboni et al. 2013). Consequently, universities’ managers are coping with measuring, calculating and reporting financial and non-financial data. Consequently, today all public entities are called to determine the book value of their heritage assets due to public regulations that impose them to evaluate all their assets (Aversano et al. 2019a, b; Gstraunthaler and Piber 2007). The evaluation of the UHA of public universities is happening at a planetary level (Aversano et al. 2019a; International Monetary Fund 2018; Moggi 2016). Concretely, determining UHA value is a multi-faceted problem. First, a pivotal role is played by the notion of value in museology that should be disentangled (Dumay 2016) in its application to UHA. For instance, UHA are a driver of the third mission activities of a university as they deliver informal knowledge transfer

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

35

processes. Second, a discussion on the economic value of UHA cannot be exempted from presenting a review of the different methodology applied in the museology field to account for the value creation engendered through its exploitation. Hence, a profound reflection on what is value in UHA is needed because this lack of definitions is causing a puzzling situation when it comes to preparing university financial statements and when universities’ managers have to make decisions on the amount of value to be reported (Aversano et al. 2019a). This chapter contributes to solving this gap, suggesting that both financial and social aspects should be considered in valuing UHA, going beyond the accounting technocracy. Although researches agree on combining financial accounting and third mission in public university contexts (Di Berardino and Corsi 2018), they have rarely been considered in the context of UHA, where different values are correlated (Aversano et al. 2019a). Through questioning the relationship, if any, between the book value of UHA and the value of UHA for the third mission purposes, our exploratory research will provide an accounting critique (Facione and Facione 2013) of the current state of the art on valuing public universities’ heritage assets, looking at the content of the Italian public university financial statements, published just after the introduction of the accounting reform (reporting years 2015–2016). This data is then matched with the ones derived by the ministerial evaluation of the third mission, demonstrating the centrality of the value dilemma. The study presented here has theoretical and practical implications. On the one hand, our critique can be retrieved in critical accounting studies with particular regard to the political power of accounting, that in our case, can be intended as investigating the consequences of valuing UHA properly (Cooper 1980; Cooper and Sherer 1984; Neu et al. 2001), especially in contrasting any potential adverse effect caused by an accounting misconception. On the other hand, in organisational terms, public universities’ financial statement preparers and UHA managers are usually not involved in strategic decisions regarding the third mission, that is, an issue related more to academic governance. Nonetheless, their daily routine and tasks may impact, directly or indirectly, the third mission and the knowledge transfer of the entire university. With this study, we investigate the nexus with the same intent that is held by critical scholars in literature, that is, the use of accounting used to encourage organisations to evolve and become aware of the potential effect of financial statements on social change, that in our case is represented by the different values of UHA (Bayou et al. 2011; Erb and Pelger 2015; Gallhofer and Haslam 1996; Modell 2017; Shapiro 1997). The theoretical model of Shapiro (1997) for social constructivism in financial reporting will be used to discuss our findings. Our research illustrates the presence of a biasing effect in measuring the book value of UHA that also negatively impacts the evaluation of the third mission activities, noticing the risk that wrong or unconscious procedures for measuring the monetary value of UHA may cause indirect consequences in terms of rewarding or punishing universities themselves. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 unlocks the concept of UHA in light of the university third mission; Sect. 2.2 briefly discusses the role of

36

L. Corazza et al.

accounting disciplines on the theories and practices of valuing cultural heritage assets. Section 3 presents the research methodology, and Sects. 4 and 5 present and discuss our findings. Section 6 concludes our study with implications, limitations and suggestions for further research.

2 Unlocking the Concept of UHA Values To investigate the relationships between the accounting of UHA and the universities’ third mission, it is useful to appeal to our imagination: contrast the idea of dusty shelves, plenty of old books and memorabilia with tourist lines and school kids ready to observe the Book of Kells at Trinity College of Dublin, the Anatomic Théâtre in Bologna or natural science museums all over the world. It is easy to understand the potential of UHA as a source of knowledge for societies and younger generations. Conversely, it is not so intuitive to discern how to record, organise and use accounting information to explain the potential benefits deriving from UHA. Universities were among the earliest public organisations establishing modern museums, and traces of university museums start from the seventeenth century and earlier (Boylan 1999). Today, there are certainly more university museums and galleries around the world than at any time in history and among these, are the most important collections and museums. UHA incorporate a vast range of artefacts and intangible goods, as indicated by Lourenço’s definition (2008, p. 328): encompassing science, art and nature, museums and collections, artefacts and specimens, ugly and beautiful, easy and difficult, historical and in use, savoir faires and values, books and documents, buildings and gardens—in short, space and time, form and function, tangible and intangible.

Regardless of the heterogeneity of their UHA, the representatives of collections and museums of 12 European universities in 2000 founded the project “Universeum network”, aimed at the preservation and promotion of academic heritage in Europe; the project was announced in a Declaration of Halle Academic Heritage and Universities: Responsibility and Public Access. The group defined academic heritage as “university collections, museums, archives, libraries, botanical gardens, astronomical observatories, monuments of significance” (Universeum 2010, Statute). In 2005, the Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec (2005) 13 highlighted specific strands of improvement for UHA in order to improve the strategic view of UHA for the social responsibility of universities. The strategies included in the Recommendation covered issues related to finance, access (exhibitions and museums), professionalisation, training, research, awareness, relations with the local community and international relations. Scholars affirm that between universities and UHA there is an organic and identified relationship that needs to be carefully nurtured to prosper (Duhs 2011; Hammond et al. 2006; Nissley and Casey 2002; Stanbury 2000). For instance,

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

37

Simpson (2014) contests any financialization of UHA propending for an assessment based on the role UHA plays in preserving the history of the university for teaching and research, as well as, for educating and engaging societies and the public, in other words, their intrinsic value, cultural and social value (Biondi and Lapsley 2014). We support the idea that beyond such value or values of UHA, there might be political implications. More should be investigated in terms of the responsibility of universities’ museums to be accountable for their presence and value within a university setting (Kozak 2016), and accounting can be used for promoting UHA more than just disclosing their ability to generate financial returns (Jardine 2013; Talas and Lourenço 2012). Seeing that the meaning of “value” might be controversial, in the next pages, the chapter addresses the multiple facets of “values” that could be applied in accounting for UHA. The discussion will start by presenting a taxonomy of values in museology, and further light is shed on the economic value in museology. Finally, it presents the problem of quantification of the monetary value applied to UHA based on international accounting standards.

2.1

A Taxonomy of Values Created by UHA in the Field of Museology Literature

The term values applied to heritage refers to the meanings and values given to heritage by individuals or groups of people (Díaz-Andreu 2017). There is extensive literature on many classifications of values, including historical, aesthetic, economic, social and scientific ones. In one of the latest debates on the rationalisation of values, Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) count more than ten different definitions. These definitions span from an entire century, such as in the case of the 1903s pamphlet of Riegl (1982) to the latest ICOMOS revisions of 2013 (Fredheim and Khalaf 2016). Almost forty different types of values are mapped, and monetary or economic value only play a small part. Applying a value creation logic to UHA, collections, exhibitions, museums and museum hubs, all these settings have “a dependency tie with a university” (Bragança Gil 2002, p. 1). According to Sanz and Bergan (2002): “the university presents itself as an actor of collective responsibility guaranteeing the sense of certain moral, intellectual and technical values” (Sanz and Bergan 2002, p. 9). Consequently, a wide range of values can be applied to UHA, especially considering that UHA contribute to the so-called university social responsibility in the generalisation of scientific knowledge among the general public and, particularly, the promotion of scientific interest and curiosity among the youth (Bragança Gil 2002). Table 1 reports a taxonomy elaborated starting with the typologies of values mapped by Fredheim and Khalaf (2016) and subsequently applied to UHA.

38

L. Corazza et al.

Table 1 A selection of value typologies for heritage assets applied to UHA A selection of value typologies for heritage assets Administrative, strategic

Aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, artistic

Bequest, townscape, landscape and ecological, tourism, local environment

Cultural, symbolic Curiosity Commercial, economic, monetary, capital, estate

Educational, recreation, edutainment, creative

Historic, identity, monumental

Local distinctiveness, associative, prestige, uniqueness

Scientific, research production, knowledge, technological Social

Application to UHA Providing the necessary conditions for the preservation, study and public fruition Strategic asset for increasing the competitiveness and visibility of universities Foster universities’ interdepartmental collaboration Exhibit artistic and archival patrimony, inherited from decades or even centuries of the university's existence Display and therefore protect Preserve scientific ceremonial, commemorative, decorative, didactic objects from risk degradation and loss In situ preservation Art galleries (especially for recent universities) Preserve uniqueness of places herein cities Provide public services including some university theatres, concert halls and arts centers, herbaria and botanical gardens Manage touristic flows Promote of scientific interest at whole Public engagement activities Promote of curiosity among the students Visitor attractions Cultural destination for the territory Host events Movements of works and objects Historical buildings and settings (for ancient universities) Educate and inform Host events Communicate sciences Researchers’ nights Place to test different pedagogies Preserve institutional identity Be a historical memory of a given university/place Institutional archive of the university itself Join network for broader cultural sector of a territory Preserve memories of local teachers and their biographies Contribute to the prestige of a university in terms of ranking Study scientific ceremonial, commemorative, decorative, didactic objects Acquire objects from donations Increase scientific literacy among professors, students and staff Extend education to a large public (beyond the traditional one) as form of social inclusion

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

2.2

39

A Review of the Methodology for Estimating the Economic Value of Cultural Heritage Assets

Prior museology studies have addressed the long-standing issue of accounting for scientific, cultural, artistic and heritage assets (Barton 2000, 2005; Carnegie and Wolnizer 1995; Carnegie and Wolznier 1999; Micallef and Peirson 1997; Rentschler and Potter 1996). These studies have focused primarily on how private organisations of cultural heritage cope with measurement issues, without addressing the public perspective. Among others, the work of Stanton and Stanton (1997) addressed explicitly the role of accounting in valuing heritage assets. These authors discussed the opportunity to provide a “reliable measure” of heritage assets, concluding that both value-in-use (VIN) and value-in-exchange (VIE) are not trustworthy measures from an accounting perspective. They reached a conclusion that provides more importance to an admixture of financial and non-financial accounting: “accounting for heritage assets is distinguished by partial inclusion and measurement. Accurate information on all assets is more likely to be achieved by a non-financial focus” (Stanton and Stanton 1997, pp. 1003–1004). Table 2 lists the most common quantitative methods used in museology studies; also, qualitative methods are synthesised in an online resource by the Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe Report (CHCfE Consortium 2015). With the exceptions of VIN and VIE, almost all the other methodologies involve a third-party perspective, which can be an individual or the society as a whole. When it comes to accounting for the monetary value generated by a specific UHA, the problem is moving the focus from the salient feature of the object itself to embracing the view of the ability of the object under analysis to derive future financial flows or economic benefits from its ownership or management (Plaza 2010). Basically, the problem embraces a managerial perspective. The next section discusses what is intended for monetary value to be disclosed, concerning why the accounting of monetary value is mandatory and why accounting principles and practices should be redesigned.

2.3

The Monetary Value of UHA

According to the International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38, the value of an intangible asset is linked to the future economic benefit potentially flowing from such asset, including revenues, cost savings and other types of benefits. While IAS 38 can help private organisations to reach a conclusion, governmental-driven organisations like public museums, universities and public research centres apply International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS). IPSAS 17 clarifies that in case of public institutions “these [intangible] assets are rarely held for their ability to generate cash inflows, and there may be legal or social obstacles to using them for such purposes.” As reported by recent works of

40

L. Corazza et al.

Table 2 Quantitative methodologies to establish the economic value of cultural heritage Type of value Value-inuse (VIN)

Value-inexchange (VIE)

Willingnessto-pay (WTP)

Use value Non-use value Altruistic value Bequest value Option value Existence value Choice modelling

Willingnessto-accept

Definition Value-in-use is defined as the inherent service potential of an asset. In accounting practice, value-in-use is measured by the opportunity cost of holding the asset in a particular use, “for practical purposes”. This devolves to an estimated market price “as if” the asset was to be offered for sale. Measuring the value-in-use of a heritage asset devolves into measuring its possible value-inexchange: if an asset can generate any services, the discounted net present value of that income stream will determine the asset’s value. Willingness to pay may derive from ensuring future value-in-use by a individual for himself, his family, and descendants, or merely from guaranteeing value-in-use by others (vicarious value to the individual). For a cultural heritage site, then, the use value that a visitor receives would be defined as the largest amount of money the visitor would be willing to pay, over and above any actual entry fee, to gain access to the site. We find the total use value generated by the site as the sum of all of the individual visitors’ WTPs. Use value is defined as the maximum WTP to gain access to the site. Non-use value includes benefits that people enjoy because they know that the site is being preserved. The desire that the site be available for others to visit. The value of the site’s preservation for future generations The current non-visitor may decide to become a visitor in the future. The preservation of the site, even if no one ever actually visits it. Based on the characteristic theory of value, it expresses the value of a cultural heritage by defining its characteristics and establishing the importance of options between them. Willingness to accept compensation for the loss of the cultural assets.

Authors Stanton and Stanton (1997)

Ruijgrok(2006), Stanton and Stanton (1997), Plaza (2010)

Navrud and Ready (2002)

Choi et al. (2010)

Tuan and Navrud (2008) (continued)

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

41

Table 2 (continued) Type of value Hedonic pricing

Impact value

Travel cost

Definition Statistical calculation procedure that results in a percentage of property values that can be attributed to a historical characteristic of a good and its environment. As important as market and governance, impact values constitute the process of valorising the cultural and social value regarding qualities. Calculation of the cost for a visitor to travel to the site.

Authors Ruijgrok (2006)

Ellwood and Greenwood (2016), Klamer (2002, 2016), Vecco (2010) Bedate et al. (2004)

accounting scholars (Aversano et al. 2019a, b), the nature of public cultural heritage assets is often that of being a public good (Scott 2010), whereas the cultural context influences its accounting (Adam et al. 2011). Biondi and Lapsley (2014) argued that neither the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) nor the International Public Sector Accounting Standard Board (IPSASB) have specifically defined heritage assets, even if IPSAS 17 depicts a taxonomy of heritage assets and states that “some assets are described as heritage assets because of their cultural, environmental or historical significance” (IPSAS, 17). Biondi and Lapsley (2014) have discussed the economic value of UHA stating that “their public value (in cultural, environmental, educational and historical terms) is not reflected in a financial value based purely on a market price; usually there are prohibitions or restrictions on their disposal by sale; they are irreplaceable and incomparable; they have a long-lasting, useful life; they have non-rival and non-excludable consumptions attributes, so they may be regarded as public goods” (Biondi and Lapsley 2014). So, what is the proper basis, if any, to evaluate UHA? A possible solution is offered by the work of Aversano and Christiaens (2014), who suggest adopting a multi-stakeholder engagement activity to determine a shared choice of accounting criteria to be applied in the measurement phase. This solution can contribute by giving university managers different perceptions of the cultural value of an item under analysis (Ellwood and Greenwood 2016). For instance, during the Perfumum exhibition that took place in 2018 at Palazzo Madama in Turin, Italy, the history of perfumes was illustrated and enriched with explanation and the exposition of ancient academic pharmacological treatises. Such manuscripts, which were moved from a university library to an external exhibition, generated cash flow to the benefit of the organisers. Conversely, the exposition has benefited from having established a partnership with the university. The university has also contributed to generating different types of values with this transaction, and only a minority of them are traced using an accounting lens. Consequently, using other non-financial metrics, accounting for UHA might be helpful to university managers in becoming aware of the potential of their collections and also establish managerial policies on how to track the values generated. Nowadays, public universities are obliged to report the value of UHA to be recorded in the financial statements, and

42

L. Corazza et al.

simultaneously, they are asked to express their ability to manage UHA without being fully aware of the potential of their UHA. From an organisational perspective, those who usually prepare the financial statement and who manage UHA belong to completely different departments. For such reasons, we advocate for the need for clarity when it comes to valuing UHA, and a multi-stakeholder approach could be a solution. In other words, it is likely to say that public universities taking care of UHA, establish clear managerial practices, procedures and actions for managing UHA, also using accounting to serve the purpose of enhancing the value creation process generated by UHA. Unfortunately, without any clear guidance on how to value UHA, there is the risk of compromising the comparability of the financial statements of public universities, especially when the financial statement is used as a driver for distributing public funds as it contaminates the national ranking.

3 Methodology Our research focuses on the Italian context of UHA, and this study aims at investigating the correlation between the mandatory accounting of UHA and the national evaluation of third mission activities carried out by universities. This approach is original thanks to its discussion about an actual situation and provokes debate on the possibility of negative consequences derived by a blind conviction that monetary accounting is sufficient for giving value to UHA.

3.1

Describing the Context Where Accounting Is Called to Take Action

Our study focuses on the Italian context, where in the last twenty years normative changes have occured, in terms of universities’ autonomy (Arcari and Grasso 2011; Salvatore 2011), governance (Maran 2010), evaluation of performance (Palumbo 2012), reporting systems representation of results (Biondi 2013; Catalano and Tomasi 2010) and management control (Del Sordo 2005). One of the latest regulations, namely the “Gelmini reform” (Italian Law 240/2010), sets out accounting policies, as a means to adopt financial statement reporting in accordance with requirements and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), including three-year economic and financial plans and consolidated accounts for more structured and large universities. Lastly, in 2011, the National Agency for the evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes (ANVUR) was established, to take a step forward in the process of evaluation and quality assurance of the Italian university system. According to Agnella et al. (2012), the third mission is defined by ANVUR as a new way of teaching and doing research through listening, dialogue and collaboration with all

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

43

social actors. In Italy, Legislative Decree 19/2012 defined the principles of the system of self-assessment, periodic evaluation and accreditation of universities, and subsequently, the DM 47/2013 and 987/2016 adequately recognised the third mission as the institutional mission of universities to be evaluated in terms of cultural content, social, educational and civil awareness.

3.2

The Italian Scenario for Evaluating the Monetary Value of UHA

In Italy, the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (UNIMORE) is leading several processes of cataloguing, promoting and institutionalising the role of Italian university museums. The composition of the cultural heritage includes: anthropologic artefacts; demo-ethno-anthropologic materials; archeologic artefacts; drawings; photos; art and antiquities; contemporary art pieces; prints; natural assets (from botany, mineralogy, palaeontology, planetology, zoology, and petrology); scientific and technological assets; numismatic assets; and musical instruments. According to their recent survey, the Italian pool of university museums includes 64 museums, 38 collections and nine botanic gardens and herbaria (UNIMORE 2001, accessed in January 2018). Moreover, all Italian universities have been forced to measure and give monetary value to a whole range of assets, including UHA. UHA monetary value constitutes, precisely, the opening amounts to be included in the first financial statements prepared under an accrual basis (Chiaravalloti 2014). The financial reporting scheme provided by the Italian Ministry of Education and Research (MIUR) classifies all cultural heritage assets under one specific count, herein tangible assets A) II.4 called book heritage, artworks, antiquities and museum assets. The explanation given is: Account A) II.4 represents the value of the bibliographic material, all the publications of the libraries, and in general, all those assets that can be considered heritage, artworks and museums materials. (Technical operative manual, MIUR, 2016, p. 4)

Unfortunately, according to the same guideline, the definition of depreciation methods and expected useful lives introduces a distinction between book heritage that loses value over time and book heritage that does not. All the items included under the first category must be fully depreciated (Liguori et al. 2012). According to that manual, scientific articles and journals have “temporary importance” (Technical operative manual, MIUR 2016, p.7) so they will be fully depreciated. Managers have a discretionary role in determining the concept of temporary importance. For book heritage that does not lose its value over time, indeed, the ministry suggests constituting a non-distributable equity reserve (called “Fondo di dotazione”). With value lost, value acquired, depreciation, revaluation and compensation, it is not surprising if someone gets lost and the question has been over problematised. In the current Italian context, more than one university manager has asked, and presumably many are now asking, how to value UHA.

44

3.3

L. Corazza et al.

Data and Methods

Because of the presence of basic statistics and qualitative information, this study can be labelled as a mixed-method (Creswell and Clark 2011). As presented in the introduction, we are scrutinising: (1) the ability of UHA to generate different types of values, and in particular, in the context of third mission; (2) the economic value creation engendered through the exploitation of UHA has been studied by museology providing different accounting tools; (3) monetary value, indeed, continues to be referred to financial reporting standards, and in the case of public universities, there is not a unique orientation. Consequently, our study implies two different ontologies. The ontology of the monetary value of UHA, that is, the book value of UHA expressed in euros and a different ontology used by the national evaluation of the third mission of Italian University (rank based on specific criteria over a bunch of categories), whose expression assumes the form of indicators to account for the value creation of UHA. Such established monetary value of UHA can be retrieved solely in universities that have already completed the transition to accrual accounting. For such purposes, our sample only includes the universities that have experienced the accrual accounting transition for at least two years (2015–2016) and have accounting information published on the financial statements, accessible through public websites. The book value of UHA (BOOK15 and BOOK16), the representativeness of UHA over the total of tangible assets (PROP15 and PROP16) and the presence of impairments (Δ1516) have been collected from the financial statements. The second order of quantitative data is related to the evaluation of third mission activities published by the MIUR. The specific section of the reports is the one related to the creation of social values in term of production and management of cultural goods (BC) and public engagement activities (PE). The first considers the managerial efforts that universities put in place to offer cultural goods, while the second is where the activities carried out through museums are evaluated. BC and PE are the latest data available according to the last governmental evaluation of the Third Mission 2011–2014. BC is an indicator of a rank that identifies four levels (from A to D), where A is assigned to the top performer universities regarding cultural goods and services offered. A fifth category, namely NV classifies those universities for which data are not available. PE is an indicator expressing a score given by the MIUR. BC and PE are not financial data (neither are related to financial information).

3.4

The Sample and Its Selection

Our sample includes all Italian public universities recognised by the MIUR in 2017 (n ¼ 67), and excluded:

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

45

• distance-learning universities for making their educational services virtual and universally accessible; • universities that have not yet adopted accrual accounting; Therefore, our final sample is composed of 52 universities, and Table 3 provides a breakdown according to their dimension in term of student enrolments. Within our sample, it is possible to account for 244 university museum sites. Individually, we counted 31 botanic gardens, herbaria and astronomic observatories; 151 natural and life sciences museums; 40 social sciences and humanities museums; and 22 historical archives and archaeological sites. In two cases, universities have one museum with several distinct collections, while the majority are characterised by an organisational structure with a museum hub. While one university has 24 museums and collections, there are also cases of universities that do not have a declared explicit museum but still have UHA.

3.5

The Model

To describe the Italian landscape of public universities’ museums (Miller and Power 2013), we included other variables in our statistical analysis, such as the number of students (STU) and the year of foundation (YEAR). STU expresses a number of the potential users of third-mission services (not including potential financial contributions received but regarding social impacts and public engagements). Data for students has been collected using the enrolment databases made available by MIUR as of November 2017. The YEAR, useful for considering the historical roots of universities, identifies ancient universities versus younger institutions. The oldest university considered is a millennial one, while the youngest has been in operations for only a few decades. The oldest in our sample is the University of Parma (established in 962), while the University of Bologna, known as the mother of modern universities, dates back to 1088. Finally, the variable MUS relates to the description and quantification of universities’ museums and museum hubs and has been derived from university and departmental websites. Table 4 reports the descriptive statistics for the variables analysed. The variable about the provision of cultural goods (BC) groups universities in clusters from A to D. Our sample counts: for A, 1 university; for B, 14; for C, 20; for D, 3; and 7 not valuable institutions (NV). These last seven institutions received a Table 3 Composition of the sample Number of public universities in the sample Number of students enrolled during the academic year 2016/2017 Source: authors’ elaboration

Large 24

Medium 18

Small 10

947.573

211.700

130.276

Total 52 (77.6% of Italian public universities) 1.289.549

46

L. Corazza et al.

score from the MIUR regarding the third mission but not for BC. Each cluster reflects a different level of UHA activities, such as the management of archaeological sites and the management and provision of cultural goods using museum facilities (Annex I and Annex II). A test on the existence of any correlations between variables has also been performed, showing the results of the multiple correlations. There is an evident and statistically significant correlation between MUS and STU, which means that the largest universities have more museums. There is also a correlation between MUS and the book value of UHA, showing that the presence of museums is positively correlated with the book value of UHA. A higher UHA book value is positively related to museums’ arrangements. PE is not related to the book value of UHA, while it seems to be associated with the age of the university; the older the university, the higher the effort posed to engage societies. Regarding the linear regression model, we based our quest on the link between PE, as an expression of third mission rating, and the latest book values of UHA, resulting in the following test: Y i ðPE Þ ¼ β0 þ β1 log 10 BOOK16 þ Ei Since the values of the observed variables are largely distributed and very spaced out, it was decided to apply a logarithmic transformation to BOOK16 to preserve the goal of improving the knowledge of a phenomenon and reducing the final variance (Hancock et al. 2010). Calculations were made using R.

4 Findings The overall book value of heritage assets—books, artworks, antiquities, and other museum assets—accounted for 793.940.007 € as of 31 December 2016 and 773.503.671 € as of 31 December 2015. However, from 2015 to 2016, several impairments of such assets were applied, reflecting that universities started the process of accounting for UHA after the introduction of accrual accounting, and the process is still ongoing. While the impairment may suggest the need for revising the initial estimated value of UHA, a surprising result comes from the analysis of the weight of UHA over the total amounts of tangible assets (of 2016), or in other words its relative value of their UHA. In 37% of the cases, universities register a very small relative value of UHA (among 0.02% and 0.47%); while 42% of universities had a relative value of UHA ranging from 1% to 6%. Only eleven universities published a relative book value that ranged from 10% to the extreme case of one university, showing a ratio of 63%. This information shows the extreme variability of the data as the scale varies in the order of 104. Figure 1 shows the value of the log10 of BOOK15 and BOOK16 (Y-axis), for each university of the sample (X-axis), in ascending order. Two evident peaks can be seen; each one represents a considerable impairment, that is, a process of adjusting the book value after its revision was performed by two different universities.

Min Max SD UNIT

BOOK15 1000.00 523,306,345.95 72565805.86 Euro

Table 4 Descriptive statistics

BOOK16 10,886.43 523,354,600.95 72528646.01 Euro

Δ1516 485,148.68 10,305,499.60 1747754.81 Euro PROP15 0.00 0.63 0.136407 %

PROP16 0.00 0.63 0.40 %

MUS 0.00 24.00 6.19 Number

YEAR 18 1055 318.89 Years

STU 488 100,280 21,186.02 Number

PE 0 1 0.20 Score

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . . 47

48

L. Corazza et al.

Fig. 1 The trend of book values of Italian universities’ UHA as log10 Table 5 Results of the linear regression between the book value of UHAs and the results of the third-mission ranking

Regression statistics Multiple R R square Adjusted R square Standard error p-value

0.979 0.959 0.938 0.015 0.021

Especially for universities with the lowest monetary values, initially determined, it is highly probable that this value can be adjusted in the long run. When it comes to analysing the link between the book values and the third mission ranking, we have applied a linear regression model. The universities labelled as NV and Excluded_BC, and the University of Florence (an outlier) have been excluded from the sample. The results of the linear regression are shown in Table 5. R2 values confirm the adequacy of the model to interpret the existence of a positive influence between the book value of UHAs (normalised by the log10) and PE given by the MIUR. As the p-value is 0.021, this relation is statistically significant.

4.1

From the Notes to the Financial Statements

Reading through the financial statement, our study reveals the presence of different measurement bases and accounting strategies for UHA (Table 6), ranging from more sophisticated techniques, where UHA are impaired according to their fair value through experts’ opinions, or drastic decisions such as in the case of removal of all the heritage assets from the first financial statements for future experts’ valuations. Another alternative is represented by the case of UHA registered at the cost of

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

49

acquisition/price-to-market/disposal cost, minus any provisions for impairment. Noteworthy is the case of fully depreciated assets applied when the inability to determine a reliable value life or the cost-benefit of determining such value is labelled as unworthy. Lastly, there is the case of UHA considered as a commodity with an associated value of zero. In this case, the financial statement preparers have decided to consider all the items with a modest price, and consequently, they have discounted their value to zero. In the case of UHA equal to zero, universities consider their book heritage as a commodity.

5 Discussion Our model revealed a linear and significant correlation between the book value of UHA and the rating received by national ministerial evaluation. Translating this into managerial practice, it can be said that more efforts have been spent on the process of quantifying UHA book values and more “points” have been collected in the national ranking. These “points” are salient in the way they contribute to determining award strategies as additional funds as well more possibilities to hire workforce. Concerning the measurement of UHA, several reflections can be considered according to Shapiro’s model (1997) on social constructivism in financial reporting. Table 6 Accounting behaviours adopted by financial statements preparers of Italian Universities

Measuring bases and accounting strategies for UHA HA are held at cost of acquisition/ price-to-market/disposal cost, minus any provisions for impairment. HA are impaired according to their fair value through experts’ opinions attached to the financial statements HA are registered basically following their historical cost Fully depreciated asset

Removal of all the heritage assets from the first financial statements for future experts’ valuations

Explanation given There are no quoted market prices available in an active market, consequently, the fair value cannot currently be reliably measured. Prudently, an equity reserve is created

Percentage of universities applying the strategy 20%

15%

Faithful representation

30%

Lack of usefulness of the results derived from measurements, or inability to determine useful life, or the cost-benefit of determining the value is not worthy. UHA considered as a commodity with value ¼ 0 Preserving faithful representation

20%

15%

50

L. Corazza et al.

In his work, he presents three different propositions for financial reporting, which can be usefully applied in our case. For Shapiro, the proponents of a criticalinterpretative perspective (1) see financial reporting as an instrument of (sometimes radical) social change. Second, proponents of an economic view (2) prioritise the supremacy of respect for standards (considered able to produce beneficial consequences)—even if standards incentivise financial statement preparers to commit accounting misrepresentations. A third case, for Shapiro, is called decision usefulness (3), for which the primary concern for financial statement preparers should be to improve the decision relevance and reliability of the reported information for users, even if the recorded data may impose indirect adverse economic consequences on some reporting entities. In this case, reliability and accuracy are the perpetuated options (Erb and Pelger 2015). In our study, the universities financial statement preparers that want to preserve a prudential behaviour have written-off the book value of UHA to postpone such valuation in due course. Similar is the case of universities having a book value of UHA equal to zero, not because of a write-off, but mostly due to a cautionary approach, waiting for future experts’ recognitions and valuations. In all the other cases, where the book value differs from zero, we can find the application of Shapiro’s model. In particular, the universities that see financial reporting as an instrument of social change invest in sophisticated techniques engaging experts in an in-depth valuation process (1). Experts have museology background and in their work can consider a vast range of values linked to UHA, and also the contribute of such UHA to the third mission. Universities that support the faithful representation use the historical cost as a reliable driver, respecting the technocratic background but ignoring any museology tools or practice (2); and, the ones perpetuating the decision relevance of accounting (3) register a book value that considers costs such as acquisition/price-to-market/disposal cost, but also any provisions for impairment. In this last case, monetary value is the priority, but there is space left open to impairment, meaning the possibility of revising the monetary value associated to a particular element of UHA, if needed. This research highlights two different perspectives in the broad framework of public universities’ accounting processes. On the one hand, the data has shown the relevance of accounting for UHA and how it directly influences the ability of the university to be rewarded for its third mission, mainly when cultural heritage assets and museums contribute to the university activities. Conversely, our study shows how the comparability of public universities’ financial statements is jeopardised by the very vast freedom of interpretation of reporting rules and policies. If we assume an external user-driven perspective, the problem of comparability might not be relevant, given that only the government is the actual salient agent in the social contract with universities. However, if we adopt a multi-stakeholder perspective, as the concept of the third mission itself implicitly requires, dissimilar financial reporting might be misleading about the contribution that universities can effectively bring for the development of their society. This last consideration introduces one of the central questions arising from this research. From the literature review, we have discerned three main philosophies

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

51

underlying the concept of UHA: the values of UHA according to museology, the museology-driven economic value and the accounting techniques (in most of the cases) to appraise and translate it into monetary terms. We have presented an elaborate list of strategies through which a public university museum creates value that should be considered and integrated for UHA. Such integration should encompass the financial, intrinsic, social, cultural and public value created as a whole, and this can happen also considering every qualitative appraisal and stakeholders’ opinions (Biondi and Lapsley 2014). What emerges clearly from our discussion is the existence of discrepancies between values intended in museology (also including economic value) and the value appraised in accounting terms. So, there is a lack of multidisciplinary background and also organisational cooperation when it comes to appraising UHA “values”. This result confirms the existence of the conflictual relationship between financial reports and the values of UHA, as reported by Aversano et al. (2019b). Unfortunately, these recommendations appear to have not influenced the accounting methodologies of these assets. On the contrary, where the issue becomes complex in terms of accessibility, usability and management, there is a real disorderly and self-determined behaviour, which, as a result, undermines the credibility of the information contained in the financial statement. It will be years before Italian universities can implement at least a reliable estimation of such assets. The other forms of values established by the museology literature might be beneficial, especially in critical cases, where a process of sense giving is necessary. For instance, when UHA are not accessible to the open public and not arranged through museums, their ability to be transformed in cash is useless. In all these similar cases, considering other types of values might be a valid option. Another critical case is represented by the fact that UHA are not separable from other objects, like when it is impossible to separate the container from the content, such as murals, or peculiar representative architectural elements with high historical, cultural and intrinsic value. In all the cases, where UHA are not movable, or when they constitute part of other tangible assets, a separate accounting treatment should be considered, at least because, even if they might not be able to generate direct cash flow, the maintenance costs, security costs and other preservation expenses are incurred. The involvement of other stakeholder opinions in the process of value determination is essential. A driver for implementing a multi-stakeholder solution can be retrieved from Boylan (1999) who affirms that three elements should be considered in the case of UHA: the relevance in terms of value and potential future importance of historic items; the co-operation between the university and the outside community, with the intent of joining local networks and displacing any ‘orphan’ collections to potential interest authorities; and the autonomy of adequately qualified and experienced curators, conservator–restorers, technicians and administrative and finance staff in managing UHA. If these three elements were considered in training university managers in accounting for UHA, then the contrasting situations highlighted in the work of Aversano et al. (2019b) could be partially resolved. What emerges clearly from this study is that nowadays, in the Italian case, the financial statement’s book value of UHA does not account for the reality and most of

52

L. Corazza et al.

the time is far from the reality (Hines 1988). In terms of political implications generated through such accounting and reporting, it should be highlighted that nowadays financial statement preparers are completely excluding all measures of the economic value of HA provided, disregarding what prominent scholars have said in the literature (Adams and Harte 2000).

6 Conclusions This chapter proposes the integration of stakeholder engagement with any attempts of determining the monetary value of UHA in universities. The study explains the existence of a statistically significant link between the monetary value of UHA and the scores obtained by Italian universities in a recent ministerial evaluation of the third mission activities. In this study, we have expanded the Biondi and Lapsley proposition of stakeholder engagement to embrace, in the case of universities, the importance of value creation for the third mission, such as public engagement of societies and knowledge transfer. We have also reviewed the vast literature on the different meanings of values taken from museology, presented a review of the techniques available to determine the economic value, and, finally, presented the issue of establishing the monetary value, mandatorily by law. Currently, the book value of heritage assets of public universities is highly biased and not reliable, and we have only found evidence of an in-depth systematic review of all UHA items in a few cases. Most of the cases disregard the potential that these assets have for public engagement and societal outreach, and with this chapter, we have shed light on the decisive role that accounting might play in enhancing and giving voice to UHA. Due to the recent transition to accrual accounting, the case of Italian universities is material, as several public universities around the world are facing a similar problem in accounting for their cultural heritage assets’ value. The sample used is also statistically significant, providing us with a generalisation of our results, and consequently, a fertile ground for our critical insights. Reflections should be made in organisational and managerial terms, as universities that would like to adopt an interpretative-critical use of financial statements (according to Shapiro’s model of 1997) need to invest time and resources in dealing with the accounting methods for their UHA. Finally, a domino effect might be generated by misuse of the evaluation of the third mission activities as a criterion for distributing public funds to universities because a biased valuation of UHA book value may downsize the position of a university in the rankings, and this can lead to universities myopias in not giving strategic importance to third mission activities. In turn, the competition between universities will increase concerning their ability to create social value also through UHA, and it is easy to think that universities will soon be compartmentalised on their ability to manage, organise and display, accounting for UHA.

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

53

In conclusion, the social critique presented in this paper aims to stimulate a profound reflection on the use of accounting for UHA by financial statement preparers in determining the future consequences of their accounting choice over their university prestige and reputation. This critical discourse reflects the fact that UHA managers are usually left out of the strategic governance of universities, while indeed they should be more involved, and decision-makers have to listen to their voice as a sort of counterpart (Gallhofer and Haslam 2017). Furthermore, there is enough space for other forms of accounting such as non-financial accounting to communicate all the values created by universities through its cultural heritage, such as qualitative intrinsic, social, cultural and natural “values” that are more important and often significantly greater than economic accounting value. Using non-financial disclosure, internal and external users might be more aware of the value of their UHA, and of the value of the investments for preserving, restoring and increasing UHA. Further studies can be conducted on the managerial implications related to a multi-stakeholder appraisal of the value generated through UHA and the problems that can be seen in opening up the box of traditional accounting. By translating accounting for cultural heritage into action, the role of the university for sustainable development will increase, as universities’ museums and UHA are a softer way to support knowledge transfer and public engagement. Acknowledgement The authors would like to acknowledge all the scholars who provided comments and suggestions during the European Accounting Association (EAA) Conference 2018 and the International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics (IKFAD) 2018. A special thanks to the Editors, the two anonymous reviewers and Prof. John Dumay for his help in mentoring us towards such concrete results.

A B C D NV Excluded_BC

BOOK15 27,270.16 40,939,964.76 8,164,170.209 38,166.81 1,182,831.64 199,611.82

BOOK16 27,302,655.08 41,687,710.43 8,273,375.12 2,519,916.81 1,201,517.02 224,504.82

log1015 7.44 6.11 6.28 4.31 5.73 4.54 log1016 7.44 6.27 6.29 5.50 5.76 5.04

Δ1516 32,500.08 747,745.7 109,204.9 2,481,750.00 18,685.38 24,893.00

Main variables grouped by the rank assigned by the MIUR in evaluating the third mission

Annex I

PROP15 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.08

PROP16 0.17 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.10

MUS 22 7.64 5.05 2.33 0.86 0.14

YEAR 211 363.07 452.1 248.67 57.57 33.71

STU 40,414 27.755.71 29,572.1 22,794.33 15,059.86 8814.57

PE 0.42 0.53 0.48 0.549 0.41 0.40

54 L. Corazza et al.

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

55

Annex II Multiple correlations log1015 log1016 Δ1516 PROP15 PROP16 MUS YEAR STU PE

log1015 1.000 0.945 0.555 0.711 0.599 0.832 0.361 0.802 0.226

log1016

Δ1516

PROP15

PROP16

MUS

YEAR

STU

PE

1.000 0.286 0.725 0.626 0.939 0.430 0.938 0.043

1.000 0.442 0.382 0.222 0.210 0.003 0.788

1.000 0.989 0.852 0.111 0.614 0.256

1.000 0.793 0.060 0.532 0.232

1.000 0.249 0.881 0.119

1.000 0.642 0.705

1.000 0.258

1

Bold in cases where p-value < 0.05

References Adam, B., Mussari, R., & Jones, R. (2011). The diversity of accrual policies in local government financial reporting: An examination of infrastructure, art and heritage assets in Germany, Italy and the UK. Financial Accountability and Management, 27(2), 107–133. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1468-0408.2011.00519.x. Adams, C., & Harte, G. (2000). Making discrimination visible: The potential for social accounting. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6303.00029. Agasisti, T., Catalano, G., & Erbacci, A. (2017). How resistance to change affects the implementation of accrual accounting in Italian public universities: A comparative case study. International Journal of Public Administration, 1–11. Agnella, S., De Bortoli, A., & Scamuzzi, S. (2012). How and why scientists communicate with society: The case of physics in Italy. In 12th International Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference Florence, Italy, 18–20 April 2012 (pp. 391–397). Arcari, A., & Grasso, G. (2011). Ripensare l’Università. Un contributo interdisciplinare sulla legge n. 240 del 2010 (Rethinking about the University. An interdisciplinary approach to the Law 240/2010). Giuffrè Editore. Aversano, N., & Christiaens, J. (2014). Governmental financial reporting of heritage assets from a user needs perspective. Financial Accountability and Management, 30(2), 150–174. https://doi. org/10.1111/faam.12032. Aversano, N., Christiaens, J., Tartaglia Polcini, P., & Sannino, G. (2019a, January 1). Accounting for heritage assets. (C. Johan, Ed.). International Journal of Public Sector Management. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-12-2018-0275. Aversano, N., Christiaens, J., & Van Thielen, T. (2019b). Does IPSAS meet heritage assets’ user needs? International Journal of Public Administration, 42(4), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01900692.2018.1433205. Barton, A. (2000). Accounting for public heritage facilities – Assets or liabilities of the government? Accounting. Auditing and Accountability Journal, 13(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10. 1108/09513570010323434. Barton, A. (2005). The conceptual arguments concerning accounting for public heritage assets: A note. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(3), 434–440. https://doi.org/10. 1108/09513570510600774.

56

L. Corazza et al.

Bayou, M. E., Reinstein, A., & Williams, P. F. (2011). To tell the truth: A discussion of issues concerning truth and ethics in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.02.001. Becker, S. D., Jagalla, T., & Skærbæk, P. (2014). The translation of accrual accounting and budgeting and the reconfiguration of public sector accountants’ identities. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(4–5), 324–338. Bedate, A., Herrero, L. C., & Sanz, J. Á. (2004). Economic valuation of the cultural heritage: Application to four case studies in Spain. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 5(1), 101–111. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2003.04.002. Biondi, L. (2013). L’università in cambiamento: Riflessioni in tema di contabilità e bilancio (Universities are changing: Reflections in the filed of accounting and financial statements) (Vol. 63). G Giappichelli Editore. Biondi, L., & Lapsley, I. (2014). Accounting, transparency and governance: The heritage assets problem. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 11(2), 146–164. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/QRAM-04-2014-0035. Boylan, P. J. (1999). Universities and museums: Past, present and future. Museum Management and Curatorship, 18(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647779900501801. Bragança Gil, F. (2002). Editorial University museums. Museologia, 2, 1–8. Carnegie, G. D., & Wolnizer, P. W. (1995). The financial value of cultural, heritage and scientific collections: An accounting fiction. Australian Accounting Review, 5(9), 31–47. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1835-2561.1995.tb00164.x. Carnegie, G. D., & Wolznier, P. (1999). Unravelling the rhetoric about the financial reporting of public collections as assets. Australian Accounting Review, 9(17), 16–21. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1835-2561.1999.tb00095.x. Catalano, G., & Tomasi, M. (2010). Esperienze di contabilità economico-patrimoniale nelle Università. (Experiences of accrual accounting in universities) (pp. 1–14). Bologna: Il Mulino. CHCfE Consortium. (2015). Cultural heritage counts for Europe. http://blogs.encatc.org/ culturalheritagecountsforeurope/ Chiaravalloti, F. (2014). Performance evaluation in the arts and cultural sector: A story of accounting at its margins. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 44(2), 61–89. https://doi. org/10.1080/10632921.2014.905400. Choi, A. S., Ritchie, B. W., Papandrea, F., & Bennett, J. (2010). Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach. Tourism Management, 31(2), 213–220. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.014. Cooper, D. (1980). Discussion of towards a political economy of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1), 161–166. Cooper, D., & Sherer, M. (1984). The value of corporate accounting reports: Arguments for a political economy of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(3–4), 207–232. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Del Sordo, C. (2005). Il controllo direzionale nelle università: Dal sistema di bilancio alla balanced scorecard. (Management control in universities: From the financial statements to the balance scorecard). FrancoAngeli. Di Berardino, D., & Corsi, C. (2018). A quality evaluation approach to disclosing third mission activities and intellectual capital in Italian universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 178–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2017-0042. Díaz-Andreu, M. (2017). Heritage values and the public. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage, 4(1), 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2016.1228213. Duhs, R. (2011). Learning from university museums and collections in higher education: University College London (UCL). International Committee for University Museums and Collections (UMAC) Proceedings, 3. Dumay, J. (2016). A critical reflection on the future of intellectual capital: From reporting to disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(1), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-082015-0072.

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

57

Ellwood, S., & Greenwood, M. (2016). Accounting for heritage assets: Does measuring economic value ‘kill the cat’? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 38(Supplement C), 1–13. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.05.009. English, L., Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (2005). Recent public sector financial management change in Australia. International Public Financial Management Reform, 23–54. Erb, C., & Pelger, C. (2015). “Twisting words”? A study of the construction and reconstruction of reliability in financial reporting standard-setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.11.001. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. In H. Etzkowitz & L. Leydesdorff (Eds.), Science, technology and the international political economy series (p. 184). London: Continuum. Facione, P., & Facione, N. (2013). Critical thinking for life: Valuing, measuring, and training critical thinking in all its forms. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 28(1). Feldman, R., Govindaraj, S., Livnat, J., & Segal, B. (2010). Management’s tone change, post earnings announcement drift and accruals. Review of Accounting Studies, 15(4), 915–953. Fredheim, L. H., & Khalaf, M. (2016). The significance of values: Heritage value typologies re-examined. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(6), 466–481. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13527258.2016.1171247. Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (1996). Accounting/art and the emancipatory project: Some reflections. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(5), 23–44. Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2017). Some reflections on the construct of emancipatory accounting: Shifting meaning and the possibilities of a new pragmatism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.01.004. Gstraunthaler, T., & Piber, M. (2007). Performance measurement and accounting: Museums in Austria. Museum Management and Curatorship, 22(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09647770701628628. Guthrie, J. (1998). Application of accrual accounting in the Australian public sector–rhetoric or reality. Financial accountability and management, 14(1), 1–19. Hamilton, J. (1995). The role of the university curator in the 1990s. Museum Management and Curatorship, 14(1), 73–79. Hammond, A., Berry, I., Conkelton, S., Corwin, S., Franks, P., Hart, K., et al. (2006). The role of the university art museum and gallery. Art Journal, 65(3), 20–39. Hancock, G. R., Mueller, R. O., & Stapleton, L. M. (2010). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge. Heesen, A. T. (2018). On the history of the exhibition. Representations, 141(1), 59 LP–59 66. Hines, R. D. (1988). Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality. Accounting, organizations and society, 13(3), 251–261. ICOM. ICOM Statute. (2007). http://icom.museum/the-vision/museum-definition/ International Monetary Fund. (2018). Technical assistance report IMF country report no. 18/249. Jardine, N. (2013). Reflections on the preservation of recent scientific heritage in dispersed university collections. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(4), 735–743. Klamer, A. (2002). Accounting for social and cultural values. De Economist, 150(4), 453–473. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020146202001. Klamer, A. (2016). The value-based approach to cultural economics. Journal of Cultural Economics, 40(4), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-016-9283-8. Kozak, Z. R. (2016). The role of university museums and heritage in the 21st century. The Museum Review, 1(1). Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1057/pal grave.hep.8300169. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix, ..., and an N-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4.

58

L. Corazza et al.

Liguori, M., Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2012). Some like it non-financial. . . politicians’ and managers’ views on the importance of performance information. Public Management Review, 14(7), 903–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.650054. Lourenço, M. C. (2008). Where past, present and future knowledge meet: An overview of university museums and collections in Europe. Museologia Scientifica Memorie, 2, 321–329. Maran, L. (2010). Economia e management dell’università. La governance interna tra efficienza e legittimazione: La governance interna tra efficienza e legittimazione. FrancoAngeli. Martino, V. (2016). University museums and collections: Survey of a widespread cultural heritage. Museologia Scientifica, 10, 42–55. Micallef, F., & Peirson, G. (1997). Financial reporting of cultural, heritage, scientific and community collections. Australian Accounting Review, 7(13), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.18352561.1997.tb00025.x. Miller, P., & Power, M. (2013). Accounting, organizing, and economizing: Connecting accounting research and organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 557–605. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.783668. Ministero dell’Istruzione Università e della Ricerca. (2016). Technical operative manual. Modell, S. (2017). Critical realist accounting research: In search of its emancipatory potential. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 42, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2016.03.001. Moggi, S. (2016). Il sustainability reporting nelle università (Vol. 2). Maggioli Editore. Navrud, S., & Ready, R. C. (Eds.). (2002). Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Neu, D., Cooper, D., & Everett, J. (2001). Critical accounting interventions. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2001.0479. Neumann, R., & Guthrie, J. (2002). The corporatization of research in Australian higher education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5–6), 721–741. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2002. 0557. Nissley, N., & Casey, A. (2002). The politics of the exhibition: Viewing corporate museums through the paradigmatic lens of organizational memory. British Journal of Management, 13 (S2). Palumbo, R. (2012). La valutazione periodica della ricerca nelle discipline economico-aziendali. Una comparazione internazionale (Vol. 911). FrancoAngeli. Plaza, B. (2010). Valuing museums as economic engines: Willingness to pay or discounting of cash-flows? Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(2), 155–162. ISSN 1296-2074. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.culher.2009.06.001. Rentschler, R., & Potter, B. (1996). Accountability versus artistic development: The case for non-profit museums and performing arts organizations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(5), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579610151971. Riegl, A. (1982). The modern cult of monuments: Its character and its origin. Oppositions, 25, 20–51. Rolfo, S., & Finardi, U. (2012). University Third mission in Italy: Organization, faculty attitude and academic specialization. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-012-9284-5. Ruijgrok, E. C. M. (2006). The three economic values of cultural heritage: A case study in the Netherlands. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 7(3), 206–213. ISSN 1296-2074. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.culher.2006.07.002. Salvatore, C. (2011). Il cambiamento della governance delle università italiane come strumento di corretto governo. Rirea. Santagati, F. M. C. (2017). Museums and ANVUR evaluation of the third university mission: As yet an unexpressed potential. Il Capitale Culturale, 16, 379–396. https://doi.org/10.13138/ 2039-2362/1676. Sanz, N., & Bergan, S. (2002). The heritage of European universities (Vol. 548). Council of Europe.

Valuing Universities’ Heritage Assets in Light of the Third Mission of. . .

59

Scott, C. A. (2010). Searching for the “public” in Public Value: Arts and cultural heritage in Australia. Cultural Trends, 19(4), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2010.515003. Shapiro, B. P. (1997). Objectivity, relativism, and truth in external financial reporting: What’s really at stake in the disputes? Accounting. Organizations and Society, 22(2), 165–185. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0361-3682(96)00017-7. Siboni, B., Nardo, M. T., & Sangiorgi, D. (2013). Italian state university contemporary performance plans: An intellectual capital focus? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(3), 414–430. https://doi. org/10.1108/JIC-03-2013-0033. Simpson, A. (2014). Rethinking university museums: Material collections and the changing world of higher education. Museums Australia Magazine, 22(3), 18–22. Stanbury, P. (2000). University museums and collections. Museum International, 52(2), 4–9. Stanton, P. J., & Stanton, P. A. (1997). Governmental accounting for heritage assets: Economic, social implications. International Journal of Social Economics, 24(7/8/9), 988–1006. https:// doi.org/10.1108/03068299710178973. Talas, S., & Lourenço, M. C. (2012). Arranging and rearranging: Planning university heritage for the future. Padova University Press. Tuan, T. H., & Navrud, S. (2008). Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9(3), 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2008.05.001. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. (2005). Recommendation Rec (2005) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the governance and management of university heritage. UNIMORE. (2001). Thematic pathways to explore University Museums collections. Accessed August 20, 2019, from http://www.retemuseiuniversitari.unimore.it/site/en/home.html Universeum – European Academic Heritage Network. (2010). Statute. Accessed January 2020, from https://www.universeumnetwork.eu/docs/doc/UniverseumStatutes_EN.pdf Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006.

