Business Innovation and Disruption in Publishing

This is the first volume in a book series examining how organizations in the creative industries respond to disruptive change and how they themselves generate business innovations. The aspiration of this book series is to understand some of the common forces behind the disruptions occurring in so many creative industries today and identifying the most promising strategies and responses by organizations to create new value propositions, business models and business practices that can enable these industry participants to cope with and eventually thrive as their industries and sectors are transformed. The chapters included in the volume examine the processes of disruption and transformation due to the technology of the Internet, social forces driven by social media, the development of new portable digital devices with greater capabilities and smaller size, the decreasing costs of new information, and the creation of new business models and forms of intellectual property ownership rights for a digitized industry. The context for this volume is the publishing industries, understood as the industries for the publishing of fiction and non-fiction books, academic literature, consumer as well as trade magazines, and daily newspapers. This volume includes chapters by an internationally diverse array of media scholars whose chapters provide insights into these phenomena in Eastern Europe, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Russia, and the United States, using different methodological frameworks including, but not limited to, surveys, in-depth interviews and multiple-case studies. One gap that this book series seeks to fill is that between the study of business innovation and disruption by innovation scholars largely based in business school settings and similar studies by scholarly experts from non-business school disciplines, including the broader social sciences (e.g. sociology, political science, economic geography) and creative industry based professional school disciplines (e.g. architecture, communications, design, film making, journalism, media studies, performing arts, photography and television). Future volumes of this book series will examine disruption and business innovation in the film, video and photography sectors (volume two), the music sector (volume three) and interactive entertainment (volume four), with subsequent volumes focusing on the most relevant developments in creative industry business innovation and disruption that emerge.

Small firms, the paid maternity leave debate in Australia and the business case

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the management of maternity leave in small firms and particularly to explore the perceived costs and benefits of paid maternity leave (PML). PML is a universal right in some countries (i.e. the UK), but not in Australia where most private sector female employees only have access to 12 months unpaid maternity leave. It also aims to explore how the business case for (or against) PML is constructed in small firms. Design/methodology/approach The study was limited to smaller firms operating in the business services sector in the same regional area. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with eight employers and female employees in six of these firms. Analysis by theme was undertaken within and across interview transcripts. Findings Not one of these small firm employers offered PML and the cost of doing so was not considered to outweigh the benefits already realised through the (legislated) unpaid maternity leave scheme. In these firms maternity leave was managed in an informal way with notions of flexibility – give and take – characterising what happens. Originality/value The paper addresses the lack of research on access to family‐related leave policies in small firms. Employer and employee views of the issue are drawn upon, the latter not often being heard. The paper contributes to understanding the construction of the business case for a specific issue in smaller firms and human resource management from a resource‐based view more generally in smaller firms.

An e-support firm's response to local e-readiness and the global e-business environment

The purpose of this study is to understand a small e-support firm’s response to the local e-readiness and the global e-business environment in a developing context. E-Support firms provide Web development and consultancy services to user organizations, assisting them in their uptake and maintenance of their Internet applications. Within the e-readiness research area, little is known about e-support firms, particularly in connection with their interaction with their local and the global e-business environment. As yet the emphasis on e-readiness studies has been at the national level. Nevertheless, the e-support sector is very significant in the successful adoption and diffusion of the Internet and related applications in any economy. It is thus important to understand how such firms relate to their e-business environments.That said, this study draws on the interpretive case study of a small e-support firm in Ghana, a developing context, to investigate the firm’s response to the e-readiness level of the local and the global e-business environment. Findings show that the firm could employ resources from the global environment to address most of the infrastructural challenges posed by a relatively poor local e-readiness context. However, its attempt to transfer advanced e-business technologies from the global e-business environment to the local e-business context did not succeed. This chapter offers implications for practice and research concerning the notion of reconciling local and global e-business environments in the small e-support sector.

