managing conservation in museums - · pdf filemanaging conservation in museums second edition...

Managing Conservation in Museums

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Managing Conservation inMuseumsSecond edition

Suzanne Keene

OXFORD AMSTERDAM BOSTON LONDON NEW YORK PARISSAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO

Butterworth-HeinemannAn imprint of Elsevier ScienceLinacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP225 Wildwood Avenue, Woburn MA 01801-2041

First published 1996Second edition 2002

Copyright © 1996, 2002, Suzanne Keene. All rights reserved

The right of Suzanne Keene to be identified as the author of this work has been assertedin accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (includingphotocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means and whetheror not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) withoutthe written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with theprovisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms ofa licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road,London, England W1T 4LP. Applications for the copyright holder’s writtenpermission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressedto the publisher

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 0 7506 5603 4

For information on all Butterworth-Heinemann publications, visit our website atwww.bh.com

Composition by Genesis Typesetting, Rochester, KentPrinted and bound in Great Britain

Contents

Preface ixAcknowledgements xi

1 Introduction 1Collections, conservation, and management 1Museums 3Management and information 6Case study 9References 10

2 Museums, collections, and people 12Museums 12Paradigms for collections 16Museum users and their needs 20Conservation and museums 23Professional roles 24References 29

3 Management and information 32Views from general management studies 32Information in management 36The management of museums 40Issues in museum management 43Conclusions 45References 46

4 Management tools: quantitative planning 48Management science and conservation 48Conservation costs and benefits 50Deciding priorities 53Quantifying collections preservation 56Quantification: do we need it? 60Conclusions 61References 61

5 Management tools: options and priorities 63Risk analysis 63Contextual analysis: PEST and SWOT 68Strategy development 68Case study 72Conclusions 75References 76

6A systems view of museums 79The systems approach 79The soft systems methodology 81Museums as systems 84Real world and system contrast 94The changing scene 95References 96

7 The preservation system 97The real world: the Rich Picture and Analyses 1, 2 and 3 98Relevant systems 99Root definitions 100The conceptual model 101Real world and system contrast 104From analysis into management 104Conclusions 108References 110

8 Preservation 114Preservation standards and policies 115Reviews and reports 116Case study 118Environmental monitoring 119Presenting and using environmental data 123Case study 132Tales of the environment 134Conclusions 135References 136

9 Collections condition 139Surveying collections 139Existing work 142Defining the data 142The audit method 148Gathering the data: the survey itself 152Analysing and presenting data 153Reporting audit results 155Monitoring condition over time 157

vi Contents

Case study 157Conclusions 159References 160

10 Direction and strategy 172Terminology 172Statements of purpose 173Policies 174Strategy and planning 175Approaches to strategic planning 176Case study 181Performance 183Conclusions 186References 187

11 Planning and monitoring work 195Planning work and communicating plans 195Management-by-objectives 199Project planning 201Allocating resources 203Monitoring and reporting 204Presenting and using management information 205Case study 207Planning for skills and quality 212Conclusions 212References 213

12 Conservation and digitization 215Conservation records on computer 215Information for preservation 216The conservation information requirement 217Case study 222Digital preservation 224Case study 228References 229

13 Future, present, past 239Information for all 239The value of information 240Evaluation 242Case study 244Conclusions: a new view 247Future developments 248References 249

Index 251

Contents vii

Preface

The first edition of this book was written in order to open up the box oftools labelled ‘management’ for conservators and other preservationprofessionals to make use of if they wished. At that time many of thesenotions were unfamiliar in this context. Now, we hear daily and hourlyabout the principles and concepts of management, applied to everythingfrom opera houses to primary schools.

These ideas and techniques are not a universal solution. I hope theywill equip people who are managing preservation with some useful ideasand techniques. This book is written partly in order to set out a scepticalview of attitudes to running cultural organizations, and so I also hopethat it will encourage people to challenge some of the concepts fromcommercial management, such as performance measurement, that can bepositively damaging.

Above all my wish is that it will contribute to the preservation of theobjects and collections for the enjoyment of everyone.

Suzanne Keene

Note: the website of information supplementing this book will befound at:

www.suzannekeene.info/conserve

Acknowledgements

I am most grateful to my colleagues in the Science Museum and in theMuseum of London: in particular, Hazel Newey, Jackie Britton, AnnNewmark and Peter Meehan from the Science Museum, and Kate Starlingand Helen Ganiaris at the Museum of London. They provided much ofthe material for this book, and they played a major part in developing theideas and practices depicted in it.

I also acknowledge the part that the collections and objects have playedin these museums, in that they so vividly illustrate success or failure inmanaging preservation.

1 Introduction

The focus of this book is on managing the preservation of collections. Itargues that information is fundamental to achieving this. Such informationmust be based on values; it must serve objectives; and it must be useful tothe people doing the work. Collections preservation is set within thecontext of museums in the early twenty-first century. The central point ofthe museum is shifting from the collections to the services that museumsprovide for people. However, museum collections are larger and moreextensive than ever, and pressures for higher standards and greaterefficiency are unrelenting. At the same time, the arrival of the Internet andthe World Wide Web has dramatically altered the context for museums.

In this complex, rapidly changing world, issues cannot be addressed inisolation. Everything is connected to and dependent on everything else.The collections and their preservation cannot be viewed as an end inthemselves, isolated from the other purposes and functions of museums.This is why conservation in museums needs to be viewed in a systemicway. One of the things that this book does is to advocate the systemsapproach and show how it can usefully be applied to the management ofconservation in museums.

