UHA Board Transitions

UnConventional

by Philip Morris

Since its announcement a few years ago, most folks, including me, have been considering the costs and benefits of the proposed new Convention Center in downtown Albany. Costs have doubled while advice from others has been clear: don't skimp. My mother would always say, "You can't have champagne tastes on a beer budget."

After thinking about this project a lot, I think there is a mistaken piece of the equation, though. Advocated by Albany's Mayor Jennings and focused on Albany's downtown, this Convention Center has seemed more a downtown economic development strategy than a regional development strategy with downtown Albany as host.

I understand this dilemma. Proctors, in its own way, faces and faced the same consideration. Were we creating Schenectady's performing arts center or the Capital Region's? We considered the issue often and have tried to be clear: we were making a new Proctors for the entire region and to uniquely serve the entire region. It just happens that Proctors is based in downtown Schenectady.

I have decided that I think the Capital Region of New York State should have a first class convention center. It simply makes sense that the Capital of a state the size of New York should be able to host the sort of events that such a center could support. If the capitals of Hartford, Rhode Island or any state can provide such facilities, then how can we not be in such a league? Yes, New York City is only 2 plus hours away, but the Capital is here.

It seems to me that this should not be presented, considered or advocated as Albany's Convention Center. It diminishes the ambition. This is New York State's Convention Center for its Capital. That Capital happens to be Albany. Downtown Albany is the perfect place to host this new Convention Center (just as Schenectady is the perfect place to host this new Proctors performing arts center).

To that end, New York State does not need to have a beer budget. We can toast and drink champagne. We can do things well in Manhattan, in Schenectady, in Troy and in Albany. We simply have to decide that it is in all our collective interests to do so.

This is a significant opportunity to make the playing field a little larger, a little more inclusive and a little bit closer to the kind of regional structure that will reflect the future that the new convention center will be operating in.

I want to live in a community that has a Proctors AND a Troy Music Hall AND a TU Center AND two public broadcast companies AND a convention center!

Morris, Philip, I. "UnConventional." [Weblog entry.] Morris Code. Times Union. February 16, 2008. (http://blogs.timesunion.com/morriscode/?p=107.) March 3, 2008.

Reprinted with Permission

Stephen Weil argued that the only dial on the performance dashboard that ultimately matters is usefulness. The title of his bookmaking Museums Matter aptly sums up this premise, one which is surely his most enduring legacy (Weil 2002). We agree that a museum sustains itself if it undertakes to maximize its external value to society and/or the environment. As Randi Korn notes in this issue, in order to be optimally successful, museums need to articulate and pursue a holistic intention. We agree that progressive institutions define themselves by thinking and acting in an integrated manner that includes measures such as centralized impact evaluation. However, we believe that "impact" needs to be defined in a multi-dimensional way.

Being useful cannot be a matter of whim. Rather, it requires a wholehearted and enduring commitment by the institution's leadership and staff to define and adhere to a value-driven mission, vision and strategy. Stephen Weil lamented (in a statement published after his death):

[T]he reality is that-when judged in terms of what they do-some museums may be worthier than others, and some museums may not be worthy at all. That being said, the awkward fact still remains that, for a variety of reasons, the museum field has never really agreed-and until recently, has scarcely even sought to agree-on some standard by which the relative worthiness of its constituent member institutions might be measured (2006).

Perhaps museums have always thought they "mattered." Weil's proposition, however, is that museums should exist not just for the scholar or elite, but for the greater good. The premise that museums should matter in this way is an intensely responsible proposition. To pose the opposite question-why would a museum wish not to benefit society and/or the environment in the greatest possible way?-is to emphasize the choice now being presented to the museum field. Surely, today, the most compelling rationale is that, locally and globally, the myriad of opportunities and challenges faced by society and the environment would greatly benefit from the kind of informed perspective museums could provide. Compared to other institutions that are positioned for public impact-such as academia, business, government, and the news media-the museum field seems to have a unique and trusted vantage point from which to frame issues and inspire new viewpoints.

Unfortunately, it seems that the museum field is starting to fractionate into several distinct states of mind. There are, first, a small but growing number of museums that wholeheartedly embrace the goal of external usefulness. This orientation is most poignantly displayed by member institutions of the International Coalition of Historic Site Museums of Conscience, which have missions designed to stimulate dialogue on pressing social issues and to promote humanitarian and democratic values.1At the opposite end of the spectrum aremuseums-and we think these form a sizeable minority-that lack any tangible sign of proactively entering into the dialogue about relevance (Janes and Conaty 2005; Gurian 2006; Koster 2006). In the middle of the spectrum-and most likely the majority-are museums struggling to knowhow to transform their consciousness in ways that matter more than at present (Falk and Sheppard 2006).

For museums to be a catalyst for transforming interests, attitudes and actions at any stage of learning, our field needs to reinvent its philosophy and practice. We need to create a quantum leap in society's perception of the contribution of museums in relation to external needs. This challenge is analogous to what is required to augment the public value of government (Moore 1995). For the private sector, Kim and Mauborgne (2004) use the term "blue ocean strategy" to describe what they posit would be its most successful orientation. Commenting that "most companies seem becalmed in their red oceans," they then profile the especially compelling example of Cirque de Soleil:

Cirque found that the lasting allure of the traditional circus came down to just three factors: the clowns, the tent and the classic acrobatic acts. Cirque kept the clowns, while shifting their humor away from slapstick to a more enchanting, sophisticated style. It glamorized the tent. . . . Acrobats and other thrilling performers were retained, but Cirque reduced their roles and made their acts more elegant by adding artistic flair. . . .Even as Cirque stripped away some of the traditional circus offerings, it injected new elements drawn from the world of the theater . . . a theme and storyline (2004).

