CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION
6.1 MAIN CONCLUSIONS
Three main conclusions can be extracted from the answers provided to the questions that motivated this study.
First of all, museum innovation can be explained in an integrated manner. This manner includes at least three dimensions. The first dimension is the
integration of intension of museum innovation. To museum organizations,
innovation means the transformation of ideas, theories and approaches into new/improved cultural products, services and processes so as to advance, complete, and differentiate museums successfully in the market and society. Museum innovation is complex; museums both innovate in “content creativity” and “soft” dimensions in a “hidden” manner, and adopt externally generated innovation as an important source of innovation. Successful innovation should be valued not only by its functionality and market impacts, but also by aesthetics and institutional outcomes in the museum community.
The second dimension is the integration of extension of museum innovation. Museum innovation is a complex phenomenon that involves both technological and non-technological components. From a knowledge-based approach, museum innovation can be classified into three types: technological innovation, cultural innovation, and organizational innovation. Technological innovation embraces internal R&D and the adoption of new external technologies; cultural innovation includes arts and humanities research and new cultural product development; organizational innovation covers a range of innovations in business practices, workplace organization and external relations.
The third dimension is the integration of determinants of museum innovation. Theoretical propositions about the influence of different factors on innovation by museum organizations can be summed up along individual, organizational and systemic levels. The existing literature discloses that leadership, professionalization, organizational characteristics, management features, market attributes, geographical proximity and cultural policy may contribute to innovation outcomes in varying ways.
Second, museum innovation is an open innovation involving various patterns for innovation based on the domain of production and the type of innovation. As open innovation, museums often rely on both internal and external knowledge for innovation. In small and mid-size museums, as shown by our case study, the dependence of innovation on knowledge sources varies based on different domains of cultural production. In general, there are three ways in which innovation can take place, i.e. self-dependent innovation, collaborative innovation, and adoptive innovation. In particular, most innovation relies on open-ended sources of knowledge; external knowledge based on supplier- producer interaction is an important condition for successful innovation in experience domains, such as digital museums and visitor services. Internal knowledge through internal R&D, however, usually matters more in production domains, such as restoration and exhibition. As far as innovation process pattern is concerned, most technological innovations take place either in a collaborative pattern or by direct adoption of external innovation; while production-based cultural innovation often focuses on self-dependent innovation through internal arts and humanities research, but this doesn't prevent museums from
introducing new cultural products created outside as a complementary pattern of innovation; and experience-based cultural innovation normally follows a collaborative pattern with the emphasis on user-producer interaction. The case study also shows that the civil service system in public museums may lead to demotivation and negative attitudes at work, in turn, acting as a barrier to innovation in public museums. But the breadth and depth of demotivation and negative work seen in public museums is not clear, which calls for further study.
Last, basic organizational characteristics of museum and collaboration constitute important determinant factors that influence the outcome of museum innovation in different manners. All other things being equal, both private and mixed museums engage in more technological innovation and organizational innovation than public museums, but private museums undertake fewer arts and humanities research projects and new cultural product development, than public museums. Comparing mixed museums with private museums, the contribution of the former is much greater than that of the latter to the outcome of technological innovation. The impact of geographical proximity on museum innovation is weak; museums don't gain any advantage by way of their proximity to the corresponding provincial capital cities, and render neither a benefit in terms of technological innovation nor in cultural innovation; on the contrary, a greater distance may spur museums to implement changes in their organizational structure and methods to make up for the deficiency of collaborative opportunities, thus achieving a degree of organizational innovation. As far as museum size is concerned, the number of employees is only positively correlated with cultural innovation; the increase in the number of employees can strengthen a museum’s capability for innovation in arts and humanities research and new product development. Considering the factors relating to collaboration, both the frequency and diversity of collaboration may affect the extent to which museums innovate. The more a museum is involved in collaboration, the more likely it is to engage in technological and organizational innovation. Furthermore, the contribution of collaboration to museum innovation differs based on with whom museums collaborate. Technological innovation can be enhanced by collaborating with high-tech firms, universities and other museums; organizational innovation can be achieved through collaborating with individual
specialists and museum organizations; yet joining museological associations helps museums to arrive to a higher degree of cultural innovation.