This paper was presented at The XXV ISPIM Conference – Innovation for Sustainable Economy & Society, Dublin, Ireland on 8-11 June 2014. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

1

Innovation management capabilities in the creative sector

Christina Öberg*

University of Exeter Business School, Centre for Innovation and

Service Research, Building: One, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU,

United Kingdom.

E-mail: C.J.E.Oberg@exeter.ac.uk

Richard Adams

University of Exeter Business School, Centre for Innovation and

Service Research, Building: One, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU,

United Kingdom.

E-mail: R.J.Adams@exeter.ac.uk

Allen Alexander

University of Exeter Business School, Centre for Innovation and

Service Research, Building: One, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU,

United Kingdom.

E-mail: A.T.Alexander@exeter.ac.uk

* Corresponding author

Abstract: The creative sector increases in importance. Still, research focus in the domain remains limited, while it is also suggested how the sector differs from other industries. As with any industrial sector, creative organisations need to renew themselves. Innovation management capabilities denote such abilities. In literature, it is suggested that these abilities are dependent on a number of organisational factors, but these expectedly differ by sector. The purpose of the paper is to synthesize current literature on innovation management capabilities in the creative sector. Findings point to a much more informal, flexible or organic approach to innovation in the creative sector. The heterogeneity of the sector further draws attention to how capabilities may have different characteristics also for different areas of a sector, and only partly be transferable among them.

Keywords: Creative; Innovation management capability;

1. Introduction

The creative sector is increasingly seen as a motor for innovation and new jobs (2010).

According to the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport (1998), the sector includes

This paper was presented at The XXV ISPIM Conference – Innovation for Sustainable Economy & Society, Dublin, Ireland on 8-11 June 2014. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

2

the following thirteen areas: advertising, architecture, art and antiques, computer games,

crafts, design, designer fashion, film and video, music, performing arts, publishing,

software and television, and radio. While the sector is growing in importance, research

focus in the domain remains limited, while it is also suggested how the sector differs

from other industries (Beckman, 2007). Previous research has pointed to how

management may be difficult and conflict with those forces considered to drive creative

processes (cf. Amabile et al., 1996).

As with any industrial sector, creative organisations need to renew themselves.

Innovation management capabilities denote such abilities. In literature, it is suggested

that these abilities are dependent on a number of organisational factors. The organisation

needs an innovation strategy and process in place, a structure that supports for

innovativeness, a learning climate, and well-functioning linkages to other organisations

(including collaboration partners, customers, and suppliers) (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).

But are these factors universal? Or do they differ by sector? With a growing importance

of the creative sector: what does the literature say on innovation management capabilities

in the creative sector?

In this paper, we review literature on innovation management capabilties in the

creative sector. The purpose of the paper is to synthesize current literature on innovation

management capabilities in the creative sector. The following questions are asked:

What capabilities, or configurations of capabilities, are exhibited in the creative

sectors?

How do they differ from generic descriptions on innovation management

capabilities?

What consequences do they have for how innovation processes are organised in the

creative sector?

The paper contributes to previous research through pointing to how innovation

management capabilities differ between, and also within, sectors. Its summary of present

research on innovation management capabilities in the creative sector indicates

interesting avenues for further exploration.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Following the introduction, innovation

management capabilities are described so as to get an idea on factors referred to in

generic descriptions of innovation management capabilities. The section also points to

previous research that has indicated how these factors may not be universal. Thereafter,

and also as part of the theoretical background of the paper, we describe specifies of the

creative sector, and key foci of research related to that sector. The method is described

thereafter. Essentially, the paper is based on a literature review comprising journal

publications and conference papers. In the findings section we present the results of the

review. The analysis section describes similarities and differences between innovation

management capabilities related to the creative sector and generic descriptions of such

capabilities. The paper ends with theoretical and practical implications along with ideas

for further research.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Innovation management capabilities

Innovation management capabilities thus refer to an organisation’s ability to renew itself.

But what does that mean? Innovation indicates a process to enhance value for customers

through the creation of new or modified ideas (cf. O'Sullivan and Dooley, 2009).