Collections, conservation and management

Museum collections everywhere are large and growing larger. It is aprimary function of museums to develop and add to collections.Collections are held for a variety of purposes ranging from demonstra-tion, as is the case for many industrial and agricultural collections; to arecord of the history of a place; to viewing and enjoyment, as in artgalleries and collections, to an archive for study and learning.

The tasks involved in conservation are perhaps uniquely varied.Practical skill is still essential, and most conservators spend most oftheir time on actively ‘treating’ objects: removing dirt and deposits thatcause damage, strengthening them using physical support or consolida-tion with resins, removing the chemical products or agents of decay, asin acid paper.

But creating the conditions for preservation, rather than curing ills oncethey become apparent, is assuming an ever-greater importance in theconservator’s role. Nowadays, the principles of preservation are widelyrecognized and understood, and expressed in many documents andapproaches: as standards, as performance indicators, and as managementtools such as the Best Value review process for museums.

Conservation can also make an important contribution to the educationand interpretation functions of museums. This is well illustrated by theConservation Centre of the National Museums and Galleries on Mersey-side, and by a number of popular exhibitions and exhibits on museumconservation.

In response to the same pressures for higher standards and the ever-growing scale of the task, collections management has emerged as yetanother specialist area in museums. Collections management encom-passes all the processes of organizing, caring for, and accounting forcollections; each object is managed ‘from cradle to grave’. The pattern ofemployment of conservators is changing, too. In America it has long beenusual not to employ conservators, but for registrars or collectionsmanagers to commission conservation treatment from conservatorsworking freelance or in independent practices. Even the development ofstrategy for the care and preservation of collections may be outsourced.This is probably partly because many American museums are not ownedand managed directly within the public sector. In the UK it has been thenorm in the public sector for staff to be employed, rather than services tobe outsourced, but this is changing in museums as in other public sectorservices (Winsor, 1998).

The importance of managing collections as museums’ primary asset,which they may use as the basis for the services they offer, is generally wellrecognized and there is a receptive climate for using managementtechniques to do this more effectively. In many respects conservators haveled the way. Conservators have been among the first museum profession-als to express as usable standards their scientific knowledge of risk and theagents of deterioration and how to avoid it. They have also understood thenecessity to document and record work affecting objects and collections.

This book aims to describe some perspectives and techniques frommanagement that can turn these orderly practices and records intoinformation, strategies, and a better understanding that will assist thepreservation of collections. Conservation requires a broad range oftechnical knowledge: of the diagnosis of chemical decay and in how it canbe arrested or reversed, skills in physical treatment, and experience in therecreation of a preservation environment – temperature, humidity,oxygen and gaseous composition, dust exclusion, and light control. Butessential though these technical skills are, they are useless without thehigh level ability to create the organization and the social system of

2 Introduction

people in it; to plan, monitor, and undertake the initial work, and tomaintain these conditions indefinitely. This task in turn is impossiblewithout planning, specifying, recording, and monitoring. Those whowish to preserve collections must take the broadest possible view of theobjectives and the strategies that can be used for this to be accomplished.They must test, by collecting and analysing information, whether the realworld, which they hope to manage, is as they envisaged in their plansand concepts, and thus identify the necessary actions. Otherwise theymay find to their surprise that ‘inadequate attention to methods ofavoiding duplication and the implications for collections managementhave, at least in some instances, turned the dream into a nightmare’(Davies, 1992).

Museums

Museums are significant economically and socially. Their economicimportance derives principally from their role as an attraction fortourism, which across the world is a driver of economic growth. Theyserve economic purposes in other ways too: through the goods andservices they purchase and through the high standards they set for designand construction. They provide a market for creative industries such asarts and crafts, as part of their exhibitions and displays and also throughadding to their collections, and they may also provide a marketplace forcreative arts through their retail activities. They are playing a similar rolein the new market for services for digitization and information andcommunication technology.

Socially, museums serve significant purposes; they are an expression ofcommunity and civic pride, from the grand city museums of nineteenthcentury England to the wonderful local museums that can be found in somany small towns in America. Research has shown that museums reallydo provide education and learning, and that they can help people whofeel excluded from society develop a sense of self worth and pride. Theycan play a part in preserving and nourishing the continuance of localmemories and knowledge. And most important, they provideenjoyment.

In many countries, the role of museums is changing. They arebecoming orientated outwards towards people, rather than inwardstowards their collections. The crystallizing moment for this was perhapsthe opening of the Te Papa Tongarewa Museum, the new nationalmuseum for New Zealand, in 1998. Its first stated principle is:

Te Papa will engage New Zealanders in the exploration of theircultural identity and the natural environment through exhibitions

Introduction 3

and other programmes focused on New Zealand, its place in thePacific and the world. A range of educational and cultural serviceswill be provided for all people who live in New Zealand or whovisit it.

In the post-colonial age, local groups are demanding the return ofmaterial assembled and exported by rich Western countries in earliertimes. This has met with a varied response, but has forced museums atleast to consider their stance. In Australia, the Heritage CollectionsCouncil has developed a programme of support for Aborigine people totransfer to them the skills to preserve objects returned to them. The stanceof the UK government has been clear, even strident; museums mustdeliver on the fronts of education and social inclusion.

