EDITORIAL
1
Editorial
I
n this first issue of the 17th volume of Creativity and Innovation Management, quite diverge...
106 downloads
481 Views
757KB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
EDITORIAL
1
Editorial
I
n this first issue of the 17th volume of Creativity and Innovation Management, quite divergent perspectives on creativity and innovation management are represented in all eight articles. In addition to these both theoretically and practically relevant and inspiring contributions, we intend to support you by supplying information on events from within our CIM community as well as from related networks. With respect to our CIM community, we wish to further strengthen this community by the 2nd Creativity and Innovation Management Community meeting to be held in Buffalo, 28–30 May 2008. This community meeting on Creative Leadership is hosted by Gerard Puccio and his colleagues. We, together with our founding editors Tudor Rickards and Susan Moger, hope to meet many of you in Buffalo. You will find the program of that event on our website. The first six articles of this first 2008 issue are not specifically clustered. The last two articles are brought together by our guest editors and members of the editorial board, Ming-Huei Chen and Geir Kaufmann. These articles are presented as a mini special, based on presentations from the 2006 R&D Management conference on Creativity and R&D, held in Taiwan. Iván Orosa Paleo and Nachoem Wijnberg start this issue by formulating an important question in the field of creativity and innovation management: ‘How to understand and measure the output innovativeness of an organization?’ The authors characterize their contribution as a theoretical exploration, illustrated by a particular case study concerning the Noorderslag Festival, one of the betterestablished popular music festivals in the Dutch music industry. In their theoretical exploration and methodology two indicators of innovativeness are constructed: the ‘referent innovativeness index’ and the ‘classification innovativeness index’. A second contribution is about ‘Innovation intermediaries: why internet marketplaces for technology have not yet met the expectations’ by Ulrich Lichtenthaler and Holger Ernst. The authors interviewed intellectual property and technology managers in 25 medium-sized and large industrial companies, who represent the potential licensees and licensors in the internet © 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
exchanges. The results of this research show relatively limited success rates of internet marketplaces regarding the number of technology transactions. Jan Kratzer and Christopher Lettl report in their contribution an empirical study among children on ‘a social network perspective of lead users and creativity’. This study, guided by lead user theory, creativity research, and network theory, investigates 16 classes of children examining the relationship between the children’s social networks and their resulting creativity and lead userness. The main result is that children who are positioned as bridging links between different groups in social networks reveal both a high degree of lead userness and a high level of creativity. The fourth article ‘Creative potential and practised creativity: identifying untapped creativity in organizations’ by Trudy DiLiello and Jeffery Houghton concerns the construct validity of ‘creativity potential’ (i.e. creative capacity, skills and abilities that the individual possesses) and ‘practised creativity’ (i.e. perceived opportunity to utilize creativity skills and abilities on the job). Data for this study were collected within one strategic command of the US Department of Defense, utilizing a web-based survey. The results suggest that by cultivating environments that support creativity, modern organizations may be able to tap into heretofore idle creative potential. Alexander Styhre and Michael Eriksson report insights from a Swedish project, Artists in Residence (AIRIS), wherein artists (musicians, painters, actors, dancers and choreographers) collaborated with a regular company, with the aim of helping the co-workers think in new and creative terms. Although the effects were limited, the project shows that there is a great potential in bringing artists into industry. The sixth contribution ‘Exploring the effect of cognitive biases on customer support services’ is written by Heiko Gebauer, Regine Krempl and Elgar Fleisch. These authors argue that product-oriented firms on the one hand have a growing interest in extending and innovating their customer support service, and on the other hand experience a lot of difficulties in realizing this successfully. In this article four cognitive biases of managers are elaborated
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00472.x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
2
through 12 mini-cases and 8 in-depth cases: disbelief in the financial potential, risk aversion, tendency to set over-ambitious objectives, and fundamental attribution error. The R&D Management Conference Taiwan was held during 8–11 November 2006, and was sponsored by Creativity and Innovation Management. Our editorial board members Ming-Huei Chen and Geir Kaufmann, inspired by the discussions and papers presented at the event, wrote up a critical review on Employee’s Creativity and R&D for CIM, which also serves as a theoretical introduction to the ‘practitioner’s insight’ presented in Taiwan by Steve Boehlke, included in this mini special. Boehlke’s article is entitled ‘The politics of creativity: Four domains for inquiry and action by leaders in R&D’. He takes a practitioner’s view to examine the politics in facilitating creativity in an organization based on a so-called ‘under the radar’ workshop which includes more than 200 leaders, managers of scientists and engineers in R&D over the past four years. Four domains of action were identified to motivate professionals in R&D fields, namely (1) pacing productivity, (2) learning from failure, (3) managing connections, and (4) paying the price. This paper makes a relevant contribution for practitioners to stimulate creativity in R&D fields. After the mini special, Olaf Fisscher reviews the book Creative Leadership, Skills that drive Change, recently written by Gerard Puccio, Mary Murdock and Marie Mance. The title of this book fits coincidentally very well with the title ‘Creative Leadership’ of the CIM com-
