VARIABLES DASOMÉTRICAS

The cultural production process is more complex in museum organizations when compared to the manufacturing sector, or even to other cultural organizations. This complexity is embodied in both production inputs and value creation modes.

As far as production input is concerned, scholars regard museums as labour and knowledge- intensive organizations (Friedman 1994; Järvenpää & Mäki 2002). We think that labour and knowledge are two sides of the same coin. Labor is the purveyor of knowledge; knowledge embodies the capacity for learning and production of labourers. From a resource-based view, museum’s production relies on a larger amount of labor accompanied by other production

essentials such as money and technology. From knowledge-based view, knowledge is the major input in museum production (Grant 1996), wherein symbolic knowledge constitutes a large proportion of the knowledge stock in museum organizations whilst analytical and synthetic knowledge represents a smaller proportion but is still necessary for cultural production as well, as has been evidenced in figure 6.

The innovation process differs greatly among various industries and sectors whose innovation activities are based on specific knowledge bases (Asheim & Gertler 2005). On the basis of the classification of analytical and synthetic knowledge (Asheim & Coenen 2005), Asheim et al. (2007) expanded this dichotomy by adding the symbolic knowledge base, equivalent to “the creation of meaning and desire, as well as in the aesthetic attributes of products, producing designs, images, and symbols, and in the economic use of such forms of cultural artifacts” (Asheim & Hansen 2009). To be precise, museums are symbolic knowledge-intensive organizations, whose cultural meaning does not only originate from certain historical, artistic or scientific value that the original objects of museum collection contain, but is also created by the interpretation that how museum staff define specific meaning to an object as well as by the translation from defined meaning of objects to understood meaning by audience during the interaction of visitors with exhibits themselves, and with guides and educators in the museum (Kéfi & Pallud 2011). This is because “symbolic knowledge is characterized by a distinctive tacit component and is usually highly context-specific” (Asheim & Hansen 2009). As a result, the creation and diffusion of symbolic knowledge is reliant on informal and interpersonal (face-to-face) interaction in the professional community.

Analytical and synthetic knowledge is different from symbolic knowledge on account of their scientific and engineering attributes. As table 7 shows, analytical knowledge is scientific knowledge that explains the natural world, and that comes from theoretical studies of universities and research teams; therefore, it is highly codified and universal. Synthetic knowledge is engineering-related knowledge that applies to, or combines with existing knowledge in new ways, which often results from applied studies aimed at problem-solving through interactive learning with supplier and customers; and hence, it is partially

codified and strongly tacit. In the museum context, analytical and synthetic bases of knowledge stock are relatively scarce. Analytical knowledge is demanded mainly by those specific museums relating to science and technology. For example, many natural science museums require that their staff should have a biology background. Synthetic knowledge is intensive in the restoration and conservation departments of museums. Heritage restoration and conservation require museums to seek and apply existing knowledge and techniques in new ways whenever possible so as to enable the recovery and maintainance of the original status of heritage as well as to reduce the risk of damage to heritage pieces owing to inadequate storage or exhibition. In many circumstances, it is necessary to incorporate symbolic knowledge in the restoration of artworks when symbolic meaning and cultural value that artworks contain should be considered (De-Miguel-molina et al. 2013).

Table 7 The comparison of three bases of knowledge

Analytical knowledge (Science Based) Synthetic knowledge (Engineering Based) Symbolic knowledge (Arts Based) Developing new knowledge

about natural systems by applying scientific laws; know why

Applying or combining existing knowledge in new ways; know how

Creating meaning, desire, aesthetic qualities, affect, intangibles, symbols, images; know who Scientific knowledge,

models, deductive Problem solving, inductive, custom production

Creative process Collaboration within and

between research units Interactive learning with customers and suppliers Learning by doing, in studio, project teams Strong codified knowledge

content, highly abstract, universal

Partially codified knowledge, strong tacit component, more context specific

Importance of

interpretation, creativity, cultural knowledge, sign values, implies strong context specificity Meaning relatively constant

between places Meaning varies substantially between places

Meaning highly variable between place, class, and gender

Drug development Mechanical engineering Cultural production, design, brand

The scarcity of analytical and synthetic knowledge doesn't imply the rejection of science and technology by museum organizations. On the contrary, today’s museums incorporate technology, particularly ICTs, to a large extent, in their day-by-day works (vom Lehn 2005; Ioannidis, Toli, et al. 2014; Karp 2004; De-Miguel-Molina, De-Miguel-Molina, et al. 2014). The exploitation of ICTs also creates more opportunities for museums to innovate by taking advantage of technological advances (Bakhshi & Throsby 2010; Costa Barbosa 2013). But the limited analytical and synthetic bases of knowledge employed by museums reveals that such technologies are seldom developed through internal R&D by museums and, instead, they are mostly imported from other industries and sectors through external sourcing, which requires museums to participate in interactive networks and collaboration with their suppliers. Furthermore, many studies focus on technological innovation as the unit of their studies (Camarero & Garrido 2008; Camarero et al. 2011; Camarero & Garrido 2012; Camarero et al. 2015), but little concern has been given to the extent to which museums innovate by the utilization of ICTs. The report How Arts and Cultural Organizations in

England Use Technology (Digital R&D Fund for the Arts 2013) disclosed that

museums were less engaged with digital technologies compared to other art and cultural organizations. This suggests that technological innovation in museums by the use of external technology might be overestimated.

