Working open sourceThis is a featured page





Preface
This is an analysis executed for the Utrecht School of the Arts. At the time of writing, I am fulfilling my third year internship for my studies of Music Management. This takes place at Incubate, a festival and community on independent culture. During the third week of September, Incubate brings 275 artists and a mash-up of artistic visions, venues, media-partners and crowds. It encourages cutting edge encounters and explorations from artists, audiences and partners. It's a place where artists, who try to find the limits within the established methods of production, distribution and consumption, meet and engage with each other and the local environment. The festival is driven by artistic development. For more information visit www.incubate.org or www.socialfestivalmodel.org.

This analysis has been written open source and in English for a reason. Being an analysis on Incubate, social media, and more specifically the Social Festival Model (the open source business model of Incubate), it would be a shame not to use the advantages of these social media for my own report. This means everybody who is interested in this subject, can easily give their feedback, create discussions or even change texts of this report.1 Doing so, I wanted to make this analysis not only usable for Incubate, but for everyone with a special interest in social media and open source. I’ve tried to make it a social text so it can attain a maximum level of value. On the Social Festival Model can also be traced who has added what. Of course, Incubate and the Social Festival Model take on a central role in this analysis. It is, after all, aimed at giving advice to the organization. The main target groups are in this case Incubate and the Utrecht School of the Arts. I do believe others can derive meaning from it as well, reading this from their own point of view or in their own context.

This research can be divided roughly in two parts, the first one being chapters I, II a. and b. Here, the background of the subject is explained, and relevant models and theories are described. These are mostly sections assigned by my education. Chapters II c. and III are sections containing descriptions and analyses of the organization and the Social Festival Model. Chapter IV consists of the conclusion that contains my advices for the organization. These last chapters are probably most interesting for the organization of Incubate.

1 Find the open source version of this text at http://www.socialfestivalmodel.org/page/Research+-+Working+open+source


Introduction
This is an analysis about open source, written open source. It is good to realize that open source is a social medium as well. As Wikipedia says: “Social media is information content created by people using highly accessible and scalable publishing technologies. At its most basic sense, social media is a shift in how people discover, read and share news, information and content. It's a fusion of sociology and technology, transforming monologue (one to many) into dialog (many to many) and is the democratization of information, transforming people from content readers into publishers.”2 Of course, I am aware of the negative aspects of open source and quoting Wikipedia, for the risk of content being written wrongly, but in my opinion this is a good description as any other.

During my research, I’ve come across a problem surrounding the Social Festival Model and the way Incubate puts it to practice. It seems hard to attract people, getting them connected to the open source business model and interacting with them. Getting input from others in the environment is crucial for open source; it puts the ‘social’ in social media. Without it, a lot of its benefits aren’t present. It seems crucial that special attention goes out to this problem, also because it has everything to do with the main question of this analysis. For this reason, I’ve decided to sometimes take a step back in my research, and create a central role for this subject in this report. Without giving advice on how to deal with it, I can’t give a well-founded advice for the main question.

In this analysis, the term ‘people from the environment’ is often used. To explain what I mean with ‘environment’ up-front: this is pretty much everyone directly or indirectly linked to Incubate and their community, with social media and the way of opening up policy development and with the cultural scene. These groups are explained further in chapter II c, under ‘Environment’.

The hypothesis for this analysis is that, through making funding applications public using open source, and making open source a standard routine in the whole organization, Incubate can produce better applications. The main question for this analysis can be found in chapter I d.

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media


I. Background of the analysis

a. Motive and context
Incubate is a festival for independent culture in the city of Tilburg. Independent culture is defined by the autonomous attitude of the artist towards work and expression, which is applicable on different art disciplines. Another feature of this work ethic is the fact that artists are always searching for new, independent ways in which their work can be exhibited and made public. The Incubate Festival is driven by artistic development. It questions the concept of the peculiar and the familiar, and manoeuvres between kicks and contemplation. Within a week, the festival offers more than 275 performances in over 25 different venues.

The Incubate Festival tries to reach a lot of different niche target groups. Because of the size of the festival and the breadth of the program, the festival reaches a large audience in total. Incubate is however still dependent on external finances for its viability. The scale and quantity (in terms of artists and venues) of the festival has, at this moment, pretty much reached its maximum. That’s one of the reasons the objective for the upcoming years is to invest in professionalizing the organization itself. Meanwhile, the organization has formulated the ‘tasks, competences and responsibilities’ for each staff member, and wants to start working according to CAO (which probably translates best as "Collective Labour Agreement") and ‘Arbo’ (standing for "labour circumstances") standards. Another element of this process is improving the quality of the funding applications for the festival. The main questions of the organization in this context, are:
• In what way the fund raising can be further professionalized?
• And how can the tasks that are involved with the fund raising be optimized within the organization and between employees?
This will be the main focus of this research.

b. Relevance of the analysis
As a result of these questions, Incubate has introduced the ‘Social Festival Model’ this February. In short it means that the whole business model of the festival organization is made public through open source at www.socialfestivalmodel.org. Everyone is being invited in the participation of the organisation process of the festival. With this, Incubate is trying to create a new and fresh view on their policy, and to work together with visitors and everybody else that's interested in deciding in which direction the festival is (or should be) going. Funding applications can also be found (and in this case edited by anyone) on the Social Festival Model.

The analysis for this research will cover the relation between working open source and the possible qualitative improvement of the different texts and documents (more specifically funding applications) as a result of this working method. The Social Festival Model is pretty innovative: Incubate is the first cultural organization to practice this method of policy development. From my point of view, it would be a shame not to explore this subject, especially because it has a very strong connection with writing funding applications in general, which was one of the tasks for me during my research and internship at Incubate.

c. Main goal of the text
The concept of ‘text’ takes on a special, different meaning within this context. After all, the subject we’re talking about is 'open source'. Characteristics for the texts are in this case that they have no ‘definitive’ or ‘finished’ nature, but are always evolving. Because of the international nature of this context, I’ve decided to write this analysis in English. In this case, not only Incubate can benefit from the output, but also other organizations or people from the environment could post their response on it, for example on blogs and forums. This analysis might become a document not only for internal goals, but also a social and stimulating report for anyone interested in the subject of open source and business development.

d. Main question
The main question for this analysis will be: "In which ways can working open source be applied to further professionalize, qualitatively improve and optimize writing funding applications for Incubate?" Of course, the analysis will describe the specific situation of the organization of the Incubate festival, together with their Social Festival Model.

e. Method for the analysis
For the execution of the following analysis, there are some different phases to be distinguished:
1) A phase for general desk research about writing funding applications and sponsoring offers. This is meant to form a gathering of background information on writing funding applications. The organization of Incubate has a good knowledge on this subject, but this is meant to broaden my personal knowledge. Maybe I can find some tips, points of advice or new visions on the subject, which differ from the organization, and implement them in this analysis.
2) A phase for desk research on working open source. There is probably a lot of information to be found on this subject, because it’s being used (and analyzed) more and more. A lot of this information can probably be used within the context of this research.
3) A phase for research on relevant marketing models about organizational issues / subjects. This information is meant to link the information on working open source with the organization of Incubate, and will eventually lead to the report of advice.
4) Finally, a phase in which all this information will be linked. This phase will also be the start of producing the analysis itself, but it will vary slightly because I’d like to make some of my results public before I complete it in total. With this, I’d like tot get some feedback (and maybe some new insight) from people that are interested in this subject, and of course from the organization of Incubate itself.


