museum_networks

8/3/2019 museum_networks

1/30

MUSEUM AND THEATRE NETWORKS IN

ITALY:DETERMINANTS AND TYPOLOGY

By Silvia Bagdadli

Working Paper N. 86/03

February 2003


2/30

MUSEUM AND THEATRE NETWORKS IN ITALY:

DETERMINANTS AND TYPOLOGY

bySilvia Bagdadli

Working Paper N. 86/03

February 2003


3/30

SDA Bocconi Research Division1

Museum and Theatre Networks in Italy:

Determinants and Typology

Silvia Bagdadli

Working paper

Bocconi University

Tel. 0039-02-5836.2629

[email protected]

Abstract

This study is about cooperation among cultural organizations and specifically among

Italian museums and theatres. Thanks to a research carried out through multiple case

studies, we defined a typology of cultural networks, comparing museum and theatrical

networks. In order to define a typology we refer to different organisational variables,

including: coordination mechanisms, size, centralisation and density. Then we studied

the determinants of cultural networks and again we compared museum and theatrical

networks. In order to understand the determinants we tested three different theories or

explanations: 1) efficiency; 2) process theory and institutional theory and 3) resource

complementarity. Results showed two very different forms of networks. The first one,

defined as vertical network, centralised, formalised, scarcely connected, often

motivated by surviving needs of each individual organisation and allowing members to

obtain cost advantages and this is in effect the main reason for aggregation. The second

one, the horizontal network, diffused only among theatres, motivated by the possibility

of improving the systems quality and of innovating and exchanging resources.

Keywords: networks; cultural organizations; museums; theatres; determinants;

typology.

JEL Codes: M19, Z11.


4/30


1. Introduction (1)

It seems ridiculous that if you have a dozen organisations, each producing a small

number of events every year, you also have a dozen executive directors, a dozen office

leases, a dozen marketing department. None of the organisations can really afford to

engage as much staff as it needs. These words belong to Eugene Carr, Director of the

American Symphony Orchestra (ASO) in San Francisco (Scheff and Kotler, 1996: 6). If

this is true for an organisation of such dimension and prestige, it will also certainly be

true for each of the about 2,000 Italian theatres (SIAE 1998), most of which located in

small urban areas. The same might be said for Italian museums: approximately 3,450,

excluding archaeological sites, most of which are of a small dimension and located not

only in the famous and large monumental cities (Florence, Venice or Rome) but

virtually in all towns (Bagdadli, 1997).

This concise picture, concerning two of the most important Italian cultural

sectors, allows us to introduce the theme of cooperation among cultural institutions

achieved through networks. The term network has come into vogue in describing

contemporary organisations, from large multinationals to small entrepreneurial firms,

from emerging industries such as entertainment or bio-technology to more traditional

industries. In this research we consider networks as modes of organising economic

activities through inter-firm coordination and cooperation. A network is defined as a set

of cooperative relations connecting autonomous entities (Powell and Smith Doerr,

1994).

This phenomenon has reached, during the last 20 years, a remarkable level of

empirical relevance in all economic sectors (Soda, 1998). In this work we aim atunderstanding if networks may represent a possible solution to some of the Italian

cultural sectors many problems and critical areas.

2. Research objectives and main propositions

Research on networks, also called inter-organisational relations (IORs) has

developed for years and has produced interesting and robust results in different


5/30


disciplinary areas. Previous research on cultural networks (Paulus, 1993; Bagdadli,

1995, 1997; Salvemini et al ,1999; Scheff and Kotler, 1996) has showed some important

results; but, as far as Italian cultural networks are concerned, more systematic research

is needed in order to understand if the network form has actually developed and, if so,

how and why it has developed.

The objective of the present research is twofold. First of all, given the scarcity of

specific research, the study has the preliminary purpose of understanding if and how the

network organisation is utilised in the cultural sector and, specifically, among Italian

museums and theatres. We will try, in this direction, to define a typology of cultural

networks, comparing museum and theatrical networks. In order to define a typology we

refer to different organisational variables, including: coordination mechanisms

(Grandori and Soda, 1995), size, centralisation and density.

The studys second objective is to understand the determinants of cultural

networks and to compare the determinants in the two sectors. In order to understand the

determinants we tested three different theories or explanations: 1) efficiency; 2) process

theory and institutional theory and 3) resource complementarity.

The research areas and the propositions formulated in this work derive from an

analysis of the theoretical and empirical literature on networks, and from specific

research on theatre and museum networks.

A recent research on 13 production theatres located in Milan (Salvemini et al.,

1999), undertaken with the purpose of investigating the potential for development of a

city network, allowed US to understand the specific characteristics of large production

theatres, to explain the complexities and rigidities that may prevent theatres from acting

as a system, and also to identify areas for potential cooperation. A case study research,Accademia Perduta Romagna Teatri (Bagdadli, 1995) provided an analysis of the

potential benefits generated by the network form, and a better understanding of the

complexities affecting Italian small and medium-sized provincial theatres.

As far as museums are concerned, a research carried on in France (Paulus, 1993), a

different one carried on in England (AA.VV., 2000) and some case studies concerning

museum networks previously analysed by the author of this work (Bagdadli 1995 and

1997) allowed the development of specific hypotheses in the museums field.