Capabilities denote resources or skills held by a company (Barney, 1991; Collis and

Montgomery, 1995) that are essential for its competiveness (Porter, 1980). Amit and

Schoemaker (1993) refer to capabilities as the “capacity to deploy resources, usually in

combination, using organisational processes, to effect a desired end”, which demarks how

resources are used rather than the resources or skills per se (cf. Teece et al., 1997).

The management capabilities of innovation include ways to develop, search, select,

implement and capture value from streams of internal initiatives and external ideas. This

hence highlights the use rather than the ownership of resources or skills. It further, in line

with recent conceptualisations such as open innovation, points to how the company needs

to be able to handle in- and outflows of ideas, not just items developed by the company

itself (Chesbrough, 2004). Tidd and Bessant (2009) point to innovation in four different

spaces: product/service innovations, processes, positions, and paradigm. This indicates

that it is not enough to consider actual offerings to others (what to offer and who to

approach), but focus also needs to be on internal processes and business modelling of

companies (Ostwalder et al., 2005). It further points to how innovation intends to reduce

costs (e.g., more effective processes) and increase revenues (new offerings, new markets

for existing products/services, etc.(cf. Ansoff, 1965)). It also encapsulates ideas of

varying newness, minor steps and improvements as well as revolutionary new concepts.

This all makes innovation management a complex task, and the capabilities to handle

innovation expect to bridge entire organisations and include many different assignments.

Literature has suggested capabilities related to renewal (Teece et al., 1997) and

companies’ competences in handling flows of knowledge (Cohen and Levintahal, 1990).

While researchers frequently refer to dynamic capabilities and absorptive capacities as

essential for organisations, not the least as their context becomes increasingly complex

and changing, few have turned these ‘magic words’ for success into variables to be

handled by the organisation. Instead, it becomes a matter being capable, while not really

stating what specific skills are needed.

In terms of innovation management capabilities, a diverse body of literature has

though sought to identify and synthesize indicators for such capabilities (e.g., Adams et

al., 2006; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Smith et al., 2008; Wolfe, 1994). This suggests

that the relation between a certain organisational feature and the innovation outcome is

positive and correlates to some extents, while it does still not specify the exact skill or

competence that advance innovation.

So what are these indicators? Freeman (1999) divide innovation capabilties into

internal managements responsibilties (including collaborative processes, performance

measures, education and development, distributed learning networks, and intelligence

market positioning) and external organisational interfaces (comprising knowledge

products and services, collaborative market penetration, market image campaign,

leadership competencies, and communication technology). Smith et al. (2008) identify

nine factors that influence an organisation’s innovation management capability:

This paper was presented at The XXV ISPIM Conference – Innovation for Sustainable Economy & Society, Dublin, Ireland on 8-11 June 2014. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

4

management style and leadership; resources; organisational structure; corporate strategy;

technology; knowledge management; employees; innovation process; and, organisational

culture. Lawson and Samson (2001) categorise the constituent elements of innovation

capability under seven headings: vision and strategy; harnessing the competence base;

organisational intelligence; creativity and idea management; organisational structure and

systems; culture and climate; and management of technology. Saunila and Ukko (2012)

conceive innovation capability to include three elements: (i) innovation potential: factors

that reflect current potential to innovate (including, leadership and decision-making

processes, organisational structures and communication, collaboration and external links,

organisational culture and climate, and individual creativity and know-how); (ii)

innovation processes: the systems and activities that organisations utilize to realise

current innovation potential; and (iii) innovation output: the results of innovation

activities. In another study, Saunila (Saunila et al., 2012) divide innovation capability

into five dimensions: exploitation of external knowledge (absorptive capacity, social

networks, structural holes); innovation structures (openness, functionality, tools,

feedback, rewards); culture (trust and respect, tolerance of ambiguity, learning from

failures); leadership (participation, decentralised decision making, motivation); and

individual innovation capability (creative thinking, readiness for change, empowerment).

