Creative Futures Conference Proceedings

Transkriptio

1 Marjo Mäenpää & Taina Rajanti (eds) Creative Futures Conference Proceedings October 2007 in Pori, Finland Marjo Mäenpää, Taina Rajanti (eds.) Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Publication of Creative Leadership University of Art and Design, Pori School of Art and Media Taideteollisen korkeakoulun julkaisu C writers, Pori, Finland Design and layout: Marjo Mäenpää ISSN: ISBN:

2 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Preface 5 1. Creative Leadership and Organizations 9 Tomi Kallio, Creativity and Organizational Structures Perspectives from Mintzbergian Organizational Design 10 Päivi Mikkonen and Heidi Enkovaara, Practical approach: How to enhance innovation democracy with the means of idea management in an expert organization? 20 Tuuli Penttinen-Lampisuo, Tuottaja omalla alalla, omassa ajassa 35 Johan Sandström, Creative organizing in the global network society: the case of global trafficking networks 58 Juhani Tenhunen, New project management practices Creativity in Futures Thinking, Futures Studies and Foresight 77 Jukka Hallikas, Mikko Pynnönen, Petri Savolainen, Kimmo Suojapelto: Scenarios in the ICT Service Business 78 Jari Jussila, Anu Suominen, Jussi Kantola and Hannu Vanharanta, Building Innovation Culture 89 Pekka Huovinen, Enhancing creative foresight among design business managers versus international construction markets 102 Eeva-Liisa Kronqvist, Hannu Soini, This will not work out! How to take risks in developing innovations in higher education 120 Kirsi-Mari Vihermaa, Anu Ikonen-Kullberg, Does creativity create measurable firm value? Everyday Creativity and User Innovations 145 Veikko Ikonen, Human Driven Design and Innovation of Everyday 146 Taina Rajanti, Everyday Creativity in business 159 Katriina Siivonen Culture is basically creative. What is the relationship between a culture as a whole, and heterogeneous cultural processes with individual traits, change, variation and creativity? 180 Marjo Mäenpää, Agile, Fragile, Flow - Management Strategies in Creative Processes 191 Pia Arenius, Tiina Mäkitalo-Keinonen and Sari Liikala, User toolkits for innovation: Link between the knowledge of the firm and the knowledge of the user Leadership and Creativity 217 Tomi Kallio, Taina Rajanti, Tarja Toikka, Kirsi-Mari Vihermaa and Hanna Willner, What do you mean, creative economy? A conceptual mapping from five fields of science 218 Perttu Salovaara, The beauty and the beast: Relationships between arts, creativity and leadership 231 Anne-Maria Mikkonen, From Manager of meaning to Managers of many meanings : Social-constructionist approach to creative leadership 245 Eila Lindfors, How to teach innovation? A case in teacher education Kuinka opettaa innovaatiota? Tapaus opettajankoulutuksessa 256 Tarja Toikka, Kompleksisuus luovan johtamisen paradigmana muotoilun prosessit mahdollisena komponenttina luovuutta tukevaan johtamiseen Regional and Local Perspectives to Research and Education in the Creative Industries 280 Essi Lindberg, Porin visuaalinen keskus -hanke luovia kohtaamisia ja kipinöitä 281 Ulla Heinonen, Leadership and Virtual Teams Working Globally 299 Emma Susi, Rajoja rikkomassa: Porin yliopistokeskuksen Luovien alojen ennakointitutkimus Verification of Knowledge Creation and Enabling in the Finland Model 321 Junko Tohda, Creating Knowledge and Synthesizing Capability of Applications 322 Tiina Rautakorpi, Taidon moniääninen reflektio Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings

3 Preface Creative Futures Conference at 10 th and 11st of October 2007 in the University Consortium of Pori was an academic and multidisciplinary meeting place where the versatile discussion wandered around business, leadership and future prospects of the creative industries really critically and analytically. Special themes of the Creative Futures Conference were challenges of leadership in the creative field and the creative production process and regional effects of the creative economy. The Creative Futures -conference shed a critical view on the prospects for the leadership, creativity and innovations in the fields of technology, digital media, services and culture. The conference surveyed creative economy, education and research in the international field and from the point of view of future studies. In the conference presentations the same questions were heard several times: what do we mean when we speak of creativity? What kind of processes do creative leaders lead - or do we mean creative processes and maybe not so much creative leaders? One evident thing in the conference was that the innovators, researchers, creators, content providers are considered as creative resources. Other topics discussed in the conference from the leadership and creativity in the business, engineering or software project to the use of semantic models of the language lead the participants really deep into the multidisciplinary studies about creativity and leadership. The papers collected to this publication are almost every one of them asking what are the organs and structures that prevent creativity. Also in many papers ask the question how can one lead processes where innovations occur? *** When we speak about the future of media and technology, we speak about ever growing networks of social media, entertainment and games industry, ubiquitous media and other innovations. We have to also think about designing high technology services for large audience, learning solutions and applications that make culture accessible for multi-cultured communities. University Consortium of Pori is great example of multidisciplinary community. When different disciplines work, research and study together we will have larger prospects. Culture, technology, design, sociology and economy all together cover major disciplines about human understanding and life. The research of creative economy and leadership in Pori is an example of nationally and internationally innovative research produced by such a community. Creative economy as a field and term is new and rapidly developing. It is based on a view of a societal shift from a mass production-based economy towards constant development of new and individual products and services. Master s degree program in Creative Business Management will start at 2009 in the University Consortium in Pori. It provides multidisciplinary expertise in managing creative processes and business and tools for research of creative economy. The CBM program is offered in collaboration with Turku School of Economics, Pori Unit and University of Art and Design, Pori School of Art and Media. The students will build contacts with the local industry and business, and carry out research, development or design projects in cooperation with companies from Satakunta region. The Creative Leadership research project forms the basis of the MA-program, collecting assets, material and knowledge for its the use. *** Creative Futures Conference is a continuation of the Call for Creative Futures Conference 2006, held in October 2006 in Oulu, Finland. The topic then was creativity, innovations and culture. The conference gathered in all 165 participants. The Pori Creative Futures Conference had also over 150 registered participants. There were around 30 presentations in six workshops, which dealt with the themes: Creative Leadership and Organizations- The Innovative Borderlines between Design and ICT- Everyday Creativity and User Innovations- Creativity in Futures Thinking, Futures Studies and Foresight- Regional and Local Perspectives to Research and Education in the Creative Industries. In this conference proceedings are published 24 papers and one key-note lecture from professor Junko Tohda from Japan. The Conference was organized by the Creative Leadership project run by Turku School of Economics, Pori Unit and University of Art and Design Helsinki, Pori School of Art and Media. Other institutes involved with the organization of the conference were Tampere University of Technology, Pori Unit, Advanced Multimedia Center; University of Turku School of Cultural Production and Landscape Studies; Turku School of Economics, Graduate School in Future Business Competencies TULIO. Keynote speakers in the conference were professor Junko Tohda (Hagoromo University of International Studies, Japan), professor Markku Wilenius (Turku School of Economics, Finland Futures Research Centre), professor Slavko Milekic (The University of the Arts, USA), professor Saara Taalas (Media Group, Turku School of Economics) and professor, senior researcher Jussi Vähämäki (University of Joensuu, Department of Social Policy). The article of professor Tohda Knowledge Enabling - Verification of Knowledge Creation and Enabling in the Finland Model searches the mechanisms for enabling knowledge creation and rejuvenating local economy, through knowledge based industry and education. Professor 5 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 6

4 Tohda strongly believes that innovation in knowledge based culture holds the key to economic strength. Ms Tohda is a pioneer among women in the field of designing business strategy in Japan. Her list of clients includes many large Japanese manufacturing companies, spanning the pharmacological, cosmetic, steel and other heavy industry, semiconductor, and BIO sectors, and she has presented sessions at business conferences and published in technical periodicals. At present she serves as an auditor of a company moving toward IPO and an external board member of an IT company. *** We are assured that business will profit from design not just as a way of producing more attractive goods, but from the methods used in collaborative design that make the everyday context accessible in product design. And it is the collaborative design, projects, processes that urge the know-how of creative leadership. Pori 1 st of April 2008 Marjo Mäenpää, Taina Rajanti In business world the management strategies start from the presumption that there is a common goal, a target, better income, better value and profit. The chain of tasks and value in flow charts are easily drawn like one clear line from left to right. Stability is a goal. Managers usually want a secure plan to commit them self. By making this commitment, they give up the ability to take advantage of fortuitous developments in the business and technology environment. Managing processes is a human act. Managing creative processes and creative teams is act that deals with tacit knowledge, serendipity and flow. In his paper professor Tomi Kallio from the Turku School of economics noted that if there is something new in the currently mushrooming discourse on creativity, it is the fact that perhaps only after Richard Florida s book the topic of creativity has been explicitly connected to economy, including such business oriented fields like marketing, accounting, and management and organizations. This is not to say that the above mentioned fields would have ignored creativity before it s just that the topic has only recently turned out to be very popular among the business school scholars. Research director Taina Rajanti explores an alternative approach to technology design and development, especially ICT, proceeding from the perspective of everyday context of knowledge production and problem solving. More than centering a product design process on the abstract figure of the user, she explores the idea of driving it by appropriation and reinterpretation of real people in their everyday practices and knowledge production. Rajanti stresses the need for userinnovation in fields of production where production and consumption/use intermingle. Several articles of this publication explore the deeper theoretical issues behind everyday creativity and knowledge production to better understand the dynamics of creative industry. Today productivity, wealth and the creation of social surpluses take the form of cooperative interactivity through linguistic, communicative and affective networks. This means that paying attention to everyday context of creativity is not an ethical or political choice for design, but a necessity for any business that seeks success. 7 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 8