6/30


2.1 A typology of cultural networks

A first objective of this work is to define a typology of theatre networks, by utilising

the classification proposed by Grandori and Soda (1995) based on the coordination

mechanisms utilised. Based on such approach, networks may belong to three different

typologies: social networks, bureaucratic networks or proprietary networks.

Bureaucratic networks are those inter-firm coordination modes that are formalised

in exchange or associational contractual agreements (ibidem: 201). In general,

bureaucratic networks are developed for the purpose of managing information

complexity (Grandori, 1995). In the Italian cultural industry, considering the size and

relevance of public financing, one might expect a bureaucratic network to be more

frequently used in those cases where the adoption of a particular contractual form is

prescribed by law or anyway necessary to gain access to public funds. The bureaucratic

network, therefore, is a need imposed by the regulatory environment rather than a

reaction to information complexity.

When such conditions do not occur we hypothesise the existence of networks based

on pre-existing interpersonal and social relations, characterised by reciprocity,

information sharing and trust (Barney and Ouchi, 1985).

P1. Bureaucratic networks become necessary for cultural organisations when

such is a condition for access to public (often, government) financing, or when

this is imposed by specific legislation. In all other cases social-type networks,

scarcely formalised, will prevail.

Previous research in the performing art sector (Salvemini et al., 1999; Bagdadli,

1995; Scheff and Kotler, 1999) and in the cultural sector (museums, monuments andgalleries) (Bagdadli, 1997 and 2001) allowed the identification of two macro-areas for

potential cooperation: the artistic area and the administrative area. Within theatres, the

first one includes the planning of performance seasons, the selection of artists and all

decisions concerning the shows arrangement; within museums, it includes study and

research, the set up of inventories and catalogues, preservation and restoration, the

exhibition of the permanent collection, temporary exhibitions, and education. The

second one includes personnel administration, the management of the administrative


7/30


aspects associated with exhibitions and theatre performances, promotion,

communication and fund raising, distribution and hospitality and general services. The

above mentioned studies shown how theatres and museums may generally tend to avoid

cooperation when their artistic decisions and choices are in play. In Van de Vens

words, organisations do not coordinate for coordinations sake. Instead, organisation

strain to maintain their autonomy (Van de Ven, 1976: 28). This is particularly true

when the critical function is in play, the artistic function in our case.

In this research we hypothesise that organisations will externalise more

frequently to the network all those activities that are not related to the artistic function,

obviously provided the theatre or the museum does have an artistic director and an

operating structure.

P2. Cooperation will more frequently take place for those activities or services

which are not related to artistic decisions, provided the skills necessary to take

choices in the artistic area are available to the organisation.

We have, in addition, tried to characterise the network in terms of dimension

(number of nodes linked to the network), to identify the possible existence of central

agents making a distinction between centralised and parithetic networks, to measure

the intensity of the relations among nodes (connectivity) (Bavelas, 1951) and to

understand if there is a relation between the organisational form adopted and the type

of activities that are jointly managed (ibidem).

P3. Networks that provide services in areas where economies of scale are

possible (structured activities), and mainly in the administrative area, will be

more frequently associated with large dimensions, centralisation and low

connectivity. To the contrary, networks that are more innovation-oriented (non-structured activity) and whose aim is to stimulate cooperation in the artistic area

will more frequently be smaller, balanced and more intensely connected.

2.2 Network determinants: a comparison among different theories

A large part of the research on networks has investigated the reasons and

determinants that lead to the creation of networks. Different organisational theories have


8/30


formulated explanations that appear sometimes conflicting, sometimes complementary

(see Soda, 1998, chapter 4, for a complete review of such theories). For the purposes of

this research we have made a comparison among three principal categories, each of

them comprising one or more theoretical explanations. Our objective is to understand

whether a prevailing one exists, i.e. one capable of better explaining the phenomenon of

cooperation among theatres and museums, or if to the contrary all three explanations

are equally viable.

a) Economic efficiency

The first category explains the adoption of a network form on the basis of a rationale

related to economic and organisational efficiency. It has been developed, among various

authors, by Williamson (1975 and 1985), Teece (1980), Barney and Ouchi (1985),

Mariotti and Cainara (1986). The key parameter is organisational efficiency, in terms of

production costs as well as in terms of transaction costs.

The structural lack of resources in the sector, the weakness of economic results,

the lack of productivity improvements across centuries (Baumol and Baumol, 1993) and

the small dimension of many Italian cultural institutions often associated with the

absence of personnel with management skills bring to think that this explanation may

be the one most frequently applicable, especially for small institutions and in those

cases where a standardisation of activities is possible.

