A peer-reviewed open-access journal on the creative economy (Ekraf), creative campuses, creativepreneurship, Orange Technology and WCCE themes. https://creaticampus.esquine.com/ 2026-10-24T00:00:00Z Esquine CreatiResearch Institute, Indonesia CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.10 2026-10-24T00:00:00Z 2026-10-24T00:00:00Z Budi TjahjonoDwi AndayaniNonna Pasfithri

Research on Indonesia's creative economy is spread over economics, design, tourism, community service and information systems, so it is hard to see which parts of the sector are studied and which are not. This study maps that literature from open scholarly metadata. Five queries in Indonesian and English were run against the Crossref REST API for each year from 2005 to 2025, giving 85,334 records, of which 3,208 unique works had a creative economy term in the title and a link to Indonesia. A manual check of 40 random titles found 38 relevant and a check of 25 excluded records found at most three missed. Output grew from 29 works in 2015 to 652 in 2025, and 76% of works had no recorded citation, partly because most are recent. Dictionaries for the seventeen official creative economy subsectors, applied to titles and abstracts, placed culinary (669 works), crafts (528) and fashion (411) at the top, while interior design (13), television and radio (29), photography (32), product design (41) and fine arts (42) each held under 1.5% of the corpus, and 38% of works matched no subsector. One work in five was a community-service report, and the share of works that mention digital tools rose from 15% in 2020 to 53% in 2025. A co-word network of 79 title terms split into five communities, but its modularity of 0.31 was close to that of rewired networks (0.26), so the thematic structure is weak. Author affiliations were present in only 3% of records, so an institution network could not be built. The contribution is a reproducible subsector gap map with released queries and dictionaries.

CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.9 2026-10-23T00:00:00Z 2026-10-24T00:00:00Z Rifqi FahrudinMochamad Heru Riza ChakimTessa Handra

Scholars who publish for the public increasingly try to earn from that work, and generative AI tools promise to cut the hours it takes. This study proposes a mixed-methods framework for describing how academic creators monetise their expertise and how AI tools could change the economics, and applies it to public evidence. A quantitative strand classified the latest posts of 174,656 active newsletters on a large publishing platform, 997 of them signed by authors with a doctoral or professorial title; a qualitative strand coded 92 public question threads with 357 answers in which academics discussed earning from their expertise. One doctorate-signed newsletter in five mentioned an offer of its own, more often than other newsletters in the same topic category (odds ratio 1.47), usually through a single model such as books, courses or paid membership, whereas sponsorship and donations were rare. AI was discussed by 31% of the doctorate-signed newsletters, but only 0.6% described using it in their own work, and naming AI tools was not associated with more offers or more frequent posting. The threads raised employer policy, ethics and tax as the main concerns, and AI appeared in only one of them. A labelled planning simulation suggests that AI drafting mainly saves hours rather than raising income, and pays off most for creators with little time. A protocol for the survey and interviews, with their sample sizes, is proposed.

CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.8 2026-10-22T00:00:00Z 2026-10-23T00:00:00Z Ika Yuni PurnamaBrigitta CallulaAbigail Husain

Indonesia's creative-economy master plan for 2026–2045 (Rindekraf, Perpres No. 37/2026) names academia as one of six partners in a hexa-helix model alongside government, business and industry, financial institutions, communities and media. It also sets out campus-relevant instruments, among them intellectual-property centres in universities, university–industry research-collaboration centres, the incubation of research results, and seed funding for creative startups. The plan does not, however, explain how a university should turn teaching, research and community service into creative startups and registered intellectual property. This conceptual working paper addresses that gap. Using a document analysis of Perpres No. 37/2026, UU No. 24/2019 on the Creative Economy and PP No. 24/2022 on IP-based financing, together with a review of Indonesian research on campus incubators, technopreneurship education and creative entrepreneurship, it proposes the Kampus-to-Startup (K2S) framework. K2S is a five-stage campus pipeline: creative talent and ideas, pre-incubation, incubation, IP consolidation, and market and scale. Each stage is mapped to the six helices and to indicators aligned with Rindekraf's first phase (2026–2029). The paper argues that the decisive campus contributions lie less in producing startups than in two often-neglected functions: converting creative work into recorded, transferable IP, and brokering hexa-helix relationships that outlast a student cohort. It discusses risks including IP-ownership disputes, mission drift, founder well-being and the concentration of capacity in Java, and closes with implications for university leaders and with limitations, notably that the framework has not yet been tested empirically.

CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.7 2026-10-13T00:00:00Z 2026-10-13T00:00:00Z Untung RahardjaQurotul AiniNuke Puji Lestari SantosoMarviola HardiniFitra Putri Oganda

Indicator Measurement Factor Analysis (IMF) records creative-campus projects as missions with planned outputs, extra outputs and an achievement percentage. A concept analysis earlier in this series proposed (P4) that reporting planned achievement and extra output as two separate numbers makes IMF records comparable across missions and cohorts and therefore usable as campus-level creative-economy data. This paper is a conceptual and study-protocol paper that prepares the test of that proposition; it reports no empirical results. We show that a single combined percentage admits at least three defensible readings once a mission produces extra output, and model a reported figure as a record component plus a reader component with a judgement part and a convention part, the latter removed by two-number reporting. We state four hypotheses with pre-specified decision rules, and give a fully crossed rater protocol in which independent, trained raters recompute figures from the same de-identified records under a single-percentage condition, a two-number condition and a sensitivity condition with a fully specified single formula. The analysis plan uses the absolute-agreement intraclass correlation ICC(A,1) and Krippendorff's alpha with paired bootstrap comparisons, limits of agreement, a mixed model for moderation by the share of extra output, robustness checks and a planning simulation for sample size (80 records, four raters). A worked example applying the protocol to six missions shows the computations end to end and how the convention part alone can lower agreement on a single figure without any rater error. The protocol is designed so that support for the two-number convention, support for a precisely specified single rule, or a negative result would each be informative for campuses that report creative-economy outputs.

CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.6 2026-10-11T00:00:00Z 2026-10-11T00:00:00Z Eiser Aaron BeldiqGreisy JacquelineAbigail Husain

Creative-campus projects, in which students, lecturers and partners turn ideas into prototypes, creative startups, papers and events, often stall between enthusiasm and verified output. This paper proposes that Indicator Measurement Factor Analysis (IMF), a spreadsheet-based project method used at an Indonesian private university since 2019, can serve as their operating system. We first review how IMF has been described in a 2019 blog post, a 2020 conference paper, the literature citing that paper and the structure of live IMF spreadsheets. The published descriptions are brief and the citing works rarely engage with the method, but practice has added countdowns, closing rules, lead and task owners, evidence links, opening and closing narratives and recognition. Using a design-oriented approach, we derive six requirements for creative-campus projects from the creative-economy policy context and build a process framework, IMF-OS, that runs planning, organising, actuating and controlling as one repeating mission cycle. IMF-OS has five layers and five rules, a lifecycle of chained missions from idea to prototype to startup, paper or event with explicit gate decisions, a role model built on lead and task owners, a version cadence with adaptable rituals and safeguarded recognition, and an operational privacy procedure. A worked mission template, explicitly illustrative, shows the system in use. An analytical walkthrough and a traceability table show how the framework meets each requirement and which elements are documented, observed or newly proposed. No empirical results are claimed; the framework is offered for piloting.

CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.5 2026-10-10T00:00:00Z 2026-10-10T00:00:00Z Nyree AniArcha EricaBrigitta Callula

Indicator Measurement Factor Analysis (IMF) is a spreadsheet-based method for running projects that has been used at an Indonesian private university since 2019. Its founding texts claim that it monitors achievement and improves teamwork, but they report no measurement instrument, and the achievement percentage computed in practice is defined in more than one way. This paper reframes IMF as a measurement instrument for creative-campus projects and sets out, following design science research, the design of that instrument and the protocol for validating it. We first review how IMF has been described and measured in its founding blog post and conference paper, in the literature that cites the paper and in the formulas of live IMF spreadsheets. We then propose a new measurement definition of IMF and design two artefacts: the IMF Indicator Set, with twenty indicators in six domains (achievement, timeliness, evidence integrity, ownership and collaboration, teamwork, and continuity), each with a formula, data source and direction; and the IMF Maturity Model, which places a project unit on five levels across six dimensions, from ad hoc task lists to portfolio-level optimisation. An illustrative computation on an invented mission demonstrates how the indicators are calculated. Validation is planned in three phases: a modified Delphi study with a multidisciplinary expert panel, content-validity indexing at item and scale level together with model-level evaluation of the maturity model and cognitive interviews on the teamwork items, and a pilot with creative-campus missions to examine reliability, feasibility, sensitivity and known-groups validity. No empirical results are reported; every result is marked as to be reported, and decision criteria are fixed in advance.

CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.4 2026-10-08T00:00:00Z 2026-10-08T00:00:00Z Nicholas LachlanRizky Fredrin TerizlaApril Lansonia

Indicator Measurement Factor Analysis (IMF) is a spreadsheet-based method for running projects that has been used at an Indonesian private university since 2019. Its published description is brief, its name has two readings, and the literature that cites it rarely says what it is. Combining an integrative review with Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis, this paper examines how IMF has been described and used, derives its defining attributes and proposes a new definition for creative-campus projects. The corpus comprised the two founding texts, a 2019 blog post and a 2020 conference paper; the 46 works citing the paper in OpenAlex, of which the 16 in open-access Pandawan journals were coded for citation function; the documented structure of live IMF spreadsheets; and 38 recent studies on campus management, recognition and the creative economy. None of the coded citing works described, applied or extended IMF, and half omitted the paper's first author. Practice, by contrast, has moved well beyond print, adding countable output targets, task codes, evidence links, countdowns, closing rules and recognition. We define IMF as a low-cost, spreadsheet-native mission-management method in which a team declares a mission on a Viewboard, decomposes it into coded, evidence-linked tasks and measures achievement as verified outputs over declared targets, so that planning, organising, actuating and controlling become one visible, versioned and celebrated cycle. The definition has six dimensions and a bounded achievement measure. We argue that IMF meets three of four criteria for an essential creative-campus tool, and we state five testable propositions for the fourth.

CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.3 2026-10-08T00:00:00Z 2026-10-08T00:00:00Z Eiser Aaron BeldiqGreisy JacquelineAbigail HusainNyree Ani

SpaceX listed on Nasdaq in June 2026 and, after absorbing the AI developer xAI and the coding company Cursor, closed on 2 October 2026 at a market value of about USD 2.16 trillion, more than eighty times its trailing revenue. This paper asks what that price assumes about 2030 and whether buying at it is a sound decision for the retail and student investors in Indonesia who can now reach the stock through fractional and derivative platforms. We build a three-segment discounted cash flow model for Space, Connectivity and AI, anchored on the company's second-quarter 2026 filings and a dated market-data set, with a bottom-up beta derived from industry betas weighted by segment. Fifteen value drivers are given explicit, labelled ranges and sampled in a seeded Monte Carlo simulation of 100,000 paths with a common execution factor. Bear, base and bull scenarios, peer multiples, a reverse valuation and a real-options layer that treats chains of unproven projects as staged, abandonable investments complete the design. The simulated median equity value at the end of 2030 is about USD 0.80 trillion, with an 80% interval of USD 0.25 to 2.14 trillion; only about 10% of paths exceed today's market value by 2030 and about 2.3% exceed the value needed to earn the cost of equity. The current price matches a bull case in which AI compute is sold at contract-like prices, margins approach the best peers and capacity expands roughly sixfold. Staging and abandonment rights add real value to the deepest chain, but even a generous option valuation explains less than a tenth of the gap between price and fundamentals. Concentrated voting control, related-party flows, a thin free float, coming lock-up expiries and currency and leverage risks for Indonesian buyers strengthen the case for treating the shares, in scholarly terms, as a high-variance speculative position rather than a core holding. The analysis is not personal financial advice.

CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.2 2026-10-04T00:00:00Z 2026-10-04T00:00:00Z Natasha LeonieNicholas LachlanRizky Fredrin TerizlaApril Lansonia

Business explainers on video now shape how students, founders and policymakers understand large technology ventures, yet they are rarely examined as arguments. This paper presents a qualitative critical case study of one such text, a 48-minute explainer published in October 2026 that maps the companies around Elon Musk, which it calls the “Muskonomy”, and concludes that links between working capabilities add strength while chains of unfinished projects add risk. Using document analysis of the full time-stamped transcript, we built a coded inventory of 93 claim units, classifying each by type (fact, estimate, forecast, illustration or opinion), by attribution and by timestamp, and we re-computed the video's arithmetic and checked its internal consistency. We then carried out a dependency-chain analysis of the ventures and the links between them. Two-thirds of the factual and quantitative claims are not attributed to any source in the video, and the figures for 2026 are reported here as stated in the video, without independent verification. Building on the video's central thesis, we propose a Proven-Link versus Bet-on-Bet framework that grades each inter-venture link by maturity and each chain by its depth of unproven dependencies. The analysis supports the thesis where links connect operating businesses, but it shows that the video under-weights several risks: the gap between valuation and cash, concentrated voting control, flows between related companies, captive demand for a planned chip factory, the costs the orbital-computing arithmetic leaves out, and labour and safety costs. We translate the findings into a copy, adapt and avoid framework for Indonesian creative campuses, student startups and hexa-helix creative-economy partnerships.

CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.33050/creaticampus.v1i1.1 2026-10-03T00:00:00Z 2026-10-03T00:00:00Z Untung RahardjaNyree AniNatasha Leonie

Universities are increasingly named as partners in national and global creative-economy agendas, yet the commitments they are asked to make remain loosely specified. The fifth World Conference on Creative Economy, held in Jakarta in October 2026 under the theme “Inclusively Creative: Collective Continuity”, and Indonesia's creative-economy master plan for 2026–2045 both place academia within a multi-actor ecosystem without explaining what an inclusive and enduring creative campus would look like in practice. The problem is pressing because creative careers remain project-based and network-dependent, so universities that expand creative programmes without attention to who enters, who is supported and who persists risk reproducing existing inequalities at a larger scale. This paper develops the Inclusive Creative Campus framework, a conceptual design artefact grounded in Orange Technology, a human-centred paradigm oriented to health, happiness and care, and in a capability perspective on inclusion. Using a design-science approach that combines document analysis of Indonesia's creative-economy law, the master plan, United Nations General Assembly resolution 78/133 and official conference materials with a structured synthesis of Indonesian research on creativepreneurship, adaptive learning, humanistic technology and culturally grounded pedagogy, the study proposes a four-layer framework of access, capability, care and continuity. The artefact comprises a framework diagram, a layer-by-policy alignment matrix, an indicator set and an institutional self-assessment cycle, together with five design propositions and an evaluation design for future empirical testing. Its distinctive contribution lies in three design choices: care is treated as a layer in its own right with a basis in Orange Technology, monitoring is organised around between-group gaps rather than averages, and a feedback path from graduates' outcomes to access turns “collective continuity” into a recursive institutional mechanism. The claims remain conceptual and are offered for empirical validation.

CC BY 4.0