Innovation capability is, then, a multi-faceted phenomenon which includes a number

of contextual and structural, internal and external factors, some of which are within the

realm of managers to influence and control (Hauser et al., 2006). If summarising the

different indicators, it could be suggested that they involve the organising of innovation

(e.g., culture, climate, structure, communication; organizational intelligence; systems);

strategy (e.g., corporate strategy, vision, management style and leadership; performance

measures); processes (e.g., internal collaborative processes, decision-making processes);

learning (e.g., know-how, knowledge management; distributed learning networks;

knowledge products and services); and linkages (e.g., external links, collaborative market

penetration). These summarising dimensions correspond to innovation management

capability indicators as outlined by Tidd and Bessant (2009), and while different scholars

emphasise or divide these dimensions further, they depict dimensions mentioned by

several researchers.

In this paper, we describe organisation, strategy, processes, learning and linkages as

the generic indicators for innovation management capabilities. But, are they universal, or

do they differ, for instance, by sector?

2.2 Generic or sector-specific capabilities?

Researchers such as Lawson and Samson (2001), and Saunila & Ukko (2012) have

pointed to generic sets of innovation management capabilities. At the same time, scholars

indicate how innovation covers a broad spectrum of activities, including

products/services, processes, business models, and marketing (cf. Tidd and Bessant,

2009), and studies have shown that different mixes or configurations of capabilities are

required to deliver different types of innovation. For example, market orientation and

customer knowledge are important factors in the development of product innovations

(Hernández-Espallardo and Delgado-Ballester, 2009), process capabilities appear more

important in new service development (Gryszkiewicz et al., 2011), but there is only very

limited evidence in this field of research.

Some authors further distinguish between radical and incremental product innovation

capability (e.g., Menguc and Auh, 2010). Acquisitions of new skills, transformational and

exploratory capabilities are important prerequisites for radical innovation (Herrmann et

al., 2007; O'Connor, 2008), while competence exploitation is considered an important

capability for incremental innovation (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). The differences

between the capabilities of incremental and radical innovation are based on the type of

knowledge used (Martínez-Román et al., 2011).

Innovation activities also take place in different contexts, from small to large

organisations, publicly to privately owned, in different geographical areas, and in

different industry sectors. A variation of capabilities depending on sectors is hence

expected (Damanpour, 1991). A survey by Roper et al .(2009) shows inter-sectorial

variation in innovation capability, that is, there exists a considerable gap in proficiency

between sectors in terms of sectorial capability in accessing knowledge for innovation,

building innovation and commercialising innovation. Other studies have also indicated

inter-sectorial variance in configurations and proficiency in the profiles and deployment

of innovation management capabilities (e.g., Griffin, 1997; Persaud, 2005).

It is thus proposed that organisations that consciously and explicitly develop, invest in

and manage their innovation capability have a higher likelihood of achieving sustainable

innovation outcomes in the long run (Lawson and Samson, 2001). What is not well

understood, however, is the nature and extent of the capability differential at a sectorial

level and what the implications for innovation management might be.

In this paper, we specifically focus on innovation management capabilities in the

creative sector, based on how this sector increases in importance (UNCTAD, 2010), and

also in general management research has been described as differing from other sectors

(e.g., Frazer, 1983; Hackley and Kover, 2007).

2.3 Creativity

In the creative sector, the advertising industry has been given attention (Reid and Rotfeld,

1976; Sasser and Koslow, 2008). Yet, the sector also includes architecture, art and

antiques, computer games, crafts, design, designer fashion, film and video, music,

performing arts, publishing, software, and television and radio (DCMS, 1998).

Related to creativity, researchers have focused on it as a personal skill (Scott, 1965)

or how a creative organisational climate can be created (Amabile et al., 1996; Ekvall,

1996). Creativity as a feature of individuals point to their ability to create new solutions,

and hence overlaps with the innovativeness of persons (Amabile, 1988). Literature

stresses expertise, motivation and originality as important for creativity (Amabile, 1988,

1997). The creative organisational climate (Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Perry-Smith

and Shalley, 2003) is marked by freedom, limited structures, a broad variety of people,

workgroup support, challenging work, organisational encouragement, and sufficient

resources (Amabile et al., 1996; Ekvall, 1996; Woodman et al., 1993). Andriopoulos

(2001) points to that a low level of organisational structure, and high degrees of freedom

positively impact creativity. Perry-Smith (2006) in turn describes this as weak ties

positively impacting creativity.

This all points to how the management of creativity is difficult (Fletcher, 1990).