Laura Corazza Ph.D. is a Researcher at the Department of Management at the University of Torino (Italy). She is the editor of the Sustainability Report of UniTo. Her teaching and researches cover topics related to Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Stakeholder Engagement. The application of such studies on public universities is one of her main research contexts. Maurizio Cisi is Associate Professor Management at the Department of Management, University of Torino. His latest researches focus on Human Capital reporting, non-financial reporting, as well as, sustainability accounting. He teaches also accounting principles and standards. He is directly responsible of several Third Mission activities for University of Turin, related to job placement, tutoring and international relations. Simone Domenico Scagnelli Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Accounting at the School of Business and Law, in Edith Cowan University, Australia. His teaching and researches focus in the areas of International Accounting, Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, Social Impact Accounting and Behavioral Accounting.

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready? Deborah Agostino, Michela Arnaboldi, and Eleonora Carloni

Abstract This study investigates the extent to which big data support decision making in museums by highlighting the main opportunities, threats and novel requirements connected with the usage of big data for decision making in museums. This study is based on an action research project carried out in three Italian state museums that were provided with an online platform that generated real time (big) data about online users. This platform offered the opportunity to investigate “what” type of big data are used, “who” are the big data users and “how” big data were used by museums decision makers. Results show a contradictory picture about the usage of big data for decision making in museums. Big data are not used alone, but need to be combined with traditional data that support big data interpretation. A central element for big data usage is represented by human resources: even though data are already collected, analysed and integrated by predefined algorithms, the key challenge is about human resources and their required mix of analytical, IT and communication skills. Also the external environment influences the extent of big data usage. Keywords Big data · Social media data · Museums · Decision making · Performance measurement

1 Introduction This study focuses on big data for decision making in museums, shifting the attention from the big data cycle of collecting and analysing data to the issue of big data usage. Existent literature in accounting and cultural heritage claims an opening towards big data showing the opportunities offered by big data in terms of real time reporting and wider dataset (Arnaboldi et al. 2017; Romanelli 2018; D. Agostino (*) · M. Arnaboldi · E. Carloni Department of Management Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_4

61

62

D. Agostino et al.

Pesce et al. 2019). Beside these big data supporters, also some more critical positions can be found, which question the real value provided by big data posing the emphasis on analytics and algorithms as responsible for reducing the space for organizational decision making (e.g. Quattrone 2016; Agostino and Sidorova 2017). This available literature has two main limitations. First, the majority of the studies are theoretical; empirical evidence is still limited and mainly focused on technical and analytical issues (see Sivarajah et al. 2017 for a review) leaving in the background a key feature for accounting: information become knowledge only in the hands of users (Bhimani and Willcocks 2014). Second, current literature focuses on the big data cycle, emphasising the phases from data collection to data visualisation. Again, the usage of big data is often a neglected aspect. This is even more evident in the cultural heritage field, where empirical investigation on big data usage are rather scarce (e.g. Romanelli 2018; Pesce et al. 2019 are a few exceptions). This paper adopts a different perspective, investigating the extent to which the adoption of big data support decision making in museums. This aspect is of primary importance for museums that are called to foster cultural participation (Stevenson et al. 2017). In this scenario, big data offer the opportunity to collect data about users offering personalised services. Empirically this study is based on an action research project in three Italian State Museums that were facing the challenge of using big data from social media, web channels and reputational channels (i.e. TripAdvisor and Google Maps) for internal decision making, through the development of a big data dashboard. Results were interpreted following the three main dimensions that characterises accountability: “what” to measure, “who” is in charge of measuring big data and “how” to use big data measure (Agostino and Arnaboldi 2018). Key findings show that the main challenge for big data usage are human resources, notwithstanding the availability of algorithms and predefined analytical techniques. Human resources play a central role in big data usage with reference to the identification of the most appropriate role for leading the big data decision-making cycle and the required competences and skills for a big-data expert inside museums. Also the external environment of museums affected the big data usage, promoting and limiting at the same time the exploitation of big data for decision making. These insights are unfolded throughout the paper that is structured as follows. First, available literature on big data for decision making is explored, with particular reference to the available contribution on cultural institutions. Then, the action research methodology is detailed followed by the presentation and discussion of the empirical evidence. Finally, some conclusions highlight the main contributions of this study for academics and practitioners.

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready?

63

2 Big Data and Decision Making in Cultural Institutions 2.1

Defining Big Data

“Personal Data is the new oil of the internet and the new currency of the digital world”. This sentence was pronounced by the European Consumer Commissioner, Meglena Kuneva, during the World Economic Forum in 2011 to underline the opportunities connected to the new asset of big data. If during the industrial revolution oil was considered the key assets, nowadays the availability of big data and the computational capacity and competences (analytics) to analyse these data is considered as a driver for competitive advantage (LaValle et al. 2010). Big data have been defined as: “a large volume of complex data (structured and unstructured) from a variety of sources (internal and external) that can support value delivery, performance measurement and establishing competitive advantage” (De Santis and Presti 2018). Big data distinctive features comprise: volume, velocity, variety, veracity, value and variability (Gandomi and Haider 2015). Unlike traditional data, big data are generated from internal and proprietary organizational databases, but also by external sources, such as social media, sensors or open administrative databases. This heterogeneity of sources give rise to data variety, since data come in the format of number, text, videos, hyperlinks or photos; data velocity since they are continuously generated; data volume since the quantity of these data is incomparable with the past. In their original raw dataset, big data are noisy and unstructured, and with limited added value (Al-Htaybat and von AlbertiAlhtaybat 2017). This requires the development of a big data cycle, which facilitates the transformation of large and unstructured data set into a limited amount of valuable information. For this big data cycle to occur, analytics and algorithms are necessary to collect data, reduce the size of the dataset and extract knowledge from a huge amount of data (Arnaboldi et al. 2017). As Chen et al. (2012) underlined, analytics refer to “analytical techniques in applications that are so large (from terabytes to exabytes) and complex (from sensor to social media data) that they require advanced and unique data storage, management, analysis, and visualization technologies” (p. 1166). Nowadays, analytics play a crucial role to value big data with software vendors such as Google, Amazon, IBM or Microsoft that are investing money to provide always more powerful software to retrieve, store and analyse big data. Big data have limited value if they are not associated with the computational capacity of transforming a dataset into usable information for decision-making (LaValle et al. 2010), stimulating a lively debate on the importance of data science as a new model of knowledge production (Priestley and McGrath 2019).

64

2.2

D. Agostino et al.

Big Data and Decision Making in the Heritage Field

The importance of big data for decision making finds contrasting views in current literature. On the one hand, proponents of big data underline their value in offering novel data visualisations (Lindquist 2018), their potentiality to be integrated with official statistical data (Kuempel 2016) and their greater timeliness and completeness. One of the former contributions in this area is that of Bhimani and Willcocks (2014), who underlined how big data favoured the development of different types of knowledge inside organizations and emphasise the big data potentialities for providers of accounting information. Following this wave, the opportunities offered by big data analytics to develop a better, faster and more complete knowledge of the environment have been theoretically discussed (Cao et al. 2015; Warren et al. 2015). The paper by Al-Htaybat and von Alberti-Alhtaybat (2017) is one of the few empirical studies addressing big data reporting. The authors found timing (i.e. real time reporting), accuracy and the prospective nature of reporting (i.e. predictive analytics) as the main benefits of corporate reporting based on big data analytics. With a specific focus on financial accounting, some other scholars acknowledged the benefits for financial accounting for more transparent information (Teoh 2018) or for a deeper understanding of the strategies and practices of high-frequency trading in financial markets (Seddon and Currie 2017). At the same time, also the drawbacks of big data for decision making are highlighted. Some authors acknowledge the dark side of big data in terms of diminishing the realm of action for decision makers with algorithms that are not neutral (Quattrone 2016; Martin 2018). In this respect, Quattrone (2016) questioned the capacity of big data to inform better decision making. His study underlined the risk connected with a data driven society with accountants being fascinated by the dream of perfect information rather than posing questions and being critical. Through an empirical investigation, Agostino and Sidorova (2017) emphasised instead the risks of big data adoption with organisations adapting their online behaviour depending on online actions by users. In other words, rather than users being influenced by the organisation, the opposite behaviour was found: organisation significantly adapted their actions on users’ online activities. Other risks connected with big data usage have been highlighted with reference to the risks for the data protection of individuals and the lack of transparency in collecting data often without transparency of making users aware of this data collection (Federal Trade Commission 2014; Bolognini and Bistolfi 2017; Uluwiyah 2017). While in accounting field, studies offer some reflections about the potentialities and risks of big data usage for decision making (e.g. Agostino and Sidorova 2017), cultural and heritage studies are investigating the big data realm at a slow pace. The available studies provide a technical discussion on how to retrieve or analyse big data in museums (e.g. Hausmann 2012; Chianese and Piccialli 2016; Zhang et al. 2016; Romanelli 2018; Pesce et al. 2019). This literature on big data for decision making in museums provides us with a preliminary picture on the potentialities of big data, with particular reference to the possibility to report information real time

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready?

65

and in a more transparent and complete way. Yet, the majority of these studies are conceptual and theoretically discuss potentialities or risks of big data for decision making in museums. We have to date limited evidence on empirical implementations, adoption and uses of big data inside museums and cultural institutions. This has favoured the emergence of a gap between the premise of big data and reality. This paper contributes to fill this gap by empirically investigating three museums in charge of exploiting big data for decision making.

2.3

Framing Big Data for Decision Making

The investigation of big data for decision making in museums is here framed along three main dimensions that characterises accountability: “what” type of big data are used, “who” are the big data users and “how” big data were used by museums decision makers (Agostino and Arnaboldi 2018). The “what” to measure refers to the technical sphere of big data in terms of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), the data collection process and big data reporting tools. This is the most investigated aspect in the big data literature with several contributions discussing the technical instruments to retrieve, clean, analyse and report big data (i.e. Chianese and Piccialli 2016). Also studies on big data in museums have tackled this sphere recognizing the need of ad hoc computational tools to retrieve and analyse the high volume big dataset (e.g. Zhang et al. 2016). The “who” addresses the organisational dimension of big data, posing the attention on the professional roles involved in the process of collecting, analysing, reporting and interpreting big data. This is a far less investigated sphere. Although there is a wide recognition on the need for ad hoc professional competences (Priestley and McGrath 2019), often other than accountants, with statistical, analytical and information systems skills, we have to date limited evidence about who manages the big data process inside organizations, and museums especially. The “how” is related to the type of usage of big data for decision-making posing the attention on the type of decisions supported by big data and receivers of big data report. In this respect, some literature underlines that algorithms and analytics are driving decision making processes inside organisations (e.g. Martin 2018), while some others suggest that algorithms are relevant and support data reduction, but not enough to drive decision making processes (e.g. Quattrone 2016). Through this dimension, this study will shed light on the approach towards the exploitation of big data in museums.

66

D. Agostino et al.

3 Research Setting The investigated context is that of three Italian state museums, out of the thirty museums that received autonomy by a ministerial Reform in 2014. The reform is called Riforma Franceschini upon the name of the Ministry who promoted it. The main content of the reform can be summarized in two main points. First, state museums, for the first time in Italy, gained financial, scientific and organizational autonomy. This means that museums can have a director with a strategy and a plan to be implemented alongside with a budget to be managed and an annual report to be prepared. For the first time, directors of the museums are appointed with a public bid open worldwide with the aim to have the best managers in the cultural field. The second distinctive aspect of the reform is that the visitor were required to be positioned at the centre of the museum’s strategy, fostering cultural participation. Museums’ activities should not be carried out for the museum itself, following a custodial approach, but audience engagement and attractiveness to a wider audience should be taken into account and become a priority. Within this reform, the digital aspects, and big data in particular, played a central role as underlined several times by the Ministry and its staff in public interviews and public documents: The Italian Ministry of cultural heritage and tourism (MIBACT) is putting at the centre communication and promotion offices of museums. The Ministry can, in this way, enhance the creation of an online network of Italian museums leveraging on web and social media campaigns, gaming and leisure activities on the web to engage a wider public on museums and cultural heritage sites” (Musei Italiani 2014–2017)

The importance of the digital turn was also rendered visible with two main concrete actions by the central government. The first action was a strong promotion of social media usage, with the cultural direction of the central government opening social media pages on Facebook and Twitter and promoting social communication with the hashtag #museitaliani. This was intended to create an online community between the online audience and the network of Italian museums. Second, a concrete analytical tool was developed by the central government and rendered available to each autonomous museum. The tool consisted of a digital platform that, upon registration, provided a real time and detailed view of online engagement, sentiment and content of audience of museum. Alongside the individual access by museums, also a comparative offline report was annually rendered available to the general public ranking museums on the basis of a synthetic index derived from a combination of the big data analytics calculated (see Fig. 1). Data showed the frequency of online interactions, the content of the interaction and the reputation of the museum by the general public. Big data, in this dashboard provided to museums, referred to web data, data from reputational channels (e.g. Tripadvisor or Google Maps) and social media data. In this context, the ambition of museum directors was the creation of a big data dashboard to report online data generated by social media, web and reputational channels such as Tripadvisor or Google map. These data had to be reported

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready? 300

67 90 87.5

200

85 100 0 Gen '16

82.5

Fed '16 Mar '16 Contenuti positivi

Apr '16 Mag '16 Contenuti neutri

Giu '16 Lug '16 Ago '16 Contenuti negativi % Sentiment

80 Set '16

Fig. 1 Example of analytics provided by the online platform by the central government

alongside with other traditional data already collected by museums: revenues, costs, ticketing data. This need started the action research project.

4 Research Design This study adopts an action research approach carried out between February 2016 and March 2018 in three Italian state museums.1 The choice of the action research lies in the possibilities to investigate a practical concern on the field acting with the studied organization (Eden and Huxham 1996). This is particularly suitable to explore the contribution of big data for decision making in museums. The action research methodology provides the main benefits of acting on a practical concern while at the same time addressing a theoretical problem (Avison et al. 2001). The practical problem addressed was represented by the valorisation of big data. Operationally, this consisted into the development of a big data dashboard to report about museum online performance and reputation. The big data dashboard was expected to report both big data derived from online and web channels as well as traditional financial and non-financial data about the museum (e.g. revenues, costs, customer satisfaction data or amount of ticket sold). The theoretical problem, similarly, refers to the challenges for museums to endorse big data for decision-making. The distinctive aspect of action research is the active involvement of researchers in the studied setting (Eden and Huxham 1996). Both the authors were actively involved in the three museums supporting them methodologically in the activities of big data collection, analysis, reporting and interpretation. The project has been activated with one researcher who was contacted by one museum director asking for a methodological support in the process of valuing the big data available from the online platform, giving rise to a big data dashboard. Once the agreement on the project was achieved between the researcher and the director, other two directors facing the same issues decided to join the activities. This ensured a high commitment by the three museums directors and their staff during the entire

1

For confidentiality reasons the name of the museums are keep anonimous as well as the name of the interviewees.

68

D. Agostino et al.

duration of the project. The three museums are located in different areas in Italy, with different types of collections and dimensions. However, they all share some common features. First, they are not ranked as the most visited museums in Italy, posing the issue of audience engagement and cultural participation as a central aspect. Second, they are not located in the most famous Italian touristic cities, again posing the issue of attractiveness as crucial. The three directors of the museums, according to the Reform, were newly appointed at the end of 2015. They had a similar background covering managerial positions in cultural institutions worldwide, while having a deep expertise in cultural heritage. This was a crucial aspect to move away museums from the traditional view of custodial approach.

4.1

Data Collection and Data Analysis

Various data collection methods were used: face-to-face meetings, interviews, observations, documents and archives, and external information (e.g. newspaper, websites and analytics). Face-to-face meetings represent the primary source of data. Five plenary meetings were organized between the research group and directors of the three museums. These meetings occurred at different stages of the research project: one at the beginning of the project to plan activities, three ongoing meetings to keep track of advancements and one final meetings. Moreover, a final public presentation to journalists was held to public disclose the main results of the study. These meetings were particularly useful to share the big data dashboard, the organizational roles involved and the type of big data usage by museum directors. Interviews and additional meetings were also organized in each museum, involving also museums staff. The organization of the three museums was very similar with the presence of five organisational areas, as required by the regulation for state museums: administration and finance, communication and marketing, curatorship, facility and security management, education. Each of these areas was composed of a responsible role with his/her operative staff. Interviews were carried out with each unit of the staff of the museum, achieving 415 units of staff interviewed. Individual interviews to all the units of the museum staff were also possible because the authors collected data about workload of each employees on a set of museum activities previously identified. This activity was particularly useful (although not central in the development of the big data dashboard) to grasp the competences of the museum staff and their primary activities, compared with the need to introduce novel activities for big data management. Documents and archives of the three museums represent a further data source. These comprise public documents such as annual reports, sustainability reports, budget plans and strategic plan. Also internal data not available to the general public were accessed. These include also the access to the online tool provided by the central government that was particularly useful to grasp the content and structure of already available big data analytics for museums. Finally, external sources in the

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready?

69

form of newspapers, web and social media data were collected during the entire period of analysis. The process of data analysis was highly iterative, going back and forth between empirical material and theory, generating a plausible fit between theory, problems and data (Ahrens and Chapman 2006). One of the most well-known limit of actions research is related to its distinctive feature: the active involvement of researchers that can be a source of bias (Malina and Selto 2001). To overcome sources of bias, we constantly verify data between researchers, and discuss emergent insights with museum directors.

5 Findings Results are here presented following the three dimensions of “what” to measure, “who” measures and “how” big data are used. Alongside the discussion of these dimensions, challenges connected with big data for accounting will be detailed.

5.1

“What”

“What” to measure is connected with the technical sphere of the big data cycle, which comprises data collection and cleaning, data analysis and data reporting. These issues were the first element of discussions for museum directors when starting the big data project. The data collection activity was not an element of discussion since there was the availability of the ministerial online platform that allowed a real time visualisation of the online reputation of each museum. The most debated aspect related to the type of traditional data to be collected and reported alongside big data, as highlighted in this dialogue: We should include also data about why the audience does not come to my museum. In addition to the perception of our audience gained with analytics, we might think about collecting data on the reason why people prefer to go somewhere else rather than here. (Director, Museum A) I do not think this can be feasible. If I remember correctly, we do not have this data in the requested document to fill for the ministry nor in the online tool (Administrative staff, Museum B) But this is not our role, we have to enhance the value of our arts collections, develop further studies about them. Potential audience should not be our preoccupation (Curator, Museum B)

This dialogue underlined the first need for museum directors to combine big data with other traditional data. Big data were considered a precious source of information to support decision making when linked to other traditional data, such as those from annual report of customer satisfaction survey:

70

D. Agostino et al. We run a post-visit customer satisfaction survey three times a year, we have online ticketing data, data from Facebook, Instagram and TripAdvisor, from our financial statements and onsite ticketing. I would like to put all this together and create a single profile per visitor. If I know a visitor’s gender, nationality, education, age, how they respond to my social media posts, when they buy tickets and where they go in the museum, then I can tailor my services and promotions to that user. In the long term, this allows us to engage more closely and lastingly with our visitors. (Director, Museum C)

As it emerges from this quote, the research project was pushed toward the collection and analysis of big data that would have to be reported and visualised alongside with financial and non-financial data already available in museums.

5.2

“Who”

“Who” is in charge of managing big data supported the exploration of the organizational roles involved in the process of big data collection, analysis, reporting and interpretation. In the three investigated museums, the organisational roles in charge of managing big data varied between the communication and digital office and museum director themselves. Notwithstanding the type of organizational role involved, the development of the big data dashboard did not find a unique leading organisational roles, but various actors were involved in specific phases, often with some conflicting perspectives. The staff from the administrative and finance area did not want to be engaged in the big data process. Their main preoccupation was that of ensuring compliance to the central government requirements and respecting deadlines and external requests. This staff was mainly in charge of preparing and delivering documents to the central government, without questioning the content or being propositive on the further elaboration derived from the collected data. This was true also with reference to the big data process: administrative staff did not want to be engaged since it was outside of the assigned roles by the central government. This quote provide an example: The director asked me to ask me to periodically check the online platform and prepare a report with the key insights. I cannot do this. This is not my role; I’m in charge of budget, annual report. A cannot analyse and look at online data (Administrative Staff, Museum C).

Also curators were sceptical on big data usage, although with a different position than the administrative staff. They are focused on the tutorship, curatorship, maintenance and restoration of arts collection and heritage assets. Their main purpose is enhancing the value of the collection, without posing the attention on visitors or external accessibility to the collection to a wider and more generic public. They know every single detail of each art piece inside the museum and their main preoccupation is the preservation and knowledge sharing by peers. Their higher but niche expertise was visible in these quotes: Look at this [pointing at a book of around 1000 pages]. This is the main result of our two years activities: we have scanned our collection, inserted the pictures here and provided a very detailed technical description for each of them. Now you can come here, purchase the

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready?

71

book and access to each of this single details that were previously dispersed (Curator, Museum A)

The detailed and niche language used by professional is also visible in the description of the heritage asset and artworks. This is one example of sentence used to describe a painting: The work shows the debt to Michelangelo’s mannerism in cold chromatic tones and in the complex and crowded composition, played on the overlapping of planes. The patheticism of the figures can be traced back to the climate and the new rules of the Catholic CounterReformation

Curators were not against big data, but they mainly ignored the big data revolution, considering it useless to support their activity as emergent from this sentence: I know that you are working on the development of a big data dashboard. I do not know exactly what you want to achieve, but I’m not convinced about the importance of this activity. Our mission should be the preservation of our collection, the detailed analysis of our pieces . . . this is what makes the museum alive: collection, not online reviews (Curator, Museum B)

While curators and administrative staff ignored or were sceptical about the development of a big data dashboard, museum directors were the more enthusiastic. Museum directors were recently appointed in 2015 by the Reform and were among the last unit of staff of the museum. They endorsed a more business oriented approach, being preoccupied by fundraising and balancing records, attractiveness and visitors’ satisfaction. The managerial style of museums’ director appeared in some of their sentences: I’ve decided to rent [Name of the museum omitted] to obtain additional funding. I’ve been criticised internally by curators, but I had no choice to complement the reduced funding if I wanted to financially survive (Director, Museum B) I decided to introduce a duck, the royal duck in my museum, as a game on Facebook, to create awareness and engagement around my activities. It might look as an activity with limited cultural value, but this is not true. It was a more accessible way to let the museum known to the wider public. Social media are widely accessed by everyone and, Facebook especially, allowed us to enter a new target of potential visitors (Director, Museum C) Fundraising and audience enlargement and engagement are my priorities. I’m hardly working on these issues with the establishment of open cinema in the main square of the museum during summer nights. This is a way of attracting people for a different event, but let them know that the museum has a cultural offer as well (Director, Museum A)

Museum directors were the most committed role towards big data analytics, but did not have enough competences to lead the entire process. For this reason, the more technical activities were carried out by the researchers following the requests by museum directors: I would like to understand the success of the online promotion of museum activities. I’m working a lot with the communication staff to use social media for the promotion of leisure activity inside the museum. The staff is launching these initiatives, but I would like to have some more details on the online reactions, comments, perceptions and linkage with ticket sold (Director, Museum A)

72

D. Agostino et al.

Fig. 2 Insight from the big data dashboard. Network of social media users of the three museums Why didn’t you search for a data analysts to support your communication staff? This role could be precious in supporting big data analysis and interpretation (Researcher A) I cannot hire new staff. Internal museum staff is dependent on the central government. This is only a partial autonomy. I’m autonomous on my budget and strategic plan, but I cannot leverage on human resources, who still depend on the Ministry (Director, Museum A).

This dialogue underlines the desire by directors to grasp behind the usage of online tool, but also the difficulties to find internal staff with adequate competences, not lastly because of the constraints by the central government.

5.3

“How”

The “how” entails the type of big data usage with reference to the big data support to decision making. Notwithstanding the researchers’ involvement in the technical phases of big data collection, big data integration with traditional data, computation of performance indicators and data visualisation, difficulties were still visible in terms of big data interpretation to support decision making. These difficulties were related to a deep understanding of the collected data, but also to the trade-off between using big data and solving every day, and urgent, contingencies. With reference to big data interpretation, difficulties in understanding the meaning of the collected data were visible in meetings where the big data dashboard was discussed. These difficulties, although with some nuances were common to all the professional roles inside the museums. For example, when discussing the online network of the three museum derived from social media analytics (see Fig. 2), different reactions were visible. Curator: These analytics are nice, but we are posing the attention on analytics and the network of online audience when internally we are still struggling with the creation of online databases for our heritage assets. Administrative staff: This is true. We received this opportunities by the Ministry. We are in the limelight to become digital and modern, but every month I prepare data for central government on paper because this is the governmental format for official data communication

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready?

73

These quotes underlined mixed feelings between the desire to discover more insights and the worries of not being able to manage this new type of data. This was true for both the already available online platform and for the newly developed big data dashboard. In both of the cases, the researchers support was needed to provide insights on the approach adopted to the visualised measures and the meaning of the visualisation provided. After the initial enthusiasm about the newly developed big data dashboard, a further difficult in using data was related to the trade-off between using big data and devoting time to solving every day, and urgent, contingencies: The big data analytic side of the report is fascinating and insightful, but real time data to be used need to be showed real time to take immediate action. Inside our museum, we are not ready to work real time. We are slow, administrative times are slow. The regulation is asking us to become digital, but they send us requests on paper and they ask three times in a year the same data on revenues in different format. (Director MRG) You are right. I’ve autonomy, but just on some issues. I receive almost everyday a new data request by the central government. Data are open, data are already available, but still they increase the amount of data they’re asking us. The movement towards a real time reporting is too much for us in this moment. We are not ready not because we do not want, but because the central government does not give us the instruments to became fast and flexible (Director MRT)

The problem of selecting whether to dedicate effort to big data or everyday contingencies was particularly connected to the lack of a professional role with big data competences and the limited diffusion of analytical skills inside the three museums: I’m not convinced about the inclusion of social media data and online data. They are useful and provide nice insights, like the identification of influencers or the most engaging online posts. However, they are not of immediate comprehension as a financial data or a likert scale about customer satisfaction. If I ask for a financial data, almost everyone inside the organization can retrieve and interpret correctly my request and the data retrieved. It is not the same for big data analytics. They are subject to multiple interpretation and I have not a big data expert that can mediate between the different internal roles to collect and explain these data (Director, PD). My main worry is even more basical. How can I introduce this system in my organization if my internal staff in front of a pdf file, cannot use the ‘round view’ bottom to turn the picture in the right position? I need to be honest: this report is really nice, but I do not have internal people to run the system autonomously (Director MRG) This is not my situation. I have a devoted staff to communication. They know social media, big data and analytics very well, but they are not in charge of report. Reports and data analysis are in charge of the administrative staff, but the national regulation assign them the functions of financial data reporting and communication to central government. This is not in their realm of competences. I need to think about who should be responsible for this; it is something in between communication and administrative office, but we do not have transversal roles (Director, MRT)

These results highlights the complexities behind big data adoption inside museums, which went far beyond the technical problems connected with big data collection and analysis. Big data became an organizational concern, affecting human

74

D. Agostino et al.

resources and their competences. The next section further discusses and interprets these results posing the emphasis on the academic and practitioner contributions.

6 Discussion and Conclusion Recent years have flourished with discussions and commentaries on the potentialities of big data for decision making, highlighting the benefits of timeliness, completeness and transparency of the information alongside faster and better-informed decision-making processes (Agostino and Arnaboldi 2017; Rogge et al. 2017; Romanelli 2018; Pesce et al. 2019). However, within this fast moving world of big data, there is to date limited empirical evidence about how big data are adopted in practice in cultural institutions and their role in supporting decision making. This study addresses this gap by investigating the development and usage of a big data dashboard in three Italian state museums that are facing the challenge of exploiting big data in their decision-making processes. Results showed the key challenges associated with big data usage in museums. The first challenge is related to the centrality of human resources in the process of big data usage. Although analytics are the building block of big data usage, they are not enough for enhancing a big data driven decision-making process. Human resources are the real key asset that drives the entire process in terms of: selecting the type of data to be collected and analysed, identify the most appropriate Key Performance Indicators, identify the adequate reporting tool and, above all, interpret data. This aspect was particularly visible in the investigated museums, where the existence of a predefined online tool for big data was not enough for enhancing the decision-making process. Human resources and, in particular, museums directors, were engaged in making sense and interpreting data, but also in selecting the most appropriate data visualisation. The second challenge, connected to the previous one, refers to the required competences and skills that the big data decision maker should have. This is concerned to the “who” dimension previously analysed. For the big data process to take place, a set of competences were found as central: statistical and analytical competences to understand the methodologies behind data selection and data analysis; information technology competences to understand the logic behind the approaches in data collection and data filtering; communication competences to understand the social media dynamics of post, interactions, engagement and connected terminology (e.g. share, virality, retweet, impression . . .). In the action research project, the research team supported the entire big data cycle from the early phase of data collection until data visualisation and interpretation. Yet interviews and plenary meetings highlight the absence of a unique organisational role that supervises all the phases. While social media terminology was overseen by the communication staff (although without social media professional background), the information technology and statistical competences were mainly absent. This result should stimulate some reflections on the professional roles currently present inside

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready?

75

museums: although there are some roles in charge of managing the communication, they are not enough to lead the entire big data cycle. A hybrid role between accountant, communication and data analyst should be enhanced and an ad hoc training could have been developed. The third challenge focuses on the external environment, which should provide a fertile ground for a big data decision-making process to take place. In the empirical setting of the Italian museums, a lot of pressure by the central government has been provided on the importance to rely on big data. This was particularly visible with the online platform rendered available for museums. However, museums’ actions are paced by deadlines defined by external impositions and the majority of the internal actions cannot be implemented without an authorization from the central government. This is particularly true for internal staff that depends hierarchically from the central ministry and not from the museum management, limiting the leverages on hiring, education and training activities of museums. This incoherence between the central pressure to innovate, but without offering enough leverages reckons the old style bureaucracy that renders very difficult a real exploitation of the potentialities of real time decision-making offered by novel technologies. These results offer a specific example from Italian state museum, but can serve museum managers in charge of exploiting big data in their decision making processes offering them some advices and elements of attention for the big data decision making process to take place. From an academic perspective, this study contributes to the emergent literature on big data for museum management and accountability (Romanelli 2018; Pesce et al. 2019). While the majority of the studies on big data conceptually discusses benefits and pitfalls of big data, this study offers an empirical application of big data in museums, by showing the technical and organizational difficulties connected with the big data usage for decision making. These insights moves forward the debate on big data for museums questioning whether museums are ready for big data and for exploiting their benefits in their decision making activities. This study also underlined the complexity of accounting in museums and arts institutions, by proposing some reflections on the heterogeneous professional roles that coexist and also conflicts, inside museums when dealing with big-data. Some recent studies have showed a different usefulness of measures in museums depending on the influential group they serve and the risks of adopting private style performance measures in a context where not all the activities can be measured (Abdullah et al. 2018). This study enhance the debate about accounting and accountability in museums posing the emphasis on the usefulness, opportunities and problems connected with the exploitation of big data analytics in this field. It is important to underline the main limitation of this study, which is related to the investigation in three museums; hence, this study cannot be generalise elsewhere. Further research is needed to provide a wider spectrum about big data usage in cultural institutions, focusing on the type of analytical tools available, the professional roles involved or the type of reports and visualisation offered. Yet we think that our contribution has provided a novel practical case that can push further academic debate, but also serve museums practitioners in charge of big data usage.

76

D. Agostino et al.

References Abdullah, A., Khadaroo, I., & Napier, C. J. (2018). Managing the performance of arts organization: Pursuing heterogeneity objectives in an era of austerity. The British Accounting Review, 50(2), 174–184. Agostino, D., & Arnaboldi, M. (2017). Social media data used in the measurement of public services effectiveness: Empirical evidence from Twitter in higher education institutions. Public Policy and Administration, 32(4), 296–322. Agostino, D., & Arnaboldi, M. (2018). Performance measurement systems in public service networks. The what, who and how of control. Financial Accountability and Management, 34 (2), 103–116. Agostino, D., & Sidorova, Y. (2017). How social media reshapes action on distant customers: Some empirical evidence. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(4), 777–794. Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting Organizations and Society, 31(8), 819–841. Al-Htaybat, K., & von Alberti-Alhtaybat, L. (2017). Big data and corporate reporting: Impacts and paradoxes. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(4), 850–873. Arnaboldi, M., Busco, C., & Cuganesan, S. (2017). Accounting, accountability, social media and big data: Revolution or hype? Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(4), 762–766. Avison, D., Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2001). Controlling action research projects. Information Technology and People, 14(1), 28–45. Bhimani, A., & Willcocks, L. (2014). Digitisation, ‘big data’ and the transformation of accounting information. Accounting and Business Research, 44(4), 469–490. Bolognini, L., & Bistolfi, C. (2017). Pseudonymization and impacts of Big (personal/anonymous) Data processing in the transition from the Directive 95/46/EC to the new EU General Data Protection Regulation. Computer Law and Security Review, 33(2), 171–181. Cao, M., Chychyla, R., & Stewart, T. (2015). Big data analytics in financial statement audits. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 423–429. Chen, H., Chiang, R. H. L., & Storey, V. D. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165–1188. Chianese, A., & Piccialli, F. (2016). A perspective on applications of in-memory and associative approaches supporting cultural big data analytics. International Journal of Computational Science and Engineering, 16(3), 219–233. De Santis, F., & Presti, C. (2018). The relationship between intellectual capital and big data: A review. Meditari Accountancy Research, 26(3), 361–380. Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for the study of organizations. Handbook of Organizational Studies, 52, 526–542. Federal Trade Commission. (2014). Data brokers: A call for transparency and accountability. Data Brokers and the Need for Transparency and Accountability. Accessed August, 2019, from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountabil ity-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf Gandomi, A., & Haider, M. (2015). Beyond the hype: big data concepts, methods and analytics. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 137–144. Hausmann, A. (2012). The importance of word of mouth for museums: An analytical framework. International Journal of Arts Management, 14(3), 32–43. Kuempel, A. (2016). The invisible middlemen: A critique and call for reform of the data broker industry. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 36(1), 207–234. LaValle, S., Hopkins, M. S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., & Kruschwitz, N. (2010). Analytics: The new path to value. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1), 1–25. Lindquist, E. A. (2018). Visualization practice and government: Strategic investments for more democratic governance. Public Administration and Information Technology, 25, 225–246.

Big Data for Decision Making: Are Museums Ready?

77

Malina, M. A., & Selto, F. H. (2001). Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 13 (1), 47–90. Martin, K. (2018). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16. Musei Italiani. (2014–2017). L’esperienza dei primi direttori dei musei autonomi. Report presented on 13th November 2017 in Roma, Terme di Diocleziano. Accessed July, 2019, from http:// www.camera.it/temiap/allegati/2018/02/16/OCD177-3381.pdf Pesce, D., Neirotti, P., & Paolucci, E. (2019). When culture meets digital platforms: Value creation and stakeholders’ alignment in big data use. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(15), 1883–1903. Priestley, J., & McGrath, R. J. (2019). The evolution of data science: A new mode of knowledge production. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 97–109. Quattrone, P. (2016). Management accounting goes digital: Will the move make it wiser? Management Accounting Research, 31, 118–122. Rogge, N., Agasisti, T., & De Witte, K. (2017). Big data and the measurement of public organizations’ performance and efficiency: The state-of-the-art. Public Policy and Administration, 32 (4), 263–281. Romanelli, M. (2018). Museums creating value and developing intellectual capital by technology. Meditari Accountancy Research, 26(3), 483–498. Seddon, J. J. J. M., & Currie, W. L. (2017). A model for unpacking big data analytics in highfrequency trading. Journal of Business Research, 70, 300–307. Sivarajah, U., Kamal, M., Irani, Z., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Critical analysis of big data challenges and analytical methods. Journal of Business Research, 70, 263–286. Stevenson, D., Balling, G., & Kann-Rasmussen, N. (2017). Cultural participation in Europe: Shared problem or shared problematisation? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23(1), 89–106. Teoh, S. H. (2018). The promise and challenge of new datasets for accounting research. Accounting Organizations and Society, 68–69, 109–117. Uluwiyah, A. (2017). Trusted big data for official statistics: Study case: Statistics Indonesia (BPS). 2016 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation, ICITSI 2016 – Proceedings, art. no. 7858196. Warren, J. D., Moffitt, K. C., & Byrnes, P. (2015). How big data will change accounting. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 397–407. Zhang, G., Yang, Y., Zhai, X., Huang, W., & Wang, J., (2016). Public cultural big data analysis platform, 2016 IEEE second international conference on multimedia big data (BigMM) (pp. 398–403), Taipei. Deborah Agostino is Associate Professor at Politecnico di Milano, where she teaches financial and management accounting in undergraduate and executive courses. Her main research activity is related to the role of big data, analytics and digitalization in cultural institutions. She published over 50 contributions in academic journals and conference proceedings on the subject of performance measurement and management in public sector and cultural institutions. Michela Arnaboldi is full professor in Accounting Finance and Control at Politecnico di Milano, where she is part of the PhD Board. Her Research activity focused on two interrelated stream. The first is the use of analytics in decision making and performance management. The second stream analyse the change in the public and cultural institutions due to analytics and more generally digital technologies.

78

D. Agostino et al.

Eleonora Carloni is a PhD Candidate in Management Engineering at Politecnico di Milano. She worked as a young researcher at the Observatory in Digital Innovations in Arts and Cultural Heritage of Politecnico di Milano and as a strategy expert in a design-led consultancy agency. She is now supporting teaching activity in management accounting in an undergraduate course. Her current research activity is related to corporate museums and their contribution to corporations, by means of digital technologies.

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the Archaeological Park of Paestum Francesca Manes-Rossi and Marco Bisogno

Abstract The chapter analyses the influence that managerial autonomy may play in the role of human resources in cultural organisations. Based on the Old Institutional Economics approach and investigating organisational rules and routines, the chapter examines the case of the Archaeological Park of Paestum, an autonomous museum and archaeological site of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Tourism. Through interviews, reports, data collected and ethnographic observations, the research reveals how managerial autonomy affects roles and routines, positively contributing to the development of human resources and the overall performance. Findings reveal that the introduction of managerial autonomy in cultural organisations, coupled with the leadership ability of the Director, have further enhanced human resources’ skills and competences, one of the key components of cultural organisations. The role played by professional managers has also improved the entire performance of the organisation. The research unveils the implications of managerial autonomy on the organisational rules and routines and the consequent effects on human resources. The effects of these changes on the overall performance of a cultural organisation are also discussed, offering new outlooks on managerial changes. Keywords Cultural organisations · Archaeological park of Paestum · Human resources · Organisational routines · Case-study

F. Manes-Rossi (*) Department of Economics, Management and Institutions, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy e-mail: [email protected] M. Bisogno Department of Management and Innovation Systems, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_5

79

80

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

1 Introduction Public-sector cultural organisations have been traditionally managed by adopting a conservative culture, based on a bureaucratic approach. However, reforms inspired by the New Public Management (NPM) (Hood 1991; Kickert 1997; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011) provoked the development of new forms of managerialism in this area. Gaining a managerial autonomy is one of the key factors of this wide process of reform. Indeed, managerial autonomy has determined (and it is still determining) an in-depth changing process, based on the redefinition of strategic objectives and the implementation of a managerial culture focused on the output and the outcome. More specifically, managerial autonomy is changing the organisational behaviour of managers and employees in cultural organisations. While human resources were not adequately appraised under the traditional bureaucratic approach, mainly playing a “passive” role, the managerial autonomy is increasing their awareness of the mediator and active role they could play between the organisation itself and both the visitors and the territory (Marzano and Castellini 2018). This study aims to investigate the effect of the cultural organisations’ autonomy on the development of human resources, changing their roles and the organisational routines, unveiling the related impact on the overall performance. From a theoretical perspective, this study firstly considers the role of the managerial autonomy in an NPM perspective (Liguori 2012; Liguori and Steccolini 2012), and then adopts the Old Institutional Economics (OIE) approach (Scapens 1990; Burns and Scapens 2000). OIE appears to be the proper lens through which changes, occurred in organisational rules and routines, can be observed as a consequence of managerial innovations (Burns and Scapens 2000), enhancing the role of human resources. Furthermore, the effects on the overall performance and the relationship with the visitors, the donors and the local community are discussed. To this end, a case study method is adopted (Scapens 1990; Ahrens and Chapman 2006) by analysing the experience of the Archaeological Park of Paestum (hereafter PAE), an autonomous museum and archaeological site of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Tourism. The case study follows an ethnographic approach through documentary sources, interviews, data and observations in order to examine the effect on human resources due to the autonomy of the PAE (Scapens 1990). Findings from this study underline the importance of the managerial autonomy of public-cultural organisations, as it can strengthen leadership and induce the implementation of new organisational routines, positively affecting the behaviour of managers and employees, as well as the overall performance. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the situation of cultural heritage in Italy, summarising the main changes that have occurred in the last decades. Section 3 depicts the theoretical background, framing the research in the OIE in. order to create the point of reference for the analysis. Section 4 explains the research design and methodology, while in Sect. 5 the reader is briefly introduced to the case study of the PAE. Section 6 discusses the results

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the. . .

81

collected, by adopting the theoretical lens depicted above, and Sect. 7 concludes, setting out the limitations and the practical and theoretical consequences of the research.

2 The Process of Reform in Italian Heritage Assets Management Italy is the country with the richest cultural heritage in the world (Settis 2002). To manage and preserve this immense treasure, in 1975 a specific Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Tourism (MiBACT) was established. In-depth changes and incisive reforms have taken place since the ’90s regarding the Ministry’s organisation, including a merger with performing, contemporary arts and films. As a consequence, several Directorates were constituted, each of them devoted to the management of a specific area. Although the ownership of cultural assets can be public or private, in Italy they are considered of public interest and thus subject to public laws (Zan et al. 2007). Therefore, until the ’90s, the Ministry has taken care of both the protection and the managerial functions. Following a tendency implemented in Italian public-sector organisations, specific norms were issued to affirm a culture of “economising” in the management of heritage assets, in order to render each entity self-sufficient through its own revenue deriving from exhibitions, visitor’s entertainment and marketing practices. For instance, the so-called Ronchey Law, in 1993, introduced the possibility to outsource certain activities (i.e. publishing services, museum shops, restaurants and coffee shops) to private entities, in order to obtain higher efficiency and effectiveness. In 1998, taking advantage of the experience acquired in Pompeii (Zan et al. 2018), act no. 368 introduced the “regional superintendences” to reinforce the idea of decentralisation and federalisation of functions. Therefore, a model akin to the majority of the public services was implemented, conferring to the Italian Regions a wide regulatory and managerial power. For the most significant superitendences (Pompeii, Rome and four Museum hubs: Florence, Naples, Rome and Venice), some degree of autonomy was recognised, introducing a director and a management board, a financial report to control income and expenditure and the possibility of retaining revenue obtained (Bonini Baraldi 2014; Zan et al. 2018). A relevant novelty of the reform consists of the possibility for a superintendence to endorse conservation projects which have been approved by the board of directors, instead of waiting for ministerial authorization, utilising the revenue from tickets to cover the related expenditure (Ferri and Zan 2019). However, the overall result of all these reforms was an increase in bureaucratic requirements, coupled with a sort of confusion in the management of heritage assets. In fact, while the Ministry lost part of its power, to be shared with the regions, the creation of different units resulted in fragmentation in the management of cultural heritage (Bonini Baraldi 2007). It is

82

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

worth noticing that neither superintendences, nor national museums gain total autonomy, remaining dependent on the Ministry for human and financial resources (Bonini Baraldi 2014). The Cultural Heritage Code, in 2004, was the first code to comprehend all rules related to the protection, conservation and enhancement of cultural assets, allowing and regulating the management of these assets to private and public organisations. Even if the code evolves towards an increasing autonomy of cultural organisations, nonetheless the limited amount of financial resources in the national budget, devoted to cultural heritage, still persists, creating a strong uncertainty on the budget available for superintendents and limiting their ability in programming activities. For instance, the Ministry retains the power to assign up to 30% of the revenue obtained by “autonomous superintendences” (Pompeii, Rome, Venice, and so on) to other entities; in case of cuts to the national budget, the central government can reduce part of the funds already assigned; autonomous superintendences cannot include their own revenue in their budget, thus creating a further obstacle to their ability in managing external resources. Among the several legislative changes introduced during the following decade, it is worthy of notice the transfer of functions in the field of tourism to the same Ministry occurred in 2013 (Act no. 71/2013). An in-depth transformation to the MiBACT’s structure was induced by the Decree no. 171 in 2014, the so-called Franceschini’s Reform, which has determined an increased autonomy through participative management and innovation in the domain of Italian heritage assets. In accordance with the new law, the organisation of the Ministry has been deeply changed, by establishing a Directorate of Museum (Direzione generale dei Musei), Regional Museum Centers (Poli Museali Regionali), the recognition of a status of special autonomy for more than thirty cultural institutes, and the merges of superintendences, coupled with the appointment of Directors for autonomous institutes under a private contract (Marzano and Castellini 2018). The new governance model drawn by the reform represents the main innovation, giving rise to the establishment of a national museum system, favouring partnerships with other private and public institutions and introducing the possibility of network governance, which has already proven to be successful in public cultural organisations (Manes-Rossi et al. 2018; Minuti et al. 2012). However, despite the claimed autonomy, museums still do not have a regulatory capacity, which pertains to the Ministry or the region, depending on the specific issue. Furthermore, the directors are not allowed to employ staff members directly. They are responsible for the management of the museum, the organisation of the exhibits, the conservation, protection and promotion of the heritage assets under their control. The directors can also collect financial resources through sponsorships and donations, as well as regulate the entrance fee. The resources collected can be employed for carrying out activities and investments, developing relationships and, ultimately, improving the reputation of the organisation (Marzano and Castellini 2018). Nonetheless, as already stated, “the ‘original sin’—the lack of control of

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the. . .

83

human resources and the organization of labour—is still in place” (Zan et al. 2018: 535). Due to the autonomy in managing their activities, autonomous museums “can become a central node for relations between other cultural institutes and the territory” (Marzano and Castellini 2018: 215). Furthermore, directors can stipulate agreements with institutional and private partners, entering into contracts and managing the resources collected within the budget approved by a Board of Directors. Full accountability is mandatory, in accordance with the transparency law involving all Italian public administrations since 2013. Consequently, budgets, annual reports and performance plans must be made available on the website of each organisation. The reform introduced in 2014 still contains some conceptual contradictions, between centralisation and decentralisation, autonomy and dependency, with different degrees of accountability characterising the different organisations working in the cultural domain (Forte 2015). These limitations are not discussed here, since they go beyond the boundaries of the main research question of this study.1

3 Autonomy, Routines and Changes: The Old Institutional Economic Approach Public cultural organisations—such as museums, public libraries, archaeological areas, and so on—are experiencing important managerial innovations. While the traditional managerial style, as for other public organisations, was principally based on a bureaucratic approach, the new forms of managerialism implemented more recently are centred on a different managerial culture, focused on output and outcome (Zan 2000). One of the critical aspects of the resultant in-depth process of change is the managerial autonomy achieved by public cultural organisations. As a matter of fact, the debate concerning the autonomy of this kind of organisations has been around for decades, being considered as a part of the NPM reforms (Belfiore 2004). It has been claimed that the lack of autonomy can severely affect the managerial style of public cultural organisations, especially the management of both financial and human resources, with the main risk being that they remain in a sort of limbo or “structural purgatory” (Zan et al. 2007). The new forms of managerialism have been introduced as a possible solution to several challenges, such as the reduction in resources available by central governments and the increasing competition in the world of art and tourism, coupled with a large number of reforms inspired by the NPM (Hood 1991; Kickert 1997; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). In fact, as in many public-sector entities, also within public cultural organisations the attention has shifted from what cultural organisations

1

Further changes in the structure of the Ministry have been requested by a recent decree in July 2018, reassigning functions related to tourism to a different Ministry (agricultural and forests). In the next years, further changes may derive in the management of heritage in Italy.

84

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

should do, towards how they perform, leading to the utilisation of performance indicators, both suggested by scholars (Weil 1994; Chiaravalloti and Piber 2011; Manes-Rossi et al. 2016a) and developed by national and international organisations (ICOM, DCMS,2 2016; NEA3; MiBACT). However, these indicators, on the one hand, may provide an impression of rationality and efficiency, with scarce attention to internal processes (De Lancer Julnes and Holzer 2001); on the other hand, they could cause a resistance within the organisation, where human resources may feel under scrutiny, preferring to maintain the same (old) routines. Furthermore, routines are coupled with rules, which are necessary to coordinate and give coherence to the action of a group of individuals inside an organisation (Scapens 1994). Hodgson (2008, p. 19) states that “routines are not behaviour; they are stored capacities or capabilities”. Rules can be formal, such as laws and regulations, or informal, such as taken-for-granted assumptions, and both constrain members of the workforce (North 1990). At a micro level perspective, routines relate to the cognitive process of individuals, while at a macro level they are part of institutional constraints. However, as Burns and Scapens (2000) maintain, routines are a recognisable pattern of actions, that might involve different actors and that may represent both a source of change, as well as of stability, rather than inertia. Taking into account the aim of this study, changes in organisational routines have been investigated. As stated by Quattrone and Hopper (2001, p. 404) “little is known about what change is”. Nonetheless, there is a consensus that changes can be triggered both by internal and external factors, and it is part of the organisational life, at an operational as well as at a strategic level (Burnes 2004). In the case investigated in this study, one of the main pressures derives from external cues, namely the decentralisation and the consequent recognition of managerial autonomy of public cultural organisations, which can cause modifications in rules and routines. According to Burns and Scapens (2000), management systems, as part of organisational rules and routines, can be affected by innovations triggered by the environment. These innovations, in their turn, can represent a favourable occasion for selecting the organisational culture, preserving the appropriate routines and removing the old ones (Bisogno et al. 2015). However, human resources might resist changes, especially when a modification in rules and routines question consolidated behaviours and beliefs, and actors have the power to impede the process. As observed by Becker (2004), routines provide a sense of stability, in opposition to the uncertainty related to changes. In fact, routines represent the “way of doing things” (Nelson and Winter 1982; Burns and Scapens 2000): because of their collective nature, they represent the behaviour of an organisation, being

2 The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) releases performance indicators for sponsored museums and galleries in the UK https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/sponsoredmuseums-annual-performance-indicators-2016-17 3 The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) operates in the USA https://www.arts.gov/artisticfields/research-analysis/program-evaluation-resources-and-performance-measurement

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the. . .

