Web 2.0 Model in Cultural Organization: Case Study Peepul

Introduction

The economic, political, organizational diagrams, must take note of the change, otherwise you may lose the potential opportunities, remaining crushed by the threats of that (the same). It is believed that we are in the era of e-globalization, or the space-action – this concept has been presented by the author in a previous work – and this may boost the chances that the ambitions, the objectives and the expectations of the individuals are facilitated - is that they have a social purpose, sustainable, economic or other - as well as this research aims to demonstrate through the case study.

The study consists of two parts, the first is dedicated to the theoretical aspects of the network model 2.0, the second presents the organizational model of the Peepul, through the observation of its virtual environments and interviews.

The methodology is qualitative, that’s to say, starting from a theoretical assumption we analyze an organizational reality that operates in the accessibility to the cultural product. Field analysis was structured through the direct entry of the researcher, as volunteer, in the association’s organizational model in the steps of:

• 1.

  Training and e-learning on cultural tourism accessible, quality training in the configured virtual and physical environments.

• 2.

  Advice on creating accessible paths/itineraries; consultant in projects “Cosy Naples” and “Cosy for You.”

The direct experience and involvement of the researcher focused on three years (2010-2013), in the three phases, the researcher carried out the activity entrusted to him by the association, considering only the goals appointed by Peepul. Only at the end of each phase, the researcher has found, through objective observation and the prospect of an element of the organizational model investigated, the role of virtual environments in the organizational dynamics of the association. In essence, the research took the construct of what was the objective measurement of the direct experience of the researcher; probably if, to achieve its mission, the model examined by the association had taken a different form and the role of the web was limited to a mere instrument, this work would have provided considerations and reflections diametrically opposed. During the qualitative field research used two survey instruments:

• 1.

  Objective observation, and

• 2.

  Interviews.

Background

The analysis of the organizational network 2.0 starts form the reformulation of the components of the organization, highlighting the relationships, parts are those identified by Mintzberg (2013; 1996; 1994), they are the strategic apex, the middle line, the techno-structure, the supporting staff, the operational core, to which we add the environment; relationships are enabled by individual parts of the network. In this case, the organization is represented whereas the definition of Bernardi (1989a, 1989b) and the role of the dynamic relationship with the external environment, whose limits are increasingly relevant and not definable. So, in the presented figure, the parts of the organization are no longer five and became six, and the environment is the cornerstone of the organization, representing not only the context in which it operates, but also the “subject” with which it relates (institutions, markets, trade associations, competitors, others). The environment - through the people who represent it – assumes a responsibility and an authority which defined through the centralization/decentralization of decisions and the size of the organization. The difference is that is not always the strategic summit to determine the responsibility and the authority, usually are the outsiders parties that influence the strategic apex.

We considered important to graphically represent the organization using the model of the value chain of Porter since it is believed that is becoming increasingly clear that the organizational dynamics depend on the role that each party in participation to the creation of value (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Organization: Elements and relationships

Source: Aiello 2013, p. 28