If your collection isn't special, then neither are you!

This week saw the launch of ACE's long awaited companion document to Great Art for Everyone, Culture, Knowledge and Understanding: Great Museums and Libraries for Everyone. ACE was keen to show from very early on that, although not having the complete skill set and background information on museums and libraries, it was willing to learn and adapt, the culmination of this courting of the sectors was finalised in Estelle Morris's Strategic Framework Review of the Great Art for Everyone vision paper for arts to support the creation of the companion document and subsequent funding arrangements for the next three years.

Baroness Morris's report was well researched, and helped move the attention away from the poorly thought through 'core museums' which the sinking MLA wanted to leave as a parting gift and towards a system of museum and library development that used the last 10-15 years of development as a soapbox of advocacy and synergy within the wider cultural world. Morris's report through out words such as harmonisation, excellence, significance of contributions and public at the centre of what we do. A spark of hope at a juncture of despair? Possibly...

...But then again possibly not. In all 26 pages of Morris's report, designation is mentioned once, in the entire document visitor figures as a measure of success is neither mentioned nor inferred, and scholarship is referred to as an aside, not as a core component of any or all museums remits or missions. Yet, in the Renaissance Major Grants Programme, which has been compared to the open and competitive National Portfolio Organisations programme which ACE completed earlier in the year, these areas seem to be the cornerstones of application and success!?!

The grants programme, which largely replaces the former hub programmes, is not competitive in the same way that the earlier 'open to all' NPO programme was for arts organisations. For some unknown reason ACE has decided from the start that excellence means designated collections; again, I refer you to the one, single reference to this in Morris's report, which said:

The national schemes, such as the Accreditation Scheme and the Designation Scheme, help to drive excellence

Help, the key word here is 'help' not 'is', not 'must be', but help - a method that has helped to identify some collections of importance (to whom is another matter). Straight away a museum that supports its local communities identity, provides excellent educational services, is inspirational in the way it manages governance and trustees, the museum that has been nominated time and time again as family friendly, the service that puts the community at the heart of what it does, they are all not excellent according to ACE's own words, they are merely 'museums'. Strangely enough this must be the sort of difficult build up of trust that Morris refers to in the sentence prior to her single mention of designation!

But, let’s be realistic, for the lay person designation must be pretty much common place amongst museums? There may be the 'odd' museum in the back end of beyond that has a few 'bits and bobs' collected over time that really is just a stop off point between places of interest, and at the end of the day, what can they share with their neighbours. Well, you would like to think so wouldn't you? But you're wrong. Time for some facts and figures.

I'll be using the South East as my example as this is my region and I know it best, but all of this likely applies to similar extents across the country. In the South East there are just over 200 individually, fully accredited, museums and galleries, of which less than 10% are eligible to apply under the major grants scheme! In total, 15 museums 'could' be eligible to apply as they have designated collections (I say could). Let’s zoom in a little bit and get a bit closer to home for me. Kent. Kent has one of largest numbers of museums and galleries (by county) across the country, yet only one museum could be eligible to apply for the major grants scheme.

One museum in the whole county. A third of the South East's region. But, that's not the whole story, of that one museum who could represent the county as a flagship, excellent museum, it falls short of another 'basic' requirement, it doesn't exceed the minimum visitor figures of 150,000/year. Oh well, better luck next time Kent.

Back to our South East example, so we've lost Kent (you may be the Garden of England, but you're not an excellent museum county), but what of our other 14 contenders, well, lets check our new requirement of 150,000 visitors [insert drum roll] we've lost a further four (sorry guys, however you are sort of excellent). So for the South East we're down to 10 museums, or 5% of the accredited collective. Well, it's better than five I suppose! Ops, no it isn't as actually if you collect the museums under their parent organisations, then we actually have five individual services or museums who could apply for the major grants scheme. So that's only one more than the South East had as its hub museums, of which two of the five services were former hubs...hmmm

Ok, so the ACE loyalists will no doubt say, but this is only one of the grant schemes we'll deliver, and it is similar to the old hubs funding anyway... well, it's a point, maybe not a great point, but it has merit I suppose. On that point I agree, but it sets the tone and the direction in which museums must travel, which seems to be more people and designated collections - for the museum in Kent that has a wonderful collection of objects, cared for by volunteers, loved by its community, a star for its schools, and with a board of trustees to be envied, what does this new scheme and alignment mean for them? Ace has set itself up as the defender of excellence, the guarantor of competitive award, and for me the rest of its document becomes an aside from this core development desire of more people to greater collections, regardless of achievements in other areas.

As MLA was being disbanded, our Renaissance team carried out a pretty thorough analysis of where the South East museums were and what they expected/hoped for from the ACE merger. All Change Please! shows that 'smaller' museums can offer a lot, and when it comes to being leading lights in managing governance most local authority museums could learn a lot, and that is just the sort of 'excellence' that I think should be encouraged.

But, of our five contenders we have a Local Authority, University, Independent and sort of 'facility based' (Mary Rose Trust) museum representation, should the critics of this piece decide to check! But is this the point? Why has ACE made the leap that excellence is inherently linked to collections importance - and who should a collection be important to?

Excellence for me should be related strongly to the collections, but as Morris states in her report:

Underpinning all this has to be a commitment to excellence in all its forms; whether it be excellent collections or performance; excellence in community engagement or education; excellence in advocacy or representation, audience development or public engagement; or excellence in creativity or self expression.

Obviously Morris's report didn't guide ACE to that decision then? Her report states that having an excellent collection is only one part of the excellence framework, although through ACE eyes it is the 'cut off' between recognition and the need for development. Over the next few years I imagine ACE will become inundated with museums and galleries desperate to have a part of their collection recognised as excellent. What ACE has perhaps confused is that we already have accreditation: this is the method of defining whether a museum is excellent at what it does and plans to do (which includes collections) and not excellence as ACE has defined as museums being an art form where excellence is measured by award and stature. I hope over time this can and will be rectified and ACE talk with the wider museums community about what we really have to offer and really want to be 'known' for.

(Thanks to Mar Dixon for encouraging me to write this while I was feeling passionate about the subject rather than a potentially watered down, diplomatic response in a few days time!)

The Museum Manager - a chaging skill set?

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...

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...?

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...