Facilitated Chaos:
Organizational creativity in videogame development v.4.0.x
How can leaders organize the creative development of videogames?
René Derks
PSAU – Creative Development
University Utrecht ID: 3122883
Thesis supervisor: Dr. Aukje Thomassen
Contact me at: [email protected]
2
Foreword This book you are now holding in your hands is an artifact of my learning process of the
past year. During my study Creative Development at the Professional School of the Arts
Utrecht in The Netherlands I have learned a lot about videogame development and the
role of leadership in these creative processes. As my background lies in International
Business Studies, specifically in knowledge- and innovation management, this is the
perspective from which I approach the topic. As you will come to understand, this piece
of information is intended to develop models and ways of understanding the topic at
hand: design and management in videogame creation.
Big up to W! Games in Amsterdam. For the past five months I have worked there and
they have fully supported me in my research, as well as opening up this information to
the public space. Although everybody in the organization has taught me a thing or two on
working in a studio, I specifically want to thank JP, Mike, and Jelle. Through their work,
attitude, and our conversations they have taught me a lot about leadership in videogame
development.
Also, I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thesis. I would like to start
with Taylor, Wesh, Weggeman, Leadbeater, and Krogh et al. as this study mainly builds
on their theories and works. All the interview respondents: Mathieu Weggeman, Peter
Berends, Marc van Wegberg, Ursula Glunk, Hermen Hulst, Engbert Breuker, Joeri van
den Steenhoven, Rudy Kor, and Charles Leadbeater. Also, my fellow PSAU students, for
always having interesting critiques and questions. Finally, I would like to thank Aukje
Thomassen for her support and supervision on this thesis. Without exception, all of our
conversations have had a positive impact on this work.
3
Abstract This thesis in knowledge- and innovation management shows the importance of the
production factor knowledge. “Managing” the creation process of a knowledge-intensive
product such as a videogame is vastly different from what we normally perceive the term
management to be. At the same time, however, all the traditional business theories still
hold, even though we might need to relax some of their assumptions. This thesis proposes
nine points of interest for leaders in videogame development. In doing so it also discusses
media culture and the network society as its tangents.
Reading instructions This thesis has been written for a variety of audiences. It attempts to develop theoretical
connections that will further knowledge- and innovation management, as well as provide
practical methods and solutions for leaders in videogame development in practice.
After posing the problem statement in chapter 1 and chapter
2’s discussion on videogames, a logical thing to do would be
to delve into videogame development. However, this thesis
will take an alternate route. Chapter 3 will delve into
contextual topics like new media, and participatory culture,
while chapter 4 provides quite a comprehensive theoretical
elaboration on topics such as knowledge and creativity.
They will provide vocabulary to discuss leadership in
videogame development in chapter 6, after a short interlude
on the research in chapter 5. Chapter 7 and 8 summarize this
thesis as a conclusion and discussion respectively. Basically,
we start out with the topic of videogames and put them into
context. From the context we will shift to a theoretical level
and then a case perspective, before taking the results back to
a theoretical and finally a contextual level again.
4
Table of Contents
1 Introduction – videogames in information society ..................................................... 6
2 Videogames – an interactive medium......................................................................... 9
3 Context – participate................................................................................................. 13
3.1 From linear to interactive media ....................................................................... 13
3.2 Organizing in participatory culture................................................................... 16
3.3 Conclusion Context:.......................................................................................... 21
4 Market and Gift – a theoretical elaboration .............................................................. 22
4.1 Organization...................................................................................................... 22
4.1.1 Market organization .................................................................................. 23
4.1.2 Gift organization ....................................................................................... 25
4.1.3 Market and Gift......................................................................................... 28
4.2 Knowledge ........................................................................................................ 30
4.2.1 Data, information, and knowledge? .......................................................... 30
4.2.2 Tacit and explicit knowledge .................................................................... 32
4.2.3 Knowledge and Ba.................................................................................... 33
4.2.4 Enabling knowledge creation.................................................................... 34
4.3 Creativity........................................................................................................... 35
4.3.1 Individual Creativity ................................................................................. 35
4.3.2 Group creativity ........................................................................................ 37
4.3.3 Organizational creativity........................................................................... 39
4.4 Understanding the management challenge ....................................................... 40
5 Interlude – the case research..................................................................................... 44
6 Case – proposing a solution ...................................................................................... 46
6.1 An organizational structure............................................................................... 46
6.2 Leadership in videogame development ............................................................ 49
6.2.1 Task........................................................................................................... 51
6.2.2 Knowledge ................................................................................................ 55
6.2.3 People........................................................................................................ 58
7 Conclusion – Facilitated Chaos ................................................................................ 63
8 Epilogue – Discussion .............................................................................................. 69
5
9 Appendices – Illustration and Methodology............................................................. 74
A. Illustration of Videogame development................................................................ 74
B. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 76
10 References................................................................................................................. 82
6
1 Introduction – videogames in information society
At an astounding pace our society is producing information1. The speed and quality of
different information connections like mobile phones, UMTS, satellites, and internet
cables allow us to disseminate information throughout the world, and in some sense,
through time2. The media we use are shaping human behaviour, and thereby our society,
in many ways. Examine, for instance, the ease with which the young generation processes
information from many media in parallel (Veen, 2003). Similar to a blind man who can
suddenly see and has to learn to interpret concepts like perspective, shape, and color,
humans now need to learn ways of processing these data through different information
channels. My grandmother reads a website from top-left to bottom-right, while my niece
quickly scans the page and instantaneously knows which hyperlinks will be useful to her.
Amongst the changing media landscape is the continuing rise of the videogame. Since the
early Atari’s, Commodores, and Nintendo Entertainment Systems (NES), the interest and
application of games as a medium has only grown. Basically, videogames are digitally
coded consumer experiences with audile, tactile, and visual elements. They are made by
creative professionals from many different fields among which are programming, visual
art, sound design, and interaction design. These professionals explore new grounds as
they create knowledge intensive products in organizations ranging from 2 to more than a
100 people.
The organization of the creation of videogames is the main topic of interest of this study.
The parallel creative processes of designing interfaces and sound, programming and
creating visual art, need to be fused into one coherent product. (How) can these creative
processes be managed? How to give an organization a common sense of direction and
directed effort? How does one organize professionals with highly specialized knowledge?
In pursuing these topics, this paper poses the following problem statement:
1 Here, no distinction is made between data and information. The term information will be used in its
popular meaning (see section 4.2.1.). 2 Check out: The Way Back Machine. A backup of the internet in which you can visit old sites.
http://www.waybackmachine.org.
7
How can leaders organize the creative development of videogames?
To tackle such a broad problem statement this paper will create a pattern, a web if you
will, of subjects. The relation between these theories, models, and stories are necessary
for understanding the dynamics of organizing videogame development. Especially in
chapter 3 and chapter 4 we need to digress into seemingly unrelated matters. The premise
of the text you are now reading is that only by understanding these different themes like
new media, knowledge, communities, videogames, and creativity can one strike the
intricate balance in seemingly paradoxical trade-offs (commerce vs. creativity, authority
vs. decentralization) that organizing videogame studios encompass.
Even though we will delve into the topic of leadership, organizing, and videogames later,
at this point there is one term which I would like to disentangle from its dominant
meaning. The term “to organize” has a, especially in business studies, active meaning. It
implies a person that actively organizes stuff, often in a controlling mode. Quite
deliberately I have not chosen the term “to manage” as its active meaning is even more
prevalent. “The term management implies control of processes that may be inherently
uncontrollable or, at the least, stifled by heavy-handed direction,” (Krogh, Ichijo, and
Nonaka, 2000, p.4). Organizing also has a passive component, as things seemingly
organize themselves. Useful metaphors are a swarm of bees, a flock of birds, or a queue
in the U.K.
As this thesis endeavours to describe and theoretically elaborate on forms of organizing
and management in videogame development, it is important that you – the reader –
become aware of the personal connotations that these terms hold. Once we understand the
mental models we use to understand a concept like, for instance, organization, we can
question and alter them; we learn. In a sense, this thesis attempts to redefine the term
management and what it includes.
8
First, in chapter 2 a thorough discussion of videogames will lead to reader’s insights into
what the medium videogame actually is. I believe that the medium is still ill-understood
by many. In chapter 3, the interactive videogame will be positioned in a broader context
of the media landscape, which leads to participatory ways of organizing. Chapter 4 delves
into these new ways of organizing on a theoretical level, and explains the important
concepts of knowledge and creativity. By the end of this chapter the reader should have a
good feel for the management challenge at hand. Chapter 5 will be a short interlude
before heading to the case study. Chapter 6 will use the developed theories as vocabulary
to describe research and propose methods on how leaders can organize videogame
development. Then in chapter 7 these proposed solutions will be abstracted into
conclusions on the original problem statement, and the title of this thesis will be
elaborated on. Finally, chapter 8 will take the developed notions back to the level of
context, as a discussion leads to implications for theoretical as well as practical fields. I
will end this thesis with a number of discussion statements.
9
2 Videogames – an interactive medium
Games. I love them! Videogames come in many shapes and forms. Dance Dance
Revolution has you dancing with your feet controlling four big buttons. World of
Warcraft lets you inhabit a Tolkien-esque world for days (or years) on end. Pacman has
you running around eating small white dots. America’s Army let’s you play as a real
American soldier. In Mario you are running from left to right, jumping, and avoiding or
defeating turtles and goombas. The differences between all these games could not be
bigger.
Still, on another level of abstraction they are very much alike. “Videogames are a
medium, like radio, tv, podcasts, books, and websites. They carry content from the
creator to a recipient, while their form influences the manner in which the content is
received.” (Derks, 2006, p. 46). The information communicated through a game contains
audile and visual (like movies) as well as tactile elements (rumble in controller).
Even though they are all carriers of information, there is something different about games
vis-à-vis conventional media. Where “traditional media like books and movies use
descriptions (linguistic, visual, etc) as a means of representing and communicating ideas,
videogames use models,” (Chaplin & Ruby, 2005 p.2). Even though games also have text
and visuals, they are used to depict the underlying models. Text might be used to
communicate your score, or something visual (like a finish) might show you the goal of
the model.
Throughout this paper, the following definition of videogame will be used. “A game is a
system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a
quantifiable outcome,” (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, p. 80). A game is a system of rules
with win/loss conditions (“a quantifiable outcome”) that a player can engage in and
interact with. The term “engage” needs to be stressed, as it is the term that encompasses
the interactivity of the medium. Different from text and film, where consumers receive
the data in the exact order the creator has decided, games engage to an extent that the
player influences the data he will obtain. Players have control over a videogame in that
they control the movement through space, trigger events, influence the (virtual)
surroundings, and thereby have power over the information the game communicates.
10
Being a gamer requires you to take active control over the medium instead of passively
absorbing it.
The interactive nature of videogames puts it on a peculiar middle ground between
developer control and user involvement. On the one hand, the developer of a videogame
defines the boundaries of the game. These boundaries can be in virtual space (an island, a
closed bunker, or a globe), in rules (you can only move right, or the world will reset when
you go through a door), and in the interaction possibilities the avatar has (you can move
objects, create objects, destroy objects, climb onto and/or collect objects). In this sense,
the player only has control insofar as it has been given to him by the developer, who
might be seen as a deity of the game world.
On the other hand, people are invited to control their avatar through the virtual space and
are often given tools to modify and progress the world around them. Think of my
decorated house in Animal Crossing, or the bullet holes in a wall that are the result of a
hectic firefight in a shooter game. Then it is I who create and influence the world around
me. For instance in World Of Warcraft (WoW), a large part of the game experience is
built by gamers themselves in the social interactions they together engage in. The
developer has merely provided them with tools to chat, talk, team up, and animate their
avatar in a variety of ways. It is the players who create and control the social aspect of the
game experience. In this sense, the player has control over the game experience herself.
Narrative vs. Simulation The most significant characteristic of videogames is that they step away from the matter
of narrative and into simulations. There have been many discussions between theorists in
the field of videogames that argue whether videogames should be studied from a
perspective rooted in text, narrative, and linearity, or a point of view of simulations,
systems, and interactivity. In this discussion between Narratology and Ludology, both
points hold some truth. On the one hand humans’ will-to-narrative is deeply rooted in our
being, which means we use stories to make sense of the world around us and use them to
tell what has happened in a videogame. Many videogames such as Metal Gear Solid,
Zelda, and Final Fantasy rely on story as a main experience factor. On the other hand,
games like Pong, Pacman, and Tetris show that games without a story work well too. It
would be foolish to try to define a videogame as either of these two options, as both have
explanatory power.
11
To complement the definition of videogame and the description of the diffuse boundary
of player and creator control, it is interesting to break videogames apart in a number of
distinguishable layers. A videogame consists of three different layers: the ruleset, the
declarative layer, and the social layer (Van Mastrigt, 2006). First, the ruleset is the rules
and goals set before the player. Intuitive examples of rules are: touch an enemy from the
side will give your lives “minus 1”, while touching an enemy from the top (jumping on
its head) will defeat the enemy. Also, the ruleset includes physics systems (stuff falls
down if you drop it), or a day-night interval. Basically, the ruleset defines the possibilities
and goals the player faces.
Second, the declarative layer is the visual, audile, and tactile interpretation of what is
happening in the ruleset. It forms the story, visual style, and background of the game.
Many First Person Shooters (FPS: games where the player looks “through the eyes” of
the character and shoot at objects) have identical rulesets, but different declarative layers.
The ruleset is about pointing and clicking at everything that moves, and finding the exit
in a 3D virtual space. The declarative layer shows whether you are shooting at WWII
Nazi’s, aliens, monsters, or futuristic humans. Also, depending on the declarative layer
you might be shooting virtual bullets or throwing virtual snowballs.
Third is the social layer. Gameplay may emerge between players when they play
together. Think of hunting your friends in a multiplayer shooter game, or of co-
operatively defeating a boss. As was stated earlier, WoW relies on the social aspect to a
large extent, where raids might require cooperative play from up to 40 people. Needless
to say, this social layer is only present when games are played together with other people.
12
These three layers are a powerful abstraction of how games work, and can be used for
different types of analysis. For instance, the potential didactical applications differ for
these three layers. Also, it can be used to analyze the aforementioned power relationship
between control of the designer versus the control of the player. For instance, in WoW
players have power in the social layer, but not so much in the declarative layer. Players in
WoW cannot alter the content of the declarative layer, while in Second Life a large part of
the declarative content is user-generated. In a game like GameMaker the player gets
control over the ruleset itself, as it is a game (or tool) that allows you to build your own
game. Van Mastrigt (2006) proposed a practical model that fits nicely alongside Salen en
Zimmerman’s definition of games.