The nature of museums is changing in response to pressures on themto take on new roles. Among heritage marketing consultants in the UKthere is a body of opinion that believes that museums have to respond tothe publics demand for experiences. Museums, they say, should seethemselves as destinations rather than simply as places and exhibitions tovisit. It is fashionable in some circles to see museums as competing forcustomers alongside shopping malls and theme parks, and to urge themto imitate these venues in what they offer their public. Certainly, manymuseums are paying much more attention than they used to in findingout what their audiences want, and evaluating whether what theyprovide is satisfactory.

In some places, however, museums retain their traditional character-istics. In many countries one can easily encounter the ‘dingy places withdifferent kinds of bits’ so vividly portrayed by respondents to a survey ofLondon museums in 1991 (Trevelyan, 1991). The initiated can find objectsthemselves inspiration enough, but in some ways these museums,untouched by global trends for sophistication and the attention ofdesigners, are like the Sleeping Beauty – one wonders if they awaken,what will they become?

There has been a considerable increase in funding in some countries. Inthe UK the Heritage Lottery Fund has helped museums to build newexhibitions and sometimes stores. Other high profile capital projectsachieve global fame, such as the Tate Modern, the Gulbenkian Museum inBilbao and the many museums developed as grands projects in Parisduring President Mitterrand’s term of office. However, in the UK at least,resources for the ongoing operation of these new buildings has notfollowed, and all too often new initiatives have simply stretched alreadyinadequate resources further, as did the sharp increase in the number ofsmall museums between 1965 and 1990.

Where do these new trends leave the collections? Are they becomingredundant? Would this book be more useful if it were a manual for

4 Introduction

collections disposal? It might be thought that pressures to provideservices to people would detract from resources for collections. But in theUK, for example, there is absolutely no evidence that when collectionswere the focus of the museum, and when funding was relatively lessstretched, they were better cared for: on the contrary, as a series ofsurveys in the 1980s and 1990s showed (Winsor, 1998). Indeed, the major(and worrying) change detected in later surveys was that conservatorswere less well educated and trained: on the whole, the impression is thatcollections are now better cared for. The promulgation and awareness ofstandards is having an effect (e.g. Paine, 1992–1998; MGC, 1995; NPS,2001: Part I and Appendix F). Many of the capital projects in museumsinclude wonderful new facilities for storing the collections and providingaccess to them. A good example is the Conservatoire des Arts et Metiersin Paris. Its building was completely redeveloped for new displays, anda brand new store was constructed where the rest of the collections couldbe stored, studied, and cared for. On a local level, Oxfordshire CountyCouncil invested in a new, accessible store for its museum service evenbefore the Heritage Lottery Fund arrived to provide funding.

The conservation profession can take major credit for this. Con-servators have developed scientifically based standards, and promul-gated them so that they are widely accepted by governments, fundingbodies, and even insurers. This has been supported by official actions andschemes, such as the Museum Assessment Program in the USA and theMuseum Registration Scheme in the UK. Conservators have continuedthe emphasis on proper education and skills, and worked with educationproviders to make sure that training is available. They have workedefficiently, effectively, and imaginatively within the limits of the availableresources, and responded to market pressures to privatize their services,and to act in the interests of the wider purposes of museums rather thansimply as the guardians of the objects.

So what is the place of the collections in this new world? Collectionsare still vitally important to museums and they still form the founda-tion of the Museums Association’s mission statement: ‘Museums usecollections to enable people . . .’. The well researched report, on regionalmuseums, Renaissance in the regions, from Resource, the UK policy andstrategy organization, strongly supports this line. It portrays collectionsas the vital asset that museums can draw on and use to deliver theirservices, while at the same time castigating those museum professionalswho ‘see their task as being to preserve the collections for someunspecified, indeterminate future’ (Resource, 2001). Their collections arewhat distinguish museums from schools, science centres, or indeed,shopping malls. Collections force museums to look to the long term.The collections may sometimes be perceived as a millstone, but theneed to provide responsible stewardship for these valuable public assets

Introduction 5

brings with it a permanence and seriousness of purpose possessed byfew other organizations.

With this large and enormously valuable treasure, museums shouldsurely use their collections not only as the basis for public activities, butalso as a high profile public attraction in its own right. There are plentyof examples to show that people love this sort of thing. The YorkArchaeological Trust runs its publicly accessible ArchaeologicalResearch Centre (ARC), which has been a great success, and conserva-tion touring exhibitions like Stop the Rot are wonderfully popular. InAmerica, the new Udvar-Hazy centre at Washington Dulles airport willsoon replace the Smithsonian Institution’s Garber Center, where thepublic can tour the collections and view conservation. The acclaimedConservation Centre of the National Museums and Galleries on Mer-seyside has contributed substantially to the NMGM’s success inLiverpool.

Management and information

Museum and conservation management should be seen in the context ofthe wider world. The body of general knowledge and understanding oforganizations and their management needs to be appreciated. Thedevelopment of this body of knowledge has been accelerated by thepopularity of business schools and educational programmes. There is anenormous amount of literature on the subject, describing approaches thatrange from the highly analytical and directive (as in scientific manage-ment, where people are seen as cogs in a machine) to the inspirationaland intuitive (such as work on motivation and leadership). An interestingapproach is a review of different metaphors that can be used to describeorganizations, such as the machine, the system, etc. (Clutterbuck andCrainer, 1990; Morgan, 1986).

