Having recently been through the process of developing a job description and skills profile for a new Museum Director post, I was amazed at how different it read to what the same JD would have looked like only three or four years ago.
The post we were recruiting for needed to be a high calibre individual, who could 'transform' a service - not the usual wording seen on a museum job advert or competency framework, but in these times, an increasingly important one. Having researched the current market, and also trawled the various online museum job holding places (and their archived sections) I soon realised that the last 12 months has seen an increasing movement away from the last decades museum manager skill set, namely those of project manager, audience engagement/development manager, and generally all things accreditation linked, to this new set of essential skills around entrepreneurial, transformational, advocacy and partnership management.
It is also interesting that the need to have a recognised museum related post graduate qualification is moving gradually from the essential to the desired (and in some cases, gone completely), with more emphasis on broader management qualifications.
So what might this mean for the museum manager? Well, for those not wishing to move from the comfort of their current role, there will need to be some pretty intensive training and accreditation of these new 'essential' skill sets, and with the demise of MLA and uncertainty of Renaissance, we may have to look to the more traditional providers (Universities, MA?) to fill the training gap. For those currently at Uni or completing additional museum related training, it will be important for Universities to add greater breadth to their training - for example, I completed a Distance Learning PGDip with one of the most reputable Museum Studies providers in the UK, yet I don't think I've ever needed to refer to my learnings on pest control once... would offering some options in broader management be a useful addition or option for those looking towards the future and museum management level positions?
And what of the job hunter (and there are many), what can they do in the short term to build this portfolio of management skills and entrepreneurial attitudes? For one, don't think that digitisation is entrepreneurial! And two, cafes are now pretty mainstream, not an innovative response to financial development! What is needed is for a candidate to show that they can 'think outside the box' and use the skills they have developed working in 'the real world' to find an interesting and innovative solution to a problem.
We have spent the last decade learning that the most important skill for a museum manager can be a project manager, bring in lots of HLF money, and bring 'non-usres' into the museum fold, this isn't because we are two dimensional, but because funding and its creation of short term projects has been the key to a 'successful museum' and we have learnt to adapt to that change. Unfortunately, that rug has been well and truly pulled from under our feet, and the museum managers that survive will be those that are able to get back up, review the situation, and say 'I am no longer a project manager, I am a service transformation manager - let me be innovative'.
Ignore this at your peril...
23 March 2011
8 March 2011
I didn't join a choir to reduce crime...
"I didn't join a choir to reduce crime", those were the words a colleague told me were said at the recent LGA conference for culture, tourism and sport in relation to a discussion about the Big Society.
It's actually quite a statement, and whilst it could be taken in many ways, it does sum up a general feeling that for many the Arts are about the participation or intrinsic value, and not the outcomes or instrumental value of cultural engagement. This is an argument that has been long discussed, and one that I feel museums have fed into well over the last decade. Both the Generic Learning Outcomes framework and the more recent Generic Social Outcomes frameworks are excellent ways of looking at an action or output and matching it across to a desired outcome. It was interesting that libraries were one of the first sectors to 'test' the GSO framework, and the biggest barrier to myself becoming a true advocate of it in the early days - I felt that libraries had somewhat missed the point, and merely shoehorned outcomes into predetermined pots (its the sole failure of GSOs and GLOs in my eyes, that they are possibly a little too generic and easy to manipulate if you don't use the process correctly). However, over time I have become a true advocate of measuring outcomes to understand the social and learning values of museums and museum engagement, especially with non-service users.
However, this is a bit of background to what I am really interested in, and will likely seem as if I am about to do a u-turn on the above, but bear with me.
At the recent State of the Arts Conference I was interested in one of the provocation papers that discussed the various merits and benefits of giving equal measure to both the intrinsic and instrumental value of the arts (and culture I would assume!) to society and users - the piece was very good, and did indeed provocate for many. I think it's fair to say that in the Arts world the intrinsic is seen as the almighty over and above all other values, and whilst the audience understood that being able to pitch yourself to a wider (slightly better funded) audience of service providers (such as the NHS and Education sectors) bounties can be found. Again, this isn't really anything new to museums, and the concept of strategic commissioning is one that gets airtime if little application.