The ethics, aesthetics and practical politics of ownership in co-creative media

What is ‘best practice’ when it comes to managing intellectual property rights in participatory media content? As commercial media and entertainment business models have increasingly come to rely upon the networked productivity of end-users (Banks and Humphreys 2008) this question has been framed as a problem of creative labour made all the more precarious by changing employment patterns and work cultures of knowledge-intensive societies and globalising economies (Banks, Gill and Taylor 2014). This paper considers how the problems of ownership are addressed in non-commercial, community-based arts and media contexts. Problems of labour are also manifest in these contexts (for example, reliance on volunteer labour and uncertain economic reward for creative excellence). Nonetheless, managing intellectual property rights in collaborative creative works that are created in community media and arts contexts is no less challenging or complex than in commercial contexts. This paper takes as its focus a particular participatory media practice known as ‘digital storytelling’. The digital storytelling method, formalised by the Centre for Digital Storytelling (CDS) from the mid-1990s, has been internationally adopted and adapted for use in an open-ended variety of community arts, education, health and allied services settings (Hartley and McWilliam 2009; Lambert 2013; Lundby 2008; Thumin 2012). It provides a useful point of departure for thinking about a range of collaborative media production practices that seek to address participation ‘gaps’ (Jenkins 2006). However the outputs of these activities, including digital stories, cannot be fully understood or accurately described as user-generated content. For this reason, digital storytelling is taken here to belong to a category of participatory media activity that has been described as ‘co-creative’ media (Spurgeon 2013) in order to improve understanding of the conditions of mediated and mediatized participation (Couldry 2008). This paper reports on a survey of the actual copyrighting practices of cultural institutions and community-based media arts practitioners that work with digital storytelling and similar participatory content creation methods. This survey finds that although there is a preference for Creative Commons licensing a great variety of approaches are taken to managing intellectual property rights in co-creative media. These range from the use of Creative Commons licences (for example, Lambert 2013, p.193) to retention of full copyrights by storytellers, to retention of certain rights by facilitating organisations (for example, broadcast rights by community radio stations and public service broadcasters), and a range of other shared rights arrangements between professional creative practitioners, the individual storytellers and communities with which they collaborate, media outlets, exhibitors and funders. This paper also considers how aesthetic and ethical considerations shape responses to questions of intellectual property rights in community media arts contexts. For example, embedded in the CDS digital storytelling method is ‘a critique of power and the numerous ways that rank is unconsciously expressed in engagements between classes, races and gender’ (Lambert 117). The CDS method privileges the interests of the storyteller and, through a transformative workshop process, aims to generate original individual stories that, in turn, reflect self-awareness of ‘how much the way we live is scripted by history, by social and cultural norms, by our own unique journey through a contradictory, and at times hostile, world’ (Lambert 118). Such a critical approach is characteristic of co-creative media practices. It extends to a heightened awareness of the risks of ‘story theft’ and the challenges of ownership and informs ideas of ‘best practice’ amongst creative practitioners, teaching artists and community media producers, along with commitments to achieving equitable solutions for all participants in co-creative media practice (for example, Lyons-Reid and Kuddell nd.). Yet, there is surprisingly little written about the challenges of managing intellectual property produced in co-creative media activities. A dialogic sense of ownership in stories has been identified as an indicator of successful digital storytelling practice (Hayes and Matusov 2005) and is helpful to grounding the more abstract claims of empowerment for social participation that are associated with co-creative methods. Contrary to the ‘change from below’ philosophy that underpins much thinking about co-creative media, however, discussions of intellectual property usually focus on how methods such as digital storytelling contribute to the formation of copyright law-compliant subjects, particularly when used in educational settings (for example, Ohler nd.). This also exposes the reliance of co-creative methods on the creative assets storytellers (rather than on the copyrighted materials of the media cultures of storytellers) as a pragmatic response to the constraints that intellectual property right laws impose on the entire category of participatory media. At the level of practical politics, it also becomes apparent that co-creative media practitioners and storytellers located in copyright jurisdictions governed by ‘fair use’ principles have much greater creative flexibility than those located in jurisdictions governed by ‘fair dealing’ principles.

Economic Analysis and Policy moves forward

As Editor of Economic Analysis and Policy (EAP) I am delighted to announce that EAP is now published by Elsevier. EAP is the journal of the Economic Society of Australia (Queensland branch). As a result of this move, four issues of EAP will be published per year instead of the current three. This will include special issues. EAP will now receive wider coverage in the relevant abstracting and indexing services...

How does access to development finance shape our cities?

In market economies the built environment is largely the product of private sector property development. Property development is a high-risk entrepreneurial activity executing expensive projects with long gestation periods in an uncertain environment and into an uncertain future. Risk lies at the core of development: the developer manages the multiple risks of development and it is the capital injection and financing that is placed at risk. From the developer's perspective the search for development capital is a quest: to access more finance, over a longer term, with fewer conditions and at lower rates. From the supply angle, capital of various sources - banks, insurance companies, superannuation funds, accumulated firm profits, retail investors and private equity - is always seeking above market returns for limited risk. Property development presents one potentially lucrative, but risky, investment opportunity. Competition for returns on capital produces a continual dynamic evolution of methods for funding property developments. And thus the relationship between capital and development and the outcomes for the built environment are in a restless continual evolution. Little is documented about the ways development is financed in Australia and even less of the consequences for cities. Using publicly available data sources and examples of different development financing from Australian practice, this paper argues that different methods of financing development have different outcomes and consequences for the built environment. This paper also presents an agenda for further research into these themes.