Structures, systems, existing processes, and strategies may inhibit the creativity. How

does this then correspond with the need for strategies, organisations, processes, linkages

and learning as suggested to enhance innovation management capabilities? While the

This paper was presented at The XXV ISPIM Conference – Innovation for Sustainable Economy & Society, Dublin, Ireland on 8-11 June 2014. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

6

creativity could be thought of as the ability to generate new ideas, the sector’s innovation

management capabilities also include renewed processes, ways to handle markets, and

business models for instance, and question is what capabilities, or configurations of

capabilities, are exhibited in the creative sectors?

3. Research design

To identify relevant papers, a two part search strategy was adopted. First, a keyword

search of the database Business Source Complete was undertaken. Search strings were

constructed reflecting our sector of interest; the creative sector/industry, combined with

keywords relating to innovation management capabilities (so, capability, competence,

innovation process, performance, activity and so forth). Second, to ensure we captured

contemporary research and the most recent thinking, we hand-searched the recent content

of innovation-related conferences (ISPIM, R&D Management Conference and EGOS) for

relevant material.

In the analysis of the papers, each relevant source was summarised and the

description of innovation management capabilities were extracted from the paper. These

were then compared among the literature on the creative sector, and secondly so to

descriptions on generic descriptions on innovation management capability (Lawson and

Samson, 2001; Saunila and Ukko, 2012). This was done so as to be able to judge the

particularity of the sector and its similarities with other sectors. Lastly, the specific

capabilities of the sector, and its consequences for how innovation processes are

organised were addressed through returning to the reviewed literature and considering it

in the light of descriptions on innovation management capabilities.

4. Findings

Table 1 summarises the findings from the review. As indicated by DCMS’s (1998)

definition, the sector is heterogeneous and covers a range of different business activities,

from arts and cultural activities to media, information and leisure activities such as

gaming. With regard to innovation management capabilities, two themes emerge though;

the first is that the study of the creative sector has focused on its regional distribution and,

in particular, their propensity to cluster and, thus, cluster characteristics. The second

theme, partly resulting from the first, is the extent to which approaches to innovation in

the creative sector differ from that in areas of traditional innovation research.

In terms of the first theme, creative industry clusters exhibit particular characteristics

of their own which differentiate them from other clusters. Davis et al. (2009), for

example, note a number of differences between the Toronto film-TV and interactive

media clusters and Canadian technology-based innovation clusters including: (i)

proximity to customers (media=local & regional, technology=widely distributed); (ii)

numbers of firms in the cluster (media=thousands, technology=dozens); (iii) cluster

identity (media=strong internal and external awareness, technology=less evident); (iv)

connections to the science base (media=weak, technology=strong); (v) involvement in

community organisations that provide services to members and support collective action

(media=weak); and (vi) the process of innovation (media=innovation in physical

infrastructure, software and content, technology=formal R&D).

This clustering tendency and these sector specific characteristics have implications

for creative industries’ innovation management capabilities. Clustering implies a

particular contextual evolution of networks and relationships as the locus for innovation.

For example, the digital gaming community has spawned new relations between clients

and firms: gamers develop user communities, set up tournaments and adapt game rules

and designs (Parmentier and Mangematin, 2011). In this context innovation, particularly

content innovation, is being driven by user communities co-developing product with

firms and so highlights important capabilities in the domain of relationships and

knowledge management – particularly knowledge sourcing and integration.

In this context, managers need to enable the opening of firm boundaries and those of

their products and services to promote a convergence of identity between firm and

community around the product/service. Of course, opening up the development process

in this way carries with it a risk of reduced control, acceptable levels of which will have

to be determined by managers.

In terms of the creative industries’ approach to innovation, there appears to be little

evidence of much use of formal R&D, even in the more technologically-focused of the

creative industries, and little in the way of measurement or evaluation of innovation

(Miles and Green, 2008). These observations point to a much more informal, flexible or

organic approach to innovation which has been described as a part of the job description

of all senior professionals (Miles and Green, 2008) in the creative industries.

Furthermore, in some sub-sectors, team-based and inter-firm collaborative work is almost

universal (Miles and Green, 2008). On the basis of these observations, Miles and Green

(2008) conclude that social skills and personal relationships needed to assemble expert

groups and teams are key assets for senior professionals in the industry.