Ought we to characterize the relatively recent shift in form and function of zoos and aquariums-from displays of captive animals in barred cages and scheduled performances, to displays of animals in natural settings with wildlife conservation messages-as a blue ocean strategy? What was the stimulus? Were these changes driven by public pressure or a new internal consciousness, or some of both? Have some museums proactively switched to a blue ocean strategy? How will our field know if and when this benchmark has been reached? And how will we know if this exemplary museum has really made a contribution to society? The journey of each organization from self-interest to the common good is ideally driven by a persistent desire to be outwardly beneficial. But the transformation can also be forced by adverse publicity and/or financial difficulty (Barrett 1998). In a refreshing exploration of what leadership means today, Barker cites Aristotle's view that it is about the harmonious pursuit of positive consequences in the world (2002).

"Form follows function" is a principle of early modernism first articulated in the architecture profession.2 The proposition is that the design of buildings is best informed by their purpose Nowadays, the business and social sectors have been urged to have the right people at the right time in the right seats on the right bus (Collins2001; 2005). This is a pointed reminder of the advantage of aligning methods with goals. These are the domains, respectively, of efficiency and effectiveness, which redefined as "doing things right" and "doing the right things" (Covey 1990).

As a contribution to the search for ways to make a difference, we put forth a framework for assessing institutional value that aligns with Stephen Weil's ideology. It enables a museum to quantitatively and holistically gauge itself in terms of the balanced value it creates and at what cost. The fundamental premise is that the goal of any nonprofit organization ought not to be to serve public value once-in response to a project grant, for example-but to continuously and holistically do so. Success needs to be defined as measurable value generated through socially, politically, and economically sustainable practices. The sum of all year-after-year benefits needs to be consistently greater than the sum of all the costs expended.

Specifically, we assert that a museum's multi-dimensional value includes:

1. The good that the organization provides to its visitors.

2. The assets of the organization, including particularly its intellectual capital and brand.

3. The benefits provided by the organization to the community above and beyond the specific good generated for individual visitors or other stakeholders.

4. The quality of the organization's workplace, including that each employee experiences continued growth and development.

5. The financial health of the organization.

Each of these values needs to be measured and then-summed up collectively-used to paint a picture of the museum's total value. For this analysis to be feasible, the organization's performance needs to be subdivided into manageable segments. Most museums have historically analyzed themselves by departmental roles: for instance, collections, research, programs, security. However, this approach fails to strike at the core of why the institution exists. External outcomes need to be specified for each audience segment the institution intends to serve. Means and ends, form and function, must be clearly distinguished with the emphasis placed on external outcomes.

Historically, most museums have taken a "one size fits all" approach that defines "good" as "serving the public" or attempting to meet the needs of all the individuals served by the institution. When efforts have been made to define and segment the audience, the chosen categories have tended to be demographic (majority versus minority users; children versus adults, and soon), frequency of use (one-time versus regular users), or geography (local versus out of-town users). Although these approaches have some validity, arguably a more robust approach to audience segmentation would be to divide the institution's audience according to different needs. What are the key needs the institution seeks to satisfy and what are the characteristics of the audience segments for which these value-directed services are intended? In this way, the museum can analyze the direct correlation between the defined audience segment and the value generated. And equally important, it can analyze the connection between the institutional value that is generated and the institutional resources allocated to developing and providing this value.

Once this type of segmentation is completed, and with due recognition given to which core audiences should receive the greatest attention, then the institution is ready to conduct a corresponding suite of analyses on each segment:

1. Define and measure the intended impact on the audience segment.

2. Measure the net changes in institutional assets needed to serve the audience segment.

3. Create indices of community gain and measure how much these change for each audience segment.

4. Assess the net effects of segment-specific service on staff dedication and professional growth.

5. Track the revenues and expenses associated with the activities, services and products targeted at each audience segment.

Taking all five sets of data into account, institutional success can be gauged by assessing the sum of the value created-by adding up public good, organizational assets, community relationships, employee satisfaction, and financial health-minus the costs incurred by such efforts, all measured for each audience segment.

Overall, this type of analysis can provide consistent annual measure of institutional success in terms of the value it generates as a function of cost. If appropriate standardized measures can be developed, it will also potentially allow similar as well as disparate museums to be compared with one other. Also, it provides a diagnostic tool for analyzing, in terms of each audience segment, how and for whom the institution is being successful. Ideally, the value created will always be cost-effective. However, the cost of creating value for each segment will vary, perhaps widely so. The institution may then rationally determine if a cost is acceptable, or excessive, given the extraordinary importance of the audience segment or the exceptional value that is being created.

This framework is a practical way to implement the strategic recommendation of Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School in his keynote address at the AAM centennial conference.3 He urged that each museum become clear about its niche in the value chain of society. Rated as a progressive concept in the business world, a "unique value proposition" (UVP) defines why a market segment should seek out, and expect to benefit from, a particular product and/or service. A UVP is not simply about what it takes to sell a product or service-this is the domain of a selling proposition (SP) that is a more traditional inside-out perspective. By contrast, a UVP is about understanding and responding to client needs. It defines a sales point and brand value, thereby growing the corporation's focus, net revenue, and market share, as well as its customer satisfaction and retention. It also decreases employee turnover. Today, with such intense marketplace competition, niche positioning is a primary factor in consumer relations management.