Information lies at the heart of management. Without information onwhat is happening in an organization how can it be managed? How cananyone tell whether it is reaching its objectives? This need for informationis not universally realized. Even household name organizations overlookthis seemingly obvious requirement. And further, providing informationdemonstrates to the people in the organization that what they are doingis important enough for the organization to wish to monitor it. This willbe especially significant for highly educated professionals such asconservators. Griffin (1987) identifies the organizational culture inmuseums as a ‘professional bureaucracy’. Members of such organizationsare apt to feel a greater allegiance to their specialist profession than to theorganization that employs them (Mintzberg, 1992: Ch. 10). This simplymeans that their employer needs to pay more attention to making these

6 Introduction

valuable people feel that they have an important part to play, andshowing them that they do so.

A wealth of information-based techniques has been developed inmanagement studies and science, which could be applied to themanagement of conservation. Management science encompasses work onmathematical and computerized aids to planning and decision-makinggenerally, some of which are used in operations research. Operationsresearch is derived from the concepts embodied in engineering systems;a problem is identified, and a variety of mathematical modellingtechniques are then employed to solve it. A variety of quantitativemethods are potentially useful, for instance, cost-benefit analysis, riskanalysis, and strategic planning. These methods are useful for solvingproblems if the situation is taken as given, but many public-sectororganizational situations do not lend themselves to such a convergentapproach, especially at a time of change, when existing ways of doingthings may need radical review. The solution to the problem may lie notin fixing the existing function, but in reviewing the earlier objective ortaking an entirely different approach to achieving it. Non-quantitativeanalytical methods also exist, some of which are very simple, such as thewell-known techniques of SWOT and PEST analysis (strengths, weak-nesses, opportunities, threats and the context: political, economic, social,technical). More sophisticated techniques include robustness and strate-gic choice analysis.

Understanding the task

Before investigating how management information tools can be appliedin a ‘problem situation’, techniques need to be employed to aid the fullunderstanding of that situation. A museum may be funded publicly orprivately; it may be a national museum, a local authority museum, or aprivate museum, and have the appropriate constitution; it may havevaried collections, or be extremely specialist. Yet all these institutionshave basic functions in common, and they have to respond to notdissimilar pressures from their organizational environment.

One way to develop greater understanding and insight is to envisage theabstract systems, which might be used to describe museums of whatevertype. System thinking is a major analytical tool. Many writers demonstratethat it is pervasive in management research. One such approach, the softsystems analysis methodology, is a powerful method of enquiry intoaspects of the world such as organizations. It was selected as the principleanalytical tool used in this book, since it is particularly designed forsituations where ‘the problem’ is hard to define (Checkland, 1999).

The information requirements for museum preservation are quitecomplex, since collections serve several purposes, and are subject to

Introduction 7

different, usually conflicting, priorities. Soft systems analysis is used toanalyse the processes of collections preservation. The analysis primarilyfocuses on information needs, but analysing the system also gives theopportunity to compare the actual organization of conservation/preser-vation with the system needs shown in the conceptual system, and thusto diagnose deficiencies.

Using information

Information for managing conservation is needed at all levels, rangingfrom the management of work with the individual to the setting of long-term directions and strategies with the museum’s senior management.Data are more easily obtained than ever before, due to the use ofcomputers, but analysing the data so that they give useful information isas difficult as ever. Conservators are very good at collecting data – onconservation treatments, on the museum environment, on the conditionof objects – but less inclined to analyse it and to make use of the results.However, high-level analysis and presentation can have a dramaticimpact on organizational thinking.

To determine what information we need to serve our aims, we have todetermine what those aims really are. Writers on strategic planning (e.g.Bowman and Asch, 1987: 380) recognize that this will be particularlydifficult for public sector organizations like museums, because theytypically have multiple objectives, many of them measurable onlyqualitatively, not quantitatively. Also, the information must serve thepeople of the organization. Sir John Hunt, in Managing people at work (1979,145–46), observes that quantitative approaches imply strong centralcontrol, and reflect the elitist Anglo-American view of managers, notshared, he suggests, in other countries such as Germany or Japan. This viewis expanded by Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1994), who show thatthere is a whole spectrum of views in different countries, east and west, ofwhat management consists of and how it should be undertaken.

Information, however, is useful not just to inform managers of whattheir subordinates are doing. Its real power is to inform the people, at alllevels of the organization, on the factors that determine whetherobjectives are being met and corporate values realized. If people are cutoff from information on whether they are succeeding in their work or not,they could become demotivated and uninvolved; conversely, timelyfeedback can have a powerful motivating effect.

One of the major success factors identified by Peters, in Thriving on chaos,is to measure what’s important, choose one or two measures that count(Peters, 1987: 585). Simple, important measures can be appropriate formany conservation functions, particularly on the broad preservation of thecollections through providing proper storage and display conditions.

8 Introduction

Strategic directions need to be set before detailed plans can bedeveloped. There are various useful approaches to strategic planning.Performance measurement as applied to museums is particularlydiscussed. This is in general terms the means of telling whether anorganization is achieving its objectives; an essential component ofmanagement information systems. There is a strong case for developingperformance measures for conservation. If the collections of museums arefundamental to their operations, then a means must be found of assessingwhether they are being preserved, and as Griffin (1987) says,

It is not enough simply to believe that there are benefits. One mustdisplay those benefits – using words and symbols, which are atleast familiar, if not appealing – to those who can be persuaded topay for them.

Such measures can be appropriate for many conservation functions,particularly on the broad preservation of the collections throughproviding proper storage and display conditions.

The new view of the role of museum collections, which is developedthrough the soft systems analysis in Chapters 6 and 7, assists anunderstanding of the objectives of and reasons for conservation. It can leadto a better understanding of the way in which the different components ofthe task – planning, environmental control, condition monitoring, andconservation treatment – complement each other in a unified system. It isobvious that information for managing is essential. Finally, the use ofinformation for managing conservation is reviewed and evaluated.