Miles and Green’s (2008) study focused on sub-sectors of the creative industries,

including: video-games, product design, advertising and communications, and the

independent broadcast production industry where they found variation in the requisite

capabilities. For example, interviews with practitioners and executives in the advertising

sector indicated that innovation management focuses on: (i) sourcing and processing

ideas; (ii) allocation of resources; (iii) project leadership and management; and (iv)

project evaluation and knowledge capture, whereas, in the independent broadcast

production industry, co-production and network-based development of programming is

very common. Such high levels of proximal working and interaction in the industry

necessitates being able to develop and maintain good personal relationships and buy-in

from various stakeholders.

Amongst the nine sectors that Roper et al (2009) consider in their assessment of

sectorial innovation capability in the UK, Specialist Design Services is an area within

which innovation is highly dependent on human capital, both in-house and external, and

on networks with customers, colleagues, friends, suppliers, and design authorities and

associations. Their analysis of CIS data and supporting interviews suggest that, as a

sector, Specialist Design Services exhibits a higher level of innovation capability than

any of the other eight sectors studied but within the area – reflecting its heterogeneity -

there are high levels of capability variation between firms. Further, they found firms were

more innovative with regard to organisational structures compared to managerial

processes and that the most significant number of firms innovated in the area of

marketing, where fifty percent of firms reported innovations.

As others have found, innovation processes in this sector are often flexible,

unstructured and dominated by individual creative staff: certainly, there appears to be a

This paper was presented at The XXV ISPIM Conference – Innovation for Sustainable Economy & Society, Dublin, Ireland on 8-11 June 2014. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

8

lack of formal innovation process in the sector. Nevertheless, collaborations,

relationships and interactions with a range of external partners including suppliers,

customers, competitors and universities are important to the ways in which the sector

innovates.

Knowledge management is a critical capability for innovation in the creative

industries sector, and the concept of absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levintahal, 1990;

Zahra and George, 2002) and Teece’s (2007) dimensionalisation of dynamic capabilities

into sensing, seizing and reconfiguring activities help identify some of the particular

capabilities. Silvennoinen and Jantunen (2012), for example, utilise Teece’s (2007)

sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring categories to examine the relationship between

dynamic capabilities and radical innovation amongst magazine publishers. Their results

show that sensing and seizing capabilities have a positive effect on the emergence of

radical innovations but no supporting evidence for a similar impact of reconfiguring

capabilities, leading to the conclusion that firms should pay particular attention to sensing

and seizing activities – equivalent to potential absorptive capacity in Zahra and George’s

(2002) conceptualisation.

A final, and increasingly important, innovation role in the creative industries is those

firms influence and impact on innovation in other sectors of the economy. Miles and

Green (2008) note their dual role as both innovators of content as well as facilitators of

others’ innovation, and give the example of UK communications agencies which have

established ‘innovation laboratories’ – essentially a form of co-innovation facility – to

assist clients in exploring business and product development opportunities.

Table 1: Innovation Management Capabilities: Creative industries

Capability Notes Source

Knowledge management Particularly in respect of:

Sources of new ideas

Spending on R&D and design

Use of a range of different skill groups and external partners in gathering new ideas

Roper et al. (2009) UK, specialist design services, analysis of CIS data and interviews

Develop and maintain interactive linkages Notes three domains of innovation in creative industries:

Physical infrastructure

Software

Content

Davis et al. (2009) Canada (Toronto), 200+ screen-based media industry firms

Relational Social and personal relational skills to achieve buy-in from relevant stakeholders and motivation from employees to undertake new projects

Miles and Green (2008) UK, analysis of CIS and original case work

Technology application

New organisation development

Customer interface

Directed toward content innovation and how it is produced Jaw et al. (2012) Taiwan, 4 case studies in the puppet industry

User engagement Nature of relationship with communities differentiates innovation with online user communities from lead user approaches. Innovation management centred on:

Opening the firm boundaries

Opening products and services to community input and reducing property rights

Reshaping identity boundaries due to digitalisation and virtualisation

Parmentier and Mangematin (2011) Digital creative industries, 4 cases

Sensing

Seizing

Reconfiguring

Capabilities that enable sensing changes in the operating environment, interpreting future development paths, and seizing opportunities are connected to innovation radicalism.