Proposition 1: the more a museum, or a department in a museum,

utilizes symbolic knowledge inputs, the more tacit, implicit and local knowledge flow they involve, the more extensively their employees engage in close and intensive interaction with other actors. The more a museum, or a department in a museum, use analytical knowledge inputs, the more codified, explicit and global knowledge flows they embrace, the more extensively their employees focus on internal R&D activities or collaborate with universities or research institutions.

As far as the value creation process is concerned, museums are characterized by dual properties – on the one hand, a museum is a productive unit (Johnson & Thomas 1998) that produces manufactured products by which consumers can construct distinctive forms of individuality, self-affirmation and

social display (Scott 2004); on the other hand, a museum is a public experience institution (Sundbo 2009) that supplies experience consumption concentrating on entertainment, edification and information (Scott 2004).

As productive units, museums produce by means of transforming inputs into outputs. Museum production relies on a wide range of inputs, including human capital (e.g. general, speciliazed, auxiliary and voluntary staff etc.), financing capital (e.g. funding and revenues etc.), knowledge (e.g. museolgical discourse), and technology as well as the necessary infraestructure for production (e.g. building, equipment, installation and collection objects etc.). Here we delimit outputs of production to tangible outcomes of a museum’s functional activities, such as digitized imagery, exhibitions, educational programes, catalogues, scientific articles, and so on. Each has its own in-use value; but their first value is “communication” as cultural products (Bilton & Leary 2002). Thus it can be seen that production is the crucial phrase of the creation of both functional value and “communication value” in cultural products and services.

As experience institutions, museums supply the public with intangible outputs, i.e. experience. According to Sundbo (2009), experience is an intangible and immaterial service sold on the market, or produced and provided freely by the public sector. Experience is co-produced by consumers through their involvement in the process of consumption and thus, it is characterized by its “ephemeral” nature and “co-terminality” of production and consumption (Hauknes 1998). The experience takes place in the mind (Sundbo 2009); therefore, it is mental consumption. In the museum context, experience is mostly embodied by intangible services 1 _{such as visiting exhibitions, joining} educational events, museum shops and catering services, both online and on site. For example, an exhibiton is a cultural product 2_{, but visiting the exhibition is an}

1 _{Experience can be seen as a particular form of service. Although scholars distinguish}

experience from service by emphasizing its peculiarities in terms of supply domination, consumption sites and technology density (Pine & Gilmore 1999; Sundbo 2009), we tend to focus on the common characteristics of experience and service and view them as two sides of the one thing – service is discussed from the side of producers, and experience from the side of consumers.

experience consumption because the process of visiting usually is a “mental journey”, reaping new knowledge or simple spiritual pleasure. Therefore, the utility of experience is often evaluated at the individual level, depending on whether his or her needs were met or not. This requires suppliers of experience, i.e. museums, to offer different services to different types of visitor, such as a peaceful environment to appreciate exhibits, extra information to understand the exhibition’s background, opportunities for interaction to make visiting enjoyable, or easy access to exhibition sourvenirs, and so on. In sum, the utility of experience is a function of the quality (not quantity) of experience, which is linked to value-adding services that the public service department can offer by targeting different social groups.

Production and experience reflect different components of cultural production; they are not of conflict but are two sides of the museum. Production and experience can be seen as two functions of museums, whose boundaries are more or less embodied by different functional activities in the museum organization. Conservation, exhibition, research and education are functional activities relating to production, whilst communication and public service are associated with experience. Production and experience have different implications for innovation as well. If innovation in production is more or less similar to that in manufacturing, innovation in experience is, in contrast, quite different in some aspects. According to Sundbo (2009), innovation processes in experiences are mostly based on quick ideas and employee and customer involvement and based on customer-oriented problem-solving rather than R&D or curator-oriented new product development. The increasing importance of experiences also may influence the process of innovation in production. A market orientation strategy encourages museums to transform conventional curator- oriented production to visitor-oriented production (Camarero & Garrido 2012), thus strengthening the vital role of user-producer interaction in fostering innovation in cultural production.

Proposition 2: In museum organizations, the production function is

embedded in the restoration, conservation, research, exhibition and education domains; the experience function is embedded in the

communication and public service domains.