5 Creativity and Organizational Structures Perspectives from Mintzbergian Organizational Design 1. Creative Leadership and Organizations Tomi J. Kallio Professor; PhD Turku School of Economics Pori Unit Abstract This work in progress paper combines some old and new topics of management and organizational studies while searching for new directions for creative management and organizing. Some key concepts of Minzbergian organizational design as well as some recent ideas and themes of creative work are explicated in the paper. Two exemplar cases are used to illustrate how completely different kind of organizational forms can produce amazing results. It is suggested that not only adhocracies and other potentially innovative organizational forms namely simple structure and professional bureaucracy produce creative outcomes. Accordingly, the work carried out for example in a machine bureaucracy might be creative and produce technical and social innovations. Key words: Organizational studies, creativity, organization theory, organizational structures, management. 9 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 10

6 1. Introduction If there is anything new in the current discourse on creativity, it is the fact that perhaps only after Richard Florida s (2002) book, the topic of creativity has been explicitly connected to business, including fields like marketing, accounting, and management and organizations. This is not to say that the above mentioned fields would have ignored creativity before it s just that the topic has only recently turned out to be very popular among business school scholars. The point of departure of the paper is that creativity as well as management and leadership styles promoting it is needed not just in organizations populated by highly educated professionals, but in all kinds of organizations. However, at the same time it is suggested that the roles and ways of manifestation of creativity vary (and should vary) between organizations. It is this reason why the classical ideas of Henry Mintzberg (1979), concerning organizational structures and design, are connected to some of the recently discussed ideas on creativity. The purpose of this work in progress paper is to combine the classical analysis of organizational structures with some more recent studies and perspectives in creativity. Accordingly, the paper combines some old and new topics of management and organizational studies in searching for new directions for creative management and organizing. The paper begins by a short introduction of some key themes and concepts of what is known as Minzbergian organizational design. Some recent ideas and themes of creativity related studies are explicated next. After introducing Mintzbergian organizational design and some constituting themes of creativity, the focus is turned to two real life examples and cases. The paper ends by conclusions and discussion. and consequently five generic organizational structures. It is obvious that organizational analyses based on above-mentioned Mintzberg s generic concepts produce outcomes that can be seen as ideal types rather than one-to-one reflections of reality. Consequently, as common to all ideal type approaches, the strength of Mintzbergian organizational design is the accentuation of organizational forms mental purity which makes the approach particularly useful for theoretical purposes (Kallio, et al. 2007; Weber, 1949). Mintzberg (1979) suggests that the five parts of a generic organization are the strategic apex (i.e. top management), the middle line (i.e. middle management), the operating core (i.e. operational processes), the technostructure (i.e. design of systems, processes, etc) and the support staff (i.e. support outside of operating workflow). The localization of the five parts of the generic organization is traditionally illustrated as follows (see figure 1). 2. Mintzbergian organizational design Organizational structures have been studied widely ever since the early days of scientific management. In the field of management and organizational studies themes associated with organizational structures are usually perceived as essential part of organization theory. In her textbook on organization theory Hatch (1997) has noted that organization theorists are usually particularly interested in social and physical structures. It is the former, i.e. the social structures of organizations, that is in the interest of this paper. As Hatch (1997, 161) has put it: In organization theory, social structure refers to relationships among social elements including people, positions, and the organizational units to which they belong. Consequently, topics such as differentiation and integration, hierarchy and bureaucracy, division of labor, coordination mechanisms, as well as organizational charts and forms are among key the themes of organization theory. Above-mentioned topics have been studied from various perspectives over the history of management and organizational studies. One of the most widely used approaches in understanding organizations social structures is known as Mintzbergian organizational design after well-known Canadian scholar Henry Mintzberg. What makes Mintzberg s (1979) approach particularly useful for theoretical organizational analysis is the way that he defines the topic by describing five parts, five coordination mechanisms Figure 1. Organizational Parts (Mintzberg, 1979) According to Mintzberg (1979) the five basic forms of coordination are i) mutual adjustment, ii) direct supervision, iii) standardization of work processes, iv) standardization of outputs and v) standardization of skills. In mutual adjustment the coordination is carried out between two or more people through informal communication. This form of coordination is especially common in small, entrepreneurial organizations and on the other hand in large organizations that carry out particularly complex tasks that cannot be coordinated otherwise than through mutual adjustment of the specialists themselves. As an organization grows larger the coordination task turns out to be too complex to carry out directly between individuals, and the task is usually given to a particular person who is responsible for direct supervision. Consequently, in a way one brains become responsible for coordinating the work of several pairs of hands. In sports the person responsible for direct supervision is often called as playmaker and in firms as immediate superior. (ibid.) Standardization means that, unlike in the cases of mutual adjustment and direct supervision, the coordination is in a way carried out on the drawing board before the very work even took 11 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 12

7 place. There are three basic variations of standardization. In standardization of work processes the assembly instructions or firm s machinery itself makes sure that the work is carried out as planned; consequently, there is only one way to perform. In standardization of outputs there are certain specifications that the product or other work output must meet. However, aside the final product or other output the workers are more or less free to perform as they wish. In standardization of skills the coordination is literally produced already during the education. Highly educated professionals such as doctors and lawyers learn during their training how to produce expected results to potentially complex problems. Consequently, every doctor should be able to diagnose and cure basic illnesses and send their patients to specialist when special health care is needed. (ibid.) After defining the five basic parts and five forms of coordination, Mintzberg (1979) defines five ideal type organizational forms, namely: simple structure, machine bureaucracy, professional bureaucracy, divisional form and adhocracy. Three of these forms are usually considered as potentially innovative ; namely, simple structure, professional bureaucracy and adhocracy. In section 4 two exemplar cases are used to illustrate how completely different kind of organizational forms can produce amazing results. However, first is necessary to take a short tour to the discourse of creativity. 3. Studies and hypes of creativity The academic research on creativity can be dated back several decades. It is often stated that J. P. Guilford s presidential address to American Psychological Association in 1950 was an important boost to research on creativity (see e.g. Pope 2005). Guilford s plea to make creativity a focal point for psychological inquiry was responded by numerous scholars during the following decades. Another, more recent, momentum for the creativity discourse has been Richard Florida s (2002) book The Rise of the Creative Class. Florida s book had a major influence for creativity in becoming one of the most topical themes in societal discourse and media. As a consequence of creativity turning highly popular, several actors including scholars, consultants, ministerial and other governmental bodies, and NGOs have produced their own reports, studies and pamphlets concerning creativity (Tapola & Kallio 2007). This has let creativity becoming hype, while the leviathan discourse surrounding the concept is damaging to the original academic and respectable research on creativity. One potentially harmful dimension of creativity hype is that of creative work. One should recognize that themes of creativity should not be attached and to the work of organizations such as universities and hospitals just to look quick returns. Consequently, the myriad challenges of the healthcare sector in Finland, for instance, cannot be solved just by introducing creativity to under-resourced organizations. Problems attached to financial, human and other resources need to be solved properly. This is not to say, however, that new kind of innovative solution could not be found if searched for. On the other hand, one should not forget that it is the potential product of creativity innovation and especially the urge for commercialization of innovations that have opened up the door for harmful hypes in working life. With a slight simplification it can be stated that the main academic interest in phenomenon known as creativity has focused either on the features of creative person, on the creative process or on the products of creative work (Häyrynen 1994). On the other hand, the organizational structure where creative work takes place has not received particular attention. This is an important defect given the fact that the organizational structure literally defines how people interact with each other and how their work is organized and coordinated. Moreover, when analyzing creativity in organizations it is useful to distinguish creative work from creative working approach. Creative work can be defined as expert work carried out by (usually) highly educated professionals in organizations such as universities, research labs, hospitals, advertising agencies, law offices etc. Creative working approach, on the other hand, underlines creative approach in all kind of work regardless of the branch of business, and is thus applicable to different kinds of organizations from universities to factories and cleaning firms. (Tapola & Kallio 2007) As it comes to creativity and its potential outcome, innovation, another important distinction should be made; namely, one between technical innovations and social innovations. Unlike often perceived by mass media and laymen, some of the most important innovations have nothing to do with technology. Accordingly, social innovations, should they be new kind of management, organization, working etc. solutions, may have important effects on organizations and their everyday work. Consequently, unlike technical innovations, which in many cases can be commercialized rather directly, social innovations might be more or less organization-specific. On the hand, many social innovations such as democratic decision-making, market economy and separation of juridical legislation from law enforcement have had tremendous consequences for humanity. While creative work and creative working approach are not mutually excusive, as a general rule of thumb one it can be stated that creative work is more oriented in producing technical innovations whereas creative working approach social innovations. 4. Creativity in organizations; two exemplar cases In this section two historical though completely different kind of exemplar cases of creative work are shortly present. The focus of the analysis is especially on organizational aspects of the cases. 4.1 The Pyramids; machine bureaucracy The Great Pyramid of Giza is the only one of the Seven Wonders of the World that has survived to modern times, and often stated as the most amazing accomplishment of mankind. For long scientists and engineers have wondered how it was even possible to build such a colossal building without modern engineering and machinery. As far it is known, the pyramids were designed by relatively small amount of engineers who made the actual technical innovation of the outstanding project; i.e. they designed how to build the pyramids in the technical sense. Without a doubt the technical innovations demanded to build the Pyramids must have been groundbreaking as modern engineers are still amazed by the technical superiority of the project. 13 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 14