Silvennoinen and Jantunen (2012) Finland, magazine publishing

This paper was presented at The XXV ISPIM Conference – Innovation for Sustainable Economy & Society, Dublin, Ireland on 8-11 June 2014. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

10

5. Analysis

Research on innovation management capabilities in the creative sector is limited (cf.

Miles and Green, 2008). As described above, two themes however emerge; regional

distribution and the difference to traditional innovation research. This clustering tendency

and sector specific characteristics have implications for the creative sector’s innovation

management capabilities. The integration of customers and users into the innovation

process appears to be important in the creative sector. This is in line with the open

innovation perspective (Chesbrough, 2003; West and Bogers, 2013), and the review has

hence re-emphasised the importance of networking and collaborative capabilities.

Previous research has suggested that network relationships and collaborative innovation

impact innovation performance, but that further work has been required to understand

better the different configurations these relations take according to context (Pittaway et

al., 2004; Pullen et al., 2012). More generally, our findings are in line with Chatenier et

al. (2010) who find that the three main capabilities required of innovation professionals

in the context of open innovation are (i) managing the inter-organisational collaboration

process (ii) managing the overall innovation process, and (iii) creating new knowledge

collaboratively: in other words, they continue, innovation professionals must be socially

competent and able to broker solutions.

Secondly, the creative sector emphasises learning (Parmentier and Mangematin,

2011). The capability to handle knowledge is stressed, which in turn could be reflected in

how the individuals of organisations and their skills are important (cf. Ashley and Oliver,

2010). Knowledge, or learning, should though be considered in the open innovation

paradigm, and thus extends beyond the focus on resources or skills on the organisational

level (Barney, 1991).

The introduction raised three questions that are elaborated on below.

5.1 What capabilities, or configurations of capabilities, are exhibited in the creative sectors?

The creative sector emphasises linkages and learning as important for innovation. Parallel

to this, it also underlines the lack of formal procedures to innovate (Miles and Green,

2008). Rather, freedom, competence, and loose structures are stressed, all in line with

how a good creative climate is created according to previous research (Andriopoulos,

2001; Perry-Smith, 2006).

Additionally, there are variations among different areas (advertising, architecture, art

and antiques, computer games, crafts, design, designer fashion, film and video, music,

performing arts, publishing, software and television and radio) in the sector (cf. Roper et

al., 2009). Certain areas rely more on structure, others less so.

5.2 How do they differ from generic descriptions on innovation management capabilities?

The indicators for innovation management capabilities in the sector demark two things:

(i) they put different emphasis to the various dimensions referred to in generic models;

and (ii) they may mean that certain of these dimensions are handled differently. The first

applies to how linkages and learning are more stressed than strategy, processes, and

organisation. The second pinpoints how the way of organising is different than how it is

described in generic models. Here it reflects loose structures, while generic models refer

to how processes and structures should be in place.

5.3 What consequences do they have for how innovation processes are organised in the creative sector?

The differences to the generic prescriptions of indicators pinpoint the loose organising of

work and innovation processes in the creative sector. It also marks the handling of

interfaces with other companies. Just as creative ideas may be taken from the sector, the

sector (Miles and Green, 2008), also “imports” ideas from other industries. One such

example is the new media in advertising (Öberg, 2013), which is taken from outside to

enhance creative output in the area.

6. Contribution

6.1 Theoretical contribution

The paper contributes to previous research through summarising present findings on

innovation management capabilities in the creative sector, pointing at research gap, and

comparing mentioned capabilities with generic models on innovation management

capabilities. It indicates a lack of research in the area, while also pointing to how

individual and collaborative aspects are important for the creative sector. The

heterogeneity of the sector further draws attention to how capabilities may have different

characteristics also for different areas of a sector, and only partly be transferable among

them.

As such, the paper contributes to research through pointing to how innovation

management capabilities vary by sector or even within sectors. The paper hence

summarises previous work on innovation management capabilities in the creative sector;

indicates that innovation management capabilities do not only differ, but how they differ

for the sector studied; and questions sectors as the relevant delimitation for capabilities.