Case study

The affairs of the Historic City Museum are used to illustrate many of theexamples in this book. The Historic City Museum is a composite of manyother museums in the UK, in America, in Canada, and of others existingonly in the imagination.

Historic City Museum is a large museum with a long and proudtradition. It was established in 1850 as an expression of civic pride in thecity, for the education and entertainment of the citizens. It has twooutposts, the Workplace Project, in an industrial area which is now beingrevived, and the City Art Gallery, which is run as a quasi-autonomousorganizational unit in a separate building. An archaeology unit fundedfrom developers and from English Heritage undertakes archaeologicalexcavations in the city and its surrounding area.

The Conservation Department was created in 1960 by moving some ofthe general technicians out of the museum’s Technicians Department andgiving them some extra training in, and special responsibility for,

Introduction 9

conservation. During the late 1980s the department consolidated itsprofessional presence in the museum, and changed from providing areactive service to curators on request to taking an independent,proactive view in the preservation of the collections. It began to set out itsown viewpoint on museum matters generally whenever consultation wasinvited. The department compiled and presented reports on importanttopics such as the quality of storage and the condition of the collections,and it put forward work programmes based on the collections prioritiesthat it identified itself, rather than just reacting to proposals from theother parts of the museum.

The Conservation Department now has an equal status with thecuratorial and collections management departments. It consists of aboutfifteen staff, some on the museum’s staff complement, some on fixed-termcontracts funded by the excavation unit or through other specific short-term projects. By publishing research and development, attending andspeaking at conferences, and visiting other museums its membersestablish and maintain its excellent international reputation for innova-tion both in the practice of conservation and in its management.

The museum has a busy programme of exhibitions, outreach projects,archaeological publications, loans, educational events, and other inter-pretive activities. It is recent policy to improve the care and managementof its collections as well, so the climate for outgoing conservationactivities is good. However, conservation naturally has to bid forresources and priorities against other museum activities.

In this book we will see how the conservators in the Historic CityMuseum use some of the management and information tools that arediscussed. However, conservation in their museum is being affected bythe changing context for the Historic City Museum, and there are manyquestions over the future development of the Conservation Departmentand its role in the museum.

References

Bowman, C. and Asch, D. (1987). Strategic management. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. Second edition. Chichester:

John Wiley.Clutterbuck, D. and Crainer, S. (1990). Makers of management. Basingstoke:

Macmillan.Davies, S. (1992). Industrial and social history collections: the context. In Collecting

for the 21st century. A survey of industrial and social history collections in themuseums of Yorkshire and Humberside (J. Kenyon, ed.). Leeds, Yorkshire, andHumberside Museums Service.

Griffin, D.J.G. (1987). Managing in the museum organization: I. Leadership andcommunication. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship 6, 387–398.

10 Introduction

Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (1994). The seven cultures of capitalism.London: Piatkus.

Hunt, Sir J. (1979). Managing people at work. London: Pan Books (paperback edition1981).

MGC (1995). Registration scheme for museums in the UK. Guidelines for registration.London: Museums and Galleries Commission.

Mintzberg, H. (1992). Structure in fives. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London: Sage Publications.NPS (2001). The Museum Handbook. United States of America National Park

Service.Paine, C., ed. (1992–1998). Standards in the museum care of . . . collections. London:

Museums and Galleries Commission.Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos. New York: Harper Perennial.Resource, 2001. Renaissance in the regions: a new vision for England’s museums.

London: Resource.Trevelyan, V., ed. (1991). Dingy places with different kinds of bits: an attitudes survey

of London museums amongst non-visitors. Report commissioned by the LondonMuseums Consultative Committee. London: London Museums Service.

Winsor, P. (1998). Conservation in the United Kingdom. Cultural Trends, 33,3–34.

Introduction 11

2 Museums, collections, and people

In this chapter, the nature and roles of museums are discussed. Whatfunctions do they fulfil, and what are the important statistics relating tothem: numbers, visitors, and economics? The purposes of holdingcollections, and the roles played by different museum professionals, arereviewed. Finally, the nature of conservation work itself is explored.

Museums

Purposes of museums

In 1983 Weil inventoried the roles of art museums, in his compilation ofessays, Beauty and the beasts (1983a). They are, he says, for recreation;temples of contemplation; education; connoisseurship in the sense thatthey portray the highest standards; symbols of power; centres ofscholarship; embodiments of bureaucracy (because of the need forcontinuity); agents of social change; representatives of the artists whosework is displayed; patrons; and caretakers of public patrimony. Since themid 1990s opinion worldwide has turned against this view, which is seenas exclusive, elitist, and perpetuating the privileges of class. ‘Heritage’has been redefined as meaning the representation of a sanitized version ofhistory. Bennett (1995) has described the development of museums,rooted in education and public enlightenment, but also in shopping.Hewison in his book The heritage industry (1987) was among the first toclaim that excessive public interest in the ‘heritage’ promotes con-servative politics and national stagnation; encourages ‘a respect forprivacy and private ownership, and a disinclination to question theprivileges of class’. Merriman diagnosed the hidden agenda of museumsas being to legitimize affluence by promoting an appropriate lifestyle:encouraging people to acquire ‘cultural capital’ (Merriman, 1991).