II. Output and results

a. Explanation and placement within the DOR model
The DOR model (in Dutch the abbreviation of Doelen stellen, Organiseren, Realiseren) is meant to be a helping hand for arranging the organisation of corporate and personal goals. The theory that accompanies the model says that there is basically no ‘wrong’ way of organisation, but some strategies can be more efficient than others. A lot of managing the organisation has to do with perception and evaluation. To improve this, the model offers three main processes that are a central part of it:
1) Setting the goals
2) Organisation
3) Realisation
These processes are meant to help structurize views and perceptions of the management of the organisation. In the following, the operation of these three processes is explained.

When it comes to improving certain organizational routines or implementing new strategies into an organization, it’s important to set new goals before doing so. The most important question is: “What are we trying or do we want to be/become/achieve?” It’s about the function of the organization related to its environment. The results are written down in the mission statement for the organization or a specific task or strategy.

Following this mission statement, goals (preferably using SMART criteria; Specific, Measurable, Achievable/Adveturous, Relevant/Realistic and Time-bound3) are set out to be fulfilled within the next phase of project management. This becomes the process of organisation.This process also offers variables to structurize it. These are: strategy, structure, systems, personnel, culture and style of management. It’s important to realize that it’s never a matter of implementing one of these variables, but it's about the cohesion between all of them. Examples of questions that should be asked are “What kind of strategy/structure/systems do we use?”

There is a great difference between writing down the best goals and strategy, and implementing them into the organization. That’s why the last process of the DOR model is realisation. Here, it’s a matter of “How can we apply these different variables to realise our goal(s) set before?” An important last point of attention is that the whole of setting goals, organisation and realisation is a cyclical process. Most of the time, an organization will not achieve its goals the first time. So the importance is to evaluate after a period of realisation, reset goals and re-organize variables. In this way, there is a greater possibility of achieving goals.

At the moment, the specific subject for this research is mostly placed within the process of organization. The organization of Incubate has already implemented working open source in their organizational routine. What they want to achieve with it, has also been made clear. So the question remains: “In which ways can working open source be applied to further professionalize, qualitatively improve and optimize writing funding applications for Incubate?” This question can be split up in two: “What can be applied?” and “How can this be applied?” Obviously, the first question has to be answered before the next can be thought of. In my opinion, answering the first question has most in common with the questions belonging to the six variables of organization:
1. “What kind of strategy/structure/systems/personnel/culture/style of management do we use?”
2. “What other kind of strategy/structure/systems/personnel/culture/style of management could be used to further optimize working with open source and achieving the goals set out before?”
3. “How can we implement these variables into our organizational routine?” This last question belongs to the process of realisation, however.

b. Description and explanation of other relevant theories and models
Making open source a part of the organizational routine means the whole conduct of business is basically ‘up for grabs’; when everything is opened up, few things remain invisible. This might have some disadvantages, but also has a lot of potential, when the right people are reached with a business model such as the Social Festival Model. Such open source models are in fact the ultimate social media. After all, their aim is to generate specific input, knowledge and opinions from a community around a particular company, product or service. This means new theories and models about social media, ‘engagement marketing’ and co-creation have to be put into practice in order to evaluate and make it work.

5 steps to social network success (or: ‘KOPTE’)4
A lot of theories have been developed about social media over the past few years, but this one is very specific, and it has been shaped into a quite basic but (in my opinion) reliable model. As the name indicates, there are 5 columns on which the model is based, and all of them, some more directly than others, lead to potential success for a social network strategy. As with this analysis, generating input (and thus, reaching and connecting with people) takes a central role within this model. The five columns are: Knowledge, Original content, Passion, Time and Environment (abbreviated: ‘KOPTE’).

Knowledge can be subdivided into knowledge about a specific product or service, and about social media in general. The theory states that, as a ‘founder’, you have to make sure you are always leading the conversation on your social medium. Think of it as the role of a moderator. If there’s not enough input from a moderator, people might search for other social networks where discussions are more active. Remember that most of the time there are other social networks discussing the same topics as you are. Some basic technical knowledge of the media you’re using (whether it be open source software, Twitter, Facebook or Hyves) is also very important to start using it, and for the interaction with others.

Original content is described in the model as most underestimated of the five sub-divisions, because it’s so hard to realize: what’s truly original in a digital world where a lot of ideas already have been given shape? If the content of your network isn’t original in the sense that it isn’t done before, at least the way of presentation of content, or the thesis has to be different. In a way, just like a product that has to be marketed, a social network has to have some sort of added value, a reason why people specifically join and return to your network or community and not somebody else’s. This can be easily compared with a USP (Unique Selling Point). Content in the web 2.0 world is often generated by different groups of people, and not only by a moderator. In this model, special attention goes out to how easily the community can give their input.

Passion has to proceed from knowledge; passion for digitalism and social media as well as passion for the subject you’re dealing with. This passion should have already resulted in gained knowledge and the wish to keep this knowledge up to date. Passion for your own social network means you will take a very active role in it, and that you will remain open minded towards participants and their opinions. A community will respect and expect honesty, openness and commitment. Don’t try to cover up any flaws of mistakes; admit them and let people know what adjustments you’ve made or are going to make. All has to be transparent.

Time is often also very underestimated. A social network doesn’t really exist yet when it’s only up and running; it’s only alive when people know it exists, where it can be found, what subjects are discussed, and when people regularly share their opinions and views. Again: connect with people, ask them for their input. A lot of patience might be needed.

Environment is the last sub-division. It’s a factor that isn’t directly influenced by a person, but when above sub-divisions are put to practice in the right way, the environment will probably follow sooner or later. Of course, you’ll run the risk of somebody else starting a similar social network before you do, or somebody starting it after a network becomes successful, but this is a risk with any product or service. Stay focussed on your own community and network; use your passion and knowledge to maybe renew your network. Be flexible and adapt. Use other digital networks to promote your own and integrate different social media like Flickr and Twitter with each other.