13
3 Context – participate
After seeing what videogames are, this paper could delve into the development of such a
product. Even though this study’s focus is on leadership in the development processes of
videogames, this chapter will take a divergent route. It is much more interesting to pursue
the interactive nature of videogames. The coming chapter will establish the medium
videogame in the media landscape, and from there on find that the media landscape
influences videogame development. It is necessary to go into tangents like interactive
media, contemporary dominant mental models, and linking these to innovation
management theory. It is important to stray into these topics to establish a feel for the
broader dynamics at play here. The chapter 4 uses this context as a foundation to build
theoretical models.
3.1 From linear to interactive media
The information we receive from various media shapes the way we perceive the world
around us. My grandfather only knows The Netherlands through the newspaper and the
news on television. I have learned about tactics in soccer by playing videogames. And as
Al Jazeera started translating their news to English, CNN no longer is the only channel to
get news from the Middle East. Upon googling [Al Jazeera vs CNN] one finds a lot of
essays and scientific articles on these two journalism giants. Both sources provide us with
different information on a single event. These examples illustrate how different
information reaches us through different sources, and how that influences the way we
perceive our worlds. However, media also play an important role on a much more
fundamental level.
Interestingly, the type of media we predominantly use shapes the way we construct our
beliefs of the world around us. McLuhan (1967, p.8) claims that “societies have been
shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than the content of
the communication.” Our media for communicating information now include mobile
phones, wiki’s, e-mail, virtual worlds such as Second Life, and GPS systems among
others. Essentially, using these media alters the way you and I think about the world we
each live in.
14
Although describing all these media extensively is not the point here, a general shift can
be seen from linear to interactive media (for instance, from books to videogames). On the
one hand, as man evolved from ape to homo sapiens, somewhere along the way he
developed linguistic skills. Language, the spoken word, has had a tremendous impact on
the way we make sense of things. Not even to mention the impact of print technology on
our ability to communicate and store data. Language, and thereby written text, is by
definition linear (McLuhan, 1967; Wesh, 2007; Cameron, 1995). The letters and the
words follow each other s-u-c-c-e-s-s-i-v-e-l-y (McLuhan, 1967). We use stories and
linear narratives to describe what we are doing and to make sense of our reality
(Cameron, 1995). This is deeply rooted in our existence, and has in many ways shaped
the way we perceive symbols around us. Here are two simple examples:
.thgir ot tfel morf daer ylno nac eW
Heowevr, rdeanig tsehe wrdos is not taht dfiuciflt
On the other hand, our media is becoming increasingly interactive. “Interactivity refers to
the possibility of an audience actively participating in the control of an artwork or
representation,” (Cameron, 1995, p.2). The receiving end of the medium therefore has
some control. “In its most fully realized form … interactivity allows narrative situations
to be described in potential and then set into motion – a process whereby model building
supersedes storytelling, and the what-if engine replaces narrative sequence,” (Cameron,
1995, p.2). Note how this corresponds to the description of chapter 2 where we state that
information in videogames is represented through models and not descriptions.
We must not forget that interactivity has gradations. First, this text you are reading (as
printed on paper) is not interactive. You may read it, shred it, fondle it, or do anything
that you like with it, but that won’t change the content or form of this paper. Second,
playing a videogame is interactive in the sense that you can make your own choices
within the content defined by the creator. Your actions will determine the part of the
game that you will see, hear, and play. Similarly, if you are reading this paper as .pdf,
you can click these links while your choices lead you to other content. Some games
however, like Will Wright’s The Sims, Spore, or MediaMatic’s Little Big Planet allow
15
you to create content for the game, which is a third level of interactivity. You can design
your own house, story or other piece of content. Another example is Wikipedia, where
you cannot only stroll through the content of others, but can create or alter it as well. A
fourth level of interactivity is where you also have the power to modify the form of the
content. If you start your own weblog you may alter not only the content on that blog, but
also the form in which it is presented. In short, many media exist with different levels of
interactivity, and videogames with its dichotomy of user versus creator control are
somewhere in the low-level region of interactivity.
Nevertheless, the short discussion above does show that many media have interactive
components. Even though Wikipedia is text based, it is the flexibility of the digital text
that makes it an interactive medium. For an excellent visualization of how the shift from
linear text to interactive media has come about I urge you to check out Wesh (2007)
“Web 2.0: The Machine is Us/ing Us”3 on Youtube. In this under-five-minute video
Wesh shows us how we are changing the way we create and organize our information
and contemplates what the repercussions for society will be. Five minutes of fascination
are guaranteed…
Connecting Wesh’s (2007) point that our new interactive media is radically different
from old linear media to McLuhan’s argument that it is not content but the nature of the
medium that shapes our consciousness, leads to an interesting question. If “rationality and
logic came to depend on the presentation of connected and sequential facts or concepts,”
(Mcluhan, 1967, p.45) and thereby originate from the strong dependence on linear text,
how is our consciousness altered by the prevalence of interactive media like videogames,
the internet, and others? While this is a question too broad to embark upon in this thesis
there is room for proposing an answer that focuses on organizations: “If the last fifty
years have been about the creation of cultures, organizations, and infrastructures for mass
media consumption – the couch potato society – the next fifty will be about mass media
participation, (Leadbeater, 2007, p.12).
3 Wesh (2007) argues that by separating form from content, anyone without technical knowledge is able to
create content and upload it to the net. Additionaly, we organize all this newly generated content ourselves
as we link, tag, review, discuss, connect, and click.
16
3.2 Organizing in participatory culture
The prevalence of interactivity in media leads to participatory culture. Instead of a “couch
potato society” where people sit at home at the end of the pipeline awaiting the fabulous
shows and programs that the media creators have produced for them, consumers are
increasingly becoming participants, using the information infrastructure to send
information back to the media creators. Examples abound. Sending text messages (See
Box: … -- … ) to vote for candidates. Answering quiz-questions on your laptop while
watching the BNN IQ test on tv. Or TV channel “The Box”s once revolutionary strategy
of having the public request songs for their music channel. This is a fundamental shift,
from people being receivers at the end of the production pipeline to people being users
that can, if they choose to, participate in the creation of the user experience.
This user participation is a highly social activity. It often includes communities of people
that communicate, share information, and sometimes even collaborate to co-create. We
are therefore not only talking about individual users becoming participants, but about
groups of users that self-organize and participate as a group. In relation to Descartes: “the
spreading net of vastly cheaper communications and computing, combined with new
highly social and collaborative forms of organizations means we are moving from ‘I
think, therefore I am’ into an era in which ‘we think, therefore we are’,” (Leadbeater,
2007, p.46).
“We are the Half-Life 2 Mod-scene.” We have created games that are built upon Valve’s
Half Life engine like Team Fortress, Day of Defeat, or the popular Counter Strike (Valve,
2004). “We are Wikipedia.” We have created an encyclopedia whose size is growing
beyond imagination. “We are Linux.” We have created a free operating system that has
the potential to compete with one of today’s business giants. This is interactivity with a
vengeance! These three products started out with creative people who want to make cool
stuff together, and they are enabled to do so by information and communication
technologies, our current media.
Unquestionably these new forms of production are invading our lives. They are forms
based on gift and reciprocity; we all give to a shared cause so as to create something
neither of us could achieve alone. This dynamic is strong, and has major implications for
17
organization of game development. We will coin this a culture of Gift4 (the use of the
capital Gift will separate it from the original meaning of the term gift). Gift is a culture in
which it is socially acceptable to give stuff away for free without wanting anything in
return directly. Knowing when you need something, someone will give you what you
need. This should not be confused with altruism, nor is it a political statement of anti-
globalism, anti-corporate, or anti-whatever. Rather, Gift is a potent form of organizing as
it is just very practical (Leadbeater, 2007). Wikipedia is a good start for any researcher,
Apache steadily runs most of the internet servers, and Gathering of Tweakers is a helpful
practical source for computer related information.
To understand the changes of the “new”, we need to hold them against the light of the
“old”. To better understand Gift, we also need to understand its counterpart which we
will term Market, as they will be the two main dimensions of this thesis. If we say that
Gift is the “new” way of organization that comes from new participatory media, we will
use Market to relate to more “traditional” ways of organizing. Although the distinction is
effortlessly made here, in practice Gift and Market cannot be disentangled so easily.
To appreciate the notions of Gift and Market we will assess them from an innovation
management perspective. Innovation is defined in two inseparable dimension (Derks,
2006, pp.7-8). First, it is “the creative act of bringing two (or more) previously unrelated
pieces of knowledge together forming a qualitatively new piece of knowledge.” Second,
it “is the application of the new piece of knowledge on a new or existing market, thus
creating value to the user of the innovation,” (emphasis added). Seeing the user as
consumer (Market-thinking) leads us to think we need to give the user exactly what he
wants or needs, thereby creating value. However, seeing the user as a participant (Gift-
thinking) leads us to the conclusion that we need to give the user the tools and
4 As was noted in the introduction, the term Gift is too generic to credit it to a single person. This author
was pointed towards the relation of Gift and Market in a conversation with Charles Leadbeater. We will
investigate these terms throughout this paper, as different meanings are given to the term in section 3.2,
4.1.2, and 7.
18
possibilities so that she can decide how to create the value herself (or together with
others).
The development funnel, a typical innovation model from business theory, is used to
illustrate this difference. Without discussing it in depth5, the left part of the left figure (a.
closed model) corresponds with the first dimension of innovation, combining knowledge,
while the right part (of fig a) corresponds to bringing the product to market to create user
value. In short, it shows how organizations manage their research and development
(R&D) and bring new products to market.
a. Closed innovation model b. Open innovation model
As you look at the development funnel (a), the left side -often called the fuzzy front-
considers creation, combining knowledge, and invention of new ideas. Here, related to
our concept of Gift, values of sharing, reciprocity, trust, and open communication are
necessary. The right (a) side is about bringing products to market, taking ideas to full-
blown production, efficiency, convergence into a single product, and creating user value.
The organization functions as a funnel through which good ideas are filtered into
development and brought to market; a highly rational and linear perspective on
innovation. Figure (b) shows how these “closed” models of innovation are changing
through user participation and other forms of “opening up” these innovation processes
(Chesbrough, 2003). This figure shows a more open development funnel in which
5 For an argumentation of how these changes affect innovation management business theory together with a
detailed discussion of these two development funnels, I direct you to my previous work: Educated Games:
Communities as Organizational Form for Open Innovation, Chapter 2.2 (Derks, 2006).
19
interaction with end users and/or other parties is implemented throughout the total R&D
process.
… – – … Remember that old Nokia-tune. Beepbeepbeep beeeeep-beeeeep beepbeepbeep? The
Finnish corporation chose to use Morse code to notify someone they had received a text
message. However Nokia, nor any other telephone provider for that matter, made the
invention of using these mobile phones for sending text. Why use text when you can
speak to each other, they must have thought.
Actually, urban myth claims that it were the young teenagers who first found out that
these mobile phones were capable of sending strings of 160 characters (in western
Europe). Implemented as an error report system and technical communication channel
between the wireless device and the provider, youngsters playing around with their
phones found out ways to send each other these messages, and better yet, it was free!
Only after more and more people started using the Short Message Service technology, did
providers come up with business models to earn money from this service. SMS, truly a
user-generated invention!
Here the new product development funnel only serves as a metaphor, as Market and Gift
have profound effects on many other key organizational dynamics. On what will follow
be sure to take these arguments with a grain of salt; the dichotomy between Gift and
Market is best illustrated by proposing the extremes of the two sides. In the next chapters,
more detailed interpretations of these terms will follow, this section illustrates the extent
to which Market and Gift are permeating our economic life. The table shows continuums
between the perspectives of Market and Gift.
Dynamic Market Gift
User is Consumer Participant
Production mode Mass production Mass participation
Economic market is Hit-driven Long tail
Primary goal(s) are Profits People, planet, profits
Motion determined by Propulsion Attraction
Innovation model is Closed Open
Responsibility through Control and authority Decentralization
20
Discussing all these different topics would digress from the original problem statement,
but a few links to other works need to be made for those interested in these topics. Users
are described as participants in Leadbeater’s We Think (2007), and Leadbeater and
Miller’s Pro-Am Revolution (2004). The shift of economic market from a hit-driven
market in which the biggest common denominator reaches the largest possible audience,
to a market where the number of niches seems infinite -and thereby creating a Long Tail
of small audiences- is described by Anderson (2006). The shifting economic market is
leading to new business models. Also, organizations are recognizing that the providers of
capital are not the main stakeholders anymore, as the importance of taking care of people
and the planet is increasingly being recognized in terms of corporate sustainability (or the
Dutch equivalent: “maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen”). More information on
closed and open innovation models can be found in theories by Chesbrough (2003) or
Derks (2006).
Photo by Bopuc @ Flickr.com
21
3.3 Conclusion Context:
In this chapter we have seen that the changes in the media landscape have given rise to
interactive and even participatory media. In organizations that are not companies nor
corporations nor publicly traded institutions, people are freely exchanging information
and know-how in a setting of Gift. In a sense, Gift seems to be perpendicular to Market
(see fig), a term that is used to describe traditional ways of organizing. These two terms
will form the basis of reasoning and will be used to create other models and conclusions.
It is admittedly impossible to conclude from such a short theoretical discussion that there
is a causal link between linear media and the Market perspective of organizing. However,
it definitely is a compelling association to claim that our “new” interactive media
encourage user involvement in value creation and thereby lead to more Gift and less
Market. In other words, the changing dynamics in organizing (and organizing society at
large) can be explained by the “new” ways we are interacting with our media. Proving
such an allegory beyond doubt is a difficult task not beset for this thesis. However, it is a
pattern that is noticed by other theorists as well. “The alphabet and print technology
fostered and encouraged a fragmenting process, a process of specialism and of
detachment. Electric technology fosters and encourages unification and involvement. It is
impossible to understand social and cultural changes without a knowledge of the
workings of media.” (McLuhan, 1967, p.8, emphasis added).
22
4 Market and Gift – a theoretical elaboration
It is now time to return to the problem statement: “How can leaders organize the creative
development of videogames?” We have just seen that videogames are part of a trend in
our communication media that moves towards interactivity and participation. As these
new information channels are opening up new ways of organizing, what will the impact
be on a videogame studio? In an attempt to put up a promising stab at tackling this thesis’
problem statement, we will use the notions of Market and Gift as a vehicle to create a
theoretical model. Therefore, this section will provide a theoretical elaboration of the
problem, providing us with a perspective from which to propose solutions.
Having described a number of organizational dynamics where Gift and Market diverge, it
is now time to look a bit closer at these terms themselves. At a theoretical level we will
investigate Market organizations and Gift organizations. It will come to light that the two
are not opposites of each other, rather, they are based on different assumptions.
Investigating these assumptions will lead to a discussion of knowledge and creativity,
which are important concepts for those in a leadership position in videogame
development.