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
munity meeting as mentioned above. Lisete Barlach reviews the new edition of the book Cultures of Creativity, edited by Ulf Larsson, containing an overview and analysis of the creativity of Nobel Prize laureates. An honourable event we would like to draw your attention to regards the Leermeester Award, recently received by Jan Buijs. To underline the contribution of Jan Buijs to the field of creativity and innovation management, we offer free access to three of the articles he published in CIM. As usual, at the end of the issue you may find current calls for papers. This issue includes invitations to participate and contribute to the Workshop on Creative Leadership, Buffalo, USA, 28–30 May 2008. In addition, calls for other conferences are included as well. As already mentioned in the editorial of the previous issue, Klaasjan Visscher has joined the editorial team. Klaasjan is a lecturer and researcher in the field of organization studies, design methodology and innovation management. He works at the University of Twente and is a close colleague of Olaf, Petra, and Jeannette. Before joining the editorial team, he has been an advisor and regular reviewer for CIM. We wish you a good reading of this issue, and, we hope to meet you in Buffalo! January 2008 Olaf Fisscher Petra de Weerd-Nederhof Klaasjan Visscher
© 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
ORGANIZATIONAL OUTPUT INNOVATIVENESS
3
Organizational Output Innovativeness: A Theoretical Exploration, Illustrated by a Case of a Popular Music Festival Iván Orosa Paleo and Nachoem M. Wijnberg Different interpretations of innovation and innovativeness lead to different approaches and different methods to measure organizational output innovativeness. Two indicators of innovativeness are derived from two divergent approaches: the Referent Innovativeness Index and the Classification Innovativeness Index. The article uses the case of the popular music festival to discuss how these indexes can be operationalized and calculated, as well as to outline the implications of the differences between the methods.
Introduction
I
s it possible to say that one organization is more innovative than another? Or that an organization has become more innovative than it was five years earlier? This study analyses the theory on which such statements could be based and proposes ways to make the actual measurements. The innovativeness of an organization usually refers to the innovative performance of an organization as a whole in a particular time period, usually a year, and usually with regard to its output of goods and services. As will be discussed below, although it is also possible to speak about the innovative performance of an organization with regard to how innovative its processes and possibly organizational structure is, the focus of this paper will be on innovative output. To stress this point we will be using the term ‘organizational output innovativeness’ to denote precisely what we are discussing. Arguments highlighting the innovative performance of organizations are especially significant for organizations in industries where being perceived as innovative has become an important and sometimes dominant determinant of the value of products and producers (Wijnberg & Gemser, 2000). Notwithstanding this interest in organizational innovativeness with respect to output, the concept has rarely been given systematic attention. The main © 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
purpose of this paper is to show how different ways to understand innovation lead to different ways to understand organizational output innovativeness. These ways range from focusing on the extent of the novelty to the focal organization and competitive actors (e.g., Kleinschmidt & Cooper, 1991), to looking at changes in existing classification systems, directly or indirectly brought about by individual innovations (e.g., Wijnberg, 2004), We will explore how these different ways can be operationalized to measure organizational output innovativeness in accordance with particular theoretical perspectives. We will illustrate our proposals for the construction and operationalization of indices of innovativeness by looking at one particular case, that of a popular music festival, considered as an organization producing an event consisting of a series of musical performances (Orosa Paleo & Wijnberg, 2006). The product or output of the festival can be described as the line-up or programme of the festival in a particular year, containing many different artists. The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we review the literature on artistic innovation, in both the high art and the popular realms. Second, we explore the economic and organizational science literature, regarding different conceptualizations of innovativeness, to show how different ways of understanding product innovation and innovativeness – in the
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00463.x
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
4
sense of the importance of an innovation – can result in different ways of understanding innovativeness. Third, we will present the data and methodology that will be used in our empirical analysis. Fourth, the empirical results will be presented. Finally, conclusions will round off the paper.