Harrison & Sanders
Harrison & Sanders have developed one of the many models to test an organizational culture. This model offers an insight in which cultures are ruling an organization. Harrison & Sanders focus on four types of organizational cultures:5
• Culture of authority
• Culture of roles
• Culture of tasks
• Culture of persons
Below, these four cultural types are explained.

An obvious leader or boss characterizes the culture of authority. This leader expressly punishes and rewards. Because of this, the leader isn’t very close with the staff. The culture is ruled by aggressiveness: personnel struggle to get higher in the hierarchy. The organization likes to dominate its environment, and doesn’t pay much attention to rules or laws. People strive for personal success, and are very individualistic.

Formality and (long-winded) rules and procedures are an essential part of the culture of roles. The organization is mainly focussed internally, and separates the informal and personal distinctly from the formal hierarchy. The personnel strive for order and stability, and confine themselves only to the tasks belonging to their role in the organization. There isn’t al lot of flexibility and correct behaviour is often more important than effective behaviour.

When the culture of tasks rules an organization, it is aimed at cooperation and reaching higher targets. The organization might be a little chaotic at times, but is also very flexible and creative. It adapts pretty easily to the environment. Characteristic are decentralized competences; personnel can make their own decisions up to a certain level. Personal needs are sometimes put aside for higher targets. Rules that block these targets are often changed or ignored.

The culture of persons is typified by self-motivation and responsibilities. Personal interests of co-workers are most important. The environment is seen as a possible provider of work or assignments, the personnel is aimed at individual competences and development. Because of this, the organization might have little control over some processes or activities. In the next chapter, ‘Preconditions and organizational threshold’, the importance for testing the organizational culture is explained.

c. Description of the organizational routine based on selected theories
In this section, my experience with and perception of the organization of Incubate will be described. This will mainly be based on the KOPTE model. In my opinion, this model is very comprehensive, because it focuses on all the characteristics that require attention for creating a successful social network. After all, this model was designed to specifically suit a social media strategy. This chapter is only meant to be a description of the organization, and not yet for advice; this will follow in the conclusion.

Knowledge
During my research, I’ve concluded that a decent part of the staff of Incubate has a lot of knowledge of social networks in general. Without a doubt, it is ahead of a lot of other (cultural) organizations in applying social media to create buzz for their events. Incubate uses (amongst others) Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Hyves, Last.fm, YouTube and Get Satisfaction. It has three different blogs, an open source site and, of course, the Social Festival Model. Throughout the years, the organization has managed to build up a significant community around the festival using these social tools next to their events. The importance of these tools is indicated by the organization by saying: “We see maintaining al these social tools as a part of our daily routine.”

If there’s any lack of knowledge or experience to be seen, it's at the technical side of the story; Incubate uses all sorts of freeware, and the staff itself has little experience with the actual ‘building’ of a social network. For this, is does co-operate with Freshheads, however. Freshheads is a company for innovative internet applications.

During the years, the organization has also built up a lot of competence with fundraising. Starting with just a couple of thousand euros in 2005, the festival has grown explosively, in terms of budget as well as programme. It now receives structural funding from the province as well as the city of Tilburg. In 2007, Incubate hauled in a manager for external communications. He solely was set responsible for all funding applications, a task requiring fulltime commitment. This has also resulted in a very useful network of foundations and members of commissions. Incubate tries to be in constant conversation with this network.

In terms of moderating the Social Festival Model, input from the community is a continual process and feedback can sometimes be critical or negative. Reactions to this input have to come from someone with a lot of knowledge of the organization itself. The question is who is able to take on this task, especially when the model start being a lot more active. Like it was said in the Social Media Marketing Industry Report: “Nearly all marketers spending 6+ hours a week on social media marketing found exceptionally positive results.” In the last chapter of this analysis, I will try to make clear how this is best dealt with.

Original content
When it comes to content, you might say that the whole business model being open source is all there is to it. And the content is surely original; after all, it’s specifically about Incubate. This is a strength as well as a weakness. It's so specific, that the organization might have a hard time addressing a large target group. The question is: what more content could there be added? A closer look at the Social Festival Model reveals there might be a couple of things missing. Especially when it comes to simple social and interactive tools, which could make the site a bit more accessible. The policy and business plans as well as funding applications aren’t the most easy or accessible texts for a lot of people.

Right now, the organization seems to focus a lot on the added value for Incubate itself. To connect with others, the organization has to take a step back. As the people of Winkwaves said at the Congress ‘Social Networks for Organizations’: “Don’t focus too much on yourself, but think about what meaning users will attract from the network.”6 This can mean: implementing small social functions that are a bit more informal when your main goal is business-like. Also make sure the external people are clearly visible on the network, as it helps attract others.

Passion
Described in the model as “passion for digitalism and social media as well as passion for the subject you’re dealing with”. For Incubate, using these social tools is a part of the daily routine. There’s also the explicit wish to maintain knowledge on this subject. To keep up with news, updates and new social media, the organization has started the blog kicksforfree.nl during my research. It's about social media, business models / strategies and technical innovation for the cultural scene. With this blog, the organization wants to keep up with ideas on how to use social media and what for. Next to that, it is also an explicit wish to share this knowledge throughout this blog. The organization endorses the importance of keeping an open mind towards participants and their opinions. Like the model says: “All has to be transparent”, which is exactly why the organization has chosen to open up its whole business model.

Time
Time is probably becoming the most crucial element of this model. From the Book of Sponsoring and Funding Application: “Acquiring extra finances requires a lot of time, preparation and execution. Especially when the aim is structural financing, for a variation of projects, a lot of focus, systematic preparation and teamwork is desirable. Don’t search for easy ways or shortcuts, because there aren’t any. Anecdotes are the exceptions that confirm this. Make sure to manage the expectations internally.”7

This book also speaks of putting together a ‘campaign team’, which is a team of people that help with brainstorming, putting a campaign or project together, and writing a proposition about it. In the text, it is stated that such a team requires a lot of management and leadership; “Co-operation within such a campaign team is often based on good intentions, but there is a lot of management to be done within a group. If the members of the team don’t communicate effectively enough, or aren’t motivated enough, co-operation cannot be successful.” A direct link between such a campaign team and working with external people can be made; attracting and working together with them requires leadership to effectively round up different processes and to motivate people to get them to put in time and energy. This is also the case here, because most of the time people are not immediately motivated to contribute something in a social network. A working team is a team that focusses its energy at the needed output for a project.

Let’s compare the importance of social media for Incubate with the data from The Social Media Marketing Industry Report: “A significant 64% of marketers are using social media for 5 hours or more each week and 39% for 10 or more hours weekly. It is interesting to note that 9.6% spend more than 20 hours each week with social media.” It’s obvious that using social media calls for a different method of planning and organization, a more cyclic and structural process. This will be explained further in the conclusion of this analysis.