4.1 Organization
So we have scratched the surface of the concepts of Market and Gift, both of which seem
to have a vocabulary of their own. A good illustration of this fact is the title of Simons
(2007) business theory article on organizational creativity: “Control in an age of
empowerment” (see section 4.3.3). The term empowerment supposes that there is
someone in power that willfully empowers someone in a subordinate position.
Empowerment cannot exist from a Gift perspective, as there was no boss who had power
23
to give away in the first place. Similarly, notions like self-managing teams, 360-degree
feedback, knowledge management programmes, and even top-management do not exist
in the vocabulary of Gift but are commonly used in Market.
These fundamental differences imply that we have to reconsider our meaning of the
notion organization and what that encompasses. For this work organization is a group of
people that does something together. Bear in mind that organization is not mean in the
active sense of the word, where there is a specific person that organizes to get things
done. Rather, organization might have a passive meaning in that the efforts of the group
come together seemingly autonomously. This meaning of the word organization is
sufficiently wide to include both Gift and Market forms of organization.
“Organization is only a temporary excuse for doing something together”
4.1.1 Market organization
Market organization is the extreme of what we normally understand when we think of
corporations, organizations, companies, or multinationals. It is the form of organization
that is rooted in industrialization. It was during the second half of the 19th century that we
first saw the manager, a person who focuses solely on process. Owners of factories hired
outsiders to take care of daily business for them, and henceforth the world was endowed
with the presence of management. These organizations formed the fertile ground upon
which rational, Tayloristic management methods were devised.
Frederick Taylor devised scientific management around the start of the 20th century, and
it formed the basis for business management theories to come. Scientific management set
out to organize factories as human machines, where each action and procedure could be
“scientifically” determined to lead to the desired end product. A classic example is the
conveyor belt model where each worker routinely performs small simple tasks in a timed
fashion. Taylorism did so by virtue of two steps. First, by taking the possession and
control of knowledge about the methods of production away from the worker and putting
it into routine processes, the need for skilled workers decreased (Jaffee, 2001). Workers
under scientific management are not craftsmen, but only need to be able to perform
simple repetitive tasks. Second, by determining the duration of tasks managers could
24
calculate how many times an action can be performed per shift, and thereby set up control
systems that check whether people work hard enough indeed (Jaffee, 2001). The
underlying assumption is that workers deliberately work as slowly as they dare, while
trying to make management believe they are working hard. Workers need to be controlled
to work hard.
One could say that scientific management works best when the knowledge is not too
complex so that it can be encapsulated in the production processes, the workers are not
intrinsically motivated – they need to be coerced to work hard – and the environment is
stable to make sure that established production processes remain useful through time. It’s
perfect for mass production!
The subordination of labor in factories together with the rise of the capitalist class, while
at the same time industrial technology emerged, has lead to an impressive increase in
prosperity and welfare in our society. We now have access to excellent health services,
high-technologies, modes of transportation and communication, and most important of
all: videogames. Many advances in many industries, like for instance semiconductors,
come from using methods of mass production to make products affordable to a large
consumer market.
The most well known image that comes from this perspective is the organizational
diagram. The organizational structure is set formally, and uses a top-down approach.
Decision making power is concentrated in the top of the organization, in the top
25
management team. The different boxes represent functions, not persons. If these
functions are performed according to their descriptions, these different functions will
become part of a bigger whole and the organization functions and achieves its goals. The
lines between the different boxes represent lines of communication, which can often be
understood as lines of responsibility. If things under you are not functioning properly it is
your responsibility to fix it. It might be so that to implement a proposed solution, your
plan first needs to go up the chain to be approved, and then comes back to you with a
go/no-go decision attached to it.
This is a dominant model of organizations and that most of us have experienced first
hand. They are built upon Taylor’s assumptions of scientific management, viewing the
organization as a rational machine and managers’ responsibility to engineer the optimal
solution.
4.1.2 Gift organization
Gift is, as we have established in our contextual chapter 3, vastly different from Market.
Linux is surely different from Microsoft, Youtube is different from Talpa, Wikipedia is
different from Britannica. However, putting Gift organizations in some kind of
indefinable corner of mysticism, idealism, and utopia is just plain wrong. These
organizations also have common characteristics and assumptions. Let us investigate some
theories that have attempted to describe Gift organizations.
Before we can make this step however, we need to recognize a frame of reference for
what we consider Gift organizations. In a sense volunteer work, or hobby projects
involving more than a single individual can be considered to be Gift organizations. This
is too broad for this work. Hence, Gift is network organizations that focus on free
exchange of information and data and collaborate to create a functioning product or
service. Admittedly this definition is not without its problems, but it will have to do for
now as we theorize on Gift using Communities of Practice, Leadbeater’s open
organizations, some diverging theories on knowledge creating communities, and Hackers
(Levy, 1984).
26
A Community of Practice (CoP) “is a group
of people who share a concern, a set of
problems, or a passion about a topic, and
who deepen their knowledge and expertise in
this area by interacting on an ongoing basis,”
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
Essentially, a CoP is a social configuration
aimed at knowledge creation, and can be
formed formally or informally in an organizational setting. A CoP consists of three
dimensions. A shared domain, which is the area of passion or problematic topic that the
CoP wishes to address. Subsequently, a CoP involves a community, which involves the
strength, density, and number of links between the participants. Finally, a CoP has a
practice, the know-how, language, skills, tools, and knowledge that the community
possesses. Wenger et al. (2002) draw a community as the figure above: a strategic core, a
complementary ring, and the free space.
Leadbeater discusses eight principles of open organization. First a kernel is needed to get
things going. It is the core around which the community will form. Second, motivate and
attract contributors. Make sure that there are clear practical benefits. Third, provide low
barriers to entry and easy to use tools to create options for anyone to contribute if they
choose to do so. Fourth, crowds need meeting places, or commons, where they can
converse and interact. Fifth, self-distribution of labor states that people can choose
themselves what, how much, and when they contribute. “This ability to allow many
thousands of people to make mini contributions is a vital organizational innovation,”
(Leadbeater, 2007, p.19). Sixth, encourage people to build on your ideas, as value is
created through constant improvement and refinement. Seventh, “think lego” states that
these organizations work best if all contributions can be linked into one coherent product
in modular fashion. If not a modular product, incorporating all these mini contributions
would be very hard, if not impossible. Finally, one needs conversational leaders. Leaders
in open organizations “tend to be quiet, self-effacing, modest, and self-confident … Their
particular style of top-down leadership allows for a mass of highly distributed bottom-up
initiative,” (Leadbeater, 2007, p.20).
27
Next, Krogh et al. (2000) consider knowledge creating groups. It starts with individuals
and their individual knowledge. As they start interacting on an on-going basis and form
relationships “they become a ‘fused group’ … [as] members recognize their common
interests, individual needs, and different areas of expertise (Krogh et al., p.14). The fused
group can become a pledged group as “it organizes rights and duties according to a
pledge or charter,” (Krogh et al., p. 15) and starts to engage in knowledge creation.
These are just three different models to understand these Gift organizations. Other
excellent research is done by Van Wendel de Joode (2005) on organizing open source
communities like Linux, and Bozeman and Rogers (2002) dissertation on how new
knowledge builds upon existing knowledge in social configurations they call a
‘knowledge value collective’.
Last but not least is the Hacker Ethic (Levy, 1984), an important notion for Gift culture.
It is important to understand that hackers are not cybercriminals or computer-terrorists,
this is only a popular use of the term in newspapers or tabloids. “Hackers believe that
essential lessons can be learned about the systems … from taking things apart, seeing
how they work, and using this knowledge to create new and even more interesting
things,” (Levy, 1984, p.40). For instance, the first videogames were created by hackers,
people toying around with the governments’ military technologies (Chaplin & Ruby,
2005). Pekka Himanen (2001), whose theories on group creativity we will see later, wrote
an interesting book on the Hacker Ethic versus the protestant work ethic. Levy (1984)
describes the Hacker Ethic in a number of points:
• All information should be free
• Mistrust authority – promote decentralization
• Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees,
age, race, or position
• You can create art and beauty on a computer
• Computers can change your life for the better
• Access to computers – and anything which might teach you something about the
way the world works – should be unlimited and total.
28
“Never doubt the power of a small group of committed individuals to change the world. It
is the only thing that ever has.”
In conclusion, I propose a number of common characteristics for Gift organizations. They
involve communities, a kernel, knowledge (and information), and have no formal
hierarchy. First, community is present in all theories in that it constitutes the people that
form the organization. However, not all groups are a community, there needs to be a
sense of collective ambition6, meaningful conversations, and a common platform of
working. Notice, also, that organigrams of communities are almost invariably drawn as
circles. Second is the kernel, the term I borrow from Leadbeater. It is the starting point of
the venture, to get the “community going requires identifying an opportunity and putting
up a first, promising stab at addressing it,” (Leadbeater, 2007, p.18). Against some
popular beliefs, communities rarely create the kernel themselves. More often than not, it
is created by a small strategic core (see section 4.1.2). Third, Gift organizations are about
information and knowledge. Linux, Wikipedia, Ouders.nl, MySpace, Youtube - they are
all organizations that exchange information in the form of video, audio, text, and/or
images. Although it is not impossible to think of a Gift organization that includes
monetary or physical factors, in this thesis we will solely focus on Gift organizations that
evolve around the exchange of information. Finally, Gift organizations have no formal
hierarchy. This is not to say that there are no leaders in these organizations, sure there
are! But they are informal leaders, who have claimed that position through reputation and
leadership abilities, not through career opportunities or formal appointment.
4.1.3 Market and Gift
So far we have assumed that Market and Gift are mutually exclusive, that is to say, that it
is either one or the other. This brings up interesting questions: can a Market organization
and a Gift organization work together? Can a person be part of two organizations, one
Market and one Gift, at the same time? What happens if a Gift organization wants to
6 Collective ambition is the will of the group to achieve something. This kind of collective ambition and
ideology has been present in organizations like Greenpeace, sports teams, or in politics, but were absent in
the capitalist factories.
29
make revenue, does it automatically become a Market organization? These simple
questions are leading us to believe that there might be a grey area between Market and
Gift, that the two are not mutually exclusive. Actually – but we are getting ahead of
ourselves here – this paper argues that videogame studios are a hybrid between Market
and Gift organizations.
However, before attempting to tackle the issue of bringing these theories together, we
first need to understand two factors that are crucial for not only Gift, but for videogame
development in general. As also follows from the discussion above on Gift organizations,
two topics that anyone involved with game development should at least partially
understand are the concepts of knowledge and how it is created. Therefore, the next
section will rather extensively or rather shortly (depending on your perspective) discuss
the concepts of knowledge and creativity.
30
4.2 Knowledge
The first topic to be tackled is knowledge. By describing what knowledge is, and how it
relates to data and information, we can take a look at how sharing of knowledge works.
Besides discussing tacit and explicit knowledge, we delve into the importance of context
on knowledge creation. Finally the stimulation of knowledge creation – an important
aspect for leaders – will be looked at.
4.2.1 Data, information, and knowledge?
First and foremost knowledge is a human factor. It is vital to understand that it cannot
exist outside of an individual. Krogh et al. (2000, p. 6) explain that knowledge is
“justified true belief,” that what an individual person holds to be true. To support this
claim the relation between data, information, and knowledge will be explained.
Data is absolute in its existence. Data are the letters on a page, the sound of music, and
the color of a wall. “Data is a set of discrete, objective facts about events,” (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998, p.2). Even though some people might be able to read the letters of a book
31
while others might not have those linguistic skills, the form and size of the data is fixed.
The letters themselves do not change. Data turns into information when we perceive it
and link it to other data we see, read, or hear (Weggeman, 1997). Information comes into
existence by putting data in context (Krogh et al., 2000). A useful definition of
information is “the meaning attached to obtained data,“ (Weggeman, 1997, p.32). For
instance, the data on your screen gives a number: 22. Understanding that this number
signifies your “age” gives you a score about your performance in Nintendo’s Brain
Training. Attaching meaning to data creates information.
This brings us to the definition of knowledge. Interestingly, Krogh et al. do not define
knowledge but claim it “is one of those concepts that is extremely meaningful, positive,
promising, and hard to pin down,” (Krogh et al. 2000, p.5). Weggeman (2000) claims that
knowledge is an ability that can be used to produce something. He states that knowledge
is created by subjecting the information to one’s own experience, skill, and attitude
(Weggeman, 1997).
“K=f(i.esa)”
Even though I wholeheartedly agree with Krogh et al. (2000) that knowledge is in the eye
of the beholder, and therefore impossible to define for all relevant disciplines and
sciences, this paper proposes a working definition for this thesis: Knowledge is the
personal ability of interpreting data and information to reach a goal.
I have written this text with my knowledge. What you see is data, colours, letters, figures,
shapes, lines, and other symbols. The relation between these data forms the information.
Information such as argumentation, the explanation of concepts like data and
information, and the relation between knowledge and the human factor. The ability to
interpret and assess this information is different for each reader, you might accept this
information to be true, or you might have a counter-argument for some points. The way
you assess this text is dependent upon your existing knowledge, and therefore per
definition subjective. This thesis is not knowledge, it is merely an artifact of my
knowledge that I offer to you so you might create new knowledge yourself.
32
Image by Jesse van Dijk. Copyright Playlogic Entertainment.
Attaching meaning to data The meaning of the letters “mouse” might mean different things to different people. The
same can be said of the swastika icon, or the Triforce. These are examples where the data
quite obviously has multiple meanings in different contexts. But what if the data is a
concept drawing for a videogame? The knowledge a person gains from this data can be
basic: “It’s a beautiful drawing.” But also trained: “It needs a bit more detail, but I do like
the color and composition.” It is these peoples’ difference in ability to give meaning to
this data that they each see something different, which leads to different information and
ultimately different knowledge. The knowledge someone gains from a piece of data is
therefore subject to his perception and individual experience.
4.2.2 Tacit and explicit knowledge
Having discussed the relationship between data, information, and knowledge and thereby
proposing a working definition for the latter concept, it is important to note that two
forms of knowledge can be distinguished. Note however that while “it is possible to
distinguish between these forms of knowledge, they [together are knowledge and] cannot
be separated,” (Weggeman, 1997, p.35). A distinction is commonly made between tacit
knowledge and explicit knowledge (Krogh et al. 2000).
On the one hand, tacit knowledge is difficult to articulate and can be regarded as a form
of unconscious knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Weggeman (1997) argues that
33
tacit knowledge comes in the forms of experience, skill, and attitude. A programmer who
finds a bug might instantaneously have an idea as to where to search in the code. He is
unable to explain why that is the first place to look, but his experience and skills already
give him a sense of direction. Additionally, a dancer might not be able to give accurate
details on a specific dance move to a novice. The finer muscle movements involved are
part of his tacit knowledge.