Innovativeness and Innovation The concept of innovativeness has been used in two rather different ways: to describe an innovation and to describe an organization. On the one hand, it denotes the magnitude or importance of the innovation (Kleinschmidt & Cooper, 1991; Garcia & Calantone, 2001; Brockman & Morgan, 2003). On the other hand, it has also been used to describe an organization’s capacity to innovate (Woodside, 2004; Hurley, Hult & Knight, 2005), and thus a precursor to innovative performance. In this sense, innovativeness is treated as a cultural precursor that provides the social capital to facilitate innovative behaviour, and subsequently considered as a central aspect to understanding how to create innovative and adaptive organizations (Hurley, Hult & Knight, 2005). Innovativeness relates to a series of individual and group level properties that are characteristics of individual and group idea generation, learning, creativity and change. In this vein, innovativeness reflects the potential of organizations to produce innovative products: the extent to which the organizational structure of a firm could influence its capacity to release an innovative product into the market. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this paper is to look at the aggregate measure of the innovative performance of an organization in a given period, which we indicate by the term organizational output innovativeness. To do so we have to return to the first meaning of the term innovativeness, the importance of an innovation. All authors agree on at least one point: innovation implies novelty (Schumpeter, 1942; Daneels & Kleinschmidt, 2001; Garcia & Calantone, 2001; Wijnberg, 2004). The degree of innovativeness of a particular innovation has to do with how new it is, in an ex post sense. However, the consensus stops there, before answering the question, which is often not even asked explicitly: new to whom? Precisely by asking this question, it is possible to distinguish several different approaches to the determination of the importance of innovation. We have chosen to focus on two of them. According to the first, novelty of a product is determined by the extent to which it is new to larger groups of competitors, starting
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
with the focal firm itself (Kleinschmidt & Cooper, 1991). Subsequently, product innovations can be classified according to their novelty-to-the-firm, novelty-to-the-industry and novelty-to-the-world, and deemed as highly innovative, moderately innovative and ‘low’ innovative. In a survey performed by Kleinknecht, Reijnen and Verweij (1990), firms were asked to self-evaluate the innovations they had performed on a scale ranging from ‘new to the firm’, along ‘new for the Dutch industry’, to ‘new for the world’. In their analysis of art organizations, Castañer and Campos (2002) argue along similar lines with regard to one dimension of product innovativeness, namely the referent, which can be self (the focal organization’s own past), or local (all other organizations in the local field, usually the country) or cosmopolitan (all other organizations in the field around the world). In all these cases, the importance of a product innovation depends on the size of the group of competitors – ranging from the focal firm itself to the whole world – to which the product is new. An alternative approach can be distinguished in which the focus is not on the innovation’s novelty to the referent but on the innovation’s impact on the competitive environment. Studies in which different dimensions are defined, e.g., production and market (Abernathy & Clark, 1985) or technological and commercial (Garcia & Calantone, 2001; Daneels & Kleinschmidt, 2001), can be seen as steps towards such an approach. Something which is new, as seen from different perspectives at the same time, scores highest on innovativeness. This approach can be extended not only by taking into account different constituencies and dimensions, but also by attempting to consider the economic environment into which the innovation is introduced as a whole. The selection systems framework (Debackere et al., 1994; Wijnberg & Gemser, 2000; Wijnberg, 2004; Priem, 2007) describes competition in terms of interactions in a market between producers, consumers and selectors. The selectors, who may be consumers, producers or experts, ultimately determine the value of products and the outcome of the competitive processes in the industry/market dominated by a particular selection system. Something is more innovative if it is recognized as more innovative to the relevant selectors in the relevant selection system. This means that each of the dimensions, as distinguished for instance by Garcia and Calantone (2001), can be significant, but only when it is crucial for the relevant selectors. If the selectors are consumers, the dimension of new to market will be most important; if the selectors are technical experts the dimension of new from a technological © 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