Environment
The model speaks of the risk of “someone else starting a similar social network just before you, or somebody starting it after a network becomes successful.” But in a way, this is what the Social Festival Model is about. All the texts on this site are licensed with Creative Commons 2.58, meaning everybody can copy the texts and use them freely for non-commercial goals. In this way, Incubate hopes to give something back to the people who contribute to the Social Festival Model.

It’s relevant to obtain a good view of what the environment consists of, what target groups are contained in the environment. In my opinion, there are three to be distinguished:
1) The community of Incubate itself. These people are reached through different social media, like Facebook, Last.fm, GetSatisfaction, Flickr, MySpace, the website and especially the blog of Incubate (www.inlog.org).
2) A group of people with an above average interest in social media, innovative marketing and business models / strategies.
3) A group of people with an above average interest in the cultural scene. These are the people that themselves work at a cultural organization, or the people that visit different cultural events more than average.
These last two groups are reached through the blog kicksforfree.nl and other media that write about Incubate and the Social Festival Model. Of course, a specific person can be part of more than one of these target groups.


3 SMART is a method of making goals specific for project management.
4 http://www.bijgespijkerd.nl/social-media/social-network-succes
5 http://www.markensteijn.com/organisatiecultuur.htm
6 http://www.kicksforfree.nl/2009/04/23/social-networks-congress-report/#more-450
7 H. van der Westen, p. 17.
8 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/


III. Preconditions and organizational threshold

a. Internal support for defining the problem and possible solutions
During my research, the organization was prepared to offer a lot of support for defining the focus of this analysis and possible solutions. After all, it was the organization's question to do an analysis on the Social Festival Model and the way Incubate uses it. The mentality of the staff that surrounds this, says a lot. In their own words: “We started using the Social Festival model just to do some pioneering. We still don’t really know what’s the ‘best’ way of using it, also because we’re pretty much the first cultural organization that does so. We’re open to any other perspectives and tips, they’re definitely more than welcome.” This mentality also reflects upon the community giving input at the Social Festival Model, which is one of the most important factors for using social media in general.

b. Organizational culture
I’ve mentioned Harrison & Sanders’ model for testing organizational cultures in the previous chapter. The completed test can be found in the appendixes of this analysis.9 The test itself is in Dutch, however. The different cultural types have been described in chapter II. Testing the culture is important in this context, because working with open source requires a culture that is very open minded and doesn’t depend on hierarchy (as with the culture of authority). It requires a culture that supports working open source, and a structure that is mostly horizontal (see section D of this chapter).

The culture of hierarchy is aimed at power too much to stimulate the right culture and mentality. The culture of roles depends too much on rules and processes; it is too formal and strict to deal with working open source. Like the explanation of this cultural type says: “There isn’t a lot of flexibility…” “... The personnel strive for order and stability, and confine themselves to the tasks belonging to their role in the organization.” Flexibility is almost a must in the context of dealing with input from a community, and a constantly updated subject like social media. The culture of tasks seems to be the type suiting this context best. It is aimed at co-operation and reaching higher targets. Though the organization might be a little chaotic at times, it is also very flexible and creative. This explanation seems to describe Incubate the best as well, when looking at the decentralized competence: “personnel can make their own decisions up to a certain level.” The culture of persons has a lot / too much emphasis on the personal interests of the staff. This emphasis isn’t combined with a focus on the people from the environment to be wishful for working with social media.

According to Harrison & Sanders, it is important that all these different types of cultures are represented in an organization. In this way, the organization is focussed on different competences and interests, not only that of the personnel, the customers or the environment, but on all of these. When we combine this explanation with the most suitable culture for working open source, it is best if all these cultural types are present in the organization of Incubate, with the culture of tasks being best represented. This corresponds exactly with the outcome of the test itself, being:

• Culture of hierarchy: 2
• Culture of roles: 2
• Culture of tasks: 6
• Culture of persons: 2

Based on this, my conclusion is that the organizational culture of Incubate is very appropriate for working open source and the mentality that has to surround this working ethos.

c. Competences
Ensueing the first part of this researh, it should be obvious that the organization of Incubate has enough competence to fulfil the 5 steps mentioned in the KOPTE model. Especially the function of external communications and fundraising is doing well in making the Social Festival Model a part of the daily routine.

When it comes to other functions at Incubate, it’s a bit harder to tell if and how much the Social Festival Model is a part of this routine. In terms of the artistic management and bookings, it’s clear that the Social Festival Model isn’t as much. The question that comes to mind is if it would be possible at all. As with bookings, for example, it doesn’t have a lot of connections with the policy development. In other words, could bookings be any more involved with the open source business model (excepted from the open source website and the social tools like Get Satisfaction, which is something completely different than the Social festival Model)? It seems to me that this question reaches beyond the context of this analysis, which is after all aimed at the funding applications.

d. Organizational structure
John Battelle, author of a book on innovative marketing and using social media for organizations says: “marketing is, in its essence, a horizontal practice. Every customer interaction is marketing. Every partnership is marketing. Every employee is a marketeer. And all your data, well, that’s marketing too.”10 In other words: in order to create support, open up communications and cooperate internally, a horizontal structure would be best suitable.

In this light, Incubate seems to have a lot of advantage being a small and flexible business. When looking at the following structure of Incubate, it is pretty vertical. But this is the structure for the whole festival organization, and it includes a lot of productional tasks. A lot of these are not the people involved with the Social Festival Model, only with execution of the festival itself:

ZXZW Organogram 1

When we exclude the people that are mainly involved in production of the festival, this is what remains:

ZXZW Organogram 2

Of this structure, the artist management and production management are mostly tasks having to do with the production of the festival, and not with its policy. What remains is a pretty horizontal structure that makes personal communication possible within the organization. It’s a pretty flexible structure, in the way that the organization can adapt easily when this is needed. It's the right structure for working open source.

9 The test, with explanation (in Dutch) can be found at http://www.markensteijn.com/organisatiecultuur.htm
10 See http://www.kicksforfree.nl/2009/03/16/get-horizontal/


IV. Conclusion and recommendations
In this last chapter, recommendations will be presented based on the observations of this research. A first conclusion I have to make is that the organization is on the right track: the knowledge, passion, commitment and content for working open source are all present, and so are the right organizational preconditions (such as internal support, organizational structure and culture). But, and this matches the mentality of the organization, even ‘good’ organizations can be further optimized.