On the other hand, explicit knowledge is rather unproblematic to articulate (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995). Weggeman (1997) argues that explicit knowledge is the information
component of knowledge. Although this brings some problems to the definition of
information above, it does support the notion that explicit knowledge can be relatively
easily articulated. To go back to our example of our programmer above, explicit
knowledge is how to use certain syntax or the number of variables a specific function can
use. This part of his knowledge can be easily explained and articulated in a book, a
manual, or a conversation. Through sharing tacit and explicit knowledge7 new knowledge
can be created.
Consider that videogame development is a knowledge intensive process, and that the
product that is to be created is built upon the knowledge the members of the organization
have. As such, sharing and creating knowledge and learning are key value-adding
activities of these organizations. How this knowledge leads to specific amounts of future
cash-flow is hard to predict, but that the product – the videogame – is dependent on the
tacit and explicit knowledge that a videogame studio contains is important to stress here.
4.2.3 Knowledge and Ba
The knowledge that is created in an organization is highly dependent on the context it is
created in (Krogh et al, 2000). Knowledge is shared through information, and information
is dependent on the medium the data is communicated through, as was established in the
beginning of chapter 3. This implies that information shared in a virtual space such as e-
7 Sharing tacit and explicit knowledge works in many different ways, one more simple than the other. The
SECI model by Nonaka and Takeuchi proposes four quadrants of knowledge sharing. Their book The
Knowledge Creating Company (1995) is an interesting read on this topic. See also chapter 8’s discussion.
34
mail or chat is different from information that is shared through face-to-face
conversations.
These shared spaces are crucial to the knowledge- and value-creation processes. As (an
artifact of) knowledge is the main output of a videogame studio, successful value creation
is embedded in the context of the organization. “Based on the Japanese idea of Ba (or
“place”), such an organizational context can be physical, virtual, mental, or -more likely-
all three,” (Krogh et al, 2000, p.7). Even though it is tricky to unravel the influence of
different settings on knowledge creation, it points us toward physical, virtual, and mental
spaces as important leverage on the value creation process. We will come back to this
point in chapter 7.
4.2.4 Enabling knowledge creation
Krogh et al. (2000) propose a model that shows how knowledge can be managed, or
organized. Knowledge can of course never be managed in a controlling, Tayloristic
sense, as it is a personal human factor. However, we will see that enabling knowledge
creation is very much related to our notion of Gift organization.
Enabling knowledge creation, in other words enabling learning, is a very diffuse topic
because “… while it is easy to say “create a culture that values learning” or to discuss the
knowledge-based economy in general terms, the human processes involved – creativity,
conversation, judgment, teaching, and learning – are difficult to quantify,” (Krogh et al,
2000, p.4). Therefore, it cannot be managed in “knowledge management programmes” or
“expert knowledge systems”.
However, in qualitative terms a number of factors can be distinguished. Krogh et al
(2000) claim there are five enablers of knowledge creation. First, “instill a knowledge
vision” claims you need a shared vision and sense of direction. Please remember our
notion of collective ambition present in Gift organizations. Second, “manage
conversations” emphasizes the importance of open conversations. Third, “mobilize
knowledge activists” implies you need individuals in your organization who are actively
committed to knowledge creation; conversational leadership in Leadbeater’s terms (see
section 4.1.2.). Fourth, “create the right context” turns back to the point of Ba, and how
context influences knowledge creation. Finally, “globalize local knowledge” means you
35
need to disseminate knowledge throughout the organization instead of having individuals
keeping knowledge for themselves. Therefore the sharing and creation of information is –
in an abstract sense – the main value-adding activity of a videogame studio, and needs to
be facilitated and supported.
4.3 Creativity
Next to the topic of knowledge we must also understand the notion of creativity to
understand the strategic challenges that leaders in videogame development face. Even
though creativity is an intuitive concept, it has many different meanings to different
people. Here, for simplicity’s sake creativity means the creation of something new8,
which is very much related to our first dimension of innovation (see section 3.2).
Woodman et al. (1993) argue that creativity can be investigated on the individual, group,
and organizational level. Using this as a starting point, this section will propose models
useful for understanding these complex phenomena.
4.3.1 Individual Creativity
Long has creativity been analyzed on an individual level. The creative act is done by a
lone artist who might or might not be secluded from the rest of the world. This is
illustrated by romantic notions of the close relationship of a writer and his novel, a
painter that does not want anyone to see the work before it is completed, or a lone
programmer who is programming a game in his attic. This has lead to models of
individual creativity.
One popular model is on phases in creativity by Wallas (1926). He distinguishes between
different phases in the creative process. His original four phases are preparation,
incubation, illumination, and verification. Through the years many different theorists
have added phases such as evaluation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996), Sensation (Pope, 2005),
or intuition (Policastro, 1995), resulting in a possible eleven phase model by Christophe
(2006). Interestingly these phases are not sequential, but iterative. This means that the
8 For a discussion of different meanings of the term creativity from a business studies perspective and the
assumptions that are embedded in the different levels of analysis of creativity as a theoretical phenomenon
see Drazin, Glynn, and Kazanjian (1999).
36
phases will overlap, return in cyclical fashion, and are used multiple times before the
creative process is over.
Another popular way of understanding creativity is not about the process of the creative
act as is described by Wallas (1926), but claims creativity exists as a function of three
personal components (Amabile, 2007). “Within every individual, creativity is a function
of … expertise, creative-thinking skills, and motivation,” (Amabile, p. 54). First,
expertise establishes a strong link between potential creativity and knowledge on a topic.
Second, creative thinking “refers to how people approach problems
and solutions – their capacity to put existing ideas together in new
combinations,” (Amabile, p.55). Third, motivation is an important
factor in how creative a person will be. But the influence of
motivation is not completely straightforward.
There are two kinds of motivation, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The first might be
most easily de illustrated as a carrot on a stick, and often comes in the form of money.
The latter is best described as passion or interest. One comes from outside a person, while
the second comes from within. By stating that “intrinsic motivation is conducive to
creativity, but extrinsic motivation is detrimental,” Amabile (1983, p. 15) argues that an
inner passion to solve the problem at hand leads to solutions far more creative than do
external rewards. Even though it is not the aim here to discuss which solution is “more
creative” than the other, it is important to note that intrinsic motivation leads a person to
wanting to be creative, while extrinsic motivators – when used in the wrong way – will
actually stifle creativity.
A final concept of creativity on an individual level is flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).
“People in a state of 'flow' are those who feel they are engaged in a creative unfolding of
something larger; athletes call it ‘being in the zone’, mystics have described as ‘ecstasy’,
and artists ‘rapture’,” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Interestingly, the term flow has also been
used to describe immersion in a videogame. It will occur when people are challenged, but
the challenge is not impossible; when people are concentrated, focused, and intrinsically
motivated; and have a personal sense of control over the situation.
37
4.3.2 Group creativity
As is discussed in chapter 3, the rise of interactivity in our media has lead to participatory
culture. People exchange, share, combine and review information (Leadbeater, 2007),
and are creating products such as Wikipedia, Linux, MySpace, or game mods. In theory
on creativity the influence of the social setting is informally recognized, but not widely
researched (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). However, there “is considerable
informal evidence that social-psychological factors have a significant impact on the
creativity and productivity of outstanding individuals,” (Amabile, 1983, p. 5). Especially
as we link knowledge creation – a process heavily dependent on Ba, or context – to
creativity, the influence of social context on creativity becomes undeniable.
Three different models of group creativity will be described here. The first briefly
describes the group in terms of the role of leadership, culture, and diversity. The second
and third are both more related to the processes of creativity instead of the group
characteristics. To briefly summarize the group characteristics we turn to Woodman et al.
(1993, p. 301) as they quote King and Anderson (1990): “… the probability of creative
outcomes may be highest when leadership is democratic and collaborative, structure is
organic rather than mechanistic, and groups are composed of individuals drawn from
different fields or functional backgrounds.” This corresponds to Leadbeater’s ideas on
conversational leadership, network organizations instead of formal structures, and the
importance of diversity versus uniformity for creativity.
“Just think of it as a Jazz-band playing together, improvising, and feeling the flow.”
As we take group creativity to Gift organizations like
internet communities, Himanen (2006) describes
conditions for group creativity. As a base, there must
be trust among the group, this is necessary for the
other conditions to appear. Upon this trust, an
enriching community can emerge. People that have a
sense of belonging and place within the group. If
there is a sense of community, co-creation can occur.
38
Charles Leadbeater (2007) describes that groups do not necessarily reach this creation
step. He claims there are four levels of connection: Contribute, Connect, Collaborate,
Create. The first step is to Contribute. People from all over the world can, as Wesh
(2007) did, upload content to the web without having knowledge or experience in the
technical side of internet protocols and programming.
The second level of cooperation is to Connect. By connecting to others a new level of
cooperation is achieved. A good example of a simple connection is eBay. This economic
transaction site lets you upload your own content (a picture of the game or goat that you
want to sell) and subsequently connects you to people who might be interested in this
product.
The third level of cooperation is to Collaborate. On Flickr – a photo site that has millions
of photos – people can contribute and connect to each other, but also give each other
feedback on work. Even though they do not actually work together while shooting the
photos, they can collaborate through comments, feedback, and giving tips.
The fourth and final level is to Create together. A good example, or actually anti-
example, is the book We-Think Charles Leadbeater is writing at the moment. He not only
Contributes his text to the internet before it is released, but also Connects people in a
shared platform, the web space of wethinkthebook.net. Furthermore, he allows people to
Collaborate as he gives options to send him a mail or post a comment. However, he
chooses not to allow Creation of the text directly as would be possible in a wiki. He
remains the gatekeeper to the final text himself.
It is important to note that these dynamics of group creativity are firmly rooted in Gift
culture. Releasing We-Think on the internet for free before it is in stores is a strange
choice from a Market perspective, which might be more inclined to assume all
proprietary rights and protect it accordingly. Also, Himanen’s importance of the factor
trust involves reciprocity, sharing, as his ideas are based in the Hacker Ethic. In a sense,
our discussion of group creativity has brought us back to our discussion of media and
organization of chapter 3. Let us now look at creativity at an organizational level.
39
4.3.3 Organizational creativity
While we have intuitive meanings with the notions of individual creativity and group
creativity, the meaning of the term organizational creativity is less apparent. It is never
the organization that can be creative, only the people within the organization can. Also,
what an organization creates is not only a product, but also systems, red tape, or offices.
Here, we will use the following definition of organizational creativity: “the creation of a
valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working
together in a complex social system,” (Woodman, 1993, p. 293).
This definition not only suffices the concerns expressed in the first half of the paragraph,
but also points towards learning organizations or transformational organizations, as it
relates to the creation of new processes and procedures. For instance, Peter Senge (1990)
has written a ground-breaking book called The Fifth Discipline on how organizations
learn and adapt themselves. March (1991) intriguingly discusses exploration and
exploitation as types of organizational learning. And also theorists like Argyris have
contributed to our understanding of learning in business theory. Is learning then the same
as creativity, one might ask. The answer is unambiguous: no, creativity and learning are
two different things. They are related only as learning is the creation of new knowledge.
There are theorists who describe how leaders can improve organizational creativity.
Florida and Goodnight (2007) claim that “creative capital” is an organization’s most
important asset, the ability of an organization to be creative. There are three points to
managing creative capital. First, help employees do their best work by engaging them
intellectually and elimination distractions. See the relation to the concept of flow (section
4.3.1.) here. Second, make all managers responsible for sparking creativity, removing
arbitrary distinctions between “suits” and “creatives”. Third, engage customers as
creative partners so you deliver superior products, acknowledging that the organization is
part of a larger open innovation system.
Alternatively, Simons (2007) discusses control in an age of empowerment. An
organization wants employees to be creative in the “right way”. Leaders of an
organization want people to be creative within certain boundaries, to be creative in line
with the organizational goals. Simons provides four levers of control. First are the
diagnostic control systems that are the traditional monitors of critical performance factors
40
such as cost, revenue, and (expected) return on investment. Second are belief systems,
encompassing the organizations values, beliefs, norms, vision, mission, and other
statements of philosophy. It is very much embedded in the organization’s culture. Third,
boundary systems do not tell people what to do, but what not to do. This sets boundaries
to the degrees of freedom an artist has, and clearly describes the space in which he has
freedom to be creative. Finally, interactive control systems in its most basic form are
meetings – conversations if you will – where the different hierarchical levels of the
organization come together to discuss strategic information.
“Empowerment is an artifact of a dominant mental model.”
Organizational creativity is a difficult concept. To thoroughly understand it we need to
understand “(a) the creative process, (b) the creative product, (c) the creative person, (d)
the creative situation, and (e) the way in which each of these components interacts with
the other,” (Woodman et al., 1993, p. 294). Throughout this thesis these 5 factors will be
discussed, and how they can lead to a setting of facilitated chaos; a state of creative
freedom and Gift-like organization that is facilitated and supported by something we
normally call management. For now, having discussed the notion of organizing Market
and organizing Gift, and the two topics of knowledge and creativity, we can take a more
educated look at the problem at hand
4.4 Understanding the management challenge
This chapter has shown the different assumptions upon which Market and Gift
organizations are built. Tayloristic management was shown to have encapsulated
technology in processes instead of workers, and insisted that extrinsic motivation was the
sole way to achieve maximum output. Relaxing these assumptions is necessary as work is
done by professionals with highly specialistic knowledge in a dynamic environment.
Additionally, the importance of knowledge and creativity in the creative development
process of videogames is apparent – since its birth videogames have been strongly linked
to creative use of utilitarian technologies – and this influences the way a videogame
studio is managed. Also, Castells (1996) describes that informationalism is present in all
41
our lives, and does not supplant industrialism (See Box: The Rise of Information
Society). In this sense, Gift and Market are not mutually exclusive and are both present
in the creative development of videogames, implying some kind of organizational form in
which Gift and Market go together.
Yet again, we have made a full circle back to the problem statement: “How can leaders
organize the creative development of videogames?” The theoretical elaboration of
organizing Market and Gift, knowledge, and creativity – in all of which people appear to
be central – brings us closer to understanding this problem statement. This brings us to
more practical questions like: what does this mean for an organizations structure,
processes, leadership style, and the way of connecting to business partners? (How) can
one manage creativity? What do the developed theories on knowledge tell us about
organizing videogame development? How to structure the overlap between Market and
Gift? And what would an organization like this look like? Basically the question is: how
can leaders manage a videogame studio?
42
The Rise of Information Society Network organizations have emerged with the rise of the network society (Castells,
1996). These new social structures are “associated with the emergence of a mode of
development, informationalism,” (Castells, 1996, p.14). However, “the shift from
industrialism to informationalism is not the historical equivalent of the transition from
agricultural to industrial economies,” (Castells, 1996, p.100). Rather, Manuel Castells
argues, informationalism spreads through our agricultural, industrial as well as cultural
production, and as such influences the productivity in all these sectors. Our advances in
informationalism – maximizing knowledge-based productivity through sharing and
organizing our information – will lead to increased productivity in all these industries.
