Guest editorial

Citation

Wåhlin, N. and Blomquist, T. (2015), "Guest editorial", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 8 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07-2015-0054

Guest editorial

Article Type: Guest editorial From: International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Volume 8, Issue 4.

IJMPB Special section: organizing cultural projects

Culture is an important part of the society and economy. People tend to evaluate progress through the delivery and survival of cultural artifacts whether that is in tangible terms or through memory of spectacular events. In this way project management has much to offer society. Recent developments highlight how cultural issues in general become necessary for city and community development in order to maintain their attraction as livable places both for citizens and organizations. The variety of cultural activities range from performing and visual arts, music scenes and theaters, to concentrated efforts related to cultural festivals and large-scale Capital of Culture-years including multitudes of artistic expressions. Although it is widely acknowledged that culture matters to society, our understanding of how cultural projects are organized remain under-studied. This lack of knowledge is further emphasized when we consider how core cultural activities are related to creative industries and business development. A wide spectrum of artistic expressions is considered to stimulate co-creation and creativity between different spheres of activities, but the question is how. Despite the complexity of weaving together cultural activities of various types, projects stand out as a common denominator. Organizing by projects energize collaborative actions and provide arenas for creative exploration of the opportunities that lie ahead.

The idea for a special issue on organizing cultural projects was triggered by a research project conducted at Umeå School of Business and Economics concerning the European Capital of Culture initiative in the City of Umeå, Sweden, which was implemented during 2014 (Wåhlin, 2012). We investigated how such a large-scale initiative was organized and planned before, during and after the event and how each phase of the implementation comprised challenges of various kinds. One prominent feature that stood out was the use of projects both when it came to assembling the program in its entirety as well as when it came to energizing small scale initiatives among cultural practitioners (Näsholm and Blomquist, 2015). The tendency of projectification really became obvious and made us aware of a more general trend of organizing cultural activities through projects all over Europe not least stimulated by the European Union (Lundin et al., 2015a). By stretching the boundaries of the normal routines every city seems to strive for turning the conditions of the creative city (Andersson, 2011) into action by empowering and stimulating citizens in co-creative projects. When considering such endeavors we mean that the notion of the projective city seems more appropriate and relevant (APROS/EGOS, 2015).

However, when considering how project organizing might contribute to practices of cultural activities a closer examination is necessary. By elaborating on the tension between long-term values so embedded in the cultural sector and the temporal nature of projects, questions of how to find an appropriate path between these requirements stand out. Aesthetic and artistic concerns are often in an antagonistic relationship to the rational assumptions that characterizes project management and for that reason contributions that try to bridge these tensions are called for. This special issue is an ambition to fill this gap by elaborating on the specific conditions for cultural projects. This is not a one way road, it is rather a relation that should benefit reciprocally in order to provide the necessary conditions for the way ahead. Awareness of different institutional logics can provide routes for further development of how cultural projects can be managed as well as show how strategic windows of opportunities can be projected and made available for society as a whole. We certainly live in a project society (Lundin et al., 2015b) and it is our responsibility to illuminate what it means.

The first paper by Malgorzata Cwikla and Beata Jalocha, entitled “Unspread wings. Why cultural projects don’t provide refreshing ideas for project management although they could?,” elaborates on the specific conditions for cultural projects within the context of theaters in Poland and Germany. Not least is the internal creative logic in artistic undertakings made visible, which then leads to a closer examination of the differences between cultural projects and business projects and how such differences can be bridged or not. The predefined nature of business-like projects seems to assume a certain kind of logic that not always fit the so much needed artistic freedom in the cultural sector. In order to preserve the creativity the authors argue for a more flexible attitude contextualized in each cultural setting exemplified by the performative character and the public status of cultural performances. Additionally, it is emphasized that artistic endeavors is driven by a team spirit respecting each performer’s specialty as well as the importance of a close dialogue with the audience. When taking such circumstances into account, the authors conclude with suggestions of how artistic perspectives could enrich project management and as well mutually benefit from each other.

The second paper by Erik Wikberg and Niklas Bomark, entitled “Managing competing logics through situational irony,” contributes with an outline of how different institutional logics can be separately respected and at the same time become assembled in joint efforts. By using the case of a prominent auction house the authors explain how private, public and non-profit initiatives came together in an art exhibition in Stockholm, Sweden. The authors highlight that an ironic position offers ways of overcoming constraints embedded in different institutional contexts. Their suggestion is that organizational irony can be a source of inspiration when managing cultural projects because it can preserve the integrity of each actor and at the same time create conditions for reflexive critique so significant for the cultural sector. As art exhibitions are a reflexive mirror of society, the concept of irony can open avenues for challenging and provoking thoughts that attracts audiences, art collectors, art critics and media. In this sense, the authors suggest that commercial and cultural interests can be combined in a novel way and generate future possibilities for cultural projects.