We believe that the museum field could significantly benefit by adopting and applying the UVP concept with these keyword definitions:

·          Unique: What sets the museum's offerings apart in terms of their discriminating features for each audience segment?

·          Value: For each audience segment, what is the museum's intrinsic worth for its decision-makers at a competitive price?

·          Proposition: What is the truthful and useful premise of the museum for each audience segment that is verifiable using quantitative and/or qualitative measures?

We submit that thinking about the museum field in these rigorous terms is unprecedented. Such thinking also has important implications about the sincerity and completeness of a museum's values. Lencioni instructively makes a distinction between "core values" that are deeply ingrained and that guide all actions, versus "aspirational values" that are needed but currently lacking (2002). And Zack reminds organizations that how they bring knowledge to bear on problems and opportunities is their most valuable capability in strategic terms (1999).

Pursuit of the foregoing suggestions about a new theory and practice would lead, we think, to a fiscally sound institution and a better world. As stated by the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation:

[I]magine a future within our sphere of influence-and sometimes beyond it-and plan backwards from that vision. Our partners in these imaginings are the groups we support, organizations which have visions of a better world, in ways large and small, and we salute each one...the way organizations go about their imagining determines in large measure their effectiveness...those groups most effective in bringing their mission-based visions to life do not shortchange the "imagining" aspect of their work. They take the time they need to define and understand what they are about before they act they find ways to continue the conversation about mission and purpose in their daily and weekly lives. They persistently ask "what does success look like?" and they protect time to grapple with both the question and their prospective answers (2002-2003).

We think that Stephen Weil would have enthusiastically agreed with this view.

Emlyn H. Koster (ekoster@lsc.org)is president and CEO of Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, NJ.

John H. Falk (falk@ilinet.org)is president of the Institute for Learning Innovation in Annapolis, MD.

Notes

1. There are currently 13 member institutions in eight countries, six of them in the United States. See www.sitesofconscience.org.

2. Louis Sullivan (1856-1924) is considered one of America's foremost architects. See www.cityofchicago.org/landmarks/architects/sullivan.

3. Michael Porter's slides for his keynote presentation on Strategy for Museums at the centennial 2006 conference of the American Association of Museums in Boston are available on this Website: www.isc.hbs.edu.

References

Barker, R. A. 2002. The Nature of Leadership. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Barrett, R. 1998. Liberating the Corporate Soul: Building a Visionary Organization. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinneman.

Collins, J. 2001. Why Some Companies Make the Leap . . . and Others Don't: Good to Great. New York, NY: Harper Business.

_______. 2005. Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer: Good to Great for the Social Sectors. Boulder, CO: Jim Collins.

Covey, S. R. 1990. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Falk, J. F. and B. K. Sheppard. 2006. Thriving in the Knowledge Age: New Business Models for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation. 2002-2003. Annual Reports. Morristown, NJ: Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation.

Gurian, E. H. 2006. The museum as a socially responsible institution. In Civilizing the Museum: The Collected Writings of Elaine Heumann Gurian. New York, NY: Routledge.

Janes, R. R. and G. T. Conaty. 2005. Looking Reality in the Eye: Museums and Social Responsibility. Calgary, AB, Canada: University of Calgary Press.

Kim, C. K. and R. Mauborgne. 2004. Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business Review (Oct.): 76-84.

Koster, E. 2006. The relevant museum: A reflection on sustainability. MuseumNews (May/June): 67-70, 85-90.

Lencioni, P. M. 2002. Make your values mean something. Harvard Business Review (July): 5-9.

Moore, M. H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weil, S. E. 2002. Making Museums Matter. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

_______. 2006. Beyond management: Making museums matter. In Study Series12, International Council of Museums, International Committee on Management, 4-8.

Zack, M. H. 1999. Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review41 (3): 125-145.

Reprinted with permission.

Maximizing the External Value of Museums by Emlyn Koster and John Falk as it appears in Curator , v.50, no.2, p. 191-196.

Spring is a busy time, filled with hope and promise, a time to put our winter planning into action with fresh exhibits, new programs and renewed enthusiasm toward welcoming visitors from near and far as they venture out to enjoy the longer days.

There has been a great deal of discussion lately on audience research inspired in part by the New York Times article "Museums Refine the Art of Listening," and the fantastic Audience Research Museum Conversation sponsored by Reach Advisors. You can review a synopsis of the conversation on their blog at http://reachadvisors.typepad.com

The inclusion of audience research into your planning process further supports our annual conference theme of striving to provide Relevancy Driven museums which integrate the viewer's perspective and motivation into the very fiber of the museums' offerings.

Best wishes for successful openings this spring, I look forward to meeting you at the Conference in April!

~Catherine Gilbert

The Relevant Museum: A Reflection on Sustainability

by Emlyn Koster

Perhaps the single most difficult task for the field in the 21st century is not to find more money, or more objects, or even more visitors, but to find the courage to embrace complexity in museums.[1]

                                       - Lois H. Silverman and Mark O'Neill

As news stories unfold and society seeks to understand the nature and significance of events, is the museum field going to adapt to a greater role in exploring the things that profoundly matter in the world?

With its raison d'être traditionally defined by collections, the museum field's principal orientation has been toward the past. Although the number of exhibitions on contemporary subjects is growing,[2] museums would perform a more valuable public service-and uniquely so given their abundance, popularity, trustworthiness and specialized expertise-if they increased attention to the issues that confront their regions and the world, now and into the future.[3] For museums wishing and able to be concertedly relevant in these contexts, there also may well be attractive dividends in terms of institutional sustainability.