8 It was, however, the management and organization of thousands of workers according to the latest knowledge hired workers instead of slaves for decades that made the execution of the technical innovations possible. Undoubtedly this required numerous social innovations; i.e. the management of blue-collar labor facilitated and made it possible to build the pyramids in social sense. Although there are little writings concerning the actual building sites and constructions of the pyramids as they were literally tombs of the pharaohs in their journey to afterlife and consequently carefully protected secrets it is likely that the very organizational structure of the project falls into category of machine bureaucracy (see figure 2). living, the work carried out was considered as work for gods. The fact that the pyramid-building project was considered as holy let to the use of average Egyptians as workforce; the slaves were considered to be not worth of building the pyramids and their role was thus just to unstuck stones. (Wikipedia) The role of the middle line was probably very bureaucratic and focused on solving conflicts and problems and keeping up vertical communication. As in most machine bureaucracies, in the pyramid-building organization the middle line were most likely highly hierarchical, as in ancient Egypt the social status, positions and hierarchies were very important. Due to the fact that a machine bureaucracy depends on the standardization of its operating work processes, the technostructure is the key part of the organization (Mintzberg, 1979). The engineers and other specialists within technostructure are responsible for designing the different tasks and consequently coordinating the work of the operational core. Therefore the technostucture was also the part of the organization that had to develop, or at least enforce, the technical and social innovations necessary for pyramid-building. Consequently, in the case of the pyramids, it was the technostructure that most likely was responsible for making possible the astonishing project that in the case of the Great Pyramid of Giza is estimated to take 23 years and the work contribution of at least 10,000 workers. (Wikipedia) Figure 2. Machine bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1979) According to Mintzberg (1979), machine bureaucracy it characterized by highly specialized, routine operations that are executed under strictly formalized, routine procedures in the operating core. The operating core of the pyramid-building organization consists of workers (average Egyptian citizens) working under the direct supervision of their immediate superiors. The role of the immediate superiors is to make sure that workers keep on going. Accordingly, as the work with heavy stones should that be moving them or sculpting them is not just back-breaking but also highly dangerous, a standardization mechanism is needed. Therefore the most important coordination mechanism must be the standardization of work processes; otherwise accidents would happen and people would die unnecessarily often. Consequently, there is hardly any creative working approach involved in the everyday work of the operating core. (Wikipedia) The strategic apex of the organization consists of the pharaoh himself, most likely of his high priest and perhaps the leading engineer(s) responsible for the construction project. The role of the strategic apex in the pyramids case is less strategic than in most business cases. Rather it was considered as divine. Even thought the pharaoh was not considered to be a god while he was 4.2 The Manhattan Project In 1938 two German scientists, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, demonstrated a nuclear fission. This led to theoretical innovation of nuclear chain reaction that made possible to build a nuclear bomb at least in theory. In practice many scientist felt that it was almost impossible to produce enough the needed isotope of uranium to build a bomb. Consequently, only a few years before The Manhattan Project was launched, there was no unanimity among scientists whether it was practically even possibly to build atomic bomb. The British had already started their project while the US joined only after the Japanese attacked to Pearl Harbor in Due to the war the needed resources for this tremendous project was discovered. Under the codename Manhattan Engineering District US, UK and Canada were secretly to develop nuclear weapons. (Holmström 2005; Wikipedia) Depending the how one calculates it, the project employed almost 300,000 people, while the financial costs of the project were approximately 23 billion dollars equivalent to The scientific research was lead by physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. Manhattan Project employed 23 scientists that had already received or who were to receive the Nobel Prize. Astonishingly, the average age of the scientist at the project was under 30 years. In just a few years, from an ad hoc basis, new towns and plants had been build to produce the needed nuclear materials. Consequently, the prophecy of physicist Niels Bohr It can never be done unless you turn the United States into one huge factory had become reality. (Holmström 2005; Wikipedia) The scientists of the Manhattan project were able to develop two types of atomic bombs: uranium bomb, dropped to Hiroshima, and plutonium bomb, dropped to Nagasaki. While the social desirability of the actual outcome of the Manhattan project might and should obviously 15 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 16

9 be questioned, the development of the atomic bomb works as an example of a successful ad hoc project that employed numerous highly educated professionals and that aimed to a groundbreaking innovation. In organization theory terms The Manhattan Project organization was an adhocracy (see figure 3). Figure 3. Adhocracy (Mintzberg, 1979) The only organizational form in Mintzberg s (1979) typology able to be truly innovative is the adhocracy. While the simple structure can be highly innovative, it can be so only in limited scale, and while professional bureaucracy is populated by highly educated professionals, it merely produces expected results to potentially complex problems. Consequently neither of these organizational forms is oriented to wide-scale problem-solving. Thus, in problem-solving adhocracy is by far the structure enabling open-minded and critical thinking, essential for innovations. While single experts are able to work alone in professional bureaucracies, in adhocracies the work contribution of several experts must be brought together. This is the very strength of the adhocracy form; it is able to bring together highly educated experts from various fields, and merge them as ad hoc project teams to solve new, often unexpected, problems. (ibid.) This was also essential for The Manhattan Project since before the actual nuclear weapon was even possible to build, numerous innovations were needed to solve the technical problems attached to the project. Adhocracy is a highly organic structure with little formalized behavior and no standardized coordination. Even in adhocracy some kind of coordination is necessary, however. The coordination is often carried out through mutual adjustment within teams and between different teams by team liaisons. Therefore there are exceptionally many managers (including functional managers, integrating managers, project managers etc.) in adhocracies. As the managers are also functioning members of teams, the distinction between line and staff disappears as illustrated by fat middle line in figure 3. (ibid.) Even though adhocracy is filled with (project) managers, especially challenging for the coordination task is the fact that the team and thus organizational structures often constantly change. Consequently, as new teams are established, old ones closed down or suspended, people move between teams etc. there is hardly neither a stable organizational structure nor established communication network. This was particularly demanding in The Manhattan Project as it literally employed tens of thousands of people. In adhocracies both the techostructure and support staff is usually absorbed into the middle line. Consequently, the support staff has the key role in the organization. The role of the strategic apex is to take care of the external relations, to solve conflicts and to take care of the division of labor. In the case on The Manhattan Project members of the strategic apex were not just the scientific and military leaders of the project, but as a matter of fact the political leaders of the three allied nations; those who decided to use the nuclear weapons despite the counterclaims of several scientists involved. (Holmström 2005; Wikipedia) As characteristic to ambitious innovative projects, failures are not exceptions in adhocracies. The Manhattan Project was a success and as well-known, in both good and bad, The Manhattan Project permanently changed the lives of whole humanity. Unlike in the Pyramids case, it is also reasonable to expect that in the everyday work of The Manhattan Project creative working approach was present. This might also be one of the key factors for the success of the project, as innovations often depend on this type of working approach. 5. Conclusions and discussion The point of departure of this paper was that creativity as well as management and leadership styles promoting it is needed not just in organizations populated by highly educated professionals, but in all kinds of organizations. The purpose of this work in progress paper was to combine the classical analysis of organizational structures with some more recent studies and perspectives in creativity. Two exemplar cases were provided and shortly analyzed in order to show how completely different kind of organizational forms might produce amazing results. While adhocracies are organizations designed for innovations, one might not expect a machine bureaucracy to produce innovations. Consequently, the basic argument here is thus that creativity is needed in various kinds of organizations while the role and ways of manifestation of creativity varies (and should vary) between organizations. What has often been found problematic in adhocracies is that constant competition between people makes the organizational atmosphere unpleasant and might even prevent creative working approach and thus innovations. Professional bureaucracies on the other hand are often rigid and formal. Because of this, Bayley and Neilsen (1992) have been developing a new organizational form bureau-adhocracy, which tries to combine the best elements of both forms. During the last few years many scholars have taken similar kinds of theoretical and empirical journeys to develop new kinds of management doctrines and organizational forms to solve the problem of innovation in organizations. 17 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 18

