Managers and creators

74

75

designers. Moreover, in most cases the budget severely constrains the game development process.

The picture of mainstream product development painted by Tschang and Szczypula (2006) is decidedly linear. It would probably be hard to find an actual product development process where the starting point was the finalised specifications and they had just been implemented step by step according to engineering theories. It is not uncommon for specifications to change because of problems encountered and some features to be prioritised over others. In mainstream product development there is ample room for creativity in addition to rationality just as game development also has rational elements. Even though game development probably has its own peculiarities it is not as far removed as this dichotomy suggests. As previously stated, management in the cultural and creative domain in general has to deal with a particularly high intensity of creation of novelty which is a difference in degree and not in kind.

In addition to the general high intensity of the creation of novelty within the cultural and creative domain particular management issues have been identified. Firstly, communication among the creative department, the rest of the organisation and the client suffers from the manager‘s reluctance to intervene in the creative area of the business as it is believed to be temperamentally and intellectually outside his mental ambit (Bilton and Leary 2002, p. 55). Secondly, managers in the creative and cultural domain have to deal with rising costs and risks as the project proceeds. This means constantly assessing whether to go on with the project and spending money on it or to cancel the project. In game development this means writing a concept paper and deciding on whether to sacrifice resources to develop that into a prototype with code and art to try to get a publisher to fund the rest of the project. If funding is secured a larger team will spend one or two years on finishing the game by the publisher‘s deadline. However, the publisher may also decide to kill the project before it is finished. (Tschang 2005) Finally, firms within the creative and cultural industries are often micro businesses where management is not seen as a core task or developed into a core competency (Jeffcutt and Pratt 2002, p. 228). This leads to playing around which in the context of game development has been termed ‗feature creep‘ (Tschang 2005, p. 123). Feature creep means that new and unplanned features are added to the product during the development process. These additional ―cool‖ features thought up during development risk missing the deadline and are seen as a discipline issue (ibid.).

In the literature several responses to these management issues have been suggested. First of all, Bilton and Leary (2002) point out that creativity requires boundaries. Management should not be about encouraging out of the box thinking but managers should create frames of reference in which creative thinking proceeds. According to Bilton and Leary (2002) creative processes thrive in a disciplined framework, an example of which is the ―deadline magic‖. In game development this is pursued with frequent milestones (see e.g. Tschang 2005).

Secondly, the basic principles of any organisation, such as division of labour and communication need to be agreed on. Thompson et al. (2007) refer to the infrastructure of the production process as first-order creativity. Becker (1974) writes about artistic conventions that ease the division of labour and make collaboration easier between artists and support personnel. However, these conventions entail the risk of limiting artistic possibilities. In game development creativity appears in both

76

individuals and in groups and the group creativity manifests in the team bouncing ideas around (Tschang 2003). Such brainstorming practice may be efficient in bringing about ideas but it also serves as a communication mechanism through which all team members gain an understanding of the goals of the project. Furthermore, Tschang (2003) points out that no matter how creative the ideas are, implementation is vital for the success of the product. Thus the working practices should form an infrastructure that can carry the project through different phases in which different kinds of creativity are required. Kohashi and Kurokawa (2005) find that the success of the Japanese video game industry is a product of general Japanese management practices of lifelong employment and seniority-based wage system that do not fit well with the stereotypes of creative work. There is variation between firms in how much latitude they allow their workers, but in general the traditional Japanese management methods of strict hierarchies and clearly defined tasks also operate in game companies. The Japanese example may be somewhat extreme but in general management in the creative and cultural domain relies on division of labour and communication just as in any other industries.

Thirdly, work is often organised in short-term projects. This is the case in the music industry (Ordanini et al. 2008), in film and television productions (Coe and Johns 2004) and in the advertising business (Grabher 2002a; 2002b; 2004a; 2004b). Coe and Johns (2004) define television and film productions as ―short-term coalitions of directors, actors, crew and various service subcontractors, with each element being contracted separately to the project‖. For Grabher (2002a) temporary projects form workstations whereas networks and institutions function as reservoirs of knowledge in the advertising business.

The fourth management response to the complications brought about by the high intensity of novelty creation is continuous negotiating. Problems encountered at one part of the development process have an effect on other parts and adjustments have to be agreed on urgently.

Mora (2006, p. 337) describes the production of innovation in fashion companies as the result of complex negotiations among employees. In addition, the process is directed by constant confrontation with material and economic constraints. As the designer draws a sketch of a dress it is only the starting point for team work that constitutes a gradual process. As such a sketch can be interpreted in many different ways, the person in charge of choosing the fabric and cutting has to make various decisions which is also the case with the sewing of the dress. The process incorporates continuous problem-solving on how to deal with the constraints of the material and this also means negotiations with the designer, who wants the dress to be as close as possible to the original sketch. In the music business the producer, or the artist and repertoire man, has what Peterson and Berger (1971) call an entrepreneurial task. The job of the producer is to create hits, but this has to be done within the budget constraints decided on by the corporate executives. The stylistic decisions are left more to the producer‘s discretion. The performance of each producer is continuously monitored and rewarding and firing are done accordingly. This means that the stylistic direction forms in the interaction of the producer and the executives. In the game business designs are changed during the development process either because the initial design does not work well or because the designers want to make improvements. Such continuous problem-solving and uncertainty have led to some studios adopting a design philosophy of just designing on the fly as the

77

project proceeds. (Tschang 2007, p. 999) This solution is perhaps at the extreme, but in any case the collaboration of various specialist areas leads to a situation where the coordination of the project incorporates continuous bargaining for solutions that are acceptable to all specialist areas. In such a context, where negotiating and bargaining among employees and between managers and employees is prevalent, the managers take the role of an intermediary. The managers can function as intermediaries between the creators and the commercial imperatives (Hesmondhalgh 2002, p. 22) and as creativity brokers who connect talented people with each other, create productive relationships and environments where risks can be taken (Bilton and Leary 2002).

The responses identified in the literature to the unique managerial challenges brought about by the high intensity of the creation of novelty include providing boundaries for creativity, creating an infrastructure, arranging work in short-term projects and managing through negotiations and intermediating. It appears that the creative workers are prone to radical innovation which allows them to extend their creative expression, whereas the managers prefer incremental innovation as it is easier to manage and profits and losses are easier to estimate beforehand. In the negotiations some kind of a balance between radical and incremental innovation should be found. In the creative and cultural industries there is a similar requirement for novelty in products independent of market age. This is a clear deviation from the general industry life-cycle theory. However, cultural and creative production is not completely open-ended as much is taken for granted and not negotiated at the beginning of each project.