So what, the above basically backs up my admiration of the outcome frameworks. Yes, it does, but these aren't the same times we are living in as 10 years ago, and despite the excellent work that has gone into establishing and raising the profile of outcomes, I very much doubt if outside the museum sector, let alone the cultural sector, much worth or value is placed on our discovery of the much loved outcomes framework.
What is missing from the above is a further 'value' that libraries have managed to almost subconsciously grasp and turn into a weapon of mass construction - the institutional value. The institutional value is the value that gives a bit of social kudos to a sector, building or institution, and libraries are making the most of this by the bucket load. The now world famous twitter campaign #savelibraries went global, trending several times and bringing celebs galore out from the bookshelf woodwork, the arguments, although some talking about the other values of libraries, soon became a list of 'you can't close our library'. this was picked up on by some museum tweeters, who soon realised that the #museumcuts hashtag was a negative line compared to a #savemuseums hastag, and this has moved through the various cultural sectors as a key call to arms across twitter and various social and print medias.
Ok, so the instrumental value of an institution is probably being overlooked, and probably at a cost to real services who are in real trouble, so what can be done about it? Well, firstly the museum sector should again look at the worth and merit of using the inherent and almost Victorian value of the instrumental to help buy the sector some time. Whilst the other values are as much, if not more, important , these arguments and provocations are of little value to the community who uses the museum or the community that actively supports and becomes the infantry on the front line of the war on culture cuts. As the unnamed dissident against Big Society put it - 'I didn't join the choir to reduce crime', and fair enough, whilst he may not know the instrumental value of his actions, and there are probably many, the fact that we have somewhat failed over the last decade to get such people to understand the other values of cultural engagement probably means that in the short time we need to revert to what our supporters know us for best, our value in 'being', or value in 'existing' and our value in 'identity' for a community, society or service user.
This isn't to say we should abandon our goal of showing the important contribution culture plays to our society, but lets get better at winning the decision makers over on that one first, and use the example of libraries as an institutional fundamental to all communities as a model for our first line of defence in the war on culture cuts.
It's actually quite a statement, and whilst it could be taken in many ways, it does sum up a general feeling that for many the Arts are about the participation or intrinsic value, and not the outcomes or instrumental value of cultural engagement. This is an argument that has been long discussed, and one that I feel museums have fed into well over the last decade. Both the Generic Learning Outcomes framework and the more recent Generic Social Outcomes frameworks are excellent ways of looking at an action or output and matching it across to a desired outcome. It was interesting that libraries were one of the first sectors to 'test' the GSO framework, and the biggest barrier to myself becoming a true advocate of it in the early days - I felt that libraries had somewhat missed the point, and merely shoehorned outcomes into predetermined pots (its the sole failure of GSOs and GLOs in my eyes, that they are possibly a little too generic and easy to manipulate if you don't use the process correctly). However, over time I have become a true advocate of measuring outcomes to understand the social and learning values of museums and museum engagement, especially with non-service users.
However, this is a bit of background to what I am really interested in, and will likely seem as if I am about to do a u-turn on the above, but bear with me.
At the recent State of the Arts Conference I was interested in one of the provocation papers that discussed the various merits and benefits of giving equal measure to both the intrinsic and instrumental value of the arts (and culture I would assume!) to society and users - the piece was very good, and did indeed provocate for many. I think it's fair to say that in the Arts world the intrinsic is seen as the almighty over and above all other values, and whilst the audience understood that being able to pitch yourself to a wider (slightly better funded) audience of service providers (such as the NHS and Education sectors) bounties can be found. Again, this isn't really anything new to museums, and the concept of strategic commissioning is one that gets airtime if little application.
So what, the above basically backs up my admiration of the outcome frameworks. Yes, it does, but these aren't the same times we are living in as 10 years ago, and despite the excellent work that has gone into establishing and raising the profile of outcomes, I very much doubt if outside the museum sector, let alone the cultural sector, much worth or value is placed on our discovery of the much loved outcomes framework.