This in turn suggests further research on different sectors, types of organisations, and

related, to increase understandings of contextualised circumstances for innovation

management capabilities.

The importance of understanding innovation management capabilities beyond what is

actually produced is particularly important for the creative sector, where much of the

current research suggests a creative climate to enable the generation of new ideas and

outputs (that is, product or service offerings), rather than considering new business

models and processes. The paper here suggests a stricter distinction between creativity

understood as the output of creative individuals, and the related innovativeness that

incorporates all dimensions of innovating.

Additionally, the emphasis on learning and linkages creates an important demarcation

in line with the opening of innovation, and further indicates how different indicators are

interrelated in how the knowledge flow expands company borders and include other

parties.

This paper was presented at The XXV ISPIM Conference – Innovation for Sustainable Economy & Society, Dublin, Ireland on 8-11 June 2014. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

12

6.2 Practical implications

For managers in the creative sector, it is important to acknowledge those specific

characteristics that affect the innovation processes of organisations in the sector.

Companies can improve their collaborative skills while also promote the creative

individual’s work environment and select persons with certain characteristics for

employment. Still, it is also important to consider how the organisation works on

innovation in its broader aspects: business model renewal, ways to manufacture/create

products/services, and so forth. Here, the literature may not tell the whole story and any

research gap suggested in the paper could be seen as a practical challenge for companies.

In the broader perspective, and related to the increased importance of the creative

sector, it is vital to consider how innovation practices can be supported in the sector.

What specific characteristics need to be taken into account and how can the sector

generally become more innovative?

6.3 Further research

The paper depicts variations in innovation management capabilities between sectors

through pointing to how the creative sector distinguishes itself from generic capabilities.

For further research, it would be interesting to explore and compare also other sectors, to

highlight similarities, differences, their reasons and consequences.

As for the creative sector, future research could focus on how innovation is handled

in the sector, the development of best practices, the impact of open innovation and new

ways of organising work (Öberg, 2012) in the sector. Different parts of the sector could

be studied for comparing purposes, and it would also be interesting to study the

development of creative sectors in, for instance, emerging markets.

References

Adams R, J Bessant and R Phelps (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21-47.

Amabile TM. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In BM Staw, LL Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 123-167. Greenwich: CT.

Amabile TM (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.

Amabile TM, R Conti, H Coon, J Lazenby and M Herron (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.

Amit R and PJH Schoemaker (1993). Strategic assets and organization rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.

Andriopoulos C (2001). Determinants of organisational creativity: a literature review. Management Decision, 39(10), 834-840.

Ansoff HI. 1965. Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ashley C and JD Oliver (2010). Creative leaders. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 115-130.

Barney J (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.

Beckman G (2007). Advernturing arts entrepreneurship curricula in higher education: an examination of present efforts, obstacles and best practices. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 37(2), 25-34.

Chatenier ED, JaaM Verstegen, HJA Biemans, M Mulder and OSWF Omta (2010). Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. R&D Management, 40(3), 271-280.

Chesbrough HW (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35-41.

Chesbrough HW (2004). Managing open innovations. Research Technology Management, 47(1), 23-26.

Cohen W and D Levintahal (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.

Collis DJ and CA Montgomery (1995). Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73, 118-128.

Crossan MM and M Apaydin (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.

Damanpour F (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(5), 555-590.

Davis CH, T Creutzberg and D Arthurs (2009). Applying an innovation cluster framework to a creative industry: The case of screen-based media in Ontario. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 11(2), 201-214.

DCMS. (1998). Creative industries: Mapping document. Department of Culture, Media and Sport, UK Government, HMSO: London.

Ekvall G (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105-123.

Fletcher W (1990). The management of creativity. International Journal of Advertising, 9(1), 1-11.

Frazer C (1983). Creative strategy: A management perspective. Journal of Advertising, 12(4), 36-41.

Freeman T (1999). Assessing the innovation capacity of the consortium: an evaluation of the CAM-I cost management systems program. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), 61-65.

Griffin A (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 429-458.

Gryszkiewicz L, E Giannopoulou and P-J Barlatier. (2011). Capabilities mapping approach for sustainable service-innovation management in knowledge-intensive organizations, XXII ISPIM Conference: Hamburg.