P4. Cooperation among cultural organisations is determined by the search for a

higher level of economic efficiency through economies of scale.

b) Process explanation

The theory oriented towards a process explanation of cooperation affirms that theadoption of a network form is the result of processes of isomorphism, natural selection

or mutual assistance based on organisational conditions such as similarity, reciprocity or

the pre-existence of social relations (Wholey and Huonker, 1993; Baum and Oliver,

1991). Similarity may concern various aspects: base values, product system,

governance, geographic proximity. This similarity generates, among organisations, a

fertile process for cooperation (Soda 1998). Based on the institutional theory (Zolber,

1986; DiMaggio, 1991; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Scott, 1995) companies more


9/30


frequently cooperate and take similar forms (isomorphism) when a specific purpose

exists, such as obtaining authorisations, complying with rules (North, 1990) or gaining

legitimacy and prestige (Oliver, 1990).

As said, given the high level of bureaucracy in the sector, the recent tendency of

cultural administrations to grant financing to projects jointly proposed by two or more

institutions, and the existence of certain rules that push towards the creation of

particular network forms (for instance, the distribution circuits for theatres

Ministerial circular n. 25/1998), we expect to frequently observe that the creation of

networks originates from the need to comply with specific legal requirements or to gain

access through cooperation to financing otherwise not obtainable.

P5a. The existence of rules at national level will facilitate the creation of

networks, and will also generate a similarity among the forms of cooperation

originated by this factor. The existence of rules at local level (region, province)

will facilitate the creation of networks among cultural organisations located in a

specified geographic area (in the same region or province).

Furthermore, we expect a higher level of cooperation among similar institutions,

for the following reasons. First of all a similarity in the form of governance simplifies

cooperation, especially in a legislative context which is highly bureaucratic and that

establishes different rules for different categories of institution; in addition, a similar

economic and organisational structure (the absence of an artistic director, and of

personnel dedicated to the management and administration of the theatre or museum)

will normally facilitate cooperation as this will probably appear as the only way to carry

on an organisations cultural activity; finally, proposing similar types of performances

(for instance, drama) or having a homogeneous collection might facilitate forms of

cooperation aimed at innovation or at improving the quality of the proposed shows andevents; sharing the same production ideals may generate a fall of the cultural barriers

that prevent cooperation, hence a reduction of the pressure towards autonomy.

P5b. Similarity among institutions facilitates cooperation among theatres.

c) Availability of complementary resources

In economic and strategic studies the existence of complementary resources is

considered a key factor towards the formation of alliances. When complementary


10/30


resources are idiosyncratic and indivisible, therefore not readily available in the market,

alliances become a primary mean for the acquisition of such resources (Chung et al.,

2000). Companies tend to cooperate to gain access to complementary resources or

knowledge, for competitive purposes, to develop internal competencies or to share the

risks of innovative activities (Haiken and Hage, 1968; Harrigan 1985; Gulati, 1995). A

higher tendency to cooperate derives from the perception that sharing resources

generates value for the organisations involved.

As far as theatres are concerned, we hypothesise that such tendency is not

particularly diffused for the reasons that follow. First of all, the sectors critical

competencies i.e. the artistic competencies (scene designers, directors, actors) are

readily available in the market on a temporary basis, provided the theatre does not

already possess such resources on a stable basis; in this field we often observe a high

level of similarity of resources, rather than complementarity, and this results in a

reduced interest for cooperation. In the case of museums, on the one hand their

resources profile tends to be similar and scarce, especially with respect to technical

resources (space, machinery, etc.) and human resources; on the other hand, there is a

potential complementarity with respect to their collections, resources that tend to be

unique and therefore not readily available in the market.

Therefore, a motivation to cooperate might be given by the possibility to organise

events and exhibitions showing a larger and more complete range of works. Other

critical resources, such as space, often are already saturated by the institutions

production capacity and therefore they can seldom represent a reason to join forces. In

addition, empirical research has shown that such determinant is particularly relevant in

high tech industries (Sinha and Cusumano, 1991), where companies tend to seek

alliances to innovate and reduce competitive pressures; on the contrary, as wementioned, personnel is the most important resource in the cultural sector, and the role

played by technology is marginal. Furthermore, artistic creativity is conceived as an

individual resource, sometimes not even belonging to an institution as a whole but just

to an individual in that institution (as an example, we often mention the Streheler

theatre, the Ronconi theatre and so on).

P6. Complementarity in the resource profile facilitates cooperation among

institutions.


11/30


In synthesis, we have hypothesised that in the cultural sector the economic and process

determinants tend to prevail, whereas resource complementarity is less relevant.

2.3 Methodology

To explain how and why cultural networks developed in Italy we did a multiple

case study research (Yin, 1994). This methodology, frequently utilised in the research

on networks (among others, Alexander, 1981), is particularly helpful when the

researcher is trying to address how and why type of issues (determinants and typology

in our study) (ibidem: 6). The research included 18 cultural networks: 8 museum

networks and 10 theatre networks.

For each case study, different sources were examined: structured interviews and

document sources. For each of the networks analysed we interviewed the network

coordinator (if existing) and people in some of the systems nodes; the number of

interviews was variable as a function of the type of system. We chose to carry on

structured interviews rather than send questionnaires, considering that obtaining

information in this sector may be complex given the little amount of time normally

made available by the personnel involved, their scarce propensity to be the object of a

research and the difficulties associated with the interpretation of some categories of

analysis.