“What has changed is not the kind of activities humankind is engaged in, but its
technological ability to use as a direct productive factor what distinguishes our species as
a biological oddity: its superior capacity to process symbols,” (Castells, 1996, p.100,
emphasis added).
There are a number of challenges to present here. First is the difference between a
contractrelation in formal organizations versus the conceptrelation present in Gift
organizations. Second, organizing traditionally encompasses managing processes while
the different phases of creativity do not allow for linear rationalization. A third challenge
is to create alliance between organizational goals, and individual freedom and
autonomous creativity. Fourth, with long lead times for products (two years production is
not uncommon) there is the trade-off between long term planning and short term
flexibility. Fifth, is the challenge of aligning the different disciplines in game
development, technically oriented programmers need to work with visually oriented
artist; the diversity of the specialisms is typical for videogame development. Finally, we
need to assess the challenges that the importance of the factor knowledge poses.
Especially how the importance of the professional has grown vis-à-vis Tayloristic
management systems, and the power relationship between management and workfloor is
now favouring those who actually have the knowledge to create these beautiful
interactive products: videogames.
43
Photo by KevinDooley @ Flickr.com
JIT is Art?
Connecting efficient production (JustInTime) to art coerces the topic of necessity and is
deliberately ironic, even provocative. The way that artist use their time is perpendicular
to large business’ concerns to gain commercial success. Deliberate detours, embracing
mistakes and unexpected tangents – it is all a part of the creative development of a piece
of art (quote Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, JIT project, 2006).
44
5 Interlude – the case research
The questions at the end of the last chapter are very practical in nature, and will be
handled as such. The next chapter discusses the developed theories in practice. In that
sense, it will provide methods in which a videogame studio could be managed. They are
models taken down from their abstract theoretical levels and into the videogame studio. It
is essential to understand that the possible methods are not limited to those mentioned in
the next chapter; quite the contrary! I urge you to internalize the developed theories and
apply them to your own situation and finding your own methods and solutions. However,
note that the proposed methods do find their foundation in peer-reviewed research.
This thesis’ proposed theories, and the descriptions of these theories in practice to follow,
are built upon almost half a year of participatory research and numerous interviews with
– practical as well as theoretical – experts from various fields. As for embedding it in the
videogame industry, his thesis was written from inside a Dutch videogame studio: W!
Games, where yours truly has a producer as well as a researcher role. Also, interviews
with other videogame studios are conducted to validate the conclusions. For a more in-
depth discussion of the methodology refer to Appendix B.
As the theoretical development occurred in conjunction with the research, the proposed
model has strong explanatory powers for practice. However, it must be immediately
noted that the case research might be seen to be rather weak. Thoroughly researching the
concepts of knowledge, creativity, as well as organizational forms is impossible in a work
this size and within this timeframe. So instead of using available instruments9 and
theories to thoroughly investigate these concepts, the concepts will be used as a
perspective from which to evaluate events in practice. This thesis aims to develop
theories instead of stating “truths” about videogame development in general. This is
fundamental to the way this study approaches the case and its experts. Because NDA’s
(read: secrecy) are widespread in the videogame industry no specific occurrences,
persons, or organizations will be mentioned.
9 See chapter 8’s discussion of recommended future research.
45
Photo by /\ltus @ Flickr.com
46
6 Case – proposing a solution
Videogame studios are hybrid organizations, spanning the boundaries between industrial
and open-source work forms. This chapter discusses the consequences of this hybrid
organization on a practical level. As an understanding of the management challenge at
hand is established, it is time to propose solutions.
In a way this thesis is rooted in contingency theory; that a functioning method of
organizing is always dependent upon the specific characteristics and context of each
single organization. Therefore, one might or might not agree to some of the solutions
proposed. However, let the proposed models and methods be a starting point for a
continuing discussion. First, this chapter will propose an organizational structure that
combines characteristics of Market and Gift. After that, the methods through which
management can lead and steer an organization will be elaborated upon.
6.1 An organizational structure
As a proposal for this hybrid organization we will use the organizational model by
Mintzberg (1992). Before delving into the subparts of this kind of organization, the
characteristics as a network organization10 are discussed. Generally, many value-adding
activities in videogame development, such as distribution and marketing are outsourced.
Furthermore, some videogame studios also outsource more fundamental activities such as
motion-capturing, music, or porting code from one platform to another. Also, some
videogame studios have built a business model out of doing content creation like
modeling, skinning, and animation for other game studios. In short, videogames studios
focus on their core competence new product development: the creative development of
(parts of) videogames. Often, a lot of non-core activities such as marketing or accounting
are outsourced to other organizations.
10 Gulati, Nohria, and Zaheer (2000) discuss strategic networks. “… the networks and relationships in
which firms are embedded profoundly influence their conduct and performance,” (p. 1). They discuss,
among others, the industry structure, positioning within the industry, and a firms inimitable resources and
capabilities.
47
With many different partners, and long lead times for products in a rapidly changing
market place, videogame studios’ environments are dynamic and complex. There are
many stakeholders inside and outside the organization with different interests. This
implies that these organizations are in a constant state of flux as they need to realign to
the organizational goals and context.
In this figure it is important to understand that it is not either Market or Gift. IT is not
about either/or claims at all, it is about AND statements. It is hierarchy AND community.
The bottom part circle (G) is about production and creation of the game itself, and
involves most employees. These are the people that actually create the videogame,
craftsmen and professionals with highly specialized knowledge. They work on the
product itself, which is the kernel (or core) of the organization. Therefore programmers,
artists, game designers and all others need to work together with strong horizontal
communication and “mutual adjustment” (Mintzberg, 1992).
The top part (M) is strategic and top management. These people are the strategic core of
the community, and provide what Leadbeater (2007) calls the kernel. Their first
48
responsibilities lie in the continuity of the organization and long term strategies. Of
course these long term plans are very much dependent on the functioning of the bottom
part of figure. Second, they are responsible for managing relationships with outside
partners and other organizations. Think of relationships with publishers, accountants,
investors, government institutions, and competitors among others.
Especially the overlapping part in the middle, what would normally constitute middle
management, is very interesting to investigate. How is the information flow between the
top and bottom structured? We will come back to this in section 6.2. For now, it is
important to understand that the vertical orientation of the figure is arbitrary, as a person
might work close to top-management half of the time, and the other half on the
workfloor. Similarly, even top-management directors might still spend time with
colleagues creating the actual product itself. There is no clear cut division between top-
management, middle management, and workfloor. This implies that vertical coordination
is more organic and in line with Leadbeater’s (2007) conversational leaders than with our
pervasive ideas of managers making top-down decisions autonomously.
The two blobs on the side are the technostructure and the support staff. The first is
involved with structural processes and designs and supports systems and workflows. The
technostructure provides the organization with functioning routines, and in a videogame
studio needs to be flexible enough to change according to the dynamics of the
environment. The support staff provides support outside of the core operating workflow,
such as providing office equipment, housekeeping, and maintaining calendars.
Finally, the line that wraps around the figure is what Mintzberg calls ideology. It is
related to notions of collective ambition, domain, and organizational culture, and in more
traditional management models it would be called the mission statement. However, the
big difference is that a mission statement is generally written by top management and
then sent down to the workfloor. Ideology cannot be managed in such a directive manner,
it is co-created – the sum of personal values, if you will – by everyone in the
organization. As we have seen in our discussion of Gift organization, this collective
ambition is very important for personal motivation.
49
Note how the structure can be seen as a community as Market and Gift are linked as one
big connected circle, but still we can see that some kind of hierarchy is present. The parts
M, G, and the middle that connects them should not be seen separately, people can work
in different parts of the organization at specific times – someone might have a production
role in the bottom while also being the link to management. The two blobs are cut loose
from the rest of the organization, which feels wrong in a sense. It is the dissection of the
organization in functional parts as traditional management would do it, while these
people work together in the same room or building and are part of the same group. The
importance of the social function of a secretary or office manager is often
underestimated.
6.2 Leadership in videogame development
Now let us look again at the problem statement: How can leaders organize the creative
development of videogames? In the previous section we have discussed the structure of
organizing creative development of videogames, culminating in a model of the hybrid
organization. The only notion from the problem statement not yet discussed is “leaders”.
So leadership is the final topic of discussion before an attempt will be made to answer the
problem statement.
Every group has a leader. A pack of wolves, a military squad, a governmental institution,
a mob of hooligans, a WoW guild, and a soccer team all have this one thing in common;
they exhibit leader-follower behaviour in some shape or form. Obviously leaders in a
public institution are vastly different from leaders in a videogame clan. They have
different forms of leadership.
Leadership is directing the efforts of a group in a desirable direction. This is the working
definition of leadership in this paper. Also, it must be noted straight away that leadership
in this chapter will refer to leadership from the top of the organization on the bottom of
the organization. Leaders are present in all social groups, but this thesis focus lies on the
leadership of management on the total organization. Also, much has been written on
different types of leadership. To avoid an unnecessary detailed discussion on this topic
this paper presents one of the fundamental juxtapositions in organizational leadership.
50
Leadership in an organization has two dimensions, task-oriented and people-oriented
(Blake & Mouton, 1964).
How much is your organization worth? How do you measure the value of a game studio? Do you use Discounted Cash Flows for
future revenues? Do you attempt to give a monetary value to your brand or other
Intellectual Property? Or will you just simply add up the physical value of your building,
computers, and other property? Of course, all of the above say something about the value
of your organization. However, following the discussion in the previous chapters, the
main value-added activity – creating games – is dependent on the knowledge of the group
and its ability of transforming this knowledge into a videogame. Therefore, the value of
such a company is shaped by the knowledge, and access to knowledge, and the group’s
ability to use this knowledge to create a marketable product. Knowledge becomes the
connecting factor between the people in your organization, and the tasks at hand. This is
the starting point for the War for Talent.
On the one hand, task-oriented leadership involves the coordination of tasks, and all the
resources needed to complete them. In that sense task-oriented focuses on efficiency,
meeting deadlines, managing money, and providing information among others. On the
other hand, people-oriented leadership involves organizing humans of flesh and blood
including all the social and psychological subtleties. Matters in people oriented leadership
include motivation, learning, job satisfaction, and quality of life. Blake and Mouton
(1964) describe the best leadership style being high on both task-oriented and people-
oriented leadership.
In videogame development leadership also has these two dimensions. However, a third
factor – knowledge – is important to those in a leadership position. Knowledge is a
connecting factor between the people of the organization and the tasks they aim to
accomplish. Adding this third factor can be intuitively explained by discussing the value-
adding activities of a videogame studio (See Box: How much is your organization
worth?). Therefore, leaders can organize the creative development of videogames through
task-, knowledge-, and people-oriented methods.
51
Task Knowledge People
Manage output,
facilitate process
Build and maintain
strategic knowledge
Motivate collective
ambition
Facilitate decision
making
Connect knowledge Motivate
individuals
Fusion into a
marketable product
Enabling knowledge
creation
Network
organization:
people come and go
6.2.1 Task
Task-oriented leadership is commonly associated with vertical communication. Leaders
set out the long term strategies and commitments, and these are communicated as tasks.
A beta version needs to be released at time X, or a prototype needs to build with
functionality Y. Upon completing these tasks the organizational goals will be met, for
now. There are three important aspects to keep in mind in task oriented leadership.
Manage output, facilitate process
It is important to manage output, not throughput. This means that specialized
professionals get the responsibility and freedom to meet the demands of a task in the way
that they see fit. Traditional process management often uses elaborate and rigid
workflows to make sure that output suffices specific conditions. This brings two
problems. First, it creates an extensive papertrail and red tape. Second, its rigidity does
52
not allow for new effective ways of tackling (un)known problems. This is especially true
for tasks that include a high portion of improvisation.
Tasks that are more routine are an interesting point for increasing efficiency. Here,
managing the process can be beneficial. For instance, programmers tend to spend quite a
lot of time testing their code. These tests are necessary to see the impact the changes they
made have on the total product. Here, “unit tests”, “monkey tests”, or Test Driven
Development can be used to facilitate the production process, helping the programmers
with repetitive and time consuming tasks.
Output needs to be managed by setting the attributes that the task needs to suffice. Think
of attributes like time (a deadline), quality, or other boundaries like amount of polygons
or meeting requirements of a coding styleguide. By defining the boundaries (See Simons
2007 in section 4.3.3.) of the task at hand and clearly stating which requirements the
output needs to fulfill, the worker gets freedom within those boundaries to complete the
job.
Timeboxing
I believe that timeboxing is a crucial technique in managing videogame development.
Instead of stating functional requirements and then planning how long it will take to
make them, we start out with timeboxes at the end of which we will show results. It is not
about showing the results when you are finished, but what is finished at a specific point
in time, is the result. Especially in creative work, where the boundaries between what is
“finished” and what is not can be diffuse, it is important to have moments of review of
the semi-finished product. The information management gains from reviewing the status
of progress is also important for communication with external stakeholders such as
investors, outsourced testing, or publishers.
Facilitate decision making
If the professional gets freedom to make his own choices within the boundaries set by a
leader, it is important that they are enabled to make these choices in line with
organizational goals. The guidelines by which to make choices should not be elaborate
and complicated, its complexity will only add to the already complex and dynamic
environment. Hence, the guidelines should be simple, clear, and coherent. We could call
this management by values.
53
Besides providing guidelines which empower professionals to make choices, another
very important factor in decision making in group creative processes is horizontal
communication. Our connotations of the term Gift like participatory forms of organizing
or communities can help us to understand communication that relies on mutual
adjustment. However, and this is vital, this horizontal communication needs to be
facilitated even though it sometimes does not show immediate value. “Informal
conversation can be one of the most efficient forms of knowledge sharing,” (Quote
interviewee). It can be, but not necessarily is the most efficient form. More often
informal conversations will be just that, dialogues about matters unrelated to work. And
so the efficiency of these informal meetings becomes immeasurable.
However, there are some good examples of how to stimulate these informal
conversations. Basically, people need meeting places, or commons. Think of your lunch
room; is it inviting to sit there and chat with your colleagues, or do you feel like leaving
right after you have finished your sandwiches? Also, does the whole organization have
lunch together or in subgroups? What percentage of your office floor is suitable for
spontaneous informal conversations (a role that the coffee machine often proudly
fulfills)? On a final note, these informal meetings can also be semi-formal. Scrum11
assumes daily meetings in the morning, which makes it a meeting that is in the agenda
and professionals are expected to be there. However, these “daily scrums” take from
informal meetings in that they are short and snappy, and are aimed at keeping others
informed to stimulate mutual adjustment. Don’t sit down during these meetings, stand in
a circle, let everyone talk briefly but avoid in-depth discussion. The intention is to keep
the team posted on progress, priorities and dependencies
After having touched upon management by values and shortly discussed stimulating
informal conversations, a third way of facilitating decision making can be proposed.
