National Arts Centre, Tokyo

March 15th, 2010

Professor Xavier Greffe

University Paris I Sorbonne

GRIPS

� I. A traditional but ambiguous task

� II. The public policy reform and its logic

� III. From performance to indicators

� IV. More specific indicators according to the issues and situations

� Indicators are not new: mainly visitors indicators

� The difficulty of having financial indicators� Markets and prices have no significant meaning

� Nevertheless the decrease of the rate of subsidy is used as a target indicators

� The ambivalence of visitors indicators� Assessing visits more than visitors

� Confusing diffusion and dissemination

� Creating a bias when museums are clustered

� History� Law in 2002 (LOLF) implemented in 2006

� Policy of RGPP implemented in 2008

� Letter of intent of the French Republic Presidency

� What it means for cultural activities?� A more demand oriented cultural policy

� A more efficient and accountable management

� What it implies for museums?� The previous Law of 2003 (Label ‘Musée de France’)

� Generalization of “contractual policy” with a new system of indicators

� Autonomy: e.g. in 1010, Picasso

� Clustering: e.g. Orangerie To Orsay

� Contractualization

� Performance Indicators System

� Ten State museums with autonomy

� ●Musée du Louvre

� ●Musée national Eugène Delacroix ( Louvre)

� ●Musée d’Orsay

� ●Musée Auguste Rodin

� ●Musée du Quai Branly

� ●Musée Gustave Moreau

� ●Musée et domaine national de Versailles

� ●Musée Jean-Jacques Henner

� ●Musée national des Arts asiatiques – Guimet

� ● Cité nationale de l’histoire de l’immigration

� Musée national du Château de Fontainebleau :

� ●●●●Musée de l’Orangerie

� ●Musée national de la Céramique (Sèvres)

� ●Musée Picasso

� Musée national du Moyen Âge – Thermes et Hôtel de Cluny� ●Musée Hébert� ●Musée d’Ennery� ● Aquarium de la Porte Dorée� ●Musée d’archéologie nationale� ●Musée national de Port-Royal des Champs� ●Musée national des Châteaux de Malmaison et Bois-Préau� ●Musée national de la Renaissance� ●Musée national du Château de Compiègne� ●Musée national de la Coopération franco-américaine� ●Musée national des Deux Victoires – Clemenceau et de Lattre de Tassigny� ●Musée national de la porcelaine Adrien Dubouché� ●Musée Magnin� ●Musées de l’Ile d’Aix (musée napoléonien et musée africain)� ●Musée national de Préhistoire� ●Musée national du Château de Pau� ●Musée national Message biblique Marc Chagall� ●Musée national Fernand Léger� ●Musée national Picasso « La Guerre et la Paix »� ●Musée national de la Maison Bonaparte

� Accountability of the museum

� Objectives and performance indicators are designed in the National Policy Framework

� Mutual financial commitments are defined on a multiyear period of time

� Assessment is implemented on a yearly basis

� The definition and measure of indicators is fixed in the perfomance contract, within a three year period. (For example there is a contract 2009-2011, and the objective indicators are fixed for the three years within the performance contract, but actually some revisions can occured)

� Any indicator is presented under the form of a serie on [2 + 3] years

� Produced annually

Year 2006

Result

2007

Result

2008

Result

2009

Targeted

2009

Result

2010

Targeted

2011

Targeted

Indicator X06 X07 X08 Y09 X09 Y10 Y11

� 1. To better the accessibility

� 2. To develop the scientific policy

� 3. To increase the quality and use of Heritage

� 4. To better the human resources management and optimize the use of resources

� Four objectives

� 1.1.To welcome an increasing number of visitors

� 1.2.To welcome young people facing difficult economic and social situation

� 1.3.To create a better attachment of the visitors to the museum in order to make them come back

� 1.4.To distillate a better cultural mediation; mainly in direction of school audiences

� Reasons� To legitimate the public subsidies

� To increase the box office and to reduce the subsidy dependency

� To mobilize the human resources

� Policies� To have a better opening hours

� To better the link between temporary exhibitions and permament collections

� To better explain the works of arts

X X+1 X+2

General attendance

Attendance for exhibitions

French attendance

Number of opening hours

Rate of opening rooms

LOUVRE X (2006) X+1 (2007) X+2 (2008)