Importantly, an external orientation does not necessarily hinge on the results of public opinion surveys. Changes in the outlook of people and institutions, and new paradigms of accountability, have often been spurred by the articulation of a bold vision.

Questions arising from a sample of recent events

The terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, motivated many museums to become community forums for therapeutic conversation, to rethink their connectedness to diversity in their community, and to start a reference index of local and regional emergency contacts. Have such efforts been sustained?

The intense recent debate on natural versus divine origins of life, and in particular of human life, has been accompanied by a small number of new and touring exhibitions on evolution. Several museums with giant-screen theaters have come under pressure to solicit community input when they select films, possibly compromising the integrity of their missions. Have some filmmakers become irreversibly discouraged from pursuing bold educational goals for museum audiences? Do most museums actively avoid controversial topics?

From news of war-caused damage to cultural treasures to international controversies over the ownership of antiquities, the protocols that govern collections are changing. Through AAM/ICOM, the United States has recently joined other nations in embracing the international Blue Shield program, which arose from a 1954 convention in The Hague to protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict. Certainly there is new interest in the relative rights of nations, museums and individuals with respect to artifacts. Might recent events also bring about a change in visitor expectations?

The long-term future is often not adequately considered when governments formulate policies. The world faces a daunting array of challenges in school and lifelong education, human health and environmental stewardship. Intercultural tensions are escalating, and there are outbreaks of new infectious diseases. What niche should museums occupy in such matters? Are there compelling reasons for doing less than the maximum possible? Are there differing degrees of practical or desired responses in museums of natural history, human history, art, war, science and technology and those specifically for children? In comparison with other types of institutions, what are the relative strengths of museums as bridge-builders between various groups and the issues we all face? Do we in the museum field require a major news headline to oblige us to act? In this fast-changing world, is a new type of museum leadership philosophy emerging?

The profound changes that have lately occurred in aquariums and zoos, including an increase in conservation efforts for endangered species, offer an instructive analogue. It is now rare to see primates in small, barred concrete enclosures and fewer mammals are being trained to perform. These trends reflect a heightened sense of responsibility about the physical and mental welfare of animals in captivity. When Bengal tigers and mountain gorillas first appeared in museums, their natural populations were thriving. Today both are close to extinction. What becomes the interpretational responsibility of museums as the contents of display cases and dioramas outlive the last breathing representatives in the wild?

An advocacy seldom heeded

Ninety years ago at AAM's conference in Washington, D.C., John Cotton Dana presented a paper entitled "Increasing Usefulness of  Museums."[4] He elaborated on his prescient views that museums should be "life-enhancing institutions" and that "a museum is good only insofar as it is of use." Another of Dana's unequivocal statements was on the museum's responsibility to fit the needs of its community.

The inward-looking culture that continued to prevail at museums became the focus of an AAM-commissioned critique in 1939.[5] In 1972 in Santiago and in 1989 at The Hague, ICOM declared museums to be "a powerful force for human development" and "places where the public can look for the meaning of the world around them." Looking back, we should see these more as laudable aspirations than reflections of any widespread prevailing reality.[6] The late Stephen Weil's distinguished career was dedicated to making museums matter.[7] He pointed to the attitudinal shifts during the 1970s and 80s when educators started to gain a foothold in shaping policy and strategy within AAM and posed an evocative question in one of AAM's benchmark publications:

"How can museums-as multi-dimensional, socially responsible institutions with a tremendous capacity for bringing knowledge to the public and enriching all facets of  the human experience-help to nurture a humane citizenry equipped to make informed choices in a democracy and to address the challenges and opportunities of an increasingly global society?"[8]

At The Smithsonian Institution's 150th anniversary symposium in 1995[9], Harold Skramstad issued this strong calling:

"In the world of the future, every institution, including a museum, must be judged on its distinctive ability to provide  value to society in a way that builds on unique institutional  strengths and serves unique community needs."

Stephen Weil spoke about the "success" or "failure" of museums in terms of mission advancement, not just survivability.[10] He stressed that museums need to distinguish their "outputs" from their "outcomes," defined respectively as productivity versus externally valuable productivity.

From its synthesis of museum trends, Harvard University concluded that "the field has shifted from internally focused and collection-driven organizations to externally driven and market-driven organizations with greatly broadened stakeholders."[11] But is there a significant difference in many museums between their philosophy and their results? AAM's 2002 summary of its Museums & Community Initiative envisioned museums as better citizens, ideally at the center of civic life by leading collaborative dialogues.[12] As others have emphasized,[13] the new task of outreach is not simply a matter of trying to engage the community in what the museum wants to do. Rather the aim is a wholehearted externalization of the museum's purpose and actions. This necessarily includes deeper thinking about audiences-who is visiting and who is not, and why?[14]

Relevancy and sustainability

Relevancy, although a popular word in discourse about museums, is seldom used with the full force of its definition, which is about relating to the matters at hand. Relevancy became a buzzword in the 1960s in relation to social concerns such as racial equality and world hunger.[15] Given that museums exist to be places for reflection and inspiration, the field is not justified in using this descriptor unless it is comfortable with and capable of tackling contemporary and consequential subject matter. Relevancy entails a comfort with controversy that, in turn, involves fostering an atmosphere where difficult questions can be broached and a variety of opinions expressed. Preferably, relevant museum experiences go beyond fostering an intellectual appreciation of their subject matter to stimulating new behaviors in their visitors.