The most complex part of the research was the identification of the networks

existing in the Italian territory and therefore their selection. For identification purposes,

we conducted a preliminary analysis that involved:

persons responsible of the cultural sector in all Italian regions;

persons responsible for the cultural sector in all provinces and municipalities wherea network or circuit exists;

information gathered through the world wide web;

interviews of various other players and institutional bodies;

interviews of all those persons that were indicated as potential members of a

network.

The identification of the cases that we might study was very complex. According to

the interviewed personnel, cooperation among cultural organisations is particularly


12/30


difficult and this explains why the mere identification of forms of cooperation may be

complex. Some of them see this as a form of parochialism typical of the Italian

environment; others believe that, given the strong efforts dedicated to mere survival,

little energies remain available for cooperation and innovation.

As far as theatres are concerned, in almost all Italian regions (excluding Lombardy)

we could find a specific form of network, below described in more detail, called

Distribution circuit - recognised by the Ministry of Culture - and some other non-

recognised Distribution circuits. We decided to analyse two of the circuits recognised

by the Ministry, indicated by many sources as high quality circuits. We had to consider

that, according to some experts from the sector, many circuits do not function properly;

in fact, some of them have been put under administrative control, and some others are

capable of providing just mediocre services. Some production companies have

confirmed this information and therefore, considering that all circuits have similar ways

of operating, we have chosen to investigate those that seem to operate with high

managerial quality and efficiency; we also hope, thanks to such selection, to have

minimised the likelihood of possible misrepresentations of reality by the interviewed

persons. Similar criteria have been applied for the selection of non-recognised circuits.

We have identified a small number of cases outside the world of recognised or non-

recognised circuits, and we have excluded those that seemed to cooperate just for

marginal activities. We also decided to include a network of opera theatres, although

obviously such institutions activities are of a different nature; we did this mainly for the

purpose of identifying the possible similarities between theatre and lyrical institutions

and, on the other hand, the peculiarities associated with their different performances.

The Lombardy Region Opera Circuit is anyway unique in the Italian landscape and

may therefore be considered an exemplary case. This preliminary research, however,did not involve the various cases of co-production, that are widely diffused in the whole

country, where two or more institutions agree to share the costs associated with

planning, preparation and production but mainly for the purpose of reducing costs.


13/30


Exhibit 1 Theatre networks included in the research.

THEATRE NETWORK LOCATION

Arteven Region Veneto

Amat Region Marche

Teatro Stabile di Torino Region Piemonte

Coordinamento teatrale trentino Region Trentino alto Adige

Associazione teatrale pistoiese Province of Pistoia

Altri percorsi Region Lombardia

Sistema teatrale cremonese Province of Cremona

Teatri metropolitani fiorentini City of Firenze

Circuito di Rigo Sinfonico Region Lombardia

Metropoli Province of Milan

As far as museums are concerned, we have identified several initiatives,

although most of them are still in the project phase. We have therefore decided to

include only those cases that seemed beyond the project stage.

Exhibit 2 Museum networks included in the research.

MUSEUM NETWORKS LOCATION

Il sistema museale carnico Province of Carnia

Il circuito dei musei del centro di Milano City of Milano

Bologna dei Musei City of Bologna

Il sistema museale provinciale di Ravenna Province of Ravenna

Il sistema dei musei senesi Province of Siena

Musei della provincia di Modena Province of Modena

Il sistema museale trentino Province of Trento

Il sistema museale umbro Region Umbria


14/30


3. Results and discussion

3.1 Cultural networks: a typology

It is appropriate, in elaborating a typology of cultural networks, to distinguish

between museums and theatres.

3.1.1Theatre networks

For theatres, our analysis has identified the presence of two very different typical

forms: centralised (vertical) networks, i.e. recognised and non-recognised distribution

circuits, and parithetic (horizontal) networks. They are described in more detail here

below.

Centralised (vertical) networks: distribution circuits

Distribution networks, historically, have been created and operate with the

objective of diffusing culture in the country. Such networks may be created through

private initiative (individuals whose aim is to provide a service to the various theatres)

or through public initiative (two or more municipalities establish a consortium). Once

the network is in place, any individual theatre may join by asking to do so and paying

for the services that are necessary in the specific situation. This specific form of

coordination, whose object is the distribution of shows, generates a multiplication of

opportunities proportional to the number of theatres that form part of the circuit, to the

advantage of production companies. Each of the theatres that participate into the circuit

could not, in fact, afford on its own the costs of professional companies of a highquality; by joining a distribution circuit the theatre may externalise all the activities for

which an ad hoc internal structure would be economically unfeasible. Generally,

considerable cost savings are achieved by carrying on certain activities through an

external structure operating for many theatres, thanks to the obvious economies of scale.

Distribution networks normally provide the following services to their members:

planning of the season for each individual theatre;

promotion (joint as well as individual);


15/30


supply of technical personnel for the opening of each hall;

administrative management of the shows;

reservations.

The members require different services depending on their specific needs.