The third paper by Per Ståle Knardal and Inger Johanne Pettersen, entitled “Creativity and management control – the diversity of festival budgets,” directs our attention to the tension between creativity and control. By studying a large and well-established Norwegian festival, the authors examine the role of the budget as a managerial tool when considering both its interactive and diagnostic features during the planning period. With showing how the managers motivated the main actors in the festival organization to gain ownership of the budget instrument, an illustration of how budgets can be used as a way to enhance creativity and bridge the tension between the financial instruments and the unpredictability in cultural projects. The findings suggest a sophistication both when it comes to the design as well as to the use of budgets in order to provide a platform for organizational learning. The interactive nature of the budget in this case facilitated the ability to include sudden and unplanned elements as well as provided conditions for an integrated strategic vision that reduced the split between the cultural tradition of the festival and its commercial arrangements. The authors conclude with criticizing the common rigid use of the budget instrument and provide instead a suggestion of how the diversity of the budget instrument can pave the way for long-term sustainability of cultural projects.

The fourth paper by Lars Lindkvist and Daniel Hjort, entitled “Organizing cultural projects through legitimizing as cultural entrepreneurship,” contributes to our understanding of the challenges experienced when establishing a Swedish arts and design center in the outskirts of urban areas. By examining the long establishment process the authors especially elaborates on how legitimacy for this cultural investment was successively reached within a complex set of different stakeholders involving both private and public interests. With roots in his personal network the main entrepreneur could mobilize resources that made the road forward convincingly framed. By using sketches and drawings made by a famous architect as well experiences from an experienced museum director an emerging narrative took shape that attracted a large set of heterogeneous stakeholders and created conditions for trustworthiness among local residents. However, the authors highlight a lot of tensions along the road and problematize the process of making individual entrepreneurship collectively accepted. Not least become different challenges when organizing and managing the different steps of the establishment procedure obvious.

The fifth and last paper, entitled “From applicant to designated European Capital of Culture” by Louise Ejgod Hansen and Markus Larsen, problematize management challenges experienced during the long planning period in order to reach the status of an European Capital of Culture. By examining how the City of Aarhus in Denmark tackled the transition from applicant to a designated city in 2017, becomes management changes and the different obstacles during the planning procedure evident. When the actual year is fast approaching the transition from lofty statements in the application procedure to the manifestation of a densified cultural program spread throughout the whole year is critical. In this case it is especially risky because of the change in project leadership. The question of continuity is brought forward in the analysis in order to search for possibilities to assimilate the knowledge from the application procedure into to the delivery procedure in order to keep the project on track. How well this will succeed is still a question mark not least because of the delay caused by the switch between different management teams. The authors’ paper and contribution is particularly useful when considering the distinction between defining the input that could make such a large cultural investment happen and the special requirements needed when the output should be performed.

Taken together, the five contributions provide interesting insights into how cultural projects can be organized. When contextualized the specific conditions in each case become exposed and by scrutinizing challenges and obstacles in the different development efforts can novel ideas concerning improvement procedures be caught. One important learning outcome is that no project is an island, the contributions rather show the embedded nature of projectified practices and provides us with an understanding of how complex anchoring processes are necessary when the desired future should be projected. This requires sensitivity to the specific characteristics which is prominent in the cultural domain and thereby call for customization of the project management rationale in accordance with the inherent creative logic in cultural projects. In order preserve creativity and to become mutually beneficial a more flexible attitude is searched for either if it is about rigid use of project management techniques, institutional logics, budget instruments, legitimation procedures or management change. We hope that the addressed contributions that make up this special issue can be a source of inspiration for the way ahead.

Nils Wåhlin and Tomas Blomquist

Umeå School of Business and Economics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

References

Andersson, Å.E. (2011), “Creative people need creative cities”, in Andersson, D.E., Andersson, Å.E. and Melander, C. (Eds), Handbook of Creative Cities, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 14-55

APROS/EGOS (2015), “Sub-theme 20: ‘Projective cities: designing, organizing and living in urban spaces’”, Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies (APROS)/European Group of Organization Studies (EGOS) Research Conference at UTS, Sydney, December 9-11, available at: www.apros.org/archives/178 (accessed July 9, 2015)

Lundin, R.A., Midler, C. and Wåhlin, N. (2015a), “Projectification revisited/revised”, paper presented at the International Research Network of Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) conference, UCL, London, June 22-24

Lundin, R.A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T.M., Ekstedt, E., Midler, C. and Sydow, J. (2015b), Managing and Working in Project Society – Institutional Challenges of Temporary Organizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Näsholm, M.H. and Blomquist, T. (2015), “Co-creation as a strategy for program management”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 58-73

Wåhlin, N. (2012), Strategy, Design and Organizing in City Development Processes. Research Description, The Bank of Sweden’s Tercentenary Foundation, Stockholm