Hackley C and AJ Kover (2007). The trouble with creatives: negotiating creative identity in advertising agencies. International Journal of Advertising, 26(1), 63-78.

Hauser J, GJ Tellis and A Griffin (2006). Research on innovation: a review and agenda for Marketing Science. Marketing Science, 25, 687-717.

Hernández-Espallardo M and E Delgado-Ballester (2009). Product innovation in small manufacturers, market orientation and the industry’s five competitive forces: empirical evidence from Spain. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(4), 470-491.

Herrmann A, O Gassmann and U Eisert (2007). An empirical study of the antecedents for radical product innovations and capabilities for transformation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(1/2), 92-120.

Lawson B and D Samson (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377-400.

Martínez-Román JA, J Gamero and JA Tamayo (2011). Analysis of innovation in SMEs using an innovative capability-based non-linear model: A study in the province of Seville (Spain). Technovation, 31(9), 459-475.

Menguc B and S Auh (2010). Development and return on execution of product innovation capabilities: The role of organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 820-831.

Miles I and L Green. (2008). Hidden innovation in the creative industries. NESTA: London.

This paper was presented at The XXV ISPIM Conference – Innovation for Sustainable Economy & Society, Dublin, Ireland on 8-11 June 2014. The publication is available to ISPIM members at

www.ispim.org.

14

O'Connor GC (2008). Major innovation as a dynamic capability: A systems approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 313-330.

O'Sullivan D and L Dooley. 2009. Applying innovation. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Öberg C. (2012). Competence in use – project-based competence nets as way to organize work. In S Jeschke, F Hees, A Richert, S Trantow (Eds.), Prethinking work: 33-34. Münster: LIT Verlag.

Öberg C (2013). Competence integration in creative processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(1), 113–124.

Oldham GR and A Cummings (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.

Ostwalder A, Y Pigneur and C Tucci (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 751-775.

Parmentier G and V Mangematin. (2011). Community as a locus of innovation: innovate with the users in the cultural industries, 7th EGOS Colloquium: Gothenburg.

Perry-Smith JE (2006). Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85-101.

Perry-Smith JE and CE Shalley (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 29, 89-106.

Persaud A (2005). Enhancing synergistic innovative capability in multinational corporations: An empirical investigation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(5), 412-429.

Pittaway L, M Robertson, K Munir, D Denyer and A Neely (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(3/4), 137-168.

Porter ME. 1980. Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors New York: Free Press.

Pullen A, PC De Weerd-Nederhof, AJ Groen and OaM Fisscher (2012). SME network characteristics vs. product innovativeness: How to achieve high innovation performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 130-146.

Reid LN and HJ Rotfeld (1976). Toward an associative model of advertising creativity. Journal of Advertising, 5(4), 24-29.

Roper S, C Hales, JR Bryson and J Love. (2009). Measuring sectoral innovation capability in nine areas of the UK economy:

Sasser SL and S Koslow (2008). Desperately seeking advertising creativity. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 5-19.

Saunila M and J Ukko (2012). A conceptual framework for the measurement of innovation capability and its effects. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(4)

Scott WE (1965). The creative individual. Academy of Management Journal, 8(3), 211-219.

Silvennoinen H and A Jantunen. (2012). Dynamic capabilities and innovation in magazine publishing industry, The XXIII ISPIM Conference: Barcelona.

Smith M, M Busi, P Ball and R Van Der Meer, pp. 655-676. (2008). Factors influencing an organisation's ability to manage innovation: a structured literature review and conceptual model. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(4), 655-676.

Subramaniam M and MA Youndt (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463.

Teece DJ (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprice performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319-1350.

Teece DJ, G Pisano and A Shuen (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Tidd J and J Bessant. 2009. Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organisational change. Chichester: Wiley & Sons Ltd.

UNCTAD. (2010). Creative Economy Report 2010; the challenges of assessing the creative economy: towards Informed Policy-making. United Nations: Geneva.

West J and M Bogers (2013). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

Wolfe RA (1994). Organizational innovation: review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405-431.

Woodman RW, JE Sawyer and RW Griffin (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.

Zahra SA and G George (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185-203.