There still are some problems surrounding the Social Festival Model and the way Incubate puts it to practice. This mostly has to do with connecting to the invironment, and the pioneering role the organization has taken on. The organization started with the Social Festival Model, because they wanted to take a stance in modern cultural discussions surrounding topics like copyrights, the sharing of cultural heritage and digital openness. Using the Social festival Model, the organization could take a clear position in this discussion, indirectly saying they fully support the ‘Creative Commons mentality’, where content is freely being shared in order to stimulate the cultural industry. When was found out Incubate would be the first organization to apply this manner of policy development, they thought they could best start with it as soon as possible. The organization invested time in getting the model up and running, and uploading a lot of policy plans. Like they’ve said themselves: “We started it mostly to do some pioneering, and to make ourselves a bit more visible in the cultural scene.” Little to none research was done on what could be the specific gain for the organization, or how the Social Festival Model could be best used. The analysis I’m fulfilling now is meant to somewhat fill the gap of information that could have been gathered earlier. In an earlier stage, they might find it easier to commit other people to the business model. Like David Gurteen said at the congress ‘Social Networks for Organizations’:

“You can stimulate the right vision amongst other people by organizing sessions in which you describe the targets, and discuss with the group how these targets can be achieved.” This means you’ll have to involve these people at an early stage in the process; “This also means these people will be involved in the project for a much longer time than usual, because they have the feeling that they have also set it up together with others.” Van der Westen also says: “often, too little time is invested in co-operating with others during this crucial first phase of a project. Later on, organizations realize that they have lost a lot of time, and that here is a lot of extra energy needed to make up for this”9 This also seems to have happened with the Social Festival Model; the startup only involved people from the organization itself. No external persons were given the possiblity to get involved from the start on. This could have made these persons very commited however, because they get the feeling they've created it together with the organization. It seems Incubate are now facing difficulties to make up for this, and getting people connected when the whole model is already up and running.

Before I start with my actual recommendations, let’s take a quick look again at the main question: In which ways can working open source be applied to further professionalize, qualitatively improve and optimize writing funding applications for Incubate?

First off, it’s interesting to notice that a part of the efficiency and preparations of writing the funding applications within the organization is being improved by the open source system itself. Before using an open source system, funding applications were written in a simple Word document. A first version was sent to different people but soon the input from these different people made it a chaotic process to reorganize again. Using a wiki, this problem mostly disappears because all the input is gathered and managed at one central point. This organizational subject is also being described in the explanantional video called “Wikis in plain English”12.

Most of the subjects of these following recommendations have to do with either the ‘Content’, ‘Time’ or ‘Environment’ factors from the KOPTE model. All factors will be described here again though, to be complete.

Knowledge
A decent part of the staff of Incubate has a lot of knowledge about social networks. This can easily be seen in the way the organization uses these networks, as a professional tool for the marketing of the festival on a daily basis. Incubate uses al kinds of free software, which is of course understandable, because why pay for something that can be obtained for free? But this is an advantage as well as a disadvantage of free (open source) software. The Social Festival Model could be easily put to practice because all of the software is free, but on the other side; if the organization of Incubate wants to add specific (customized) tools, this might be difficult with the system they are using now.

In the next parts, especially the ‘Content’ section, possible added social options / tools are discussed. Some of these might be hard to implement with freely available software. The question that remains is, when the organization of Incubate wants to implement these tools, if they are willing to invest in it, and weather the budget is available. It might mean the Social Festival Model would have to be (partly) rebuilt to customize it and further optimize usage of it. Customizing the Social Festival Model could possibly be done together with Freshheads, the company for internet applications the organization co-operates with.

In terms of fundraising and sponsoring, there also is a lot of knowledge within the organization, many of it thanks to the external manager. But like the Book of Sponsoring and Funding Application says: “Applying for funding most of time isn’t done by one individual, especially not in an organization. Involve other staff members in this project, and keep communicating on tasks and roles. Remember that others might face some difficulty growing in to their roles.”13 In my opinion, it’s very important a lot of people are able to give their input in this process. As with the whole principle of social networks: a group of people know more that one person. This is also the thought behind the Social Festival Model. To make it work, however, requires a lot of planning, connecting with people and asking their feedback. It’s obvious this asks for a different way of planning the project; one that makes this a more cyclic process and creates possibilities for the project of funding applications to not solely depend on one person, but to be aimed at generating input from a lot of different people. This will be further described at the ‘Time’ section.

Original content
The Social Festival Model basically consists of all the policy plans of the organization. It might seem complete as it is right now, but the organization seems to focus a lot on the added value for Incubate itself. To connect with others, the organization has to take a step back. As the people of Winkwaves said at the Congress ‘Social Networks for Organizations’: “Don’t focus too much on yourself, but think about what meaning users will attract from the network. This means: implement small social functions that are more informal when your main goal is mostly business-like.”14 Possible contributors of the Social Festival Model will probably not directly be interested in the marketing plans or funding applications, but might be triggered more by discussions on topics surrounding the festival organization. For Incubate, this means special attention in terms of social tools has to go out to:

1) Making social tools easy accessible. This means the tools have to contain simple subjects that are understandable for everyone, and that using the tools has to cost little time. A possible solution for this could be implementing Get Satisfaction15 in the Social Festival Model. Get Satisfaction is an "online tool to create customer relations using input and feedback from your community to recruit ideas or solving problems". Incubate already uses this tool for input on the music program of the festival, which is working pretty well. It’s still a shame that this social tool isn’t directly linked to the Social Festival Model, however. It’s likely that a lot of the possible users of the Social Festival Model would be interested in supplying input for the bookings of the festival (this is also showed by the statics of usage of the Get Satisfaction account). These people might also be interested in things like the marketing of the festival, or they might grow into these organizational developments, but still aren’t linked to it. Linking the Get Satisfaction tool to the Social Festival Model, and connecting with these users to ask them for input on the policy development would be a first step.

2) Creating easy accessible subjects for the social tools. Asking input for the program of the festival is a good example. People like to feel they have contributed to the festival, and they like to push their favorite bands forward, but it shouldn’t cost too much time. The festival should at least do the same with other forms of art and culture they present. They are after all a multidisciplinary festival. So why not ask for input on the program of visual arts, contemporary dance and film? This way, more people with different backgrounds will be committed to the festival. By once again implementing this input to the Social Festival Model, more people will come in contact with the overall policy development of the festival. Other than Get Satisfaction, simple polls for input, decision-making and monitoring visitors would also be helpful.

3) Creating extra social value for the tools. At the moment, the Social Festival Model is a social media in the way that it’s aimed at generating input from a lot of different people. But it isn’t a social media in the way that it is truly interactive. People that are active on the site can respond to each other, for example on the discussions page, but more informal interaction isn’t stimulated by the open source system. The question is whether the organization wants this sort of communication on the site, but it can add to the possibilities of attracting people. The main point is: even if the organization doesn’t want this sort of informal ‘chit chat’ on their site (for reasons possibly being that it distracts from the subject of policy development, or that it might ‘pollute’ the Social Festival Model with an overload of unnecessary input), it still remains very important to ask the question: “What meaning can users attract from this network?” A lot of the reasons why people use the different types of social media have to do with the interaction and sharing with others. Remember the question that Twitter always asks; “What are you doing?” People want to share this and be visible. The Social Festival Model somewhat lacks this feature at the moment. In my opinion, two steps have to be taken to further develop these options.