Individuals, Innovation, and the Internet : Why Access is Essential

As each day passes, and as new and better devices and services are developed, more and more government and private services are being moved to an online format. This movement makes access to the internet an essential for 21st Century life. The internet has become so integrated in our lives that many of us cannot imagine how we could operate without it. This omnipresent ‘being’ affects all forms of ‘normal’ social and economic activity and does so in ways that we do not realize. Those with access are able to engage with government, business, and family and friends more easily, which can lead to an improved standard of living. For the disadvantaged, however – those with the desire but without the capacity – a lack of access can be socially isolating. "Between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act Falls the Shadow – T. S. Elliott. “The Hollow Men” Engagement in the internet economy requires both physical access and the individual to have the necessary finances and skills to make and sustain their use. If governments and the international community want a fully functioning internet economy this requires that all individuals must be operating in it. That not all individuals do so means, very simply, that the internet economy is not fully functioning. The text contextualizes for policy makers and legislatures why it is essential to ensure that individuals have appropriate access to the internet and what can be done to achieve it. The interrelationship/overlap between why access is essential, how it can be achieved and the central role of the individual to the internet economy is explored and translated into the concept of connectedness. From this, solutions for ensuring connectedness for all individuals are developed. It is Dr Cradduck’s hope that in the not too distant future readers will puzzle over why texts such as this needed to be written.

Financing the project : economic incentives promoting sustainable property development

This chapter is focussed on the various financial instruments and incentives that have been implemented in a range of countries to encourage sustainable developments in all property sectors. It is an area that has undergone substantial change globally since 2008. Sustainable property development has been impacted by the Global Financial Crisis, particularly with regards to the availability of private sector funding and the requirements of funders who now have a more cautious approach to risk. Sustainability, and sometimes a lack of it, is increasingly viewed as a risk in some markets; it is also seen as an area in which governments, through creation of markets and through the use of fiscal instruments can seek to speed up the pace at which the economics of sustainable development makes good business sense. However, it is not just governments that provide the incentive for sustainability- or the dis-incentive for non-sustainable behaviours.

Submission to KPMG review of the Federal Government Initiative to “analyse dementia program and services funded by the Department of Social Services"

The comments I make are based on my nearly twenty years involvement in the dementia cause at both a national and international level. In preparation, I read two papers namely the Ministerial Dementia Forum – Option Paper produced by KPMG Management Consultants (2014) and Analysis of Dementia Programmes and Services Funded by the Department of Social Services: Conversation Starter prepared by KPMG as a preparation document for those attending a workshop in Brisbane on April 22nd 2015. Dementia is a complex “syndrome” and as is often said, “when you meet one person with dementia, you have met one” meaning that no two persons with dementia are the same. Even in dementia care, Australia is a “lucky country” and there is much to be said for the quality and diversity of dementia care available for people living with dementia. Despite this, I agree with the many views expressed in the material I read that there is scope for improvement, especially in the way that services are coordinated. In saying that, I do not purport to have all the solutions nor claim to have the knowledge required to comment on all the programs covered by this review. If I appear to be a “biased” advocate for Alzheimer’s Australia across the States and Territories, it is because I have seen constant evidence of ordinary people doing extraordinary things with inadequate resources. Dementia care is not cheap and if those funding dementia services are primarily only interested in economic outcomes and benefits, the real purpose of this consultation will be defeated. In addition, nowhere in the material I have read is there any recognition that in many instances program funding is a complex mix of government (at all levels) and private funding. This makes reviewing those programs more complex and less able to be coordinated at a Departmental level. It goes without saying therefore that the Federal Government is not” the only player in this game”. Of all those participating in this review, Alzheimer’s Australia is best placed to comment on programs as it is more connected to people living with dementia and has probably the best record of consulting with them. It would appear however that their role has been reduced to that of a “bit player”. Without wanting to be critical, the Forum Report which deals with the comments made at a gathering of 70 individuals and organisations, only three (3) or 4.28% were actual carers of people living with dementia. Even if it is argued that a number of organisations present represented consumers, the percentage goes up only marginally to 8.57% which is hardly an endorsement of the forum being “consumer driven”. The predominance of those present were service providers, each with their own agenda and each seeking advantage for their “business”. The final point I want to make before commenting on more specific, program related issues, is that many programs being reviewed have a much longer history than is reflected in the material I have read. Their growth and development was pioneered by Alzheimer’s Australia organisations across the country often with no government funding. Attempts to bring about better coordination of programs were often at the behest of Alzheimer’s Australia but in the main were ignored. The opportunity to now put this right is long overdue.