At the close of the 20th century, Harold Skramstad expressed this view:

"Now is the time for the next great agenda of museum development in America. This agenda needs to take as its mission nothing less than to engage actively in the design and delivery of experiences that have the power to inspire and change the way people see the world and the possibility of their own lives. . . . This will not be an easy task. It will require changes in focus, organization, staffing, and funding for museums."[16]

The pursuit of relevancy can help museums achieve sustainability. The usual definition of sustainability is behavior that safeguards the well-being of future generations. It is less recognized that sustainability depends on each type of institution in society proactively doing its part now. The survival of a museum is far from guaranteed. A few have closed, many are struggling, and profound changes are afoot in the scale and interests of funding sources.

Relevancy supports sustainability in two major ways. The first is extrinsic to the museum and recognizes that a sustainable world depends upon organizations that exist for the common good. In the 1990s, "doing good and doing well" became a popular corporate phrase. The so-called Gaia philosophy is also pertinent in its contention that all organisms regulate the biosphere to the benefit of the whole. Humanity, as a strongly dominant influence on all other living things, must bear an immense share of the total responsibility.

The more intrinsic second way is articulated by the "triple bottom-line concept." This calls for improving human and environmental conditions while also safeguarding financial health.[17] Public- and private-sector funders of museums are seeking a demonstrable return on their investments. This trend comes with "making a difference" and "value-add" language. It is increasingly common to frame expectations in terms of a particular societal or environmental problem that the proposed activity seeks to alleviate.

Given the increasing demands across society for government assistance, public funding of museums would seem to require obvious benefits. Causes are becoming more numerous and funding is becoming more competitive. In a triple bottom-line context, therefore, a museum's pursuit of relevancy correlates with its eligibility for funding.

The impact that pursuing relevancy has on earned revenues is more of a mixed picture. Teachers look for museum programs to be aligned with the prevailing curriculum standards. What the broader public prefers in a museum's offerings depends on the museum's brand image and regional cultural norms.

Overcoming inertia

There appear to be several reasons why museums have been slow to embrace John Cotton Dana's pioneering advocacy. These include the traditional focus on collections and the historical subject matter of exhibitions that feature them; a preoccupation with attendance; an aversion to controversy; private support that sustains traditional approaches; and a lack of momentum in the debate about a new paradigm for museums.

Attendance is a pervasive factor because it continues to be the most frequently used measure of a museum's external worth and a principal source of operating revenue. In boardrooms, attendance increases are widely regarded as unquestioned success and respectively decreases as worrisome, and sometimes even as failure. Generally, museums view attendance in the same way the for-profit sector views the stock market: growth builds confidence; a decline erodes confidence.

Our field's desire for record-breaking attendance is illustrated by the buzz over time-limited blockbuster exhibitions and their box-office performance.[18] In the new book Looking Reality in the Eye: Museums and Social Responsibility, a blockbuster is likened to an "addictive substance . . . the impact is fast and undeniable, but quickly dissolves in the quest for more, and there is never enough."[19]

Museums should aim for the largest possible audience as the fruit of their labors. The caveat, though, is that the desire to be popular must responsibly be equaled by a determination to be useful.[20] To conceive, design and offer experiences that are both engaging and worthwhile must surely be the museum field's highest aim.

Funding sources and trends are also a strong influence on how a museum thinks and operates. Especially in art and history museums, the generosity of affluent patrons can be a powerful sustaining force. On the other hand, a science center may need to rely on a more varied and entrepreneurial portfolio of earned and contributed revenues. Science centers have also been cautioned that popularity may be insufficient as "a life preserver."[21] For all museum types government funding is generally on the decline and the increasingly competitive climate of foundation and corporate support comes with rising expectations of substantiated positive outcomes.

Transforming consciousness

Nowadays, there are calls for community leaders to position themselves as activists, establishing and pursuing the social agenda of their organizations.[22] This parallels the conclusion of recent research into the core purpose of leadership, which incorporate Aristotle's philosophy-namely, that leadership is about the harmonious pursuit of positive consequences in the world.[23] An organization's journey from self-interest to the common good is preferably driven by a persistent desire to be outwardly beneficial. However, adverse publicity or financial pressure can also force the transformation.[24]

These principles of transformation in consciousness apply to museums pursuing increased relevancy. Certain museums, although a very small number, were founded with a socially responsible orientation because they exist on sites where heart-wrenching events occurred.[25] For all other museums, the required journey is a holistic effort that involves values, leadership, mission, positioning, partnerships, approaches and audience.

It is essential, though, that there be a clear distinction between effectiveness and efficiency. Using the metaphor of a vehicle on a journey, efficiency is about maximizing the miles traveled per gallon without breakdowns. Effectiveness is about the value of the destination. Stephen Covey reminds us that efficiency means "doing things right" and effectiveness means "doing the right things."[26] One can also think in terms of climbing the proverbial ladder of success but the first decision must be which wall to lean the ladder against. Low efficiency undermines effectiveness and, efficient or not, a purposeless organization is inconsequential. An organization's mission, vision and strategy depends on clarity around, respectively, why does it exist?, where is it heading?, and how does it get there? In turn, this effectiveness depends on high efficiency with the organization's fuel-its intellectual, financial and physical resources.