First, interaction between users has to be stimulated by the organization. The basis of this has to be: making it possible for users to share a bit of themselves on the Social Festival Model. They are clearly there for a reason, perhaps because they care about the festival, because they’re interested in policy development, in marketing or other organizational issues, or maybe because they are active in the cultural or digital scene. Whatever the reason is, why not get it visible? Some other interesting background on this is the presentation from Brian Solis at Next09 in Hamburg.16 He stated that the question Twitter asks is the wrong one: “Nobody cares ‘What you are doing’ right now. Drinking a cup of coffee? Going to bed? Getting up? The question you should answer is “What inspires you?” or “What did you learn today?” In my opinion, Incubate would do good to implement one of these matters into the Social Festival Model. This way, people can share what inspires them in terms of subjects that surround the Social Festival Model. Think about articles on policy development, marketing models, or changes in the funding landscape. There are different technical solutions to apply this sort of social interaction. The discussions pages on the Social Festival Model can be one. Customized tools can be another.

Second, focus has to be on getting the users of the Social Festival Model more visible. Whenever people invest time and effort in their input, they want this to be seen. A possible solution would be to try to find a different layout for the Social Festival Model, where members are at least shown on the front page. A last point of attention I would like to offer is that, if the organization of Incubate decides to implement new social tools and options into the Social Festival Model, the arrangement and lay out of subjects on the site have to be managed. If this doesn’t happen, the organization will run the risk of the site becoming inconvenient and confusing in usage.

Passion
During this research I’ve experienced a great passion for social media, business models and digital innovation from the organization. This is shown by the fact that Incubate uses social media on a daily basis. examples of this are the blog kicksforfree.nl, the wish to keep their knowledge up-to-date, their commitment to share their knowledge on these subjects and getting the Social Festival Model under attention of others. Their mentality that applying open source and social media is a part of their daily routine says a lot.

The only advice in terms of this factor is to make sure the organization keeps investing time in keeping up with these subjects and that they keep applying (new) social media to keep their knowledge up-to-date. Further, the organization has to keep attracting and connecting with possible new users. This means directly inviting people to the Social Festival Model, asking their input, commenting on their input (Like the KOPTE Model also says: “Social Media offer the possibility to reflect on a message or a reply; make use of it”), and keeping them committed to the model. This will, in the end, require investing a lot of time. So let’s continue to the next factor.

Time
The organization shouldn’t underestimate the amount of time the advice above will cost, especially when the Social Festival Model becomes more active and the amount of members will grow. Keeping interacting with these members alone could be a big investment, time-wise.

The head of the Marketing department would be the logical choice to become main moderator of the Social Festival Model. But during this research it became clear he is very busy with just getting funding applications out in time. The question is whether he is able to take on this task as well. Like it was said in the Social Media Marketing Industry Report: “Nearly all marketers spending 6+ hours a week on social media marketing found exceptionally positive results.”

It’s obvious that the person moderating the Social Festival Model has to have enough background information and knowledge of the organization. This would probably have to be the head of the Marketing department / external manager or someone in the direct assistance of him. My preference would be the latter, because the head off the Marketing department should focus mainly on the overall output from Incubate to foundations. An intern in the direct assistance of this manager could be delegated, and could be responsible for gathering input from the environment. Of course, the intern should have enough knowledge of policy development and social media / digital innovation.

Another important subject is that of planning the whole project of fundraising, and creating a process for generating input from the environment. Probably one of the most important recommendations of this analysis is that this project has to become a cyclic process much more in order to truly accomplish what is being asked in the main question. Most important will be to get the focus off of the deadlines. Which of course doesn’t mean they should be completely ignored, but the focus has to be on less ‘urgent’ and ‘screaming-for-attention’ conditions. The focus should be on output, and the process that leads to the best output. Stephen Covey, writer of the book The 7 Habits for Effective Leadership underlines this method of working with his time management matrix. In his words: “Short term, important issues can control our behaviour and work for a large part. We should be able to let go of these issues partly, because else, all we’re doing is solving small problems all day. Urgent matters take up a large part of our attention, and a lot of the time it’s hard to resist them. Yet to plan your work more balanced and to make it less stressful, more time and effort have to be invested in long term important issues. With this, your focus will be on possibilities instead of problem solving.”17 In the context of Incubate, this means the focus of the organization should be more on the process of fundraising, and on getting the output to possible funders as good as possible. With this new way of planning, special attention and time can go out to gathering input from the community / environment on the different applications. A solution for this process would be to start planning ahead. First, make the whole process required to create good output insightful. Next, start planning how much time the different stages require. A basic construction of this process could be:

1) Creating the first version of a project for the festival (for example: the ‘Kraaklink’ project, where contemporary composed music is being played in a squat)
2) Asking the environment / community for input on this project. Can they think of interesting sub-programming for the project? If they would visit this specific project at the festival, what else would they like to see there except for the performance itself? (For example: visitors might like to hear some more background of the compositions that are played; where and how did they originate, what were they inspired by?) For this input, specific target groups can be addressed.
3) Writing the first version of the funding application. This is probably mostly done by the organization, but input can again be acquired, in terms of decision-making. (For example: which reviews of the Kraaklink 2008 edition should we use in the funding application, is the marketing part of the application clear enough?) This input might seem a bit simple or unnecessary, but it isn’t for two reasons: visitors get the feeling they’ve contributed in an early stage of the project, and their input is easily given; it doesn’t cost them a lot of time.
4) Asking for input on the first version of the funding application. This is probably the most specific period, and requires a lot of time. Is the application and project clear enough, is it written well enough, or do visitors miss something? If they would go to the festival, would they know exactly what to expect of the project based on this application?
5) Based on the input, a second version of the application can be made.
6) The second version of the application could be checked by professionals from the cultural scene, people from the network of the organization, or by people from foundations.
7) Lastly, the budget can be calculated and the design of the application can be addressed.
8) After this, feedback from and communication with possible funders have to be shared with the community. After all, they’ve worked on this project as well as the organization did. Make them clear when feedback of possible funders is expected, and upload this on the Social Festival Model. This last is already being done by the organization.

Environment
I’d like to mention two last points of advice in this factor. Both of them have to with organizing and managing a group of users from the environment. Both are aimed at starting up the interaction at the Social Festival Model, in order to get it more alive. When this happens, more people will probably be attracted to the site.