In order to perform their tasks, circuits receive financing from private individuals,

from the local authority, from the municipalities associated with them (often

proportionally to the number of their inhabitants) and from the Ministry (provided they

are recognised). Circuits may benefit from State grants provided they may satisfy the

requirements established by art. 19 of the Circular n. 25/1998. Given such legal

requirements, all recognised regional circuits tend to have the same characteristics and

coordination mechanisms. They, in fact, take the form of bureaucratic networks, linked

by association or consortium contracts, formalised through ministerial recognition,

centralised, and characterised by a low level of connectivity between the systems

members; only dual links appear to exist between the coordination unit (the circuit)

and the individual theatres.

Picture 1 Recognised circuits.

The circuit normally tries to design the performing season in each individual

theatre as a function of the perceived preferences of the local audience and of the

requirements of the institution that owns the theatre; the circuit, in other words, does not

try to impose a pre-packaged program. Normally a list of the possible performances is

completed, and the list is sent to the municipalities that may propose a number of works

Circuit


16/30


within the list; a final choice is made on this basis, also in an attempt to optimise the

program at the system level. Once the seasonal program is defined, the circuit may also

follow the execution phase by ensuring that the companies perform their activities in

appropriate locations, and by providing technical personnel if necessary.

Two regional circuits in the Veneto (Arteven) and Marche (Amat) regions

belong to this typology.

Other non recognised circuits, therefore not entitled to government financing,

operate as networks for performance distribution; they may utilise as coordinating entity

a production structure, for instance a production theatre such as the theatre in the city of

Torino, or a production company, such as the Pistoia system, or a local authority, as in

the case of the Altri Percorsi circuit which is coordinated by the Lombardia regional

authority.


17/30


Picture 2 Non recognised circuits.

In terms of organisational typology, non recognised circuits are very similar to

recognised circuits; they show a similar level of centralisation, a similarly low level of

connectivity, and an almost total absence of relationship among the associated theatres.

Their level of formalisation and the similarity of the organisational forms adopted are

lower, as the absence of government recognition allows a higher level of autonomy.

However, such circuits involve private theatres as well as theatres owned by local

administrations, therefore in almost all cases the resulting relationships are formalised

through conventions in order to facilitate the exchange of services. From this

perspective, also non recognised circuits appear to be bureaucratic networks.

With respect to the propositions that were formulated above (P1 and P2), this

form of network confirms the presence of bureaucratic mechanisms in order to comply

with existing rules; its high level of centralisation and low level of connectivity reflect

the type of activities that are centralised.

Parithetic (horizontal) networks

As opposed to circuits, we may identify forms of cooperation among theatres

that do not involve only the process of seasonal event planning for each individual

theatre, carried on by an entity recognised as Circuit or by a different entity, or the

circulation of shows within the circuit.

The cases that are presented in this section are considerably different from the preceding

ones, first of all based on the organisational form which is actually used.

Production

theatre


18/30


Picture 3 Horizontal networks

These networks normally show a low level of centralisation (2), they mainly

represent forms of association between equals, they show a high level of connectivity,

and the exchanges between members are frequent and involve all the systems nodes. In

addition one may note a wider variety of forms, and a higher differentiation in the

theatres dimensions and in the organisational solutions adopted. They normally involve

a lower number of parties (typically between 3 and 10) (3) whereas the cases discussed

before normally involved a number of parties comprised between 15 and 40. The areas

of activity may also include the artistic function with respect to staging (Lombardia

regional Opera Circuit, Teatri Metropolitani Fiorentini, Metropoli), the coordination of

performing seasons (Sistema Cremonese, Teatri Metropolitani Fiorentini), and the

selection of artists (Lombardia regional Opera Circuit). The relationships between

members are often of an informal nature and project, idea and value sharing is strong.

These networks have the shape of social rather than bureaucratic networks. This is inline with the type of activity that they carry on, which is less structured and more

innovation-oriented (propositions P1 and P3 confirmed).

Our analysis does not confirm the hypothesis that networks among those theatres

that do have an artistic direction do not share artistic decisions; on the contrary, the level

of cooperation is particularly high in the case of Lombardia regional Opera Circuit and

in the Teatri Metropolitani Fiorentini case, networks where each theatre has a director.


19/30


Certainly, however, these two cases represent an exception, rather than the rule, in the

Italian landscape.

3.1.2 Museum networks

As far as museums are concerned, eight cases analysed show many similarities;

one might even say that they belong to one typology, with minimal variance in the

sample. The main characteristics may be summarised as follows. First of all, we are

dealing with bureaucratic networks, within which the relationships among the different

parties are normally formalised through a convention an instrument that facilitates the

access to public financing and, in general, the relationship among the institutions that

are part of the public sector (P1 confirmed). The networks dimension is medium or

large, with 25 museums for each system on average, with a minimum of 5 (Milano) and

a maximum of 54 (Modena). They tend to be highly centralised, and are centred on a

local authority which is also the main sponsor; for 5 systems the level of connectivity

observed is low (semi-annual meetings) and medium for 3 systems (at least quarterly

meetings). The networks mainly carry on activities aimed at valorisation, promotion,

information and communication; in some cases the initial task of the system has been

restoring, restructuring or re-opening museums (in this case with standardised settings)

and publishing catalogues; the network normally carries on management and

administration activities with respect to common projects. A centralisation of scientific

activity appears to exist only for those systems whose organizations are not staffed with

artistic personnel, as for instance in the Umbria system (P2 and P3 confirmed). Joint

exhibitions are rare.