ORGANIZATIONAL OUTPUT INNOVATIVENESS
perspective will be dominant. The more innovative a product is, the greater will be its impact on competitive dynamics, precisely because of the innovation’s impact on the decision-making processes of selectors. Competitive dynamics are hard to measure directly. However, it can be argued that the classification scheme used by relevant selectors to categorize products in the industry will reflect the preferences of selectors, and therefore that the competitive dynamics can be observed by studying classificatory dynamics. Classification systems serve as vehicles to categorize innovations by indicating differences and similarities with existing categories, facilitating the cognition of new products and allowing its comparison with existing and/or new, competing products (DiMaggio, 1987). Thus, innovations can be detected by looking at the emergence of new categories or genres (see, for instance, Mezias & Mezias, 2000). If a product can be easily classified in a longstanding and stable category, it will not be considered to be very innovative. In contrast, if a product is different enough to be among the first to occupy new (sub)categories or even result in the creation of a new (sub)category, it will score high on innovativeness. Ultimately, highly innovative products could potentially bring about changes in the very composition of the selection system itself, as changes will occur not only in the extant classification scheme, but also, importantly, in the set of relevant selectors in the industry (Wijnberg, 2004). Summarizing, the preceding discussion of product innovation and how to determine the importance of the innovation provides the necessary foundation for the construction of two different measures of organizational output innovativeness. On the one hand, the extent of novelty of products can be determined by finding out whether the product is new to wider cycles of referents: the focal firm, the industry, etc. On the other hand, it can be measured by assessing the impact on competitive dynamics as evidenced by how the products are classified and their resulting impact on the dynamics of the classification system. In the empirical part of this study, we operationalize both approaches and compare the results. Before we do so, we will take a brief look at the music industry and music festivals, the subject of the case to which we will apply the operationalizations.
5
major source of transformation of market structures and competitive dynamics. Hirsch (1972) and Caves (2000) stress the high degree of uncertainty regarding the evaluation of the quality of musical products, resulting in an enhanced importance of certification processes and demand–supply intermediation. Additionally, the music industry is a field in which being considered innovative is often a powerful sales argument for competing products or producers (Wijnberg & Gemser, 2000). This is particularly true in the highly competitive music festival sub-industry: innovativeness of participating artists is an important criterion to a festival’s line-up programmers, who aim to attract the attention of audiences and of other incumbents in the industry. The perceived innovativeness of music festivals can boost their credibility as certifiers of the innovativeness of artists – the fact that artist A performed at the highly innovative festival X signals that artist A probably is interestingly innovative him/herself (Orosa Paleo & Wijnberg, 2006). The case of the music festival is also suitable to an empirical study of innovativeness due to data availability. The line-ups of festivals are usually well documented and information about the career history of the artists appearing in that line-up is relatively easy to obtain. Also, most industries have explicit product classifications – think of cars classified as saloons, hatchbacks, etc., as well as newer categories such as sport utility vehicles – but there are few industries in which the dynamics of classification processes are as visible as in the music industry. Audiences, producers and artists use, produce and reproduce musical genres in order to confer musical products with meaning (DiMaggio, 1987). New genres are created when new products do not conform to pre-existing categories. Stylistic differences between new products and between new and existing products will therefore be expressed in the creation of new categories in generic classification systems, and the study of the evolution of the latter will allow us to draw conclusions about the innovative performance of producers of new musical products. The particular case study presented in this paper concerns the Noorderslag Festival, one of the better established popular music festivals in the Dutch music industry, which takes place every year in Groningen, the largest city in the north-east of the Netherlands.