85

institutionalised in everyday life (Scapens 1994), and originating a resistance to change. Considering this aim, which requires a conceptualisation of how new routines evolve over time (Nelson and Winter 1982), this study could have adopted the institutional theory to investigate how public cultural organisations respond to pressures from the institutional environment. However, scholars have raised several criticisms in this respect, claiming that the institutional theory does not make it possible either to recognise the processes through which institutions are created, adapted, transposed and/or discarded (Dacin et al. 2002; Scott 2001; Seo and Creed 2002), or to comprehend the power and interest at the organisational level (Scott 2001; Dillard et al. 2004; Lounsbury 2007). Accordingly, a different approach, based on the Old Institutional Economics (OIE), has been selected for this study, as it allows gaining a greater understanding of processes of change and “why practice variations embedded in competing institutional logics emerge within an institutional field” (Modell and Wiesel 2008: 255). OIE, in particular, examines institutions that “shape the actions and thoughts of individual human agents [. . . and it] seeks to explain the behaviour of economic agents in terms of rules, routines and institutions.” (Scapens 2006: 11). While New Institutional Economics and New Institutional Sociology devote attention to how the environment exerts an influence on organisations, OIE attempts to understand the motivations that determine the economic behaviour inside the organisations, recognising that behaviour can become institutionalised (Scapens and Varoutsa 2010). According to Laughlin (1991), one of the main reasons that determine organisational changes are environmental disturbance or jolt and to correctly interpret the transformations occurred, it is necessary to observe the process of change. In other words, it is pivotal to recognise how and why behaviours of human agents change as a consequence of this disturbance.

3.1

Organisational Routines and Human Resources: A Model of Change

Changes in an organisation can be planned and deliberate or unplanned and random (Greenberg and Baron 1993). Planned changes require a sequence of activities, processes and leadership aimed at producing organisational improvements to enhance the performance, creating an advantage over competitors (Cummings and Worley 2014). However, in an increasingly rapid changing business environment, changes can follow an emergent approach (Burnes 1996). A well-known model of change, including economic, social and political events coupled with specific features that can regard each organisation, has been proposed and applied in a public sector organisation by Lapsley and Pettigrew (1994), elaborating on a model already used in the private sector. The authors identify several factors, namely: a high quality and coherent policy, availability of key people

86

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

to lead the change, existence of long-term environmental pressures, presence of a supportive organizational culture, development of effective managerial and clinical relations, existence of cooperative inter-organizational networks, articulation of simple and clear goals, and stipulation of a change agenda and its locale (Lapsley and Pettigrew 1994: 88). With regard to the internal factors, the authors consider how the needed changes are formulated, by whom and how the change effort itself is managed. Moreover, they consider of utmost importance to examine the process of change and the sustainability of the programmed changes over time, which means sustaining the implementation of new routines and their institutionalisation. In order to obtain the expected outcome, all these factors have to be managed as interlinked and mutually reinforcing loops (Padovani et al. 2014). Moreover, to institutionalise changes, systems of rewards and punishment may be adopted, taking into account the feature of the context. For instance, public managers can be rewarded with more budgetal and extra-budgetal resources, as well as with more decision-making autonomy (Meier 1980; Dixon et al. 1998). Bearing in mind that managerial autonomy should affect mainly the management of human resources, this study intends to investigate how organisational routines change in a cultural organisation over time as a result of the acquisition of managerial autonomy and the consequent appointment of a director. The effects of changes occurred on the overall performance represent a further issue that deserves attention. More concretely, this study delves into the changes affecting the role of both managers and employees, exploring the mechanisms adopted to institutionalise the changes, hypothesising that the managerial autonomy of public cultural organisations is increasing their awareness of the mediator and active role they could play between the organisation itself and both the visitors and the territory (Marzano and Castellini 2018). In effect, the new forms of managerialism are expected to cause the dismission of the “passive” role of human resources, typical of the traditional bureaucratic approach, moving towards a proactive behaviour, based on the strengthening of skills and competences and the differentiation of responsibilities and power. The changes due to the managerial autonomy can affect the overall performance, and allow active participation of the visitors in the management of cultural organisations, moving towards models of participatory cultural initiatives (Piber et al. 2019).

4 Research Design and Methodology Focusing on a defined context, Italy, this study investigates the process of organisational change that public cultural organisations are experiencing, due to the managerial autonomy they have achieved, which means a change in managerial rules. The context is particularly appropriate, as “Italy and cultural heritage are virtually synonymous”, and a high percentage of the world’s most important heritage is situated in Italy (Zan et al. 2007).

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the. . .

87

The chapter adopts a qualitative approach, which allows an in-depth investigation of an empirical phenomenon which is not yet well understood (Berg 2004), highlighting the social, inter-personal and inter-organizational relationships that a positivistic approach usually fails to reveal (Lodh and Gaffkin 1997). The investigated case study, the Archaeological Park of Paestum (PAE), was selected by taking into account the basic criteria for a theoretical sampling approach (Eisenhardt 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). Firstly, public cultural organisations such as the PAE are complex entities, having multiple objectives. Secondly, the managerial autonomy of the PAE, coupled with the steering at-a-distance role of the MiBACT, has stimulated a pro-active approach of employees towards the visitors, aiming at improving efficiency and effectiveness. More specifically, this autonomy has determined (and it is still determining) an in-depth changing process, based on the redefinition of the PAE’s strategic objectives. Although these innovations could be considered as a near natural effect of the NPM paradigm, it should be observed that they are not so frequent in this context, traditionally managed through a conservative culture (Zan 2000), as underlined in previous sections. Only recently, the opportunities related to the managerial autonomy have emerged, stimulating the analysis of the impact on organisational routines (Burns and Scapens 2000) as well as on the global performance, by adopting a holistic approach. Following Scapens (1990), the PAE’s case study can be classified as explanatory, as this research aims to understand and explain the reasons for changes concerning human resources and the impact on the PAE’s decision-making processes and performance. The case study is carried out ex-post, and the research team attempts to reconstruct the antecedents of the change by interviewing the main actors before the research began (Liguori and Steccolini 2012). Changes occurred in the post-reform period (2014–2018) are considered. To avoid bias in the ex-post rationalisation of the occurred changes (Ahrens and Chapman 2006), multiple data including semistructured interviews (Qu and Dumay 2011) was triangulated with open-answer questions, archival analyses, and ethnographic observations. The sources of data used include statistical data provided by the MiBACT (http://www.statistica. beniculturali.it/Visitatori_e_introiti_musei.htm) and data available on the website of the organisation. The triangulation of the data attempts to increase the ratio of the credibility of the results. Furthermore, following Badia et al. (2019), transcripts of interviews were sent to the interviewees for an evaluation.

5 Research Setting: The Archaeological Park of Paestum The PAE is located in Capaccio-Paestum (near Salerno, in the South of Italy) and it is part of a wider Park named: “Parco Nazionale del Cilento e Vallo di Diano con i Siti archeologici di Paestum e Velia e la Certosa di Padula”. It became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1998. The event that triggered the change in the management of the archaeological site occurred in 2014, when the PAE gained autonomy

88

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

Fig. 1 Temple of Neptun (known as “the Basilica”)

Fig. 2 Temple of Athena

(d.p.c.m. 29 August 2014, n. 171), due to the reform of the MiBACT. In 2015, Gabriel Zuchtriegel was appointed as a new director, promoting from his appointment a change in the management of the site. In Paestum, ancient Greece is still palpable, and the Museum narrates the age-old history of the city: the annexe archaeological site to the Museum contains three Doric temples, built almost 2500 years ago, some of the best-preserved in the world. Figure 1 portraits the temple of Neptun and Fig. 2 illustrates the Temple of Athena

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the. . .

89

(The authors thank the courtesy of the Paestum and Velia Park for the pictures provided). The Museum opened in 1952 and was later enlarged. The exhibited collection includes stone and terracotta sculptures, thousands of painted vases and hundreds of frescoed tombs. The “Tomba del Tuffatore” (“Tomb of the Diver”) is the oldest Greek painted tomb, and the scientific debate on its meaning is still continuing. In 2017 the PAE reached the record of 440.000 visitors, almost re-confirmed in 2018, despite a crisis in tourism of the province occurred during the summer. The PAE’s mission is to preserve, study, promote and manage a unique group of monuments and collections. Taking advantage of the recognised autonomy, the PAE adopted several initiatives in order to increase its visibility, through events, concerts, midnight strolls, meetings and, recently, aperitifs at sunset. In achieving its mission, the PAE cooperates with the MiBACT, the local government of Capaccio-Paestum, national and international universities and research institutions, as well as several NPOs. Own revenue—including donations and sponsorships—and public funding maintain the PAE. For special projects and major investments, it also relies on the European Union funding, donations and sponsorships.

6 Analysis of the Interviews and Discussion of Results The first round of interviews was conducted between February and July 2018, and they involved the Director and key managers. The second round of interviews occurred between February and July 2019, including four managers/employees of the PAE, two representatives of NPOs (“Legambiente” and “FAI”) and a follow up with the Director and the Press office Manager (see Table 1).

Table 1 Role of the interviewees and duration Role of Interviewee The director The press office manager The visitors and surveillance manager The accounting office manager The front office manager An archaeologist An HR manager One employee responsible for visitors and surveillance One employee from the ticket office A representative of FAI A representative of Legambiente Total

I round (hours) 2 2 1 1 2

8

II round (hours) 1.5 1.5

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 7

90

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

To validate the results of the interviews, the research team triangulated the data received from the PAE with those of official and internal sources, also adopting ethnographic observations. The research interviews were centred on the theoretical framework mentioned in previous sections. The process, and not merely the outcome, of the managerial changes is investigated (Burns and Scapens 2000; Scapens 1994), adapting the model of Lapsley and Pettigrew (1994) to the context being examined. More specifically, researchers focus on changes affecting the behaviour of economic agents (Scapens 1994). As regards the existence of long-term environmental pressures (Lapsley and Pettigrew 1994), the managerial autonomy of the PAE was the key trigger. Accordingly, the interviewees were asked to illustrate its effects, primarily focusing on the role of the employees, their organisational behaviour, and on if and how it was affecting the PAE’s performance (in terms of the number of visitors, revenue, sponsorships, and so on). The Director and his staff perceived a broad dissatisfaction among visitors concerning several issues, such as: the low quality of many collateral services; the lack of clear information regarding how to reach the Park; the lack of a path accessible to wheelchairs; the opening hours; the events organised; and so on. Furthermore, some parts of the archaeological site were not accessible to the public. Lastly, it was underlined that the PAE did not have a systematic communication channel with visitors at that time (2015), and the need to establish a more collaborative and stronger relationship with visitors and the local community, including local public administrations and NPOs, was considered important. According to scholars (Lawrence et al. 2002; Scapens and Varoutsa 2010), information flows are critical in the configuration of inter-organisational routines. When I was appointed as a Director, initially I tried to improve the quality of the services provided to visitors. I perceived the dissatisfaction of many visitors, but I lacked the information in order to improve them. I felt that the Park needed to improve its relationship not only with visitors but also with the local community. (Director of PAE).

The Director played a crucial role in stimulating the managers and the employees to change their organisational behaviour. As a consequence, a coherent policy was defined, articulated in simple and clear goals (Lapsley and Pettigrew 1994), such as: motivating and training employees to develop and strengthen their skills and competences; defining a plan of maintenance and restoration; delineating projects concerning both research and new digs in collaboration with universities; strengthening the relationship with visitors, also supporting the communication activities; increasing the quality of services, and improving the whole performance. Therefore, progressively, a change agenda (Lapsley and Pettigrew 1994) was introduced, through a sequence of planned activities as stated below (Cummings and Worley 2014). First, the Director interviewed all the employees individually, to better understand their personal attitudes and to identify their willingness to participate in training activities to support better quality visitor services. More specifically, within

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the. . .

91

the largest group of employees responsible for visitors and surveillance (46 employees out of 80), the Director defined different roles and related responsibilities, which, on the one hand, complied with their contractual profile, on the other hand, took into account the personal abilities and competences. The strategic reorientation of the Park is possible only if employees and all the staff concretely perceive how essential their role and their collaboration is. Their positive thinking helps make visitors’ experience memorable (Director of PAE).

Second, a new plan for restoration activities regarding the three main temples was defined and carried out, due to several agreements with institutional partners, allowing the visitors to visit the temples internally. Furthermore, in 2017, a pilot project was initiated, making it possible to visit the deposit of the museum; the success of the initiative led to the institutionalisation of this visit, which is currently part of the ongoing practice of the PAE. Moreover, a specific project dedicated to disabled people, which will be better explained later, was programmed and implemented. Third, the website was entirely renewed (www.museopaestum.beniculturali.it) to make its use easier for potential and real tourists visiting the Park. Furthermore, the use of social media was actively enhanced: a Facebook page was opened, coupled with Twitter and Instagram profiles, to promote events, to engage visitors and so on, with the aim of improving both efficiency and effectiveness.4 Day by day, we peek at the Facebook page, to get visitors’ feedback, to answer their questions and to respond quickly to criticisms. Furthermore, we received 15/20 daily reviews on average on Google. This information has helped us in understanding how we [Director’s staff members and employees—ed.] can support this new way of thinking (Press Office Manager).

A fourth point of the change agenda consisted in obtaining the collaboration of the local government of Capaccio-Paestum, several hotels and NPOs involved in the same territory, encouraging them to implement joint projects. The aim was to improve the quality of several services, ameliorating the global touristic experience of the visitors, with a positive effect in terms of the number of visitors and the development of the territory. In the past, the collaboration with the PAE was sporadic. In 2016, an agreement was drawn up, making the collaboration now continuous. Since then, several initiatives have been carried out. One of the first initiatives consisted of cleaning up the path from the Park to the sea, and on the first week of each month, the tourists are accompanied along the path. The first walk was a great event, with 400 tourists participating! (Legambiente representative). We have a long-lasting relationship with the PAE. However, since the new Director has been appointed, we have intensified events and opportunities, taking reciprocal and continuous advantages through our cooperation (Local FAI coordinator).

4 An outsourcing strategy was implemented by the PAE, initiating a collaboration with a web agency, which currently manages both its website and the Facebook page.

92

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

Notwithstanding managers and employees interpreted these preliminary innovations as a sort of a “little revolution”, a bureaucratic organisational culture still prevailed, and resistance to change was observed (Becker 2004; Nelson and Winter 1982). As a matter of fact, the behaviour of employees was anchored to a bureaucratic set of rules, and organisational routines were based on formal procedures with which to comply. A passive role was still maintained, as employees merely continued to keep under surveillance the archaeological site in order to prevent damage. Besides, employees were (and still are) paid directly by the MiBACT, which hampered the implementation of a system of punishment and rewards, through more budgetal and extra-budgetal resources (Meier 1980; Dixon et al. 1998), directly connected with the way they carried out their tasks. The autonomy of the PAE has progressively changed—and it is still changing— the organisational behaviour of most of its managers and employees. The Director retains employees as pivotal “assets” of the Park, as human resources should be considered not as a cost, but as an investment (Manes-Rossi et al. 2016b; Roslender 1997). Therefore, his abilities have boosted the personal involvement of human resources, who are now better motivated to improve their knowledge and skills. The Director was a breath of fresh air! He brought energy, enthusiasm, and new ideas! (HR Manager). I’ve been working here for more than 30 years. Past Directors were very competent, but the potentialities of the PAE did not emerge because of their lack of autonomy. The achievement of this autonomy, step by step, has led to several changes. The Director organised several ad hoc courses, so many of us had the opportunity to improve their skills and competences (Employee responsible for visitors and surveillance).

The Director was the key person leading the change (Lapsley and Pettigrew 1994) and his leadership has had a great impact on the organisation as a whole. In fact, due to the feedback received from visitors via social media and the motivator role played by the Director, most of the managers and employees progressively understood the importance of being more active and collaborative, especially with the visitors. Therefore, they became aware of the relevance of their mediator role between the visitors and the PAE. Accordingly, it could be claimed that human resources are emerging from the “structural purgatory” (Zan et al. 2007) where the bureaucratic culture traditionally confined them. As a result, new organisational routines were established, encouraging employees to undertake an “active” role. Therefore, this supportive organisational culture (Lapsley and Pettigrew 1994) was the stepping stone for launching new initiatives, directed towards visitors, local firms, and the territory (Marzano and Castellini 2018). For example, the project named “Paestum alive” (“Paestum viva”: http:// www.museopaestum.beniculturali.it/paestum-viva-tutti-i-giorni/) dedicated to families, consists of interactive activities, laboratories, musical therapies, to explain to children the history of the temples and the whole Park in an entertaining and enjoyable manner. Moreover, the initiative named “Paestum for everyone” (“Paestum per tutti”), where the collaboration of employees is essential, allows disabled people to visit the areas within the temples, through a path accessible to wheelchairs.

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the. . .

93

In order to prepare employees to manage visitors’ needs, several ad hoc training programmes have been directly organised by the Director, with the support of external professional trainers, to those employees that demonstrate an interest in participating in the programme. In the past, employees acted mainly as guards, and their competences were not sufficiently appreciated. The strategic reorientation of the Park has radically changed this. Now, employees play an active role, giving visitors a warm welcome, providing them with all the information they require, assisting disabled people during their visit to the temple of Hera and the temple of Athena, making the innovations possible (Visitors and surveillance Manager).

Additionally, an annual membership card has been launched, giving visitors the possibility to access the museum and the Park at any time, as well as to participate in events (such as concertos, dramas, “Paestum by night”, and so on) paying a nominal fee (1 or 2 €). Furthermore, specific fundraising strategies were implemented, to establish a “sense of belonging” and create a cooperative inter-organisational network (Lapsley and Pettigrew 1994) which involves visitors, the local community and local firms. The most relevant ones are: • “Adopting the wall of Paestum” (see http://www.museopaestum.beniculturali.it/ adotta-un-blocco-delle-mura/): people can contribute to the maintenance and restoration of the site by giving 50 €, receiving an annual membership card and a periodical newsletter; • “Circle of Athena” (“Circolo di Athena”), a group principally composed of local firms, which is financing the restoration of the façade of the temple of Athena; • a local factory (named Pastificio Amato) has financed three researchers to carry out digs; • a no-profit organisation, named “Friends of the Park” (“Amici del Parco”) is financing several restorations. The fundraising activities have made the activation of a new restoration and conservation plan possible. In fact, the resources stemming from donations and sponsorships increased from 13,591 € in 2016 to 41,018 € in 2018 (source: financial statements of the PAE). The amount collected, together with the European funds granted, was (and is) invested in restoring both the museum and the archaeological site (perimeter wall, temples), at the same time financing new digs. There has been an increase in the investments undertaken in restoration, which have increased from 184,074 € in 2016 to 325,720 € in 2018. Furthermore, the new strategic approach has led to the development of a restoration and conservation plan, abandoning the behaviour of sporadic and costly work carried out in isolation. We have developed a strategic plan for restoration and conservation activities. Every month, we visit the whole area to re-assess priorities and consider changes to be introduced in the plan. This approach has guaranteed the restoration of the three temples and has enacted an excavation program of new areas in cooperation with universities. Currently, we are projecting the restoration of the perimetrical walls. (Archaeologist of the PAE).

94

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

Table 2 Number of visitors and gross revenue (2014– 2017)

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

No. of visitors 280,503 300,343 383,172 441,196 427,339

Gross revenue 938,897.32 1,100,489.93 1,621,820.59 1,917,050.23 1,927,250.08

Source: http://www.statistica.beniculturali.it/Visitatori_e_introiti_ musei.htm

The interviewees claimed that the strategic management changes described above are boosting internal managerial relations, having a positive effect on the PAE’s performance. Table 2 illustrates both the number of visitors and gross revenue during the period 2014–2018. A significant increase in both indicators can be easily observed, especially in the last 2 years. It is worth recalling that all the initiatives described above were implemented from November 2015 onwards. During the several visits over the 2 years, the research team had the opportunity to observe how employees interact with visitors and their increased consciousness of representing the institution. This is progressively reinforcing a supportive organizational culture (Lapsley and Pettigrew 1994) where people perceive the challenge to be part of an in-depth innovation and feel proud of the role they can play. Moreover, the new managerial culture is leading to new routines and a certain degree of initiatives autonomously taken by managers (Meier 1980; Dixon et al. 1998). A few days ago, I discovered that a new initiative was going to be carried out. This means that the PAE staff is able to take new initiatives and to organise the related activities, independently from me. A new organisational culture is now permeating the PAE (Director of PAE).

Future projects and goals, involving other NPOs operating on the same territory and with similar cultural or social interests, are going to be enacted, as well as other improvements to the website and IT supports for visitors, boosting high quality and coherent policy (Lapsley and Pettigrew 1994). Therefore, even though the autonomy stemming from the reform is only partial as employees are still selected and paid by the Ministry, the ability of the Director in instilling a sense of belonging in the workforce has led to an innovative approach to visitors. This has contributed to an improvement in the overall performance, together with the other innovations that are taking place.

7 Conclusions The research contributes to the scant literature analysing archaeological sites in a managerial perspective (Ferri and Zan 2014, 2019; Manes-Rossi et al. 2018; Zan et al. 2018). The PAE has been selected not only for its importance but also because

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the. . .

95

it is an example of organisational changes undertaken as an effect of the managerial autonomy headed by the new director and his staff. The autonomy of the PAE has led to a planned and deliberate process of change (Greenberg and Baron 1993), causing a significant and positive impact on human resources, producing organisational improvements and boosting performance (Cummings and Worley 2014). The contribution of this process of change to the strategic re-orientation of the PAE has been investigated, focusing on both modifications of organisational routines and the results achieved in terms of the number of visitors, revenue, sponsorships, investments in restoration and conservation projects and so on. As far as the organisational routines are concerned, the OIE approach adopted in this study has facilitated the analysis of the process of change, not only focusing on the outcome of the changes. Accordingly, gaining a managerial autonomy would imply, for a public cultural organisation, selecting the organisational culture, and therefore removing the old routines (Bisogno et al. 2015). Moreover, the new implemented routines express the evolution of stored human resources’ skills and capabilities (Hodgson 2008), highlighting that a policy of increasing autonomy in the management of cultural organisations, where professional managers play a significant role in stimulating the development of human resources, can have a positive impact on the overall performance. The Lapsley and Pettigrew’s (1994) model of change has been adapted to the context being investigated, highlighting that long-term environmental changes would trigger the establishment of a new supportive culture. Results collected can highlight important implications, applicable in any cultural organisations. Firstly, although resistance to modify the old routines has been observed, the stipulation of a change agenda led by new management and based on simple and clear objectives can produce important and long-lasting effects. For instance, it can reinforce the relationships with the visitors and the territory, as well as improve the information flows (Lawrence et al. 2002; Marzano and Castellini 2018; Scapens and Varoutsa 2010). Secondly, human resources are encouraged to reject a passive role, typical of the traditional bureaucratic approach, adopting a proactive behaviour. In turn, this change can lead to a greater supportive organisational culture. Furthermore, changes due to the managerial autonomy can improve the overall performance, in terms of revenue, donations and sponsorships received, as well as in terms of conservation and restoration projects and the number of visitors and their positive experience. A limitation of the research, however, relates to the fact that the changes introduced may be linked to the personal capabilities and human attitude of the director who has led the changes. However, at least in the case of the PAE, the changes stemming from the new policies sustained by the autonomy seem to be institutionalised, with a new culture starting to permeate the whole organisation. Future development of the research would like to investigate to what extent the reform has introduced similar changes in other Italian cultural organisations, as well as considering the effect of increased autonomy in different contexts. Further developments would also examine the implication of the digitalisation and, more broadly, the use of information technologies and social media in cultural

96

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

organisations, to promote participatory cultural initiatives, nourishing an emerging strand of research (Piber et al. 2019).

References Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 819–841. Badia, F., Dicuonzo, G., Petruzzelli, S., & Dell’Atti, V. (2019). Integrated reporting in action: Mobilizing intellectual capital to improve management and governance practices. Journal of Management and Governance, 23(2), 299–320. Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 643–677. Belfiore, E. (2004). Auditing culture: The subsidised cultural sector in the New Public Management. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(2), 183–202. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson. Bisogno, M., Nota, G., Saccomanno, A., & Tommasetti, A. (2015). Improving the efficiency of Port Community Systems through integrated information flows of logistic processes. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 15, 1–31. Bonini Baraldi, S. (2007). La riforma del ministero tra “giuridificazione” e “managerializzazione”. Aedon, 1, 1–12. Bonini Baraldi, S. (2014). Evaluating results of public sector reforms in Rechtsstaat countries: The role of context and processes in the reform of the Italian and French cultural heritage system. International Public Management Journal, 17(3), 411–432. Burnes, B. (1996). No such thing as. . . a “one best way” to manage organizational change. Management Decision, 34(10), 11–18. Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics. Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Burns, J., & Scapens, R. W. (2000). Conceptualizing management accounting change: An institutional framework. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 3–25. Chiaravalloti, F., & Piber, M. (2011). Ethical implications of methodological settings in arts management research: The case of performance evaluation. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 41(4), 240–266. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change. Stanford: Cengage learning. Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, R. W. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–56. De Lancer Julnes, P., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693–708. Dillard, J. F., Rigsby, J. T., & Goodman, C. (2004). The making and remaking of organization context: Duality and the institutionalization process. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(4), 506–542. Dixon, J., Kouzmin, A. K.-K., & N. (1998). Managerialism-something old, something borrowed, little new: Economic prescription versus effective organizational change in public agencies. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(2/3), 164–187. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–550. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

The Effects of Managerial Autonomy on Organizational Culture: The Case of the. . .

97

Ferri, P., & Zan, L. (2014). Ten years after: The rise and fall of managerial autonomy in Pompeii. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(4–5), 368–387. Ferri, P., & Zan, L. (2019). Accountability and patronage in extraordinary administrations: Evidence from Pompeii. Financial Accountability and Management, 35(1), 72–89. Forte, P. (2015). I nuovi musei statali: Un primo passo nella giusta direzione. Aedon, 1, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.7390/80493. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (1993). Behavior in organizations: Understanding and managing the human side of work. Greenberg: Allyn and Bacon. Hodgson, G. (2008). The concept of a routine. In M. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Routines (pp. 15–28). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. Kickert, W. J. M. (1997). Public Governance in the Netherlands: An alternative to Anglo-American managerialism. Public Administration, 75(4), 731–752. Lapsley, I., & Pettigrew, A. (1994). Meeting the challenge: Accounting for change. Financial Accountability and Management, 10(2), 79–92. Laughlin, R. (1991). Environmental disturbances and organizational transitions and transformations: Some alternative models. Organization Studies, 12(2), 209–232. Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Philips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of inter-organisational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 281–290. Liguori, M. (2012). Radical change, accounting and public sector reforms: A comparison of Italian and Canadian municipalities. Financial Accountability and Management, 28(4), 437–463. Liguori, M., & Steccolini, I. (2012). Accounting change: Explaining the outcomes, interpreting the process. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(1), 27–70. Lodh, S. C., & Gaffkin, M. J. R. (1997). Critical studies in accounting research rationality and Habermas: A methodological reflection. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 8(10), 433–474. Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307. Manes-Rossi, F., Allini, A., Spanò, R., & Dainelli, F. (2016a). Changing performance measurement towards enhanced accountability: Insights from the British Museum. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 2(4), 331–347. Manes-Rossi, F., Citro, F., & Bisogno, M. (2016b). Intellectual capital in action: Evidence from Italian local governments. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(4), 696–713. Manes-Rossi, F., Allini, A., Spanò, R., & Macchioni, R. (2018). Performance management change in archaeological sites: The case of Herculaneum Conservation Project. Journal of Management and Governance, 22(4), 947–979. Marzano, M., & Castellini, M. (2018). The reform of the Italian ministry of cultural heritage: Implications for governance of the museum system. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 48(3), 206–220. Meier, K. (1980). Measuring organizational power: Resources and autonomy of government agencies. Administration and Society, 12(3), 357–375. Minuti, M., Hinna, A., & Ferrari, R. (2012). Il Benchmark dei Musei di Eccellenza: Un Modello per lo Studio del Settore [The benchmark of museums of excellence: A model for the study of the sector]. Economia della Cultura, 22(Speciale), 97–120. Modell, S., & Wiesel, F. (2008). Marketization and performance measurement in Swedish central government: A comparative institutionalist study. Abacus, 44(3), 251–283. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard: Harvard University Press. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Padovani, E., Orelli, R. L., & Young, D. W. (2014). Implementing change in a hospital management accounting system. Public Management Review, 16(8), 1184–1204.

98

F. Manes-Rossi and M. Bisogno

Piber, M., Demartini, P., & Biondi, L. (2019). The management of participatory cultural initiatives: Learning from the discourse on intellectual capital. Journal of Management and Governance, 23 (2), 435–458. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis new public management, governance and the Neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 8(3), 238–264. Quattrone, P., & Hopper, T. (2001). What does organizational change mean? Speculations on a taken for granted category. Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 403–435. Roslender, R. (1997). Accounting for the worth of employees: Is the discipline finally ready to respond to the challenge? Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, 2(1), 9–26. Scapens, R. (1990). Researching management accounting practice: The role of case study methods. The British Accounting Review, 22(3), 259–281. Scapens, R. W. (1994). Never mind the gap: Toward an institutional perspective on management accounting practice. Management Accounting Research, 5(3/4), 301–321. Scapens, R. W. (2006). Understanding management accounting practices: A personal journey. The British Accounting Review, 38(1), 1–30. Scapens, R. W., & Varoutsa, E. (2010). Accounting in inter-organisational relationships – The institutional theory perspective. In H. Hakanson, K. Kraus, & J. Lind (Eds.), Accounting in networks (pp. 314–341). New York: Routledge. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247. Settis, S. (2002). Italia SpA L’assalto al patrimonio culturale. Torino: Einaudi. Weil, S. E. (1994). Performance indicators for museums: Progress report from Wintergreen. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 23(4), 341–351. Zan, L. (2000). Management and the British Museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 18 (3), 221–270. Zan, L., Bonini, B., Gordon, S., & C. (2007). Cultural heritage between centralisation and decentralisation: Insights from the Italian context. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(1), 49–70. Zan, L., Bonini Baraldi, S., & Santagati, M. E. (2018). Missing HRM: The original sin of museum reforms in Italy. Museum Management and Curatorship, 33(6), 530–545.

Francesca Manes-Rossi is Associate Professor of Accounting in the Department of Economics, Management and Institutions at the University of Naples, Federico II, where she teaches and conducts research on public accounting. She is an experienced educator and researcher specializing in International Accounting Standards and other accounting issues related to intellectual capital, integrated reporting, performance measurement and audit. Francesca is Co-chair of XII PSG EGPA and Member of EGPA Steering Committee. Marco Bisogno is Associate Professor in Accounting at the University of Salerno (Department of Management and Innovation Systems). He received his PhD from the University of Naples “Federico II”. His current research interests are public sector accounting and financial management: international harmonisation, disclosure, transparency and accountability, financial sustainability, consolidated financial statements, intellectual capital. He is a member of the Task force IRSPM A&A SIG, CIGAR Network, EGPA PSG XII.

Part II

Cultural Entrepreneurship

Evaluating Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector: Experiences from Italy Nathalie Colasanti, Rocco Frondizi, Marco Meneguzzo, and Lavinia Pastore

Abstract This chapter analyses participative and entrepreneurial activities in the cultural and creative sector in Italy, by adopting a benchmarking approach. We present the case of a call for projects addressed to all actors working in the cultural sector by Lazio Region, regarding the promotion of the region’s cultural heritage. Projects are evaluated and graded by a team of experts: those scoring more than 70/100 points are included in the collection of “BuonePratiche”, a publication by the Regional Directorate for Culture. We propose a research design based on the following steps. First, we build the theoretical framework by defining the cultural and creative sector, and then we illustrate our chosen approach, i.e. evaluation in the cultural sector. Then, the case study regarding “BuonePratiche” is presented and analysed. Data was collected from the direct observation of the call for projects and subsequent evaluation by experts, and from accessing the database containing all projects and their scores. Results indicate that actors in the cultural sector prioritise the enhancement of cultural heritage over entrepreneurship: this may represent an opportunity for improvement by educating cultural players on combining entrepreneurship and culture. We also find that networking has a positive influence on achieving better scores. Keywords Benchmarking · Cultural and creative sector · Participation · Entrepreneurship · Evaluation

1 Introduction The application of managerial principles in the public sector, a key feature of New Public Management, extends to the artistic and cultural sector. This is a wellestablished international phenomenon, as indicated by the launch of the first N. Colasanti (*) · R. Frondizi · M. Meneguzzo · L. Pastore Department of Management and Law, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; meneguzzo@economia. uniroma2.it; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_6

101

102

N. Colasanti et al.

Museum Management degree by New York University in 1963; it reached Italian cultural institutions and organisations in the 1990s, both at central and local level. Mentioning the Italian context is relevant as it is the setting of the case study that will be analysed in the chapter, and because of the importance of cultural activities in the country. The development of managerial approaches in the cultural sector was studied by Pérez-Cabañero and Cuadrado-García (2011), who conducted a bibliometric analysis of over 900 papers and identified three main phases and a decisive turning point in 2005, with the affirmation of cultural marketing. The first phase is characterised by the prevalence of research and contributions on management and cultural policies, probably influenced by Colbert’s work (2003) on management and marketing in the cultural sector; the second phase indicates a shift from management to cultural marketing, and the third is even more focused on issues such as user experience and behaviour. Within this field of research, the chapter discusses strengths and weaknesses of benchmarking cultural projects and activities, as well as the difficulties of analysing the rate of innovation and originality from the public administration’s perspective. More precisely, we want to answer the following research question: “What is the output of evaluating innovative cultural projects in the public sector?” The chapter presents the case of the call for projects held by Lazio Region, in Italy, and addressed to all actors in the cultural sector (local public administrations, private organisations, non-profits, citizens’ associations etc.), asking them to submit their experiences and projects aimed at promoting the region’s cultural heritage. The core issue is the role of “BuonePratiche” (best practices award given by the Region) as a quality-oriented advantage in the cultural public policy of the area. The collection and selection of “BuonePratiche” is aimed at identifying best practices in the following areas: enhancement, promotion and communication of cultural heritage and the ability to network, to do business and to innovate and promote inclusion by local players. It is a collection of cultural initiatives and projects that were implemented in Lazio by public and private entities, preferably through various forms of partnership and/or collaboration. The Regional Directorate of Culture issues the call for projects, and then selects experts to evaluate collected projects based on the aforementioned criteria. All projects are given a score going from 0 to 100, and those whose score is higher than 70 are included in the Regional Catalogue of Best Cultural Practices. The Catalogue is a new tool that the Region is implementing in the Benchmarking Area—Culture and Quality framework. The chapter is rooted in the framework of cultural and creative industries, to which the concept of benchmarking is applied, and it is structured as follows: first, we define the theoretical framework of cultural and creative industries, then explain the approach that we adopt, i.e. benchmarking in the cultural sector. Secondly, the chapter traces the evolutionary nature of “BuonePratiche”:

Evaluating Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative. . .

103

• the first stage explores the design of the call for projects by the Region; • the second stage covers the collection and design of the database of potential “BuonePratiche” by exploring the selected evaluation criteria and their importance for cultural initiatives to be evaluated; • the third stage concerns project evaluation, which was performed independently by each selected expert in a benchmarking perspective; results were then brought together to obtain the final ranking of projects; • the fourth stage analyses the final database of 200 collected projects: first by providing descriptive statistics (type of project, stakeholder responsible for the project, main goal of the project) and then by examining results. The aim is to understand what projects got the highest ranking, whether there is a recognisable pattern in terms of projects type and their ranking, and what could be improved in projects that were ranked poorly. The final part of the chapter, regarding results and conclusive remarks, provides an original contribution as it reports a case of evaluation of cultural projects by the public sector, and also because it is based on the analysis of 200 cultural projects and initiatives that were implemented in a specific Italian setting. The chapter allows to analyse the output of carrying out benchmarking projects in the cultural sector. In addition to this, the chapter highlights features of the highestranked projects, examining their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the chapter concludes by setting out a number of observations based on the “BuonePratiche” experience for the use of benchmarking as a leverage of quality-oriented cultural programmes.

2 Theoretical Framework: Cultural and Creative Industries Cultural and creative industries are often mentioned as a unit, but the literature indicates two separate concepts. Creative industries were defined by the Creative Task Force of the British Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) as “those activities which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have their potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property”. According to DCMS (1998, 2001), creative industries include the following professional activities: advertising, architecture, arts and antiques, crafts, design, fashion, film, leisure, music, performing arts, publishing, software, television and radio. This classification was designed to pressure policymakers to include creative industries in their agenda in order to ensure their ability to create economic value. A similar classification is provided by Howkins (2007), who adds research and development activities and toys and games. The two criteria identifying creative industries are the use of creativity as the main productive input, and the ability to market ideas to generate value (Santagata 2007). Galloway and Dunlop (2007) find the definition by DCMS to be too wide, as it does not refer to “symbolic meaning and could involve any type of creative activity”, such as

104

N. Colasanti et al.

scientific innovation. According to them, it complicates matters such as policymaking since “there is nothing cultural about the creative industries besides the common link of creativity” (Galloway and Dunlop 2007; Cunningham 2001). On the contrary, several authors agree that definitions used for policy-making should be strongly grounded in theory because of their relevant implications and measurement and evaluation issues (Galloway and Dunlop 2007; Cunningham 2001; Pratt 2001; Howkins 2002; Towse 2003; Martin 2004). The ability of creative industries to create wealth is rooted in the concept of copyright: in fact, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) (2013) defines them as “copyright industries”, and divides them into three categories (pivotal, accessorial and contributory) based on their role in intellectual property production. Despite the intellectual property model being mostly used in the United States (ERVET 2012), it is widely accepted as being the core of creative industries (UNCTAD 2010). Creative activities are also a key driver of sustainable development (UNESCO 2013), and based on a recent study (WIPO 2013) they contribute around 5% to national GDP in terms of employment creation. Cultural industries, on the other hand, are those that produce goods and services whose value is first and foremost cultural, then (and not necessarily) commercial: this aspect of cultural value differentiates cultural industries from other economic sectors. Throsby (2001) studied the relationship between cultural and creative industries, and he suggests to picture it in terms of radiating circles, where creative ideas and activities are the core of the process and result in cultural content. According to him, cultural industries include activities whose objective is to educate and enlighten the human mind, and they have three main features: first, they require a certain degree of creativity in their productive process; second, they deal with generating and circulating symbolic media; third, their final product can be somehow related to intellectual property. KEA European Affairs (2006) describes the cultural sector as including “nonindustrial sectors producing non-reproducible goods and services aimed at being consumed on the spot (a concert, an art fair, an exhibition)” and “industrial sectors producing cultural products aimed at mass reproduction, mass dissemination and exports (a book, a film, a sound recording)”. According to KEA (2006), in the creative sector “culture becomes a creative input in the production of non-cultural goods”, while creativity is “the use of cultural resources as an intermediate consumption in the production process of non-cultural sectors, and thereby as a source of innovation”. Consequently, KEA states that the economy of culture includes both a cultural and a creative sector, and it is structured with arts as its core field, surrounded by radiating circles of cultural industries (film, television, radio, publishing), creative industries (design, architecture and advertising) and complementary industries such as manufacturing. This distinction is confirmed by several authors studying cultural and creative industries: the former are defined by cultural expressions and include traditional arts sector, the latter use culture as an input to produce outputs with commercial value (Söndermann 2007; Richeri 2009).

Evaluating Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative. . .

105

Cultural and creative industries display entrepreneurial features, such as the capacity to innovate and create new products, the creation of new organisational forms, the exploration of new markets, the introduction of new methods of production and the search for new sources of materials (HKU 2010). Like any business venture, cultural and creative industries face entrepreneurial risks, which can be divided into two main sources: on the one hand, quick changes in digital media, which influence copyright and intellectual property as well as distribution strategies; on the other hand, the high degree of uncertainty linked to the launch of new products. For what concerns organisational forms, cultural and creative industries are mostly populated by SMEs and micro-firms, and self-employment is also relevant (HKU 2010). Kooyman (2009) highlighted the following aspects as typical of cultural and creative industries: non-conventional forms of employment and holding multiple jobs, with extensive working hours and little scheduling; cultural uniqueness and short lifespan of products; hypercompetitive environment and large supply of skilled professionals; labour-intensive inputs and considerable knowledge base. The EU Green Paper on cultural and creative industries (2010) indicates the condition for their development in member states, which can be grouped in three main categories. The first are basic, enabling conditions for the existence of cultural and creative industries, such as the possibility for them to innovate and experiment, the need to network with education institutions in order to build strong skill bases, and the improvement of funding availability. Secondly, the paper highlights the importance of developing strategies within cultural and creative industries at local, national and international level, because of their strategic relevance for development. This aspect is also linked to the third group of conditions regarding spill-over effects of cultural and creative industries: given their potential impact on other economic sectors, partnerships and networks should be promoted so that creative knowledge can be spread beyond the borders of cultural and creative industries.

3 Arts and Cultural Management: The Benchmarking Model Benchmarking consists in a continuous and systematic procedure for assessing products, services and operational procedures by organisations; it is acknowledged among the best procedures for achieving improvement. Hence, it involves rational comparison addressed at achieving better performance by implementing best practices. Regardless of what sector the organisation belongs to, benchmarking looks for best practices in leading organisations in various market sectors. Comparison takes place through benchmarks (reference parameters) emphasising effectiveness and efficiency (quality, cost, time) of what is being analysed. The goal is to identify procedures, methods and systems that create value and hence are

106

N. Colasanti et al.

capable of satisfying clients’ needs. In other words, benchmarking does not mean copying what others do, but creating reference points for learning processes, capable of challenging existing working methods, identifying step by step changes that can bridge the existing gap between current performances and best practices. “Best practices” are often discovered from observing successful policy implementation in other countries or companies—hence through case studies—and the following analysis of general principles that can derive from direct experience. Best practices are increasingly important for cultural operators, who need to know whether the combination of practices, policy strategies and funding are appropriate and suitable for achieving results. In the managerial world, benchmarking means measuring an organisation’s performance excellence; a reference point or unit for comparing; a level of performance considered the standard of excellence for a specific company process. It is hence a method addressed outwardly, looking beyond one’s own company, to discover excellent performance. Objects of benchmarking can be extremely varied, for instance: • Comparing features, performance, perceived quality and costs of products and services; • Reviewing working processes and performances of all activities; • Linking strategic, organisational and financial structures. Since 2001, benchmarking was also identified by European Union representatives and experts as one of the means for promoting the exchange of experiences and for learning good practices within the framework of digitalising cultural heritage. Activities regarding culture promotion and cultural heritage protection have also moved in the direction of improving management and developing new services, which led to an evolution of institutional, financial and managerial models. Benchmarking represents a structured approach allowing to improve performance and results linked to services and processes within an organisation through constant comparison. Benchmarking is a system of comparisons between organisations, the objective of which is to discover the best way of doing things, comparing in a structured manner performances of one’s own organisation to the best results achieved in other organisations, so as to learn how to improve results and processes. The first step is an assessment evaluation. Assessments are carried out in order to verify that the analysis underlying policies and strategies succeeds in avoiding inconsistencies and contradictions, ensuring transparency and value for money; improving, refining current policies, and eliminating unproductive ones with the objective of implementing best practices. The next step consists in determining how such practices can be learned, applied, and tailored to other organisational contexts. In organisations operating in cultural and creative sectors, the concepts of learning and translatability are fundamental for activating change and continuous improvement. A correct benchmarking process should be based on codified and strong working methods. However, a process cannot be applied mechanically, it needs to be adapted to the specific necessities of different organisations.

Evaluating Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative. . .

107

The benchmarking process can be described through a range of different steps, which can be connected to the cycle of continuous improvement. A basic benchmarking process model (Spendolini 1992) includes 5 steps: Step 1 (Planning); Step 2 (Finding partners); Step 3 (Collecting information); Step 4 (Analyse) and Step 5 (Improve). The benchmarking process shows the organisation’s will to bring about change in a “constructive” and not “reactive” manner. In fact, benchmarking provides decision makers with immediate awareness of the existence (potential or real) of a “disadvantage” compared to other organisations, through a comparative analysis based on objective facts (not on personal opinions), starting from the judgment on results expressed by users/customers of goods/services produced. From this strategic viewpoint, communication appears as an excellent means that is addressed at customer satisfaction with constant and transparent “accountability”.

4 Case Study: Methodology and Data This work is based on a case study, whose evolution was closely followed by the authors in all its stages. Data were collected by the authors at each stage of the project, and were then described and analysed to understand how cultural practices are evaluated and ranked in the Italian context. The call for “BuonePratiche” was open to all cultural organisations, both public and private, working in the Lazio Region. In order to be able to participate, organisations had to submit an application concerning a cultural initiative that they had carried out in the previous year, including both administrative information and specific descriptions. Aside from administrative information, each candidate was asked to describe the following aspects, defined in Table 1. The Regional Directorate for Culture received 199 applications from different types of organisations and institutions (private, public and non-profit) working all over the Region. The second stage of the case study concerned the evaluation of proposals, which was based on a set of criteria, each assigning a specific number of points to each project. Table 2 identifies the evaluation criteria. The “global evaluation” criterion represented an additional evaluation tool that allowed to express a comprehensive judgement of the project by assigning it an amount of points ranging from one to three. Criteria were defined by a panel of professional experts, academics and researchers, together with the Regional Directorate for Culture; the selected experts were also in charge of carrying out individual evaluations of the entire pool of applications. It is important to note that one author was a member of the experts panel, and all authors cooperated in evaluating proposals. Individual evaluations by each expert were then combined into a single final evaluation: this stage required that all experts, as well as the Regional Director for

108

N. Colasanti et al.

Table 1 Descriptors required in the application Descriptors 1. General aim of the project

2. External stakeholders engaged in the project

Enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets Working in networks Entrepreneurship Innovation and inclusion Local and national public administrations Universities and research centres Foundations Schools Firms Category associations Professional associations Other stakeholders

3. Geographical area 4. Specific goals and expected results 5. Brief description of project content 6. Actions carried out to implement the project 7. Actual results and outcome evaluation 8. Transferability and replicability of results 9. Methodology 10. Materials produced to support the project 11. Main strengths 12. Difficulties in project implementation 13. Three keywords to describe project 14. Online promotion and communication 15. Exact geographic coordinates Source: Own elaboration

Culture, sit together in order to discuss the final evaluation and ranking of all proposals. Any project obtaining more than 70 points would be included in the final count of “BuonePratiche”, and those totalling more than 90 would be identified as excellent examples. Methodology, especially for what concerns evaluation, is thus based on a benchmarking perspective, which requires knowledge and analysis of the whole database by each expert before evaluating any project. The publication of rankings and the attribution of excellence features to selected best practices, on the other hand, allow to activate a learning process, which is a chance for all organisations that had previously submitted an application and are then able to learn from projects that are identified as best practices.

Evaluating Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative. . .

109

Table 2 Evaluation criteria Criteria 1. Consistence and relevance of the proposal with its general and specific aims 2. Originality and innovation 3. Methodology and degree of engagement of external stakeholders and partners

4. Actual results and territorial impact

5. Transferability to other contexts

Global evaluation

Points to be assigned Max 25 pts out of 100

Sub-criteria 1a. Consistence (max 8 pts 1b. Relevance (max 8 pts) 1c. Objectives (max 8 pts) Max 25 pts out of 100 Max 15 pts 3a. Methodology (max out of 100 5 pts) 3b. Partnerships (max 10 pts) Max 25 pts 4a. Quantitative results (max out of 100 6 pts) 4b. Materials (max 6 pts) 4c. Possibility to reproduce project (max 4 pts) 4d. Impact (max 8 pts) Max 10 pts 5a. Diffusion of the project out of 100 (max 5 pts) 5b. Replicability (max 5 pts) Max 3 pts out of 100

Source: Own elaboration

5 Results and Analysis The analysis of “BuonePratiche” shows interesting results and is useful for cultural policy evaluation if carried out as a longitudinal tool of monitoring. First, it is interesting to notice that almost all applicants were evaluated as “BuonePratiche”, 198 out of 199, and 17 of them were selected as excellent. Taking into consideration descriptors requested by the Regional Director for Culture, the most significant are found in the “General aim of the project”, as indicated in Table 3. The analysis divides projects based on the amount of aims that were declared in the submission (applicants could select only one, two, three or all four aims). According to results shown in Table 3 the general aim with the highest number of preferences was “Enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets”, followed by “Innovation and inclusion”. The aim that was not chosen by any project as its principal aim is “Entrepreneurship”. This evidence is quite relevant is terms of perception of cultural activities and projects as something distant from business. On the other hand, scientific literature indicates that innovation is a key aspect in entrepreneurial practices in the cultural and creative sector. Many projects fell in the “Innovation and inclusion” group, which means that applicants are in fact carrying out entrepreneurial activities, but there is a clear issue regarding the way they perceive the concept of entrepreneurship itself and how it applies to their work.

110

N. Colasanti et al.

Table 3 Analysis of the “Aim of the project” descriptors Aim of the project Projects declaring only one aim Enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets Working in networks Entrepreneurship Innovation and inclusion Projects declaring two aims Enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets + Innovation and inclusion Enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets + Working in networks Working in networks + Innovation and inclusion Projects declaring three aims Enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets + Innovation and inclusion + Entrepreneurship Enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets + Innovation and inclusion + Working in networks Projects declaring all four aims Enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets + Innovation and inclusion + Working in networks + Entrepreneurship

No. of projects

No. of excellences

45 11 / 26

8 1 / 2

8

1

5

/

3

2

1

/

8

2

7

1

Source: Own elaboration Table 4 Analysis of the geographical distribution Geographical area (province) Rome City of Rome Viterbo Latina Rieti Frosinone

No. of projects 61 43 13 19 6 11

No. of excellences 8 5 2 3 2 2

Source: Own elaboration

Another descriptor that has to be analysed is geographical distribution. As expected, Lazio Region “suffers” from the presence of Rome as the main cultural centre. Indeed, out of 199 projects 61 are based in the province of Rome, 43 of which in the city of Rome itself. Despite the irregular distribution, the number of excellences seems quite well spread all over the region, as shown in Table 4. The call for “BuonePratiche” was open to all cultural organisations, both public and private, working in the Lazio Region, therefore we examined juridical forms to provide a clear picture of participants. As highlighted by Table 5 the majority of cultural organisations involved in the call are associations or public administrations; the participation by municipalities is also considerable. It is interesting to note that all projects were carried out by networks of organisations: in most cases, the network

Evaluating Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative. . . Table 5 Juridical forms

Juridical form Association Public administration Municipality Enterprises Foundations

No. of projects 46 36 22 19 4

111 No. of excellences 8 5 2 3 1

Source: Own elaboration

includes 3–8 members and at least 2 different juridical forms are represented. This finding is in line with the literature presented in Sect. 2, according to which cultural organisations are usually SMEs and micro-firms: for such small actors the ability to network becomes vital, and it represents a core feature of cultural projects. For what concerns strengths and weaknesses of benchmarking cultural projects, findings are interesting with respect to the amount of applications received. We believe that the possibility of being labelled as “BuonePratiche” encouraged many cultural workers/associations to submit their projects, and that competition may have been fostered by the chance of receiving an extra “excellence” award. However, almost all projects ranked as “BuonePratiche”, which is somehow controversial: on the one hand, it certainly indicates that average project quality was high. On the other hand, this result does not help the Regional Administration nor the applicants in carrying out an actual benchmarking process. Thus, we find that this specific application of benchmarking in the cultural sector has a two-fold outcome: on the one hand, participants and cultural organisations will be able to learn from the 17 projects that ranked “excellent”; on the other hand, the quality of all projects was quite satisfying to begin with (since all of them—but one—are “BuonePratiche”) so there may be little room for improvement.

6 Conclusions Public administrations are increasingly adopting benchmarking approaches in the cultural sector, with the aim of finding best practices and success cases to be used as a learning base. The result of a proper benchmarking process should lead to benchlearning, and it might represent an interesting research area concerning the outcomes of benchmarking activities instead of their outputs. However, as we pointed out in the analysis, in this specific case there may be little room for improvement following the benchmarking process, since overall quality appears to be quite high, as indicated by the high ranking of all projects (although this may be a consequence of the evaluation procedure itself). Future research should look into how the process of “BuonePratiche” develops over time in terms of number of applicants and rankings. Then, interviews should be carried out with participants of previous editions to understand whether taking part in a benchmarking program actually helped them improving their organisation and/or their activities.

