Governance and new product development

The community destination (Flagestad & Hope, 2001) is populated by a wide range of SMEs that operate as co-producers of goods and services (Haugland Ness, Grønseth & Aarstad, 2011). For this reason, some authors suggest to apply theories and methodologies of the network analysis (Pavlovich, 2003), complex systems (Sainaghi & Baggio, 2011; Zahra & Ryan, 2007), social networks (Baggio, Scott & Cooper, 2010), tourist districts (Dredge, 1999; Sainaghi, 2006) to understand the dynamics of governance and management in community destinations. The fragmented nature of the tourism system together with the unitary perception of the tourism product tend to favor the emergence of destination governance’s structures, typically carried out by non-profit organizations, defined as destination management organization (DMO) (Pearce, 1992). During the ‘70s and ’80s, the DMO identifies marketing as its main activity, with the aim of assisting local firms in the promotion of the whole destination, supporting and strengthening the efforts put in by individual companies (Presenza, Sheenhan & Ritchie, 2005; Bornhorst, Ritchie & Sheenhan, 2010). However, since the 90s there is a need to include the marketing function within a broader set of activities, aimed at defining the overall strategic positioning of the destination (Pike, 2004; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). Together with the range of management processes, the DMO plays an intense governance activity to gather the resources necessary to finance itself and create an effective coordination with local stakeholders (public and private, for-profit and non-profit) (Presenza & Cipollina, 2010; Heath & Wall, 1992) The broad field of destination management has been explored by many academic contributions that have proposed different models (albeit partially converged) to analyze and systematize the activities of the DMO. The issue of destination governance is an area of increasing interest (Ruhanen, Scott, Ritchie & Tkaczynski, 2010). This is not surprising for two reasons: on the one hand, effective higher-level management activities require a clear governance (Bramwell, 2011; Bramwell & Lane, 2011). On the other hand, the complexity of the community model requires as the main field of endeavor the search for a balance between the different expectations of local stakeholders (Presenza & Cipollina, 2010). Contributions on governance have faced many interesting issues, such as: the identification of stakeholders (Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Franch, Martini & Buffa, 2010; Sheeehan & Ritchie, 2005; Sautter & Leisen, 1999); the levels of governance, distinguishing between local, regional or national (Bramwell, 2011; Dredge, 2006; Zahra, 2011); the reasons why local actors are willing to cooperate (Jamal & Getz, 1995; Timothy, 1998; Aas, Ladkin & Fletcher, 2005; Pesamaa & Hair, 2008; d’Angella & Go, 2009); forms that governance can take (Dredge & Whitford, 2011; Hall, 2011; d’Angella, De Carlo & Sainaghi, 2010; Wang & Xiang, 2007). This stream of research employs different management theories (Beritelli, 2011) and overall, the studies are mainly theoretical or, with reference to empirical contributions, focused on the governance structure and functioning. The authors, however, point out a gap in understanding, with reference to specific activities of destination management, which entities are actually to be considered “salient stakeholders” and which are not; and organizational forms which encourages the involvement of stakeholders. This article is a contribution in deepening these issues with reference to the development of new products, a crucial issue for tourist destinations always called to renew their offer.