Conversational leadership poses that steering and directing can be done through
conversation and argument instead of top-down direction. This serves two purposes.
First, as was already hinted on in the discussion of the Hacker Ethic (section 4.1.2.), 11 Scrum is a software production method that incorporates timeboxing, and semi-formalizes mutual
adjustment. It is part of a larger trend of Agile Development Methods. For Scrum, see Schwaber and
Beedle (2001).
54
leadership is only recognized on basis of skills and reputation. Through conversation and
argument, an optimal solution to a problem can be decided upon, where the leader and
professional are peers. The second purpose is that the leader also has a role in
management, and has the opportunity to communicate the implications of long term plans
and strategies on the tasks at hand. This is in line with Florida and Goodnight’s (2007)
notion of eliminating differences between “suits” and “creatives”.
Fusion into a marketable product
There are different phases in the development of videogames. A popular model is the
four phases of “concept – preproduction – production – test”. In the figure you can see
these phases, with time on the horizontal axis and number of people working on a product
on the vertical axis. Of course, everything ends with a single DVD or other information
carrier that is the final output of all this work, one single game. One can imagine the
effort it takes to fuse all these efforts into a coherent single product.
Again, the influence of leaders seems to be important. Keeping the overview that is
necessary to combine all the different content is a leadership task. And again, this
leadership task can be facilitated. Here I would like to draw on innovation management
theory that also discusses product convergence. For instance, “daily build-up” poses that
the different parts of a product should be fit together every day. This way, potential
problems between different parts can be signaled early on, when making changes is less
costly than five steps down the road. Some videogame studios use daily build-up as well,
55
making sure that every day (preferably automatically) a current working version of the
game is created. Of course, this takes some streamlining in the work processes (quality
assurance of code and objects, automated testing whether all features still work), but the
result of having a stable running version of the product each day can be worth the cost.
Two similar terms from innovation management is “parallel processing” or “concurrent
engineering “ also apply to the process of aligning the work of different disciplines into
one creative product. These business strategies acknowledge that R&D, new product
development, and thereby also videogame development are not linear processes in which
different disciplines can be segregated and processed successively. All the different
departmental interests need to be implemented into the workflows that in parallel create a
videogame.
6.2.2 Knowledge
Knowledge forms the connection between the tasks that arise out of organizational goals,
and the people that need to perform them. The description of a task largely determines the
composition of the team – assuming that teams are used as organizational structural
component – that will tackle it. In managing a hybrid organization, there are three things
to think of when organizing knowledge.
Build and maintain strategic knowledge
The first point is fundamental an organization’s core competency, creating videogames.
Management needs to consider what the core strategic knowledge assets are that the
organization has, needs to have, and wants to have. Think of choosing a type of game, a
56
technical platform, or production method. This is about the long-term direction that is
chosen in which the organization chooses to develop itself.
Those of you who are critical readers, will immediately notice that an “organization that
chooses to develop itself” is not possible. Only persons within an organization can make
choices, and the choices made by management are not necessarily the same as those by
professionals. Therefore, it is important to seek congruence in the organizational and
personal learning goals. If the domain of knowledge that a professional wants to develop
himself is in line with the strategic knowledge goals an organization pursues, we find
complimentarity.
Recognizing the human importance of building and maintaining strategic knowledge also
implies that as soon as a professional will leave the organization, the knowledge is gone
as well. It is therefore important to spread core strategic knowledge over a number of
persons, possibly even facilitated by the use of specific information systems or other
routines. In the case of programming, techniques such as “extreme programming” (XP)
might be helpful. In XP two programmers work together on one computer, building the
code together. Whether this is efficient or not in terms of productivity is a topic of
discussion. However, from a viewpoint of strategic knowledge, it might be very fruitful
to have two ‘experts’ on a functionality or other chunk of code. Might problems arise,
there are two individuals available to work on a problem. Also, teams that closely work
together can also achieve this benefit of diffusing strategic knowledge.
“You need to incorporate a portion of functional redundancy.”
Connect knowledge
As was established in chapter 3 on Gift and participatory forms of organization it is
important to connect knowledge internal to an organization to itself, but also to external
sources of knowledge12. The internal connection will be elaborated upon in the next point
12 For a discussion on how knowledge sources are connected through a process of “churn”, together with its
relation to innovation management theory see Derks (2006) Section 2.3.1.
57
“enabling knowledge creation”. For now, this section discusses connecting to knowledge
external to an organization.
The first problematic point is that to create new knowledge and to learn we need to share
information and learning experiences, while to earn money with knowledge we need to
create what economics calls shortage. Therefore the knowledge used in making a
videogame, as well as the videogame itself as a knowledge artifact, need to be protected
and kept secret. However, the knowledge you need to create a videogame can come from
anywhere, inside and outside of your organization. This incongruity simply states that
you need to protect your own knowledge to a certain extent while being open to
connecting to external knowledge sources.
“There are more smart people outside of your organization than inside.”
Although this balance feels quite intuitive it will be even clearer after giving some
examples. External knowledge sources come in many forms. A simple example is an
open internet forum. If an artist needs help with a tool or technique and there are people,
professionals or amateurs (Leadbeater and Miller, 2004), on the forum that have this
information, the artist should be facilitated to get on the forum and get the information he
needs. However, the artist may not disclose any information on the studio’s future
project. Middleware is a great example of internalizing external knowledge, as you can
basically buy complete visual studio’s, engines, or Artificial Intelligence packages. In
essence, this is a make-or-buy decision rooted in transaction cost theory13 (Coase, 1937).
Other examples that can be evaluated (in part) by using transaction cost theory are hiring
free-lancers – a middle form between employment and market – or outsourcing decisions.
Some, it is possible to outsource non-core assets or non-core code to another
13 Transaction cost theory weighs the cost of buying something of the market versus producing it yourself.
Even though Coase’s theories from 1937 do not explicitly discuss make-or-buy decisions for knowledge
artifacts such as middleware technologies, his articles are no less relevant. For instance, it is often claimed
that core strategic knowledge should never be obtained through market, as the learning process of creating
it is essential.
58
organization, provided that they can be trusted to be aligned with your organizations
goals.
Enabling knowledge creation
It has become apparent from the foregoing that managing knowledge to a large extent is
about aligning organizational goals to personal goals. This remains true for this point,
enabling knowledge creation. Krogh et al. (2000) have devoted an entire book to this
topic, so if you are interested: they provide a much more thorough and detailed analysis
of how the creation of new knowledge can be facilitated and enabled in an organizational
setting. However, it is of such importance that it cannot be omitted here.
The three most important points I would like you to take away from this are the three
forms of Ba that influence knowledge creation: physical, virtual, and mental. Physical Ba
is space, the building, climate, and interior design, an organization operates in. Virtual Ba
are all the information infrastructures such as e-mail, chat, telephone, and all other
information and communication media professionals use. Then there is the mental Ba,
which is closely related to the social setting. It was established in section 4.3 that group
creativity is built on trust. It helps to have a setting that is open for critique, embraces
mistakes, and where people feel comfortable to be themselves. These three forms of Ba –
physical, virtual, and mental – are very important in managing a videogame studio. Still,
it feels kind of awkward to discuss the topic knowledge creation and Ba in such a short
frame. Please refer to chapter 8 for a discussion on how enabling knowledge creation can
further be investigated in the videogames industry.
6.2.3 People
The final topic is people-oriented leadership. As was acknowledged earlier, people
embody the knowledge that is needed to fulfill tasks that are necessary for achieving
organizational goals. Again, we are putting people on the front row! The importance of
people in videogame development is on par with the importance of functions in
Tayloristic management systems.
59
Motivate collective ambition
In pure Gift organizations the collective ambition, that what We want to achieve, is the
factor that binds the community together, it’s a conceptrelationship. Similarly in
videogame studios, the collective ambition is what drives a group to excel; it is the glue
that unites the group towards a common goal and direction. I believe that motivating this
collective ambition is key to leaders of a videogame studio: management by values.
Before going into management by values it is important to note that this collective
ambition, like ideology (section 6.1), is not something leaders make up and determine,
and then share with the rest of the group. It is something that grows out of the dynamics
of the group itself, but can still be influenced and directed to a certain extent. That said, it
is important to attract individuals that are not only professionally proficient to work in
your organization, but that they have a connection with the core values to some extent. It
is then up to the individual to make add his own interpretation of these values.
Management by values works in three main ways. First, through leadership by example.
Second, through the products already made, as the history and reputation of the studio.
And third, through work processes and the way they are organized.
First, leadership by example is related to conversational leadership. If one wants people
in the organization to collaborate, share information, and tackle problems from a cross-
disciplinary standpoint, the leader needs to exhibit this behaviour himself. If a leader says
one thing, but does something else, it is the latter that people will general perceive as
more important. In that respect, in creating a work environment that is founded on trust,
allowing mistakes, and reciprocity starts with leaders exhibiting this behaviour
themselves.
60
“Do as I do, not do as I say.”
Second, the products that a studio has made are central to their outside reputation. It is
easily the most visible external extension of the organization. If these works show that
they have been made with passion for games, are technically sophisticated, or conversely
are cheap and low-quality, this will show what the organization’s values are like. Third,
the processes, routines, and structures of an organization tell professionals what kind of
organization they are involved in. The organization itself can be seen to show its own true
nature.
In this light it is important to organize recognition, a point we will come back to on an
individual level in a moment. Once a goal, or milestone towards a goal, has been
successfully met it is important to recognize those who have worked on achieving it. Put
the professionals on stage, and let them show (either internally or externally) that which
they have achieved and are proud of. Practically, think of a demo at a conference, or a
party in the studio where the achievement is celebrated.
Motivate individuals
Following the collective ambition is the individual motivation of a professional. As was
established in theory it is especially intrinsic motivation that is important to creative
work, also confirmed by the importance of a conceptrelationship instead of a ‘mere’
contractrelationship. It is again the leaders’ task to allow people to work on tasks that are
challenging, in line with individual learning goals, but also in line with organizational
goals. The concept of Flow in individual creativity teaches us a thing or two on how to
engage professionals in creative work.
Also, in line with the last point it is important to organize recognition. Show what a
person has created to the whole group. Recognize extra efforts made during crunch-time.
Recognize that the effort that has been put in during overhours or even a weekend is truly
appreciated, but also show that you understand what effect this has on the other aspects of
personal lives. True, sincere recognition can be a powerful motivational factor.
61
Network organization: people come and go.
As we realize the network structure of the organization and the industry, we come to
understand that people’s goals will sometimes be aligned with organizational goals, as
well as times that the two are not congruent. In these latter instances it is important to
help people realize their next professional step, even though there is no direct benefit for
the organization. Understanding that the organization is a swarm, or flock, of sorts
implies accepting that people will come and go to the organization.
Instead of a modus operandi of propulsion, where the leaders push towards a certain
direction and might be inclined to “force” a professional to stay in the organization, the
dominant motion is provided by attraction. Attraction to the organizations values, goals,
and collective ambition. Someone who has left the organization might tell others about
the ideology of your organization, which might attract people towards it.
These people that would like to cooperate towards the organizational goals might want to
do so through different work forms. Some might want to work from home or get a
freelance contract, while others want more long-term stability and a longer lasting
relationship. It is important that, within the boundaries of the organizational goals, these
different work forms are made possible. For instance, for creating concept art one might
not have to be present at the studio all the time, and the same might be said about creating
the musical score. However, as these relationships become more distanciated from the
core of the organization, one needs to find ways to make sure that the connection with the
collective ambition is still upheld.
“The central question becomes: Can I gather the right people around me at the right
moments in time to create the product I want?”
62
These were the nine points of our enneagram. Nine fundamental points for leadership in
videogame development. Note how it is again modeled in the number of three, similar to
the Triforce.
63
7 Conclusion – Facilitated Chaos
As we come to a conclusion it feels right to also close the circle on the terms Market and
Gift. Market has been described as “traditional” consumer market thinking, hierarchical
organizational models rooted in the industrial age and Tayloristic management, and as the
commercial side of videogame development. It is remarkable to see that a lot of factors
that we fit under Gift organization like, for instance, culture and social context are
generally regarded as being part of the informal organization, the part of the organization
outside the direct scope of management. Gift brings this informal part of organization
back under investigation.
Throughout this paper Gift has been aligned with gift and reciprocity, community forms
of organization (involving a kernel, community, knowledge, and no formal hierarchy),
and the strong concept relation between the different disciplines in videogame
development. As we saw at the end of chapter 3 Market and Gift are perpendicular to
each other, in the sense that they encompass vertical and horizontal communication in an
organization respectively. Vertical communication are information channels and lines of
responsibility between management and workfloor, while horizontal communication is
best summarized as alignment in different creative processes, and Leadbeater’s “We
think, therefore we are.”
“Work hard, play hard”
This paper shows that videogame development has attributes from Market as well as Gift
organizations, and as such is a hybrid form between the two. As is shown that
informationalism does not supplant industrialism, there are good reasons to believe that
the two can go hand in hand. A videogame studio is an efficient production organization
that creates a knowledge artifact (a videogame) with heavy reliance on information and
communication technologies, in which people form the central and most important asset.
The model by Mintzberg (section 6.1) shows what the elements of such an organization
are.
64
This thesis’ problem statement: how can leaders organize the creative development of
videogames? is the next question that comes to mind for such a hybrid organization. It
has actually already been answered in chapter 6. Important subjects of attention are a
general shift towards importance of people, motivation, collective ambition, management
by values, organizational learning, and organizational creativity. The enneagram shows in
more detail the nine most important points in leadership in videogame development, at
least from the perspective of knowledge- and innovation management. Of course, other
aspects such as financial health, marketing and distribution of the product, and legal
affairs need to well-organized. However, these topics are not the focus of this study.
The enneagram in that sense is an important conclusion of this thesis. It shows a three
dimensional model (in a two-dimensional plane) for organizational creativity.
Organizational creativity is a function of individual creativity amended by the group’s
ability to coordinate creative production. The three main triangles show task, knowledge,
and people, which are analogous to coordinating, learning, and motivating.
However, please do not see the methods limited to these nine points. One of the dangers
of the human mind is that we tend to be dualistic when attaching meaning to symbols,
which makes that the enneagram looks like a boundary of sorts. The easiest way to show
that there are other methods not discussed here is by showing the enneagram as a three
dimensional model, as three pyramids instead of three triangles. Suddenly, as our
perspective shifts it has more than nine points.