10 This paper has introduced the idea of creative working approach as one possible solution for innovation in all kinds of organizations. It is important to understand how the creative working approach finds its ways in different kinds of organizations (cf. Tapola & Kallio 2007). Consequently, in future empirical analysis from different kinds of organizations will be built on the basis that has been laid here. References Bailey, Darlyne Neilsen, Eric H. (1992) Creating a Bureau-Adhocracy: Integrating Standardized and Innovative Services in a Professional Work Group. Human Relations, Vol. 45, No. 7, Hatch, Mary Jo (1997) Organization Theory: Moderns, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford University Press: Oxford Holmström, Timo (2005) Atomipommi havahdutti fyysikot: Mikä on tutkijan vastuu? Tiede, Vol. 25, No. 9, Häyrynen, Y-P. (1994). Luovuus yhteisössä ja arjessa: Johdatus jälkiteollisen yhteiskunnan luovuuskehittelyyn. Helsinki: Valtionhallinnon kehittämiskeskus Kallio, Tomi J. Nordberg, Piia Ahonen, Ari (2007) Rationalizing Sustainable Development a Critical Treatise. Sustainable Development, Vol. 15, No. 1, Mintzberg, Henry (1979) The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Pope, Rob (2005). Creativity: Theory, history and practice. New York: Routledge. Weber Max (1949) The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Shils EA, Finch HA (eds.). The Free Press: New York. Practical Approach: How to enhance innovation democracy by means of idea management in an expert organization? Päivi Mikkonen, Development Manager Heidi Enkovaara, Research Scientist VTT, Business Solutions Abstract: Innovation is changing from closed environments to more open platforms. It is claimed to be become democratic. The opening democratization of innovation forces organizations to rethink the practical methods of managing innovation both internally and externally. Researchers claim that systematic management of innovation is a key success factor for most innovative companies. The paper describes a case where an idea management tool was developed and brought into practice in a demanding expert organisation. The first phase of innovation process, idea generation, has been crucial for companies renewal and success in closed environments. Idea generation should be rich and even chaotic process and it has typically been carried out in forms of various idea calls and listings. Today, new technologies offer companies a way to generate and further develop ideas in open virtual spaces that can be shared globally and by all levels of an organization. Nevertheless, chaos and numerous ideas and insights set prerequisites for idea evaluation. In this case the challenge was tackled by introducing two entities: Firstly, the idea gardens, where the ideas can be planted, further developed, commented and rated by all the users. Secondly, an evaluation tool, with which the ripe ideas can be evaluated by specialists by using an integrated web survey tool. However, introducing an idea management tool is only a starting point on organisations journey towards successful innovations. The most demanding task is to link innovation process development and organisation culture. This paper contributes to the conversation of creation of an innovative organisation by a practical point of view. The paper concentrates on the fuzzy front-end of the innovation process, idea generation, and gives insight of how to develop innovation democracy within an expert organisation. 19 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 20

11 Background As innovating is shifting from closed environments to more open platforms, it forces organizations to rethink the practical methods of managing innovation both internally and externally. The best innovators have systematized the generation and testing of new ideas (Hargadon & Sutton 2007, 93). A systematic manner of managing ideas is rarely adopted; moreover, the ideas are submitted rather an unfocused way (Gamlin et al. 2007, 13). Idea management as such is not widely academically studied phenomenon. However, the difference between success and failure can be only one idea, and therefore the subject should be further studied. and integrative way of innovating. Later this model evolved based on greater use of advanced electronic technology to make more tightly integrated with the external and internal innovators. (Ahmed 1998). Process challenges of a research based innovation When looking at a simplified innovation process of a typical research based innovation (Figure 1), three obscure phases can be identified. The problem is interpreted here as a research question How to manage idea generation in open platforms. In this paper we discuss the development and implementation process of a webbased idea management tool as well as the challenges of innovation democracy in an expert organization. The aim is to summarize some viewpoints on current state of idea management and to provide some practical implications for managers struggling with similar challenges. At first, the general theories of idea management and innovation democracy are discussed, which is followed by a short introduction to the developed innovation management tool, and at the end a managerial perspective to idea management practice is given. New innovative practices in organisations In a survey (Business Week ) 72 % of leaders named innovation as their top three priorities but a half of them said that they are dissatisfied with the returns of innovation investments. A weakness to innovate lead businesses to stagnation, however, innovation is a complex process and it is identified to have a critical importance for organization s success (Ahmed 1998). Idea generation has been crucial for companies renewal and success in closed environments. It has typically been carried out in forms of various idea calls and listings or by using a suggestion box. New technologies offer companies ways to collect, evaluate and further develop ideas in open virtual spaces that can be shared globally and by all levels of organization. The development of hardware and software (von Hippel 2005, 121), and also the internet based solutions, make it possible to create tools for managing innovation systematically but requiring less and less skills and training (ibid.). Thus, innovation practices are changing. According to Rothwell (1992), innovation process itself is evolving all the time, which makes the theory even more difficult to be translated into practice (Ahmed 1998). The development of today s innovation process started with linear sequential processes that were dominant in the 60s. In the 70s and 80s the innovation process was somehow linear and at the same time market oriented. This led to the coupling of the technological push and the market pull in the mid 80s. In the early 90s the innovation process was perceived for the first time as a tight process and the linear model was replaced by a more complex one. This model characterized a more collaborative Figure 1. The obscure phases of research based innovation process The first phase, Idea Management, is a universal challenge in almost all types of organisations. Still, there are some features that are vital especially for research and development organisations, in which the real power lies in combining multidiscipline knowledge in new ways. For example, at VTT, there are almost research scientists with university degree representing different disciplines. When these people are brought together and challenged for idea generation, the results can be outstanding. The lack of time and geographically wide spread organisation makes the utilisation of the multidiscipline knowledge potential demanding. Ideatio n Idea improvement F ores ight Idea Project proposal Project phase evaluation Figure 2: Research based innovation process in practice Commersialization In the Figure 2 the more practical project based innovation process is represented. The idea management phase (idea generation, idea improvement and idea evaluation) is a vital part of the 21 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 22

12 front-end of the innovation process. If this cannot be organised in an effective, yet creative way, many opportunities will be lost. In figure 1, the middle obscure phase, Recognition of Business Potential, is especially tricky in research and development environment. Some exploratory reasons can be found. First of all, a researcher is usually intrigued by creating something totally new and easily loses his or her interest when the research phase is over. Secondly, there is a huge unresolved gap between research results and a market ready product or service. To crown all this, the researches lack information of how to identify a research results with business potential and the following steps, if such an opportunity should appear. whole company instead of only the technical development unit or headquarters claims Turrell, CEO of Imaginetik ( ). In addition Von Hippel (2005, 8) claims that users and manufacturers tend to create different kinds of innovations. This is due to the information asymmetries. These asymmetries may lead to radically new ideas. In a diversified expert organization innovation democracy supports the aims of multi-disciplinary principles and stimulant co-idea generation. The difference between success and failure in business can be just one idea. How to manage ideas in a way that the potential idea is on a whole discovered and then guided to successful commercialisation? This paper addresses the first two of these obscure phases, and therefore, the last phase, Market Entry, is left unhandled. Innovation democracy Idea generation is everyone s job and no one s responsibility. In other words, idea generation in all organizational levels is vital for companies success but it is impossible to hire one person to be responsible of all idea generation. The perspective of innovation democracy emphasises that idea generation and development should be possible for everybody. Both the staff and end users should be able to participate. But, how to make it possible and motivating for everybody to participate in idea generation? Before answering the question in detail, the open innovation and innovation democracy phenomenon are lightened up a bit. The meaning of open innovation is that valuable ideas can derive from inside as well as outside the organization (Chesbrough 2003, 43). In open innovation, sourcing, integration and development of product and business system innovations do happen through win-win external partnerships in attempt to capture maximum commercial value for R&D investment. In terms of innovation democracy this means that users are increasingly able to innovate for themselves, moreover, users do not have to do everything on their own but can benefit from innovation developed and shared by others (von Hippel 2005, 1). Customers expect to have customized, and even adaptive, products and services. Innovation democracy is applicable to internal innovation as well. Not long time ago, the technical R&D department developed products from A to Z by themselves. Today everybody from Rovaniemi to Barcelona, from salesman to CEO, can contribute to product development since the early stages of the process. At the moment the companies are often using the intranet for idea-sharing. Idea management tools Idea management is defined on Imaginetik s, which is one of the leading companies in idea management business, webpages as a discipline that enables the systematic capture, sharing, and exploiting of ideas across the organization to achieve breakthrough innovation and continuous improvement. Idea management provides tools for systematically collect, co-develop, evaluate and mobilize ideas from different sources, units and different levels in organizations. The first generation of idea management tools started to develop in 90s while the Internet breakthrough was taking place. Concentration led in cost reduction in idea collection methods. Late 90s the second generation of idea management tools already aimed at improving the idea collection process. The second generation idea management tools have not been proven successful due to the same old problems as with suggestion box. The idea revivers get tired of bad ideas. Now the third generation attempts to link both brainstorming and creativity to idea management, which means increasing employee participation by helping them become creative, while substantially improving the quality of the submitted ideas. ( ) To give practical perspective, a short review on the experiences of idea management at Bayer (Gamlin, Yourd and Patrick 2007, 13-16) is presented here. They managed to gather more than 3,000 ideas to their database through 36 web-based idea generation events. They listed five key elements of successful idea management: Clear business purpose for gathering ideas Understand the window of opportunity Mix diverse backgrounds and experience to support the idea generation phase Find different ways of looking the challenges Develop idea through collaboration Furthermore, they are creating collaborative knowledge management systems that may reach the 23 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 24