The network which does not seem to fit the above description is the Milano Centronetwork, which is jointly promoted by museum directors and by the public

administration, small, more connected and parithetic.

3.2 Tests of propositions concerning determinants of cultural networks

The proposition that economic efficiency is an important determinant for the

establishment of networks is confirmed (P4). In all the 18 networks considered each


20/30


individual organisation and the systems centre affirm that one of the reasons for the

creation of the circuit is the possibility to achieve economic advantages; this, thanks to

the economies of scale deriving from the centralisation of services, or thanks to the

possibility of providing a larger range of services without a proportional increase in

costs.

Participating in the network is often the only possibility for the members to pursue

their cultural objectives with acceptable quality standards; this is a consequence of the

small scale of most of the associated institutions. Many of the interviewed institutions

admit their inability to provide, on their own, the same services and the same quality

standards; in many cases, without the participation in the network, they would simply

not be capable to perform any activity (most museums and theatres were closed before

the creation of the network).

The possibility to share their audiences (therefore achieving a scale effect due to a

higher number of visitors, or to a larger public) is a determinant indicated by all the

museum networks; for theatres, it is indicated by the Teatri Metropolitani Fiorentini

network, by the Cremona network and by the various Poles belonging to Metropoli; for

the remaining theatre networks, the physical distance existing between the participating

institutions does not allow an exchange. Certainly the exchange of the audience

resource has an impact on economic efficiency, but we have interpreted it as an

indicator of resource complementarity too, as the shared audience is certainly a critical

resource.

The propositions concerning the process explanation are also verified in all the

cases analysed.

Participating in the network normally determines a preferential access to public

resources, granted in accordance with national and local laws that assign a priority tojoint projects.

Also the proposition that the similarity between institutions is a facilitating

condition for the creation of networks is confirmed (P5b). Similarity may concern

different aspects. First of all, the analysed networks are homogeneous with respect to

their geographic location we have regional or provincial or municipal networks, and

this allows them to get the benefits of financing granted by the respective local authority

(P5a). The sharing of common values is expressed, by the founders or members, as an


21/30


intention to achieve a larger diffusion of culture in their territories without incurring

often unbearable costs. Networking organisations are similar also with respect to their

institutional characteristics: most theatres or museums are directly managed by

municipalities, and many of them do not have personnel capable of contributing to the

institutions cultural activities or to organisational tasks. For museums, the similarity

between different networks is also a consequence of an isomorphism process (Baum and

Oliver, 1991) and of a process of imitation between different cultural administrations;

when designing local systems, the cultural administrators take decisions also by making

comparisons with systems already existing in their region or in different regions.

Resource complementarity, in the case of museums, does not represent a

determinant for cooperation, also considering that networks are often sponsored by local

administrators and include museums whose collections are not homogeneous.

Identifying general conditions seems harder in the case of the four parithetic

(horizontal) theatre networks. Despite some legal similarities between the networks

theatres (for instance, belonging to the same category the theatres of tradition in the

Lombardia regional Opera Circuit), the similarity often concerns the product system, i.e.

the specific niche occupied (Van de Ven and Walker, 1984; Gulati, 1995). This

facilitates the aggregation process through the sharing of common values, but the reason

for aggregation is often identified as the complementarity of resources and the

possibility to share a common know how (jointly with similarity or as an alternative to

it). Complementarity of resources is, in effect, a reason for aggregation only in the case

of horizontal theatre networks. In the case of Metropoli, for example, complementarity

exists with respect to the cultural goods owned by other municipalities (churches,

castles) that may be valorised through performances organised by other municipalities.In the case of the Teatri Metropolitani Fioentini system, space and competencies for

production and distribution are complementary resources. In the Lombardia regional

Opera Circuit, the chorus and the orchestra are complementary resources for the entire

artistic production. For the Cremona system, the complementary resource is in a sense

the audience; considering that the performed genres are different, but the theatres are

geographically close and an incentive therefore exists to coordinate programs with the

aim of increasing the systems overall audience. The same may be said for museum


22/30


systems that try to share audience through forms of joint promotion. In most cases,

however, the general scarcity of resources and the similarity of the resources available

make this a secondary determinant.

4. Conclusions

As a conclusion, and to summarise the results of this work (Exhibit 3), two

forms seem to surface from the cases analysed, very different between them in terms of

both organisational type and determinants.