The Music Industry and the Music Festival
Methodology
The music industry is a conspicuous example of an industry in which stylistic innovation is a
As we discussed above, there are two main theoretical approaches to innovativeness of a
© 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
6
new product, regarding the different realms in which the group of referents to which the product is new operate, or regarding changes in competitive dynamics occasioned by the new product and evidenced by how the product is classified relative to the dynamics of the classification system. To obtain a measure of organizational output innovativeness the individual product measures need to be aggregated. Thus, we will construct two aggregate measures of organizational innovativeness: the first, the Referent Innovativeness Index, will represent how new the products are to the organization and its competitors. The second, the Classification Innovativeness Index, will represent the novelty of the product as reflected in how the artists are classified relative to the dynamics of the classification system of the music industry. In respect to both indexes, we will restrict ourselves to the Dutch context, not looking at the novelty of artists to festivals outside the Netherlands or their classificatory status outside the Netherlands. There are two very simple reasons for this restriction: because all the artists performing at Noorderslag are Dutch, the overwhelming majority of them will be new to the world outside the Netherlands, which makes the meaning of innovativeness in that sense rather empty; second, most of these Dutch artists will not have yet found their way to classification databases outside the Netherlands.
Databases We made use of four main databases, which we developed into two intermediate datasets, one concerning festival appearances and generic classification of artists participating in Noorderslag, and another one concerning genre dynamics in the Dutch Top 40. The first main database is that provided by the Nationaal Pop Instituut (henceforth NPI), in which data on the age of artists, generic categorization and record releases can be found. The second database is festivalinfo.nl, a comprehensive Internet resource with up-to-date information concerning Dutch artists’ performance schedule, as well as performance history records. The third database was provided by the Stichting Nederlandse Top 40, and contains information about Dutch Top 40 charts in the period 1965–2003. The fourth one is the complete list of the Noorderslag Festival line-ups through its 20-year existence (http://www.noorderslag.nl). The intermediate datasets we used to make the calculations are: 1. performance and genre data on all the bands performing at Noorderslag in the years under consideration;
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
2. data covering the rise and fall of (selected) subgenres in the Dutch Top 40. We compiled complete information for a total of 45 artists/groups out of 52 for the 2004 festival, and 40 artists/groups out of 46 for the 2005 festival. The time-frame of the study thus consists of these 2 years although some of the data necessary for the construction of the indices date from 40 years ago.
Indexes Referent Innovativeness Index The first approach asks for a measurement of the novelty of the artists included in the line-up of the festival in one particular year. We considered novelty of products with respect to two spheres of agents: the organization itself and the Dutch festival industry. So we have two attributes per product: • Novelty to the organization (hereafter NO) reflects the extent to which artists have already participated in the Noorderslag festival in previous years. The data come from http://www.noorderslag.nl. • Novelty to the industry (hereafter NI) reflects the extent to which artists have had previous exposure in any of the music festivals organized in the Netherlands. Data on participation of artists in Dutch festivals