What is missing from the above is a further 'value' that libraries have managed to almost subconsciously grasp and turn into a weapon of mass construction - the institutional value. The institutional value is the value that gives a bit of social kudos to a sector, building or institution, and libraries are making the most of this by the bucket load. The now world famous twitter campaign #savelibraries went global, trending several times and bringing celebs galore out from the bookshelf woodwork, the arguments, although some talking about the other values of libraries, soon became a list of 'you can't close our library'. this was picked up on by some museum tweeters, who soon realised that the #museumcuts hashtag was a negative line compared to a #savemuseums hastag, and this has moved through the various cultural sectors as a key call to arms across twitter and various social and print medias.
Ok, so the instrumental value of an institution is probably being overlooked, and probably at a cost to real services who are in real trouble, so what can be done about it? Well, firstly the museum sector should again look at the worth and merit of using the inherent and almost Victorian value of the instrumental to help buy the sector some time. Whilst the other values are as much, if not more, important , these arguments and provocations are of little value to the community who uses the museum or the community that actively supports and becomes the infantry on the front line of the war on culture cuts. As the unnamed dissident against Big Society put it - 'I didn't join the choir to reduce crime', and fair enough, whilst he may not know the instrumental value of his actions, and there are probably many, the fact that we have somewhat failed over the last decade to get such people to understand the other values of cultural engagement probably means that in the short time we need to revert to what our supporters know us for best, our value in 'being', or value in 'existing' and our value in 'identity' for a community, society or service user.
This isn't to say we should abandon our goal of showing the important contribution culture plays to our society, but lets get better at winning the decision makers over on that one first, and use the example of libraries as an institutional fundamental to all communities as a model for our first line of defence in the war on culture cuts.
7 March 2011
Accreditation - viable in uncertain times?
Although this is only my second blog, and it may seem that the below, coupled with my first post, are looking for doom and gloom in the sector, this isn't the purpose. I hope that my posts act as discussion points for the issues I feel are bubbling away in the background, and yet to be fully discussed in open, public debate... which leads me onto my next topic, accreditation (formerly registration, for what its worth!)
One of the core functions of the MLA, and a function supported throughout the sector, has been the administration of the national Accreditation scheme, a 'kite mark' system for museums big and small, professionally managed and/or volunteer led. The make-up of the museum is neither here nor there, so long as the museum agrees to abide by some pretty simple, and some would argue fundamental, management rules for their museum.
The MLA show a pretty impressive list of accredited museums, including our impressive nationals, from which any visitor can draw upon to know that the museum they are in is being a 'good old boy' and following the museum basics from front of house to collections management, and everything in between. The MLA are also kind enough to send a certificate that says just that, which can then be displayed next to the opening times and charges, making would-be visitors even more certain that the museum they are about to enter is 'safe' and officially QUANGOed.
But, what if you upset the system, do something wrong and have the wrath of the infamous MA and MLA police knocking on your curators door... and what if, after the MA police have left, the MLA strip the certificate from your door, leaving the open wound of de-accreditation for all to see (and fear!)...
This is exactly what happened to one museum back in late 2006, Bury Museum and Gallery in the North West, still officially listed as 'excluded' (liken the naughty school boy) from the accreditation register - the only such entry on the whole list (a very naughty school boy indeed!). Bury incurred the wrath of both the MA and MLAs ethic committees after it publicised the fact that it was about to sell a Lowry painting to plug some gaps in general council budgets. Obviously this isn't the usual or professionally acceptable route any museum should be taking, and in no way follows the ethical guidelines of the MA or MLA. After facing disciplinary action from the MA, Bury resigned its membership, and a few months later was 'excluded' from the accreditation register.
At the time, HLF were quoted as saying that any formal actions taken by MLA and/or the MA would reflect poorly on Bury accessing HLF funds (argh! I shed a tear for them with that statement alone!), and so Bury became the first high profile case of the sector protecting the boundaries and showing the teeth behind the paperwork.
