Table 2.

Conducive conditions for innovation cited by interviewees

CONDUCIVE FACTORS	OCCURRENCE % (n)
Context
The skills, knowledge and experience of the project team, especially the project champion	91% (10)
Supportive team	73% (8)
The project was aligned to the core business of the host organisation	73% (8)
The project champion's position within the system	55% (6)
Independent organisation which was external to statutory services	55% (6)
A team working towards a common goal	45% (5)
The provision of a safe environment for service users	45% (5)
Sustained management 'buy-in' or support at all levels	45% (5)
The small size of the organisation and a flat team hierarchy	45% (5)
The forward looking/innovative nature of the host organisation	27% (3)
Strong networks, e.g., links with local and voluntary organisations	27% (3)
The project builds on the work of an existing project	27% (3)
Support for the project from national policy drivers	27% (3)
Organisational control is devolved to hosts or project champion	27% (3)
Effective partnership working (trust and respect developed)	18% (2)
Process-outcome
The assertive and committed actions of the project champion.	100% (11)
The positive role of service users (when service user involvement is active)	100% (11)
The support from the funding body (financial and non-financial)	100% (11)
External validation from funding body through provision of funding, national policy priorities, organisational vision etc	73% (8)
The positive role of staff within, or outside of, the host organisation	73% (8)
Flexibility of delivery	55% (6)
A constellation of supportive individuals within, and outside of, statutory services	45% (5)
Open and direct channels of communication.	45% (5)
Full documentation of project activity (including contact with authors)	45% (5)
The project was not focussed on therapy per se but encourages social interaction and provides access to future activity	45% (5)
Power differences reduced between service users and providers	36% (4)
The versatility and scope of the project	36% (4)
The value and strength of original idea	36% (4)
The strength of the intellectual input into the project	27% (3)
Processes for embedding and link with other internal systems (e.g., curriculum development)	27% (3)
Structure/stability of sessions for service users	27% (3)
The use of non-traditional roles in delivering the project and allowing artistic freedom for service users	27% (3)
The long-term strategic outlook of project from the outset	18% (2)
Project allows therapeutic distance between service users and providers	18% (2)
The project arose from an identified need	18% (2)
A relationship of trust develops between artists and staff	18% (2)