Exhibit 3 Summary of the researchs results

CASE STUDY TYPOLOGY RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS

THEATRE NETWORKS

ARTEVEN Vertical network (VN); high

formalised (HF); low connectivity

(LC); Bureaucratic network (BN); big

dimension (BD)

All confirmed

AMAT VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

CIRCUITO TEATRALE DI TORINO VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

COORDINAMENTO TRENTINO VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

ASSOCIAZIONE PISTOIESE VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

ALTRI PERCORSI VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

SISTEMA CREMONESE Parithetic network (PN); LF; MC; SN;

SD

All confirmed except P2

TEATRI METROPOLITANI

FIORENTINI

PN; LF; HC; SN; SD All confirmed except P2

CIRCUITO D RIGO SINFONICO PN; LF; HC; SN; SD All confirmed except P2

METROPOLI VN; LF; HfC; SN; BD All confirmed except P2

MUSEUM NETWORKS

CARNIA VN; HF; LC; BN; MD All confirmed

REGIONE UMBRIA VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

SBOLOGNA VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

RAVENNA VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

PROVINCIA DI SIENA VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

MODENA VN; HF; LC; BN; BD All confirmed

PROVINCIA DI TRENTO VN; HF; LC; BN; MD All confirmed

MILANO PN; LF; HC; BN; SD All confirmed


23/30


On the one side the study highlights those networks that we have defined

vertical, theatre circuits, recognised or non-recognised, and museum systems. These

centralised networks, formalised and scarcely connected are often motivated by

surviving needs of each individual organisation. A participation in the network is, in

many cases, the only possibility to perform an activity with continuity and with

acceptable quality standards. The system allows members to obtain cost advantages and

this is in effect the main reason for aggregation.

On the other side, but only for theatres, we find horizontal networks, motivated

by the possibility of improving the systems quality, of innovating and exchanging

resources. Networks were created not only just for a survival strategy but for a

competitive strategy at the systems level. Innovation and exchange of resources are

part of the reasons that push in the aggregation direction. The logic is a systemic one.

To this last category, as already noted, belong a minority of the analysed systems

and anyway the cases identified in Italy are rather rare. We believe that, as of today, this

form is not largely developed and that therefore strategies based on complementarity of

resources are still not widely pursued (although they are not entirely absent); this will

probably represent the evolution of networks in the cultural field; this will happen as

soon as the sector reaches a more mature stage, and provided cooperation is perceived

as a tool for innovation, success and access to critical resources.

This second form of cooperation among institutions is certainly less diffused but

probably it is also harder to identify, because of the small dimension of the entities

involved and of the overall lower level of formalisation. We believe that future research

should focus on the study of this second type of networks, trying to identify them by

getting in direct contact with the cultural organisations. As a matter of fact, the mainlimit of this work lies in the means utilised for the identification of the cultural networks

that operate in the Italian territory; as we said before, we used mainly contacts with

local administration (region, province, municipalities); this limit is mitigated, however,

by the fact that joint projects are often financed through public resources and therefore

known to the local administrations.

We believe that future research will be able to highlight many different examples

of cooperation, beyond those analysed in this study; we also believe that the innovation


24/30


capabilities of the Italian cultural sector will be largely improved by forms of

cooperation among different cultural institutions. Some of the professionals operating in

the cultural sector, trying to explain the low cooperation propensity that may be

observed in the sector, believe that the interest to form strategic alliances is reduced by

the same existence of public financing, and that this in turn is a limit to the sectors

innovation potential. This because often the institutions efforts are mainly aimed at

complying with the regulatory requirements imposed as a condition for access to public

resources, which make survival possible; little room is therefore left for efforts aimed at

generating new ideas and projects, closer to the potential audiences interests. This, in

turn, reduces the institutions potential for true income generation, in a vicious circle

that in the end frustrates the overall systems potential for development through

cooperation strategies. The local administrations present approach, based on allowing

preferential treatment to joint projects, represents a move in the right direction; public

support per se is not reduced, but simply channelled towards common initiatives, whose

success will be an incentive for spontaneous cooperation in a virtuous circle perhaps

capable of changing the overall sectors shape.


25/30


End Notes

(1) This work has been financed by Bocconi University in the frame of the Support to

basic research year 2000 program. We wish to express our gratitude to those

institutions that have provided information for our empirical research, and to the

representatives of such institutions. We also wish to thank Roberta Landini and Elena

Lesmo for their relevant and critical work in collecting information and data from

museums and theatres.

(2) An exception is Metropoli, with the Centro-Polo municipalities.

(3) Metropoli involves a total of 61 municipalities, but a maximum of 10 (7.5 in

average) in each of the 8 Poles.


26/30


References

Alexander, E.R. 1981. "Effectiveness in Interorganizational Coordination - a

comparative case analysis". Publications in Architecture and Urban Planning,

University of Wisconsin.

Bagdadli, S. 1995.Accademia Perduta Romagna Teatri. Faenza: SDA Bocconi - EDIT

Faenza.

Bagdadli, S. 1997. Il museo come azienda. Management e organizzazione al servizio

della cultura. Milano: Etas Libri.

Bagdadli, S. 2001. Le reti di musei. Lorganizzazione a rete per i beni culturali in Italia

e allestero. Milano: Egea.

Barney, J.B. and Ouchi, W.G. 1985. Costi delle informazioni e strutture economiche di

governo delle transazioni, in Organizzazione e Mercato, R.C.D. Nacamulli e A.

Rugiadini, a cura di, Bologna: Il Mulino, p. 349-372.

Baum, A.C. and Oliver, C. 1990. "Institutional Linkages and Organizational Mortality.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, p. 187-218.