was obtained from festivalinfo.nl. The latter comes with an important limitation, since records only start in 1999. Therefore, we added information from other websites which provide information on popular artists and music festivals in the Netherlands: musicfrom.nl, gomagazine.nl and djguide.nl. However, the information in these websites is not always complete and it is therefore possible that previous performances before 1999 have escaped our notice, skewing the results towards a higher degree of innovativeness. For each of the attributes, the scores assigned to each individual artist/group range from 0 to 3. If an artist had never performed in Noorderslag before, he/she/they were assigned a NO of 3; if they had never performed in a Dutch festival before, the NI was 3. If they had performed at Noorderslag or in Dutch festivals one year before the year under consideration, NO and/or NI became 2. Two years before gave a score of 1. Three years or even longer before gave a score of 0 on the two attributes of innovativeness. From the scores on these attributes we calculated the Referent Innovativeness Index © 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
ORGANIZATIONAL OUTPUT INNOVATIVENESS
(hereafter RII): a non-negative index, the value of which ranges from 0 to 1. The numerator is the sum of the scores on novelty, NI and NO, for each artist. The denominator would express the maximum score that could be obtained (which, because maximum scores for each artist on each attribute is 3, see below, the total maximum is six multiplied with the number of artists), given the number of artists in the line-up of that year, thus suggesting that the innovativeness of a festival in year t is a proportion of the total possible innovativeness, which has a maximum of 1. Formally, the RII can be expressed as: N
N
∑ NI + ∑ NO n t
RII (t ) =
n =1
n t
n =1
6N
Classification Innovativeness Index The second approach leads us to look at how the artists in the line-up can be classified and how that relates to the dynamics of the classification system in the Dutch music industry. First, we assigned each artist in the line-up to a particular genre, using the NPI database. Where the artist was assigned multiple genres by NPI, we looked only at the youngest one. Second, we determined the age of each (sub)genre. The age of individual subgenres is defined as the difference between the year of the current festival and the start date of the (sub)genre. The start date of a (sub)genre was determined by looking at the historical descriptions of genres in the NPI database, typically including a list of ‘important recordings’, and taking the year of the release of the first important recording. If no such list was given, we determined the years of release of the two oldest records by artists ascribed to the genre: the simple average of these two figures would yield the start date. Third, we scored each of the artists – again ranging from 0 to 3 – on the basis of the age of the subgenre(s), yielding a measure of innovativeness per artist, the age of genre (hereafter AG). In contrast to our approach in respect to the RII, we did not simply assign scores of 3 to artists in genres new to the year of performance, 2 to artists in genres 1 year old, etc. Because there is a significant lag before new genres are recognized as such, we first conducted a preliminary analysis of genre dynamics in the Netherlands. To do so, we used the second intermediate database which consisted of genre identifications, using not just information from the NPI, but also the internet databases of Allmusic and Muziekweb, of all the artists that figured in the Dutch Top 40 in the period 1963–2003. Of the 248 subgenres that © 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
7