First, it’s an option to put together a panel of visitors from the community of Incubate that will use the Social Festival Model for a couple of weeks. They can help getting positive as well as negative aspects to the surface. This panel has to consist of people that have the competence to give critical feedback. This can be interns, students from (local) educations or people from the community of Incubate. If this is going to be done, it’s very important to manage the group of people as well as the output of this panel. This means evaluating the experiences of the panel on a structural basis. Negative aspects have to be adapted, positive aspects might have to be emphasized. The organization has to make clear to the panel what solutions are chosen for, and what changes are (being) made on the Social Festival Model. This way, the panel can test these adaptations again, and evaluation can start over again, making it a cyclic process.

A remark has to be made here. During my research, some objectives have been formulated for further development of the Social Festival Model. These objectives together sum up the ‘Social Festival Model 2.0’, aimed at getting finances for further developing the open source business model. One of these objectives is called “Getting information from different people in different segments of the cultural business.” This objective looks a bit like the panel I described above. The difference however, is that the panel makes use of the Social Festival Model for a much longer period. This way, more concrete feedback can be acquired from a group. The objectives of the Social Festival Model 2.0 are summed up in the appendixes.

The last recommendation has to do with getting the Social Festival Model more implemented in the organization. This can be combined with test groups that are working for the festival on the open source site. This has a lot in common with the panel mentioned above. But a test group would be more focussed on output than on locating problems and evaluating the model. A specific realization of this could be a group of students that have to do an assignment for their education. Because they are most likely active at different parts of the network, it will sooner look socially active. This will have a positive effect on possible new members of the network as well as 'passer-by’s'. People will sooner want to become part of a social network, when it looks alive and vibrant.18 Making use of such a test group also means the assignment has to be evaluated. It is important to realize that contact for this evaluation shouldn’t only exist virtually, but face to face as well.

Not only the elements of the KOPTE model are important for succesfully integrating a social media strategy in an organization, the organizational culture and structure are as well. These preconditions have been described in chapter III of this analysis. A basic conclusion is that the culture of tasks and a horizontal structure are most suitable for working open source. Interesting follow-up research might be to analyse different (cultural) organizations to measure if, and how far, they're fulfilling the organizational preconditions for succesfully implementing a social media strategy.

11 H. van der Westen, p. 50.
12 To be found on http://www.socialfestivalmodel.org
13 H. van der Westen, p. 20.
14 http://www.kicksforfree.nl/2009/04/23/social-networks-congress-report/#more-450
15 http://getsatisfaction.com/
16 Find a summary of this presentation at http://thenextweb.com/2009/05/06/brian-solis-wrong-question/
17 Covey, S, p. 132.
18 I got the idea of the use of a test group for a social network from a conversation with David Gurteen, at the Congress ‘Social Networks for Organizations’. Gurteen assented the possibilities of such a test group, and the importance in the case of Incubate.


Sources

Literature
G. Hagoort, Artmanagement; entrepreneurial style. 5e dr. Delft, 2005.
Prof. Dr. D. Keuning, Grondslagen van het management. 3e dr. Groningen/Houten, 2003.
R. E. Quinn, Een kader voor managementvaardigheden; over de rollen, de inzichten en de vaardigheden van managers. 1e dr. Schoonhoven, 1996.
K. Rudy en Y. Burger, Kijken naar organisaties. Deventer,1998.
Y. Mandour, M. Bekkers en P. Waalewijn, Een praktische kijk op marketing- en strategiemodellen. 1e dr. Den Haag, 2007.
J. Verhaar, Projectmatig werken. 1e dr. Amsterdam, 2005.
N. Verhoeven, Wat is onderzoek?; Praktijkboek methoden en technieken voor het hoger onderwijs. 2e dr. Amsterdam, 2007.
H. van der Westen, Praktijkboek sponsoring en fondsenwerving voor non-profit organisaties. 1e dr. Zutphen, 2006.
S. R. Covey, De zeven eigenschappen van effectief leiderschap. 35e dr. Amsterdam/Antwerpen 2006.

Internet
Mark en Steijn, De cultuurtypen uit de cultuurtest van Harrison: http://www.markensteijn.com/organisatiecultuur.htm
Wetpaint; Create a free website about anything you love!: www.wetpaint.com
G. Jansen, 5 Stappen tot Social Network Succes (of: ‘KOPTE’): http://www.bijgespijkerd.nl/social-media/social-network-succes
M. Stelzner, The Social Media Marketing Industry Report: How Marketers Are Using Social Media to Grow Their Businesses: http://www.whitepapersource.com/socialmediamarketing/report/
T. Chapman, Social network marketing, engagement marketing and brands: http://socialnetworkmarketinguk.com/
J. Battelle, Get horizontal, http://battellemedia.com/archives/004856.php and http://www.kicksforfree.nl/2009/03/16/get-horizontal/
Solis, B, “What are you doing?” is the wrong question…: http://thenextweb.com/2009/05/06/brian-solis-wrong-question/

Other
Congress ‘Social Networks for Organizations’ by Essentials Media, 22-04-2009, WTC Rotterdam. Speakers, amongst others: David Gurteen, Leonie Houtman, Arnoud Engelfriet, René Jansen.


Appendix: Organizational Culture test (Dutch)

1. Als iemand in uw bedrijf een verschil van mening heeft met een collega dan:
0 ontstaat er een debat, waarin de beste wint.
0 leggen zij het conflict voor aan hun chef, die dan een beslissing neemt.
X gaan ze samen na wat het beste voor het bedrijf is en doen dat.
0 discussiëren zij erover, waarna ieder doet wat hem het beste lijkt.

2. Als er voor uw bedrijf een voordeel met risico´s te halen valt, maar er moeten daarvoor een paar regels en procedures tijdelijk buiten werking gesteld worden, dan:
0 beslist de directeur en zegt vervolgens wat een ieder moet doen en laten.
X doen we het alleen als het redelijkerwijs kan zonder de regels overboord te zetten.
0 gaat ieder die ermee te maken heeft snel informatie verzamelen om de haalbaarheid te toetsen; als alles positief lijkt (en de kans is nog niet verkeken) doen we het.
0 is er meestal alleen belangstelling van de hele groep als men het een interessante job vindt – overigens heeft natuurlijk niemand er bezwaar tegen als één of enkele mensen het aanpakken.

3. Onderlinge concurrentie is gericht op:
0 het verkrijgen van zoveel mogelijk macht.
0 het verkrijgen van een zo hoog mogelijke formele status.
X het uitblinken in het werk.
0 het zo goed mogelijk bevredigen van de eigen behoeften.