Museums for the twenty-first century are meant to have a stronglyeducational role; to encourage their audiences to be active and partici-pative rather than passively receptive; to engage with their commu-nities and work towards social inclusion. As in the days of their

foundation, their ultimate purpose is to encourage those who areeconomically, socially, and educationally disadvantaged to conform todesirable social norms. Above all, if museums have been in the pastcentred inwards around their collections, now their focus must beoutwards, on people.

The focus on people and interaction extends to a museum’s aspira-tions for visitors. Publicly funded museums in general are under greatpressure to increase or maintain the number of people who visit them,to attract audiences that are more representative of society as a whole,and to raise income from commercial activities to supplement publicfunding. Public expectation has to a degree changed; people are usedto highly sophisticated productions through television, films, and themeparks. Worldwide, visitors want an experience, not just a visit to amuseum and this means in many cases drastically changing the natureof what museums offer. A good example was the Museum of Londonexhibition in 2000, High Street Londinium, of findings from excavationsof Roman London. Where once showcases would have been constructedto display objects, here the display was mainly of replica objects in areconstructed Roman street, with houses and workshops. While thiswas still very recognizable as a museum exhibition, at the extreme isSovereign Hill, near Ballarat, in Australia, where a nineteenth centurygold mining town has been recreated, complete with gold panningexperience and shops selling craft products made on the premises.(However, it is difficult to disapprove of anything that is so exuberantand so much fun!)

Some people object to this approach as dumbing down; withdrawingfrom providing information of any real interest. It should be noted that inthe UK by far the most popular museums in the 1990s had been theBritish Museum and the National Gallery. Both of these rely on academicdisplays with a heavy emphasis on objects and relatively little inter-pretation (however it should be noted that neither charged for entryduring this period, unlike most of the other national museums).

Numbers of museums

Rapid growth has been a dominant characteristic of museums and theiroperations since the late nineteenth century, and particularly in the 1970sand 1980s. As surveys and reports have established (Resource, 2001),there are about 2000 museums in the UK. The growth in numbers hasbeen phenomenal; in 1887 there were but 217; in 1987 a new one wasopening about every two weeks, with the total number almost doublethat in 1971. The rate of increase stabilized in the 1990s, and there is nowa view that there should be fewer museums. In the UK the total numberof visitors remains flat or is slowly decreasing.

Museums, collections, and people 13

The size of collections

The growth in museum collections has paralleled their increased numbers.Even in the nineteenth century, one of the British Museum’s famouscurators, Franks, was proud to have enlarged the collections of the Britishand Medieval Antiquities Department from 154 feet of cases in 1851 to 2250whole cases in 1896, cited by Sir David Wilson (1989). Sir David points tocollecting as one of the mainsprings of a museum: ‘A museum which doesnot collect is a dead museum.’ This statement is, no doubt, disputed by thedirectors of the many thriving closed collections, such as the WallaceCollection, the Dulwich Picture Gallery, and others. Social historymuseums have increased their collections particularly rapidly, as Collectingfor the 21st century, the survey of industrial and technological museums inYorkshire and Humberside (Kenyon, 1992), shows. In the Science Museum,until the 1950s, all of the collections were housed in its main SouthKensington site. Now, they are stored on four major sites, including twonew museums. Many museum collections are now numerically enormous.The Museum of London holds about one million objects, and asdemonstrated in Figure 2.1, the vast majority of these have been acquired


Fig. 2.1 The growth of the collections of the Museum of London

since about 1960; the British Museum about six million; the NaturalHistory Museum a staggering seventy million specimens. Even quitemodest local museums often have tens or hundreds of thousands ofindividual objects, especially if they include paper-based collections suchas photographs. About half the objects in the museums in the Yorkshireand Humberside survey are paper-based ones, and the same is certainlytrue of most local history museums (Kenyon, 1992).

Simply providing storage for these large collections has become aconsiderable function of museums and a call on their resources.Accounting for organizing, recording, storing, and preserving theseassemblages requires a professional and strategic approach, as museumsare subject to more and more stringent standards for the care of thesepublic assets, alongside pressures to increase and widen their audiencesand services.

Economics and museums

In macro-economic terms the cost of museums is not large, but they dohave economic significance. They have a great many visitors: in the UK,about 57 million in 1977; 72 million in 1989; 80 million in 1991; but fallingback to 77 million by 2001 (Merriman, 1991; MGC, 1992; Resource, 2001).The British Museum and the National Gallery are consistently among thetop five most visited attractions in Britain, with around four to fivemillion visitors annually. Tourism is one of the most important industriesin the UK, and a considerable generator of income from abroad. In 1999the industry as a whole was worth £63.9 billion, supported about 1.8million jobs, and visitors from overseas spent £12.5 billion (EnglishTourist Board, 2001). Museums are an important component of the UK’sattraction to tourists. Nearly a third of all museum visits, and 44 per centof those in London, were by overseas tourists (Myerscough, 1988;Resource, 2001).

The number of visits to museums in the UK fell during the 1990s, as didthose to other heritage attractions. In 1999 a MORI survey for Resourcefound that while in 1991, 42 per cent of the population had visited amuseum, by 1999 this had fallen to 32 per cent. However, this still meantthat during 1999 nearly three out of ten people had visited a museum(MORI, 2001).

Museums in almost all countries are expected to generate income fromtheir visitors to supplement any public funding they receive. This they dothrough commercial activities such as shops, hire of their galleries, andcharging for services. In some cases they charge admission, although thisis subject to political policies. In Canada even the quasi-governmentCanadian Conservation Institute is expected to provide commercialservices, which it successfully does, and in the Natural History Museum,


London, collections staff are set targets for income generation throughconsultancy and services.