appear in the yearly Top 40 in the period considered, we discarded those subgenres with less than five overall records in the period considered or that did not have at least one year in which they figured in the chart at least four times in one year. It does not make sense to calculate average genre dynamics for all subgenres, because the paucity of data points for most subgenres will fail to generate meaningful patterns (see also Christianen, 1995). The resulting sample of genres was 48. Then, we constructed intervals considering four moments in the evolution of a subgenre: the entry date in the Top 40 database, the year in which the number of hits was equal to or greater than 4, the year in which the maximum number of hits was attained, and the exit date from the Top 40. The exit date was calculated in two ways. Those genres active in 2003 were considered to exit the charts one year later, i.e., 2004. The remaining genres were considered inactive after three consecutive years with no hit records. The next step involves the calculation of the averages for each of the following distances: • entry date – first year in which n ⱖ 4 (n = hits by artists of subgenre i) • year of maximum n – exit date • exit date – entry date The results were respectively 5, 10 and 18 years (see Table 1). On the basis of this preliminary analysis, we assigned the score of 3 to artists in subgenres between 0 and 5 years old, 2 to artists in subgenres between 5 and 10 years old, 1 to artists in subgenres between 10 and 18 years old, and 0 to artists in subgenres older than 18 years. After determining the AG scores for all the artists in the line-up, we calculated the Classification Innovativeness Index (hereafter CII) which is a non-negative index, ranging from 0 to 1. The numerator is the AG. Again, the denominator expresses the maximum score on aggregate innovativeness, thus suggesting that the innovativeness of a festival in period t is a proportion of the total possible innovativeness, the latter amounting to a maximum of one. N
∑ AG
N t
CII (t ) =
n =1
3N
Results Tables 2–4 show a descriptive analysis of the Noorderslag festival line-up for the years 2004 and 2005. Table 5 depicts the situation regarding subgenre composition of the line-up. The average age of subgenres displayed in the line-up was
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
8
Table 1. Score Interval Dimensions – 48 Subgenres from the Dutch Top 40 (1965–2003) Subgenre Adult Alt. Pop Rock Adult Contemporary Album Rock Alternative Pop Rock Am Pop Arena Rock Baroque Pop Blues Rock British Blues British Invasion British Psychedelia Bubblegum Club Dance Dance Pop Deep Soul Disco Eurodance Europop Folk Rock Fink Gabber Glam Rock Glitter Hard Rock Heavy Metal Hip Hop House Nederbeat New Wave Pop Pop Rap Pop Rock Prog. Rock Art Rock Psychedelic Psychedelic Pop Rave Reggae Pop Rock & Roll Singer Songwriter Soft Rock Soul Southern Soul Sunshine Pop Synthpop Techno Teen Pop Urban Vocal Pop
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
t0
t1
ⱖ4
Maximum
ⱖ 4–t0
t1–max
t1–t0
1978 1971 1967 1979 1969 1965 1966 1965 1965 1965 1967 1966 1977 1974 1968 1969 1975 1970 1965 1974 1995 1971 1971 1965 1968 1980 1978 1965 1978 1965 1988 1965 1967 1966 1966 1990 1970 1965 1965 1966 1966 1968 1965 1971 1990 1988 1974 1965
2004 2004 1996 2004 1975 1995 1970 1974 1974 1975 1973 1977 2004 2004 1970 1995 2003 2000 1974 1987 1998 1980 1979 1995 2001 2004 2000 1972 1992 2001 1994 2004 1994 1976 1971 1996 1994 1994 1977 1993 1997 1970 1969 1989 1998 2004 2004 1981
1988 1978 1970 1988 1970 1979 1967 1965 1965 1965 1967 1970 1978 1983 1968 1974 1993 1975 1965 1984 1996 1974 1972 1965 1991 1991 1990 1966 1979 1965 1991 1965 1977 1967 1968 1992 1988 1965 1970 1970 1968 1968 1967 1984 1992 1999 1978 1973
1988 1986 1970 1988 1970 1979 1968 1965 1965 1965 1967 1972 1993 1986 1968 1978 1994 1994 1965 1984 1996 1974 1972 1975 1992 1991 1993 1966 1984 1966 1991 1984 1977 1967 1968 1992 1988 1965 1973 1978 1980 1968 1967 1984 1992 1999 1987 1973 Average
10 7 3 9 1 14 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 9 0 5 18 5 0 10 1 3 1 0 23 11 12 1 1 0 3 0 10 1 2 2 18 0 5 4 2 0 2 13 2 11 4 8 5