A team at Stanford University has developed a procedural guideline for "social entrepreneurship" with five signal behaviors: 1) adopt a mission to create and sustain social value; 2) recognize and relentlessly pursue opportunities to advance that mission; 3) continuously innovate, adapt and learn; 4) act boldly without being limited to the resources at hand; and 5) be accountable for constituency outcomes.[27]

Relevancy progress indicators

Whether a museum is new, renewing or simply evolving over time, this checklist can be used to monitor progress towards a goal of relevancy.

1.         Is your museum's mission statement explicit about the way(s) in which the institution aspires to be of tangible social and/or environmental value?

2.         Has your museum conducted market research to benchmark its optimal niche and then used the results to arrive at a distinctive brand promise that informs all of its advertising, communication, sales and development activities?

3.         Does your museum periodically assess its mission in relation to changes in the external environment so as to identify better ways to direct its expertise and resources to areas of beneficial learning by the primary audience(s)?

4.         Does the demographic composition of your museum's governance, staff and volunteers reflect the surrounding region and the particular nature of your institution's work?

5.         Does your museum actively merge its thinking about new exhibitions, programs and outreach with external advice and review the evaluation of their impacts?

6.         Does your museum actively research and pursue entrepreneurial opportunities to advance its mission?

7.         Does your museum have an accountability framework measuring both internal efficiency and external effectiveness?

8.         Does your museum monitor and apply research findings in self-guided and mediated learning styles, and in allied and competitive fields such as formal education and other learning experiences?

9.         Are your museum's funding sources diversifying to include an increasing number of long-term, mission-aligned investors and partnerships with both the private and public sectors?

10.       Does editorial coverage of your museum comment on its nature and purpose in gradually different ways? Does it perceive the museum as concerned about its usefulness as well as its popularity?

Putting theory into action: museums of various types

To further illustrate the relevancy-driven concept, here is a list of suggestions regarding content for museums of various types. Echoing an earlier caveat, it does not suppose that relevancy-driven thinking is absent from the museum field, either in the U.S. or around the world. Rather, the intention here is to encourage a broader range of thinking in each museum type.

Relevancy Content Suggestions

NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS

Evolutionary processes, human evolution and species manipulation. Meaning and extent of human impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems. Time/space distribution of natural hazards in terms of geological process.

HUMAN HISTORY MUSEUMS

Rise and fall of superpowers across history and profiles of their leaders. Causes of divergence of early peoples into rich and poor nations. Motivations, history and results of terrorism and peace movements. 

ART MUSEUMS

Exploration of the circumstances and motivations of artists and sculptors. How art has documented and interpreted significant historical events. Examples and discussions of provenance and value assessment.

WAR MUSEUMS

Causes and aims of war; what constitutes victories and losses. Post-war viewpoints of national leaders, combatants and enemy victims. Successes and failures with alternatives to armed conflict.

SCIENCE MUSEUMS

The Industrial Revolution's spread and impact from its beginnings. A critical analysis of the proliferation of information technologies. Consumption of fossil fuels and exploration of renewable energy sources.     

SCIENCE CENTERS

Exploration of pressing regional science and technology topics. Learning and teaching partnerships with local school systems. Experimentation with new learner-centered exhibition technologies.

CHILDREN'S MUSEUMS

Field excursions to explore the care of local natural environments. Bringing together children from different socio-economic backgrounds. Understanding of body processes, lifestyle choices and peer pressures.

AQUARIUMS / ZOOS

Impacts of human activities on habitats, species and future conditions. Exploration of natural and human causes of animal extinction. Lessons from successes and failures in environmental stewardship.

Putting Theory Into Action: The Example of the Liberty Science Center

Science centers have the potential to be the most nimble and least place-centric of museum types because they lack the extent of collections and the associated conservation and research activities that typify a traditional museum.[28] Science centers began during the 1960s in Seattle, San Francisco and Toronto in a movement spurred by the looming importance of science and technology and as NASA's Apollo missions enabled humanity to see planet Earth from afar for the first time. However, they have struggled to be seen as major players in educational and workforce needs and to be resources for all ages and stages of learning.

U.S. census data shows that New Jersey has the highest per capita need for science and technology degrees and the highest average household income. It also contains some of the highest and lowest qualities of public schools. The counties in northeast New Jersey that surround Liberty Science Center and New York's boroughs across the lower Hudson River are highly diverse. It was in this regional geography that New Jersey business and government leaders developed Liberty Science Center, where the author is president and CEO. The chosen themes were health, invention and the environment, each to be amplified by exhibition, program and theater experiences. After a $68-million capital campaign, it opened in 1993 to great fanfare, instantly becoming the state's most visited museum and soon becoming a recommended destination in guides to New York. But then financial alarm bells rang and a structural deficit was in urgent need of fixing.

Three years after opening, a review of zip-code attendance data from counties in a 100-mile radius revealed an unacceptable under-representation of students from Jersey City, the host community, a designated at-risk school district. Less than 2 percent of the city's public school enrollment of 32,000 used Liberty Science Center. As a result of a proactive statewide partnership program, the figure increased to 60 percent of enrollment. Under the terms of state- funded, whole-year service agreements, the center provides onsite, offsite and online resources to participating schools as well as professional development for teachers and educational opportunities for the families of all district students. What started as the probing of attendance data became a transformation of consciousness within Liberty Science Center.[29]

At the center's 1989 groundbreaking there was anticipation of doubling its size within a decade to meet a growing demand for its learning and teaching resources. Twelve years after the 1993 opening, a $104-million facility expansion, exhibition renewal and program enhancement project got underway. Seven years in planning, the project is seen by the New Jersey state government as tackling pressing needs in science education, workforce development, and public literacy. The state's funding and financing formula enabled this project to proceed while the center receives multi- year commitments to its Connections: Our Community, Our World campaign from corporations, foundations, and individuals and as appropriations and grants are made by the U.S. Department of Education, National Science Foundation, NASA, and The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. That a private, nonprofit corporation has received major capital funding from a state government while continuing to receive annual contractual state funds for systemic service to designated at-risk districts demonstrates that relevance and sustainability are indeed intertwined.