Hmm, but is that the whole story? What's happened since, and could a reflection on Bury's past few years give a sign of the lengths some museums will be willing and potentially 'ok' to take to save the institution over the collection? Lets see:
Bury was deaccredited in December 2006, according to the Bury Museum Website the 'building' is still calling itself a museum and gallery - so no changes there then... so would your 'average Jo' realise that they were about to enter the (free) forbidden fruit? Possibly not (alot of museums don't even display their certificates anyway!), ok, but surely the museum is suffering with figures? Not that I can see, since 2006 the museum has not reported any dramatic changes (either way) in audience figures.
Ok, so the public can be fooled, but the sector and sector funders are surely a different kettle of fish. Well absolutely, as I stated above, HLF said they expected all fundees to follow the guidance of relevant professional bodies calling it sad that Bury took the steps it did. So no money from them then... wrong! The HLF website shows that in 2007 and 2009 Bury Museum and Gallery accessed just under £100,000 of lottery money from the Your Heritage grant streams, hardly money to be dismissive off!
Ok, ok, so they managed to sweet talk HLF, but other organisations must be wary of them? Nope, according again to their website, they run successful INSET projects, run a range of temporary exhibitions, have had conservation work carried out on paintings and other collections, and took part in the NICE (National Inventory of Continental European) paintings project! Hmm, hardly sounds like an institution smarting from, and soothing, the pains from a ruler across the hands does it?
So what does this mean? Well, since this high profile case, several museums have walked the fine line between exclusion and acceptable disposals, and even the MA has revised and reasoned some extra special cases why financial motives may be needed for disposal through sale, but even so, looking at the above example, would they be any less of a museum if they were removed?
The reason I have spent all of the above discussing this, is because I have heard through the 'grape vine' of several smaller museums (and a couple of larger ones) discussing the merits of accreditation in the new world order - is it worth the extra 'baggage' and work, and for a reward that really only the sector appreciates?
The issue here is if museums start leaving the security and watchful eye of the MLA and accreditation as times get hard (and councils and boards want to make difficult decisions without being hauled over the coals) then at what point does accreditation become un-viable and an avoidable hassle for museum managers everywhere...?
One of the core functions of the MLA, and a function supported throughout the sector, has been the administration of the national Accreditation scheme, a 'kite mark' system for museums big and small, professionally managed and/or volunteer led. The make-up of the museum is neither here nor there, so long as the museum agrees to abide by some pretty simple, and some would argue fundamental, management rules for their museum.
The MLA show a pretty impressive list of accredited museums, including our impressive nationals, from which any visitor can draw upon to know that the museum they are in is being a 'good old boy' and following the museum basics from front of house to collections management, and everything in between. The MLA are also kind enough to send a certificate that says just that, which can then be displayed next to the opening times and charges, making would-be visitors even more certain that the museum they are about to enter is 'safe' and officially QUANGOed.
But, what if you upset the system, do something wrong and have the wrath of the infamous MA and MLA police knocking on your curators door... and what if, after the MA police have left, the MLA strip the certificate from your door, leaving the open wound of de-accreditation for all to see (and fear!)...
This is exactly what happened to one museum back in late 2006, Bury Museum and Gallery in the North West, still officially listed as 'excluded' (liken the naughty school boy) from the accreditation register - the only such entry on the whole list (a very naughty school boy indeed!). Bury incurred the wrath of both the MA and MLAs ethic committees after it publicised the fact that it was about to sell a Lowry painting to plug some gaps in general council budgets. Obviously this isn't the usual or professionally acceptable route any museum should be taking, and in no way follows the ethical guidelines of the MA or MLA. After facing disciplinary action from the MA, Bury resigned its membership, and a few months later was 'excluded' from the accreditation register.
At the time, HLF were quoted as saying that any formal actions taken by MLA and/or the MA would reflect poorly on Bury accessing HLF funds (argh! I shed a tear for them with that statement alone!), and so Bury became the first high profile case of the sector protecting the boundaries and showing the teeth behind the paperwork.