Perspectives on collections

Despite all the pressures to offer a combination of theme park and three-dimensional television experience to their visitors, the existence ofmuseums and galleries is still substantially based on their collections.Their permanent collections are what distinguish them from schools,theme parks, or car showrooms. The collections still form the basis formost museum activities, however diverse, and high standards are set forthe preservation and care of these public assets. For example in the UKthrough the local authority Best Value scheme and government fundingagreements for the national museums. However, it might now be difficultto defend the statement confidently made in the first edition of this bookin 1996 that ‘preserving the collections is fundamental to all othermuseum activities’.

Preservation is not the only basic museum function. The two majorimperatives which are always cited in the statutes or other instrumentsestablishing museums are, on the one hand, to preserve and care forcollections, and on the other, to display them and use them in other waysto entertain, educate, and enlighten (ICOM, 1990). The conflict, orcontradiction, has in the past been seen as between preservation andexhibition and access, or use of the object. These contradictory objectivesare most obviously expressed in resource conflicts, for funding, for staff,and for influence in the organization. If the most important museumoutcomes are to do with people, visits, and services, and maintaining thecollections is a boring ‘must do’ with little political payoff, then themanagement and preservation of the collections will not be a priority forfinance, nor for senior staff attention.

Paradigms for collections

There is a tremendous variation between the different types of collection.As museum functions and priorities shift and change, these variationsbecome more marked.

The national museums in Britain offer, in a sense, paradigms for theuses of collections. An important part of the role of national museums isto act as centres of excellence and sources of expert advice. They provideexamples to local, specialist, and regional museums. Three of thesemuseums strike one as being as different as they could possibly be. Theseare the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, and the NationalGallery. Examining the uses and perceptions of the collections in these


museums may help us to understand the contradictions found in othermuseums.

The Science Museum is used as the example for museums of industryand machinery, where public enlightenment through the active demon-stration of scientific principles, sometimes employing objects, is theparamount objective.

The National Gallery is the art museum par excellence. Here, visualperception and the aesthetic experience reign; the object must speak foritself and it must be in such condition that nothing will interfere with theviewer’s experience.

The Natural History Museum stands as an exemplar for museumcollections that constitute archives of record. Many of its displays use notobjects but graphics, or three dimensional constructions and interactivecomputer screens, along with other interactive devices to put acrossconcepts and ideas. Nevertheless, it is a great research institution as wellas a museum, with collections of objects numbering tens of millions, andits activities go far beyond and have a deeper significance than its publicdisplays.

What makes these three institutions so different from each other, andfrom the other national museums? One fundamental difference is the sizeof their collections. The Natural History Museum holds about 70 millionobjects, the Science Museum 300,000 (leaving aside paper-based andphotographic collections), and the National Gallery some 2200. There isnaturally an inverse ratio between the size of the collections and theproportion on display. The National Gallery has all 2200 pictures onshow, the Science Museum shows about 10 per cent of its objects, and theNatural History Museum shows less than 0.1 per cent of its objects in itspublic galleries.

If the purposes for which these three museums hold collections arearranged around a triangle (Fig. 2.2), other museums can be placedwithin it (Fig. 2.3). For example, archaeological collections are like naturalhistory collections and like archives of documents: most of the objects arebeing kept as a source of scientifically valid evidence about the past. Inthe early days of Rescue, the archaeological pressure group, thedestruction of sites without excavation was often compared to tearing uphistorical manuscripts. Archaeological objects represent the last physicalremnants of ‘manuscripts’, which have been destroyed through excava-tion. For natural history and archaeological objects alike, as for archives,their context is all-important. Just as unbroken ownership must bedemonstrable for documents in an archive, so the connection of objectand context must be unimpeachable if these collections are to constitutereliable evidence. If conservation treatment or other physical interventionhas altered the nature of the object then its worth as evidence is severelydiminished.


The Science Museum:To demonstrate function

COLLECTIONSPURPOSE

The National History Museum:To be used as evidence

The National Gallery:To be displayed

Turning to picture collections, the purpose of these is overwhelminglyto provide a visual experience: they share with collections of furnitureand other objects a prime purpose of display for appreciation.

Collections where demonstration is the objective include many of thosein agricultural, industrial, and transport museums. One might add tothese, buildings themselves, since many historic buildings are used todemonstrate a past way of life and function. Particularly good examplesare those at the Welsh National Folk Museum (St. Fagans), and of courseNational Trust properties.


Fig. 2.2 The purposes of museum collections

Fig. 2.3 Types of museum versus the purposes for which they hold collections

However, museums in general are moving towards the demonstrationparadigm, as they strive to involve people and make use of theirsubstantial collections resources. Calls to create access to collections are avague but important indication of policy that says that collections are fora purpose, and that if they are not on display then their usefulness mustbe demonstrated in other ways, whether through digitization or throughopen or accessible storage. Collections that are primarily archives ofevidence will not lend themselves to this approach; they are not inthemselves attractive and may need a strong and cogent defence.

Implications for museum management

The divergent uses which museums make of their collections naturallyhave far-reaching consequences for the preservation of the collections andthe nature of the conservation activities devoted to them. Although thosewho run museums are obviously aware of the differences between them,there is little acknowledgement that the divergence is so fundamental.Certainly the public is not aware of the differences in approach. This isregularly demonstrated in government reports and policies; for examplethe UK Auditor General’s report in 1987, and in 1999, the UK Departmentfor Culture Media and Sport’s performance indicator for ‘proportion ofcollections on display’ – clearly a meaningless statistic for manyimportant collections.