16 18 26 16 5 16 2 9 9 10 6 5 11 18 2 17 9 6 9 3 2 6 7 20 9 13 7 6 8 35 3 20 17 9 3 4 6 29 4 15 17 2 2 5 6 5 17 8 10
26 33 29 25 6 30 4 9 9 10 6 11 27 30 2 26 28 30 9 13 3 9 8 30 33 24 22 7 14 36 6 39 27 10 5 6 24 29 12 27 31 2 4 18 8 16 30 16 18
© 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
ORGANIZATIONAL OUTPUT INNOVATIVENESS
9
Table 2. Noorderslag Festival Line-up (2004) Artist name
Year
First appearance at nl festival
Age
Subgenre
Subgenre age
ADHD ADI-J Alamo Race Track Audiotransparent Bart Skils Basic One Benny Sings Di-rect DJ Chuckie Don Diablo Double Trouble Eleven Epica Gideon Green Hornet Husan Intwine K-liber Lawn League of XO Gentlemen Marike Jager Moss Oil Olabola Opgezwolle Peter Pan Speedrock RMXCRW SneakerFreak Solid Decay Soundtronics Stuurbaard Bakkebaard Suzanna Tasha’s World Terry Toner & Herr Arter This Beautiful Mess Tiedo Treble Voicst We vs Death Within Temptation Wonder Woost Wyatt Zea zZz
2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
2003 n/a 2001 2001 1995 1991 1999 1999 1993 2002 1996 2001 2002 n/a 1992 n/a 2001 1999 1997 2000 2003 1998 1997 2001 1997 1996 n/a 2003 2002 n/a 1996 1995 2000 2003 1997 2000 2003 1994 2000 1996 2001 2003 1996 1996 2000
1 n/a 3 3 9 13 5 5 11 2 8 3 2 n/a 12 n/a 3 5 7 4 1 6 7 3 7 8 n/a 1 2 n/a 8 9 4 1 7 4 1 10 4 8 3 1 8 8 4
Hiphop Drum ‘n Bass Alternative Alternative Electro Bubbling Lounge Rock DJ’s Bigbeat Hiphop Alternative Gothic Techno Garage-rock Bhangra Rock Bubbling Alternative Hiphop Singer/Songwriter Alternative Hardcore Funk Nederhop Hard Rock Drum ‘n’ Bass Unplugged Techno Bhangra Alternative Kaap Verdië Nu Soul Electro Alternative Rock Meidengroepen Alternative Post-rock Gothic Tekstdichters Alternative Alternative Alternative Psychedelica
22 7 16 16 12 16 5 42 15 7 22 16 12 12 23 12 42 16 16 22 42 16 22 32 22 22 7 12 12 12 16 7 2 12 16 42 36 16 6 12 17 16 16 16 39
© 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
10
Table 3. Noorderslag Festival Line-up (2005) Artist name
Year
First appearance at nl festival
Age
Ali B. & Band Asrai Autumn Beef Blues Brother Castro Brace Clark, Alain & Band Climax David Gilmour Girls DJ Dana DJ Nuno dos Santos DJ Promo Drillem Electro Côco Erik Vandenberge Face Tomorrow Gem Ghost Trucker ft. Roald van Oosten en Rick Elstgeest Harry Merry Intersection Kasba K-liber Lange Frans & Baas B feat. D-Men Lemonseven LPG Mala Vita Malkovich Marike Jager Mondo Leone Seymour Bits Smutfish Solo Spider Rico Textures THC The Flexican The Sheer The Strikes Vladimir Voicst
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
2000 1988 1995 1999 2001 1997 2003 2001 2002 1993 1993 1992 2003 1999 2002 1997 2003 2004
5 17 10 6 4 8 2 4 3 12 12 13 2 6 3 8 2 1
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
1996 1999 2001 1999 1997
9 6 4 6 8
Singer/Songwriter Marokko Marokko Bubbling Nederhop
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
2000 2002 2001 2000 2001 2004 1998 2004 2004 1997 2000 1995 n/a 2000 2004 n/a 1994
5 3 4 5 4 1 7 1 1 8 5 10 n/a 5 1 n/a 11
Pop Lo-Fi Reggae Hardcore Singer/Songwriter Singer/Songwriter House Americana Singer/Songwriter Garage-rock Nu Metal Hiphop DJ’s Britpop Bluesrock Alternative Alternative
18.2 years in the 2004 festival, rising up to 21.55 years in the 2005 festival. This is also reflected in the proportion of acts associated to subgenres younger than 18 years (the threshold of positive scoring for our CII): 31 acts (69 per
Volume 17
Number 1
2008
Subgenre
Nederhop Gothic Gothic Reggae Alternative R&B Funk Nederhop House Hardhouse Techhouse Gabber Electro Samba Unplugged Emo-core Alternative Alternative
cent) were labelled with a subgenre younger than 18 years in 2004, whereas this figure dropped to 22 acts (55 per cent) in 2005. Although the changes are not large from one festival to the next, both indexes of © 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
ORGANIZATIONAL OUTPUT INNOVATIVENESS
Table 4. Previous Exposure of Artists – Noorderslag (2004–2005) 2004
Composition
Number of genres Average genre age Number of genres