4. De redenen, waarom mensen in uw organisatie zich inspannen, zijn voornamelijk:
0 omdat je in de organisatie alleen wat bereikt als je er hard tegenaan gaat, bovendien krijg je je baas op je nek als je er niet aan trekt.
0 omdat er van je verwacht wordt dat je regelmatig doorwerkt en een faire prestatie levert.
0 omdat de klus klaar moet en je daar met zijn allen voor stáát.
X omdat het werk je belangstelling heeft en het een deel van jezelf is geworden.

5. Als iemand in uw organisatie ruzie heeft met de chef, dan:
0 zal deze misschien proberen de chef er onder te krijgen, maar meestal geeft hij/zij toe.
0 is er een beroepsprocedure die hij/zij kan volgen om een bindende uitspraak te krijgen.
X is het de vraag of dat voor het werk belangrijk is – zo nee, dan is het niet zo interessant – zo ja, dan zorgen we ervoor dat de ruzie wordt bijgelegd.
0 zullen we met hen praten en hen helpen de zaak op te lossen – maar als dat niet lukt zullen ze wel ruzie houden en elkaar voortaan ontlopen (of de persoon zoekt een andere baan).

6. Als iemand niet tevreden is met zijn of haar job zal deze gewoonlijk:
0 voor een promotie vechten.
0 een verzoek om verandering of overplaatsing doen aan de chef of personeelszaken.
0 een andere bijdrage gaan leveren binnen het totale te verrichten werk.
X ander werk gaan doen of een andere baan zoeken.

7. Als er vrij plotseling een leidende functionaris uitvalt en die moet worden vervangen, dan:
X wijst de directie iemand aan die zij geschikt en competent acht.
0 wordt gewoonlijk de adjunct-chef benoemd, die er het langste is - die moet dan natuurlijk wel de juiste papieren hebben en goede beoordelingen.
0 zoeken we iemand die deze job goed aankan en die de zaak goed bij elkaar kan houden.
0 moeten we iemand kiezen, die zowel als leider qua kunde en als persoon het vertrouwen van de mensen heeft.

8. Als er sprake is van het invoeren van een verandering in de werkomstandigheden, dan:
0 hangt het er vanaf wat de directie vindt: als zij het schadelijk acht, probeert ze de invoering tegen te houden of te beperken, als zij het niet schadelijk acht staat zij het binnen redelijke grenzen toe.
0 wordt er overlegd - waarschijnlijk wordt er een commissie ingesteld die een voorstel doet.
X gaan we na wat het inhoudt en wat de gevolgen ervan voor het werk zijn - als het werk het toestaat doen we het, terwijl we onderling een regeling maken voor het opvangen van problemen.
0 is de vraag of mensen daardoor beter uit de voeten kunnen - zij die dat kunnen zullen er gebruik van maken, anderen hoeven niet.

9. Mensen die het goed doen binnen de organisatie:
0 zijn slimme, op wedijver ingestelde mensen met een sterke drang naar macht.
0 zijn plichtsgetrouw, hebben verantwoordelijkheidsbesef en hebben een loyale instelling ten opzichte van de organisatie.
X zijn vakbekwaam, efficiënt en wijden zich met volledige inzet aan hun taak.
0 zijn effectief in hun contacten met anderen en zetten zich ten volle in voor de ontplooiingen en persoonlijke groei van de anderen.

10. Als er om een bepaald doel te bereiken iemand in uw organisatie “een veer moet laten” of schade lijdt of tekort moet worden gedaan, dan:
0 hangt het er vanaf of het een hoge of een lage functionaris betreft. Bij een hoge en machtige persoon gebeurt dat niet zo gauw, bij een lage (met weinig invloed) gebeurt het eerder.
X wordt er nagegaan wat er in vorige gevallen is geschied, hoe dat is aangepakt en of er tegemoetkomingen zijn gegeven; afhankelijk daarvan wordt al of niet iets gedaan.
0 moet de persoon in kwestie door de zure appel heen bijten.
0 helpen we de persoon dat te accepteren – als hij/zij dat niet kan is dat jammer voor hem/haar of anders zal deze wel weggaan.

11. Als iemand niet zo goed meer mee kan, dan:
X zal hij/zij zich verschansen, een sterke positie proberen te vinden en terugvechten.
0 zal hij/zij gewoonlijk worden overgeplaatst of worden weggepromoveerd.
0 krijgt iemand anders zijn of haar job en gaat hij/zij ander werk doen als dat er is.
0 accepteren we dat en helpen hem/haar dat te aanvaarden.

12. De taakverdeling binnen de organisatie is gebaseerd op:
0 de persoonlijke behoeften en inzichten van de gezagdragende functionarissen.
0 de formele splitsing van functies en verantwoordelijkheden in de organisatie.
X de middelen en de deskundigheid die nodig zijn voor het verrichten van de taak.
0 de persoonlijke wensen en behoeften van de afzonderlijke leden van de organisatie ten aanzien van verdere ontplooiing.

De resultaten van de cultuurtest:
Machtscultuur: 2
Rolcultuur: 2
Taakcultuur: 6
Persoonscultuur: 2


Appendix: Objectives Social Festival Model 2.0

• Marketing the Social Festival Model internationally together with a promoter. Incubate will hire somebody that is familiar with the context of the Social Festival model, and that is able to get it under the attention at marketing related international websites and magazines. Resulting this, international peers will have to begin writing along with the Social Festival Model.

• Getting information from different people in different segments of the cultural business. Through interviewing these people, asking them their feedback we can qualitatively improve the Social Festival Model and make it more attractive. Questions that need to be asked are, amongst others: Would the model be useful for your company, Would you be interested in writing and developing this model, What could be negative aspects of this model, What could be improved, and how can people be connected with this model?

• Organizing a presentation at the Incubate Festival 2009. At this presentation, the whole course of building and developing the Social Festival Model will be explained. Questions that will be answered at this presentation will be: What has the model meant for Incubate, and what has it meant for the cultural scene, what has been the response, positive and negative aspects and: has it been a success so far? Afterwards, a panel discussion will take place with different people from the cultural scene.

• Using best practice to implement new technologies into the Social Festival Model. Through testing and developing, we would like to add technologies such as Get Satisfaction. This is an online tool to create customer relations using input and feedback from your community to recruit ideas or solving problems.

• Documenting the process and media attention. Incubate will arrange an online location, such as a blog, where the progress is accessible for everyone.

• Resulting the above, the objective is to make the open source business model applicable for other cultural organizations.




Je_Suis_Barry
Je_Suis_Barry 		Latest page update: made by Je_Suis_Barry , Dec 21 2009, 6:39 AM EST (about this update About This Update Je_Suis_Barry Moved from: Incubate research - Je_Suis_Barry

No content added or deleted.
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)

There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.