General Attendance 7 Millions 7 millions 7 millions

Daily Attendance for Exhibitions

2,000 2,200 3,000

French Attendance 2,1 Millions 2,2 Millions 2,4 Millions

Nr of opening hours 3,200 3,200 3,200

Rate of opening rooms

86% 90% 92%

� Reasons � Traditionnally a very low rate of attendance

� A counterproductive vision of the museum

� Policies� To better know this target group

� To create specific gateways starting from their immediate environment

Year1 Year 2 Year 3

<18 years

<26 years

Eligible to insertion programs

X X+1 X+2

Number of cards or pass

Average of entries per card

Increase of French target

X X+1 X+2

Global

Welcome

Comfort

Information & explanation

� 2.1. Research and studies on works and collections

� 2.2. To increase the coherence and the visibility of the collections

� 2.3. To develop an active policy of exchanges

� 2.4. To strenghten national and international actions

� 2.5. To enrich the collections (Mécénat, dations,…)

� 2.6. To make preventive conservation more active

� Very different indicators according to the nature of the museums

� In general two categories:� 3.1. To protect and better buildings and works of arts

� 32. To define a relevant system of equipments

� 41. Managing efficiently human resources� Relatively low wages

� Motley structure of the manpower

� Difficulty of a social policy

� Absence of financial incentives

� 42. Optimizing the use of financial resources� Absence of financial acocuntability

� Necessity to have an actual global budget

� Necessity to introduce analytical accounting

X X+1 X+2

Rate of absenteism

Upgrading qualifications

Budget for training

Development of social services (Housing)

X X+1 X+2

Entrance fee

Mécénat and dations

Rate of self financing

Rate of deficit on temporary exhibitions

Rate of maintenance

� Specific policies: Free entrance for young people

� The creation of a museum

� First semester of 2008� Four Paris state owned museums; more 14 others� The Indicators:

� The average rate of increase (+41% in Guimet; + 120% in Toulon)

� The monthly average rate of increase (a slowing down)� The increase during the evening events (mainly for

students)� The increase of the marginal categories (strong) � The entrance increase by social origin

� (students: 9% [9.5%]; � Low incomes: 32% [43%]; � Middle incomes: 38%[24.5%];� High Incomes: 21%[21%]

� Cultural participation and access� Cultural reception habits and reception indicators� Cultural and leisure activity indicators� Indicators for contribution to education and training� Culture and tourism activity� Economic indicators� Employment indicators� Sociodemographic indicators� Indicators on the impact ofnAbu Dhadi’s image and

identity

1. Culture Participation and Access Indicators Louvre

Abu Dhabi

Cultural

District

Region

(including social indicators)

Data

Source

Data

Source

Data

Source

Total Attendance for Cultural Activities (number)

Total Number of Cultural Activities

Number of Sponsored Activities (grant funded)

Attendance of Sponsored Activities (number)

Number of Cultural Facilities for 1000 Inhabitants

Ratio of Cultural & Leisure Expenditures by Households

Ratio of Time Dedicated to Cultural vs Leisure Activities

Ratio of Cultural Novelties vs global offer

Geographical Origins and Nationality of Cultural Activity Audiences (%)

Social Origins of Cultural Activity Audiences (%)

Participation of Lower Social Groups (%)

Participation of disabled Persons (%)

Participation of Youth and Seniors (%)

Participation of Residents, by Social and Ethnic Origin (%)

Participant / Audience Satisfaction Level

Interest for Art and Culture Among Residents (%)

Benefits and Teachings / New Behaviors

6. Culture and Tourism Activity Indicators Louvre

Abu

Dhabi

Cultur

al

Distric

t

Regio

n(heritage site attendance, creative industries and live

shows, events, salons, professional fairs...)

Data

Source

Data

Source

Data

Source

Total number of visitors

Number of virtual visitors for tourist or cultural sites or

providing cultural and tourist promotion for Abu Dhabi

Number of passengers arriving at Abu Dhabi

Arriving nationalities (%)

Arriving expenditures

Number of hotel nights

Hotel occupancy

Number of hotel rooms

Number of hotel rooms created / renovated

Average hotel stay cost

9. Indicators of the Impact on Abu Dhabi’s Image and Identity Louvre

Abu

Dhabi

Cultural

District

Region

Data

Source

Data

Source

Data

Source

Number of press articles (written, television, radio, web...)

mentioning the cultural activity

(facilities, cultural and artistic events...) in Abu Dhabi for local,

national and international coverage

(Number of references and %)

Number of positive press articles (number of references and %)

Number of press articles specifically mentioning Abu Dhabi’s

cultural facilities

Abu Dhabi’s spontaneous and prompted brand awareness (% by

region / country...)

Louvre Abu Dhabi’s spontaneous and prompted brand awareness

(% by region / country)

Place given to AD among cities /regions deemed relevant on a

cultural perspective (%)

Interest in visiting AD (%)

Interest in visiting the Louvre Abu Dhabi (%)

Rankings of preferred activities in Abu Dhabi (%)

� A new culture

� Mobilizing in a context of crisis

� To Integrate perfomance with accounting

� Formal and actual autonomy: The problem of the RMN