112

N. Colasanti et al.

The four aims identified by the Lazio Region, i.e. “enhancing, promoting and communicating cultural assets”, “innovation and inclusion”, “entrepreneurship” and “working in networks” indicate that this public administration strongly values crosssector cooperation and social innovation, which shape current academic research. Moreover, the aspect of inclusion is also included, which may be useful for evaluating specific projects that target cultural minorities. The cross-sector dimension can be analysed in parallel with the one about “working in networks”, since both of them focus on project leaders’ ability to include different organisations from various sectors in their actions, and to build effective and active networks for the promotion of cultural assets. Finally, Lazio Region focuses on two additional dimensions in its evaluation process, namely the ability of projects to enhance and communicate cultural assets, which also happens to be the most selected by applicants, and the ability to activate entrepreneurial processes in the cultural sector, which indicates a broader view of culture and tries to link it to “business” aspects. The latter dimension, however, was never included by applicants: this may highlight the fact that cultural workers and organisations in the field may have a view of culture which is almost completely separate from entrepreneurial aspects. Future research may address this finding, both by analysing the evolution of entrepreneurial activities in “BuonePratiche” over the course of several years, and by drafting appropriate strategies with cultural organisations.

References Colbert, F. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership in marketing the arts. International Journal of Arts Management, 6(1), 30–39. Cunningham, S. (2001). From cultural to creative industries, theory, industry and policy implications. Culturelink, Special Issue (pp. 19–32). DCMS. (1998). Creative industries mapping document. London: DCMS. DCMS. (2001). Creative industries mapping document. London: DCMS. ERVET. (2012). C/C Cultura e creatività – ricchezza per l’Emilia Romagna. Assessorato Cultura e Sport, Regione Emilia Romagna. European Union. (2010). Green paper. Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries. Brussels: DG Education and Culture. Galloway, S., & Dunlop, S. (2007). A critique of the definitions of cultural and creative industries in public policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(1), 17–31. HKU. (2010). The entrepreneurial dimension of the cultural and creative industries. Utrecht: Hogeschool voor de Kunsten. Howkins, J. (2002). Speech to the inception session, The Mayor’s commission on the creative industries, London, 12 December, available at: http://www.creativelondon.org.uk/upload/pdf/ JohnHowkinstalk.pdf Howkins, J. (2007). The creative economy. How people make money from ideas. London: Penguin Books. KEA. (2006). The economy of culture in Europe. Brussels: European Commission DG5. Kooyman, R. (2009). Determinants of entrepreneurship in the CCIs. Utrecht: Hogeschool vor de Kunsten.

Evaluating Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative. . .

113

Martin, C. (2004). Defining culture and communication for the purpose of national and international statistics program. Paper presented to the third international conference on cultural policy research, 25–28 August, HEC Montreal, Montreal, Canada. Pérez-Cabañero, C., & Cuadrado-García, M. (2011). Evolution of arts and cultural management research over the first ten AIMAC conferences (1991–2009). International Journal of Arts Management, 13(3), 56–68. Pratt, A. C. (2001). Understanding the cultural industries: Is more less?. Culturelink, Special Issue (pp. 51–65). Richeri, G. (2009). Il concetto di industrie creative. Economia della cultura, 1, 5–10. Santagata, W. (Ed.). (2007). Libro bianco sulla creatività. Per un modello italiano di sviluppo. Milan: Università Bocconi Editore. Söndermann, M. (2007). Culture and creative industry in Germany and in the European context. Economia della Cultura, 4, 461–472. Spendolini, M. J. (1992). The benchmarking process. Compensation and Benefits Review, 24(5), 21–29. Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Towse, R. (2003). Cultural industries. In R. Towse (Ed.), A handbook of cultural economics (pp. 170–182). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. UNCTAD. (2010). The Creative economy: a feasible development option. Geneva: UNCTAD. UNESCO. (2013). Culture: Key to sustainable development. Proceedings of the Hangzhou international congress, China. Session 3A and 3b. WIPO. (2013). Studies on the economic contribution of the copyright industries. Overview. WIPO: Geneva.

Nathalie Colasanti is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Department of Management and Law, Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”. She holds a Phd in Management (with a specialisation in Public Management and Governance). Her main research interests include the commons, social innovation and cross-sector cooperation, the gig economy, worker-managed factories, the cultural sector. Rocco Frondizi is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Department of Management and Law, Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”. He holds a Phd in Management (with a specialisation in Public Management and Governance). His main research interests include social innovation, cross-sector cooperation, strategy in higher education institutions. Marco Meneguzzo is a full professor of Strategic Management at the Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata” and Full Professor of Public Management and Non Profit at the Università della Svizzera Italiana. He’s the coordinator of the Government and Civil Society research group, which includes the MIMAP Master (Innovation and Management of Public Administration) and the MEMIS Master (Social Innovation Management), of which he is the scientific director. Lavinia Pastore is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Department of Management and Law, Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”. She holds a PhD in Management (with a specialisation in Public Management and Governance). Her main research interests include social innovation, social impact cycle (from policy design to evaluation), PPP and outcome-based models, social entreprises and cultural management.

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network Perspective Roberta Bocconcelli, Fulvio Fortezza, Francesco Petrucci, and Alessandro Pagano

Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of crowdfunding (CF) in cultural entrepreneurship processes by adopting a Business Network perspective. The literature on Cultural Entrepreneurship emphasises the distinctive features of such ventures and portrays an entirely different entrepreneurial journey. Concurrently, CF is emerging as a key topic in management research and an innovative and ‘clever’ solution for start-up ventures. However, thus far, the analysis of the role of CF in cultural start-up processes is limited. Moreover, from our perspective, existing literature on CF lacks the ability to understand the actual complexity of the “networked” nature of such contexts. Therefore, we have adopted the Business Network perspective of the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group (IMP) to study two highly revelatory cultural projects (i.e., RATATÀ Festival and BRUTI card game) backed by the rewardbased CF platform Ulule. We believe that studying the role of CF in cultural entrepreneurship through the lens of the Business Network perspective provides a fine-grained analysis of the development paths of cultural ventures in terms of key actors and related resources, as well as in terms of interconnected activities. Keywords Crowdfunding · Cultural entrepreneurship · Business networks · Business relationships · Communities

R. Bocconcelli (*) · F. Petrucci · A. Pagano Department of Economics, Society, Politics, University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; alessandro. [email protected] F. Fortezza Department of Economics and Management, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_7

115

116

R. Bocconcelli et al.

1 Introduction Cultural entrepreneurship is characterised by specific features and contexts, showing significant differences if compared to the classical view of entrepreneurship: the inherent paucity of financial and organisational resources, the temporary and projectbased nature of most ventures, the fast pace of innovation, the hybrid form of cultural organisations developing across both social and business spheres, as well as the presence of loose and fast-changing networks (Peltoniemi 2015; Bergamini et al. 2018; Pagano et al. 2018). Within this context, scholars have observed the presence of key features and processes which have been described as ‘unconventional’ and responsible for guiding cultural enterprises towards different developmental journeys: the role of personal passions as a driver of entrepreneurial initiatives (Guercini and Cova 2018), the pursuit of cultural and social values instead of purely profitoriented goals (Klamer 2011), a healthy ‘do-it-yourself’ attitude (Scott 2012), the key role of creativity and knowledge, the collective nature of cultural initiatives which are usually supported by large informal communities of passionate contributors providing technical and knowledge resources, competencies, professional services, as well as network contacts and relationships. Existing research is trying to understand how entrepreneurs in cultural and creative sectors mobilise and access these multifaceted hidden potential resources embedded in cultural contexts and communities and “assemble” them into new ventures (Lysgård 2016). Within the sharing economy framework, crowdfunding (hereafter CF) is emerging as a critical topic in entrepreneurship and management research (Botsman and Rogers 2010). CF represents an innovative solution for start-ups in terms of access to financial resources (Brown et al. 2017; Walthoff-Borm et al. 2018) and other external resources far beyond money (Fortezza and Pagano 2018), such as technological and marketing resources. CF involves an open call through specialised Internet platforms for the provision—by a given time—of financial resources either in the form of donation or in exchange for tangible or intangible rewards to support specific initiatives (Belleflamme et al. 2014). Since CF campaigns are based on a peer-to-peer logic, this is an inherently relational phenomenon. Thus far, the analysis of the role of CF in cultural start-up processes is limited. A few studies have examined the key aspects of the campaign, such as the role and impact of the human and social capital of the proponent, the use of financial and non-financial rewards, or the role of the different motivations and goals (social, cultural, environmental or purely economic) guiding the campaign and the related venture (Josefy et al. 2017). What is still limited and matters the most is the analysis of the dynamic process whereby CF is accessed, combined and developed for the cultural project to emerge, develop and succeed. We argue that the business network perspective developed within the research group of the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group (IMP) (Håkansson et al. 2009; Håkansson and Snehota 2017) could provide a useful conceptual framework for examining the role of CF in cultural entrepreneurship. The business network approach focuses on the role of business relationships and networks with an

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

117

emphasis on the concept of interaction as the main driver of business development. Recently, within IMP studies, increasing attention has been placed on the process of starting-up, in which the importance of business relationships, networking and resource development is emphasised (Aaboen et al. 2017). Therefore, the primary purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of CF in cultural entrepreneurship, adopting a business network perspective. Notably, the present research aims to explore the role and dynamics of business relationships and networks to capture CF as a multifaceted and interacted phenomenon, entailing the development and coordination of broader and deeper interfaces among a plurality of business and social actors interacting in different network contexts. Therefore, the business network approach is considered very useful for taking on a managerial perspective of the start-up development in the cultural sector, using CF as a “window” into these processes. Our analysis shows that CF is a complex process that impacts not only the financial side of the venture but also the actors, activities and resource layers in an interactive environment that affects the whole business network of the entrepreneurial venture and, consequently, its development. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 addresses the theoretical framework; after a brief overview of the issue of cultural entrepreneurship, the role of CF in new cultural ventures is analyzed, then the IMP approach is presented as the chosen perspective to understand the complexity of start-up processes concerning CF. Section 3 outlines the adopted methodological approach. Section 4 provides the analysis of the CF projects of two cultural, entrepreneurial ventures (RATATÀ and BRUTI) within the same CF platform ULULE, which is very active in the creative and cultural sector. Section 5 discusses the main insights stemming from the analysis of the two cases. Finally, Sect. 6 addresses concluding reflections as well as managerial implications, limitations of the study and further research trajectories.

2 Cultural Entrepreneurship and Crowdfunding: A Business Network View 2.1

Cultural Entrepreneurship

Cultural entrepreneurship is gaining growing attention from scholars, who have been intensively working on understanding the complex relationship which connects culture to business in current economies (Ratten and Ferreira 2017). Previous literature has mainly developed two major areas of research in this regard: the first one concerns cultural consumption products and practices; the second one concerns cultural production and is aimed at understanding the potential of the Cultural and Creative Industry (CCI) sectors in innovation, new business development, as well as industrial and urban renewal. This stream of research has been particularly focused on emphasising creativity as one of the key resources of modern knowledge-based

118

R. Bocconcelli et al.

innovation processes. However, far less attention has been paid to the entrepreneurial dimension of cultural and creative industries: namely, little is still known about the figure and role of cultural entrepreneurs and how cultural enterprises are formed and developed (Scott 2012). To fill this gap, scholars have started investigating the nature and functioning of entrepreneurial phenomena in cultural and creative contexts, especially as strategic resources for innovation and economic development for regions and cities, as well as traditional industrial sectors (Dufays and Huybrechts 2017). The ‘cultural entrepreneur’—whether an individual or a group—shows critical differences when compared to traditional views of entrepreneurship developed in the economics and management fields. The first difference is related to the motivations and goals underlying entrepreneurial action. Various contributions highlight that cultural entrepreneurs are usually guided by a complex mix of economic and culturerelated goals, in which the balance is often oriented towards the latter (Eikhof and Haunschild 2006). Cultural entrepreneurs are geared toward the ambition of creating cultural value, especially together with, and for the benefit of, their reference community (Dufays and Huybrechts 2017): the market only represents a tool to achieve that goal. This view is also well explained by a common characteristic that they both possess; they pursue the realisation of their initiatives while undertaking other paid jobs within and outside the cultural sector, for they have yet to secure an income from their entrepreneurial activity (Scott 2012). This separation in the working sphere is supported by an articulated and flexible personality. According to Ellmeier (2003: 26), cultural entrepreneur is “on average . . . a multi-skilled, flexible person, psychologically resilient, independent, single . . . who jumps to whatever opportunity there is to be had in the field of art, music or the media”. Cultural entrepreneurs can also have a healthy “do-it-yourself” attitude (Scott 2012), usually fuelled by unique creative capabilities that makes them active and constant producers of cultural outputs. Other authors have placed emphasis on the double identity of the cultural entrepreneur, which is linked to the artistic and economic dimensions: “their identity as an artist, which provides them with work motivation and creative impetus, and their identity as a ‘small firm’ . . . which enables them to make a living out of an artist” (Eikhof and Haunschild 2006: 234). In this line of reasoning, some authors have emphasised the type of competencies possessed by cultural entrepreneurs. According to Van Der Ploeg (2002), they can develop, on the one hand, “knowledge and sensitivity towards the arts and creative processes,” on the other hand, “knowledge and comprehension of the potential public and marketing techniques” (Klamer 2011: 146). Klamer (2011: 154) states that one of the main characteristics is represented by the ability of persuasion toward partners and collaborators to induce them to join or support the entrepreneurial project, and towards potential consumers: “the arts require conversation, informal exchanges in order to be shared. Transactions in the marketplace are important but subordinate to the informal interaction in the social sphere”. These relational features also shape the collective dimension of cultural entrepreneurship undertaken by a coalition of individuals forming a team or, as can be

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

119

observed more and more frequently, an actual community of collaborating peers supporting the initiatives. This collective dimension well explains how resources are mobilised differently when compared to typical market exchange. The collective dimension of entrepreneurship is not a new concept. Notably, the embeddedness of the entrepreneurial action started to be examined by scholars in a spatial sense, as it is intended to offer a localised description of the socio-economic context in which a business develops (Johannisson and Nilsson 1989; Trettin and Welter 2011). Progressively, entrepreneurship and management literature focused on the role of communities in a broader sense, not only their spatial dimension. Some authors have shown that sharing a passion with others is an important driver for the development of new social activities and networks of passionate people, representing a vital resource for many entrepreneurs and businesses (Cova and Guercini 2016; Guercini and Cova 2018). Moreover, communities of people linked by shared hobbies or passions for something—even culture-related—could represent the key driver shaping the entrepreneurial venture and one of the relevant resources determining the success (or also hindrance) of a start-up in CCI sectors (Pagano et al. 2018; Milanesi 2018). The collective dimension of entrepreneurial action is relevant in cultural entrepreneurship. In fact, supporting communities can represent dense social networks of artists, technicians and designers which are activated by entrepreneurs, or teams, placing emphasis on friendship, shared values and interests and building an exchange system of “favours”, in which each individual is a “subject of value” and provides the resource basis for undertaking temporary projects and initiatives over time (Scott 2012). The involvement in projects often leads to the development of “semi-permanent groups” (Peltoniemi 2015). Art-related communities, for instance, may be shaped by specific obligations, principles and values, which may decrease the opportunities of personal benefits and vary degrees of opening and closure to new members. This socially grounded, collective, informal and bottom-up approach to the organisation of entrepreneurial activities in cultural and creative contexts is usually due to the inherent scarcity of financial and organisational resources (Ellmeier 2003). In this respect, it has been noted that other sources of resources, beyond communities, may be represented by family links and personal savings (Scott 2012), or by established relationships with government institutions (Klamer 2011).

2.2

Crowdfunding

To date, there is no universally accepted definition of CF (Tomczak and Brem 2013). However, it is generally defined as the act of raising funds for a venture or project from an articulated crowd using the Internet as a medium (Josefy et al. 2017). In return, crowd-funders may receive ownership stakes in the initiative and related eventual financial returns (equity CF), interest on loans (lending-based CF), marketing rewards (reward-based CF) or moral rewards (donation-based CF).

120

R. Bocconcelli et al.

The three different players involved in CF processes are: the subjects who propose the project to be funded (proponent), the crowd of people (backers), who decide to support these projects and expect a specific payoff—even if just moral or symbolic—and a digital platform (CF platform), which brings these two parties together (Ordanini et al. 2011). In essence, CF is an alternative and new form of financing for either for-profit or not-for-profit projects. Thanks to the new opportunities offered by the digital revolution and the sharing economy, it has seen tremendous growth in the last few years because it provides a smart solution to the scarcity of traditional sources of funding (Lehner et al. 2015), especially in sectors that are more resourceconstrained, like the cultural one (Calic and Mosakowski 2016; Gamble et al. 2017). Currently, CF is rapidly evolving (Lagazio and Querci 2018). First of all, it is no longer a secondary choice for funding a venture because it is part of a new set of financial tools that smart companies can use to get off the ground or develop their business (Brown et al. 2019). Moreover, apart from the most well-known and used format of reward-based CF, in the last few years, equity CF has manifested itself as an increasingly interesting option (Brown et al. 2018; Mochkabadi and Volkmann 2018) apt to mobilise a more significant amount of money to finance high-potential and innovative ventures in various business fields. What probably matters the most is that CF is now much more than merely funding new entrepreneurship (Brown et al. 2017, 2018). From this standpoint, key CF platforms are gradually changing from a place to fund creative projects into a real marketing playground, even for large and well-established companies, meaning that now there is very little room to “try the game of CF” to help a project or product to get off the ground. In fact, campaign creators are now more aware that this can be a rewarding but challenging journey (Stanko and Henard 2016) that requires a solid set of specific skills. Several scholars (Lehner et al. 2015) even stress the substantial influence that the CF process can have on the overall company marketing decisions in the long run, thus resulting in a different mindset and market approach. CF thus emerges as a new and specific marketplace (Nucciarelli et al. 2017; Crosetto and Regner 2018; Nielsen 2018), where not only are new—products or businesses—ideas funded but also tested, improved and promoted to be then proposed to other market channels (Brown et al. 2017; Fortezza and Pagano 2018). At its core, CF focuses on valuable relationships that can emerge and develop within CF platforms (Mollick 2014; Lehner et al. 2015; Zvilichovsky et al. 2017; Lagazio and Querci 2018) based on dynamics that go far beyond traditional sellerbuyer transactions (Ordanini et al. 2011; Colombo et al. 2015; Skirnevskiy et al. 2017). Proponents and backers are often normal users of CF platforms since backers are also usually proponents and vice versa. This leaves room for collaborative and long-lasting relationships between the two parties (Agrawal et al. 2015). For this to happen, it is imperative for there to be a prevailing ethos within the CF platform (Frydrych et al. 2014; Oo et al. 2019). In this sense, the CF organisation plays a crucial role (Ordanini et al. 2011; André et al. 2017). Therefore, the project proponents must carefully choose the best platform to operate in (Belleflamme et al. 2014). In this respect, in the case of reward-based CF, there are either industry-

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

121

specific platforms (e.g., the ones specialised in music or movies) or more generic ones, such as Kickstarter, which is the most popular and widely used CF platform worldwide, especially for high-tech products and creative projects. In general, the overall advantages offered by a CF crowd—apart from funding— consists of (Lehner et al. 2015; Brown et al. 2017; Butticè et al. 2017; Zvilichovsky et al. 2017; Crosetto and Regner 2018): (1) assessing the quality of a creative idea or product and optimising it through an intense exchange of information, comments and advice between proponents and backers; (2) promoting it in a highly effective and cost-efficient manner, not only reaching the people who back the project but also the entire CF community and related networks; (3) fine-tuning the pricing; (4) experiencing an alternative trade channel, initially bypassing competitors and traditional—online and offline—retailers. To sum up, the review of existing literature on CF suggests deepening the understanding of an important point further, that is to say, how salient networks emerge around a product or an idea and how they develop to create value. This factor is particularly important in the cultural and creative sector (André et al. 2017; Josefy et al. 2017; Planells 2017; Quero and Ventura 2019), in which the value creation processes are inherently opened up to a crowd of enthusiasts and/or co-developers (Nucciarelli et al. 2017) and no longer applies solely to the domain of reward-based CF but also the one of equity CF (Gamble et al. 2017).

2.3

Business Network View

The Business Network approach has been developed within the IMP Group, a group of scholars that have been interested in understanding the reality of businesses and markets functioning for the last 45 years (Håkansson and Snehota 2017). The main assumption of the IMP view on business is that the traditional view of the market— based on transactions, complete information, pricing, competition—does not fit the reality of everyday companies’ business life. Based on an intensive empirically based analysis conducted by an international group of researchers (Håkansson 1982), IMP has been recognised as the founder of the Business Relationship (Håkansson and Snehota 1995) and Business Network (Håkansson et al. 2009) concepts. What distinguishes IMP from other management and marketing approaches is the idea of interaction: companies are involved in business relationships and networks and interact to cope with the complexity of the business context, achieve collective and/or single objectives, innovate, develop and survive. Interaction occurs on three different layers in the IMP view: actors, activities, and resources (e.g., ARA model, Håkansson and Snehota 1995). At the actor level, it can be argued that companies behave based on the interaction that occurs between them at the interorganisational level. Taking on the activity layer, the IMP view highlights the interdependence of companies’ activities carried out by two or more actors. At the resource level, interaction implies that a resource is never per se but is the result of the interaction process itself. Therefore, a resource has value only concerning a

122

R. Bocconcelli et al.

business relationship and the different actors involved in its use, changes over time—depending on the interfaces with other resources and the activities carried out—and develops differently within different business relationships and business networks. This view challenges the prevalent marketing and management theories. In particular, IMP emphasises ‘no business is an island’: “ . . . a realisation of the importance of relationships and of their interactive nature leads inevitably to the view that managerial autonomy is significantly restricted. This means that we must question the idea that a company can develop its own independent, entrepreneurial strategy at all . . .” (Ford and Håkansson 2006: 251). The power of the IMP approach in capturing the complexity of the abovedepicted business world has been demonstrated by the use of its theoretical frameworks and overall approach by an increasing number of international researchers within different managerial and marketing fields. Recently, some IMP researchers have been increasingly involved in the study of start-ups and new entrepreneurship phenomena, emphasising their networked nature and the importance of business relationships and interaction patterns with a process perspective over the development of the new venture (Aaboen et al. 2017). In this process, a key role for the survival and/or the success of the project is played by the resources in place—scarce by definition within a new venture setting—and the business relationships (Baraldi et al. 2018). The IMP business network’s view of a start-up is thus much more concerned than other approaches “with such relationship development issues as how new ventures initiate and develop business relationships, how new ventures attain a position in an established network and how the new venture and its surrounding network develop new technology and innovation” (Baraldi et al. 2018: 3–4). Cultural entrepreneurs and teams face, more than others, all the typical constraints that characterise a new entrepreneurial venture, a start-up or a new project. CF is considered as a useful tool to overcome these constraints. The analysed literature on CF mainly takes on a “positive” perspective, emphasising the overall benefits of being within the network and exploiting the crowd and the importance of building an effective CF campaign and/or involving various communities. This literature is limited to the analysis of value generation within relations occurring within a specific bounded network related to the CF process. In this respect, we believe that contributions on CF lack the ability to understand the actual complexity of the “networked” nature of such contexts in terms of the variety of actors—collective and individual—involved, the tangible and intangible resource in place, the interdependence of activities carried out, within a broader network and, more importantly, in terms of broader network effects on the cultural entrepreneurial project. Wearing IMP lenses to investigate the role of CF in cultural entrepreneurship development could contribute to understanding the complexity and multifaceted aspects of the issue under investigation. In this respect, the Business Network approach has been already fruitfully applied—even in few studies—in cultural settings (Leek and Canning 2011; Bocconcelli et al. 2018; Pagano et al. 2018) as well as in CF (Fortezza and Pagano 2018). Leek and Canning (2011) have studied

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

123

the passion-based network around a Music Festival, highlighting the role of personal networking activities in facilitating resource access through “in-kind exchange” rather than financial exchange. Bocconcelli et al. (2018) have analysed the development of a cultural start-up, originating from a musical event that obtained unexpected success, with a specific focus on resource interaction. Pagano et al. (2018) have argued that the IMP framework revealed its helpfulness in understanding the role of interplay between the community and the business network in the development of cultural, entrepreneurial processes. Concerning CF research from a Business Network perspective, Fortezza and Pagano (2018) have put into light how the CF campaign allows for the mobilisation of an extensive network of resources, playing a key role in the process of development of a start-up.

3 Methodological Notes This study concerns the development, launch and management of two different CF projects conducted on the ULULE CF platform and selected on the base of unique and complementary characteristics from a list of the most representative pilot projects launched on ULULE Italy. The first selected project for this research is RATATÀ, which is an international independent art festival based in the city of Macerata in central Italy. The second case concerns the development of BRUTI, a complex product in the form of a role-playing card game. Notably, the two cases have been chosen in light of the following characteristics. Both cases have been tutored by the same person within ULULE, and this allowed us to explore the two campaigns by adopting the same perspective from the CF platform point of view. Second, we had the opportunity to follow these cultural, entrepreneurial ventures during previous research projects (Pagano et al. 2018; Fortezza and Pagano 2018), and this allowed us to rely on a solid knowledge of the two cultural ventures and easily direct specific interviews more effectively for the aim of this study. Finally, both cases are embedded in a similar cultural setting: graphics, illustration and comics, with the opportunity to have an overview of similar communities of enthusiasts. Moreover, the two cases also present some complementary features that enrich the interpretation of the context. First, BRUTI involves the development of a physical product (i.e., card design and graphic development, features of the card game), while RATATÀ concerns the organisation of an intangible, a festival for illustration, comics and independent publishing. Second, BRUTI has a unique campaign to publish the final product, while RATATÀ, on the contrary, is developed through different annual campaigns with specific goals and objectives for each one. Finally, the entrepreneurial team of the two cultural ventures are quite different in terms of the number of people involved: RATATÀ’s leading team is composed of five people, who constantly interact with a cultural Association; BRUTI is mainly about one artist/entrepreneur, who collaborates with a more experienced friend to realise his idea.

124

R. Bocconcelli et al.

We have inquired about the two different CF projects from their launch to closure by following an illustrative case study methodology based on qualitative data collection and analysis (Yin 2003). Data has been collected from five semi-structured direct interviews with informants within RATATÀ, BRUTI and ULULE. In particular, we performed two interviews with the ULULE manager in charge of assisting the two projects. In RATATÀ, we had two interviews with the two key member teams in charge of the CF and financing part of the festival. For BRUTI, we performed one interview with the artist/entrepreneur’s friend, who had previous experience in CF and was directly responsible for the BRUTI’s CF campaign. The interviews lasted an average of 45 minutes each. All the interviews were taped and transcribed. During each interview, we followed a scheme based on the ARA model (Actors—Resources— Activities) and thus on questions that specifically dealt with actors involved and their role, the main activities of the entrepreneurial venture and the main resources activated during the CF campaign. It was always possible to contact interviewees again to get clarifications or collect additional information on some important aspects. Secondary data sources include project reports, websites, social media pages and ULULE’s public pages. Moreover, as highlighted above, we also referred, as a secondary data set, to our previous knowledge of the two cases under investigation. From these sources, we extracted and constructed a processual and networked (Halinen and Törnroos 2005) description of the CF campaign, emphasising the role of the surrounding network context (in terms of interacting sets of actors, activities, and resources effectively) and embedding the project journey. The developed network approach has been methodologically adopted from the IMP school: specifically, data have been classified and structured along with the ARA model. On the basis of these descriptions, we discussed our observation and findings, especially by taking on a managerial perspective of the process of CF resources access, interaction and development.

4 Evidence from ULULE Platform: RATATÀ and BRUTI Cases ULULE is an international CF platform that was founded in October 2010 by Alexandre Boucherot and Thomas Grange in Paris, France. Since its launch, over 25,000 projects have been successfully funded, with users pledging more than 128 million euros from 193 countries. ULULE is the leading CF reward-based platform in Europe that selects and sustains promising creative and innovative projects from individuals, associations and companies, who want to obtain financing to develop their projects and initiatives (Belleflamme et al. 2014; André et al. 2017). ULULE provides managerial support, in the form of training and tutoring services, to hosted projects to allow project creators to launch and maintain highly

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

125

performative and successful campaigns. ULULE’s main point of strength with respect to competitors is its constant support for every campaign and its project creator. To control and ensure the best set-up for each project, ULULE offers initial training courses to the beginners and constant tutoring to the launched projects and assigns a dedicated project manager, who operates in close contact with the project owner. The project manager evaluates the campaign, its progress and performance levels in achieving the funding objectives. In particular, the manager monitors the community response to the campaign and supports the project creator in taking more strategic action to meet the community expectations—for instance, by providing more and different rewards or feedback in the form of news and online contents—to collect an increasing number of donations. During the campaign phase, it is fundamental to create and develop intense interactions with the community to maintain high levels of engagement and participation from community members and maximise the efforts towards the funding goal. In 2012 ULULE joined the Italian market thanks to the development of countryspecific and more “offline-oriented” strategies to engage with Italian project creators and users, who have shown to be highly interested in CF functioning and dynamics. RATATÀ is an event-based project characterised by low-budget objectives, repeated campaigns (launched across five festival editions), no previous experience in CF and support from a locally established community of collaborators and supporters. The second case concerns the development of BRUTI, a role-playing card game created by Gipi, who is a well-known international artist and cartoonist supported by a large online community of fans in Italy and Europe. The project was a high-budget project based on the development, realisation and launch of a single complex product (the BRUTI game box). The campaign was entirely managed by Massimo Colella, a professional marketing and communication manager with previous experience in CF.

4.1

RATATÀ Festival

RATATÀ is an annual four-day art festival held in April in the small city of Macerata in central Italy. The event has now become established as one of the most important independent art festivals in Italy and Europe dedicated to illustration, comics and publishing. With its five editions between 2014 and 2018 and the huge program involving a wide range of exhibitions, workshops, events and international artists, the festival has become an event of major relevance for the city of Macerata and the local community, both from a cultural and economic perspective. The RATATÀ festival was conceived as an ‘event-platform’ that brings together independent artists, professionals and publishers to exhibit and trade their creations, holds workshops and seminars and shares new ideas and projects, in the context of a local enthusiast community. The event was launched for the first time in 2014, while the city was experiencing a lack of resources for culture and social investment as a consequence of the economic crisis affecting the city, which began in 2008. The city

126

R. Bocconcelli et al.

faced a reduction in public sector funding following the crisis. In the absence of public funding, civil society and the commercial and voluntary sectors begin to create new cultural initiatives, although not all managed to survive. The RATATÀ festival has been one of the successful projects. The idea of organising an independent art festival in Macerata was first launched by Lisa, an experienced artist and professional graphic designer living and working in the city. Lisa is a member of a close community of passionate artists and friends, who are lively engaged in the organisation of contemporary art events and activities for the city. Lisa is convinced that such a community could represent the ideal basis to organise the event and that the city of Macerata could act as the perfect scenario for the festival experience due to its important heritage of cultural institutions and places full of history and creativity. However, given the paucity of public funding, Lisa started thinking about designing the festival as a low-budget and not-for-profit initiative. Accordingly, Lisa—with the help of a close group of enthusiasts (already artists), who form the RATATÀ leading team—started mobilising volunteers and resources from the community to enact the complex festival organisation rapidly. As a result, the festival has been embraced by the local community, who has helped the organisation to develop a strong relationship with the city, embedding the festival firmly in Macerata’s cultural scene. To be aligned with the ‘self-productive spirit’ of the organisation, the RATATÀ team decided to launch, starting with the first edition, a CF campaign in collaboration with ULULE. The CF campaign was a reward-based one, where backers were rewarded with gadgets (T-shirt, pin, shoppers, limited editions of the RATATÀ book, art posters, etc.) from the festival. Lisa had close contacts with an artist and friend, who had already had an experience with ULULE and the launch and management of CF campaigns for cultural projects. Therefore, Lisa managed to obtain the needed preliminary information and training to interact with ULULE and submit a valuable project to its managers. During the early editions, Lisa developed an intense collaboration with Tania, ULULE’s manager, who monitored the RATATÀ project. The two worked in close contact, and the RATATÀ campaigns were successful (about 120% on average). Lisa became more experienced with the platform and the CF tools and strategies, which are recommended by ULULE to engage with new supporters from the web and the existing community. RATATÀ’s communication strategies, especially on social media platforms, were strongly influenced by its relationship with ULULE, the new expertise acquired in it and the need to face an emergent virtual community, which is increasingly asking for contents, news and updates from the RATATÀ world. Progressively, the commitment required by the online and social media activities connected to the festival and the CF campaign became too intense to be properly managed by the RATATÀ team, and their relationship with ULULE ended after the fifth edition. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, from the early edition onward, the team had to deal with a growing organisational structure that required a progressive increase in the resources made available to the different festival areas and the hosted artists and publishers to continue guaranteeing the high quality of the cultural

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

127

contribution. At the same time, the festival aimed at playing a more strategic role in public administration and its cultural policy actions. However, even after the great success of the fifth edition, appropriate public financial support was still lacking. Across the different editions, the team always tried to fix this situation by developing a deeper relationship with the local administration and seeking recognition for the festival as a focal cultural and economic event of the city. Therefore, given the paucity of the available resources available for the growth of the organisational process and structure and the need to obtain the complete endorsement of the local administration as a strategic means to find the proper financial support to the further the development of the festival, the CF mechanism did not develop any further. Given the close relationship between the festival organisation and the local community and city, CF is not considered an essential tool for the financing of the festival by the leading team that always chose to have minimal funding objectives for each of the CF campaigns, depending on the yearly public fundings. Eventually, according to this evidence, the RATATÀ team was persuaded to shift the financing strategy from the private community-based sectors to the public sector to legitimate the public utility dimension of the festival (socially, culturally and economically). The team saw the CF as a means to drain resources from the community base, which underlies the festival structure and context. Even though the CF mechanism promotes interaction and collective action from the base by offering the chance to support the festival organisation actively through donations, it implies, for the leading team, the need to devote resources to the development of a series of more strategic and integrated tools, especially within the festival’s marketing and communication areas, which can negatively influence the original mission and organisational nature of the festival. In this sense, the festival organisation did not adequately consolidated the local embedding of its activities and structures to create the conditions to develop the festival further, primarily from a technical and organisational perspective. At the same time, new opportunities are emerging because of the successful image and format of the festival, all elements that have the potential to develop the supporting community on a more international and virtual base, but need a more strategic and integrated approach to the marketing and communication dimensions of the festival.

4.2

BRUTI Card Game

BRUTI is a card-based role-playing game that was developed between 2012 and 2015 by Gian Alfonso Pacinotti (better known as Gipi), a well-known illustrator and cartoonist on the European scene. The Game was published by Rulez and launched for the first time in Italy in November 2015 at Lucca Comics and Games festival. Gipi is a prolific and creative illustrator and author, who has always been attracted to the idea of creating and designing an innovative card game. In 2012, Gipi made contact with Massimo Colella, Gipi’s friend and colleague, as well as a highly skilled and experienced designer and cartoonist, founder of ‘La Bande Destinée’, an

128

R. Bocconcelli et al.

emerging creative communication agency based in Paris. When Gipi told Massimo about the idea of developing a card game together, Massimo had the idea of developing a CF campaign to raise the needed funds to develop and produce the game autonomously from any editor. Massimo was convinced about the advantages of self-producing the game as this choice could provide time and autonomy to Gipi to free the creative process from any publishing constraints and enable the author to develop and control every single part of the game from the story, to card design and rules. Massimo had previous experience as a project creator in CF and had already launched and conducted a successful campaign on ULULE to publish an independent comic book. Before this, Massimo had already attended a complete training course on CF at ULULE to obtain the basic concepts and instruments to deal with a campaign properly. In 2014, Massimo started planning the CF campaign for BRUTI. He made contact with ULULE and completed the BRUTI project to be submitted to the ULULE selection team. He also started planning and designing the important preliminary communication campaign that would be developed on Gipi’s facebook page to start alerting Gipi’s many fans and supporters and progressively introduce them to this new project. Although Gipi is an eclectic artist, who has expressed himself in different sectors, he is mostly known and appreciated as a successful cartoonist. In this regard, Massimo thinks that Gipi’s most passionate fans should be prepared to deal with their favourite artists while he’s exploring the world of role-playing games for the first time. Massimo is aware of the fact that comics and gaming communities move within close, although still distinct, fields of interest. The main purpose of Massimo’s communication strategy is, thus, creating a mixed audience by gathering interested fans and curious from both communities. Therefore, as a BRUTI project manager, Massimo planned a one-year preparatory communication campaign on facebook before the official launch of the CF campaign on ULULE. In this period, Massimo designed and planned, in collaboration with Gipi, all the needed features of the CF campaign, such as duration, funding objectives and rewards. The preparatory campaign was absolutely successful as Massimo succeeded in increasing the number of project followers by posting news, videos and pictures meant to give followers a deeper look into the ongoing development of BRUTI. This new emerging community is as enthusiastic as highly responsive in providing useful feedback, comments and advice to improve the different parts of the project. The CF campaign was finally launched in July 2015 and was programmed to be short and fast. The campaign achieved its first financial objective of 25,000 € in just 2 days. The main reward was the basic version of the game. Given its immediate success, to improve the campaign and achieve higher objectives, Massimo and Gipi decided to improve the basic version of the game by developing a bigger version of the game box containing more interesting features: the collector box. In this way, Massimo could achieve increasingly higher objectives by promising the introduction of valuable and rare rewards such as new cards, gadgets of any sort, access to launch events, as well as Gipi’s original drawings and a completely new comic book from Gipi, published with the game.

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

129

The campaign officially closed in August 2015, and the BRUTI project collected over 68,000 €, an amount equivalent to 272% of the initial objective. BRUTI is the most successful campaign ever conducted on ULULE’s Italian platform.

5 Discussion In this section, the main research findings are discussed according to the IMP ARA model for network analysis. Notably, we focus on the actor, activity and resource dimensions as the components of the “enlarged” business network generated by the CF campaigns of BRUTI and RATATÀ. Hence, through the lens of the business network approach, we aim to look at the complexity of the networked nature of entrepreneurial venture contexts and the multifaceted nature of CF, as well as its impact on the process of the cultural venture development.

5.1

Actors

The empirical research highlights various categories of actors, whose role could influence the CF campaign process. Indeed, relevant actors are the CF platform—in this case, ULULE—and the Tutor assigned to the project. The Tutor could play a key role in shaping the content and timing of the CF campaign. The Tutors—exploiting their expertise in CF projects— can assist in the planning of the campaign and connecting the CF project to other CF projects in the platform and a wider community. However, it should be highlighted that the platform and the Tutor are keen, on the one hand, on pursuing innovation and novelty when accepting and implementing a new campaign, and, on the other hand, complying with routine-based procedures and rules typical of CF projects. The ability of the CF platform to launch successful CF campaigns in cultural sectors is, thus, influenced by the specific interaction that develops between the Tutor and the project proponent, and also the broader project team, with its leading figures, who support and influence the project proponent. The two cases have shown us different configurations leading to different processes. While the BRUTI team was fully aligned with the time and content of the CF campaign, the RATATÀ team—through its reference member Lisa—proposed a very interesting project but was less aligned with the CF process as expected by the ULULE platform. For the BRUTI team, the CF campaign was the cornerstone for achieving their overall goal: the launch of their card game. The campaign was specifically designed and led by Massimo to create a community of supporters around the project to obtain financial as well as emotional support. This goal was pursued primarily by promoting the project amongst the wide network of its traditional fans. However, more than the project itself—which is mostly new and

130

R. Bocconcelli et al.

unknown to the fans—Massimo planned to use Gipi’s fame as a means to boost the project’s popularity and, thus, interact with the broader community to gain increasing attention. At the same time, the RATATÀ team perceived the CF campaign as an essential component of the financial dimension of their project, which was, however, to be combined with the project configuration, the inherent values of the team and the closely related community. These steps lead to the third typology of actor, the backing community, which— as shown in these cases—can be represented by various interlocking communities, whose interaction—current or potential—can influence the CF campaign process and, thus, its success. The existence of multiple communities—local or virtual— with various layers in terms of the degree of involvement is typical of cultural projects, and CF campaigns actively attempt to exploit them to achieve their targets. CF campaigns seem, on the one hand, to consolidate/build communities around the main output (as in the BRUTI case), on the other hand, CF seems to open the door to actors and communities, whose attributes are not perfectly aligned with project’s goals and values. In this case, communities can represent a potential hindrance in the evolution of the cultural project—as shown in the RATATÀ case. In particular, the case shows how the entrepreneurial team can choose to reduce the use of CF in favour of public forms of financing with the purpose of reducing the financial involvement of the community in the project development as well as increasing the commitment of the local institutions.

5.2

Activities

The empirical evidence suggests that cultural entrepreneurs involved in CF campaigns are pushed to implement a more “managerial” approach in their venture. Taking a managerial approach implies gaining an increasing awareness of the content and timing dimension of various activities linked to the overall venture process and the specific CF campaign. In terms of content, the use of CF as a source of financing pushes cultural entrepreneurs to place more attention on planning activities and marketing and communication projects to be implemented to support the campaign. Another related activity—typical of CF—is the selection and production of rewards, which implies coordination with both planning and marketing activities. In terms of timing, all these activities require adaptations to combine the features of the entrepreneurial project with the typical phases of successful CF campaigns. In this respect, the BRUTI and RATATÀ campaigns show different effects on the development of their related activities. The BRUTI campaign is timely organised to be conducted on two different platforms at different times. While it starts on Facebook to draw the attention of the wider community and gather an increasing number of followers, it shifts to ULULE to collect donations and close the CF initiative. In the latter part of the campaign, activities become intensive and essentially focused on fuelling the rewards mechanisms. Massimo constantly monitored

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

131

and interacted with the community to increase the donation flow: to do this, he planned the progressive introduction of appealing rewards in line with the community requests and desires and fixed ever higher and reachable funding objectives in accordance with the community’s potential to donate. At the same time, this reward mechanism strongly influenced the development process of the game as the community pushed through donations so that Gipi and Massimo would develop and add new content and gadgets into the game box. In this phase, the activities of the BRUTI team settled on the interactive responses of the community, especially through the monitoring of social media channels. Hence, the BRUTI campaign developed an emerging set of interactive activities focused on providing rapid and targeted responses to the community to sustain and maximise the donation process until the campaign’s closure. The role of the BRUTI campaign manager was to process the communication flow, grasping the community trends, and decide and plan, with Gipi, the necessary improvements for taking the campaign to a step further. The RATATÀ CF campaign allowed Lisa and the team to align the overall marketing and communication activities with constant interaction between activities carried out on social media and the website, and activities linked to communication within ULULE, better. Moreover, in the RATATÀ case, activities were carried out by Lisa, who was, for the first three editions, the only actor within RATATÀ responsible for managing the relationship between ULULE and RATATÀ and creating and implementing the necessary content and activities required to develop the entire campaign process and engage the community. ULULE’s intervention in the RATATÀ campaign was constant and intensive, especially during the early editions of the festival, because Lisa did not have the necessary experience and skills to conduct the campaign independently and successfully. According to the requests provided by ULULE, Lisa was initially pushed to improve the overall communication strategy of RATATÀ by integrating the content from different social media channels and coordinating communication activities with the different steps of the campaign. In the beginning, the campaign was highly time and resource-consuming. The initial reward list was rather limited, as only a few low-cost gadgets were offered to supporters. Also, online interactions were limited in number because the RATATÀ community is currently a locally based community that has a direct and close relationship with the leading team. Therefore, the RATATÀ community was approached and interacted with differently when compared to the BRUTI online community. Furthermore, Lisa was involved in several organisational and festival activities, which constrained her ability to properly manage and perform all the required activities for the campaign. However, despite these limitations, the RATATÀ campaign was successful across the various editions. The continuous interaction with ULULE through the different editions allowed Lisa to progressively acquire the required skills to manage the campaign efficiently. However, the ability to develop a more appropriate and prosperous campaign led Lisa to deal with the need to develop more accurate and complex activities, such as planning targeted social media contents and intense interactive activities, developing preliminary social campaigns to anticipate the launch of the CF campaign and gain increasing

132

R. Bocconcelli et al.

attention from the community, monitoring online community feedback to develop more tempting rewards and fix tailored fundings objectives, producing a broader number of rewards, or expanding the online community of international followers. All these elements interfered with the organisational role of Lisa, who was part of the leading team and is involved with direct organisational activities and duties. Thus, CF strategies and plans were not developed any further, as indicated by ULULE.

5.3

Resources

Effective implementation of CF activities, on the one hand, implies detaining appropriate resources to exploit this option; on the other hand, it allows the project team to gain access to new resources, which in part could then be controlled internally. CF campaigns could be complex for cultural entrepreneurs, who, as a result, seem to face two distinct scenarios: an explorative attitude—as in the RATATÀ case—or a proactive approach—as in the BRUTI case. In the first case, the ability to exploit the CF tool is related to the degree of commitment and learning over the CF process by the project team. If the overall project is complex and resources—in terms of human resources and knowledge—are limited, then the CF campaign risks not being fully exploited. In the second case, the project team was well equipped from the beginning, in terms of awareness of the CF tool and skills in managing marketing and communication activities, and this facilitated interaction with the CF platform and the related communities and the achievement of the target. The effectiveness of using CF for cultural projects is also related to another intangible resource—reputation—which, in the two cases, is embodied in a brand—RATATÀ—and a key actor—the artist Gipi in the BRUTI case. CF also allows us to gain access to and develop new resources that could be exploited for the campaign and/or the overall entrepreneurial project. One key resource is represented by financial contributions, which could be used for specific activities requiring meaningful investments. In addition to financial resources, the empirical evidence highlights the development of knowledge in terms of marketing and communication activities, as RATATÀ demonstrates, and technical knowledge related to the main product, as in the BRUTI case.

6 Conclusions In this paper, we have sought to discuss the role of CF in the development of cultural entrepreneurial ventures. In line with the mainstream literature on CF, the cases have shown how CF campaigns can play a key role in the development of cultural projects (Agrawal et al. 2015; Fortezza and Pagano 2018) and entrepreneurial new ventures (Klamer 2011;

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

133

Pagano et al. 2018). Notably, both cases have proven the effectiveness of CF processes, in particular when a passion-based community—as it is often the case in cultural ventures—is mobilised and involved in the entrepreneurial venture development. Our analysis contributes to the literature by emphasising the interconnected nature of CF within a more complex and larger business network environment. In fact, the IMP perspective enables us to conduct a fine-grained analysis over the role of CF in terms of related actors and associated resources, as well as in terms of interconnected activities in the context of a broader business network. In addition, IMP also allows us to highlight the “dark side” of networks (Håkansson et al. 2009; Aaboen et al. 2017), generated by the complex process of interaction occurring at the actors, activities and even the resource level. In this respect, when a broader perspective of CF is taken on, relationships and networks can represent both an opportunity and a constraint with respect to the development of the cultural, entrepreneurial venture and the CF process itself. The CF campaign is the result of a complex process of interaction involving a plurality of actors, intervening both directly and indirectly. These actors—as the CF tutor, the project proponent or the supporting community—engage in intense mutual interactions to access and assemble the necessary configurations of resources and solutions, as well as to perform and coordinate the activities required to develop the campaign and achieve the fixed goals. Each actor plays a specific role and provides a unique perspective on the process. In this context, the development of the campaign has the effect of mobilising communication and marketing resources effectively—often limited in cultural entrepreneurship processes—as a way to engage with different communities, which are the real engine of CF campaigns (Brown et al. 2018, 2019). The IMP perspective enables us to observe how specific resources and activities need to be developed and used to create continuous interaction with the community and align and maintain the right motivations and values that make the project valuable to the community. Furthermore, the RATATA case shows that the community is not simply the virtual supporting community—as in the BRUTI case—rather, it is involved as an active actor collaborating in the project, supplying key resources and performing important services for the realisation of the project. Finally, by focusing on business relationships and networks, the IMP view could offer new managerial insights when compared to “traditional” approaches in the management of CF campaigns. It emerges that the cultural entrepreneur or the entrepreneurial team should not consider the CF campaign in isolation with respect to other financial sources and resources as well as to the whole entrepreneurial project. Previous relationships, together with the possible overlapping between different networks/communities, have to be considered in advance to make the most of the CF campaign. Support—or even hostility or indifference—from other communities/networks other than backers, have to be carefully analysed. Activities, in an enlarged perspective on CF in cultural entrepreneurship, need increasing coordination: those associated with CF, those related to the new venture process of development and those between the two in an interconnected perspective, especially

134

R. Bocconcelli et al.

in the case of the organisation of an event as the RATATÀ case shows. Resources— not only financial—could change, and different combinations of them could emerge during the process, and entrepreneurs have to be aware of, and prompt in coping with, this changing scenario. Naturally, this study presents limitations. Our reflections stem from only two illustrative cases of two cultural ventures in a similar segment (graphics, illustrations and publishing) in a snapshot within a single CF platform. A multiple case study methodology adopting a longitudinal perspective with cases from different culturalrelated sectors could shed light on this largely unexplored issue. Another interesting line of research for future investigations could be represented by the adoption of the perspective of the CF platforms on cultural entrepreneurship, to better understand possible evolutions of this business, together with effects on the cultural entrepreneurship “world”.

References Aaboen, L., La Rocca, A., Lind, F., Perna, A., & Shih, T. (Eds.). (2017). Starting up in business networks. Why relationships matter in entrepreneurship. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks, and the timing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 24(2), 253–274. André, K., Bureau, S., Gautier, A., & Rubel, O. (2017). Beyond the opposition between altruism and self-interest: Reciprocal giving in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(2), 313–332. Baraldi, E., Ingemansson Havenvid, M., Linné, Å., & Öberg, C. (2018). Start-ups and networks: Interactive perspectives and a research agenda. Industrial Marketing Management, 80, 58–67. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609. Bergamini, M., Van de Velde, W., Van Looy, B., & Visscher, K. (2018). Organizing artistic activities in a recurrent manner: (On the nature of) entrepreneurship in the performing arts. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(3), 319–334. Bocconcelli, R., Pagano, A., & Petrucci, F. (2018). Turning culture into business: Resource combination in cultural entrepreneurial ventures. Paper presented at the 34th IMP Conference, Marseille. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Brown, T. E., Boon, E., & Pitt, L. F. (2017). Seeking funding in order to sell: Crowdfunding as a marketing tool. Business Horizons, 60(2), 189–195. Brown, R. C., Mawson, S., Rowe, A., & Mason, C. (2018). Working the crowd: Improvisational entrepreneurship and equity crowdfunding in nascent entrepreneurial ventures. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 36(2), 169–193. Brown, R. C., Mawson, S., & Rowe, A. (2019). Start-ups, entrepreneurial networks and equity crowdfunding: A processual perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 80, 115–125. Butticè, V., Colombo, M. G., & Wright, M. (2017). Serial crowdfunding, social capital, and project success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 183–207. Calic, G., & Mosakowski, E. (2016). Kicking off social entrepreneurship: How a sustainability orientation influences crowdfunding success. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 738–767.