Bavelas, A. 1951. Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups, in The Policy

Sciences, D. Lerner and H.K. Lasswell, eds., Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press,

p. 193-202.

Boni, M. 1989.Leconomia dietro il sipario: teatro, opera, cinema, televisione. Torino:

EDT.

Chung, S.A., Singh H. and Lee K. 2000. Complementarity, Status Similarity and

Social Capital as Drivers of Alliance Formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21, p.

1-22.


27/30


Danilov, V J. 1990. "Museums Systems and How They Work". Curator, 33, 4.

DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. Constructing an Organizational Field as a Professional Project:

US Art Museums 1920-40, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,

W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, eds., Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 267-

292.

DiMaggio P. J., Powell W.W. 1991. The Iron Cage Revisited: Istitutional Isomorphism

and Collective Rationality, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,

W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, eds., Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 63-107.

Grandori, A. and Soda, G. 1995. Inter-firm Networks. Antecedents, Mechanisms and

Forms. Organization Studies, 16, p. 183-214.

Friedman, M. 1986. The Elusive Promise of Management Cooperation in the Arts, in

Nonprofit Enterprise in the Arts, P.J. DiMaggio, ed., New York: Oxford University

Press, p. 212 e ss.

Gualazzi, L., a cura di, 1994. Lombardia Spettacolo. Milano: Regione Lombardia

Settore Cultura e Informazione e AGIS Lombardia.

Deepak, K., Singh, H. and Lee, K. 2000. Complementarity, Status Similarity and

Social Capital as Drivers of Alliance Formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21, p.

1-22.

Harrigan, R. 1985. Strategies for Joint Ventures. London: Lexington.

Oliver, C. 1990. "Determinants of Interorganizational Relationship: Integration and

Future Directions". Academy of Management Review, 15, 2, p. 241-265.


28/30


Mariotti, S. and Cainarca, G.C. 1986. "The Evolution of Transaction Governance in the

Textile-Clothing Industry. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 7, p.

351-374.

North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance,

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Paulus, O. 1993. " Approche economique", inNote d'information concernant le rappot

sur le reseux de musees, G. Duprat (Direction du Rapport), Strasbourg : Institut

d'Etudes Politiques de Strasbourg.

Powell, W.W and Smith-Doerr, L. 1994. "Networks and Economics Life", in The

Handbook of Economic Sociology, N.J. Smelser and R. Swedberg, eds., Princeton

University Press.

Salvemini, S., Bagdadli, S., Dubini, P. e Soda, G. 1999. I teatri milanesi in rete

cooperare per competere, rapporto di ricerca, Milano: Crora - Universit Bocconi.

Scheff, J. and Kotler, P. 1996. How the Arts Can Prosper Through Strategic

Collaborations.Harvard Business Review, 74, p. 4-11.

Scott, R. W. 1995.Institutions and Organizations. Thousands Oaks (CA): Sage.

SIAE 1988. Censimento dei teatri. Roma: SIAE.

Sinha, D.K. and Cusumano, M.A. 1991. Complementary Resources and Cooperative

Research: A Model of Research Joint Ventures among Competitors. Management

Science, 37, 9, p. 1091-1106.

Soda, G. 1998.Reti tra imprese: modelli e prospettive per una teoria del coordinamento

tra imprese. Roma: Carrocci.


29/30


Teece, D. J. 1980. "Economies of Scope and the Scope of Enterprise. Journal of

Economic Behaviour and Organization, 1, p. 223-247.

Van de Ven, A.H. 1976. On the Nature, Formation and Maintenance of Relations

Among Organizations. The Academy of Management Review,p. 84-96.

Van De Ven, A.H., Walker, G. and Liston, J. 1979. "Coordination Patterns Within an

Interorganizational Network". Human Relations, 32, 1.

Van de Ven, A.H. and Walker, G. 1984. The Dynamics of Interorganizational

Coordination,Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 4 (pp. 598-621).

Williamson, O. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-trust Implications.

New York: Free Press.

Williamson, O. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets,

Relational Contracting.New York: Free Press.

Wholey, D.R. and Huonker, J.W. 1993. Effects of Generalism and Niche Overlap on

Network Linkages among Youth Service Agencies.Academy of Management Review,

36, 2, p. 349-371.

Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research. Thousands Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.

Zolber V. L. 1986. Tensions of Missions in American Art Museums, in NonprofitEntreprise in the Arts: Studies in Mission and Constraints, P. J. DiMaggio, ed., New

York: Oxford University Press, p. 184-198.


30/30

Silvia Bagdadli is Associate Professor of Organization at Bocconi University, Milan,

Italy. She teaches courses at undergraduate and graduate level in Organization Theory,

Human Resource Management and Arts Management and executive courses at the

Business School of Management of Bocconi University. She did several researches

related to the cultural sector, presented several papers at International conferences on

Arts Management (AIMAC) and published two books: the first one in 1997 on Museum

Management in Italy and the second one in 2001 on Museum Networks.

Bocconi University has several degree in Economics, Management, and Law, both at

undergraduate and graduate level, including a degree in The Economic and

Management of the Arts (CLEACC).

museum_networks

Documents