Hmm, but is that the whole story? What's happened since, and could a reflection on Bury's past few years give a sign of the lengths some museums will be willing and potentially 'ok' to take to save the institution over the collection? Lets see:
Bury was deaccredited in December 2006, according to the Bury Museum Website the 'building' is still calling itself a museum and gallery - so no changes there then... so would your 'average Jo' realise that they were about to enter the (free) forbidden fruit? Possibly not (alot of museums don't even display their certificates anyway!), ok, but surely the museum is suffering with figures? Not that I can see, since 2006 the museum has not reported any dramatic changes (either way) in audience figures.
Ok, so the public can be fooled, but the sector and sector funders are surely a different kettle of fish. Well absolutely, as I stated above, HLF said they expected all fundees to follow the guidance of relevant professional bodies calling it sad that Bury took the steps it did. So no money from them then... wrong! The HLF website shows that in 2007 and 2009 Bury Museum and Gallery accessed just under £100,000 of lottery money from the Your Heritage grant streams, hardly money to be dismissive off!
Ok, ok, so they managed to sweet talk HLF, but other organisations must be wary of them? Nope, according again to their website, they run successful INSET projects, run a range of temporary exhibitions, have had conservation work carried out on paintings and other collections, and took part in the NICE (National Inventory of Continental European) paintings project! Hmm, hardly sounds like an institution smarting from, and soothing, the pains from a ruler across the hands does it?
So what does this mean? Well, since this high profile case, several museums have walked the fine line between exclusion and acceptable disposals, and even the MA has revised and reasoned some extra special cases why financial motives may be needed for disposal through sale, but even so, looking at the above example, would they be any less of a museum if they were removed?
The reason I have spent all of the above discussing this, is because I have heard through the 'grape vine' of several smaller museums (and a couple of larger ones) discussing the merits of accreditation in the new world order - is it worth the extra 'baggage' and work, and for a reward that really only the sector appreciates?
The issue here is if museums start leaving the security and watchful eye of the MLA and accreditation as times get hard (and councils and boards want to make difficult decisions without being hauled over the coals) then at what point does accreditation become un-viable and an avoidable hassle for museum managers everywhere...?
Could nationals offer a new way of delivering a renaissance in the regions?
Tristram Hunt's piece in The Guardian on the increasing polarisation of the free national to the charged local museum is a talking point I have been interested in seeing aired since the coalition took power and stated that free national museum would remain a priority (albeit an increasingly smaller number) during the term of the government.
In principle, the idea of free national museums is a good one - make the museum free, and more people will come, which means more people are enlightened by the museum experience and their associated value and worth: great! But not great if this doesn't work. Tristram's piece shows that the audience profile for nationals hasn't changed substantially, so has offered greater access to already engaged audiences - hmm, the free museum starts to read like a middle class subsidy, ek!
At the same time, when schools are faced with the challenge of deciding which cultural venues to visit, and with a coach not costing much more for a day hire to London than down the road to the local museum, the national is a much easier sell to the parents (who are already digging deep into their pockets for these trips) with the 'wow factor' of a trip to the British Museum or V&A. In essence the extra cost of the coach can be covered through the repositioning of the free entry national against the charged entry at the local museum.
This is not to say that people don't visit local museums, and schools can't be persuaded to use their local museum and local collections over that of a national, but that in itself comes at a cost - outreach, education, marketing and freelance staff all brought into post to herd the local masses through the local rather than national door.
So, what does the above have to do with the post title?
Well, for one, with the demise of the MLA, and an uncertain future for museum development under the ACE model being developed, it feels the time is right for museums to begin to muster themselves and at least present a new model and way of working - in partnership - to support the continued development of the sector (and importantly the sustainability of the sector).
Whilst I agree in principle with what Tristram has written, I do still feel that there is more to the argument that just adding a charge onto nationals: how can a charge, balanced with a reduced government grant, be used to support regional museum development? For me, the ideal world would be a form of commissioning model between the nationals and the regions, in other words, becoming the 'core' museums that for many, the hubs never were.