13 Idea management at VTT At VTT the driving force to start systematizing the ideation process was the renewal of strategy in It positions VTT as the best innovation partner for its customers. Nevertheless, external innovativeness does not exist without internal innovativeness. To enhance this, it was decided to obtain an innovation management tool suitable for virtual working and mixing competencies. Seedea Idea Management Tool was developed to help management of innovation process with extensive idea management. VTT s Seedea Idea Management Tool in Practice A general process for idea generation and evaluation at VTT was identified as presented in figure 3. Seedea Idea Management Tool was developed for and at VTT (Technical Research Centre of Finland) in co-operation with Gamelion Oy and in the later phase with Korento Oy. The tool was developed in-house because the commercial tools available at that time did not support the defined needs well enough. Seedea is an open virtual idea space, rather than a system by which ideas can be submitted into a state-gate process. The first version was developed and tested in 2006 at VTT in real life use and with real cases. The development of Seedea 2.0 started in late 2006 and the new version was launched in late September Today, there are more than ideas in the database and more than 1/3 of VTT staff (over people) has used the tool. The main features of Seedea were designed to promote innovation democracy in practice. The most important designing features were defined as follows: It should encourage people to generate ideas freely, without unnecessary criticism. In other words it should be safe environment even for the wildest ideas. It should support idea improvement and assembling of multidisciplinary ad hoc teams It should be motivational e.g. visually fun and relaxing to use. This is because of two reasons; this tool is not compulsory for anyone, and creativity benefits from fun and relaxation. It should be time and place-interdependent. It should be democratic. In other words, it should give everybody equal opportunity to join, but not make it compulsory. It should enable co-development of ideas among people in variously mixed groups It should give lot of information without being too aggressive (e.g. send of every occurrence). This was tackled by designing the graphics, so that it formed a story as the ideas grew and become more mature. In addition to ideas, the weak signals and problems should be able to be gathered inthe same bank. It should support the whole ideation process from idea generation via idea improvement to idea evaluation. The evaluation should be made as transparent as possible Desouza et al. (2006) found that when the evaluation process was transparent and standardized employees felt more comfortable contributing. Figure 3: Means of using idea management tools In Seedea, ideas are always submitted under a certain theme, which can be anything from electronics to saving the rainforests. These themes are called idea gardens (Figure 4). There are two dimensions to be determined when creating a theme garden. Firstly, the time-scale can vary from few weeks to several years. This means that each of the idea gardens can function as a platform for a restricted idea call (e.g. support the project planning phase) or they can serve as an idea bank for longer time idea storing (e.g. idea bank of a research team). The second variable dimension is the publicity-scale. In publicity-scale, there are three levels. The most open one is public. Public gardens are by definition automatically open to whole staff. The second level is open. The open gardens are gardens, where the invited members are automatically eligible to participate but all the other interested people can easily join as well (subscribe the membership for themselves). The most private level is restricted. Restricted gardens are open to the invited members only. It is recommended that the audience of gardens should be as wide as possible in order to gain steady flow of ideas. In online communities there are different kinds of participants. Only a fraction of members will actively participate in the ideation and the majority can be described as lurkers (e.g. Nonnecke and Preece 2000), that are silent but important members of the community. 25 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 26

14 should be fuelled by the pressure to compete and by the freedom to explore (Desoutza et al. 2007, 8). It is finding balance between playfulness and need. Every idea garden has the garden owner, the gardener who is responsible for taking care of his or her garden and ideas that grow in them. The gardeners are also responsible of taking the most promising ideas to specialist evaluation and eventually (if rated high) further to organization s processes. Most companies are not short on new ideas, but they are short on ways to assess, screen, prioritize, and execute those new ideas (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Amabile (2007, 59) adds that when ideas are not met with open minds, they confront time-consuming layers of evaluations. Mobilization is passing idea to a different physical or logical location. This stage is vitally important to the progression of a new idea (Desouza et al. 2007, 9). Reviewing ideas effectively and efficiently is as important as collecting them. It is highly important to follow a structured review process which ensures that good ideas are identified fast and decisions are taken promptly (imaginatik.com ). Figure 4: Seedea Garden screenshot One of the basic features of Seedea is the knowledge integration and promoting innovation democracy. In practice, this means idea submission and improvement procedures that are equally open to all the members of the garden. New signals and ideas can be submitted by any of the members of the particular garden. They can be discussed and roughly evaluated (potentiality and maturity of the idea) by all the members. All the ideas, signals and comments will be submitted under the names of their contributors. Leonard and Straus (2007, 69) state that innovation takes place when different ideas, perceptions, and ways of processing and judging information collide. Also Florida and Goodnight (2007, 28-29) state that creativity is a product of interaction. Other features that enhance involvement and social bonding are top lists, ratings, comment tool and send to a friend -tool. The evaluation is carried out by means of an incorporated evaluation tool (Figure 5). Garden owner defines the right specialists (preferably from 3 to 6 persons) individually according to the idea in hand. The evaluators should be able to examine the idea from different angles (technology, business potential, customer needs etc.). The evaluation questions will also be tailored according to the idea and its maturity level. When submitting an idea to Seedea, it is to be determined, whether the idea to be submitted is really an idea or rather a signal. The signals are weak signals, problems, observations, or occurring trends while the ideas are suggestions of solutions. The separation was seen meaningful in order to gather even the first remarks on occurring changes. One of the basic aims was to develop enjoyable and motivational tool. Therefore, the visual projection of the first ground-level ideas and signals was decided to be illustrated as seeds. Further developed ideas are illustrated as leaves, ideas sent to the expert evaluation as buds, and evaluated ideas as flowers (Figure 4). Also Desoutza et al (2007, 8) stated that idea generation Figure 5: Seedea Garden screenshot - evaluation phase In VTT case the idea reviewing and evaluation process varies according to the purpose of the garden. Figure 6 illustrates the basic procedures to be followed. If the garden is restricted or open, 27 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 28

15 the owner of the garden is responsible to make appropriate actions. In case of public gardens, the Idea Board reviews the ideas on monthly basis and decides on the actions to be taken. The Idea Board consists of delegates of VTT s different organisation units. The aim is to cover as much of VTT s expertise as possible. systematically use old ideas as the raw materials for one new ideas. Storing ideas allows the teams to come back even years after and find the information of the ideas once submitted. Public idea generation. One of the drivers in development of the idea management tool was the openness of idea generation according to the principles of innovation democracy. Extending participation across functions produces highly innovative solutions ( ). Especially in a diversified company openness and transparency is sometimes hard to achieve. Therefore, at VTT there were opened several public gardens. The ideas in public gardens are scanned from time to time by the ideaboard, and guided to the right process as described in Figure 6. Meeting tool. Firstly, Seedea has been used for meeting preparations. In an ideal case Seedea offers an opportunity to handle the subject in cooperation already beforehand. The meeting organizer may stimulate idea or signal generation by leaving the first seeds. Secondly, teams may use the idea management tool at place in the meeting to collect the new born ideas in one place where they can be further developed time and place-independently. Figure 6: Different processes of open and public gardens Ways of using innovation management tools By investing in development of innovation management tools organizations are looking for concrete results. There are several different ways of drawing return on investments from these tools. The ones in use at VTT are described in the following chapter. The methods of using innovation management tools have developed during the test period and through explicit work of program developers, and thus serve rather as examples than tested best practices. Challenge. Challenge is a proactive way of searching ideas around specific theme in the organization. The challenge is open for given period of time and requires clear ownership, need for ideas, and vision of mobilization. Examples of challenges are diverse and vary from search for a new name to a part of the organization to finding future research themes. Additionally, the importance of active participation by commenting and reviewing the challenge owner may impact on the amount and quality of ideas. Idea bank. As described before idea gardens function also as idea banks. In a highly knowledgeintensive organization the ideas tend to be exceptionally future leaning. Some practitioners claim that open-ended initiatives with no clear deadlines are likely to fail, as participants interest decreases over time. On contrary, Hargadon and Sutton (2007, 94) claim that the best innovators Motivating users It is often easier to leave new tools unused. Therefore, motivating usage is crucial for successful implementation. According to our experience, motivation arises from four dimensions: The idea management tool itself should be motivating and inspiring to use, rewards of wanted ideas and behaviour should be given, and internal marketing and communication should be well managed. In addition to all this, training and support has to be provided to all who need it. The developed tool helps in collecting, developing and evaluating the ideas in an organization wide manner. Even partners and customers can take part in idea sharing with help of the tool. The tool offers web-based virtual spaces were idea generation and sharing can take place under specified themes. Idea calls or as we call them, challenges take place in these virtual spaces. The tool itself has been introduced above and is proved to be motivating and fun to use. Nevertheless, the tool itself is not enough. At VTT a lot effort has been taken to give information about the availability and the potential of the tool. There have been several stories on the internal journal as well as on the customer magazine. In addition to this, information of ongoing idea challenges and the results of them have been spread out through the intranet. The tool has been presented at different internal and external innovation fairs and events. Even leaflets and stickers has been printed and dealt to the staff. 29 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 30