65
Remaining in the domain of knowledge- and innovation management, we see that many
business theory models are useful in videogame development. Models like daily build-up,
fuzzy front, timeboxing, parallel processing, organizational learning, and open innovation
give interesting insights into the game development process. A word of caution is in
place here as – traditionally – business theory has focused on rationalizing these
processes, while these complex phenomena can only be understood as more chaotic and
sometimes even contradicting trends. The new product development funnel is a
visualization of how a single videogame is created in a videogame studio.
Another topic of conclusion is enabling knowledge creation. On a meta-level, creation of
knowledge is the core value-added activity of a videogame studio. On a practical level,
no one is thinking about creating knowledge, just about creating great games. However,
this thesis remains that a thorough understanding of the concept of knowledge and how it
can be managed is imperative in videogame management. For instance, understanding
that not all knowledge can and should be codified, but is present as tacit knowledge is
important and has implications for management.
66
To recap section 4.2.4. The five steps in enabling knowledge creation are:
• Instill a knowledge vision
• Manage conversations
• Mobilize knowledge activists
• Create the right context
• Globalize local knowledge.
Instilling a knowledge vision is related to collective ambition as the first point of people
oriented leadership in chapter 6. Manage conversations was discussed in “facilitate
decision making” above. Mobilize knowledge activists simply states that one needs
proponents who actively promote knowledge as an important topic on the management
agenda – in this case that would be, consequently, me. The influence of context on
knowledge is a topic portrayed in section 4.2. However, to speak about creating the
“right” context is fairly subjective. I do not feel confident here to discuss what such a
context would look and feel like, as it completely depends on the organizational setting,
goals, context, and people. It might not even be possible to expose the intricacies of
context in such a general way. Finally, globalizing local knowledge implies connecting
internal knowledge. Through presentations, courses, teamwork, and other semi-formal
arrangements spreading of local knowledge can be encouraged. As was shown in
“connect knowledge” and touched upon through the discussion of open innovation, the
connection to knowledge outside of your organization is also very important to
organizational learning.
As was stated before, knowledge creation is just not a theoretical abstract issue. It
happens as people work together, and use the information and knowledge at their disposal
to tackle a problem or reach a goal. It is about two people sitting at the same desk
resolving a problem with the game engine. It is about people that are learning within a
certain setting. This setting or context is meant with Ba: the physical, virtual, and mental
spaces in which learning occurs. Ba is one of the main ways for leaders to have (in)direct
influence. What communication networks (internal and external to the organization) do
you allow in the organization? How do you organize your physical space? Does a cross-
disciplinary team have their own workspace or do they work in a functional department
67
with their peers? What is the mental context as we think of factors of trust, allowing
mistakes, and promoting independent decision making? No definite conclusions can be
drawn on Ba, it is different for every specific case.
In conclusion, videogame development occurs in a setting of Facilitated Chaos. The core
of the organization, where the actual creative development occurs, is chaotic in the sense
that it cannot be captured in linear and purely rational models. We need to allow for some
functional redundancy in which seemingly inefficient work is being done. The creation
process of a videogame includes different people from various disciplines, in a highly
complex and dynamic context, with a product that has long lead times in production. The
organization must remain in flux to a certain extent to allow for rapid adaptation to new
ideas, technologies, partnerships, or other dynamics.
It is a leader’s (read: management’s) main responsibility to facilitate the work of the
people at the kernel of the organization. If the personal and organizational overlap in
collective ambition, this freedom of individuals will work. This facilitation will take
various forms according to different situations, as a leader’s role may be to motivate, to
coach, to inspire, to be strict, to reward, or to teach among others. Therefore, leaders in
videogame studios need not only exhibit leadership behaviour and must be able to
communicate and cooperate cross-disciplinarily, but also employ diversity in leadership
style. They must feel right at home in the concept that is being produced, as well as in the
commercial side of maintaining continuity for the organization. Often, not all different
roles are found in one person, and a diverse management team with different functional
backgrounds and personalities stands at the top of the organization.
Rhythm, Harmony, and Melody: structural elements of music as a metaphor We have discussed timeboxing as an important activity in videogame development. It is
through this technique that allows a clear view on progress, quality, and potential
problems. In a sense, a videogame studio has to find its rhythm in which it creates and
produces. This rhythm also has a large impact on external stakeholders and other parties,
so all need to be taken into account.
Harmony could be seen as the harmony of the group. This encompasses social cohesion
as well as cooperation abilities, through routines as well as improvisation. In music, the
68
harmony forms the base upon which tonality is built. In organizations, harmony forms the
base upon which the creative development occurs.
Melody can be seen to be a number of things, but here it will serve as the metaphor for
the actual videogame – or kernel – that is being created. It needs to be aligned with the
rhythm and harmony of the studio and is the output that is most visible, or actually
audible, element of the organization. It is the aspect upon which reputation is built.
Together with the harmony of the studio it can be used to attract like-minded individuals
that want to join the organization, and the rhythm sets the organizational pace.
You see? Musical structure allows for describing organizing videogame development.
Without giving my personal associations away, we could also use molecular biology and
ecology to understand network organizations and organizational survival.
Photo by Joe Shlabotnik @ Flickr.com
69
8 Epilogue – Discussion
This chapter will delve into the applicability of the findings to other domains, and
propose some models that can be used for further research. Afterwards, the discussion
chapter will end with a number of statements that are central to this book as a whole. But
first, I want to take you into a surprising and peculiar allegory.
There seem to be parallels between organizing and videogames. Game design motivates
players through risk and reward structures, giving new items, coins, or abilities as the
player progresses through the game. In a sense, this is related to the motivation of
workers, in which individual motivation and rewarding performance are also key
activities. Also, the concept of flow is sometimes used to describe the sensation of
playing a game, as well as being the term for a mental state in individual creativity.
Furthermore, games like Second Life, Animal Crossing, GameMaker and Little Big
Planet combine play and creation into one activity. Furthermore, business theory
analyses strategic behaviour using game theory; playing the competitive game. Finally,
the Hacker Ethic is about playing around with technology and creating art and beauty on
a computer. We see again, that videogames and organizing videogame development
involve common notions:
To play and create,
and to create play.
Now on to wider applicability and suggested research strategies. On the one hand, the
theoretical scope of this thesis is rather broad. Even though videogames is the starting
point of this thesis, we have ventured into subjects that affect not only videogame studios,
but might have importance to organizations with different goals, shapes, and sizes.
Maybe even politics may benefit from a better understanding of Gift culture and how it
can be used to organize society. Leadbeater (2007) gives some good examples of how
70
Gift notions can be used to organize city planning, health care, or education14. Applying
this thesis’ findings on all these phenomena might be stretching it too far, even though
there is some support for taking these notions beyond organizing videogame
development. “The dilemmas experienced by managers in cultural industries are also to
be found in a growing number of other industries where knowledge and creativity are key
to sustaining competitive advantage,” (p.1).
This study’s problem statement and its proposed solutions can be constructive to
organizations in the creative industries. “The creative industry is a specific form of
economic activity that creates products and services that are the result of individual or
collective creative work and entrepreneurship. Content and symbolism are the most
important elements of these products and services. They are acquired by consumers and
businesses because they summon meaning. On the basis of this meaning an experience
occurs. The cultural industry therefore plays an important role in developing and
maintaining lifestyles and cultural identities in society,” (TNO, 2004, pp. 19-20).
The creative industry is characterized by a number of factors. First, evidently it includes
creative work; products or services that are new, unique, or a new combination of
existing elements. Second, the industry and its context are dynamic and complex. Even
more than firms in established industries like for example the steel industry or food
products, “firms that compete in cultural industries must deal with a combination of
ambiguity and dynamism, both of which are intrinsic to goods that serve an aesthetic or
expressive rather than a utilitarian purpose,” (Lampel, Lant and Shamsie, 2000, p.1).
Finally, the creative industry is a part of the knowledge economy. The main production
factor for creating products or services is not land, manual labor, nor physical resources
like metal or wood; it is knowledge. These three factors creativity, dynamic
environments, and knowledge as main production factor typify the creative industry.
14 What if we can get people to contribute to educating our youth when they choose to in a modular
fashion? We need to get learning out of the ivory tower that is the school building, and start facilitating
learning instead of steering it. Leadbeater (2007) gives the example of the Barefoot College in his first
chapter, a recommended read.
71
On the other hand, the scope of research of this thesis is rather narrow. The multitude of
different theoretical concepts has clouded the research as no single subject is studied in
high detail. As this study aims at analytic generalization (see Appendix B Methodology)
research on a multitude of cases needs to be done to achieve statistical generalization, i.e.
drawing conclusions on videogame studios in general.
Therefore, future research is recommended on both the analytical as well as statistical
level. On an analytical level one can build on the theories developed here, or pick a
specific subject like “group creativity” and performing a thorough and complete meta-
analysis of all available theories. On a statistical level, I recommend research on a more
focused level. For instance, Amabile & co have translated their work on creativity to a
practical level as they developed an instrument called KEYS: Assessing the climate for
creativity (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, and Herron, 1996). The utility of this tool is
discussed for research as well as practice. Also, the SECI model by Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995) can be used to link knowledge creation to Ba, as it describes different ways of
learning. As I visited Twynstra Gudde this year, they were experimenting with the
interior design of spaces for the different learning modes that SECI proposes. Also,
Hofstede’s famous models on cultural differences and organizational cultures describe
culture in six dimensions like femininity vs. masculinity and individualism vs.
collectivism might be useful to describe the culture of successful creative organizations,
developing a sort of ‘best practice’. In my personal (not really structurally researched)
view this culture will be feminine, collective, has low power distance, low uncertainty
avoidance, and a long-term focus.
Even though the research is scattered over many fields I do feel that my research is
sufficient. Knowing less of more can be a good way to go to tackle broad topics. And I
have met many experts and friends on the way. I therefore come to an end of this thesis
with the following statements:
72
• Knowledge is an important – enhancing – production factor. Knowledge is a
human factor and is heavily dependent on information and medium.
• The form of this thesis itself shows how different media like pdf, book, image,
text, and hypertext create different user experiences. Sadly, this thesis is not a
videogame.
• Knowledge creation and learning are not mystical processes, but are moments that
people share in a specific place and setting.
• Videogames are an interactive medium that is still ill-understood by many. We
cannot have a fruitful discussion about violence in videogames or using
videogames for “serious” applications like education if this understanding is not
enhanced.
• You cannot understand videogames by describing them, you play them.
• Videogames are a medium that combines the old and the new. They use text,
stories, and descriptions as well models, systems, and interaction. It involves a
hit-oriented industry, while the organization of creating videogames is close to
open-source work forms.
• Management in videogame development has the primary concern of taking care
of people in the organization, and to facilitate and allow them to do their work the
best they can.
• The leaders of a videogame studio have responsibility over long-term continuity,
the game concept (the kernel), and have an important role in determining the
values and culture of the organization.
• Efficiency can be increased through the creation of routines. These routines need
to be open to incremental improvement and not inhibit natural workflows.
For a final statement we return to Wesh (2007) and his analysis of digital ethnography;
the influence of informationalism on our culture. Information can be multiplied by
sharing it, form and content are being separated from one another in the sense that
necessity of know-how on technology is limited as tools become increasingly easy to use,
73
and anyone can add, tag, click, comment, and contribute and participate on the internet.
Essentially: We are the web!
I personally wholeheartedly agree with these ideas and dynamics, which brings us to
Wesh’s key conclusion that appears on the screen is the most beautiful of
understatements: “We need to rethink a few things…” that has a major cultural,
economic, and social impact. We need to rethink copyright, authorship, identity, ethics,
aesthetics, rhetorics, governance, privacy, commerce, love, family, friendship, and
ourselves. For the purpose of this paper I would like to add the terms organization,
management, innovation, information, knowledge, creativity, communication, and
leadership.
74
9 Appendices – Illustration and Methodology
A. Illustration of Videogame development
In an older version of this thesis, I have attempted to describe the creative process in
more detail. It was too complex a challenge. This is a piece of text which is resulted from
this endeavour. The phases of the design process for research purposes were: research,
design, production, evaluation.
A typical building task that has a strong routine component, for instance porting a large
number of similar classes from C# to C++, can be described using the steps of research,
design, creation, and evaluation. Generally for such a task, the first class to be ported will
take longest. First, the research component primarily entails analyzing the code and see
how it interrelates to other classes. Second, proggers can use simple tools such as notepad
to make a list of classes that need to be included in this process, while more visual
languages like UML15 and flowcharts might be useful for more complicated designs. The
design phase entails prioritizing the classes to be ported, often starting at the core and
working towards more peripheral code. Third, the creation of the port consists of
swapping functions that are typical to C#, to C++ commands. This is the most tedious
part of this task. During the writing of the code it is compiled frequently, to test whether
the newly created code will run. The number of times (a small portion of) code is
compiled can be as high as twenty times an hour. This means a high frequency of
alternation between creation and evaluation phases. Finally as the task is almost done the
total creation will be tested elaborately to see whether the code has the desired
functionality. If bugs arise or the quality is deemed insufficient, the research phase starts
to find the origins of the newly found problem.
The first classes to be ported are likely to give some problems. Functions might work
slightly different in C++ or need specific syntax to run properly. Also, some functions
that C# does automatically (such as garbage collection to free up memory) have to be
explicitly coded in C++. Then research is needed on the way to tackle this problem with 15 Unified Modeling Language: drawing boxes and the links between them to visualize the code at a
conceptual level.
75
this specific coding language. Generally however, for these routine porting tasks the
research and design phases are quite short. Moreover, as the different classes to be ported
are quite similar the learning curve causes that following classes will be ported with
known solutions to these potential pitfalls, decreasing time spent in research and design
phases even further.
Now let’s consider a task that has a strong improvisation component, for instance
optimization of memory. As the code runs chunks of memory are allocated to data, and
set free when the data is no longer needed. If setting the memory free is not done
properly, the unnecessary data remains in the memory decreasing the amount of memory
available for the application. These are called memory leaks and are very hard to avoid
when porting from C# to C++, as C# has some automated functionalities that have to be
specifically called upon in C++. These memory leaks need to be tracked down and solved
for the application to run properly.
Finding and resolving these memory leaks is done in number of steps. First, a specific
self-built application called MemAnalyze is used to track the usage of memory, in order
to find the pieces of code that “leak” memory16. After these areas of code have been
found, the specific nature of the problem needs to be determined upon which a solution is
designed. After the possible solution has been implemented in the code it will be
compiled and tested. The MemAnalyze tool is used again to evaluate whether the changes
made are having the effect hoped for. If the changes do not resolve the problem we return
to the research phase and look for other parts of code that might be causing the leak.
Not only is this task very research intensive as a lot of time is spent looking for the exact
nature of the problem, it is also highly uncertain and difficult to plan. Problems can only
be tackled one at a time, and only upon resolving a leak will other potential problems
become visible. In that sense it is very difficult to plan.