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

135

Colombo, M. G., Franzoni, C., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39 (1), 75–100. Cova, B., & Guercini, S. (2016). Passion et entrepreneuriat: Vers un entrepreneur tribal? Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 15(2), 15–42. Crosetto, P., & Regner, T. (2018). It’s never too late: Funding dynamics and self pledges in rewardbased crowdfunding. Research Policy, 47, 1463–1477. Dufays, F., & Huybrechts, B. (2017). Entrepreneurial teams in social entrepreneurship: When team heterogeneity facilitates organizational hybridity. In C. Ben-Hafaïedh & T. M. Cooney (Eds.), Research handbook on entrepreneurial teams. Theory and practice (pp. 273–287). Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar. Eikhof, D. R., & Haunschild, A. (2006). Lifestyle meets market: Bohemian entrepreneurs in creative industries. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 234–241. Ellmeier, A. (2003). Cultural entrepreneurialism: On the changing relationship between the arts, culture and employment. The International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9, 3–16. Ford, D., & Håkansson, H. (2006). IMP–some things achieved: Much more to do. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 248–258. Fortezza, F., & Pagano, A. (2018). Crowdfunding as a resource in business start-up processes. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Italian Marketing Society, Bari. Frydrych, D., Bock, A. J., Kinder, T., & Koeck, B. (2014). Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding. Venture Capital, 16(3), 247–269. Gamble, J. R., Brennan, M., & McAdam, R. (2017). A rewarding experience?: Exploring how crowdfunding is affecting music industry business models. Journal of Business Research, 70, 25–36. Guercini, S., & Cova, B. (2018). Unconventional entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 92, 385–391. Håkansson, H. (1982). International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods. Chichester: Wiley. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2017). No business is an island: Making sense of the interactive business world. Bingley: Emerald. Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Business in networks. Chichester: Wiley. Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J.-Å. (2005). Using case methods in the study of contemporary business networks. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1285–1297. Johannisson, B., & Nilsson, A. (1989). Community entrepreneurs: Networking for local development. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1(1), 3–19. Josefy, M., Dean, T. J., Albert, L. S., & Fitza, M. A. (2017). The role of community in crowdfunding success: Evidence on cultural attributes in funding campaigns to “save the local theater”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 161–182. Klamer, A. (2011). Cultural entrepreneurship. The Review of Austrian Economics, 24, 141–156. Lagazio, C., & Querci, F. (2018). Exploring the multi-sided nature of crowdfunding campaign success. Journal of Business Research, 90, 318–324. Leek, S., & Canning, L. (2011). The role of networking and social capital in the initiation of relationships in passion based service networks. Paper presented at the 27th IMP Conference, Glasgow. Lehner, O. M., Grabmann, E., & Ennsgraber, C. (2015). Entrepreneurial implications of crowdfunding as alternative funding source for innovations. Venture Capital, 17(1/2), 171–189. Lysgård, H. K. (2016). The ‘actually existing’ cultural policy and culture-led strategies of rural places and small towns. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 1–11. Milanesi, M. (2018). Exploring passion in hobby-related entrepreneurship. Evidence from Italian cases. Journal of Business Research, 92, 423–430.

136

R. Bocconcelli et al.

Mochkabadi, K., & Volkmann, C. K. (2018). Equity crowdfunding: A systematic review of the literature. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0081-x. Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16. Nielsen, K. R. (2018). Crowdfunding through a partial organization lens – The co-dependent organization. European Management Journal, 36, 695–707. Nucciarelli, A., Li, F., Fernandes, K. J., Goumagias, N., Cabras, I., Devlin, S., Kudenko, D., & Cowling, P. (2017). From value chains to technological platforms: The effects of crowdfunding in the digital game industry. Journal of Business Research, 78, 341–352. Oo, P. P., Allison, T. H., Sahaym, A., & Juasrikul, S. (2019). User entrepreneurs’ multiple identities and crowdfunding performance: Effects through product innovativeness, perceived passion, and need similarity. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(5), 105895. Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., & Pizzetti, M. (2011). Crowdfunding: Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of Service Management, 22(4), 443–470. Pagano, A., Petrucci, F., & Bocconcelli, R. (2018). A business network perspective on unconventional entrepreneurship: A case from the cultural sector. Journal of Business Research, 92, 455–464. Peltoniemi, M. (2015). Cultural industries: Product–market characteristics, management challenges and industry dynamics. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 41–68. Planells, A. J. (2017). Video games and the crowdfunding ideology: From the gamer-buyer to the prosumer-investor. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(3), 620–638. Quero, M. J., & Ventura, R. (2019). Value proposition as a framework for value cocreation in crowdfunding ecosystems. Marketing Theory, 19(1), 47–63. Ratten, V., & Ferreira, J. J. (2017). Future research directions for cultural entrepreneurship and regional development. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 21(3), 163–169. Scott, M. (2012). Cultural entrepreneurs, cultural entrepreneurship: Music producers mobilising and converting Bourdieu’s alternative capitals. Poetics, 40, 237–255. Skirnevskiy, V., Bendig, D., & Brettel, M. (2017). The influence of internal social capital on serial creators’ success in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 209–236. Stanko, M. A., & Henard, D. H. (2016). How crowdfunding influences innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(3), 15–17. Tomczak, A., & Brem, A. (2013). A conceptualized investment model of crowdfunding. Venture Capital, 15(4), 335–359. Trettin, L., & Welter, F. (2011). Challenges for spatially oriented entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(7–8), 575–602. Van der Ploeg, R. (2002). In art we trust. De Economist, 150(4), 333–362. Walthoff-Borm, X., Schwienbacher, A., & Vanacker, T. (2018). Equity crowdfunding: First resort or last resort? Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 513–533. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zvilichovsky, D., Danziger, S., & Steinhart, Y. (2017). Making-the-product-happen: A driver of crowdfunding participation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 41, 81–93.

Roberta Bocconcelli is Associate Professor of Business Marketing in the Department of Economics, Society, Politics of the University of Urbino, Italy. She published in international journals such as Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing. Her research interests are mainly in Business Marketing and Business Networks.

The Role of Crowdfunding in Cultural Entrepreneurship: A Business Network. . .

137

Fulvio Fortezza is Associate Professor of Marketing at the Department of Economics and Management of the University of Ferrara (Italy), where he also runs the Research Center on the Knowledge Economy and Innovation. His main research interests are collaborative consumption, happiness, experiential and entrepreneurial marketing. Francesco Petrucci is post-doc Research Fellow in the Department of Economics, Society, Politics at the University of Urbino, Italy. His research background is mostly concerned with the role of interaction, relationships, and networks in new business formation and development, especially in Cultural and Creative sectors. Alessandro Pagano is Associate Professor of Management in the Department of Economics, Society, Politics at the University of Urbino, Italy. His research interests concern new business development and innovation management. He published in journals such as Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Journal of Business Research and International Journal of Management Reviews.

Part III

Enabling Participation

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre Makovecz’s Work Within the Faluházak Project Pierluigi Catalfo and Martina Giustra

Abstract The aim of this research is to investigate, evaluate and represent some of the characteristics of the social, cultural and economic values generated by the oeuvre of Imre Makovecz and the group of specialists who collaborated with him—Pál Béke, Tamás Varga, and Ferenc Péterfi—within the faluházak (The Hungarian term faluház literally means ‘house of village’ (faluházak—houses of village) and can be translated as community centres or village centres.) project. Said project was carried out in local communities living in small villages scattered throughout Hungary, during the 1970s and 1980s. The current research work focuses on the Hungarian Organic Architecture of the architect Imre Makovecz, concentrating the analysis particularly on the Cultural Houses and Village Centres that were built, with a specific multidisciplinary and participatory approach to encourage cohesion and social engagement, in the Hungarian villages of Bak (1985), Zalaszentlászló (1985) and Kakasd (1986). The current research is based on a multiple case studies approach, architectural data, and on the investigation of the governance of buildings, taking into account the urban and social contexts in which the buildings are located. Data has been collected through direct observations, semi-structured interviews, archive research and usercentred perspective surveys. Valuable benchmark data and qualitative data were collected, as these points of architecture represent virtuous examples for their peculiar history, participatory approach within the entire design process, architectural features, and social and ecological value. Keywords Participatory design · Community · Architecture · Social cohesion · Inclusion · Governance

P. Catalfo (*) Department of Economics and Business, University of Catania, Catania, Italy e-mail: [email protected] M. Giustra Marcell Breuer Doctoral School, Faculty of Architecture, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_8

141

142

P. Catalfo and M. Giustra

1 Introduction The Houses of Village, or faluházak,1 whose systemic design is a real statement of intent, were intended to reactivate processes of social cohesion through both the design features and meanings, and a variety of cultural programmes. The major part of these buildings, designed by Makovecz, were built during the 1970s and 1980s in small Hungarian villages and cities on the basis of a multidisciplinary and participatory approach that involved different actors, specialists and disciplines (architecture, engineering, urban planning, sociology), and also thanks to a real feat of propaganda involving local administration and the population. Some of these buildings have worked seamlessly for over 30 years, surviving major economic, social, and political changes that have affected the areas in which they stand, adapting their cultural offerings to the changing times. This research aims to investigate the complexity of these examples of architecture on a scientific basis, evaluating and representing the architectural value, and social, cultural and economic impact (inclusion, cohesion, democratic culture, dignity, social awareness, cultural value, social value, economic value) generated by the work of Imre Makovecz and his collaborators. Particular focus will be on the faluházak2 project, carried out during the 1970s and 1980s for local communities living in small villages scattered throughout Hungary, with three case studies as a field of analysis: the House of Village in Kakasd, the House of Village in Bak and the House of Village in Zalaszentlászló. Although the social and aggregate role of Makovecz’s oeuvre is recognizable in both religious and secular architecture, it is most probable that this address was fully setup and implemented with the faluházak3 project. Beginning with the building of the cultural centres, and the study and creation of the appropriate social, architectural and environmental conditions, a process of awakening and great modernity was born, which continues until today (Fig. 1).

2 The Social Dimension of Imre Makovecz’s Organic Architecture: Tangible and Intangible Heritage “It is on structure, understood not as a single technique, but as a complex of the human activities taking place within it, that organic architecture focuses its attention. Organic as it searches for material, psychological and spiritual happiness of man in its spaces, in the isolated setting, at home, in the city. Organic is therefore an attribute

1 The Hungarian term faluház literally means ‘house of village’ (faluházak—houses of village) and can be translated as community centres or village centres. 2 See footnote (1). 3 See footnote (1).

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre. . .

143

Fig. 1 Imre Makovecz’s freehand drawing, courtesy of the Imre Makovecz Foundation, for research purposes

based on a social idea, rather than a figurative idea; in other words, it refers to an architecture that aims at being human, before being humanistic” Zevi (1945). All this can be found in Imre Makovecz’s oeuvre, where social commitment is constant. His oeuvre, writings, and drawings represent a precious heritage, which must be preserved and disclosed. Imre Makovecz, whose work must also be understood in light of the geopolitical context and historical period in which he operated, in respect to which the architect always expressed a clear ideological position, was a man of rare expressive abilities, a visionary, a creative inspiration and an enthusiastic individual who was devoted to the community (Szegő 2010) and to the collective interest. He was a man of strong personality and extreme consistency, up to the point of appearing surly on many occasions. He gave priority to social expectation (justified by his profession) by balancing and conciliating with his personal talent (Szegő 2010). His architecture, the roots of which can be found in tradition, was able to adapt to the changes and innovations in the industry during the passing of the decades, by absorbing new techniques and materials. This was harmoniously dosed with the great technical and traditional heritage of which Makovecz’s architecture was the mouthpiece; knowledge that was passed on for generations, including by means of the work of skilled workers. We can discuss his architecture’s social and ecological value, as he utilised local materials, made great use of traditional techniques and locally produced wood, re-used pre-existing construction parts and stones for many buildings, encouraged the involvement of citizens to contribute to the construction of edifices, worked in accordance with locations themselves, local histories and natural environments, and created a dialogue with nature, with the result being that some buildings look as though they are rising from the soil, completing the surrounding landscape.

144

P. Catalfo and M. Giustra

Imre Makovecz designed places for communities; public spaces with an appropriate form that had to meet the needs of an aggregative type, with social and cultural goals, as well as respecting formal and technical rules (the planimetric system, prospectuses, sections, volumes, constructive elements, etc.) The operation that Makovecz accomplished began between the late 1970s and the early 1980s, at a time when the control of the regime was basically less pressing than the previous decades. The post-war political-historical events almost barred or indeed denied some fundamental values, such as freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of association in various forms of organization. In this de-articulation of civil society operated by central power, Makovecz’s systemic intervention (in collaboration with other professionals, carried out during a time of true propaganda, and whose purpose was the construction of the Houses of Village in various settlements throughout the territory) had, and still has, the power to recover the individual and community dignity and identity, and wanted to allow the aggregation and programming of social and cultural activities in said communities. The faluházak4 project therefore contributed to the initiation of a process of civil and social democratization of the local population. Delivering democratic work to the city and the wider community meant activating processes that implement and augment a continuous self-generation (awareness, self-determination). More specifically, the work and philosophy of Imre Makovecz and of Hungarian organic architecture, far from promoting self-referentiality, is representative of traditional figurative heritage and of the language of patterns and signs, as well as the memory of places and local communities. The Hungarian organic movement speaks a universal language and is committed to the passing on of a way of thinking and practising architecture which has been conceived as a service to the people, continuously placing man and common interests at the very centre of the project, whilst at the same time aiming to improve social and spiritual relations both amongst people and between people and places (Gerle 2003). Therefore, the participatory approach of Imre Makovecz’s architecture is to be considered to have an intrinsic characteristic and value; there are many examples that have seen the involvement of members and communities as a whole, in various levels from planning to construction (Clark 2000; Goddard 2009). Stories, anecdotes, and memories of the communities are linked to each building; the practice of participation, from planning to construction, profoundly affected the history of local communities and contributed to the self-determination of the communities in the particular historical moment in which these buildings were designed and built (Albrecht 1988). Ultimately, participation in architecture constituted of an exercise and experience of micro democracy, strengthening the social life (Borin et al. 2016).

4

See footnote (1).

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre. . .

145

Architecture generates and participates in welfare and growth, measured also through the architectural quality of buildings (performances of both a building’s parts and as a whole: comfort, acoustics, light, etc.). Thus, architecture also embodies itself as an instrument in the social, political and economic life, generating impacts in transformations and regenerations of built spaces and environments. Important projects during the eighties were undoubtedly that of the House in the village of Bak in 1985, (Faluház, Bak), the Cultural Centre of Szigetvár in 1985 (Vigadó, Szigetvár), and the House in the village of Kakasd in 1986, (Faluház, Kakasd). During this decade Makovecz was also involved with out-and-out propaganda favouring the construction of buildings for the community in different areas of the country, also with the help of mayors and főépítészek,5 who assigned Makovecz to this task in their respective villages. Such buildings, which are still operational, were—and are—places where the community could, and still can, meet and organize various activities, in this way strengthening their cohesion and preserving their cultural memory in such a historical moment during which whatever personal initiative of free expression was forbidden and severely punished. This decade was deeply productive for Makovecz, who, during these years, worked on different projects, including the Gubcsi House (Gubcsi-ház, Budapest) and the Richter House (Richter-ház, Budapest), both carried out in 1983 in the Buda hills in Budapest, the House for Environmental Education up on the Mogyoróhegy hill in Visegrád in 1984–1988 (Erdei Művelődés Háza, Mogyoróhegy Visegrád), the gym for the Juniro High in Visegrád in 1985 (Iskola Tornaterme, Visegrád) and the Junior High in Sárospatak in 1988 (Árpád vezér Gimnázium, Sárospatak). The projects for the Evangelical Church of Siófok in 1986 (Evangálikus Templom, Siófok) and for the Catholic Church of Paks in 1987 (Szentlélek Templom, Paks) represent two moments of maximum expression, which Makovecz himself considered to be amongst the most illustrative of his philosophy and work. It is therefore important to highlight that in all of these projects participation of the local community was crucial, and local people were indeed involved from preparatory drawings and planning (Cristofoli et al. 2014; Donato and Lohrasbi 2017)—the moment in which Makovecz and his group study and transfer the needs, desires and aims of the community into architecture—to the actual construction phase, in which local workers and members of the community were called to make their own contribution in multiple ways. Individuals and families were called to donate

5

The főépítész ( főépítészek—head architects), which in English can be translated into the term ‘head architect’, is a Hungarian professional figure, officially recognised by current regulations, assuming the role of assistant and supervisor, holding decisional power in architectural and urban planning, collaborating with the technical offices of the local boroughs, working in respect of construction and urban laws, and dealing with the management of all related activities. The főépítész maintains her independency from the bureaucratic organogram, in spite of it being an elective, multi-year position. The főépítész has full decisional power in regards to the propositions for change, fulfils the tasks for suggesting interventions aiming at renovations, respect, and protection of the existing architectural heritage, and is involved in the diffusion of a strong civic sense of the preservation of artistic and architectural culture, memory and heritage.

146

P. Catalfo and M. Giustra

wood and trees, and on many occasions, traditional construction techniques were preferred over more technologically advanced solutions, in order to facilitate the involvement of local workers and non-professionals.

3 Theoretical Framework, Research Reasons and Methodology 3.1

Theoretical Framework

This research investigates architecture as a driver, the effects of which are relevant and measurable pieces of evidence. By referring to a certain architecture of which the purpose and function has been declared, the generated impact investigation and evaluation has to be conducted, not only considering the mere construction and technical assembly of materials, but also all actions taken and activities required for its full operation that can guarantee the complete functioning of the building and consequent fulfilment of the purpose for which it was built. The generated values and impact of a building on its surroundings are therefore not just the result of mere construction and technical solutions, but also the choices undertaken to manage both the building itself and planned activities and services offered within it (Daum 2003). Through the selected case studies, we are studying architecture as a practice capable of generating and maintaining social cohesion and engagement within local communities. Focusing on the chosen case studies of this research, due to the specificity of the architecture and the socio-political context in which these buildings were built and the purpose for which they were built, now more than 30 years ago, these buildings can represent an interesting example of good practice.

3.2

Methodology

The research is based on a multiple case studies approach (Ridder 2017). The study is concerned with architectural data, the urban and social context in which the buildings exist, and the governance of buildings. Data has been collected through semi-structured interviews, archive research, and user-centered perspective surveys. Valuable benchmark data and qualitative data were collected as these architectures represent virtuous examples for their peculiar history, design and governance. Also, the data collected is an important reference for further studies to investigate architecture which constitutes a fundamental element of the public building sector, for social purposes and policy development (Buchholz 2003; Ecorys 2012).

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre. . .

147

Table 1 Summary of main quantitative data Research timeline Number of interviews Actors involved

Length of interviews Surveys provided Archive research Publication research

Case 1 2017–2019

Case 2 2017–2019

Case 3 2017–2019

1

6

4

2 (architects in charge of last renovation)

4 (director of the centre, group of users, architect in charge of last renovation)

1 h each

6 (major, director of the centre, volunteers, group of users, teacher, architect in charge of last renovation) 1 h eacha

–

100 copies

100 copies

2017–2019

2017–2019

2017–2019

2017–2019

2017–2019

2017–2019

1 h eacha

a

In some case more time was spent with actors involved as majors and directors of the Houses of Village, speaking about the governance of the buildings and reading financial reports

We collected stories and experiences of buildings and communities, researching the people in the villages closely and attending the buildings for direct investigation. We collected these stories through direct observation, interviews with the community members who use these cultural centers, and interviews with members of the local administration. Alongside, we performed archive research over a period of time, and listened to the direct testimonies of those who participated in the construction of these buildings (Table 1). The intent of the study is to represent the effectiveness of these paths in terms of cohesion and social engagement, through documentary evidence of collected data. Furthermore, with the uniqueness of contexts, data collected, and analysis results within the selected study cases we aim to contribute to the theorization, experimentation, and verification for future applications such as Social Return on Investment. On which some methodological considerations will be presented marginally and other qualitative/quantitative research methods to the built environment.

3.3

The Research Process and Possible Methodological Developments

The study and data collection regarding the history of the buildings, architectural aspects and current functioning has affected all three buildings, and was done to understand similarities and differences regarding the architectural features and the governance of the buildings.

148

P. Catalfo and M. Giustra

The research process was developed according to the following phases of investigation:

3.3.1

Establishing Scope, Identifying Stakeholders, Involving Stakeholders

Establishing scope involved the selection of case buildings and defining what is under study (Donaldson and Preston 1995; Gray et al. 1996). The Houses of Village, with their peculiar architecture, wide cultural offerings built with respect to the needs/proposal of the local communities, funding regulation, governance, and organizational setup, were selected to investigate the capacity of architecture (understood as a set of architectural and spatial aspects, and the management of the building and services that these are intended to offer) to generate social cohesion and identity values within the local communities to which the buildings and their cultural offerings belong. After identifying the main subjects to be involved in the analysis activity, semistructured interviews were conducted with the manager of the Houses of Village, operators within the building, and selected groups of users. Further studies and research activities were conducted with the architects responsible for the renovation of the building, and the Imre Makovecz Foundation, established after the death of the architect Imre Makovecz in 2011.

3.3.2

Mapping Input, Output and Outcomes

A second phase concerned qualitative stakeholder engagement. Focus groups with one or multiple participants in each session were conducted. The participants talked about their experience within the building, the different areas of the building they use, and how the design features and general concept of the building impacts them. Users also talked about the quality of cultural offerings and services experienced within the building, also occasionally suggesting possible modifications and improvements for the buildings and programmes. Through the focus groups it was possible to identify outcomes experienced by the users. Identified outcomes served to build a quantitative user survey.

3.3.3

Evidencing Outcomes and Giving Them a Value

The outcomes were evidenced through qualitative/quantitative user surveys.

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre. . .

149

4 The Case Studies Three Houses of Village were selected among the more representative buildings of this type designed by Makovecz: the House of Village in Kakasd, the House of Village in Bak, and the House of Village in Zalaszentlászló. These architectures belong to territories and communities with different backgrounds and local histories, however they differ from each other while still maintaining common compositional rules based on an organic methodology (Table 2). Many of the buildings designed by Makovecz have existed for over 30 years and need continuous maintenance and, in some cases there has been interest in renovations. (Tables 3 and 4). Recently, the Hungarian Government Decree no. 2022 of 2015 has enabled the preservation of Imre Makovecz’s built heritage, and those in disrepair may be restored in the coming years (Greffe 2009; Loulanski 2006). The selected study case buildings were all affected by major renovations during 2017 and 2019, guaranteeing the calendar of cultural activities or reducing them minimally, where possible. Although there are precise laws and regulations governing the life and operation of the houses of culture within the Hungarian territory, the selected case studies have similarities and differences with respect to the design project and construction of the buildings, the urban scale on which they exist, how the buildings and their functions are perceived by the local community, cultural offerings and how cultural programs are decided, opening hours and usability, and accounting and management aspects.

4.1

The House of Village in Kakasd

The project for the Village Center of Kakasd (Fig. 2) involved the entire local community, who participated in the construction by raising funds and gathering materials. The L-shaped building evolves on two sides of a small square, which is used today as a parking lot. In the lowest part of the building there are offices, restrooms and a large venue used for meetings, as a theatre, and where the most important events are held. The two bell towers of the building symbolise the town’s Table 2 Summary of Houses of Village case studies—general data No Case study 1 Case study 2 Case study 3

Type of building House of village House of village House of village

City/village Kakasd

Inhabitants 1756

Design 1986

Completion of the construction 1994

m2 700

Bak

1578

1985

1988–1989

506

800

1985

1985

750

Zalaszentlászló

150

P. Catalfo and M. Giustra

Table 3 Summary of Houses of Village case studies—main features Built environment Domestic scale, standalone building in a rural context

Room provided Open space layout— Can be divided per function in 6 big areas

2012 partial conservative renovation (roof); 2018 full conservative renovation

Domestic scale, standalone building in a rural context

Open space layout— can be divided per function into 9 large areas

2011 partial conservative renovation for heating system and backyard; 2018–2019 full conservative renovation

Domestic scale, standalone building in a rural context

Open space layout— can be divided per function into 8 large areas

No Case study 1

Organization Local administration/ municipality

Restoration 2017–2018 full conservative renovation

Case study 2

Local administration/ municipality

Case study 3

Local administration/ municipality

Services offered Theatre, common space for social and cultural programs, library, offices, kitchen, services, technical room Theatre, common space for social and cultural programs, library, cineforum, open kitchen, offices, green backyard, services, gallery, technical room Theatre, library, cinema, art gallery, common space for social and cultural programs, offices, kitchen, services, technical rooms

Type of structure Mixed structure: reinforced concrete, brick walls, wooden structures and surfaces Mixed structure: reinforced concrete, brick walls, wooden structures and surfaces

Mixed structure: reinforced concrete, brick walls, wooden structures and surfaces, glass wallwindows

Table 4 Number of building users in each case studies Users Cultural operator Instructor Fix volunteers + occasional volunteers Centre staff a

Case study 1 21,740 1 1 – 1

Statistic data acquired from official reports (2016)

Case study 2 18,289a 1 1 13 1

Case study 3 9000 1 1 40 + 30 1

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre. . .

151

Fig. 2 House of Village in Kakasd, interior, photographer Dénes György (2012), courtesy of the Imre Makovecz Foundation, for research purposes

history and are a tribute to the origins of the community, which resulted from the encounter of two ethnic groups. The first are known as Székely, originating from the area of Transylvania that was once a part of the Hungarian territory, whose members were forced to scatter into different places as a consequence of the massacre conducted by the Austrian Army in 1764, and the second are the Schwäbisch, belonging to Germanic lineage, who chose Kakasd as the ideal place to settle, following religious persecution during the Ottoman domination. The Swabian tower is an interpretation of the typical Baroque bell towers which can be seen in many Hungarian villages, built under Austrian influence. The Székely is an abstraction of the wooden bell towers typical of Transylvania. The entrance to this tower is highlighted by five ‘Székely gates’, typical Transylvanian doors carved out of wood, which in this case are realised to a much bigger scale and are displayed one behind the other in decreasing order, creating a false perspective (Priori and Scatena 2001). The covering of the meeting room is supported by a ligneous structure, including three pillars without bark, a gift from the families of the community. Square panels, painted with figurative and floral motifs belonging to Transylvanian tradition, are secured to the chains of the ligneous trusses and recall the image of a panelled ceiling. A loft goes around two sides of the room, supported again by wooden structures.

152

4.2

P. Catalfo and M. Giustra

The House of Village in Bak

The village of Bak is located in the province of Zala in north-western Hungary. The local administration is comprised of a total of eight villages: Bak, Bocfölde, Sárhida, Tófej, Baktüttös, Pusztaederics, Zalatárnok és Szentkozmadombja. The villages have common departments for social affairs, censuses, finance, and accounting, while they independently manage schools, kindergartens, and cultural offerings. The Village Centre of Bak (Fig. 3) is a multi-functional building, designed for a small village in Western Hungary. The construction hosts a large activities room, a kitchen, an office area, a library in which over 10,000 books are available, a reading space also used as a cineforum, an aula with a stage for traditional dance courses, shows and multiple other activities, a gallery used as an exhibition space, service rooms, and a backyard which also used for open air activities. During the day, as the various programs and activities follow on from one another, the space is adequately prepared back-to-back with the necessary equipment.

Fig. 3 House of Village in Bak, detail of the facade (1985), photographer Martina Giustra (2009)

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre. . .

153

The building is characterised by a symmetrical structure, resembling the image of a bird with open wings. The wooden axes covering the entire building, which almost touch the ground, recall the bird’s thick plumage. The building is a tribute to the legendary winged figure of the Turul, an ancient, zoomorphic symbol that, according to tradition, represents the Hungarian people. The House of Bak is not the only House in the village which was built by Makovecz. In fact, several are the faluházak6 scattered throughout the entire Hungarian territory, bearing the architect’s signature. Such buildings were designed for local communities and often commissioned by the főépítészek7 in charge at the time, and are often located in small villages in the Hungarian countryside, far away from the centres of political power. They were built to help people cultivate and keep the local historical and artistic memories alive, reactivate processes of social cohesion through both the design features and meanings, and a variety of cultural programmes, and are considered nowadays as out-and-out meeting points for the entire community. The House in the village of Bak is developed on two floors, with its entrance located along the axis of symmetry of the building. The roofing, as seen in several buildings by Imre Makovecz, is supported by masonry walls marking the perimeter of the building, and by ligneous lintels, which are inserted into the pillars in reinforced concrete, surmounted by decorated capital, according to motifs typical of Hungarian traditional culture. The ligneous lintels and the shelf, which covers the roofing from within, are painted in green, in contrast with the white plaster used for the internal and external walls and the pillars realized in reinforced concrete. Natural elements are perfectly integrated within the building, such as, for instance, the peeled tree staircase connecting the two floors.

4.3

The House of Village in Zalaszentlászló

The new project for the House of Village in Zalaszentlászló (Fig. 4) of 1985 incorporated the then pre-existing socialist house of culture, which functioned as a peripheral extension of the Ministry of Culture for popular education and regime propaganda. In 1985, the project by architect Imre Makovecz and his group of specialists incorporated the perimeter wall of the old building facing the main street of the village, expanding it in height and at the backyard, forming a C shape, where different functions are located: the main hall for various activities, a playroom, a library, a kitchen, and a tourist accommodation wing. The design and structural and finishing solutions took into account the local professional skills, fully realizing that participatory planning process for which Imre

6 7

See footnote (1). See footnote (5).

154

P. Catalfo and M. Giustra

Fig. 4 House of Village in Zalaszentlászló, interior, photographer Martina Giustra (2018)

Makovecz often acted as spokesperson in the execution of public buildings for social and/or religious purposes. The building contains within it the so-called architectural elements and motifs of the popular and vernacular tradition. Masonry decks and large window surfaces combine with the ‘tree’ pillars to support the characteristic roof, and allow a large internal free area to be used for various functions and activities. The characteristic furnishings of the interior were built locally by the inhabitants and carpenters of the village. More recently, in 2011 renovations occurred to implement the heating system of the building and a new pergola and oven were built in the courtyard behind the building, with the view of hosting outdoor events and activities.

4.4

Administrative Aspects and Local Governance

Each local government has the obligation to plan and organize cultural offerings for the local community in its municipality, according to Hungarian law 1997 evi CXL,

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre. . .

155

(this law represents the development of a previous law already regulating the Cultural houses), which states that “every Hungarian person has the right to use cultural services in the place where he resides”. Organizing and planning what the law establishes is the task of the local government, which can be affiliated to neighbouring municipalities where the resident population does not exceed 5000 units. However, maximum freedom is given in the case of the use of cultural programs of municipalities where one does not reside, and several times a year there are organized events common to several cultural centres that involve different communities. From an administrative point of view, we could say that the faluházak8 are an extension of the local administrative offices, and their cultural operators and instructors are, in effect, dependent on the mayor of the city or village that they belong to.

4.5

Cultural Planning, Organizational and Decisional Aspects

The cultural program focuses on issues such as: health, culture, youth, library, information (administrative, legal, refresher courses), the internet, the civil service, and electronics. The programs are divided into stable programs, financed by competitions and governmental calls, guaranteed by the civil service. Every year, once a year (or several times, if necessary) a meeting takes place in which the cultural operators of the centre, the instructors, the villagers, and the civil service volunteers participate, giving rise to a real participatory planning approach. Based on the activities and programs established, a possible budget is hypothesized. The management, together with the cultural operators, the instructors and the volunteers, whilst interpreting the will of the assembly, look for competitions and calls for funding for the planning (Moore and Khagram 2004).

4.6

Funding Cultural Life

Economic contributions were, and still are, essential in ensuring a rich cultural offering over the years, and also the proper functioning and maintenance of the building. The contributions come from the central government, the local government, and the European and governmental calls for the largest financial contribution. The calls are dedicated to the implementation of extracurricular study activities, collaboration, social relations, adult and child education, community building, and activities for building relationships between people. Other contributions are made up of donations and sponsors. 8

See footnote (1).

156

P. Catalfo and M. Giustra

5 Conclusions and Further Development of the Research “The original goal of our kind of architecture is to create a connection between the sky and the earth, while, at the same time, interpreting and expressing the movement and place of human beings. A building should be magic. A building should have a secret effect on its surroundings. We are working towards a mythical period in architecture. It is our goal to balance out the imperceptible, magical strengths of a technical civilisation with other imperceptible, magical forces. The individual, the community, the nation, the world are, for us, overlapping layers of flower petals swirling out from one stem. Like the leaves of a rose, they cannot be torn from their place or replaced by something else. This is why our kind of architecture and buildings that are connected to people, to the landscape, to the nation, to Europe and to Earth” Makovecz I. (Gerle and Makovecz 2005). Imre Makovecz remained devoted for the whole of his professional life by constantly committing to spread strong values through his work, conferring to the architect’s full responsibility of his role, and to architecture an educational role toward society9 (Sasso 2006) and an ethical dimension for the sustainable development of human citizenry. The data collected regarding the history of selected case studies, the organization of the cultural activities that take place within the buildings, the outcomes collected through the various consultations with local administrations and users regarding goverance and community involvement, suggest to us how the practice of

9 Sasso U., (April–July 2006) Architettura edificante – Makovecz e il nostro tempo, Bioarchitettura no 48–49, Mancuso Editore, Roma “We are dealing with anthropophysical echoes of Rudolf Steiner and aspects of international organicism, as well as influences from Austrian Baroque and Bohemian Cubism; it takes inspiration from Frank Lloyd Wright, Bruce Goff, Herb Green, Alvar Aalto. These and others are the roots which merge into Makovecz’s oeuvre, but as affirmed by Hungarian critics, the complex should be read, above all, in an original localistic tune referring to mythological and esoteric components typical of the Magyar tradition. Those who stopped at the surface of the formal image and at the aesthetic definition of the single elements and of the complex would not understand the genesis and, above all, the role carried out by Makovecz. Because the true charm—and also extreme validation to that critique that limits all evaluation in terms of elegance, form, stylistic consistency, invention and similar mawkishness—lies in the ardent and tense political commitment which confers upon architecture the status of manifesto against foreign military and cultural invasions, against leftwings dictatorship (and its ideology based on ready-made homogenisation), but also against the denial of the spirit by the side of consumerism, which destroys integrity. Therefore, architecture plays (almost anachronistic in a time of disillusion and weak thinking) an educational role toward society, with its forms, distributions and structures which engage in helping changes and in guiding such transformations. For example, being at the service of the people, addressing to the unpretentious, touching their soul together with their imagination; but also, more prosaically, strengthening the social life in small residential areas by means of the creation of sociocultural facilities, working in order to revitalise the most ancient centres, establishing aware relationships with the environment and with traditions, paying attention to the most genuine needs of the commission, even when it looks rather stunned and dazzled”.

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre. . .

157

participatory architecture is capable of generating and maintaining social cohesion and engagement. These buildings are conceived as nerve-centers for the cultural life of communities; an extension of homes, wherein relationships can be made through activities, confrontations and direct encounters. The design of the structures for these buildings allows the creation of a versatile spatiality that adapts to the continuous change of activities, cultural offerings and users, during the hours of the days and through changing of the seasons. The elements of traditional architecture, as well as the natural elements that Makovecz used (among others, the trunks of barked trees that branch up to roofs), which were perfectly integrated in the buildings, refer to the history of the community, revive the sense of belonging, and become tangible signs of people’s memories, constituting intergenerational values. The practices of participation are extended from design to governance; the themes and goals of cultural life and the calendar of activities are also an expression of the collective will, of which cultural operators, local administrations, and volunteers at various levels, are interpreters. Finally, the fact that these buildings have continued to operate without interruption for decades suggests that Makovecz had an awareness of the most original founding elements of the local community. In terms of future development, it is to be underlined that the method to conduct the investigation could be easily operated with the methodology proposed by the analysis of the Social Return on Investment—SROI (SROI 2012), even if linked to the structure of the multiple case studies, due to the homogeneity of the treatment of the cases and of the contents found, proceeding according to some of the six stages established. The Social Return on Investment—SROI methodology could respond to needs that go beyond economic evaluation, such as measuring the social value impact in the built environment. The Social Return on Investment method is designed to measure the outcome of an intervention, rather than merely tracking outputs, and its monetization technique facilitates the comparison of otherwise incommensurable benefits across different activities, producing a transferable evidence base that can be communicated to a wide range of audiences. The results are distributed using ‘return-on-investment’ language that is familiar with investors and commissioners, and is based on real data collected through qualitative stakeholders’ engagement, to ensure that what is being measured is what matters to end users. This is realized through a comprehensive method that is robust and replicable due to recent standardization work (Aeron-Thomas et al. 2004). As a result, Social Return on Investment has achieved a significant deal of traction within the social enterprise sector and, increasingly, public policy and commercial industry. It therefore has potential as a novel post-occupancy tool to capture the impact of design for building users, and disseminate the findings in a more powerful way across the variety of actors in the design and construction sector (Watson and Whitley 2016). The intangible impact of design on building users cannot be understood without consideration of the social context that mediates user experience, yet existing postoccupancy methods measure predetermined criteria about building performance.

158

P. Catalfo and M. Giustra

A shift in evaluative focus is required, away from measuring building performance from a user perspective towards measuring the outcomes experienced by building users as a result of the dynamic interactions between buildings, users and the social context that mediates them. The need to capture post-occupancy feedback from building users in a more meaningful way shares a considerable overlap with the concept of social value and the impact-evidencing activities of mission-led organizations and programmes. Recognizing the subjective, malleable, and variable nature of social value is key to the development of metrics suited to its capture and measurement (Watson and Whitley 2016). The outcomes of the research show the effects and tangible evidence of certain good practices and multidisciplinary approaches in architecture, aiming at improving social and spiritual relations both amongst people, and between people and places. The design approach, together with specific governance of buildings devoted to social engagement, may help to solve conflicts within communities, or contribute in determining virtuous attitudes, and may also contribute to the creation of good policy based on a community’s intangible assets/resources. The relationship we have found between architecture and social engagement constitutes an immaterial asset that is extremely important for a community. That asset comes to life from the very genesis of the architectural project, of which participatory approach constitutes an intrinsic feature, and of which the inclusion of fundamental values for the community represent its collective wealth.

References Aeron-Thomas, D., Nicholls, J., Forster, S., & Westall, A. (2004). Social return on investment: Valuing what matters; findings and recommendations from a pilot study. London: New Economics Foundation. Albrecht, J. (1988). Towards a theory of participation in architecture: An examination of humanistic planning theories. Journal of Architectural Education. (Autumn, 1988), 42(1), 24–31. https:// doi.org/10.2307/1424997. Borin, E., Donato, F., & Sinapi, C. (2016). Embedding inclusion in the management approach of cultural organizations. In A. Arenghi, I. Garofolo, & O. Sormoen (Eds.), Accessibility as a key enabling knowledge for enhancement of cultural heritage (pp. 49–65). Milano: Franco Angeli. Buchholz, R. A. (2003). Business environment and public policy: Implications for management (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Clark, K. (2000). From regulation to participation: Cultural heritage, sustainable development and citizenship. In: Forward planning: The functions of cultural heritage in a changing Europe. Papers from an expert workshop on cultural heritage in Europe in 2000 to contribute to the 5th European conference of ministers in Slovenia. Council of Europe, pp. 103–113. Cristofoli, D., Macció, L., & Meneguzzo, M. (2014). When civic culture meets strategy: Exploring predictors of citizen engagement in participatory strategic plans in Italy. In P. Joyce & A. Drumaux (Eds.), Management in public organizations: Europeans practices and perspective. London: Routledge. Daum, J. H. (2003). Intangible assets and value creation. Chichester: Wiley. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

The Value of the Relationship Between Architecture and Social Engagement: Imre. . .

159

Donato, F., & Lohrasbi, A. (2017). When theory and practice clash: Participatory governance and management in Takht-e Soleyman. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 7, 129–146. Ecorys. (2012). The economic impact of maintaining and repairing historic buildings in England, London (p. 20). A report to the heritage lottery fund and english heritage - March 2012. Gerle, J. (2003). Makovecz. Budapest: epl Budapest. Gerle, J., & Makovecz, I. (2005). Architecture as philosophy – The work of Imre Makovecz. Stuttgart: Axel Menges. Goddard, S. (2009). Heritage partnerships – Promoting public involvement and understanding. In Council of Europe: Heritage and beyond (pp. 141–148). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability. Changes and challenger in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall. Greffe, X. (2009). Heritage conservation as a driving force for development. In Council of Europe: Heritage and beyond (pp. 101–112). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Loulanski, T. (2006). Cultural heritage in socio-economic development: Local and global perspectives. Environmental Journal, 34(2). Moore, M., & Khagram, S. (2004). On creating public value – What business might learn from government about strategic management. Working paper no. 3, John F. Kennedy School of Government/Harvard University. Priori, G., & Scatena, D. (2001). Imre Makovecz. Roma: Fratelli Palombi Editori. Ridder, H. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10, 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z. Sasso, U. (2006). Architettura edificante – Makovecz e il nostro tempo, Bioarchitettura no 48-49. Roma: Mancuso Editore. SROI. (2012). A guide to social return on investment, HF - www.humanfoundation.com Szegő, G. (2010). Makovecz Imre 75. Születásnapjára, www.meoneline.hu Watson, K. J., & Whitley, T. (2016). Applying social return on investment (SROI) to the built environment. Building Research & Information, 45(8), 875–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09613218.2016.1223486. Zevi, B. (1945). Towards an organic architecture. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore.

Pierluigi Catalfo A professor of accounting and management, director of the Research Centre for Territorial Governance (GOT) at the University of Catania. He is scientific correspondent for the Italian Social Reporting Research Group (GBS), and member and internal auditor of the New Club of Paris (NCP). He was a scientific consultant for the department of the Italian Presidency of the Council of Ministers and for the Italian Public Sector development Agency (FORMEZPa). Martina Giustra An architect since 2007, she carries out research on the thought and oeuvre of the Master Imre Makovecz and on Hungarian Organic Architecture. She is conducting research activity at the Department of Residential Design at the Faculty of Architecture of BME University and at the Balassi Institute, both in Budapest (2012–2014 and 2016–2017). Currently she works as an architect and is a Ph.D. candidate at Marcell Breuer Doctoral School—PTE University of Pécs.

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of Culture 2019 Paola Demartini, Lucia Marchegiani, and Michela Marchiori

Abstract The active involvement of citizens in the co-creation of public initiatives has been embraced by the European Commission as a relevant topic on its reform agenda. In this line, citizen participation emerged as one of the main criteria for nominating the European Capitals of Culture (ECoCs). However, there are still few systematic studies that seek to investigate the challenges, the problems, and the difficulties that are associated with the processes aiming to foster and establish citizen participation. Hence, in this paper we address the following research question: What are the conditions for developing an effective participatory process in ECoCs? We propose an exploratory approach by analysing the case study of Matera ECoC 2019. Following the triangulation of data, information has been collected from a wealth of both secondary sources of evidence and primary sources, in order to analyze a range of opinions and perspectives. Our inquiry provides a twofold contribution to this stream of research. First, we propose a simple yet comprehensive framework to analyse participation in the context of participatory cultural initiatives. Second, we enrich the empirical evidence by providing an in-depth analysis of an ECoC project from the launch of the idea, to its first implementation phase. Keywords European capital of culture · ECoCs · Citizen participation · Citizen engagement · Societal impact

P. Demartini (*) · L. Marchegiani · M. Marchiori Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_9

161

162

P. Demartini et al.

1 Introduction Culture has been widely studied as a driver for socio-economic and urban development (Nakagawa 2010; Sasaki 2010; Comunian 2011; Sacco et al. 2013). Indeed, contemporary cultural urban policies are oriented towards fostering inclusiveness and collective decision making processes (Sacco and Crociata 2013). In culture–led development programs, participation is understood in the dual sense of boosting the level of access to cultural opportunities for local residents and of enabling citizens to promote new cultural initiatives (Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris 2007; Stern and Seifert 2009; Sacco and Crociata 2013; Sacco et al. 2014). In this latter definition, a participatory approach to cultural initiatives entails civic engagement for creating and sharing cultural projects, events and experiences (Piber et al. 2017; Biondi et al. 2020). However, several studies have shown that meaningful civic participation in cultural projects is far from easy (Dinardi 2015; Pollock and Sharp 2012). Indeed, civic participation involves multifaceted social processes that show complex dynamics and multi-layered variables, which in turn may hinder effective participation (Borseková et al. 2017; Clark and Wise 2018; Ferilli et al. 2016; Sacco et al. 2019). We contribute to the stream of research on participatory cultural initiatives (PCI) by focusing on the complex dynamics of civic participation in public cultural programs such as the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) initiative. Since its inception in 1980, the ECoC initiative has evolved from fostering intercultural exchange to becoming a leading cultural mega-program (Tommarchi et al. 2018). The ECoC’s impact on individuals and society has been studied by researchers in different fields (see among others, Griffiths 2006; Herrero et al. 2006; Németh 2009, 2013, 2016). In truth, participation was not a key feature of the first ECoC program as for many years ECoCs instead placed their focus on urban economic regeneration. The active involvement of citizens in cultural and creative public initiatives has been embraced by the European Commission as a relevant topic in its cultural heritage policies (Nagy 2018). In this line, citizen engagement has become one of the criteria for selecting a city as ECoC, since the first decade of the 2000s. ECoCs are seen as a means of strengthening social cohesion and intercultural dialogue (Garcia and Cox 2013) and promoting the active involvement of local communities in the production of culture and the design of cultural events, in particular through the introduction and development of concepts of co-creation (Näsholm and Blomquist 2014; Wåhlin 2015; Wåhlin et al. 2016; Hudson et al. 2017; Demartini et al. 2019). Thus, a stream of the vast literature on ECoC has focused on civic participation, which has been studied by researchers belonging to a wide range of fields: sociology and political sciences (Richter 2009; Eriksson and Stephensen 2015; Hudson et al. 2017; Giovanangeli 2015); urban design (Akçakaya 2008; Monioudi-Gavala and Koutsobinas 2016); economics and management (Cicerchia 2016; Biondi et al. 2018; Demartini et al. 2018). These contributions show that ECoCs are emblematic of civic participation due to certain specific characteristics, such as: (a) length, as the whole project covers a wide timespan, from the idea of building the candidacy plan to the appointment as ECoC and finally the management of cultural events;

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

163

(b) space, as the cultural events are scattered throughout the city and involve various cultural sites; (c) scope, as the umbrella project includes several events and sub-programs; (d) audience, as the different cultural events and programs involve different groups of stakeholders, such as citizens and tourists. ECoCs indeed can be considered mega-cultural projects (Liu 2014). Moreover, these studies show that in translating civic participation in ECoCs, critical issues emerge that hinder the development of participation outcomes. In fact, it is clear that participation is not only complex, but also dynamic and it unfolds over time. More generally, the research interest lies in assessing participation effectiveness; as stated by Yang and Pandey, “the central question is when or how citizen involvement makes a difference” (Yang and Pandey 2011: 880). Hence, more light should be cast on the milestones and key critical factors that may hinder or favour civic participation. This is our primary goal in this paper, as we address the following research questions: What are the conditions for developing an effective participatory process in cultural projects? Since ECoC programs are mega-cultural projects managed by local administrators, citizen participation occurs primarily at the administrator-citizen interface in these initiatives. Hence, in seeking answers to our research question, we firstly scrutinise the public administration literature. In particular, we refer to the theoretical frameworks that depicted the variables that influence effective citizen involvement in public decision making (Kweit and Kweit 1981; Thomas 1995; Yang and Callahan 2005; Yang and Pandey 2011). As far as the research setting is concerned, we apply this framework to analyze the experience of the city of Matera as ECoC 2019 through an in-depth case study approach. This case study is of particular interest because the strength of the candidacy of Matera was based on the criterion of civic participation and the city was chosen over other candidate cities that had a similar, if not superior, cultural heritage legacy (among these cities were Ravenna, Siena, Lecce, and Perugia). Nevertheless, effective civic engagement has since been disputed, as the first monitoring report, issued in 2016, highlights a negative assessment of participation by the ECoC Monitoring Committee. We provide a twofold contribution to the stream of research on civic participation in ECoCs as follows: (1) We propose a simple yet comprehensive framework to analyse participation in the specific context of ECoCs; (2) We enrich the empirical evidence gathered on ECoCs by providing an in-depth analysis of Matera ECoC 2019 from the launch of the idea to propose the candidacy (2008) until the delivery of the first monitoring committee (2016). On this basis, we aim to provide local, national and European public administrators with insightful suggestions in order to understand the critical issues that hinder effective citizen participation.

164

P. Demartini et al.

2 Literature Background and Theoretical Framework Participation is associated with an understanding of democracy and the relationship between citizens and state. The theories of representative democracy (Besley and Coate 1997) and participative democracy (Mosher 1968; Barber 2003) represent the two most important strands in democratic theories. Both theories consider participation as essential to democratic governance. In recent years, citizens have been involved in prioritising the use of scarce public resources; current public management envisions new forms of participation methods and techniques related to the concept of public participation (King et al. 1998; Roberts 2004; Rowe and Frewer 2004). These techniques refer to a transition from a style of public administration characterised by the predominance of public actors and a top-down decision-making process (known as “government”) to a more open style through which the public entity (namely the so called “target organization”) takes on the role of co-actor and promotes the participation of private bodies and citizens in creating, defining, and implementing public policies (known as “governance”) (Rhodes 1997; Borrás 2003). However, while underlining the potential of participatory processes in improving administrative decision making, some scholars point out the risk that, once citizens have made their voices heard, their involvement fails to have a meaningful effect on the public decision making process, since public managers do not place importance on taking citizen input into account in their decisions. As a result, the claim of civic participation remains a rhetorical exercise without its convergence into citizens gaining greater influence on administrative decision making (Bozzini and Enjolras 2012). Civic engagement in decision making has been deeply scrutinised in literature on political science and public administration in many sectors, such as education, healthcare and safety, security, climate change, and transport services, to name but a few (Osborne and Brown 2005; Bason 2010; Voorberg et al. 2015). Participation has gained momentum as a crucial factor in the development of cultural initiatives (Griffiths 2006) and the sustainaibility of culture-led local development (Sacco and Crociata 2013). Participation is understood as an element that allows visitors, audiences, and citizens to actively participate in cultural events. In further detail, a participatory approach to cultural initiatives entails civic engagement in the creation and sharing of cultural projects, events and experiences (Piber et al. 2017, 2019; Biondi et al. 2020). Both concepts of participation are related. As measured in a recent Eurobarometer survey, there is a correlation in European countries between the participation rates of citizens in cultural activities and their cultural activism (Sacco and Crociata 2013). However, cross-national cultural participation surveys show that fewer Europeans are actively involved in cultural activities and that this is perceived as a problem (Stevenson et al. 2017). Nonetheless, national and international institutions that govern cultural heritage recognize the importance of participation and civic engagement. In particular,

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

165

UNESCO favours participation as a driver of the development of creative cities and their networks (UNESCO 2005; Albro 2007; Blake 2008), and at the EU level participation is a criterion to select candidate cities as ECoCs (Johnson 2016). EU cultural programs and policies have included the issue of citizen participation, as can be witnessed by numerous cultural policy briefings connected to the European Agenda for Culture, EU Council decisions, and documents related to cultural work programs (EU 2014). Based on the centrality of participation for ECoC nomination and development, several studies focus on how citizen participation, civic engagement, and co-creation methods and techniques are put into practice. Through informative in-depth case studies, such research offers a vivid insight into examples of ECoCs that focused on participation as one of the core elements of their cultural mega-programs, such as: Genoa 2004 and Lille 2004 (Sacco and Blessi 2007); Liverpool 2008 (Richter 2009), Pècs 2010 and Turku 2011 (Németh 2013), Marseille 2013 (Giovanangeli 2015), Umeå 2014 (Näsholm and Blomquist 2014; Wåhlin 2015; Hudson et al. 2017), Aarhus 2017 (Eriksson and Stephensen 2015). Examining these contributions enabled us to recognize that effective civic participation in ECoCs is a critical issue. In particular, even in those cases where bottom-up participation and civic engagement were consistently designed and promoted (e.g. Umeå ECoC 2014), the literature highlights that the participatory process has indeed been problematic or flawed. Experiences gathered from previous ECoCs on civic participation show that social processes imply complex and evolutionary dynamics, which in turn depend on multifaceted variables that are woven together. However, in this literature, models have not yet been produced that aim to analyze the set of variables explaining how participation works in cultural programs. And yet, this aspect is still underinvestigated by practitioners, such as EU policy makers and evaluators as well as politicians and public administrators (Jancovich 2017). Hence, in this paper we aim to enrich this stream of literature by addressing the following research question: What are the conditions for developing an effective participatory process in cultural projects? In seeking anwers to our research question, we refer to the frameworks proposed in the literature on citizen participation and public administration published in the 1980s. Drawing on this literature, Yang and Pandey (2011) argue that the following four variables have been recognised by multiple contributions as the main and most relevant factors that can explain citizen participation outcomes: (a) characteristics of participants; (b) characteristics of the target organization; (c) involvement mechanisms; and (d) environmental characteristics. The association between each variable and effective citizen participation, and the impact of the mutual relationships between the four variables are still matters of debate, also due to the fact that “the literature is based more on qualitative and context-specific evidence; the explanatory factors identified rarely are operationalized and tested with quantitative data” (Yang and Pandey 2011: 881). Below we offer a brief description of each of these four variables, accompanied by some of the main factors used in the literature to illustrate their impact on participation outcome.

166

P. Demartini et al.

1. Citizen competence and representativeness are relevant factors concerning characteristics of participants associated with better participation outcomes (Kweit and Kweit 1981). In fact, in-depth knowledge of the issue(s) on which citizens are called to give their input increases the likelihood of effective participation. Moreover, citizen input from a representative group is more likely to be valued by local government rather than individual contributions. However, the literature also states that a criticality may arise when public managers seek participation only from the representative group of the “relevant publics” (Thomas 1995; Creighton 2005). 2. As far as the characteristics of the target organization (i.e. the government organization) are concerned, bureaucratic structures, characterised by hierarchical authority and centralised decision-making, are a major barrier to effective citizen participation, as they are less open to change and accept inputs from outside (King et al. 1998). Moreover, centralisation is negatively associated with information sharing and learning that are relevant for participation outcomes (Hellriegel and Slocum 2004). 3. In the literature, involvement mechanisms are regarded as fundamental elements for participation. Referring to their impact on effective participation process, authors suggest that it would be useful to obtain a better match between mechanisms and participation purposes or decision stages (Thomas 1990) and that this match is more likely when multiple mechanism are used (Ebdon and Franklin 2006). Moreover, authors found that the use of multiple tools is positively associated with stakeholder consensus, responsiveness and trust in governance (Wang 2001; Yang and Callahan 2005). 4. Considering environmental characteristics, we can find a broad range of items related to this variable in the literature. Ebdon and Franklin (2006) proposed five specific items referring to environmental variables, namely forms of government, political culture, legal requirements, population, and diversity. Several contributions highlighted the important role played by the local political environment in influencing the behaviour of local goverments and public managers (Pandey and Wright 2006; Rainey 2003). Indeed, strong elected official support offers stability and a definitive reason as to why public administrators decide to adopt citizen engagement mechanisms and take their input seriously (Yang and Callahan 2007; Yang and Pandey 2011). Drawing on this stream of research, we adopt the above mentioned four variables in our paper in order to propose a framework that aims to analyze effective participation process in an ECoC program. Table 1 details the dimensions we have chosen in order to study the specific context of Matera ECoC 2019.

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

167

Table 1 Framework investigating citizen participation in the context of ECoCs Variables Characteristics of participants Characteristics of the target organization Involvement mechanisms Environmental characteristics

Focus on the following aspects • Level of citizens’ knowledge of the cultural themes • Degree of representativeness of the whole community • Centralisation/decentralisation • Degree of formalization of decision-making • Media, mechanisms, and tools used to encourage civic participation in the co-creation of cultural programs • Elected official support • Level of conflict in local political environment

3 Methodology In order to address our research question, we conducted a case study analysis (Stake 2005; Yin 1993, 2009), adopting a qualitative approach based on a triangulation strategy (Denzin 1989). We focused on the case study of Matera ECoC 2019 given the recent completion of the initiative, which gave us the opportunity not only to access the relevant documentation but also to contact important key actors involved in the project and personally conduct observations in the field. Through an exploratory analysis, we have investigated the issue of participation in cultural initiative planning at different stages. Our findings cover the timespan from the inception of the idea of Matera as a candidate ECoC as a spontaneous initiative (2008) until the issuance of the first report of the EU Monitoring and Advisory Panel (2016), which raised a number of critical points with reference to the poor engagement of citizens by public managers appointed to lead the cultural initiative. Empirical data have mainly been collected from secondary sources, through the analysis of institutional sources (i.e. the minutes of the city council, the two bid books, official reports of the EU, and a continuous overview of the official webpage of the Foundation Matera 2019). Another relevant source was the website of Associazione Matera 2019, a cultural association created in 2008 by young professionals from Matera with the aim of launching the concept of Matera as ECOC 2019. Table 2 shows the main phases that we have identified to present the dynamics of the initiative and, for each phase, the documentary sources we have used to gather empirical evidence. In addition to the above-mentioned documentary sources, we have also collected information available online from the press and blogs (e.g. sassilive.it, sassiland. com, lecronachelucane.it, talentilucani.it, basilicata24.it, Basilicatanet; Materalive; La nuova del sud on line; linkiesta.it; giornalemio.it), the national radio programs (Materadio), TV channels (Trmt), and social media (i.e. #portamateranel2019 on Twitter and Facebook). The few academic articles that place specific focus on the Matera ECoC 2019 case (i.e. Felicetti 2015, 2016; Bencivenga et al. 2016; Bernardo and De Pascale 2016; Corinto 2017) should also be mentioned.

168

P. Demartini et al.

Table 2 Matera ECoC 2019: phases and documentary sources (2008–2016) Phases Seed phase

Period July 2008–June 2011

Candidacy phase

July 2011–November 2013

Short list phase

November 2013–October 2014 (Matera ECoC 2019 designation)

First implementation phase

November 2014–October 2016 (First monitoring meeting)

Documentary sources • Association Matera 2019 statute; Manifesto for 2019; Timeline (Associazione Matera 2019 website) • Matera 2019 Committee Statute • Minutes of the city council of 2nd August 2013. Report “on the work carried out for the presentation of the candidacy” • Minutes of the debate on the Matera 2019 candidacy dossier at the city council on the 26th August 2013 • Dossier (2013) • Timeline (Associazione Matera 2019 website) • Minutes of the city council on the 19th November 2013 after the entry in the short list • Dossier (2014) • Statute of the Matera-Basilicata Foundation 2019 • Selection panel’s final report • Minutes of the city council on the 19th November 2014 after the designation • Timeline (Associazione Matera 2019 website) • Progress report—Matera European Capital of Culture 2019 (August 2015) • Progress report—Matera European Capital of Culture 2019 (September 2016) • Report by the Monitoring and Advisory Panel (first monitoring meeting on the 12th October 2016) • Timeline (Associazione Matera 2019 website)

In addition to collecting a wide range of information through secondary sources, we also obtained high-quality information through primary sources. Indeed, we conducted a semi-structured interview in April 2017 with a key actor who has been actively involved in the ECoC decision-making process, since holding the position of deputy mayor in the municipality from 2015 to August 2016. This interview was one of the utmost relevance for the triangulation of the data (Drever 1995; Kvale and Brinkmann 2009; Roulston 2010; Qu and Dumay 2011). The first round of the conversation lasted for approximately 1 h; it was recorded, and notes were taken. A subsequent follow-up meeting then took place to validate the answers and to gain more profound insights into specific topics. Additionally, unstructured interviews were performed to inhabitants involved in the project during the researchers’ visits in Matera. They contributed to gaining a

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

169

greater understanding of the real-life context and the contingent complexity of the phenomena (Qu and Dumay 2011). All the information for our paper collected in text form has been classified chronologically and linked to the identified phases. Each researcher analyzed the information individually and, subsequently, the contents formed the topic of a collective discussion in order to reach a shared understanding of the findings provided in the following section. For each phase, the discussion of the findings addresses the specific dimensions that influence and explain the intensity and quality of citizen participation as detailed in our framework (Table 1). Hence, the Matera ECoC 2019 case is concisely discussed in terms of: 1. Participants’ characteristics, with respect to: (a) the level of knowledge of citizens with regard to cultural themes; and (b) their representativeness, that is the degree with which the participating citizens represent the whole community; 2. Characteristics of the target organization in charge of the ECoC initiative. In particular, we focus on the organisational choices adopted by public administrators to coordinate and control the project processes, paying particular attention to the choices of centralisation/decentralisation and the degree of formalization of decision-making; 3. Involvement mechanisms, that is to say the media, mechanisms and tools used to encourage citizen participation in the co-creation processes of cultural initiatives; 4. Environmental characteristics concerning the degree of support from elected officials (i.e. the city councillors) to the cultural initiative and the level of cohesion/conflict among local political actors, given that the latter are supposed to be strictly related to citizen participation.

4 Short Case Study Description: Matera as ECoC 2019 In May 2015 Matera was formally designated European Capital of Culture for the 2019 by the European Union. Matera is an ancient Italian town of 60,000 inhabitants located in the Basilicata Region of southern Italy. The Matera ECoC 2019 is claimed to be a medium to long-term cultural program (2015–2019) that aims to generate urban renewal and a new model of development focusing on knowledge, research, innovation and new technology in a context of sustainability, social cohesion, and inclusion (Matera 2019 website). Through this program, Matera wanted to give a voice to and offer an example for the recovery and development of all poor and neglected areas in Southern Europe (Bernardo and De Pascale 2016). “Together” was chosen as the brand of the Matera ECoC 2019 candidacy program and it was the title of the first bid book prepared for the application (Dossier 2013). Participation, in fact, was one of the fundamental elements that enabled the candidacy of Matera to qualify for the competition for ECoC 2019. As we can read in the bid book, participation is one of the main goals of the overall cultural project, which aims to create a “cultural citizen”. A cultural citizen is “a responsible,

170

P. Demartini et al.

informed resident who understands that culture is a fundamental resource, actively contributes to the collaboration and co-creation of cultural and creative initiatives, and attends to the town’s cultural patrimony” (Dossier 2013: 48). In the project, the participation process is planned from multiple perspectives: “civic engagement”; “cooperative strategies” between Matera and other small and large Italian urban centres; a “networking project” for the exchange of learning practices with other future and past ECoCs. The processes of governance and participation outcomes can be analyzed throughout four different subsequent phases (see Table 2). In the first—the seed phase (2008–2011)—the Matera 2019 Association was the main actor (a cultural association of Matera residents) that launched the idea to participate in the selection process for the ECoC 2019. In the second—the candidacy phase (2011–2013)—the Matera 2019 Committee was established by institutional actors (the Matera Municipality, the Basilicata region, and other regional municipalities); a director was appointed with the task of supporting the candidacy and coordinating the community’s many actors involved in preparing the application. Hence, the decision-making process began to be institutionalised while remaining highly participatory. The third phase (2013–2014) began with the inclusion of Matera in the short list for the title of ECoC 2019. At this point, Matera had to define the structure of the cultural programs, financing and governance. The main actors of this process became the Matera Committee 2019, the artistic director, and the funders of the project (Matera City, the Basilicata region, and other local institutions). The second bid book titled “Open the Future” provided information on the many cultural experiences in the city but also its cultural models and the most developed international experiences (Dossier 2014). In September 2014 the Matera Committee 2019 gave the way to the Matera-Basilicata Foundation 2019. On October 17th, 2014 the Italian cultural heritage and tourism Minister designated Matera as ECoC 2019, and in May 2015 the designation was officially formalized by the EU. Subsequently, the fourth phase began (2015–2018), in which the Matera Municipality and other actors in the process were engaged in the implementation of the cultural program. Finally, in January 2019, the mega-event was launched.

5 Analysis of the Findings In this section, we propose an interpretative analysis of the Matera ECoC 2019 case from the launch of the idea to propose the candidacy (2008) until the delivery of the first monitoring committee (2016), following our framework of analysis (see Table 1).

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

5.1

171

The Seed Phase (July 2008–June 2011)

The project of candidacy of Matera as ECoC 2019 has been defined by many parties (media, politicians, and academics) as a “bottom-up” initiative. The idea of nominating Matera, a small city of 60,000 inhabitants, was ambitious but relied on the sense of pride and redemption of a local community that had tried to employ “culture” for the renewal and re-launching of a district and its inhabitants for the second time in its most recent history. In fact, Matera already counted on its status as a world heritage site, awarded by UNESCO in 1993, to the “Sassi”, the city districts made of ancient cave dwellings embedded in calcarenitic rock and inhabited since the Paleolithic period. The analysis of the documentation shows that the idea to propose the candidacy of Matera as ECoC originated from a group of young residents who downloaded the announcement of the European Community in August 2008 to evaluate the opportunity to nominate the city. They then developed the thought to “challenge the city” to invest in this ambitious project. It is worth noting that this was a group of young professionals who were working at that time in cultural and voluntary organizations in the city of Matera. At the end of 2008, this group founded “Associazione Matera 2019” (Matera Association 2019), a non-profit association whose task was to promote the candidacy of the city of Matera and carry out “a process of civic and institutional awareness” at all levels, mainly addressing the city of Matera, but to be extended to the entire Basilicata region and subequently both nationally and globally (Art 2 Matera Association 2019 Statute). The members of the “Associazione Matera 2019” were joined by other non-profit and voluntary organisations and some local entrepreneurs who made the decision to support this cultural project from the outset. The project had the flavour of a generational challenge but the association claimed to involve “each one of its citizens” as claimed through the initial words of the “Manifesto for 2019”. Citizen involvement in the project by the whole local community (sharing and opening up of all resources, knowledge, and ideas) was a fundamental part of the path promoted by the youth of the association (Matera Association 2019 website). In March 2009, after the formalization of the candidacy by the city council, a local politician thanked the representatives of the association and spoke of “a strategic role” for the “Associazione Matera 2019” (Minutes of the Matera Municipality 2009). This clear attribution of responsibility is the first official acknowledgment that the local political environment made to this group of citizens promoting the initiative. In addition to this effort of “bottom-up” involvement of energies, ideas and knowledge from local citizens, the association was involved in producing concrete contents for the definition of the cultural project to support the city’s candidacy. In fact, in September 2009, the Association launched the Cadmos Project, a calendar of artistic events realised by emerging European artists who cyclically create new works of art inspired by different locations in the city and the wider district (Matera Association 2019 website).

172

5.2

P. Demartini et al.

The Candidacy Phase: July 2011–November 2013

In July 2011, the Matera 2019 Committee was established by a group of institutional actors (the Matera Municipality, Basilicata Region, and other municipalities in the region) and a team was appointed with the task of supporting the candidacy and coordinating the community’s many actors involved in preparing the application. As one of the member of the Web Team of Matera 2019 stated: “The Matera 2019 Committee acted as the glue of the various expressions of the district” (sassilive.it, 10/01/2015). Subsequently, a Scientific Technical Committee was set up to prepare a dossier to be submitted for participation in the candidature. Only one representative of the Matera Association 2019 was included in the committee but the role played by the association in the activities of the committee was significant, nonetheless. In a metaphorical reference to the popular legend of the city’s patron, the president of the association said: “We delivered the oxcart of Santa Bruna to the city” (Matera Association 2019 website). According to Felicetti (2015), the first dossier was produced with the influential contributions and decisive participation of the local community. The drafting of the first dossier featured a high number of participants and represented a notably inclusive process: young citizens, various cultural and voluntary associations, and companies were engaged (Felicetti 2015). “It was a period of mass hysteria, everyone worked to reach the result and collaborate to build the future of their town” (the former Deputy Mayor). Furthermore, for the panel of experts appointed for the evaluation of the candidate projects, the Matera proposal was seen “as a starting point for a grassroots movement for renewal in Europe” (The Selection Panel’s Final Report, 2014). The candidacy was supported by a resolution voted unanimously by the municipal council which was tasked with submitting the dossier to the evaluation committee. From the minutes of the municipal council meetings we can gain an overall insight into the significance attributed by local politicians to the unity of purpose, as emerges from the words of the mayor; “We are representatives of the people, we have been elected by the citizens of Matera, we must be able not only to go and ask for the vote, [. . .] we must go and ask for the consent for our city. [. . .] It is a difficult game, if we play it all together we can win” (Minutes of the City Council 19/11/13). Furthermore, the city council has promoted widespread citizen participation, as can be seen in these words expressed by a councilor: “We need to make this candidacy become part of the strong core of the city in the coming months, we must make it a popular candidate, [. . .] for each citizen” (Minutes of the City Council,19/11/13). The first bid book, the title and slogan “Together”, aim to emphasize the participative and inclusive character of the elaboration process by recalling the concept of participation: many new, small businesses and a wealth of cultural and social associations of Matera were engaged in the process (Dossier 2013).

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

173

In addition, the Director of the committee, in commenting on the first dossier to the city council, stated: “It’s a job that has not only or mostly been done in the background, but especially in practice with many activities, not only as communication events, but rather co-created events with local residents. I mention the launch of the on-line community that continuously attends to 300 people who have been actively engaged in projects for the development of Matera and the Matera district [. . .] we have counted more than 171 projects and many of these will go directly into the application dossier” (Minutes of the city Council of Matera, 19/11/13). This shows the establishment of a group of “digital” volunteers defining themselves as the “Web Team”, whose main activity consists of circulating and narrating the experiences and the story of Matera’s candidacy as ECoC (sassilive.it, 12/10/12). The Matera 2019 Committee in this phase was, in fact, intensely engaged in informing local citizens and international interlocutors of the activities that were taking place to strengthen the candidacy of the city. A festival organized in Matera by the third radio channel of the national radio and television company called ‘Materadio’ (the project was founded in 2010 and provided continued support to and raised awareness of the candidancy at national level) also played an important role in spreading information and increasing citizens’ awareness of the challenges and opportunities arising from this project (Corinto 2017; website RaiPlayRadio). On the other hand, the growth of the activism of the Matera 2019 Committee through media outlets coincided with a gradual downsizing of the role of the Association, which found it difficult to interact with the Committee, and consequently underwent a change of role from being the primary actor to becoming only one of the many interlocutors (Matera Association 2019 website).

5.2.1

The Cultural Project of the First Dossier

The first bid book traces the essential elements of the cultural project defined as “visionary and vibrant”, through which the city faced the crisis of its own model of economic and social development and opened up to “culture” as the element of identity and social cohesion for embarking on a path of renewal. In this phase, the cultural project built on the strong feelings of identity of the citizens to valorise their history, strengthen their values, and focus on the peculiarities of their region. The idea of citizen participation in the construction of this path was therefore consistent with the objective of the project itself. This is coherent with the belief that in order to esteem the values, the stories, and the heritage of a region, it is mandatory to collect memories and knowledge from those who possess them and thus “create opportunities for citizens to contribute ideas and intuition” (Dossier 2013: 15). Indeed, a truly broad citizen participation outcome seems to have been assured in this phase, judging by the full page list of names of both individuals and organisations who signed the first bid book (Dossier 2013: 95).

174

5.3

P. Demartini et al.

The Short List Phase: December 2013–October 2014

After the inclusion of Matera on the short list of the six Italian candidate cities to the ECoC 2019 in November 2013, the process for drawing up the second bid book, entitled “Open Future”, started. In March 2014 as a result of a public and open competition, John Grima, a famous New York architect, was appointed artistic director and coordinator of the scientific group. In accepting the role, Grima emphasized the two aspects that he appreciated about the project: “The thing that excites me is that the proposal of Matera is an open proposal, in which all citizens participate in the candidacy and the artistic director is not the only hero of a project, but must create cohesion with respect to a collective process already under way, [. . .] culture is not simply something that happens in people’s free time, as entertainment. Culture is something through which society is built and it is a collective work of all the people who live in the city” (www.materabasilicata2019.it, 07/03/2014). However, at odds with these statements, the production of the second dossier (namely, the design process of the cultural program of Matera ECoC 2019) seems to be characterised by a more institutionalised approach, as highlighted by the director of the organizing committee: “The [second]dossier [. . .] unequivocally responds to rules [. . .] they are very precise rules and they basically say that the two parameters with respect to which one is judged are [. . .], that of cities and citizens and that of a European dimension, which have the utmost attention on the part of the jury” (Minutes of the City Council of Matera, 19/11/14). Hence, the involvement of citizenship and local cultural associations in drawing the second dossier became less relevant. Nevertheless, in this phase the search for stakeholder involvement and a European audience clearly emerges: “We do not only have the responsibility towards ourselves and our community, that is little, we have the responsibility towards the Italian and European community. [. . .] Open future means working with all the cities of Europe, with all the cities of Italy, with all the types of opportunities that are there to build the future” (Minutes of the City Council of Matera, 19/11/14). With respect to the theme of the cultural project for Matera ECoC 2019, the production of the second dossier recorded the clash between different positions. The new dossier was characterised by the choice to “open” cultural production in the city, in the dual meaning of adopting a participatory vision entailing the many available cultural experiences in the city but also the cultural models and most developed international experiences on offer. With this approach and vision of the project, the definition of the program drew criticism from local residents (there is “a propensity to import models” and “little attention to the value of local experiences, regional identity and people genius loci”) who raised concerns that the initial idea “culture without culture” would be lost (Matera Association 2019 website).

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

175

Despite not being directly involved in the drafting of the cultural program, the support of local residents in the candidacy process reached its highest level in this period. Nowhere this is more in evidence than in the large crowd that gathered on October 7th, 2014 to walk through the streets of Matera to meet the European Commissioners who came to visit Matera and the other cities included on the short list. Ten days later the citizens of Matera would receive news of the nomination of their city as ECoC 2019.

5.4

The First Implementation Phase: November 2014– September 2016

It can be said that the implementation phase of the cultural project was characterised by a process of considerable centralisation of decision-making led by the city council. In September 2014 the Matera 2019 Committee had given way to the Matera Basilicata 2019 Foundation that had been founded by public and private actors with the fundamental mission to implement the cultural program outlined in the second bid book. The foundation adopted a bureaucratic model of governance and granted notable influence to the institutional actors in the city (Matera Council, Region of Basilicata, Province of Matera, University of Basilicata and Chamber of Commerce), whose role had changed in comparison with the first phase, in which they acted as supporters of the iniative, giving space to the professionals in charge of drawing the bid. At this juncture they also began to play the role of funders for the initiative and provided an amount of approximately 50 million euros to finance the cultural programs. Inevitably these new elements, i.e., the scope of diverse public institutions involved in decision-making and the multiplicity of sometimes conflicting interests affected the modes of the governance of the project, thereby marginalizing the role of ordinary citizens in decision-making processes. These dynamics disappointed the city’s residents, original promoters of the initiative, who had expected the foundation to operate as a platform open to all local actors, cooperating with them rather than acting as the sole vehicle of implementation. Indeed, the Matera Association 2019 public declared itself to be in disagreement with the use of the foundation as a tool for governance and suggests the adoption of a participatory governance tool, in line with the Anglo-Saxon “Trust” model, as a non-proft art organisation (Matera Association 2009 website). Soon after the decision to nominate Matera ECoC 2019, the political climate also began to become more conflictual, due to the political struggle for supremacy in the local elections scheduled for 2015. Which in turn led to negative impacts on the governance and operation of the foundation as it was foreseen by the previous major who pointed out, “the real risk we are now running is that we use this part of time, which separates us from the elections, to skirmish. This, for the story of Matera 2019 can be dangerous” (Minutes of the City Council of Matera, 19 November 2014).

176

P. Demartini et al.

In September 2015 the political majority that governed the town during the candidacy process changed, but nevertheless this did not lead to greater political stability. This has had consequences on the internal climate of the Foundation where conflicts over governance decisions have continued until 2016. These conflicts caused delays in the development of the project included in the bid books, had a negative impact on public opinion and bred a lack of confidence and trust from residents, citizens’ associations, potential supporters and sponsors concerning the ability of the local administration and foundation to manage the implementation of a mega-event of such importance, as reported in the local newspapers and Corinto and Nicosia (2016). Finally, the governance and organisational structure of the Matera Basilicata 2019 Foundation was defined in April 2016. However, in October 2016 the monitoring and advisory panel officially reunited to evaluate the implementation phase of the Matera ECoC 2019 project, expressing growing unease in its evaluation report and remarking on the choices of governance adopted by the foundation, underlining an effective marginalisation of citizens from the governance of the project. “The panel reminds the foundation of the need to engage civil society and to harness their willingness to participate and suggests their inclusion in the organigram, re-activating their role and fully integrating them in the governance structure on the Board of Trustees” (Matera 2019, first monitoring meeting, October 2016, report by the Monitoring and Advisory Panel: 7).

6 Discussion In line with other international bodies, the European Commission promotes the active participation of citizens in cultural and creative initiatives due to the positive impact these initiatives can have on the well-being and development of local communities (see SDG 11, ONU, 2015). Our results confirm that the success of this participation can only be truly achieved in the presence of a set of “facilitating” factors (Yang and Pandey 2011; Voorberg et al. 2015). These factors concern both the characteristics of citizens and the environmental context in which they operate on the one hand, and the characteristics of the target organization and the mechanisms of inclusion adopted by public officials on the other. To offer an overview of the discussion of our findings, the main issues are summarised in Table 3, referring to our framework of analysis. The seed phase cannot be interpreted in light of our theoretical framework because it involves only one group of active citizens who launched the idea of the candidacy. Therefore, we have chosen to focus on the remaining phases. In a similar vein to the nomination of Umeå as ECoC in 2014 (Hudson et al. 2017), the conditions for developing an authentic participatory process in public decision-making were only to be observed in the initial phases of the initiative (the candidacy and short list phases), in which citizens and civil society involvement was necessary for the gathering of ideas and building of collective knowledge. Hence, in

Short list phase

Candidacy phase

Phases Seed phase

Characteristics of participants Young cultural entrepreneurs and members of cultural associations who represent a cultural elite Broad participation of citizens who have knowledge and ideas to be collected in the first bid book The Web Team is born, a group of 300 volunteers, fans of social media, who are tasked with circulating information on the candidacy Extended and active participation of citizens in promoting the candidacy of the city Committee Matera 2019 is established and begins to act as “target organization” The candidacy program task is assigned to a team among the committee Governance becomes institutionalised but decision making is still participatory Governance and decisionmaking become more formalized

Characteristics of the target organization

Social media volunteers and influencers, radio channel, public meetings

Social media volunteers and influencers, national radio channel, public meetings

Involvement mechanisms

Table 3 Matera ECoC 2019: phases and main issues of citizen participation (2008–2016)

Strong support from the city council

Environmental characteristics The city council is neither directly nor officially involved in supporting the initiative Strong support from the city council

(continued)

Downgrading of citizens’ contribution in the design of the cultural program “Open Future” but wide participation of citizens in supporting the candidacy On October 7th 2014 a large crowd took to the streets of Matera in support of its nomination

Citizens as co-designers of the cultural program “Together” About 1000 names, both of individuals, organisations and associations signed the first dossier

Focus on citizen participation A grass roots initiative

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . . 177

Phases First implementation phase

Characteristics of participants Some citizens express criticism of the municipality and public managers

Table 3 (continued) Characteristics of the target organization Governance becomes bureaucratic. Strong influence of institutional actors. Centralization of decision making

Involvement mechanisms Not relevant

Environmental characteristics Strong conflicts in the political arena

Focus on citizen participation Marginalization of citizens’ participation in the governance of the project

178 P. Demartini et al.

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

179

those phases, citizens (represented by their non-profit or professional associations) were the main interlocutors to be engaged by public officials in the decision-making process. In this phase, citizens and their associations played the role of co-designer, supporting the project of selecting Matera as ECoC 2019 with their skills, knowledge, ideas, values and vision for the future of the community in which they live. More precisely, the promotional group for the candidacy, (Associazione Matera 2019) represented the interests of a group of citizens, a cultural elite (Corinto 2017: 94) clearly delineated in its characteristics, shared values and identity. They are a group of citizens composed of young people who belong to cultural associations but who are also entrepreneurs in the fields of cultural tourism and new technology. They have chosen to live and stay in the city but envisioned a project based on change: building on tradition, identity and history, they sought to propose a new development model of growth based on sustainability and social responsibility. Subsequently, another group of citizens came into play, also clearly defined in its characteristics, that voluntarily offered its contribution for the promotion of the candidacy, by dealing with communication. They were considered by public actors as a valuable partner (Voorberg et al. 2015) in order to enrich the content of the first dossier and increase the likelihood of Matera being chosen for the short list for ECoC 2019. Some citizens of this group, all experts in social media, constitute what is called the “Web Team” of Matera 2019 (participants’ characteristics and their representativeness). Consequently, in this phase the public actors were also interested in implementing mechanisms that facilitated their active participation such as the launch of the online community, through which they collected 171 projects from civil society organizations (some of which were included in the first dossier) and the encouragement of “digital” volunteers to circulate news of the Matera ECoC 2019 candidacy to a worldwide audience (involvement mechanisms). Evidence of the involvement of citizenship in the production of the first cultural program is testified by the last page of the first bid book, which contains a list of the names of around 1000 individuals and associations that have signed the dossier. In the short list phase, citizen engagement in drafting the second dossier diminished in importance. Nevertheless, local residents remained highly enthusiastic about the project and continued to fill the squares of Matera to show their support. Consequently, the extended participation of citizens and their emotional involvement in supporting the candidacy became an important lever with which to communicate and promote the image of the city. The mobilization of the local community to promote the project was certainly nurtured by the stability of the political majority and its active commitment to the candidacy of the city for ECoC 2019 (environmental characteristic). Once Matera had been nominated ECoC 2019, the implementation of the project saw institutional actors, also appointed to be the main founders, take the upper hand in defining the governance of the project, which in turn became much more centralized and formalized as a result. In this phase the composition of various interests was fundamental in allowing the start-up of operations as well. A year after the designation, a local election led to a

180

P. Demartini et al.

change in political control in the city, leaving the party that had led Matera to the designation on the fringes of power. However, the new political incumbents also failed to provide stability. The political climate thus became very conflictive (environmental characteristics) and this was also reflected in the foundation that was to govern the ECoC project. This resulted in the stagnation of activities with subsequent damage to the image of the initiative, a disaffection on the part of local residents and a risk of losing the social capital that had grown during the previous phases. The Matera ECoC 2019 case confirms that, in the context of ECoCs, the active participation of citizens has been an essential supporting factor in obtaining legitimacy for the project. In fact, it was precisely the recognition of high citizen engagement that led the European Commission to designate Matera as ECoC 2019. Therefore, the first beneficiary of citizen participation was the city itself, which won the designation. In addition to this objective advantage, civic participation has fueled a creative and dynamic phase in which collective collaboration by local residents has given them the opportunity to gain awareness of the key role of culture in the city’s development. This phase of “collective euphoria” was nurtured by certain conditions, related to the characteristic of the target organization, political environment and involvement mechanisms, that were subsequently overlooked in the implementation phase. Indeed, after the designation was granted to Matera, a progressive decrease in the participatory process can be noted. This evidence suggests also that public actors can foster participation with the aim of obtaining legitimacy and consent that are only useful for the purposes of the candidacy. Once the designation has been won, other issues are prioritized on the political agenda and investments in promoting citizen participation in the realization of cultural programs are progressively neglected.

7 Conclusions While a wide range of literary sources can be found on the issue of civic engagement in the public management decision-making process, there are still no systematic studies aimed at investigating the challenges, problems and difficulties associated with participatory processes in cultural policies or initiatives. This paper aims to provide one of the first contributions to enrich the literature on the subject by investigating the case of Matera, a small town located in southern Italy, that in 2008 embraced the idea of participating in the European call for the ECoC nomination and in October 2014 was designated European Capital of Culture 2019. The empirical evidence described in the paper presents significant similarities to the case studies of previous ECoCs. This allows us to affirm that, even in the case of Matera ECoC 2019, only the initial phases (2008–2013) could be termed as participative—from the launch of the candidacy to the production of the first dossier, “Together”—during which Matera filed its candidacy for inclusion on the short list.

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

181

As evidenced in other ECoC case studies, the attention paid by the public officials in promoting citizen participation in the implementation phase subsequently declines, resulting in discontent in the population and in the risk of losing the social capital that had been created in the previous phases. The lack of consideration of the policies aimed at involving citizens may also have impacts in the medium-long term. In fact, as highlighted in other studies (Sacco and Crociata 2013; Ferilli et al. 2016), territorial development models driven by investments in the cultural sector, such as ECoC, may be successful only if public administration strives to guarantee the sustainability (i.e cultural, social and economic) of these initiatives on a long-term basis. One of the conditions for this to be realized is precisely to ensure that levels of participation in cultural initiatives continue to increase in local communities; this represents a challenge for public officials to acknowledge and respond to effectively. Studies have shown that there is a correlation between the level with which citizens attend cultural activities and their involvement in producing new cultural initiatives (Sacco and Crociata 2013). This is consistent with a view to create a “cultural citizen”, actively involved in the promotion of his or her region and the development of common goals and collective interests. With particular reference to Matera ECoC 2019, if this goal was a mere candidacy slogan or utopia (Sacco 2006; Ferilli et al. 2016), it remains too early for it to be effectively evaluated. Besides highlighting the need to examine the critical issues and difficulties that may compromise the sustainability of participatory processes in much greater detail, this evidence represents a significant warning, not only for public administration but also for the European Commission. In promoting these processes, the European Commission should not only observe and evaluate the level of civic engagement when selecting ECoC candidancies, but also implement effective long-term mechanisms of evaluation and monitoring to verify that participation remains consistent, and support public administration in order to maintain the real involvement of the local population on a long-term basis.

References Akçakaya, İ. (2008). Measuring the impact of culture on urban regeneration toward prospects for İstanbul Ecoc 2010: The case of Zeymtinburnu culture valley project. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science And Technology. Kentsel Dönüşümün Öncülü ve Ardılı Olarak Göç. Albro, R. (2007). The terms of participation in recent UNESCO cultural policy making. In Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage: Challenges and approaches (pp. 109–128). Builth Wells [Wales]: Institute of Art and Law. Barber, B. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Bristol: Policy Press.

182

P. Demartini et al.

Bencivenga, A., Buccino, L., Giampietro, A. M., & Pepe, A. (2016). Il processo partecipativo di una comunità coinvolta in un mega evento: il caso di Matera Capitale Europea della Cultura 2019. Annali del turismo, 1, 203–226. Bernardo, M., & De Pascale, F. (2016). Matera (Basilicata, Southern Italy): A European model of reuse, sustainability and resilience. Advances in Economics and Business, 4, 26–36. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (1997). An economic model of representative democracy. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(1), 85–114. Biondi, L., Demartini, P., Marchegiani, L., Marchiori, M., & Piber, M. (2018). The outreach of participatory cultural initiatives: The importance of creating and exchanging knowledge. In Proceedings of the IFKAD2018, Delft, The Netherlands, 4–6 July 2018. Biondi, L., Demartini, P., Marchegiani, L., Marchiori, M., & Piber, M. (2020). Understanding orchestrated participatory cultural initiatives: Mapping the dynamics of governance and participation. Cities, 96, 102459. Blake, J. (2008). Unesco’s 2003 convention on intangible cultural heritage. In The implications of community involvement (pp. 45–50). Borrás, S. (2003). The innovation policy of the European Union: From government to governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Borseková, K., Vaňová, A., & Vitálišová, K. (2017). Building Košice European capital of culture: Towards a creative city? In N. Bellini & C. Pasquinelli (Eds.), Tourism in the city. Towards an integrative agenda on urban tourism (pp. 193–205). Berlin: Springer. Bozzini, E., & Enjolras, B. (2012, February). Introduction: Governing ambiguities: Dynamics, institutions, actors. In Governing ambiguities (pp. 11–22). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Cicerchia, A. (2016). Social and economic impacts of culture in ECoC Italian candidate cities. Economia della Cultura, 26(1), 149–164. Clark, J., & Wise, N. (2018). Urban renewal, community and participation: Theory, policy and practice. Cham: Springer. Comunian, R. (2011). Rethinking the creative city. The role of complexity, networks and interactions in the urban creative economy. Urban Studies, 48, 1157–1179. Corinto, G. L. (2017). Materadio, a radio airing in view of Matera European capital of culture 2019. Almatourism-Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development, 8(15), 84–98. Corinto, G. L., & Nicosia, E. (2016). The European capital of culture. Will Matera 2019 be a successful example? In Development, art(s) and culture UNEEC forum (Vol. 8, pp. 19–35). Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. Hoboken: Wiley. Demartini, P., Marchiori, M., & Marchegiani, L. (2018). Citizen engagement as a criterion to select the European capital of culture: A critical appraisal. In 13th international forum on knowledge asset dynamics (IFKAD) proceedings 2018, Delft, Netherlands. Demartini, P., Marchiori, M., Marchegiani, L., & Biondi, L. (2019). Citizen participation: A buzz word to evaluate the European capital of culture? In 14th international forum on knowledge asset dynamics (IFKAD) proceedings 2019, Matera, Italy. Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography (Vol. 17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dinardi, C. (2015). Unsettling the role of culture as panacea: The politics of culture-led urban regeneration in Buenos Aires. City, Culture and Society, 6(2), 9–18. Dossier. (2013). Together. Retrieved April 14, 2017 from http://www.matera-basilicata2019.it/it/ archivi/documenti.html Dossier. (2014). Open the future. Retrieved April 14, 2017 from http://www.matera-basilicata2019. it/it/archivi/documenti.html Drever, E. (1995). Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research. A Teacher’s Guide. Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen participation in budgeting theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 437–447.

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

183

Eriksson, B., & Stephensen, J. L. (2015). Rethinking participation and re-enacting its dilemmas? Aarhus 2017 and “the Playful Society”. Conjunctions. Transdisciplinary Journal of Cultural Participation, 2(2), 48–66. EU. (2014). Conclusions on cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe and on participatory governance of cultural heritage. Council Decisions. May and November 2014. Felicetti, M. (2015). Innovazione Culturale E Sviluppo Locale. Matera Come Distretto Culturale. LaborEst, 11, 5–9. Felicetti, M. (2016). Cultural innovation and local development: Matera as a cultural district. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 614–618. Ferilli, G., Sacco, P. L., & Blessi, G. T. (2016). Beyond the rhetoric of participation: New challenges and prospects for inclusive urban regeneration. City, Culture and Society, 7(2), 95–100. Garcia, B., & Cox, T. (2013). European capitals of culture: Success strategies and long-term effects. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Giovanangeli, A. (2015). Marseille, European capital of culture 2013 in s and off s: A case for rethinking the effects of large-scale cultural initiatives. French Cultural Studies, 26(3), 302–316. Griffiths, R. (2006). City/culture discourses: Evidence from the competition to select the European capital of culture 2008. European Planning Studies, 14(4), 415–430. Grodach, C., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2007). Cultural development strategies and urban revitalization: A survey of US cities. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(4), 349–370. Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (2004). Comportamiento organizacional (no. 65.013). Stamford: International Thomson Editores. Herrero, L. C., Sanz, J. Á., Devesa, M., Bedate, A., & Del Barrio, M. J. (2006). The economic impact of cultural events: A case-study of Salamanca 2002, European capital of culture. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13(1), 41–57. Hudson, C., Sandberg, L., & Schmauch, U. (2017). The co-creation (of) culture? The case of Umeå, European capital of culture 2014. European Planning Studies, 25(9), 1538–1555. Jancovich, L. (2017). The participation myth. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23(1), 107–121. Johnson, L. (2016). Cultural capitals: Revaluing the arts, remaking urban spaces. Abingdon: Routledge. King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58, 317–326. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews (2nd edn): Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kweit, M. G., & Kweit, R. W. (1981). Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic society: A contingency approach. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Liu, Y. D. (2014). Cultural events and cultural tourism development: Lessons from the European capitals of culture. European Planning Studies, 22(3), 498–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09654313.2012.752442. Monioudi-Gavala, T., & Koutsobinas, T. (2016). European capital of culture (ECoC) and urban branding: The case of Patras, Greece. In Development, art (s) and culture. Ninenth interdisciplinary conference of the university network of the European capitals of culture (Vol. 8, pp. 130–139). Sibiu: Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu Press. Mosher, F. C. (1968). Democracy and the public service (Vol. 53). New York: Oxford University Press. Nagy, S. (2018). Framing culture: Participatory governance in the European capital of culture programme. Participations, 15(2), 243–262. Nakagawa, S. (2010). Socially inclusive cultural policy and arts-based urban community regeneration. Cities, 27, S16–S24.

184

P. Demartini et al.

Näsholm, M. H., & Blomquist, T. (2014). The meanings of cocreation of culture. In B. Lundgren & M. Ovidiu (Eds.), Culture and growth: Magical companions or mutually exclusive counterparts? Proceedings UNEECC forum volume, 7 Umea 2014, pp. 10–28. http://uneecc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/UNeECC_Proceedings_2014_B5.pdf Németh, Á. (2009). Viability of urban development around cultural events? The European capital of culture. Culture as innovation, The search for creative power in economies and societies (pp. 76–83). Németh, A. (2013). Multi-level development perspectives and the European capital of culture: Pécs 2010 and Turku 2011. Transforming Cities: Urban Processes and Structure, 1, 17. Németh, A. (2016). European capitals of culture–digging deeper into the governance of the megaevent. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(1), 52–74. Osborne, S., & Brown, K. (2005). Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. London: Routledge. Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2006). Connecting the dots in public management: Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity, and the public manager’s role ambiguity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4), 511–532. Piber, M., Biondi, L., Demartini, P., Marchegiani, L., & Marchiori, M. (2017). Pursuing civic engagement through participatory cultural initiatives: Mapping value creation, outcome, performance and legitimacy. In Proceedings 12th IFKAD (international forum on knowledge asset dynamics) 2017 “knowledge management in the 21st century: Resilience, creativity and co-creation”, St. Petersburg, Russia, 7–9 giugno 2017, ISBN: 978889668710. Piber, M., Demartini, P., & Biondi, L. (2019). The management of participatory cultural initiatives: Learning from the discourse on intellectual capital. Journal of Management and Governance, 23 (2), 435–458. Pollock, V. L., & Sharp, J. (2012). Real participation or the tyranny of participatory practice? Public art and community involvement in the regeneration of the Raploch, Scotland. Urban Studies, 49 (14), 3063–3079. Progress Report. (2016). Matera European capital of culture 2019, September 2016 first formal monitoring meeting Brussels 12 October. Retrieved April 14, 2017 from http://www.materabasilicata2019.it/it/archivi/documenti.html Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238–264. Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Report by the Monitoring and Advisory Panel. (2016). European capital of culture 2019 first monitoring meeting, Brussels. Retrieved April 14, 2017 from http://www.matera-basili cata2019.it/it/archivi/documenti.html Rhodes, R. A. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. London: Open University Press. Richter, A. (2009 July). Critical discourse analysis: Articulating a method for research (p. 150). Nottingham: University of Nottingham. Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353. Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(4), 512–556. Sacco, P. L. (2006). Arte pubblica e sviluppo locale: utopia o realtà possibile? Economia della Cultura, 16(3), 285–294. Sacco, P. L., & Blessi, G. T. (2007). European culture capitals and local development strategies: Comparing the Genoa 2004 and Lille 2004 cases. Homo oeconomicus, 24(1), 111–141.

Culture Invites Participation. An Inquiry on Matera as European Capital of. . .

185

Sacco, P. L., & Crociata, A. (2013). A conceptual regulatory framework for the design and evaluation of complex, participative cultural planning strategies. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1688–1706. Sacco, P. L., Ferilli, G., & Tavano, B. G. (2013). Culture as an engine of local develop- ment processes: System-wide cultural districts I: Theory. Growth and Change, 44(4), 555–570. Sacco, P., Ferilli, G., & Blessi, G. T. (2014). Understanding culture-led local development: A critique of alternative theoretical explanations. Urban Studies, 51(13), 2806–2821. Sacco, P., Ghirardi, S., Tartari, M., & Trimarchi, M. (2019). Two versions of heterotopia: The role of art practices in participative urban renewal processes. Cities, 89, 199–208. Sasaki, M. (2010). Urban regeneration through cultural creativity and social inclusion: Rethinking creative city theory through a Japanese case study. Cities, 27, S3–S9. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). London: Sage Publications. Stern, M. J., & Seifert, S. C. (2009). Civic engagement and the arts: Issues of conceptualization and measurement. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Policy & Practice. Stevenson, D., Balling, G., & Kann-Rasmussen, N. (2017). Cultural participation in Europe: Shared problem or shared problematisation? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23(1), 89–106. Thomas, D. (1990). Intra-household resource allocation: An inferential approach. Journal of Human Resources, 25, 635–664. Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tommarchi, E., Hansen, L. E., & Bianchini, F. (2018). Problematising the question of participation in capitals of culture. Retrieved January, 2019 from https://www.participations.org/Volume% 2015/Issue%202/10.pdf UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (2005). Jodhpur initiatives: Asia–Pacific creating creative communities—A strategy for the 21st century. Bangkok: UNESCO. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. Wåhlin, N. (2015). Projective cities: Organizing large cultural development initiatives. In B. Lundgren & M. Ovidiu (Eds.), Culture and growth: Magical companions or mutually exclusive counterparts?, proceedings Umeå, Sweden, 23/24 October 2014 UNEECC forum volume 7, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu Press. Wåhlin, N., Kapsali, M., Näsholm, M. H., & Blomquist, T. (2016). Urban strategies for culturedriven growth: Co-creating a European capital of culture. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Wang, X. (2001). Assessing public participation in US cities. Public Performance & Management Review, 24, 322–336. Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2005). Assessing citizen involvement efforts by local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(2), 191–216. Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–264. Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880–892. Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

186

P. Demartini et al.

List of Websites Matera Association. (2019). Retrieved January, 2019 from https://www.associazionematera2019.it/ Matera Foundation. (2019). Retrieved January, 2019 from https://www.matera-basilicata2019.it/it/ Municipality Council of Matera (several years). (2017). Minutes of the municipal council meetings. Retrieved January, 2019 from http://www.comune.matera.it/amministrazione/consigliocomunale

Paola Demartini is Full Professor of Managerial and Financial Accounting at Roma Tre University, Department of Business Studies. She is the Head of the Corporate Governance Lab, which includes a special section on the Governance of Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Culture. Since 2000, she is member of the supervisory committee of PhD courses on Financial Accounting and Governance disciplines, where she taught, among others, Performance Management and Business Evaluations. Since 2016 she is involved in the project “Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Culture: Transferring knowledge, Managing Outcomes, and Enabling Sustainability”, a collaboration between Corporate Governance Lab. (Rome Tre University) and Institut für Organisation und Lernen (Innsbruck University). Currently she is member of the leading research team engaged in a H2020 project titled: SOPHIA—Social Platform For Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment. Lucia Marchegiani is Associate Professor of Business Organization and Human Resources Management at Roma Tre University, where she teaches Human Resources Management and Knowledge Management. Her research interests cover topics such as Creative and Cultural Industries, Innovations and Organizations, Experimental Organizational Behavior, Knowledge Management and Social Media, Participatory approaches in Culture. She has been Chair of the “International Conference on Sustainable Cultural Heritage Management”, (Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, 11–13 October 2013). Currently she is member of the leading research team engaged in a H2020 project titled: SOPHIA—Social Platform For Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment. Michela Marchiori is Full Professor of Business Organization and Change Management at the Department of Business Studies in Roma Tre University. Since 2016 she is member of the project “Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Culture: Transferring knowledge, Managing Outcomes, and Enabling Sustainability” founded in collaboration between Corporate Governance Lab. (Rome Tre University) and Institut für Organisation und Lernen (Innsbruck University). She is the current director of the post-graduate, lifelong learning “Master in Management, Promotion, Technological Innovations in Cultural Heritage” and Director of the 2 years long post-graduate, lifelong learning “Master in Economics and Management of Culture Heritage” both founded by the Department of Business Studies. Currently she is leader of a research team engaged in a H2020 project titled: SOPHIA—Social Platform For Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment.

Part IV

Evaluation and Learning

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative Industries Organisations Marge Sassi, Kristiina Urb, and Ülle Pihlak

Abstract The purpose of the current study was to find out how the heterogeneous background of CCI organisations relates to the evaluation of organisational performance, challenges and skills gap. Quantitative primary data was collected from 460 respondents by using an online questionnaire. The current study is one of the first studies on the evaluation of organisational performance in Estonian CCI organisations and it has revealed that the established organisational performance evaluation tools are not widely used among Estonian CCI organisations. The following skills gaps in financial management, strategic planning, compliance with laws, analyses and reporting; and challenges (no confidence in income; profitability and protection of copyright) affect the evaluation of organisational performance in CCI organisations of Estonia the most. The authors suggest a framework of organisational performance evaluation in CCI organisations to explain the factors influencing the existing practices and mind-sets of organisational performance evaluation. Keywords Cultural and creative industries · Evaluation of organisational performance · Strategic management · Challenges and skills gap

Prelude One hour after sending out the survey questionnaire (that forms the basis for the current study) to approximately 2000 potential respondents, the author received a phone call from a deeply annoyed manager of a well-known cultural organisation. He had one and only concern—why does the author waste his and her own time on such nonsense (referring to the evaluation of organisational performance)? This was not just a call; it was a wake-up call for the author that something M. Sassi (*) · K. Urb Creative Industries and Smart Cities Research Group, Estonian Business School, Tallinn, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] Ü. Pihlak Department of Management, Estonian Business School, Tallinn, Estonia © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_10

189

190

M. Sassi et al.

needs to be done to wake up the managers of Estonian Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI) in order to help them realize their full potential. Soon, another phone call followed with a calm voice (from a small CCI organisation) specifying one question in the questionnaire “What is meant by a “Written Mission Statement”? Is it really expected to write down something that is well recorded in the minds of our team members?”. After an intense, but not very successful effort to explain the essence of strategic management, the author was convinced that the chosen research direction was the right one and that there was a serious practical need for the current study.