16 Rewarding has not played a big role at VTT. It seems that VTT staff is merely motivated when they feel they can contribute to a meaningful challenge rather than submitting their ideas in order to gain monetary rewards or goods. Also theory supports the practical notion: Amabile (1997, 39-45) stated that especially knowledge-intensive employees are motivated merely by intrinsic, not extrinsic matters. Still, some rewarding has been executed. The most active people of the month get coffee mugs with the Seedea logo-print on them. In addition to this, their names are published at Seedea s main page. Idea challenges usually give away a special prize for the best idea. Idea Board can also suggest fees for a distinguished idea submitter. management must tell the same message in a constant manner in order to be accepted. Thirdly, rewarding right behaviour is an ancient truth of guiding people towards the wanted results. Likewise, it is commonly used method of motivating idea submitting and evaluation. The rewards seem to work best when they are somehow linked to the mobilization of the winning idea. Valuable but loose rewards like ipods and watches do not seem to work as expected. From our experience, the employees in expert organizations are motivated mainly by seeing their ideas grow and to be mobilized. Training for using the tool is provided on need to have basis. It is usually necessary when a new garden owner is launching his or her first own garden. The training is given face-to-face or remotely via internet and telephone. Fourthly, it is meaningful to encourage employees to submit ideas, no matter how obscure or relevant they would turn out. The amount of ideas is more important than the quality of them. In Seedea visual effects and game like user interface supports the freedom of idea generation. As in any change process, internal marketing and communication is extremely central according to Imagenetik s idea management process. Firstly, the employees must be aware of new system or method of idea management. Secondly, the information on how to use it must be available. Thirdly, constant remainders of existent of the system are needed. Successful reference cases can turn out to be very useful. Findings the means by which VTT has managed to enhance innovation democracy 1/3 of the case organization can be identified as Seedea users but still it takes time before the innovation process is fully democratic. The biggest challenge lies not in the tool itself but in adapting the principles of innovation democracy and idea management practices to organisational culture. Changing something as profound as organisational culture does not happen over night. However, already on this phase of change process some results can be named. The introduction of tool itself is a concrete sign of change. The tool serves as internal communication channel. Grown cross-disciplinary communication and participation. Change is in old practices and in views of idea utilization by which we mean more open means of innovating and decreased not-invented-here syndrome. Firstly, a systematic way of idea generation seems to support innovation democracy. At VTT the innovation democracy come into flesh in the idea management tool Seedea. It is seen as a sign of cultural change towards more democratic and open innovation culture. Fifthly, in order to capture more direct business value the focus should probably lie on focused innovation calls. Targeted and bounded idea calls produce better results than open-ended idea collection systems. Conclusions This paper dealt with some basic principles of idea management and innovation democracy inside an expert organization. A developed tool for idea management was also presented. All in all, idea management is not widely researched phenomenon and it is even hard to find an academic definition for it. However, as the importance of innovation on company s financial success gets more widely understood, the intelligent methods of managing ideas are seen in a new light. Webbased tools have developed since beginning of 90s and operators such as Imaginetik and Jenni have started to develop the first more controlled methods of idea management. Innovation democracy is the buzzword of 2000s in the field of innovation and R&D. It refers to equal possibilities to influence on product or service development. Internally this means cooperation between different units like marketing and technical development. In diversified company like VTT, it refers to cooperation between different fields of expertise. A good question is whether innovation can in reality be democratic. Through web-based tools the distance and time difference, even the language barriers can be confronted but the capabilities of accepting other s ideas (not-invented-here syndrome), the willingness to use certain democratic systems, and abilities to participate, varies. Secondly, the meaning of different ways of internal communication is seen to be vital, and therefore internal communication must be carefully planned and managed. According to experiences besides the basic means of internal communication the tool itself leverages a message. The middle According to our experience, cultural change, as mentioned earlier, takes time. Implementation and managing the adaptation process can never be overemphasized. Quoting Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, it is recommended to communicate and then communicate again. As 31 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 32

17 mentioned in the beginning, this is seen especially challenging in expert organizations. Therefore the idea management process needs an apparent owner and full support from top management. Besides well managed communication the motivational factors such as intrinsic rewards and social acceptance are highly important. In the near future big changes in ways of working will be taking place. The trend of customer participation in R&D is already a reality. To name a few: remote working will be commonly adapted and the pace of working is still speeding up. In addition the gaming generation enters working life and new collaborative ways of idea generation are adapted. From our perspective playfulness, fun and visual effects have growing impacts in attracting employees to spend time online submitting, commenting and evaluating ideas. One future vision might even be a whole virtual world where ideas would be merchandises as well as tangible goods nowadays. Literature: Ahmed, Pervaiz (1998): Benchmarking Innovation Best Practice. Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology. Vol. 5, No. 1, pp Amabile, Teresa M. (1997): Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review. Vol. 40, No. 1, pp Business Week (2006): The World s Most Innovative Companies. Vol. 3981, pp Chesbrough, Henry (2003): Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press. Florida, Richard & Goodnight, Jim (2007): Managing for Creativity. Onpoint Harward Business Review. Spring 2007, pp Gamlin, Janet & Yourd, Raymond & Patrick, Valerie (2007): Unlock creativity with active idea management. Research Technology Management. Vol. 50, No. 1, pp Hardagon, Andrew & Sutton, Robert I. (2007): Building Innovation Factory. Onpoint Harward Business Review. Spring 2007, pp von Hippel, Eric (2005): Democratizing innovation. MIT Press. Imaginatik Research White Paper (2001): A New Approach to Idea Management Idea Central. August. Leonard, Dorothy & Straus, Susaan (2007): Putting Your Company s Whole Brain Work. Onpoint Harward Business Review. Spring 2007, pp MIT Sloan Management Review (2007): The five stages of successful innovation. Vol. 48, No. 3, pp Nonaka, Ikujiro and Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995): The Knowledge-Creating Company. Nonnecke, B and Preece, J. (2000). Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. Proceedings of CHI 2000, pp The Hague 33 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 34