My vision of a national commissioning model would look something like this:
Charge for national entry (a fiver sounds fair, as Tristram suggests)
Still apply a government grant at 50% of current levels
Apply a 'thresehold' at which any money over and above that thresehold, generated through admissions, is put into a national development fund
Create a set of commissioning themes (possibly aligned to the Generic Social Outcomes model)
Use the fund to allow (non national) museums to apply for grants to support strategic, nationally agreed, development agendas, or other agreed outcomes
Develop and sustain the sector
This process puts the onus on nationals to be a leading and guiding hand in supporting the national development and sustainability of the sector, it weans nationals of the government purse, slightly, and puts an emphasis on museums to develop along structured, nationally agreed routes, which can't be bad for all involved, can it?
At the heart of this vision, is the idea that whilst the MLA was and is an important organisation for museums across the country, it could be argued that its failing was that it could never pull the sector together as a whole, as the hubs were tasked with achieving, as they were never commissioners but more mediators and leaders of the sector (not for).
So to finish this off, the maintaining of nationals as free institutions puts all other museums - especially those within a certain radius of a national - on the back foot, unable to become entrepreneurial organisations that central government so desires, and at the same time, losing the 'saftey net' that the MLA provided in terms of strategic direction and resource. So, could nationals offer a new way of delivering a renaissance in the regions? This writer thinks so, if a little difficult on the palate for many to begin with...
In principle, the idea of free national museums is a good one - make the museum free, and more people will come, which means more people are enlightened by the museum experience and their associated value and worth: great! But not great if this doesn't work. Tristram's piece shows that the audience profile for nationals hasn't changed substantially, so has offered greater access to already engaged audiences - hmm, the free museum starts to read like a middle class subsidy, ek!
At the same time, when schools are faced with the challenge of deciding which cultural venues to visit, and with a coach not costing much more for a day hire to London than down the road to the local museum, the national is a much easier sell to the parents (who are already digging deep into their pockets for these trips) with the 'wow factor' of a trip to the British Museum or V&A. In essence the extra cost of the coach can be covered through the repositioning of the free entry national against the charged entry at the local museum.
This is not to say that people don't visit local museums, and schools can't be persuaded to use their local museum and local collections over that of a national, but that in itself comes at a cost - outreach, education, marketing and freelance staff all brought into post to herd the local masses through the local rather than national door.
So, what does the above have to do with the post title?
Well, for one, with the demise of the MLA, and an uncertain future for museum development under the ACE model being developed, it feels the time is right for museums to begin to muster themselves and at least present a new model and way of working - in partnership - to support the continued development of the sector (and importantly the sustainability of the sector).
Whilst I agree in principle with what Tristram has written, I do still feel that there is more to the argument that just adding a charge onto nationals: how can a charge, balanced with a reduced government grant, be used to support regional museum development? For me, the ideal world would be a form of commissioning model between the nationals and the regions, in other words, becoming the 'core' museums that for many, the hubs never were.
My vision of a national commissioning model would look something like this:
Charge for national entry (a fiver sounds fair, as Tristram suggests)
Still apply a government grant at 50% of current levels
Apply a 'thresehold' at which any money over and above that thresehold, generated through admissions, is put into a national development fund
Create a set of commissioning themes (possibly aligned to the Generic Social Outcomes model)
Use the fund to allow (non national) museums to apply for grants to support strategic, nationally agreed, development agendas, or other agreed outcomes
Develop and sustain the sector
This process puts the onus on nationals to be a leading and guiding hand in supporting the national development and sustainability of the sector, it weans nationals of the government purse, slightly, and puts an emphasis on museums to develop along structured, nationally agreed routes, which can't be bad for all involved, can it?
At the heart of this vision, is the idea that whilst the MLA was and is an important organisation for museums across the country, it could be argued that its failing was that it could never pull the sector together as a whole, as the hubs were tasked with achieving, as they were never commissioners but more mediators and leaders of the sector (not for).
So to finish this off, the maintaining of nationals as free institutions puts all other museums - especially those within a certain radius of a national - on the back foot, unable to become entrepreneurial organisations that central government so desires, and at the same time, losing the 'saftey net' that the MLA provided in terms of strategic direction and resource. So, could nationals offer a new way of delivering a renaissance in the regions? This writer thinks so, if a little difficult on the palate for many to begin with...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)