1 Introduction The current chapter aims to find out how the heterogeneous background of CCI organisations relates to the evaluation of organisational performance, challenges and skills gap in CCI organisations and develop a framework explaining their relations. A systems management approach is used and CCI organisations are targeted as systems that exist in a dynamic environment (Jensen and Sage 2000). The following factors are expected to shape the organisational performance and its evaluation of CCI organisations—challenges and skills gaps (Jensen and Sage 2000). Both are considered vital for effective organisational performance (Almatrooshi et al. 2016). It is important to highlight that the current study is based on the expectation that an understanding of what it is that CCI organisations are struggling with the most (which challenges and skills gaps in particular), helps not only to understand their (potential) resistance to evaluation, but in addition, it also contributes to forming some practical recommendations for future research agenda. In the current chapter, a wide definition of CCI is used—CCIs are those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have the potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property (Department of Culture 2001, p. 5). CCI is considered to be heterogeneous (Eikhof and Haunschild 2006), but not cohesive (White et al. 2014). The current study analyses the CCI organisations not only from a general perspective, but also considers the heterogeneity of the respondent organisations—form, size, sub-sector and age. This is an important consideration as sub-sector and size, among other variables, have already been proven to affect the management of organisations (Turbide and Laurin 2014). However, as creative organisations are often seen as hybrid organisations (commercial firms that further some aspect of the public good) (Rushton 2014), the borderlines between not-for-profit and for-profit organisations in CCI are not as straight-forward as in the more traditional business environment. Therefore, it is important not just to focus on the organisational form, but also other factors that differentiate CCI organisations—size, sub-sector and age. In the current chapter “organisational performance” is understood as a mixture of goal attainment, relations between the organisation and its environment, and behaviour of organisation participants (Ford and Schellenberg 1982). While “evaluation of organisational performance” and “performance evaluation” and “performance

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

191

measurement” are currently used as synonyms and refer to the ongoing monitoring and reporting of accomplishments, particularly progress toward preestablished goals (United States Government Accountability Office 2005, p. 3). The monitoring activities should not be seen just as one of organisational performance evaluation activities, but this function seeks to ensure that all the three levels of decisionmaking—rational, process and transactional—fit well together (Freeman 2010). The evaluation of organisational performance in general is a rather new research domain in CCI. For instance, in Germany, the Evaluation Society has already been dealing with the topic of evaluation since 1997; however, its Working Group for Culture was only created in 2007 (Birnkraut 2011). So far, no Working Group for Culture or Creative Industries exists in the Evaluation Society of Estonia. Hence, the assumption of the current study is that it is not common for Estonian CCI organisations to evaluate their performance regularly and systematically. However, there are countries (Australia, the UK etc.) where on a state level specific tools for CCI organisations have been developed to measure their performance (Birnkraut 2011). The aim of these planning and evaluation tools is to raise the quality of management and performance in CCI organisations and to develop the CCI sector, as well as the individual organisations within it. The current chapter presents examples of planning and evaluation tools that have been used in CCI organisations and are proven to be successful. As there is hardly any academic literature available on CCI evaluation practices in Estonia, the theoretical part of current chapter can only rely on international literature on the evaluation of organisational performance and on previously published general reports by CCIs (that might be classified as grey literature), while only the data for the empirical part was collected from Estonia. Thus, the central research question of the current chapter is the following—How does the heterogeneous background of CCI organisations relate to the evaluation of organisational performance, challenges and skills gap in CCI organisations? The following sub-questions were formulated in order to find an answer to the research question: • How is the data on performance collected and/or analysed in CCI organisations in Estonia? • Is there any significant correlation between the evaluation of organisational performance and the challenges or skills gaps in CCI organisations in Estonia? • How do the challenges related to the evaluation of organisational performance in CCI organisations differ based on the form, size, age of the organisation and sub-sector in CCI organisations in Estonia? • How do the skills gaps related to the evaluation of organisational performance in CCI organisations differ based on the form, size, age of the organisation and sub-sector in CCI organisations in Estonia?

192

M. Sassi et al.

2 Characteristics of CCI Organisations Management in the CCI organisations is usually considered to be complex for many reasons. The organisational phenomena in CCIs are unique (Pick et al. 2015), full of controversies (Banks and O’Connor 2009) and unpredictability (Faulkner and Anderson 1987). Thus, CCI organisations are facing a great number of managerial challenges—complex relationship between management, art and technology (Hodgson and Briand 2013). Based on the existing theoretical literature and reports, the current sub-chapter will attempt to map the challenges and the skills gaps in CCI which have direct impact on the management of the sector. Potts and Cunningham (2008) describe CCI as a dynamic sector with substantial sub-sectoral variety over time and in terms of their business models. No doubt the heterogeneity within the CCI subsectors results in each having its own managerial specifics (Jeffcutt and Pratt 2002). Therefore, it is necessary to consider a wide variety of different conditions, and internal and external challenges (not only managerial challenges), when trying to understand how CCI organisations work, because they all may influence the outcome—the organisational performance. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that what unites these diverse CCI organisations, is the “creative product” as the outcome (Jones et al. 2015) and the specific “art-commerce relation”, which makes the CCI a “special case” (Ryan 1992, p. 44). This is the reason why the current chapter includes the entire Cultural and Creative Industries looking at the full range of CCI organisations whose outcomes may all be defined as creative.

2.1

Challenges Affecting CCI Organisations

Perhaps the most widespread challenges concern the general management of CCI organisations. Berziņš (2012) found in his study in Latvia, that the strategic management process is more complicated in CCI organisations than in more traditional industries, mainly due to additional factors and parallel functions. The study by Küttim et al. (2011), which compared CCI organisations in Estonia, Latvia, Finland, and Sweden, revealed that CCI managers characterize their own management style as lacking a market orientation, overlooking managerial mistakes, weakness in planning time, organisation, and financial matters; which may all be called management related challenges. The resources obtainable in the external environment shape the survival of players in the CCI (Noyes et al. 2012). However, not just the limited financial means, but also the lack of understanding of the principles of financial management, are considered quite common in CCI organisations (Jones et al. 2004). A study by Tscherning and Boxenbaum (2011) revealed that CCI organisations in Denmark lack competencies in the areas of finance, while another comparative Baltic-Nordic study pointed out entrepreneurial competencies, among others financial planning, as

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

193

Table 1 Overview of the main challenges and skills gaps in CCI organizations (compiled by the authors) Lack of competences among CCI managers Management-related issues

Financial aspects

Changing competitive environment

Strategic management; long-term commercial planning; management education (Jeffcutt and Pratt 2002; Tscherning and Boxenbaum 2011; Berziņš 2012) Complicated strategic management process; lack of business competencies; need for support services with focus on strategy and business development (Küttim et al. 2011; Tscherning and Boxenbaum 2011; Berziņš 2012) Lack of financial resources; financial illiteracy; financial management (Jones et al. 2004; Küttim et al. 2011; Tscherning and Boxenbaum 2011; Noyes et al. 2012) Fierce competition—competitive pressures; competitive instability; specialized and high-skilled industrial sector (Jeffcutt and Pratt 2002; Benghozi and Lyubareva 2014)

important challenges in CCI organisations (Küttim et al. 2011). Thus, both studies refer to financial challenges in the CCI. The external environment of CCI organisations is quite challenging due to its production process that often requires long, high-risk development phases (European Creative Industries Alliance 2012, p. 22). This means that CCI organisations produce symbolic content (Bilton and Leary 2002) that has a symbolic value for the end-users, which is more or less intangible in nature (Towse 2010). Nevertheless, creative products and services in an open market compete with mass production. Therefore, the constantly changing competitive environment is challenging for CCI organisations. Following table (Table 1) summarizes the main challenges and skills gaps in CCI organisations. The challenges described above are expected to limit the ability of CCI organisations to work as effectively and sustainably as they could. When looking at the current challenges as a missed opportunity, the Cultural and Creative Industries could change the way how challenges are faced.

2.2

Skills Gaps in CCI Organisations

As leadership competencies are considered among the key factors that contribute to organisational performance (Almatrooshi et al. 2016), the existing skillset of managerial and entrepreneurial competencies need to be targeted when describing the essence of CCI organisations. It is quite typical to small organisations (thus to many CCI organisations) to have skills gap in management in general (Jeffcutt and Pratt 2002). Also, the results of the study by Küttim et al. (2011) showed the lack of a wide range of competencies in CCI organistions: the lack of knowledge of the business environment, financial and accounting skills, weakness in management in general, but also in financial management, business law, strategic thinking and

194

M. Sassi et al.

planning, etc. One of the conclusions of the study was that a creative entrepreneur should understand a little of everything—be a generalist—in order to run a successful business (Küttim et al. 2011, p. 372). CCI organisations require more know-how in coaching for business strategy, finance for project development and strategic planning and business skills in general (Tscherning and Boxenbaum 2011). Quite often, CCI organisations tend not to have a horizon for long-term commercial planning and face major challenges concerning strategy and business development (Tscherning and Boxenbaum 2011). Furthermore, Jeffcutt and Pratt (2002, p. 10) have highlighted that in practice most managers of CCI organisations do not have either a core task or a core competency in management. The empirical part of the current chapter analyses whether these challenges and skills gaps affect the evaluation of organisational performance in CCI organisations and how.

3 Evaluation of Organisational Performance as a Solution Creativity can be neither planned nor controlled when managing creative workers (Manning and Sydow 2007). However, the research object for the current chapter is not creativity as such, but the CCI organisations whose outcome is usually creative. Therefore, the current chapter is based on the belief that the organisational performance of CCI organisations should not only be planned and controlled per se, but on a consideration that a regular evaluation of organisational performance will contribute to a more effective management of CCI organisations. First, the essence and benefits of evaluation of organisational performance will be introduced and then some methods and tools will be discussed. The initiative to practice evaluation of organisational performance may come from the organisation itself or be externally driven. In some countries, the financing of arts institutions depends on the results of their performance measurement (Birnkraut 2011)—thus, existing business plans, marketing plans, performance contracts, objectives, and key performance indicators are needed to receive (government) support (Caust 2003). However, it is not just financial stability that is a possible positive outcome of the evaluation of organisational performance. For example, the quality of performance in general or the ability to avoid risks may improve as a result of performance evaluation (Radbourne et al. 2009). Furthermore, Gstraunthaler and Piber (2007) point out additional benefits of practicing organisational performance evaluation in CCI organisations: identifying a “wrong” direction and together with the stakeholders concerned, it is the basis for sustainable development (Gstraunthaler and Piber 2007, p. 366). Also empirical evidence from the performing arts sector shows that arts organisations can maximize the following quality indicators based on the feedback of their customers: knowledge-transfer or learning, risk management, authenticity, and collective engagement (Radbourne et al. 2009). The key to the success in any industry is linked to involvement, joint planning and shared responsibilities in daily evaluation practices—the organisations

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

195

corresponding to the needs of their target groups can be competitive in the long-run. Therefore, it is always important to understand and be aware of the needs of target groups. Thus, the evaluation of organisational performance provides CCI organisations the opportunity to understand the best developmental direction and the needs of the organisation’s target groups. Birnkraut and Heller (2008) reasoned that evaluation of organisational performance could be a suitable way to help the organisation to ensure the maximum efficiency of their operations. In case the managers of CCI organisations have acknowledged the need for additional managerial and entrepreneurial skillset, they could use the evaluation of organisational performance to support decision-making and contribute to higher quality organisational performance. Thus, there is reason to believe that practicing evaluation of organisational performance in CCI organisations could be a solution to some of the challenges faced by CCI organisations. This raises the question of how this should be done. At the beginning of the evaluation process, it is necessary to decide, which performance measurement indicators and tools to use. Performance in museums is often measured on the basis of a set of key indicators which are derived from accounting systems developed for management purposes in enterprises (Gstraunthaler and Piber 2007, p. 363). It is advised to begin with some generic measures like quality, customer satisfaction, product/service cost structure, and some financial criteria (Neely et al. 2000). However, often organisational efficiency is measured by meeting budget and time constraints (Miron et al. 2004) and usually via the question: how do organisations know if they are successful or at least efficient? First, the goals and indicators need to be set, and the data collected and analysed. When those preconditions have been fulfilled, corrective measures come into play in order to learn from mistakes and choose the right path based on identified gaps—this forms the essence of evaluation of organisational performance.

3.1

Evaluation Tools Used in CCI Organisations

Most scholars seem to agree that a one-model-fits-all organisational performance evaluation method does not exist (Birnkraut 2011) and Caust (2003, p. 60) has emphasized that industry models that have no direct relevance to arts should not be used. Based on the literature the following organisational performance evaluation tools are used in CCI organisations (Table 1): Balanced Scorecard, Gap-analysis, Benchmarking, Social Return on Investment (SROI), different Quality Frameworks, Framework Model for Evaluating the Performance of Arts Organisations, Dataenvelopment analysis (DEA) and Artistic Vibrancy Framework. All the above listed tools are described briefly in Table 2 below. Most of these evaluation tools take financial aspects into consideration, but do not focus on them and pay more attention to the uniqueness of organisations (among others that most CCI organisations provide mission-based performance) through their general performance as such. These evaluation tools have been used, for

196

M. Sassi et al.

Table 2 Selection of evaluation tools used in CCI organizations worldwide (compiled by the authors) Tool Balanced Scorecard

Aim To improve organizational performance

Gap Analysis

To assess and improve the (service) quality of organizations

Benchmarking

To judge how well the organization is doing, and to identify the potential improvements

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

To measure organizational and individual performance or efficiency

Benefits – Encourages managers to have a broader view of their organization and monitor the success (in four different ways) – Keeps the organization balanced – Forces organizations to reflect on who they are and who they would like to be – Determines which steps to take in order to move from the current state to the desired one – Lists the factors needed to achieve the set goals – Highlights the gaps that exist and need to be filled – Involves customer perspective – Compares the data of one organization with metrics from similar organizations in the same field of activity – Continuous analyses of existing strategy, products and processes with benchmark cluster Provides a large amount of specific information that can be used to establish guidelines for the improvement of efficiency

Usage – Each scorecard is unique – There is a special version for NGOs – It is also possible to use only parts of the tool

Source Woodley (2007), Birnkraut and Heller (2008), Boorsma and Chiaravalloti (2010)

Is usable for the whole organization or just for parts of the performance

Reeves (2002), Town et al. (2013)

It is possible to build a benchmark cluster or use existing benchmarking tools

Montalto et al. (2012), Thelwall (2012), White et al. (2014)

– Emphasizes that any differentiating factor may have an impact on efficiency estimations – Used to distinguish efficient and inefficient elements

del Barrio, Herrero and Sanz (2009), Zeng et al. (2016)

(continued)

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

197

Table 2 (continued) Tool Social Return on Investment (SROI)

Aim To evaluate mainly programs and projects or sub-activities

Quality Frameworks

To improve the organization and consider its wider impact

Framework model for the evaluation of the performance of arts organizations

To develop plans for the future through quality and stakeholder satisfaction

Artistic Vibrancy Framework

To reflect on, describe and measure the artistic performance and achievement across the different dimensions of work

Benefits – Produces a quantitative summary of achievements that are usually based on cost-benefit analysis – Involves actively stakeholders in deciding what and how to measure Aims at selfevaluation since it encourages organizations to think about key aspects of their performance

– Links overall quality to product and service quality – Enables organizations to consider how effectively they are moving towards set goals Provides a structure and resources to help arts organizations reflect on, describe and measure their artistic performance and achievement across the different dimensions of their work

Usage Has been used for the assessment of arts programs and the impact of investments on culture

Source García (2008), Matthews (2015)

– Helps to develop a more consolidated and rounded approach to planning, monitoring and review—provides wide range of evidence which characterizes successful organizations To be usable, each organization should design its own measurement system to measure efficiency and effectiveness

Turnbull (2011)

To enable a company to see whether it is on track

Sorjonen and Uusitalo (2005)

Bailey and Richardson (2010)

198

M. Sassi et al.

instance, in the UK, Japan, and Spain, mainly in museums and libraries (Vitaliano 1998; Hammond 2002; Chen et al. 2005; Chou et al. 2012; del Barrio and Herrero 2014; Ma et al. 2014) and are also considered to be more or less suitable for the evaluation of CCI organisations. The tools described in the table above are briefly compared below. The Balanced Scorecard is based on monitoring indicators to improve organisational outcomes (Boorsma and Chiaravalloti 2010). It was essentially used to align the management and strategy of a business but has also been successfully implemented in arts organisations in the form of some modified versions (Birnkraut and Heller 2008). It mainly targets the internal aspects of the organisation, while the Gap Analysis consists of a listing of characteristic factors of the present situation which takes into account the external and internal aspects. It is all about listing the factors needed to achieve future objectives and highlighting gaps that exist and need to be filled. The method has been used in art galleries, museums and when assessing the quality of festivals or performances (Kilbride and Norris 2014). Data-envelopment analysis (DEA) was initially developed to evaluate non-profit organisations. Today, this fairly standardized technique has been widely applied to assess cultural institutions, particularly museums and libraries (Chen et al. 2005; del Barrio and Herrero 2014). The methods described so far are applicable to single organisations to measure their organisational performance or some of its aspects. However, it is only possible to use Benchmarking when there exists another organisation as a benchmark, since this method is about comparing the data of one organisation with metrics from similar organisations in the same field of activity. It has also often been used in libraries and museums, most probably because the systems are similar enough to make the comparison possible (Selwood 2002; Reichmann and SommersguterReichmann 2010). There has also been at least one attempt to create a general benchmarking raster for CCI policies at the local level (Montalto et al. 2012). Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a method that allows organisations to generate and measure value of their outcome in monetary terms (Krlev et al. 2013). In spite of its focus on financial issues it has also been effectively used to assess arts programs and the impact of investments in culture. However, SROI is limited in its capacity to compare across museums and galleries (Zappalà and Lyons 2009). There are also a few tools that have been specially designed to suit the needs of CCI organisations. One of them is the Quality Framework that was launched by Creative Scotland and is a continuous improvement tool targeted especially at creative organisations (Scottish Arts Council 2009) and gathering outcome-based evidence (Turnbull 2011). Sorjonen and Uusitalo (2005) have also suggested a framework model for evaluating the performance of arts organisations, and this has been successfully used in Finnish arts organisations. The same authors suggest that each organisation should design its own measurement system of outcome indicators, process indicators, and structural indicators measuring efficiency and effectiveness (Sorjonen and Uusitalo 2005). In conclusion, even though important, the chosen evaluation tools play a smaller role than the fact that there is an evaluation orientation and evaluation results are

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

199

implemented in reality, meaning that evaluation of organisational performance is used as a learning tool (Russ-Eft and Hallie 2009).

4 Research Methodology The research philosophy of the current chapter is based on the assumption by Gioia et al. (2012) stating that the organisational world is socially constructed and that the people constructing their organisational realities are “knowledgeable agents”. Namely, CCI managers know what they are aiming at and are able to express this.

4.1

The Population and Sample

In 2011, there were 7066 CCI organisations in Estonia (Eesti Konjunktuuriinstituut 2013). The sample used for the current analysis dates from 2016 and includes 460 employees of CCI organisations. For some stages of analyses also 42 organizations which do not belong to CCI are included (the control group). Table 3 describes the sample of the participant organisations with a focus on their organisational performance evaluation practices and mind-set. The table above illustrates the level of agreement with 6 aspects of evaluation of organisational performance in CCI organisations (regular performance analysis on a daily basis; efficient system for performance analysing; methodology for analysing performance; planning depends on the analysis of previous results; positive attitude of managers towards evaluation; achieved results are compared against the set goals) based on the number of employees, organisational form, age of the organisation and sub-sector. Table 3 illustrates some contradictions of the evaluation of organisational performance in respondent organisations. First, in majority of the CCI organisations planning depends on the analyses of previous results, but methodology or organisational performance evaluation systems are not widespread. And there is one more interesting characteristic of respondents—it is less in common to compare achieved results against set goals then using analyses of previous results for planning.

4.2

Data Collection

The questionnaire was composed using the core elements of a similar Danish study (Tscherning and Boxenbaum 2011) targeting creative enterprises, and a selfassessment tool introduced in the USA (BTW Consultants 2010) and for cultural organisations (Birnkraut 2011). The online survey environment in Google Forms

Age of the organization

Organizational form

Variable Number of employees

Sub-category No employees 1–5 employees 6–10 employees More than 10 employees Public sector NGO Enterprise Foundation Municipal body 0–2 years 3–5 years 6–10 years 11–25 years More than 25 years 35.9%

70.5%

55.6% 53.0% 52.1% 53.7% 63.3%

13.9% 16.7% 19.7% 21.5% 31.9%

32.0% 15.0% 21.3% 27.3% 30.3%

30.0%

57.5%

54.7% 47.5% 55.6% 63.6% 71.1%

Efficient system for analyzing performance 11.1% 21.0%

Regular performance analysis on daily basis 40.7% 54.9%

22.2% 22.7% 23.9% 22.3% 39.2%

45.3% 16.3% 24.6% 22.7% 38.2%

34.6%

25.0%

Methodology for analyzing performance 14.8% 28.9%

63.9% 69.7% 60.6% 63.6% 75.3%

77.3% 68.8% 62.3% 77.3% 72.4%

87.2%

67.5%

Planning depends on the analysis of previous results 51.9% 65.1%

36.1% 42.4% 29.6% 47.9% 44.6%

52.0% 35.0% 42.5% 50.0% 36.8%

55.1%

32.5%

Managers’ positive attitude 37.0% 40.6%

52.8% 45.5% 40.8% 43.0% 50.6%

52.0% 38.8% 47.8% 45.5% 46.1%

57.7%

45.0%

Achieved results are compared against the set goals 33.3% 45.1%

Table 3 Description of the respondent organizations based on their organizational performance evaluation practices and mind-set (n ¼ 460) (compiled by the authors)

200 M. Sassi et al.

Sub-sector

Architecture Design Performing Arts Film and video Publishing Art Entertainment Software Museums Music Libraries Advertising Broadcasting Handicraft 37.9% 20.0% 25.0% 21.1% 17.4% 41.1% 34.2% 66.7% 12.5%

44.8% 10.0% 0.0% 26.3% 15.9% 29.5% 31.6% 66.7% 31.3%

69.0% 30.0% 0.0%

84.2% 50.7% 60.5% 63.2% 66.7% 56.3%

8.0%

4.0%

40.0%

32.8% 20.6% 15.4%

17.2% 17.6% 19.2%

53.4% 61.8% 50.0%

89.5% 73.9% 71.3% 63.2% 100.0% 81.3%

75.9% 70.0% 50.0%

52.0%

56.9% 61.8% 61.5%

47.4% 40.6% 40.3% 47.4% 100.0% 56.3%

51.7% 40.0% 0.0%

32.0%

51.7% 35.3% 23.1%

57.9% 52.2% 45.0% 57.9% 66.7% 50.0%

44.8% 60.0% 25.0%

36.0%

44.8% 44.1% 26.9%

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . . 201

202

M. Sassi et al.

was accessible to participants for 2.5 months (from mid-January until the end of March 2016). The questions covered, besides the formal characteristics (age, size, type and sub-sector), also the skills and challenges of CCI organisations. The respondents had 5 options to choose from (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree), and therefore it should not have been difficult for the respondents to position themselves using such a set of options. As the questionnaire was anonymous, there is no reason to believe that CCI managers would intentionally conceal their challenges or (gaps of) skills.

4.3

Data Analysis

The current chapter covers the first stage of a longer research project, and therefore mainly presents descriptive statistics (cross-tables) and correlations. A Pierson Correlation Analysis was used to identify significant relationships between the evaluation of organisational performance variables and variables of challenges and skills gaps. The data analysis consisted of the following steps: • First, the answers to the open-ended question concerning actual examples of data collection and analysis tools used in the responding organisations were analysed. In order to describe the reality in the most natural way, the respondents were asked to name any existing data collection and/or analysis method or tool used in the current organisation. Coding was used to categories the answers. • On the second stage, a Correlation Analysis was run in order to detect variables (challenges and skills gaps) that correlate with aspects of organisational performance evaluation (mind-set and practices). • On the following stage, special attention was paid to those challenges that were at least weakly correlated with the evaluation of organisational performance. Crosstables were subsequently created according to the number of employees, organisational form, age and the sub-sector of CCI organisations. Only correlating variables were included in the cross-table. • Next, special attention was paid to those skills (gaps) that were at least weakly correlated with the evaluation of organisational performance. Cross-tables were then created according to the number of employees, organisational form, age and sub-sector of the CCI organisations. Once again, only correlating variables were included.

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

203

5 Results First, the organisational performance evaluation mind-set and practices of CCI organisations in this study are briefly described and then the research questions answered in more detail. The majority of the CCI organisations in Estonia tend not to have any methodology for analysing performance or efficient system for performance analysis. In the majority of the CCI organisations in this study, planning depends on the analysis of previous results regardless of the number of employees, organisational form, age of the organisation or sub-sector. While “organisational form” seems to cause the biggest difference—in the public sector the “methodology for analysing performance” is most widespread compared to other organisational forms and it is in municipal bodies where the “regular performance analysis on a daily basis” is most common. In both the public sector and municipal bodies, the “efficient system for performance analysis” is more common than in the remaining organisations. CCI organisations with more than 10 employees are more active in most of the aspects of evaluation of organisational performance. The evaluation practices and mind-set also tend to differ based on the age of organisations as the organisations that are more than 25 years old are the most active in most aspects of the evaluation of organisational performance. Surprisingly, in the youngest organisations, the results achieved are compared against the set goals the most. A quick look at the sub-sectors and the following “trends” seem to be most typical: – Museums practice more regular performance analysis than organisations of other sub-sectors, while regular analysis does not seem to be typical in the entertainment software sector. – The broadcast sector responded exceptionally positively to the “planning depends on the analysis of previous results” and “managers’ positive attitude to evaluation” (most probably due to the small number of respondents in the sample). Furthermore, the “efficient system for performance analysis” and “methodology for analysing performance’ is more in common in the broadcast sector than in other sub-sectors. – Surprisingly, it is the broadcast sector and the art field where the achieved results are compared against the set goals the most. More detailed results based on the research questions are presented below and briefly commented upon in the following discussion.

204

5.1

M. Sassi et al.

How Is the Data on Performance Collected and/or Analysed in CCI Organisations in Estonia?

As the authors expected that evaluation of organisational performance is not very widespread among CCI organisations in Estonia and managers are not very familiar with the specific evaluation terminology, the respondents were asked rather general open-ended question at the end of the structured questionnaire—“How do you collect or analyse feedback from your stakeholders (please name the tools and/or methods used)”. Coding the responses revealed the results presented in the following table (Table 4). A total of 299 respondents (65% of sample) decided to answer this question. The responses reveal more information about how data is collected (mainly face-to-face, surveys, etc.) and only 2 specific data analysis tools were mentioned—Google Analytics (3) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (1). However, they cannot be considered CCI-specific tools. A few rather passive and/or self-evident approaches were mentioned by the respondents as ways to collect data; therefore, the understanding that clients should come and give feedback on their own initiative (for instance, in social media or in a guest book) seems to prevail, instead of CCI organisations collecting it intentionally. However, a small number of respondents also referred to outsourcing data collection and analysis or contributing to a larger survey. 2.2% of respondents are regularly not collecting or analysing any data. One response is worth highlighting in particular— “Please forgive me, but this question does not make any sense to many creative units because “business model”, “quality system”, etc. have nothing to do with creativity, which is driven by internal and idea-based needs”—as it contributes to the general picture of how evaluation of organisational performance is understood among CCI organisations in Estonia.

5.2

Is There Any Significant Correlation Between the Evaluation of Organisational Performance and the Challenges or Skills Gaps in CCI Organisations in Estonia?

Table 5 below illustrates the correlations between six organisational performance evaluation variables and 14 challenges and skills gaps of CCI organisations studied. Significant correlations are highlighted. Based on the correlation table, it becomes evident that “no confidence in income” correlates significantly with all the evaluation variables; however, all the correlations are negative. Furthermore, more finance-related challenges correlate with some aspects of the evaluation of organisational performance—“making a profit” and “financial management”. There are two more variables—“challenging strategic planning” and “challenging analysing and reporting”—that are negatively related

Architecture Design Performing Arts Film and Video Publishing Art Handicraft Entertainment Software Museums Music Libraries Advertisement Broadcasting Total (n ¼ 299)

Survey 6 6 5 3 4 4 6 0

8 21 47 10 1 121

Face-toface 16 8 5 6 4 5 6 0

8 20 36 14 0 128

2 12 1 6 0 65

Intuitive Approach 18 6 5 3 2 2 8 0 0 5 3 7 0 33

Email 3 5 3 2 4 0 1 0 0 8 1 1 0 18

Social Media 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 7 0 1 19

Indicators 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 14

Traditional Media 1 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 12

Boxoffice 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 8

Phone 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6

Homepage 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 5

Outsourcing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 5

Google Analytics 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

Table 4 Most common ways of collecting and analyzing performance data from stakeholders by CCI organizations in Estonia (compiled by the authors)

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . . 205

VARIABLE Regular performance analysis on daily basis Efficient system for analyzing performance Methodology for analyzing performance Planning depends on the analysis of previous results Managers' positive attitude to evaluation Achieved results are compared against the set goals

0.010

-0.070

-0.056

0.044

0.061

-.191**

-.169**

-.112*

-.137**

-.109*

No confidence in income

0.015

Strongly competitive market

-.121**

Making a profit

-0.033

-0.062

-0.012

-.106*

-0.056

0.060

Expansion to foreign markets

Protecting copyright -0.071

-0.032

-0.044

.103* -0.038

.106* -0.076

0.073

0.069

0.090

.096* -0.035

Being innovative -0.013

-0.062

-0.074

-0.049

-0.006

-0.063

The justification of our own existence 0.020

-0.034

0.021

-0.054

-0.027

0.009

Recruitment of qualified personnel 0.004

0.011

0.003

-0.070

-0.058

-0.005

Financial management -0.034

-.106*

-.117*

-.146**

-.107*

-0.033

-.133**

-.109*

-0.048

Strategic planning

-0.064

-0.052

-0.068

Compliance with laws 0.002

0.081

Receiving external funding 0.008

-0.083

0.006

-.128** -0.008

-.107*

-.099* -0.050

-.111*

-0.038

Analyses and reporting -0.066

-.111*

-.113*

0.030

0.031

-0.057

-.126** -0.056

-.177** -0.033

-.126** 0.010

Finding customers

Table 5 Correlations between the evaluation of organizational performance, challenges and skills gaps typical of CCI organizations (compiled by the authors)

206 M. Sassi et al.

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

207

to most of the aspects of organisational performance evaluation. Surprisingly, only “protecting copyright is challenging” relates weakly, albeit positively, to some aspects of organisational performance evaluation. On the other hand, “compliance with laws” only correlates negatively with some aspects of organisational performance evaluation.

5.3

How Do the Challenges Related to the Evaluation of Organisational Performance in CCI Organisations Differ Based on the Form, Size, Sub-sector and Age of the Organisation?

Table 6 below presents the level of agreement with the following 3 challenges—“no confidence in income”, “making a profit” and “protecting copyright”—in CCI organisations based on the number of employees, organisational form, age of the organisation and sub-sector. As seen from Table 6 above, CCI organisations with more employees seem to face less challenges. “Making a profit” and “no confidence in income” seem to be issues especially for the smaller organisations. The biggest struggle for most of the organisational forms tends to be coping with “making a profit”, while only for NGOs “no confidence in income” is a mayor issue as well. Age group tends to make a smaller difference than number of employees or organisational form in CCI organisations. Surprisingly, organisations that have existed 6–10 years, experience more financial challenges than younger or older organisations. One more surprise was detected—it is the oldest age group, which organisations consider “protecting copyright” more common challenge than younger organisations. “Making a profit” tends to be a dominant challenge in all sub-sectors of CCI organisations. Music and Broadcasting industries also challenge with “no confidence in income”, especially compared to Entertainment Software where this seems to be a minor issue. “Protecting copyright” is especially relevant for organisations in Handicrafts, Architecture and Libraries, but is not an issue at all in the Entertainment Software sector.

5.4

How Do the Skills Gaps Related to the Evaluation of Organisational Performance in CCI Organisations Differ Based on the Form, Size, Sub-sector and Age of the Organisation?

Table 7 below illustrates the level of agreement with the following skills gaps of “financial management”; “strategic planning”; “being in compliance with laws” and

Age of the organization

Organiza-tional Form

Variable Number of Employees

Sub-category No employees 1–5 employees 6–10 employees More than 10 employees Public sector NGO Enterprise Foundation Municipal body 0–2 years 3–5 years 6–10 years 11–25 years More than 25 years 36.0% 73.8% 44.4% 22.7% 31.6% 50.0% 47.0% 52.1% 49.6% 36.7%

83.3% 0.0% 25.0% 20.0% 0.0% 80.0% 71.4% 14.3% 53.3% 50.0%

No confidence in income CCI (n ¼ 460) Contr. (n ¼ 42) 81.5% 33.3% 44.8% 61.9% 40.0% 42.9% 35.9% 45.5% 68.00% 86.30% 73.90% 68.20% 77.60% 69.40% 75.80% 80.30% 76.00% 74.10%

100.0% 59.1% 62.5% 80.0% 100.0% 60.0% 57.1% 57.1% 80.0% 75.0%

Making a profit CCI (n ¼ 460) Contr. (n ¼ 42) 88.90% 66.7% 76.20% 52.4% 60.00% 71.4% 75.60% 100.0% 50.7% 36.3% 41.5% 18.2% 52.6% 41.7% 40.9% 35.2% 39.7% 49.4%

16.7% 40.9% 50.0% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 28.6% 60.0% 37.5%

Protecting copyright CCI (n ¼ 460) Contr. (n ¼ 42) 37.0% 33.3% 44.8% 33.3% 45.0% 42.9% 35.9% 36.4%

Table 6 Agreement with the statements about following challenges: no confidence in income, making a profit and protecting copyright based on the number of employees, organizational form, age of the organization and sub-sector (compiled by the authors)

208 M. Sassi et al.

Sub-sector

Architecture Design Performing Arts Film and Video Publishing Art Entertainment Software Museums Music Libraries Advertising Broadcasting Handicraft

50.0% 41.2% 57.7% 48.0% 44.8% 40.0% 25.0% 36.8% 66.7% 31.8% 36.8% 66.7% 56.3%

77.60% 76.50% 92.30% 72.00% 82.80% 80.00% 75.00% 68.40% 79.70% 71.30% 60.50% 66.7% 87.5%

55.2% 44.1% 26.9% 32.0% 41.4% 20.0% 0.0% 36.8% 34.8% 53.5% 26.3% 33.3% 62.5%

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . . 209

Age of the organization

Organizational Form

Variable Number of Employees

Sub-category No employees 1–5 employees 6–10 employees More than 10 employees Public sector NGO Enterprise Foundation Municipal body 0–2 years 3–5 years 6–10 years 11–25 years More than 25 years

32.0% 47.5% 37.2% 22.7% 25.0% 25.0% 34.8% 47.9% 40.5% 28.9%

33.3% 31.8% 12.5% 60.0% 0.0% 60.0% 28.6% 14.3% 20.0% 50.0%

Financial management CCI Contr. (n ¼ 460) (n ¼ 42) 48.1% 0.0% 35.2% 28.6% 30.0% 42.9% 34.6% 36.4% 30.7% 45.0% 30.4% 18.2% 30.3% 22.2% 30.3% 35.2% 37.2% 30.7%

0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 12.5%

Strategic planning CCI Contr. (n ¼ 460) (n ¼ 42) 48.1% 0.0% 32.4% 14.3% 40.0% 14.3% 23.1% 0.0% 12.0% 21.3% 27.1% 9.1% 19.7% 22.2% 30.3% 31.0% 21.5% 13.9%

16.7% 27.3% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 28.6% 20.0% 0.0%

Being in compliance with laws CCI Contr. (n ¼ 460) (n ¼ 42) 37.0% 33.3% 21.9% 23.8% 15.0% 0.0% 17.9% 18.2% 13.3% 22.5% 26.1% 9.1% 10.5% 36.1% 24.2% 23.9% 19.8% 13.3%

16.7% 22.7% 12.5% 40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 14.3% 13.3% 37.5%

Analyses and reporting CCI Contr. (n ¼ 460) (n ¼ 42) 37.0% 0.0% 20.0% 19.0% 22.5% 28.6% 12.8% 27.3%

Table 7 Agreement with statements about the following skills gaps: financial management, strategic planning, being in compliance with laws, and analyzing and reporting; based on the number of employees, organizational form, age of the organization and sub-sector (compiled by the authors)

210 M. Sassi et al.

Sub-sector

Architecture Design Performing Arts Film and Video Publishing Art Entertainment Software Museums Music Libraries Advertising Broadcasting Handicraft

36.2% 29.4% 38.5% 40.0% 34.5% 20.0% 25.0% 21.1% 37.7% 30.2% 26.3% 0.0% 37.5%

43.1% 41.2% 53.8% 28.0% 41.4% 40.0% 50.0%

26.3% 37.7% 27.1% 28.9% 33.3% 43.8%

31.6% 24.6% 14.0% 18.4% 33.3% 18.8%

32.8% 32.4% 15.4% 24.0% 10.3% 30.0% 25.0% 10.5% 17.4% 12.4% 15.8% 0.0% 31.3%

37.9% 26.5% 26.9% 20.0% 17.2% 10.0% 50.0%

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . . 211

212

M. Sassi et al.

“analyses and reporting”—in CCI organisations based on the number of employees, organisational form, age of the organisation and sub-sector. All in all, CCI organisations tend to agree less with having skills gaps than facing challenges, discussed in the previous sub-chapter. Table 7 above reveals that CCI organisations that do not have any paid staff members, struggle the most with all skills gaps measured, while “strategic planning” is also quite challenging for organisations with 6–10 employees. Surprisingly, “analyses and reporting” does not seem to be an issue for organisations that have more than 10 employees. When looking at different forms of organisation, the largest differences could be seen between NGOs and foundations. NGOs tend to struggle more with “financial management” and “strategic planning” then other types of organisations, while “strategic planning” is of less concern for foundations than any other organisation form. Older organisations seem to struggle slightly more with “financial management” and “strategic planning” than younger organisations, while the youngest organisations seem to lack primarily the competence to “analyse and report”. Organisations that are older than 25 years, tend not to struggle with “compliance with laws” or “analyses and reporting”. Compared to the other sectors, the Performing Arts and Entertainment Software sectors tend to lack “financial management” skills more. While “strategic planning” tends to be more complicated for the Performing Arts, Film and Video, Music and Handicrafts sectors. “Being in compliance with laws” tends to be less challenging for the Publishing sector than other sub-sectors. A lack of skills for “analysing and reporting” seems to be the biggest issue for the Entertainment Software industry compared to other sub-sectors and is non-existent in the Broadcast industry.

6 Discussion Resources that are obtainable in the external environment are said to shape the survival of players in the creative industries (Noyes et al. 2012). The current study found some empirical evidence, that challenges and skills gaps may be associated with the evaluation of organisational performance. As Clarence W. Barron has said “everything can be improved” and based on the empirical evidence found, this is also true of the efficiency and efficacy of strategic management and planning in CCI organisations. This chapter explored the challenges and skills gaps that might limit an organisation’s ability to develop and expand. The findings do not yet provide a definitive answer to the question of whether evaluation of organisational performance is the right solution for improving the performance, competitiveness, effectiveness, service quality, resilience or sustainability of CCI organisations. They nevertheless highlight the need for more research aimed at improving the knowledge of strategic management in the CCI sector.

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

213

The results revealed differences between CCI organisations based on size, age, legal form and sub-sector, thus, CCI organisations can be considered heterogeneous. The current study also revealed that CCI organisations face different kind of challenges that correlate with their organisational performance evaluation practices. However, the findings did not indicate any usage of existing organisational performance evaluation methodologies referred to in the existing literature. This is rather surprising, as the benefits of evaluation of organisational performance should be known among the managers of CCI organisations in Estonia. The study by Turnbull (2011) has shown that the successful evaluation of performance helps organisations become more conscious of the competencies they hold and of their artistic quality and as a result, make more informed decisions about their performance (Epstein and Mcfarlan 2011). For instance, the quality frameworks and organisational performance measurement tools make the organisation think about where they stand (Turnbull 2011) and where they would like to be. This might lead to better planning and analysis and in longer run to a higher quality of organisational performance.

7 Conclusion As the study aimed to find out how heterogeneous background of CCI organisations relates to the evaluation of organisational performance, challenges and skills gap in CCI organisations, the simple answer would be—“directly”! Thus, CCI organisations in Estonia are diverse in form, size, sub-sector and age. However, the results also revealed that there is no one single dominant variable that affects all the aspects of evaluation of organisational performance. The challenges correlating with the practices and mind-sets of organisational performance evaluation differ based on the organisational form and sub-sectors the most, while the size and age of the organisation seem to play a slightly less important role. On the other hand, the results also revealed that the skills gaps correlating with organisational performance evaluation practices and mind-sets differ the most among different sub-sectors and number of employees. To summarize the most important findings, the study also revealed that some elements of evaluation of organisational performance are more in common in Estonia than others—for instance, planning in most of the CCI organisations examined depends on the basis of the analysis of previous results. Most of the data on performance in Estonian CCI organisations is gathered from stakeholders through face-to-face contact and surveys. A few rather passive and/or potentially self-evident approaches were also mentioned by the respondents that might refer to a widespread approach that stakeholders should come and provide feedback on their own initiative, instead of the CCI organisations collecting it intentionally. The results revealed that having “no confidence in income”, “challenging strategic planning” and “challenging analysing and reporting” do negatively influence most of the aspects of evaluation of organisational performance. The biggest

214

M. Sassi et al.

Fig. 1 Framework for the evaluation of organisational performance in CCI organisations (compiled by the authors)

challenge for different types of organisations tends to be coping with “making a profit”. CCI organisations with more employees seem to face less challenges in general. Organisational performance evaluation practices seem to be least different based on the age of the organisations. CCI organisations that do not have any paid staff members, struggle the most with all skills gaps measured. Also, empirical evidence was found that, older organisations seem to struggle more with financial management and strategic planning than younger organisations, while the youngest organisations mainly lack the competence of analysing and reporting, but also financial management. The following framework of factors related to the evaluation of organisational performance is suggested by the authors as a result of the study (Fig. 1). The contribution of the study is mainly practical. As it mapped the skills gaps of CCI organisations; policymakers and managers of CCI organisations could use the results as an input to contribute to skills development of CCI organisations by developing evaluation/assessment tools and providing trainings to improve the level of needed competences. Thus, there are reasons to assume that raising

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

215

awareness of the benefits of the organisational performance evaluation and the existing evaluation tools, could improve the sector in a longer run. Due to the limitations of the current research design, we call for more research on the factors that affect the evaluation of organisational performance by suggesting following questions for further research: – How could national and supranational institutions help to improve the competencies for practicing the evaluation of organisational performance? – What could be the ultimate benefits for CCI organisations to implement the evaluation of organisational performance? – What characterizes CCI organisations that do or do not perform evaluative practices? Such a list of questions cannot be answered by a single study, and different angles and approaches should be addressed to tackle the issues of strategic management in CCI for the sake of improving the sector. Acknowledgements The authors are very grateful to survey participants—without ca 500 CCI employees, the current research could have not been conducted. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that have helped to frame and focus the study.

References Almatrooshi, B., Singh, S. K., & Farouk, S. (2016). Determinants of organisational performance: A proposed framework. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65 (6), 844–859. Bailey, J., & Richardson, L. (2010). Meaningful measurement: A literature review and Australian and British case studies of arts organizations conducting ‘artistic self-assessment’. Cultural Trends, 19(4), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2010.515004. Banks, M., & O’Connor, J. (2009). After the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15(4), 365–373. del Barrio, M. J., Herrero, L. C., & Sanz, J. Á. (2009). Measuring the efficiency of heritage institutions: A case study of a regional system of museums in Spain. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10(2), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2008.08.012. del Barrio, M. J., & Herrero, L. C. (2014). Evaluating the efficiency of museums using multiple outputs: Evidence from a regional system of museums in Spain. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(2), 221–238. Benghozi, P.-J., & Lyubareva, I. (2014). When organizations in the cultural industries seek new business models: A case study of the French online press. International Journal of Arts Management, 16(3), 6–20. Berziņš, G. (2012). Strategic management in creative industry organisations: Specifics in strategic decision making. Management of Organisations: Systematic Research, 62. Bilton, C., & Leary, R. (2002). What can managers do for creativity? Brokering creativity in the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8(1), 49–64. Birnkraut, G. (2011). Evaluation im Kulturbetrieb. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Birnkraut, G., & Heller, V. (2008). Development of an evaluation system for institutional subsidized arts institutions. In Kulturmanagement konkret. Hamburg, pp. 11–26.

216

M. Sassi et al.

Boorsma, M., & Chiaravalloti, F. (2010). Arts marketing performance: An artistic-mission-led approach to evaluation. Journal of Arts Management Law and Society, 40, 297–317. BTW Consultants. (2010). Evaluation capacity diagnostic tool. BTW Consultants. Available from http://informingchange.com/uploads/2010/06/Evaluation-Capacity-Diagnostic-Tool.pdf Caust, J. (2003). Putting the ‘art’ back into arts policy making: How arts policy has been ‘captured’ by the economists and the marketers. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1), 51–63. Chen, Y. A. O., Morita, H., & Zhu, J. O. E. (2005). Context-dependent DEA with an application to Tokyo Public Libraries. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 4 (3), 385–394. Chou, J.-R., Jen, S. C., & Huang, K.-P. (2012). A study of the performance on human resource management strategy in tourism industry with data envelopment analysis. Pakistan Journal of Statistics, 28(5), 735–741. Department of Culture, M. and S. (2001). Creative Industries Mapping Document 2001. London. Eesti Konjunktuuriinstituut. (2013). Eesti loomemajanduse olukorra uuring ja kaardistus. [Mapping and Survey of the Estonian Creative Economy]. Tallinn. Eikhof, D. R., & Haunschild, A. (2006). Lifestyle meets market: Bohemian entrepreneurs in creative industries. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(3), 234–241. Epstein, M. J., & Mcfarlan, F. W. (2011). Measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of a nonprofit’s performance. Strategic Finance, (October), 27–34. Available from http://www.imanet. org/PDFs/Public/SF/2011_10/10_2011_epstein.pdf European Creative Industries Alliance. (2012). Developing successful creative & cultural clusters. Measuring their outcomes and impacts with new framework tools. Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (1987). Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 879. Ford, J. D., & Schellenberg, D. A. (1982). Conceptual issues of linkage in the assessment of organisational performance. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 7 (1), 49–58. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. García, M. R. (2008). Evaluating the organizational performance and social impact of third sector organizations: A new functional realm for nonprofit marketing. In 8th International conference for the international society for third sector research (pp. 1–24). Gioia, D., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, a. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organisational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. Gstraunthaler, T., & Piber, M. (2007). Performance measurement and accounting: Museums in Austria. Museum Management and Curatorship, 22(4), 361–375. Hammond, C. J. (2002). Efficiency in the provision of public services: A data envelopment analysis of UK public library systems. Applied Economics, 34(5), 649–657. Hodgson, D., & Briand, L. (2013). Controlling the uncontrollable: ‘Agile’ teams and illusions of autonomy in creative work. Work Employment and Society, 27(2), 308–325. Jeffcutt, P., & Pratt, A. C. (2002). Managing creativity in the cultural industries. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(4), 225–233. Jensen, A., & Sage, A. (2000). A systems management approach for improvement of organisational performance measurement systems. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 2(1), 33–61. Candace Jones, Mark Lorenzen, & Jonathan Sapsed (2015). Creative industries: A typology of change, The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries. Jones, P., et al. (2004). Creative industries: Economic contributions, management challenges and support initiatives. Management Research News, 27(11/12), 134–145. Kilbride, W., & Norris, S. (2014). Collaborating to clarify the cost of curation. New Review of Information Networking, 19(1), 44–48. Krlev, G., Munscher, R., & Mulbert, K. (2013). Social Return on Investment (SROI): State-of-theArt and Perspectives. A meta-analysis of practice in Social Return on Investment (SROI) studies published 2002–2012. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30064939%0A

The Evaluation of Organisational Performance: Estonian Cultural and Creative. . .

217

Küttim, M., Arvola, K., & Venesaar, U. (2011). Development of creative entrepreneurship: Opinion of managers from Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Sweden. Business: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 369–378. Ma, J. et al. (2014). Study on the technical efficiency of creative human capital in china by threestage data envelopment analysis model. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2014. Manning, S., & Sydow, J. (2007). Transforming creative potential in project networks: How TV movies are produced under network-based control. Critical Sociology, 33(1), 19–42. Matthews, J. (2015). Assessing outcomes and value: It’s all a matter of perspective. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 16(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-10-2015-0034. Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality and efficiency complete or complement each other? Journal of Organisational Behavior, 25(2), 179–199. Montalto, V., Iglesias, M., & Kern, P. (2012). Towards a ‘benchmarking raster’: A selection of indicators to measure and assess policies for cultural and creative industries. Quaestiones Geographicae, 31(4), 33–42. Neely, A., et al. (2000). Performance measurement system design: Developing and testing a process-based approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20 (10), 1119–1145. Noyes, E., Allen, I. E., & Parise, S. (2012). Innovation and entrepreneurial behaviour in the Popular Music Industry. Creative Industries Journal, 5(1), 139–150. Pick, D., et al. (2015). Guest Editorial. Theorising creative industry management: Rebooting the woolly mammoth. Management Decision, 53(4), 828–842. Potts, J., & Cunningham, S. (2008). Four models of the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 14(3), 233–247. Radbourne, J., Johanson, K., Glow, H., & White, T. (2009). The audience experience: Measuring quality in the performing arts. International Journal of Arts Management, 11(3), 16–84. Reeves, M. (2002). Measuring the economic and social impact of the arts: A review. London: Arts council of England. Reichmann, G., & Sommersguter-Reichmann, M. (2010). Efficiency measures and productivity indexes in the context of university library benchmarking. Applied Economics, 42(3), 311–323. Rushton, M. (2014). Hybrid organisations in the arts: A cautionary view. Journal of Arts Management Law and Society, 44(3), 145–152. Russ-Eft, D., & Hallie, P. (2009). Evaluation in organisations: A systematic approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 3(5), 108–112. Ryan, B. (1992). Making capital from culture: The corporate form of capitalist cultural production. Walter de Gruyter. Scottish Arts Council. (2009). Quality framework guidelines for arts organisations (2nd ed.). 2. Available from http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/resources/publications/arts_culture/pdf/Qual ity_Framework_part2.pdf Selwood, S. (2002). What difference do museums make? Producing evidence on the impact of museums. Critical Quarterly, 44, 65–81. Sorjonen, H., & Uusitalo, L. (2005). Does market orientation influence the performance of art organisations?. In AIMAC, pp. 1–15. Available from http://neumann.hec.ca/aimac2005/PDF_ Text/SorjonenH_UusitaloL.pdf Thelwall, S. (2012, February 28). Benchmarking: How to put the arts sector’s data to work for you. The Guardian, p. 2015. Town, J. S., Neshat, N., & Dehghani, M. (2013). Review of the current gap between clients’ expectations and perceptions of received service in national library by using gap analysis model. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 14(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14678041311316130. Towse, R. (2010). Creativity, copyright and the creative industries paradigm. Kyklos, 63(3), 461–478.

218

M. Sassi et al.

Tscherning, R. W., & Boxenbaum, E. (2011). What do the Creative Industries need? – Barriers and possibilities for growth in the creative industries in Denmark, pp. 1–15. Available from http:// www.ndpculture.org/publications/regional-reports Turbide, J., & Laurin, C. (2014). Governance in the arts and culture nonprofit sector: Vigilance or indifference? Administrative Sciences, 4(4), 413–432. Turnbull, A. (2011). Review of Scottish arts council’s quality framework – Guidelines for arts organisations. Cultural Trends, 20(2), 185–191. United States Government Accountability Office. (2005). Performance measurement and evaluation: Definitions and relationships. United States Government Accountability Office. Glossary. Vitaliano, D. F. (1998). Assessing public library efficiency. Public & Cooperative Economics, 107–122. White, D. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Roy, M. H. (2014). Performance measures and metrics for the creative economy. Benchmarking, 21(1), 46–61. Woodley, P. M. (2007). Culture management through the balanced scorecard: A case study. Zappalà, G., & Lyons, M. (2009). Recent approaches to measuring social impact in the Third sector: An overview, (6), p. 24. Zeng, S., Hu, M., & Su, B. (2016). Research on investment efficiency and policy recommendations for the culture industry of China based on a three-stage DEA. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040324.

Marge Sassi is a PhD student and lecturer in Estonian Business School. She has MA degree in Cultural Management and a solid work experience from social sector (Estonian government and international organizations). She is a member of Estonian Association for Quality and has last years contributed to European Commission grant scheme “Creative Europe” as a Quality Expert. Kristiina Urb is a former creative entrepreneur who is now contributing to the field of creative industries in more depth. She is executing her experience and knowledge to research the phenomena as well as consulting cultural and creative organizations. She is also managing the Creative Industries research group in the Estonian Business School. Her research is focused on creative industries and on developing creative entrepreneurship. Ülle Pihlak has PhD degree in Management and Master’s degrees in Mathematics, Physics, and International Business Administration. She has worked as a teacher, management consultant, and associate professor. She is a member of the Estonian Association of Consultants.