18 TUOTTAJA omalla alalla, omassa ajassa Tuuli Penttinen-Lampisuo Satakunnan taidetoimikunta Tutkimuksen pääkysymys on, mitä ammattinimike tuottaja tarkoittaa. Kirjoittaja haluaa koetella käsitettä muotoillakseen vastauksen, joka on muutakin kuin luettelo tuottajan työtehtävistä tai hyvistä ominaisuuksista. Tuottajuutta tarkastellaan kirjoittajan oman työskentelyn näkökulmasta, jolloin esimerkkituotantona on Itu videotaiteen tuotantoprojekti vuosina Itu on ollut kuvataiteilijoille luotu, riippumaton ja voittoa tavoittelematon tuotanto-organisaatio riittävien tuotantoedellytysten luomiseksi ja taiteilijoiden resurssien keskittämiseksi teosten taiteellisen sisällön luomisprosessiin. Kirjoittaja valmistelee aiheesta lopputyötä Taideteollisen korkeakoulun Porin taiteen ja median osastolle. Tuottajien asemaa pyritään vahvistamaan lukuisissa maamme julkishallinnon ohjelma- ja strategiapapereissa. Opetusministeriön (2002, 72) julkaisema Taide on mahdollisuuksia - ohjelmaehdotus esittää kokeiluhanketta, jossa taiteilijat, manageri/tuottajatoiminta sekä taiteen välityspalvelut yhdistyvät. Taide- ja taiteilijapoliittinen ohjelma nostaa taiteen rahoittajat ja tuottajat keskeiseen asemaan (Opetusministeriö 2004, 16). Kulttuurivienti-hankkeen raportissa kehotetaan suuntaamaan mediataiteilijoiden tuotannollisten taitojen kehittämiseen ja yhteistyömuotojen kehittämiseen alan tuottajien kanssa (Opetusministeriö 2004:22, 83). Audiovisuaalisen alan strategiassa ja toimintaohjelmassa luvataan tukea eri tavoin tuottajien kansainvälistymistä, verkostoitumista ja koulutusta (Opetusministeriö 2005:8, 93). Työhallinnon julkaisussa 345 (2005, 44) esitetään, että kulttuurielämän ja elinkeinoelämän [v]uorovaikutuksen edistämiseksi tarvitaan yrityskentän ja kulttuurialan toimijoiden väliin sijoittuvaa rahoittajien, tuottajien ja managerien toiminnan lisäämistä. Samanaikaisesti elää myös toinen tapa puhua tuottamisesta. Taiteen keskustoimikunnan Taiteilija Suomessa -julkaisussa Robert Arpo (2004, 136) kirjoittaa, että ajatukset taideteoksen ainutkertaisuudesta ja taiteilijayksilön asemasta ovat korvautuneet erilaisilla taiteen ja kulttuurin tuotantomalleilla. Tuotannollisuus näyttäytyy uhkana taiteen vapaudelle. Itu videotaiteen tuotantoprojekti on toteutettu kolmen perusorganisaation yhteistyönä. Taiteilijajärjestö Muu ry on projektin tuotantoyhtiö ja suomalaista mediataidetta levittävä Avarkki ry sen levitysyhtiö. Tuottajan työnantaja on ollut Satakunnan taidetoimikunta. Projektissa on tuotettu käsikirjoituspaja, neljän videotaideteosta ja kaksi näyttelyä. Tutkimuskysymys juontaa havainnosta, että erilaisia tuottajahenkilöitä ja managereita kaivataan taide- ja kulttuurialoille ilman tuottajuuden analysointia tai määrittelyä. Tutkimusta luovien alojen tuottajista on vähän. Itu videotaiteen tuotantoprojekti toteuttaa useiden tuottajia peräänkuuluttavien julkisten asiakirjojen tavoitteita, joten on perusteltua tarkastella tuottajuutta nimenomaan tämän pilottina toteutetun projektin kokemusten valossa. Monialaisen kirjallisuuden tukemana suhteutetaan tuottaja-sanan etymologiaa, yleisen organisaatiomurroksen piirteitä ja tutkimusta elokuvan ennakkosuunnittelusta projektilähtöiseen tekstiaineistoon sekä kokemusperäiseen tietoon. Suomen kielessä tuottaminen on tuomista, latinalaisissa kielissä edestä johtamista ja näkyväksi tekemistä. Kirjoituksessa keskiöön nousevat muun muassa pohdinnat verkostomaisesta toiminnasta, säännöistä, ajankäytöstä ja järjestyksen haastavasta harhailusta sekä siitä, miten tuottajuus niissä toteutuu. Tuottajauhkien maalailu kantaa kaikuja frankfurtin koulukunnan marxilaisesta kulttuuriteollisuuden kritiikistä. Kuitenkin esimerkiksi Theodor Adorno (2002, ) tiedosti kulttuurin perusparadoksin: [k]ulttuuri kärsii vahinkoa, kun sitä suunnitellaan ja hallinnoidaan; mutta yksin jätettynä eivät joudu uhanalaiseksi pelkästään kulttuurin vaikutusmahdollisuudet vaan koko sen olemassaolo. Halu koetella käsitettä Tuottajuus jää sitä perään kuuluttavissa asiakirjoissa lähtökohtaisesti määrittelemättä. Kuitenkin [k]äsitteiden, termien ja niiden välisten suhteiden määrittelyn pitäisi olla myös olennainen osa strategista ajattelua, sillä se auttaa jäsentämään kompleksisia toimintaympäristöjä ja käynnissä olevia muutoksia sekä ymmärtämään niitä syvällisemmin, suhteellisuudentajuisemmin ja historiallisemmin (Leppihalme 2006, 53 55). Vastaavasti kriittisissä näkökannoissa tuotannon nähdään yksioikoisesti viittaavan suunnitelmalliseen valmistamiseen, jossa tuotantoprosessi voidaan kuvata ja mallintaa siten, että sitä voidaan kontrolloida ja suunnata (Arpo 2004, 136). Tavallinen, alan koulutuksessa ja tekijöiden keskuudessa käytetty lähestymistapa tuottajuuteen on luetella tuottajan työtehtäviä tai ominaisuuksia. Esimerkiksi televisiotuottaja ja toimitusjohtaja Saku Tuomisen (2007) tiivistyksessä on tuottaja = se joka tekee päätöksiä. Hän tekee päätöksiä 35 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 36

19 tai päättää, kuka päättää. Työssä menestyminen edellyttää tuottajageeniä, joka sisältää johtajuutta, järjestelmällisyyttä, ongelmanratkaisu- ja paineensietokykyjä sekä suoraselkäisyyttä. Kaiken muun tarpeellisen tuottaja voi oppia. Ei minulla ole mitään syytä olla eri mieltä Tuomisen ehkä provosoimaankin tarkoitetuista määritelmistä, päinvastoin. Ne eivät kuitenkaan riitä minulle. Samaan tapaan esimerkiksi yrittäjyystutkimuksessa etsittiin pitkään yrittäjän perusominaisuuksia, mutta tutkimussuunnasta on tuloksettomana luovuttu (Arenius 2007). Olen omassa työssäni kaivanut tuottajuuden analyysiä käsitteen kautta, saadakseni näkyviin sen erityisyyden, erotukseksi muista samoja geenejä vaativista ammateista. Minusta tuottaja Työskennellessäni tuottajana suomalaista mediataidetta levittävässä Av-arkki ry:ssä löysin itseni innoittuneesta ryhmästä ideoimassa uudenlaista, videotaiteilijoille suunnattua tuotantoprojektia. Mukana oli taiteilijajärjestö Muu ry:n sekä Av-arkki ry:n edustajia. Ryhmä oli vakuuttunut, että juuri minun pitäisi tuottaa projekti ja syventää sen puitteissa omaa tuotannollista erikoisosaamistani. Elettiin vuotta Itu videotaiteen tuotantoprojekti alkoi vuonna Samana vuonna työpaikakseni vaihtui Satakunnan taidetoimikunta. Projekti kulkeutui mukanani Helsingistä Satakuntaan. Kun aloitin opinnot Taideteollisen korkeakoulun Porin taiteen ja median osastolla (silloiselta nimeltään Taideteollisen korkeakoulun visuaalisen kulttuurin yksikkö), oli selvää, että käsittelisin lopputyössäni Itu-projektia. Itu videotaiteen tuotantoprojekti Itu videotaiteen tuotantoprojekti käynnistyi Muu ry:n ja Av-arkki ry:n toimesta ja AVEK:n tuella keväällä Järjestöjen jäsenille suunnattiin avoin haku käsikirjoituspajaan. Haku peräänkuulutti teosideoita, joita sai hakemuksessa esitellä joko kirjallisesti tai kuvin. Valmiita käsikirjoituksia ei pyydetty. Satakunnan taidetoimikunta liittyi projektiin mukaan alkukesällä Tällöin muodostettiin projektin ohjausryhmä, johon kuuluivat Muu ry:n toiminnanjohtaja Timo Soppela ja puheenjohtaja Henriikka Oksman, Satakunnan taidetoimikunnan jäsen, Rauman taidemuseon amanuenssi Henna Paunu, Av-arkki ry:n toiminnanjohtaja Kirsi Väkiparta ja puheenjohtaja Pirjetta Brander. Myöhemmin Väkiparran tilalle tuli Av-arkin uutena toiminnanjohtajana Eeva Pirkkala. Hakemuksia käsikirjoituspajaan tuli 27 kappaletta. Kokosimme juryn, johon kuuluivat AVarkin edustajana puheenjohtaja, kuvataiteilija Pirjetta Brander, Muun edustajana kuvataiteilija ja tuottaja Pekka Niskanen ja Satakunnan edustajana elokuvaohjaaja Petri Hagner. Jury valitsi 10 käsikirjoitusideaa, joiden eteenpäin viemiseksi järjestettiin käsikirjoituspaja. Työpajan tarkoitus oli kehittää kullekin teosidealle tarkoituksenmukainen, videotaideteoksen erityispiirteet huomioiva käsikirjoitus ja esittelymateriaalikansio, jota voi käyttää teosten ennakkotuotannossa ja markkinoinnissa. Itu-käsikirjoituspajaan valitut taiteilijat olivat Pasi Autio, Päivikki Kallio, Tanja Koistila, Jaana Kokko, Marko Lampisuo, Juha Mäki-Jussila, Hanna Ojamo, Elina Saloranta, Lena Séraphin ja Maarit Suomi-Väänänen. Olin opiskellut televisio- ja elokuvatuottamista, vaikka suurin kiinnostukseni suuntautui kuvataiteeseen ja näyttelyiden tuottamiseen. Sitten löysin taide-elokuvan, mediataiteen ja ennen kaikkea videotaiteen. Kuvan tekemiseen ja kuvataiteeseen olin suuntautunut opiskelemalla kuvataidelukion jälkeen ensin piirtäjä-artesaaniksi, sitten oppisopimuksella taidevedostajaksi. Taidevedostajana kuvataiteen kentän toimintatavat alkoivat avautua minulle. Kiinnostuin organisatorisesta työstä ja olin mukana perustamassa nuorten taiteilijoiden taideyhdistystä ja - galleriaa. Tuottajan ammattinimike sopi minulle. Määritelmä luovan ryhmän johtaja tuntui ylevältä. Tuottajana saatoin tehdä kaikkea mitä halusin, järjestää näyttelyitä ja taidetapahtumia, tiedottaa, kuratoida, olla lähellä taiteen syntyprosesseja ja tukea taiteilijoita. Tätä kirjoitettaessa väikkyvät horisontissa niin projektin, läänintaiteilijapestini kuin myös maisteriopintojeni päättyminen. On aika päivittää määritelmät ja koota kokemukset. Käsikirjoituspajassa oli neljä lähiopetusjaksoa. Kolmesti kokoonnuttiin Muu galleriassa Helsingissä. Yksi pitkä viikonloppu työskenneltiin Porissa ja Satakunnassa, jonne kutsuin vierailevaksi luennoijaksi Lemmikki Louhimiehen. Käsikirjoituspajan lopuksi taiteilijat jättivät laatimansa käsikirjoituskansiot uuden juryn arvioitaviksi. Tällä kertaa juryn muodostivat Rauman taidemuseon amanuenssi ja Satakunnan taidetoimikunnan jäsen Henna Paunu, Valtion nykytaiteen museo Kiasman erikoissuunnittelija Perttu Rastas, taiteilija, aiemmin AVEK:in mediataiteen tuotantoneuvojana toiminut Veli Granö, nykytaiteen kuraattori Paula Toppila sekä Pirjetta Brander. Juryn tehtävä oli valita taiteilijoiden tuottamista käsikirjoituksista kansioiden perusteella 5-6 teosta, joita ryhdyttäisiin Itu-projektin puitteissa kehittämään kohti tuotantoa. Jury kuitenkin päätyi neljään käsikirjoitukseen, joita se piti valmiimpina. Ne olivat Tanja Koistilan käsikirjoitus Ruodot, Marko Lampisuon Poriutuminen, Elina Salorannan Ei saa häiritä ja Lena Séraphinin Kello ja Kulta. Kun tässä tekstissä kirjoitan taiteilijoista, viittaan yleensä yllä mainittuihin neljään henkilöön. Seuraavassa esittelen heidän teostensa synopsikset. 37 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 38