16 For a discussion of the MemAnalyze tool see the excellent article by Van Der Beek (2007) on
Gamasutra.com called “Monitoring your PC’s memory usage for game development.”
76
B. Methodology
This section develops the methodological framework of the research. As an important
factor of academic research is repeatability of the findings, this section will provide the
framework within which the research was done. First, the research strategy will be
discussed, including a discussion on the analytic model used. Second, the case study
design and the data sources used will be expressed. Third, quality of the research design
is established through the use of measures of validity: construct validity, external validity
and reliability (Yin, 2003).
Research strategy
As this study connects theories on new media, participatory organization, and knowledge
creation in the setting of a videogame studio, something that has not been elaborately
studied in this domain, this will be an exploratory study. Using a theoretical background
allows the research to focus on specific elements that are theoretically deemed important.
The importance and completeness of different theoretical models is established through
interviews with practical and theoretical experts.
According to Yin (2003), exploratory research can be studied using different methods
amongst which are surveys, histories, or a case studies. The case study method best
coincides with this study’s objectives as “the case study method allows investigators to
retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events,” (Yin, 2003, p.2).
The choice was made to investigate a case through participatory observation and
conversation, instead of relying on documented material on a case.
Yin (2003, p.13) defines a case study as: “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries
between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly evident.” He then goes on to
explain that a typical case study has more variables than data points, multiple sources of
evidence and benefits from the prior development of theory. All three are applicable to
this study.
There are three types of analytic strategies for case studies. Relying on theoretical
propositions, thinking about rival explanations, and developing a case description (Yin,
2003). This study relies on a case description as the theories are used to describe the case
77
in chapter 6. Theories developed in chapter 3 and 4 are used to create a vocabulary for
explaining occurrences in practice.
It is important to understand that this study does not seek statistical generalization (Yin,
2003, p.32) in which “an inference is made about a population on the basis on empirical
data collected about a sample.” This means that the case is not seen as a sampling unit.
Rather, the case is investigated to find support for theoretical development. Termed
analytic generalization, “previously developed theory is used as a template with which to
compare the empirical results of the case study,” (Yin, 2003, p.32). In other words, the
theoretical descriptions do not make inferences about a population of cases, but are used
to test and further develop the theoretical framework.
Also, it must be noted that the theoretical method developed crosses boundaries of
specialization. Even though this primarily is a business management paper, theories are
also proposed on creativity and media. Similarly, the boundaries between practice and
theory are (alike the academic field of medicine) diffuse, as theory developed while
researching practice is used to describe the practice itself. In a sense this thesis is
intended to advance our capabilities of designing the creative development of
videogames. Similar to design research (Laurel, 2003) this study crosses the line between
practice and theory to develop our understanding of organizing videogame development.
Case study design
It is widely agreed upon that investigating multiple cases yields better results, and that
therefore a researcher should, when possible, gather evidence from multiple cases (Yin,
2003). However, this master thesis has a single case study design. Mainly, the choice for
a single case study is made in accordance with time and resources available. Yin agrees
that in the light of limited time and resources a single case studied thoroughly has more
value than multiple cases studied superficially. Also, expert interviews with other
videogame studios that used to validate the findings of this study, can be seen as a
stripped-down form of extra cases.
The unit of analysis studied in this research is a videogame studio in The Netherlands.
For five months I have worked and done research here. A number of ten external
78
interviews, a large number of internal interviews, and the close participatory observation
of the case provide a sufficient basis for analysis for this case study.
Data sources
The data gathered come from four different sources. In order of importance they are
participatory observation, qualitative interviews, access to data resulting from a working
relationship with the studio, and news and data from other media such as newspapers and
websites. These four will be shortly discussed here.
First, the participatory observation existed mainly out of working in team creating a
videogame. The researcher’s role was that of junior producer, which placed me in
between management and workfloor. A logbook was kept throughout these five months,
in which occurrences are described and analyzed using developed theory. Also,
numerous internal conversations with professionals have aided my understanding of the
topic throughout these five months. These formed the basis on which chapter 6 is written.
Second, ten external qualitative interviews were held with individuals from different
organizations and backgrounds. These one-hour conversations were semi-structured
interviews (De Ruyter & Scholl, 2004) that give room for ideas and propositions not yet
known to the researcher, while still remain focused on the developed theory. Interview
techniques used are starting with an open question and converging to specific topics
during the conversation, and asking a single question three times in a row to get a more
concrete and clear answer. Furthermore, the questions were tailored to the specific
respondent for each interview, as the respondents expertise ranged from proficiency in
the theories of knowledge- and innovation management, to leaders of knowledge-
intensive organizations.
Third, the working relationship between the researcher and the studio provided an
abundance of organizational information. Access to databases, e-mail conversations,
meetings with partner organizations, and all other information systems allowed the
researcher to attain a holistic view on events. Also, I was generally not approached as
researcher but as practitioner, which made people more open to sharing of important
information. Of course, this dual role implies danger of subjectivity. Objectivity of the
findings is mainly upheld by the aforementioned reliance on developed theory.
79
Finally, some data on trends and the industry is gathered through conventional media like
newspapers, websites, and other information collected from the public space. While the
trustworthiness and academic relevance of data collected from the public space can be
questioned, this author has critically and thoroughly assessed this data’s relevance and
reliability. In some cases, as in Wesh’s (2007) Youtube example in chapter 3, there are no
other sources that provide that information. Also, in light of the discussion of information
and the medium that carries it, there seems to be no reason why academic sources could
not use the Youtube platform as communication channel.
Quality of research design
To assess the quality of research design “there are four test common to all social science
methods,” (Yin, 2003, p.34). These tests are construct validity, dealing with operational
measures for the concepts under study. Internal validity establishes causal relationships
between a number of factors. External validity establishes the domain to which the
findings can be generalized. And finally the reliability test demonstrates that the study
can be repeated. As internal validity only supports explanatory and causal studies, it is
not reported here; no clear causal relationships are hypothesized. The other three tests
will be elaborated upon to show the quality of this research design is academically
sufficient.
Construct validity
An often-cited criticism about case studies is the investigators subjective interpretation
and judgment of the data (Yin, 2003). This author holds that true objectivity is impossible
(as knowledge is “justified true belief”, see section 4.2.1.), and exactly by close-
observation and participation a holistic and meaningful representation of the facts can be
attained. That being said, this study also acknowledges the need for validity and
transparency of the data.
An important analytical step to be discussed is from obtained data to conclusions.
“Linking data to propositions can be done any number of ways, but none has become …
precisely defined,” (Yin, 2003, p. 26). Promising approaches are “pattern matching” or
using “time-series patterns” (Yin, 2003). The method this study has opted for is to
80
develop vocabulary together with the reader. Notions like organization and management
are first rid of their common connotations, and then described in light of theories and the
developed notions of Market and Gift. Some relations between theory and data will seem
obvious, while others might seem far-fetched. It is up to the reader to assign meaning to
the links I propose. As the discussion on knowledge shows, the best I can do is propose
relationships between, and create a web of, concepts that the reader will accepts as true or
dismiss as nonsense.
However, this does not solve the problem of establishing criteria for interpreting the
findings. Without rigorous, possibly quantitative, analysis of data on (for instance)
organizational learning and creativity, these claims cannot be said to be true or false. Be
that as it may, the same criticisms can be made on quantitative research. However, this
research method has opened up the possibility “to retain the holistic and meaningful
characteristics of real-life events,” (Yin, 2003, p.2), and has the power to include and
assess a number of trends in the organization of videogame development.
External Validity
As stated, this study’s findings are aimed at analytic generalization instead of statistical
generalization. This implies that these findings do not inform on a population of
videogame studios, but rather support development of theory on hybrid organizations and
Facilitated Chaos as “the investigator is striving to generalize a particular set of results to
some broader theory,” (Yin, 2003, p.37). However, similar to statistical generalization,
analytic generalization has boundaries to which it can be generalized. These boundaries
are defined by the theory developed. In this study, there are a number of delineations to
the generalization. The theory can be generalized to:
• Organizations that can be seen as hybrid organizations in the sense of chapter 6.
• Organizations that focus on new product development in creative industries.
As this is only a single-case study, there is no strong support for these criteria. Only by
using “replication logic” (Yin, 2003) these criteria are more firmly developed. More
research on similar cases will show to what extent this study’s findings can be
generalized. Turn to chapter 8 for a further discussion on this topic.
81
Reliability
This final test shows that the research of this study can be repeated with the same results.
“Note that this emphasizes doing the same case over again, not replicating the results of
this study by doing another case study,” (Yin, 2003, p.37). In doing so, the reliability and
repeatability of the data sources will be discussed
A logbook was kept during the five months of research recording occurrences, routines,
workflows, team and personal motivation issues, and discussions of meetings. These
notes will not be made public, as it contains a lot of sensitive information about the
organization under investigation. Also, the internal conversations were not recorded, but
notes were made and organized, and used during the writing of chapter 6.
All the external interviews were recorded and listened to several times. After that, a
summary, and in some cases a full transcript, was made of the interviews before the most
important insight were established. As it contains confidential information these
summaries will only be provided to a small number of academics for peer review.
The access to organizational information sources falls, like the logbook above, under
confidentiality. The videogames industry is well known for its secrecy and use of Non-
Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), which make sure that organizational information cannot
be leaked to outside sources. One could argue for subjective research, as this text bases
conclusions on information not open for peer-review. Contrarily, if fear of subjectivity
would lead us to disallow this source, an evidently rich pool of information would be
dismissed.
Finally, to give insights into information found in other sources like websites and
newspapers a Diigo account is used. From this account, which is public, different sites,
articles, figures, and personal notes can be found. For instance, Mintzberg’s
organizational model used in chapter 6 was found online in different sources.
Repeating this study and getting the same results is difficult, if not impossible. Not
because the wrong information sources or methodologies are used, but because this study
is rooted in contingency theory (see section 6) and it describes an organization in a
certain point in time. However, the strong theoretical basis that supports this study plus
the openness in the way this research is done provides methods of future research on
these topics.
82
10 References
Amabile, T.M., 2007. How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review OnPoint Spring 2007. pp 52-63.
Anderson, C., 2006. The Long Tail. Hyperion. Beek, J. van der, (2007). Monitoring Your PC's Memory Usage For Game Development.
Downloaded 6-7-2007 from Gamasutra.com. Blake, R., and Mouton, J., 1964. The Managerial Grid: key orientation for achiving
production through people. Gulf. Bozeman, B., & Rogers, J.D., 2002. A churn model of scientific knowledge value:
Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research Policy, 31 (5), 769-795.
Cameron, A., 1995. Dissimulations: illusions of interactivity. Millenium Film Journal.
Vol. 28. pp. 33-47. Castells, M., 1996. Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Chaplin, H., and Ruby, A., 2005. Smartbomb. Chapel Hill. Chesbrough, H.W., 2003. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,
44 (3), 35 – 42. Christophe, N., 2006. De Dynamiek van een Maakmodel. Internal publication School of
the Arts (HKU), Utrecht. Coase, R.H., 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica. Vol. 4 (16). pp. 386-405. Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1996. Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. HarperCollins. Davenport T., and Prusak L. (1998). Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School
Press. De Ruyter, K., and Scholl, N., 2004. Qualitative research methods. Utrecht: Lemma. Derks, R., 2006. Educated Games: communities as organizational form for open
innovation. ID: 359459 Lulu.com.
83
Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A., and Kazanjian, R.K. 1999. Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: a sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management review. Vol 24 (2). pp 286-307.
Florida, R., and Goodnight, J., 2007. Managing for Creativity. Harvard Business Review
OnPoint Spring 2007. pp 24-33. Gulati, R., Nohrai, N., and Zaheer, A., 2000. Strategic Networks. Strategic Management
Journal. Vol 21. pp. 203-215. Himanen, P., 2001. The Hacker Ethic. Random House Trade. Himanen, P., 2006. Keynote at HAN Masterclass. Arnhem, November 2006. Jaffee, D., 2001. Organizational Theory: tension and change. McGraw-Hill. King, N., and Anderson, N., 1990. Innovation in Working Groups. Wiley. Krogh, G. von, Ichijo, K., and Nonaka, I., 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation. Oxford
University press. Lampel, J., Lant, T., and Shamsie, J., 2000. Balancing Act: Learning from Organizing
Practices in Cultural Industries. Organization Science, Vol. 11 (3). pp 263-269. Laurel, B., 2003. Design Research: methods and perspectives. MIT Press. Leadbeater, C., and Miller, P., (2004). The pro-am revolution. London: Demos. Leadbeater, C., 2007. We Think: why mass creativity is the next big thing. Work in
Progress downloaded 13-6-07 from: www.wethinkthebook.net. Profile. Levy, S., 1984. Hackers. Penguin Books. March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2 (1), 71-88. McLuhan, M., 1967. The Medium is the Massage: an inventaris of effects. Penguin
Books. Mintzberg, H., 1992. Structure in Fives: designing effective organizations. Prentice Hall. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: how japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University press. Policastro, E., 1995. 1995. Creative Intuition, an integrative review. Creativity Research
journal. Vol. 8, No. 2, Pages 99-113.
84
Pope, R., 2005. Creativity: theory, history, practice. Routledge. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E., 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT
Press. Senge, P.M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of the learning
organization. Doubleday: New York. Simons, R., 2007. Control in an Age of Empowerment. Harvard Business Review
OnPoint Spring 2007. pp 104-115. Schwaber, K., and Beedle, M., 2001. Agile Development with Scrum. Prentice-Hall. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K., 2001. Managing innovation: Integrating technological,
market and organizational change. Chichester: Wiley. TNO, 2004. De creatieve industrie in Amsterdam en de regio. Downloaded on 3-12-06
from:http://www.nicis.nl/kenniscentrum/binaries/stedelijkeeconomie/bulk/Onderzoek/creatieve_industrie_axxdam_tno_2003.pdf
Valve, 2004. Half-Life 2: raising the bar. Van Mastrigt, J., 2006. Keynote at Nederlandse Game Dagen. November 2006. Van Wendel De Joode, R., 2005. Understanding Open Source Communities: an
organizational perspective. TU Delft. Veen, W., 2003. A new force for change: Homo zappiens. The Learning Citizen. TU
Delft. Wallas, G., 1926. The Art of Thought. Franklin Watt. Weggeman, M., 1997. Kennismanagement: inrichting en besturing van kennisintensieve
organisaties. Scriptum. Weggeman, M., 2000. Kennismanagement: de praktijk. Scriptum. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M., 2002. Cultivating Communities of
Practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. Wesh, M. 2007. The Machine is Us/ing US. Downloaded 2-3-07 from Youtube.com. Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., and Griffin, R.W., 1993. Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Academy of management review. Vol 18 (2). pp. 293-321. Yin, R., 2003. Case study research: design and methods (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage.