It is commonly accepted that today’s museums innovate through the use of computers and Information and Communication Technologies (Costa Barbosa 2013; Bakhshi & Throsby 2010). As a whole, the museum community really has greatly changed the way it works in terms of administrative tasks, in the restoration and conservation of collections, in exhibition technique, as well as in marketing through the adoption of Office Automation System, Collection Information Management System, polymer materials and X-ray detection technologies, Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR) technologies, Instantaneous messaging (IM) and Social media. Therefore, innovation through the adoption of existing techniques and technologies has become an important characteristic of museum innovation.
Moreover, museums innovate through research in the related arts and humanities fields. Research is one of the basic functions of a museum. An important mission of a museum is to expand the artistic and humanistic knowledge by investigating, exhibiting and promoting its collection of objects. This knowledge may embrace a wide range of disciplines, such as art, language, history, anthropology, archeology and museology, and so on, which, in turn, nourishes our cultural existence and inspire creative behavior, as well as innovative goods and services” (Bakhshi et al. 2008). As a result, this kind of innovation leads to significant change in aesthetics or meaning by its institutional context. However, many outputs of arts and humanities research like exhibitions, conferences and even movements are a “specific articulation of the pre-reflective, non-conceptual content of art”, which is not formal knowledge but invites “unfinished thinking” (Borgdorff 2011). Therefore, such kind of innovation is mostly “hidden” (Miles & Green 2008), and the significance of innovation can only be observed in the long term. A typical example is innovation in museology – the birth and adoption of new museology – that has greatly changed the social role of museums during the last half century.
Lastly, many innovative activities also are embodied in the changes of organizational structures in museums. Organizational innovation usually happens when the existing organizational structure of a museum cannot be
adapted to changes in external conditions. Large-scale organizational innovation occurring in the Russian state museums during the period of economic transition (Chekova 2004) is a typical example. These innovative activities involved broad adjustments in organizational settings, including the establishment of new departments, project-oriented multi-skilled teams, advisory councils, virtual management, museum franchising, as well as multi-organizational structure in the form of museum societies and foundations, which greatly improved efficiency and decision-making, generated revenues, and diversified museum activities. Moreover, some top-down reforms in the public sector also contribute to organizational innovation in the public museums. For instance, the introduction of Designated Manager’s System (DSM) in Japanese public museums can be seen as the consequence of a broad response of the New Public Management (NPM) initiated in the Japanese public sector.
Furthermore, the above cases also contain some important clues that may give rise to further probe into museum innovation. First of all, with regards to the type of innovation, it is clearly that museum innovation can be comprised of technological innovation, and innovation in arts and humanities research, and in organizational change. Most innovation studies that focus on museum organizations in relation to the use of technology neglect the non-technological dimension, such as cultural innovation and production. Considering that museums are cultural heritage institutions, innovation in cultural production should be regarded as important as technological innovation in the museum sector.
Second, regarding to the level of innovation, it is demonstrated that museum innovation occurs at multiple levels; it includes at least individual, organizational, and systematic levels. For example, innovation in new museology theory was firstly initiated by individual thinking of researches, and innovations in technology adoption and in organizational changes were mostly determined by the decision-making of museums at organizational level. But the success of innovation and its diffusion are greatly reliant on the interaction between individuals, museums, professional associations and the government, as well as the interplay of economic, social and institutional factors at the systemic level.
community. Adoption is not a simple imitation process, but a process of learning, assimilating, and re-innovating according to the particular needs of a museum. The case of computerization has showed that the simple introduction of technology hardware doesn't lead to technological innovation in museums, the development of software related to museological work is a necessary condition for the success of innovation; the divergent recognition and application of new museology in different regions also implies that the content and implications of artistic and humanistic innovation are transformed during the adoption process.
Fourth, organizational factors may influence a museum’s capacity for innovation. The cases show that innovations usually take place first in large museums in respect of technological innovation because of their relative advantage in terms of financial strength, techniques and skilled workforce that thet have over small museums. Inter-museum organizations (e.g. ICOM and Museum Computer Network), museum and enterprise partnership (e.g. Google Art Project) and governmental agenda (e.g. EU’s Europeana program, China’s National Survey of Movable Cultural Relics and Japan’s NPM movement) also play vital roles as facilitators in the introduction and disemination of innovation in the museum community, through financial support, collaborative R&D engagement, and by formulating standard, and so on.