New exhibitions as well as a new center for science learning and teaching will occupy the completely refreshed 295,000- square-foot building.[30] At a time in this nation's history when there is prominent attention to society's dependence on science,[31] all of Liberty Science Center's content is expressly designed to be what people need to learn, live and work in the surrounding region. Expert advisory panels have been involved in the development of each new content area.

·          "Our Hudson Home" is an exhibition about how stewardship of the local river and estuary requires understanding of their complex habitats, and of the human and commercial activities they support.

·          "Skyscraper!: Achievement and Impact" explores the design and engineering of tall buildings and their environments, and how these are evolving to better address human needs.

·          "Infection Connection" is about how individual and collective choices determine the impact of infectious diseases on the health of people around the world.

·          "Communication" is about how continual development and applied ingenuity help us learn from the world around us and create ways of communicating with one another.

·          "Breakthroughs" is about how the convergence of science, technology and society necessitates the public's understanding of new discoveries and milestones and the impact these have on people's lives.

·          With an assortment of live animals, "Eat and Be Eaten" is about how species evolve appearances and behaviors that help them avoid detection from predators and as prey. And

·          "I Explore," for pre-schoolers and their caregivers, exposes young minds to the scientific method and to science as a human endeavor, as well as enabling them to discover who they are, where they are, and what they can do.

·          In a new "Exhibit Commons" concept, visitors and others anywhere else around the world will be invited to submit ideas for altering and adding content to the current exhibitions.

The Center for Science Learning and Teaching will reshape how science education is perceived in the region.[32] The new facilities, unlike anything available at schools, will be a gateway where students and teachers will be exposed to scientists and science content in a manner that will stimulate learning and career choices. There will also be a theater where students have videoconferences with operating room teams at nearby hospitals as cardiac bypass, kidney transplant and neurosurgery takes place.

Heading into its mid-2007 reopening, Liberty Science Center's mission is to be an innovative learning resource for lifelong exploration of nature, humanity and technology, strengthening communities and inspiring global stewardship. Informed annually by scans of opportunities and challenges, both internally and externally, strategic planning looks a decade into the future. This is also informed by an extensive analysis of how to maximize operating revenues upon reopening and beyond.

Conclusion

Each museum has a choice of overall direction and external contexts from an array of possibilities.

It is clear that the world-on local, regional and global scales-has myriad opportunities for improvement as well as challenges to try to overcome. That these correspond to the subject areas of the different types of museums that have evolved over past centuries is also clear.

Each museum can choose the degree to which it will increase its external orientation to address contemporary and future matters, both locally and globally. Museums that become more relevant are likely to attract more robust funding and therefore become more sustainable, valued institutions. There are factors at play that both encourage and discourage this proposition. Greater currency of content raises the possibility of controversy, and controversy could trigger a mood of retreat. But another, arguably more attractive perspective is that the museum profession can make an increasingly bold and supportable contribution by helping society understand and improve our collective future through different approaches and extensive collaboration. AAM's centennial is an apt moment for museums to reflect upon their choice in such matters.

Acknowledgments

The author expresses appreciation to Mary Case of Qm2, Al DeSena of NSF and Connie Claman, Dalya Ewais, Wayne LaBar, Jeff Osowski, Elizabeth Romanaux, Jonathan Ullman and Khairah Walker of Liberty Science Center for accepting his invitation to comment on a near-final form of this article. 

Emlyn Koster is president and CEO of Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, N.J.

________________________________________

References

[1]  Lois H. Silverman and Mark O'Neill, "Change and Complexity in the 21st-Century Museum," Museum News, November/December 2004, pp. 37-43.

[2]  J. Davis, E. H. Gurian and E. H. Koster, "Timeliness: A Discussion for Museums," Curator, 2004, v. 46, no. 4, pp. 353-361.

[3]  Scientific American, special issue "Crossroads for Planet Earth," September 2005, v. 293, no. 3.

[4]  William A. Peniston, editor, The NewMuseum: Selected Writings by John Cotton Dana, Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums and The Newark Museum, 1999.

[5]  Laurence Vail Coleman, The Museum in America: A Critical Study, Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1939, 3 vols.

[6]  Emlyn H. Koster, "The Evolving Museum and The Human Journey" in Michel Coté and Annette Viel, editors, Museums: Where Knowledgeis Shared, Société des musées québecois et Musée de la civilization, 1995, pp. 81-98.

[7]  Stephen E. Weil, Making Museums Matter, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002.

[8] American Association of Museums, "Excellence and Equity-Education and the Public Dimension of Museums," Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1992.

[9] "Changing Public Expectations of Museums in Museums for the New Millennium," symposium for the museum community, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution and American Association of Museums, 1997, pp. 33-50.

[10]  Stephen E. Weil, "A Success/Failure Matrix for Museums," Museum News, January/February 2005, pp. 36-40.

[11]  "Museums in the United States at the Turn of the Millennium: An Industry Note," presented at Museum Governance in a New Age, conference of the U.S. Museum Trustee Association, Oct. 4-7, 2001.

[12] American Association of Museums, Mastering Civic Engagement: A Challenge to Museums, Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 2002.

[13]  Stan Carbonne, "The Dialogic Museum," Muse, 2003, pp. 36-39.

[14]  John Falk, "Visitors: Who Does, Who Doesn't and Why?," Museum News, March/April 1998, pp. 38-41.

[15]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance

[16]  Harold Skramstad, "An Agenda for American Museums in the Twenty-First Century," Daedalus, 1999, v. 128, pp. 109-128.

[17]  www.sustainability.com/philosophy/triple-bottom/tbl-intro.asp

[18]  Robert "Mac" West, "Human Body Exhibits - Unique Educational Experience or Next Silver Bullet? Or Both?," The Informal Learning Review, July/August 2005, no. 73, pp. 1-7.

[19]  Robert R. Janes and Gerald T. Conaty, editors, introduction to Looking Reality in the Eye: Museums andSocial Responsibility, Calgary, Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary Press, 2005, pp. 1-17.

[20]   Peter J. Ames, "Marketing in Museums: Means or Master of the Mission?," Curator, 1989, v. 32, no.1, pp. 5-15.

[21]  Victoria Newhouse, "As a Life Preserver, Popularity May Not Be Enough," New York Times, March 7, 1999, pp. 43 and 48.

[22]  Greg Parston, "Producing Social Results" in Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith and Richard Beckhard, editors, The Organization of the Future, Jossey-Bass, 1997, pp. 341-348.

[23]  Richard A. Barker, On the Nature of Leadership, Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002.

[24]  Richard Barrett, Liberating the Corporate Soul: Building a Visionary Organization, Burlington, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998.

[25]  www.sitesofconscience.org

[26]  Stephen R. Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990.

[27]  J. Gregory Dees, Jed Emerson and Peter Economy, Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for SocialEntrepreneurs, Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2001.

[28]  Emlyn H. Koster, "In Search of Relevance: Science Centers as Innovators in the Evolution of Museums," American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Daedalus, 1999, v. 128, pp. 277-296.

[29]  Emlyn H. Koster and Stephen H. Baumann, "Liberty Science Center in the United States: A Mission focused on External Relevance" in Robert R. Janes and Gerald T. Conaty, editors, Looking Reality in the Eye: Museums and Social Responsibility, Calgary, Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary Press, 2005, pp. 85-111.

[30]  www.lsc.org

[31]   Michael D. Lemonick, "Is America Flunking Science?," Time, Feb. 13, 2006, v. 167, no. 7, pp. 22-38.

[32]  Jeffrey Osowski, "Enliven the Art of Teaching Science," New Jersey Education Association Review, February 2006, pp. 6-9.

"The Relevant Museum: a Reflection on Sustainability." Museum Magazine, American Association of Museums, May/June 2006, pp. 67-70, 85-90. www.aam-us.org Reprinted with permission.

A site visit is a free service offered to historical records repositories through the Documentary Heritage Program (DHP). A site visit entails scheduling the DHP Regional Archivist or an appropriate consultant to visit your repository and offer their expertise on specific archival issues or concerns. The site visit usually lasts a couple of hours. After the visit, a report containing a summary of the visit, suggestions and recommendations is prepared for the repository.

Why might I want a site visit?

If you are overwhelmed by your historical records collections, need some basic guidance, are interested in applying for a DHP grant, or are facing a problem you don't have the expertise to deal with, a site visit may be able to help. Site visits are especially valuable for small to mid-sized repositories that may not have dedicated, professional archival staff. A site visit consultant can provide expertise on topics such as organizing records, creating access, evaluating records, storage and handling, or can conduct a basic needs assessment of your archival program. [We do not offer conservation/preservation assessments or assistance with non-archival materials]. A site visit report can also be useful when applying for archival grants such as those available through the DHP or the New York State Program for the Conservation and Preservation of Library Research Materials.

Who is eligible for this program?

Any non-governmental historical records repository (museum, historical society, library, college archives, etc.) in the South Central region is eligible. The DHP South Central region includes Allegany, Broome, Cayuga, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Otsego, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates counties. Contact the Regional Archivist for information on the availability of site visits for repositories in other regions of New York and for governmental repositories.

What do I need to provide?

This is a free service offered by the DHP so no funding is directly required for a site visit, however you will have to provide staff-time during the visit. You should also be open to the recommendations provided and dedicated to improving your historical records collections. You are not obligated to complete any of the items recommended by the consultant, but you may be asked to provide follow-up information to the Regional Archivist on your accomplishments.

How do I request a site visit?

A site visit can be requested at any time. Your first step is to contact the Regional Archivist to discuss your needs and to set-up a time for the visit. Interested? Please contact Jenny Rosenzweig, Regional Archivist for the South Central Region at 800-895-1648 or e-mail: jenny@upstatehistory.org

Online toolkit now available

The Wakanheza Project proudly announces the completion of their new Supporting Parents in Public toolkit.  On this website you can find all the tools you need to hold a workshop in your organization, learn more about the project and partners, read Wakanheza stories and sign up for the Wakanheza e-news.  Please visit:  http://www.mcm.org/wakanheza.shtml

Have you started using the program in your organization? Whether you have held your own workshops or are just starting to talk about how you might use it, Jessica Turgeon, Visitor Services Manager at the Minnesota Children's Museum would love to hear from you. The more information shared with one another, the more we can help each other keep the project going. Please contact Jessica at Jturgeon@mcm.org