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector: State-of-the-Art in Theory and Practice and Prolegomena for Further Developments Leticia Labaronne and Martin Piber

Abstract This chapter discusses the (often uncontested) underlying conceptualisations of performance evaluation inherent to the positivist paradigm. It problematises the origins and development of the field of evaluation and scrutinises the limits of performance measurement and evaluation as currently applied to the cultural and creative sector. Drawing on a systematic literature review, data analysis and empirical material in the context of institutional and temporary cultural organisations, we analyse political, organisational and artistic practices in relation to performance measurement, evaluation and sense-making. We first look at how performance is understood, measured and politically instrumentalised in major temporary cultural events, elaborating on the case of the European Capitals of Culture. In particular, we address issues of participation and sustainability. Next, by drawing on an ethnographic study of long-standing arts organisations in Vienna and Berlin, we analyse how performance itself is enacted and embedded in the artistic processes of the institutionalised performing arts. We then show how the artistic dimension of organisational performance can be more responsibly and holistically represented in evaluation practices. Our analysis reflects on the status quo of performance measurement and evaluation in the arts and cultural sector and the challenges associated with the current practices, which have been heavily influenced by positivist thinking in cultural policy and arts management research. Finally, we offer avenues for further developments. Keywords Evaluation · Performance measurement · Cultural events · Arts and cultural organisations · European capitals of culture

L. Labaronne Center for Arts Management, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland M. Piber (*) Department of Organisation and Learning, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Piber (ed.), Management, Participation and Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Sector, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46796-8_11

219

220

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

1 Introduction The issue of performance measurement and evaluation is a recurrent topic in the cultural and creative sectors. The past decades have seen a proliferation of academic research attempting to define, measure and assess the different dimensions of the performance of arts and cultural organisations and their impact on society (Labaronne 2017). Not only academia has shown interest in the subject. Also supervising bodies, artistic and managing directors of various art institutions, project leaders of temporary cultural organisations as well as the general public have addressed the issue. This study builds analysis on the premise that caution is required when evaluating artistic and cultural activities outside the, organisational and broader institutional contexts in which they are embedded. Such a premise delineates the epistemological stance of this chapter. Positivist methodologies of performance measurement and evaluation, which assume the context neutrality of scientific methods, are not able to fully capture the intrinsic and intangible aspects of artistic, cultural and creative activities. These approaches do not make sense of the contextual complexity of such activities, ‘overestimating the general validity of methods and underestimating the richness and diversity of the contexts in which they might be applied’ (Chiaravalloti and Piber 2011, p. 242). This chapter elaborates on the (often uncontested) assumptions underlying decontextualised conceptualisations of performance evaluation inherent to the positivist paradigm. We show why they are more than problematic when applied to cultural activities and organisations, as well as present a contextualised approach to performance evaluation as an alternative to positivist methodologies, which is better suited to capture the arts’ complexity and uniqueness. The first section undertakes an in-depth analysis of the literature on performance measurement and evaluation in the area. In particular, we scrutinise the origins, inherent values, applied contexts and identified dimensions in the use of performance measurement and evaluation in the nonprofit corner of the arts sector and creative industries. In the section that follows, we narrow down the analytical focus to institutionalised and temporary cultural organisations, basing our analysis on document analysis and empirical data. Section 3 analyses the use, impact and relevance of performance measurement and evaluation practices for the European Capitals of Culture initiative. Section 4 offers in-depth insights into the internal practices of two long-standing arts institutions in Vienna and Berlin and the contexts in which performance is enacted. Building on these insights from the field, the fifth section presents a conceptual evaluation framework for more responsibly representing artistic performance that is derived from the field itself and is thus embedded in its specific artistic, organisational and cultural contexts. The last section highlights the specific challenges of defining and measuring artistic and cultural activities and offers a reflection on the status quo of performance measurement and evaluation in the arts and cultural sector. Finally, we raise crucial points for cultural policy as well as further research.

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

221

2 Analysing the Literature 2.1

Origins and Development of the Field of Evaluation

As an academic discipline and profession, the field of evaluation disseminated rapidly in the United States after the Second World War (Abma and Widdershoven 2011). New methods were developed to assess growing social projects and educational interventions; at the same time, public agencies’ and private foundations’ large expenditures on such programmes saw a growing demand for results (Rossi et al. 2004). By the late 1970s, evaluation research established itself as a distinct field in the social sciences in the US (Rossi et al. 2004). In addition, the qualitative paradigm of evaluation emerged. This pragmatic position originated as a challenge to the predominant scientific posture (Rossi et al. 2004), propagating a more holistic understanding of the complex contexts in which interventions take place by considering the perspectives of the affected parties (Abma and Widdershoven 2011). In Europe, the concept of modern evaluation arrived about a decade later, first to Sweden, England and Germany. The notion of evaluation was shaped and accelerated by governmental reforms in the context of New Public Management (NPM) as well as by European integration (Stockmann 2010a). Nowadays—it is argued—we live in an ‘evaluation society’ in which the routinisation of evaluations has proliferated across the entire realm of public life (Dahler-Larsen 2012).

2.2

Definitions and Purposes of Evaluation

The term ‘evaluation’ is associated with the assessment, appraisal or judgement of a particular unit of analysis. According to Mertens (1998), evaluation involves the ‘systematic investigation of the merit or worth of an object for the purpose of reducing uncertainty in decision making’ (219). More recently, evaluations are more broadly understood as ‘situations to stop and reflectively consider our experiences in the midst of a specific social practice’ (Dahler-Larsen 2012, p. 13). Such a broader conceptualisation of evaluation implicitly acknowledges the emergence of new evaluands, evaluees, and evaluation purposes (Labaronne 2019b), posing new challenges for which existing evaluation research struggles to offer solutions (Patton 2018, p. 20). The challenges are associated with the origins of the field of evaluation, which revolved around evaluating (closed) projects and programmes (ibid., p. 21). While tools and logic models work well for projects and programmes that presuppose a cause-effect chain of actions, they lead to misunderstandings, misconceptualisations and misrepresentations in complex dynamic environments (ibid.). Further, evaluations are commonly associated with four, often interconnected, key purposes: knowledge generation as the basis for decision-making; verification of the degree of goal achievement; concept development as the initiation of learning

222

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

Table 1 Paradigms in evaluation research (Post-)positivist paradigm Associated with science One single reality is discovered by eliminating alternative explanations Research standards of objectivity and neutrality Scientific and experimental methods, cause and effect, generalisability of findings

Interpretative & constructivist paradigm Attending to context-related meaning Reality is socially constructed from multiple, often conflicting, perspectives Researchers as part of the construction of meaning Qualitative and narrative methods, explanation of sense- and meaning-making, contextuality of findings

Source: Labaronne (2019b) according to Stockmann and Meyer (2010) Table 2 Dimensions of evaluation research Phase Conception and planning Process Outcome and impact

Perspective ex ante Ongoing ex post

Use Policy formulation ‘science for action’ Both possible Policy analysis ‘science for knowledge’

Concept Formative (improving) Both possible Summative (judging)

Source: Stockmann (2010b)

processes for the design of programmes and organisations; and the exercising of legitimacy for institutions and policy-making (Stockmann and Hennefeld 2013). The different functions that evaluation might fulfil are intrinsically related to the underlying research paradigms. Following Stockmann and Meyer (2010), Table 1 summarises the underpinning assumptions of each research tradition.

2.3

Understanding the Relation Between Performance Measurement and Evaluation

A further aspect of evaluation and performance measurement concerns the goals, time horizons and subjects of the evaluation, which align with three basic types of evaluations, for which different methodologies tend to be applied (Stockmann 2010b). Table 2 summarises the key dimensions of evaluation research. In the context of institutions (as opposed to projects or programmes), ongoing or process evaluations are often related to performance measurement. As such, these terms tend to be used interchangeably. However, while the terms are related, they are conceptually different. ‘Performance measurement’ is a continuous process by which targets and goals are defined and subsequently operationalised through performance indicators, thus serving as a tool for control and accountability that focuses primarily on efficiency and effectiveness rather than on (long-term) measures of impact (Schober et al. 2012). That being said, evaluative practices have been integrated into NPM and managerial procedures through concepts such as Total Quality

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

223

Management (TQM), benchmarking and the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model (Chiaravalloti and Piber 2011).

2.4

Values, Contexts and Dimensions of Performance Measurement and Evaluation

When it comes to NPM practices, managers try, on the one hand, to measure the performance of different art and cultural activities, enabling comparisons both within one genre as well as among different genres, and even across regions and countries. On the other hand, managers use NPM to set up strategies, visions, brands and philosophies and later compare them with the outcome. This process corresponds with the widespread management-accounting logic of ‘plan-act-control’. For the arts and humanities, this logic is generally unfamiliar, as the comparison between planning and implementation is primarily based on quantitative performance measures, such as the number of visitors and the percentage of self-earned revenue. But these measures usually fail to illuminate artistic excellence. For for-profit companies, it might seem quite straightforward to measure success in this type of one-dimensional construction; that is, at least on the surface, all relevant variables can be calculated in financial terms. Therefore, profit is a reliable dimension to evaluate success and to show the performance of an organisation on the markets. However, even in the for-profit sector, we understand that the use of financial metrics as the established best practice to measure performance is increasingly being challenged. That is, profit is no longer seen as the only indicator of performance. ‘Triple bottom line’ accounting (see Alhaddi 2015) clearly places social and ecological targets on the same level as financial targets. Another notion related to this new extension of the ‘single bottom line’ is ‘PPP’: people, planet and profit (ibid.). In the last few decades, conceptualisations of corporate (social) responsibility have raised the importance of employees and other stakeholders facing up to the ecological consequences of corporate decisions. Companies are also increasingly aware that they can lose sight of the content of their business strategy if they focus solely on the financial metrics that are meant to represent it (Harris and Tayler 2019). The lack of a profit orientation leaves nonprofit arts and cultural organisations without a clear-cut goal. An overarching performance measurement or evaluation system for such organisations is lacking, and the puzzle of how to measure and evaluate performance remains a recurrent issue (Cairs et al. 2004). For art and cultural organisations, whether temporary or institutionalised, profit figures and other proxies for success and quality can be developed, but their informational value is definitely limited; sometimes they are even counterproductive, as they can generate unintended consequences. As Towse (2001) argues, there is an obvious temptation to fulfil easily measurable goals, such as raising attendance rates, rather than to pursue those goals that are difficult or even impossible to measure, such as increasing quality of output or reducing social exclusion. The performance of

224

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

cultural organisations and the impact of art is in any case multidimensional, and to a certain degree intrinsic and intangible. In this regard, European Capitals of Culture are not only touristic and urban development projects, just as opera houses and museums do not only sell tickets and attract audiences. They are much more. This complexity is one of the reasons why cultural organisations are accountable not only in one dimension and not only for one stakeholder. Publicly funded institutions also have to satisfy their supervising bodies and legitimate the use of taxpayer money. Usually, they present their performance and their impact with reports of varying levels of detail as well as through performance measurement conventions. On a political level, cultural budgets are evaluated in terms of their impact in relation to cultural policy goals. Additionally, performance indicators are used to monitor and evaluate the outcome of funding agreements between granting bodies and recipient institutions, providing a bridge between the goals of cultural and arts policies and the management of arts organisations (Towse 2001). Temporary projects, on the other hand, are usually evaluated ex post. After the completion of the project, the impact as well as the cost-benefit relation are investigated. At the level of the cultural institutions and projects, performance measurement and evaluation are used to make informed decisions about performances, projects and initiatives. At the very end of the line, we reach the level of individual artists and the professional artistic field. Artists tend to establish an automatic and deeply personal judgement about the performance of a film, exhibition, opera, or ballet or the fulfilment of a role. Interestingly enough, this artist level of evaluation, which is inherent to the artistic process, has been traditionally backed only by a qualitative understanding of performance. The perspective of artists, who genuinely engage with evaluation as part of their artistic practices, tends to be underrepresented by most evaluation approaches at the organisational level (Chiaravalloti and Piber 2011). Indeed, the focus on importing management techniques from the for-profit world in an attempt to support the processes of arts organisations has led to the processes of the artists themselves largely being neglected in the arts management literature (Chiaravalloti 2016).

2.5

Evidence-Based Cultural Policy and Performance Evaluation in Arts Management

In the United States, the emphasis on performance measurement and evaluation that arose in the mid-1990s was motivated by a significant decrease in public funding for the arts and culture (Brooks 2000). Today, research into the value and impact of the arts constitutes a core function of the National Endowment for the Arts, the federal arts funding agency in the US. In German-speaking countries, in which the arts

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

225

sector—in contrast to the US1—is characterised by high levels of direct government support, cultural policy is also becoming increasingly evidence based. In general, cultural organisations are being required more and more to produce tangible results (Labaronne 2017; Gstraunthaler and Piber 2012). Under an increasingly evidencebased cultural policy, arts and cultural organisations are increasingly confronted with issues of evaluation and performance measurement. This situation is the case even though, as Svensson (2017) has argued, the arts and cultural sector, under the shield of artistic freedom, has been one of the last bastions to resist the evaluation imperative. Hadida (2015) offers a comprehensive overview of the management literature on the issues of defining and measuring performance in the arts and cultural sector, albeit not with a focus on the nonprofit arts but rather encompassing the entire creative industries. The study puts forward a taxonomy of existing works, identifying four dimensions of performance (commercial/financial, artistic, societal, and managerial) at two levels of analysis: process and outcome (Hadida 2015). Most of the arts management literature identifies only two pillars of organisational performance: the commercial/financial dimension and the artistic dimension. Research investigating both of these dimensions together is far more abundant than works that define and assess artistic performance in isolation (ibid.). This is not surprising. Artistic achievement constitutes the most controversial aspect of the evaluation of organisational performance in the arts sector (Chiaravalloti and Piber 2011). A reasonable degree of validity is required to describe the ‘performance’ that evaluations aim to assess in order to responsibly account for its accomplishments (Rossi et al. 2004, p. 16). The evaluation of art might be influenced by specific conventions strongly related to its context, and thus the context-related uniqueness of artistic accomplishments should be taken into account (Becker 1982). Hence, clarifying the meaning of ‘performance’ in the specific context in which it is being enacted is particularly relevant in the cultural and creative sectors (Gstraunthaler and Piber 2012). If we focus analysis on the (non-profit) performing arts for instance, in an effort to develop performance indicators for capturing artistic achievement, scholars have explored the various components of artistic quality and analysed the influencers of high achievement, focusing on the production and presentation as well as on the reception. Chiaravalloti (2016) defines the artistic dimension of performing arts organisations in terms of the artistic process of programming (selection of pieces for the season’s programme), production (staging of pieces) and reception (performance of pieces for an audience). He relates the quality of programming with the artistic director’s taste and repertoire, leadership style and ability to run artistic risk. 1 In the United States only about 13 percent of direct arts support comes from public funding and only 9 percent from the federal government. The rest comes from earned revenue and private funders. That is, the large proportion of arts funding is ‘indirect’ in terms of tax deductibility of gifts for nonprofits. For every dollar of direct support, the US government provides about $14 of indirect support. Hence, arts and cultural organisations in the US place more emphasis on individual contributions and fundraising.

226

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

Boerner (2004) looks at programming, referred to as an organisation’s ‘profile quality’, by considering the full selection of works presented by a performing arts company in a season. Over time, the programme of each season influences the overall profile of a performing arts organisation, and thus becomes a crucial factor for long-term artistic quality (Chiaravalloti 2016). During production, that is, the staging of new pieces, some structural characteristics work as positive influencers on achievement, such as an appropriate organisational culture, a good working atmosphere and the overall satisfaction of artists and staff (Abfalter 2010). The production of a piece is followed by the premiere and a number of successive performances. Unlike the previous phases, during which artistic quality is influenced and evaluated mainly internally, at the performance or reception phase, external stakeholders also judge performance quality. Boerner and Renz (2008) use the term ‘performance quality’ to refer to the artistic quality of a single performance presented by a performing arts company. Further, Boerner (2004) differentiates between the performing art (e.g., music, dance, singing) and the staging dimension (e.g., settings, costuming, lighting) and analyses the congruence between them. Other scholars focus on the collective performance, arguing that high performance quality is achieved when everything comes together in collective virtuosity (Marotto et al. 2007). Many research efforts attempt to objectivise and quantify the audience’s perception of performance quality. For example, Throsby (1990) identifies several components for artistic quality judgements of a single performance, which can be aggregated to evaluate a season, and Radbourne et al. (2009) propose the Arts Audience Experience Index, which measures artistic quality in terms of audience satisfaction. Despite the efforts to capture artistic achievement, in the context of the performing arts, the presented short overview of the extant arts management literature shows that existing approaches are only able to capture some aspects. Other relevant aspects contributing to the artistic performance of institunionalized arts organisation, such as the development of the own ensemble, remain under the radar under such limited conceptualizations of artistic performance. This is can be partly explained with the dominance of positivist research tradition that tends to assume a context neutrality of methods and techniques—known as the ‘toolkit approach’ (Belfiore and Bennett 2010, p. 121)—and thus presume that similar practices can be applied to different contexts. Just as importantly—at least in the institutionalised arts organizations, that decontextualized approaches tend to neglect system-internal and long-term activities involved in realising artistic achievement Labaronne 2019a).

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

227

3 Mapping and Analysing Practices of Evaluation and Performance Measurement in Temporary Cultural Organisations: The Case of European Capitals of Culture Not all cultural offerings are hosted by permanent organisations. Many festivals, biennials and other recurrent events are hosted and organized by temporary organizations. This raises several managerial challenges, especially in terms of staff, quality improvement and evaluation. Some examples include the music festivals in Aix en Provence, Baden-Baden, Bayreuth, Bregenz, Salzburg, Pesaro, Ravenna and Vienna. A special case are the European Capitals of Culture (ECoCs). The scope of the empirical work for this case focuses on the evaluation frameworks for the ECoCs. It explores the assumptions, methodologies and theoretical and practical challenges embedded in the evaluation of ECoCs, considering the artistic, social, urban, regional and financial dimension of organisational performance at the process and outcome level of assessment. Although usually two cities host an ECoC project each year, a separate organisational structure is built for each project. Therefore, enabling knowledge transfer and an adequate feedback process among past, current and future ECoC cities and regions is a fruitful pursuit to allow the sharing of experiences and to enrich evaluative practices. The ECoC programme was launched in 1985 by the Greek minister of culture, Melina Mercouri. The project was created as an intergovernmental initiative before turning into a project of the European Union. After that, many big cultural centres in Europe applied to become “cultural capital.” Since 1985, Athens, Florence, Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, Stockholm, Prague and Dublin, among many others, have been European Capitals of Culture. The average budget of an ECoC project is between 30 million and 80 million euros. In this first empirical example, we will analyse the monitoring and evaluation framework of ECoCs at the level of the single project. In terms of methodology, we have used a qualitative approach with three case studies: Marseille, France, in 2013; Valletta, Malta, in 2018; and Matera, Italy, in 2019 (for the cases of Valletta 2018 and Matera 2019 see also Habersam and Piber 2020). In total, we conducted twenty-three qualitative interviews with artists, organisers, members of the ECoC evaluation committees and other experts. We additionally analysed internal and external evaluation reports. The different data were triangulated and subsequently analysed (Eisenhardt 1989). Basically, we can outline three different pillars of evaluation for ECoC projects: • First, each nominated city is subjected to a selection and monitoring process through a couple of preparatory meetings with an expert panel in the years before the event. This process ends well before the event itself, and the European Commission usually awards the Melina Mercouri Prize to the selected cities on the basis of the expert panel’s recommendations. Currently, the award is 1.5 million euros. • Second, each city is responsible for conducting its own evaluation of impact backed by common guidelines.

228

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

• Third, the European Commission sets up an independent ex post evaluation after the project, which is usually commissioned to a private company (see, for example, Fox and Rampton 2016; Rampton et al. 2012). As outlined by the above, one evaluative part takes place before, a second during and after, and a third mainly after the event. According to European Union Decision No. 445/2014 of the European Parliament, the overall target of the ECoC project is: ‘(a) to safeguard and promote the diversity of cultures in Europe and to highlight the common features they share as well as to increase citizens’ sense of belonging to a common cultural area; (b) to foster the contribution of culture to the long-term development of cities in accordance with their respective strategies and priorities’. In more detail, the evaluative process involves the following. For the first pillar, European Union Decision No. 445/2014 discerns between general, special and operational objectives: General objectives (GOs) • GO1: Safeguarding and promoting the diversity of cultures in Europe • GO2: Fostering the contribution of culture to the long-term development of cities Special objectives (SOs) • SO1: Enhancing the range, diversity, European dimension of the cultural offerings • SO2: Widening access to and participation in culture • SO3: Strengthening the capacity of the cultural sector and its links with other sectors • SO4: Raising the international profile of cities through culture Operational objectives (OOs) • OO1: Stimulating extensive cultural programmes of high artistic quality • OO2: Ensuring cultural programmes feature a strong European dimension and transnational cooperation • OO3: Involving a wide range of citizens and stakeholders in preparing and • implementing the cultural programme • OO4: Creating new opportunities for a wide range of citizens to attend or participate in cultural events • OO5: Improving cultural infrastructure • OO6: Developing the skills, capacity and governance of the cultural sector • OO7: Stimulating partnership and cooperation with other sectors • OO8: Promoting the city and its cultural programme • OO9: Improving the international outlook of residents For the general objectives and the special objectives, the European Commission provides examples of ‘indicative indicators’ (see European Union Decision No. 445/2014, pp. 8ff) as well as ‘possible sources of data collection’. The criteria for the assessment of the projects are divided into the following six categories:

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

229

‘contribution to the long-term strategy’, ‘European dimension’, ‘cultural and artistic content’, ‘capacity to deliver’, ‘outreach’ and ‘management’. In the final step of the selection process, the independent expert panel recommends the cities to be selected by the European Commission as ECoCs. After the selection, the expert panel ‘monitor[s] the preparation of the designated cities for the year of the title and provide[s] them with support and guidance from the time of their designation to the beginning of the year of the title’ (European Union Decision No. 445/2014, p. 9). After the selection procedure, the expert panel meets 36, 18 and 2 months before the year of the title. These meetings can be understood both as an ex ante as well as a process evaluation. The panel includes some people who were involved in past ECoCs, opening up pathways for knowledge transfer between different ECoC cities. As the expert panel makes the constitutive recommendation to the European Commission whether to grant the Melina Mercouri Prize to a nominated city based on the aforementioned framework of targets, there is a certain motivation for applicant cities to adjust their projects to this framework. The second evaluative pillar is the evaluation by the city itself, which is considered vital because “the Commission’s evaluations of the past European Capitals of Culture, which are based on data collected at a local level, have not been able to provide primary data on the impact of the title. Therefore, the cities themselves should be the key players in the evaluation process” (European Union Decision No. 445/2014, p. 3). In practice, the scope of evaluation differs from city to city. The organisers of Valletta 2019 established a ‘research team’ that was in charge of various impact studies. Partly in cooperation with local researchers, it conducted qualitative and quantitative impact studies as well as studies on international perception. Other cities, by contrast, did not invest much in evaluation. Finally, the third evaluative pillar is the independent ex post evaluation (see, for example, Rampton et al. (2012) for more on the ECoCs Essen/Ruhr, Germany; Pécs, Hungary; and Istanbul, Turkey; and Fox and Rampton (2016) for the ECoCs Mons, Belgium, and Pilsen, Czech Republic. Both reports are based on slightly different evaluation regimes (see European Union Decision No. 1622/2006 for the regimes applicable until 2019)). The purpose of the ex post evaluation is also to provide an ‘external and independent evaluation of the results of the European Capital of Culture event of the previous year’ (European Union Decision No. 1622/2006). In general, the celebration of an ECoC is a complex phenomenon. Therefore, the evaluation is likewise a multifaceted endeavour. Artistic, organisational, participatory and city and regional development issues have to be coordinated within the projects as well as evaluated. Furthermore, an ECoC project has multiple addressees: primarily local citizens and organisations, in a second tier artists and cultural practitioners and initiatives, and finally tourists as well as the destination as a whole. Different city projects naturally have idiosyncratic targets, aim at different stakeholders, and therefore the organisers also have to balance the overall orientation (strategy) and the composition of the individual projects. Any evaluative action has to look at the aims of the project and compare strategies and plans on the one side and their implementation on the other. From another angle, we can discern the

230

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

planning and programming part (including the balancing of the individuals projects), the production part and the dissemination part (for a similar assessment of opera companies, see Chiaravalloti 2016). Across all the ECoC projects analysed, we observed several problems with the evaluation process. We want to highlight and discuss four critical issues here. First, the three different pillars of evaluation (outlined above) are not connected. In practice this means that many resources are likely not efficiently invested and a lot of expertise is lost, as three different organisational entities are conducting the evaluation projects. Secondly, two of the three evaluative pillars do not have clear consequences; as one head of an ECoC project put it, “It says obligatory evaluation, but what are the consequences? There aren’t any. It is pointless.” (Head of an ECoC project)

This is especially true for the ex post evaluation undertaken by the European Commission. Therefore, the applicants’ motivation to invest resources and time in evaluation is limited: “Probably the word evaluation has a bad reputation. [. . .] I mean, most of the time. It’s something that we are not used to dealing [with.]” (Programme manager of an ECoC project)

However, future ECoC cities can definitely benefit from the evaluations, that is, if the lessons learnt find their way to other organising cities. Thirdly, the long-term impacts of being an ECoC are very hard to assess. As regular evaluation (as well as funding) stops after the year of title, the long-term impacts remain underinvestigated, or as a project manager of an ECoC put it, “We would need studies five or ten years after the year of the title.” (Project manager of an ECoC project)

While the European Commission is not currently doing this research, some external studies are looking into these issues (see, for example, Garcia and Cox 2013). Finally, the fourth critical issue of the evaluation process is that some intangible dimensions of ECoC-projects are difficult to evaluate. A major question that arises is: Are the initiatives for gratifying cultural elites, for attracting tourists or for affecting the everyday lives of citizens? In this vein, sophisticated evaluative methods are required to show outreach success, involvement levels, and the generation of “spirit” beyond simple participation figures for the many initiatives and projects.

4 (Re-)presenting Artistic Performance in Institutionalised Contexts: The Case of the Performing Arts 4.1

The Context of the Performing Arts

While the mission of performing arts organisations is articulated around the concept of artistic achievement, the sector often uses financial indicators instead of

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

231

qualitative and long-term measures to evaluate organisational performance (Turbide and Laurin 2009). As mentioned earlier, metrics such as the number of performances, earned income and attendance rates might satisfy the needs of funding bodies but they offer little information about artistic accomplishments. Furthermore, a cultural performance is always a result of artistic, organisational and managerial efforts. Therefore, another problem arises in that many evaluation approaches separate these connected fields (see, for example, Krug and Weinberg 2004). As the Section “Analysing the Literature” discusses, scholarly efforts have developed performance indicators to capture artistic achievement. Yet, these efforts fell short to capture system-internal and long-term activities involved in realising artistic achievement in institutionalised artistic contexts (Labaronne 2019a). Following the call for deeper insight into the artistic and institutional contexts of performing arts organisations and into how enacted performance can be better defined, captured and subsequently evaluated, this section elaborates on an alternative approach to existing decontextualised methodologies that is intended to better represent the artistic dimension of organisational performance in an institutional context. As such, the following addresses (part of) the challenges associated with evaluating artistic performance in the performing arts by aiming at a contextualized representation of artistic achievements (i.e., by aiming at a more appropriate definition of performance). Then it is argued, that a more responsible conceptualization of “performance” (the evaluand) in the different art disciplines can assist on overcoming part of the shortcomings related to its assessment (Labaronne 2019b). To this end, the scope of the following analysis focuses solely on the process level (as opposed to the level of outcome) of art production, that is, of the artistic dimension of organizational performance (see Hadida 2015). The proposed framework is derived from a comprehensive ethnographic study that explores organisational practices in the performing arts (Labaronne 2019a). The concept of ‘practices’, as applied to the arts and reflected by Zembylas (2014, pp. 1–16), seems suitable as a unit of analysis (Labaronne 2019b). Practices are understood as configurations of cohesive activities for creating coordinated and collaborative relations that encompass actors as well as institutional settings, and the concept stresses that these practices are collectively constituted and regulated. Further, the notion materialises the body as an ‘aesthetic sense-making resource’ (Biehl-Missal 2017, p. 16), foregoing the positivist mind-body divide and challenging the traditional view of scientific management that is often represented through the metaphor of ‘organisations as machines’ (ibid., p. 29). In addition, the concept of practices overcomes the dichotomy between the individual and the collective, enabling social phenomena to be captured at different levels of analysis (Zembylas 2014, p. 2). By putting organisational practices at the core of the enquiry, the study conducted by Labaronne (2019a) captures the intrinsic, intangible and long-term aspects involved in realising artistic achievement and offers a framework to makes these aspects more explicit.

232

4.2

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

Realising Artistic Achievement in Institutional Contexts

A comprehensive ethnography study of world-renowned performing arts organisations was conducted during the 2017/18 season in Berlin and Vienna. The Appendix shows the key characteristics of the cases. The study focuses on dance companies as a case for the performing arts given that they represent an exceptional empirical setting from both an artistic and a management perspective. Dance productions feature a complex interplay between various elements such as choreography, music, costumes, sets and lighting, demanding a complex work schedule. Therefore, dance companies provide an ‘extreme case’ (Flyvbjerg 2011, p. 307) for the performing arts. The salient focal dynamics of extreme cases facilitate concept and theory building (Eisenhardt 1989). For data collection, about 500 hours of structured observation were documented. While the ethnographic reports represent the main source of data material, informal and semi-structured formal interviews as well as relevant documentation add to the validity of the empirical material. Moreover, to further enhance the validity of the field research, multiple voices from the field were used (Denzin and Lincoln 2011, p. 5) and several types of data were triangulated (Eisenhardt 1989). Data analysis and data gathering overlapped, as is typical in studies informed by ethnography (Eisenhardt 1989).2 Qualitative analysis followed contemporary treatments of the grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006), in that both deductive and inductive procedures were used. Putting the working practices of producing and presenting the performing arts at the core of the enquiry manifested the inward-looking and resource-oriented approach to the organisation of work in an institutional context. The findings were thus framed following a resource-based understanding of organisations. The resource-based view constitutes a theoretical lens that understands organisations as bundles of resources and capabilities (Prahalad and Hamel 1990). It looks at internal resources (rather than products) to analyse organisational performance (Kong 2007, p. 722). A resource-based understanding of an organisation allows the integration of any given single production (short-run) and the season’s programme consisting of parallel productions (long-run)3 under a common analytical lens that acknowledges the resource interdependencies in the organisation of work and that offers novel insights into how such organisations deploy and develop resources to realise artistic achievement.

For detailed information on the methodological approach and empirical findings, see Labaronne (2019a). 3 According to cultural economists, a ‘long-run’ situation is a period over which the number of performances can be varied, meaning resources can be reconfigured. Because ‘the season’ is the planning unit for most nonprofit performing arts organisations, it is the appropriate indicator for the long-run situation (Heilbrun and Gray 2001, p. 128). By contrast, in a ‘short-run’ situation (e.g., a single performance), the levels of resource usage tend to be more fixed. 2

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

233

Table 3 Dimensions and subdimensions of artistic achievement: The case of large state-funded dance companies

Subdimensions

Subdimensions

Dimension—Resource Disposition: How crucial resources in producing organisations, such as an organisation’s repertoire and permanent ensemble, are deployed, combined and mobilised for artistic achievement. Reconfiguration Transformational ways in which the conception of a season’s programme bundles internal with temporal external resources for the creation of new pieces (premieres) or revivals of existing repertoire pieces. Coordination Enactment of the season’s programme on a monthly basis, which is decisive for the allocation of scarce studio and stage rehearsal time. It involves a permanent synchronisation of the different bundles of internal and external resources in response to emerging resource constraints. Dimension—Resource Development: How crucial resources are constantly further developed and preserved and how new resources are co-created in a self-reinforcing manner Co-creation Transformational capability that revolves around the individual and shared working practices by which new pieces are collaboratively produced. Coaching Dynamic capability involving professional development, continuous critical feedback and ongoing mutual learning, which takes place in both formal and many informal ways. Preservation Dynamic capability involving the enduring intention and ongoing rehearsal practice of keeping repertoire pieces alive through continuous ‘aesthetic control’ (Labaronne 2019a) to ensure high performance quality of the various repertoire pieces over time and across different casts.

The conceptual framework developed from Labaronne’s study (2019a) builds on the dimensions of ‘resource disposition’ and ‘resource development’. Each dimension contains different subdimensions that comprise various aspects of organisational practices, reflecting competences and capabilities required to mobilise resources for artistic achievement in performing arts organisations (see Table 3). According to the above table, artistic achievement in the institutionalised performing arts is not only about producing creative outputs that can be quantified, aggregated or objectified. The production of creative outputs, such as the creation and presentation of new dance pieces, represents only one aspect of what is traditionally (and limited) conceptualised as ‘performance’ in arts management scholarship. Basing evaluation procedures on a limited conceptualisation of performance, for example, using only financial metrics or audience satisfaction indexes, misrepresents managerial and artistic efforts such as those encompassed by the criteria outlined in Table 1. ‘Performance’ as a managerial term in institutionalised contexts also needs to reflect longer-term value-creating activities that might remain under the radar of decontextualised performance evaluation approaches. For instance, as important as the creation of new pieces is, so is the preservation of the existing

234

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

repertoire, which might take up just as much resources. In the words of one managing and artistic director of the studied organisations: “A successful season should bring new, interesting pieces, in which the dancers can develop themselves. It is not useful to create new ambitious pieces for the programme if the dance ensemble does not feel comfortable or the style is too unfamiliar to them. [. . .] This is because we are a repertoire house with our own ensemble. [. . .] We have to develop our dancers and also offer a season with an interesting mix of new pieces while still offering the existing repertoire.” (Managing and artistic director)

At the same time, realising artistic achievement is about the further development and motivation of a company’s ensemble. This implies that collaboration with guest choreographers for the co-creation of new pieces is not only about the development of new pieces for the season’s programme but also about the guest choreographers” contribution to the long-term artistic development (coaching) of the ensemble, and thus the retaining of dancers. As a company press release states: ‘the company invites internationally established choreographs to personally work with the dancers and develop the style of the company’ (Staatsballett Berlin 2017). Consequently, artistic achievement involves a complex interplay between short- and long-term considerations of resources. It involves developing an interesting season’s programme for the benefit of the public as well as of the company’s artistic staff (‘reconfiguration of resources’) while implementing this on a monthly basis (‘coordination of resources’) in a way that considers the vulnerability of dancers’ bodies as ‘aesthetic sense-making resources’ (Biehl-Missal 2017, p. 20), the need for further development (‘co-creation’ and ‘coaching’) and the ongoing practice of keeping repertoire pieces alive (‘preservation’). The proposed conceptual framework can be used to design formative (ex ante), process (ongoing) or summative (ex post) evaluations to be undertaken by different stakeholders at different level of analysis. A newly appointed artistic director can use the framework as a formative assessment of past performances and an estimation of future ones in order to formulate an artistic vision and programme upcoming seasons. Organisations can use the framework to undertake a summative evaluation to review past seasons (e.g., to decide about future repertoire) while using it as ongoing assessment of the current one. Lastly, the framework can assist funding agencies and cultural policy makers to more holistically assess artistic achievement and more responsibly account for new appointments and reappointments of artistic directors or decisions about grant distributions. That being said, it should be mentioned that the framework is grounded on the empirical and analytical context of large dance companies with permanent ensembles. The identified dimensions and subdimensions of the framework might provide insights into similar arts institutions, but a simple transfer of this contextualised approach to other types of artistic and organisational activities should be considered with caution—and most likely with a sophisticated adaption. As mentioned earlier, artistic accomplishments are embedded in specific conventions and a context-related uniqueness (Becker 1982). In this light, ‘the arts’ can only be considered together with velvet gloves (DeVereaux 2017). Taking this into consideration, the presented framework aims at a contextualised representation of artistic achievements in the

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

235

performing arts through putting forward a more suitable definition of what constitutes performance in the very unique context they inhabit. Only a more considered and scrutinised conceptualisation of what constitutes ‘performance’ (the evaluand) in the different art disciplines and organisational settings can assist in overcoming some of the shortcomings related to its assessment (Labaronne 2019b).

5 Discussion and Conclusion As the above elaboration reveals, some of the challenges associated with the definition and measurement of performance in the arts sector can be explained by the constructivist theories of art that remain prevalent today. In this light, art is not only a social construction but also a social product. Artistic accomplishments are embedded in specific conventions, organisational and managerial efforts and a context-related uniqueness. As such, also evaluation is strongly related to the generic context of art and culture (Becker 1982). The judgement of what is considered to be art and consequently what is considered to be good art can only be made by certain qualified experts—being part of the art world/s (Dickie 1984). This is the case for both examples presented in this chapter. In this vein, each ECoC project is situated in a special geographic, economic, social and cultural context, which on the one hand opens up manifold possibilities and on the other hand as well limits managerial action. This fact already shows that comparisons between ECoCs are not possible on a profound level. Only on an operative basis a limited benchmarking of clearly defined measures can be possible. For institutionalised arts organisations, particularly those with solid resource bases, the strong internal focus on the mobilisation of their own—sometimes unique—resources also makes comparisons inadequate. Taken the cases together, the analysis shows the inadequacy of the still widespread hidden assumption that quality and performance in the art and cultural sector are ‘ontological objects’ which can be measured in a methodologically sound way. Another difficulty in defining artistic performance in the nonprofit arts sector has been described by Hadida (2015): as a product or outcome, artistic activities often exhibit characteristics of merit, have qualities of public or semi-public goods and might involve intangible individual or collective experiences that are not easily captured. Moreover, the outputs may be simultaneously aimed at different stakeholders and the outcomes may span several years—as we can see in the case of ECoCs (see also Brooks et al. 2002; Finocchiaro and Rizzo 2009) and repertoirebased performing arts organisations (Labaronne 2019a). In terms of the urban development of a city, an ECoC project may trigger new developments, which can only be seen and studied after a considerable span of years. This long time frame is also necessary to evaluate the sustainable development of an art institution’s ensemble, whether a corps de ballet or an orchestra. Insofar, we can conclude, that in both cases the current evaluation practices address primarily short-sighted plans and processes without touching the sustainable development and the long-term impact.

236

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

Concluding, we thus argue that challenges reside in the inherent intricacies associated with defining and measuring aspects of artistic and cultural performance that are, among others, contextual, subjective, intangible, long-term and often unquantifiable. Hence, researchers and cultural practitioners encounter difficulties when attempting to identify ‘measurable’ or ‘comparable’ indicators (Paulus 2003; Turbide and Laurin 2009) and define ‘objective’ measures (Boerner and Renz 2008; Radbourne et al. 2009). Although, rich qualitative data could be transformed or captured into one-dimensional figures, there are still the issues of aggregating several components and of how to merge the different rationalities that underline different financial, artistic, socioeconomic and political logics (Gstraunthaler and Piber 2012). Performance and impact are the result of manifold efforts in artistic, managerial and organizational matters. Evaluation activities often separate the impact in parts and consequently they become blind for the big picture. Like a symphony can’t be evaluated via separately analysing each instrument, artistic achievements consist of various, mostly indivisible parts. For isolated areas, one-dimensional approaches might work, but calculating an overall aggregated performance seems to be impossible, as this usually destroys the portrayal of the unique qualities of an arts organisation as well as the big picture of a cultural or artistic performance. Similarly, it is difficult to compare different organisations, even ones in the same area. This chapter has shown that idiosyncratic value is difficult to quantify. However, we don’t argue entirely against metric- and financial-based measurement within the arts and cultural sector, but rather emphasise the importance of being aware of the inherent limits of such metrics, which can’t be overcome with more or better measures. Many examples show that as soon as overall quantitative performance measures are available, their special contexts of origin get lost, and both the meaning and the relevant benchmarks of the performance measures lose their relevance. That is to say, the ‘quantified performance’ becomes the ‘performance’ itself, and is taken for granted as such. To avoid the above scenario, the evaluation of arts and cultural entities requires highly specific expert knowledge and therefore, it does not present an easy object of evaluation—especially if one looks into an organisation or a project from the outside. For the evaluation of cultural and artistic projects, events, performances and organisations, this means that we have to rely on the expertise of specialists and insiders. However, this requirement does not exclude the possibility of presenting metric- and financial-based performance measures for single areas of interest. This chapter provides an empirically anchored reflection to better understand the limits of evaluations of both temporary and institutionalised arts and cultural projects and organisations. For those involved in evaluating institutionalised arts organisations, it has been suggested that assessing solely at the outcome level—that is, relying only on external measures of artistic quality such as audience surveys and economic analyses to determine the impact of arts organisations in their communities—conveys a limited and short-sighted representation of managerial and artistic efforts (Labaronne 2019b). Similarly, the impact of ECoC-projects is a complex and long-term issue. To evaluate the sustainability of these efforts, particularly in

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

237

institutionalised contexts, intrinsic, system-internal and long-term activities need to be taken into account (Biondi et al. 2020; Labaronne 2019a). From a methodological point of view, arts management research still has to develop methods that include inside expert knowledge without the disadvantages of biased opinions and the self-interest of the evaluators. Only by adequately representing performance in each particular artistic, organisational and cultural context will performance evaluation activities be able to more holistically and responsibly reflect what they intend to characterise. Arts management research that addresses these issues might attempt to more responsibly ‘bridge the gap’ between managerial performance measurement, cultural policy evaluation and artistic judgement.

Appendix Characteristics of the selected case studies (the case of the performing arts) Case study Organisation Type History and Reputation

Repertoire Performance Venues (selfowned) Funding

Ensemble

Season

Vienna state ballet Large classical dance company. Autonomous entity under public law. The history of the Viennese ballet spans nearly 400 years. Among the artists who have worked in Vienna are legends such as Marie Taglioni and Rudolf Nureyev. Austria’s biggest ensemble. Classic repertoire with neoclassical and modern pieces. Wiener Staatsoper, Volksoper Wien

Berlin state ballet Large classical dance company. Autonomous entity under public law. The tradition of the Staatsballett Berlin dates back to 1742, when Frederick the Great founded his royal court opera. Germany’s largest company and Berlin’s only classically trained ensemble. Traditional story ballets with increasingly contemporary works. Deutsche Oper Berlin, Komische Oper Berlin, Staatsoper Unter den Linden

Approx. 60% direct subsidies (federal and civic) Approx. 40% self-earned revenue (box office and fundraising) 100 dancers (first soloists, soloists, demi-soloists and corps de ballet)

Approx. 70% direct subsidies (federal and civic) Approx. 30% self-earned revenue (box office and fundraising) 94 dancers (first soloists, soloists, demi-soloists, corps de ballet and character roles) Around 88 performances, including 4 full-length premieres, 8 revivals of repertoire pieces and 1 international gala

Around 87 performances, including 3 full-length premieres, 10 revivals of repertoire pieces and 1 international gala

238

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

References Abfalter, D. (2010). Das Unmessbare messen? [Measuring the unmeasurable?]. Wiesbaden: VS. Abma, T., & Widdershoven, G. (2011). Evaluation as relationally responsible practice. In N. K. Denkin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Alhaddi, H. (2015). Triple bottom line and sustainability: A literature review. Business and Management Studies, 1(2), 1–10. Becker, H. (1982). Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press. Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2010). Beyond the ‘toolkit approach’: Arts impact evaluation research and the realities of cultural policy making. Journal for Cultural Research, 14(2), 121–142. Biehl-Missal, B. (2017). Dance and organisation. London: Routledge. Biondi, L., Demartini, P., Marchegiani, L., Marchiori, M., & Piber, M. (2020). Understanding orchestrated participatory cultural initiatives: Mapping the dynamics of governance and participation. Cities, 96, in publication. Boerner, S. (2004). Artistic quality in an opera company: Toward the development of a concept. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(4), 25–436. Boerner, S., & Renz, S. (2008). Performance measurement in opera companies: Comparing the subjective quality judgements of experts and non-experts. International Journal of Arts Management, 10(3), 21–37. Brooks, A. C. (2000). The ‘income gap’ and the health of arts nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(3), 271–286. Brooks, M., Milne, C., & Johansson, K. (2002). Using stakeholder research in the evaluation of organisational performance. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 2(1), 20–26. Cairs, B., Harris, M., Hutchinson, R., & Tricker, M. (2004). Improving performance? The adoption and implementation of quality systems in UK nonprofits. Paper presented at the 33rd annual ARNOVA conference, Los Angeles. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practice guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Chiaravalloti, F. (2016). Performance evaluation in the arts. Groningen: University of Groningen. Chiaravalloti, F., & Piber, M. (2011). Ethical implications of methodological settings in arts management research: The case of performance evaluation. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 41(4), 240–266. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2012). The evaluation society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeVereaux, C. (2017). The dust of everyday life. Proceedings of the 13th conference of the European Sociological Association: (Un)Making Europe: Capitalism, Solidarities, Subjectivities, Athens. Dickie, G. (1984). The art circle: A theory of art. New York: Haven. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550. European Union. (2006). Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006. Official Journal of the European Union, L 304/1. European Union. (2014). Decision No 445/2014/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014. Official Journal of the European Union, L 132/1. Finocchiaro, M., & Rizzo, I. (2009). Performance measurement of heritage conservation activity in Sicily. International Journal of Arts Management, 11(2), 29–41. Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denkin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fox, T., & Rampton, J. (2016, November). Ex-post evaluation of the 2015 European Capitals of Culture. Final Report. Ecorys and the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES).

Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Arts and Cultural Sector:. . .

239

Accessed October 30, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/crea tive-europe/files/ecoc-2015-evaluation_en.pdf Garcia, B., & Cox, T. (2013). European Capitals of Culture: Success strategies and long-term effects. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, European Parliament. Accessed July 3, 2019, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513985/IPOL-CULT_ ET(2013)513985_EN.pdf Gstraunthaler, T., & Piber, M. (2012). The performance of museums and other cultural institutions: Numbers or genuine judgements? International Studies of Management & Organization, 42(3), 29–42. Habersam, M. & Piber, M. (2020). The Impact of Participation and Active Citizenship: Evaluative Approaches in Three Recent ECOC-Projects. Paper submitted for the IFKAD-conference/Rome 2020. Hadida, A. (2015). Performance in the creative industries. In C. Jones, M. Lorenzen, & J. Sapsed (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creative industries (pp. 219–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, M., & Tayler, B. (2019, September–October). Don’t let metrics undermine your business. Harvard Business Review. Accessed November 12, 2019, from https://hbr.org/2019/09/dontlet-metrics-undermine-your-business Heilbrun, J., & Gray, C. (2001). The economics of art and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kong, E. (2007). The strategic importance of intellectual capital in the non-profit sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 721–731. Krug, K., & Weinberg, C. (2004). Mission, money, and merit: strategic decision making by nonprofit managers. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7(2), 119–136. Labaronne, L. (2017). Performance measurement and evaluation in arts management: A metasynthesis. Journal of Cultural Management: Arts, Economics, Policy, 3(1), 37–69. Labaronne, L. (2019a). A resource-oriented approach to performing arts organizations: An ethnographic study of dance companies. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 49(4), 242–256. Labaronne, L. (2019b). (Re)-presenting artistic performance: A contextualized for evaluating the performing arts. PhD diss., Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany. Marotto, M., Roos, J., & Bart, I. V. (2007). Collective virtuosity in organizations: A study of peak performance in an orchestra. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 388–413. Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integration diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Principles-focused evaluation. New York: Guilford Press. Paulus, O. (2003). Measuring museum performance: A study of museums in France and the United States. International Journal of Arts Management, 6(1), 50–63. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990, May–June). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 79–91. Radbourne, J., Glow, H., Johanson, K., & White, T. (2009). The audience experience: Measuring quality in the performing arts. International Journal of Arts Management, 11(3), 16–29. Rampton, J., Mozuraityte, N., Andersson, H., & Reincke, E. (2012). Ex-post evaluation of 2011 European Capitals of Culture. Final Report for the European Commission. ECORYS. Accessed October 30, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/ files/files/ecoc-2011-evaluation_en.pdf Rossi, P., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. (2004). Evaluation. A systematic approach. London: Sage. Schober, C., Rauscher, O., & Millner, R. (2012). Evaluation und Wirkungsmessung [Evaluation and impact measurement]. In R. Simsa, M. Meyer, & C. Badelt (Eds.), Handbuch der NonprofitOrganisation [Compendium of the nonprofit-organizations] (pp. 451–470). Stuttgart: SchäfferPoeschel. Staatsballett Berlin. (2017). Press kit season 2017/2018. Internal document.

240

L. Labaronne and M. Piber

Stockmann, R. (2010a). Rolle der evaluation in der Gesellschaft [The role of evaluation in modern society]. In R. Stockmann & W. Meyer (Eds.), Evaluation: Eine Einführung [An introduction to evaluation] (pp. 15–52). Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Stockmann, R. (2010b). Wissenschaftsbasierte Evaluationt [Research-based evaluation]. In R. Stockmann & W. Meyer (Eds.), Evaluation: Eine Einführung [An introduction to evaluation] (pp. 55–89). Opladen: Verlag. Barbara Budrich. Stockmann, R., & Hennefeld, V. (2013). Evaluation in Kultur und Kulturpolitik. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Münster: Waxmann. Stockmann, R., & Meyer, W. (Eds.). (2010). Evaluation: Eine Einführung [An introduction to evaluation]. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Svensson, J. (2017). Evaluation am theater [Evaluation in theatres]. Journal of Cultural Management: Arts, Economics, Policy, 3(1), 113–135. Throsby, C. D. (1990). Perception of quality in demand for the theatre. Journal of Cultural Economics, 14(1), 65–82. Towse, R. (2001). Quis custodiet? Or, managing the management: The case of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. International Journal of Arts Management, 3(3), 38–50. Turbide, J., & Laurin, C. (2009). Performance measurement in the arts sector: The case of the performing arts. International Journal of Arts Management, 11(2), 56–70. Valletta. (2019). The impacts of the European Capital of Culture – Final Research Report. Valletta. In: https://valletta2018.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Final-Report-2018.pdf [2.10.2019]. Zembylas, T. (2014). Artistic practices: Social interactions and cultural dynamics. London: Routledge.

Leticia Labaronne worked in the performing arts for many years before joining academia. She got her PhD at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen/Germany (focus on evaluation in the performing arts) She is Head of the Center for Arts Management of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences and Senior Lecturer for arts management. Her research interests relate to cultural policy, arts funding as well as evaluation. Since 2016 Labaronne serves as a member of board of the Academic Association of Cultural Management in German-speaking countries (Fachverband Kulturmanagement). Martin Piber is Professor at the Department of Organization and Learning at Leopold-FranzensUniversität in Innsbruck/Austria. He is and has been teaching in several bachelor, master-, PhD-, and further education programs in Austria, Germany, Italy, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. His research and his publications focus on theories and practices of the management of cultural organizations, management control and performance measurement, the relevance of art and culture for society, aesthetics, and business ethics. Among others he was visiting professor at the University of Cape Town, the University of Stockholm and the University of Pavia. He is scientific director of the executive MBA programme of the University of Innsbruck at the Center of Science and Training in Bregenz/Austria. Currently he is member of a project team to assess the impact of European Capitals of Culture.