20 Tanja Koistila: Ruodot Lena Séraphin: Kello & Kulta kuvaus välittämisen vaikeudesta tarina rikoksesta, joka aiheuttaa rikoksen Videoteos Ruodot on kuvaus välittämisen ja lähellä olemisen vaikeudesta. Se on tarina nuoren naisen, tyttären, irtautumisesta ja erilliseksi kasvamisesta suhteessa isäänsä. Ruodot on kuvallinen matka tyttären muistikuviin, hänen kokemuksiinsa ja tarinan nykyhetkeen. Teoksen tapahtumat jaksottuvat lomittain toisistaan erottelemattomiin aikatasoihin. Teos käsittelee perheen sisäisiä rooleja, tyttären ja isän suhteen uuden olemisen muodon etsimistä. Riippuvaisuus toisesta ja itsenäistyminen ovat ristiriidassa. Vastuun kantaminen itsestään ja läheisistään on vaikeaa. Eläminen turvallisuuden illuusiossa on helpompaa. Marko Lampisuo: Poriutuminen kuinka vieraasta kaupungista tulee koti Poriutuminen on videoteos muuttamisesta, tottumisesta, tuntemisesta ja luopumisesta. Se muodostuu kahdeksasta episodista. Kuvissa nähdään autioksi rajattu kaupunki, tyhjä huoneisto, hiljainen merenranta, festivaalialue juhlien jälkeen. On vain avaria ja tasaisia tiloja. Ei mitään tai ketään tuttua. Monologeissaan mies kertoo tapetoimisesta, kaupassa käymisestä, polkupyöräretkestä, auton huoltamisesta ja urheiluseuraan liittymisestä. Tapahtumia yhdistää kokemus uudesta elinympäristöstä ja muuttuneesta sosiaalisesta verkostosta. Mies sairastaa yksinäisyyden luulosairautta, mutta huokaisee helpotuksesta saadessaan apua todellisiin kipuihin. Elina Saloranta: Ei saa häiritä Tarinan kertoja on nainen, jolla on suhde naimisissa olevan miehen kanssa. Nainen ei ole koskaan tavannut miehen vaimoa ja lapsia, mutta hän näkee näistä unia. Myös vaimo näkee unia kertojasta. Paradoksaalisesti vaimo on ilahtunut naisen ilmaantumisesta, sillä se tarjoaa mahdollisuuden epätyydyttävän avioliiton purkamiseen. Ainoastaan mies vastustaa muutosta. Kertoja odottaa miehen eroavan vaimostaan, mutta epäilee, ettei näin tapahdu. Teoksen loppupuolella mies pitää monologin, jonka aikana kolmiodraama saa selityksensä, vaikka ei ratkaisua. Rakkaussuhteen pääosassa on poissaoleva kolmas osapuoli. Kello- ja kultaliike ryöstetään ja liikkeenomistaja pahoinpidellään. Ryöstö aiheuttaa toisen ryöstön, joka puolestaan aiheuttaa uuden ryöstön. Ontuva, tunnevammainen kelloseppä, moraaliton huijari Erik ja elintasobimbo Alisa kahmivat kukin tavallaan liikkeen kassakaapin ja kullalla katetut vetolaatikot tyhjiksi. Toistuvat ryöstöt tekevät rikollisesta uhrin ja uhrista rikollisen, joka palaa rikospaikalle. Erilaisia tuottajia ja etymologiaa Tässä kirjoituksessa nousee keskiöön pari Itu videotaiteen tuotantoprojektin ominaisuutta. Tarkastelen tuottajuutta etenkin projektin muodon ja toimintatapojen valossa. Huomio on projektin alkuvuosissa, esimerkiksi näyttelyiden tuottamista en juuri käsittele. Tarkoitukseni on maisteritutkielmassani laajentaa käsittelyä kattamaan kaikki projektin vaiheet, jotta videotaiteen tuottamisen erityispiirteet kuvataiteen ja audiovisuaalisen alan rajapinnassa tulisivat paremmin esiin. Lähteinäni ovat oma kokemus, projektin esittelymateriaali (2005) sekä muutamat muistiot. Esittelymateriaalin (2005) työstin ryhmätyönä tehdyn projektisuunnitelman pohjalta työkalukseni rahoituksen ja yhteistyökumppaneiden hankinnassa. Se sisältää muun muassa kymmenen vastausta miksi-kysymykseen. Listaus sekä muut esittelymateriaaliin kirjatut teesit antavat käsityksen siitä, miten käynnistäjäorganisaatioissa nähtiin videotaiteen asema ja tilanne vuosituhannen alussa. Projektilähtöisen aineistoni keskustelukumppaneiksi olen valinnut muutamia kirjallisia lähteitä. Kun puhutaan tuottajista luovilla aloilla, tulevat usein ensimmäiseksi mieleen elokuvatuottajat. Se, miten elokuvatuottajan ammatti ymmärretään, heijastuu käsityksiin muiden taiteenalojen tuottajista. Tuottaja Riina Hyytiän (2004) väitöskirja koostuu tuottajien, ohjaajien ja käsikirjoittajien näkemyksistä. Hän kutsuu kolmen ammattilaisen muodostelmaa triangeliksi. Kolmikon valinnalla hän (emt, 14) haluaa kyseenalaistaa auteur-ajattelua, joka tarkoittaa elokuvien tulkitsemista vain yhden tekijän, lähinnä ohjaajan taiteena. Ohjaaja ei ole elokuvan ainoa taiteilija. Lähtökohtaisesti triangelimalli huomioi sekä yksilöiden arvon että yhteistyön. Tätä Hyytiä (2994) ei suoraan sano, mutta triangelimallin voi nähdä myös osoittavan, ettei tuottaja ole elokuvan ainoa johtaja. Näin triangeli vastaisi siis niin kutsuttua jaetun johtajuuden mallia (Karkulehto & Virta 2006, ). Triangelimallissa jaetaan töitä, valtaa, vastuuta, näkemyksiä ja kokemuksia. Siinä arvostetaan erityisyyttä ja hyväksytään erilaisuus. [V]asta tuottajan, ohjaajan ja käsikirjoittajan yhteinen työskentely mahdollistaa elokuvan ennakkosuunnittelun onnistumisen. Heidän yksilölliset ammatilliset taitonsa ja näkemyksensä terävöittävät triangelin kärjet. (Hyytiä 2004, 15). 39 Creative Futures Conference Proceedings Creative Futures Conference Proceedings 40