Most museums do not, of course, conform closely to any one of thesethree paradigms. They will be somewhere in the middle of the triangle.Nothing in a museum collection was actually designed to be there (exceptpossibly by hopeful or well-known artists). Especially in the case of localhistory, or social history museums, different parts of their collections willfollow different models, or be required to serve more than one purpose atonce. The various curators responsible for the different collections willtend to base their approach on that of their role model, the correspondingnational museum. It is not surprising that the individuals concerned,such as art curators or archaeology curators, often find it difficult to sharea common approach within one institution. They are likely to fundament-ally disagree on what a proper museum ought to be doing, and thisdisagreement will probably not be recognized as such.

Implications for preservation

The demonstration approach will have especially important consequencesfor the preservation of collections, if by ‘collections’ one meansassemblages of real, historic, objects. This has been well explored by PeterMann, using as examples the treatment of historic cars (Mann, 1989). Ifobjects are likely to end up partly or even entirely as replicas then why not


resolve the dilemma by building accurate replicas in the first place? Thereare many other possible approaches, such as creating special handling orteaching collections not intended for permanent preservation. TheMuseums and Galleries Commission’s Standards for the care of larger andworking objects proposed ways of resolving this dilemma, for example bydeciding ahead of time a point at which an original object would no longerbe operated because of wear and the need for replacement parts.

The effects of the display approach can be just as destructive asdemonstration. Objects can only be displayed if they are lit, and lightfalling on an object causes fading and other damage. Deterioration is notperceived to be happening, however. It happens slowly, and we can retainonly imperfect memories of images and colours, and so we cannotcompare the present state of a picture with what it was like in the past.Art curators and critics are often unwilling to accept that pictures shouldbe displayed at low or controlled light levels. To them, their collectionsexist for display. But the image, which is the point of the display and thesource of the experience, is almost certain to be drastically altered if it isexposed to sufficient light energy. Fading is completely irreversible anddestructive of the object’s nature and is one of the greatest catastrophesthat can befall an object.

Preservation is more likely to rule the day when a collection is held asan archive. There are often millions of objects in collections like thesehowever – natural history specimens, paper, or archaeology archives.They take much up-front investment to organize and inventory, and areexpensive in storage materials, which must all be of archival quality. Onceorganized, however, they require little upkeep, and because the aim is tomaintain them as unchanged evidence they need the minimum ofremedial conservation treatment.

The push for access – accessible collections storage – is sometimes seenas compromising the preservation of objects. Yet the necessary improve-ments to storage buildings and conditions are likely to far outweigh anydisadvantages of slight changes in humidity or light exposure.

Museum users and their needs

So far only the attitudes of the holders of the collections, the museumprofessionals, have been discussed, but what about the users, the public?

People are becoming both more and less sophisticated in what theyexpect of museums. On the one hand, there are many shows, such as theVictoria and Albert’s Grinling Gibbons and Art Nouveau exhibitions, andthe overwhelming success of Tate Modern, that demonstrate thatsubstantial numbers of people want and enjoy a detailed, accurate,academic and scientific treatment of objects. McGregor (1999) has put up


an eloquent defence of the serious approach, which can only be providedby preserving objects as evidence. On the other hand, the growth ofsimulated historical experience exhibits, science experiences such as theScience Museum’s Wellcome Wing and La Villette in Paris, and other‘demonstration’ museums, indicates the reverse – that many people wantmuseums primarily as entertainment. Perhaps it is simply that peoplewant a wide range of education and entertainment, which is beingprovided by all these different museums, and above all they wantsomething new.

The public is also said to want access to collections. New developmentssuch as the Oxford County Museum Service’s Standlake Store and theLondon Transport Museum’s accessible store are designed expressly forvisits. Large object collections like the Science Museum’s at WroughtonAirfield are opened regularly for the same purpose.

There are a great variety of collections users and uses, from scholars toprimary school children; from film producers to learned societies.Obviously, some users will want to benefit from the collections in oneway, some another. Scholars will want to use the collections as evidence;film producers will be after objects for demonstration. Is there in fact aconflict between the short-term wishes of one particular set of users andthe hypothetical needs of other future possible users? Perhaps not:Resource’s report, Renaissance in the regions (2001), criticizes those whochampion preservation at all costs with no idea what it is for. Howeverthe report also sees the collections as major assets needing proper care ifthey are to be useful and accessible, and it recognizes that these functions,like regional museums generally, are drastically undefended.

Shifting priorities

Pressures for accountability in museums counterbalance the pressure forshort-term service objectives. In the UK this is exerted by regulatorybodies such as the National Audit Office, QUEST (the standards body forthe government Department for Culture, Media and Sport) and the AuditCommission for local government. The collections are, in the end, apublicly owned resource. In the USA the National Park Service has astrong accountability role. Again in the UK, the museum registrationscheme is placing an emphasis on the preservation and archive functionof museums.

In the USA, as so often, there is more open and vigorous debate on theimportance of caring for collections, and this has even occasionally beenpursued in the courts. It has been demonstrated there that concepts such as‘due care’, ‘fiduciary responsibility’, and ‘standards in the industry’ can beapplied just as well to the responsibility of museums to preserve theircollections as to the activities of many other institutions (Weil, 1983b).


Conservation and preservation, however, like museums themselves,are not universally seen as a good thing. Conservation in museums isoften perceived as being puritanical and restrictive, insisting on preserva-tion at the expense of natural enjoyment and use.

Conserve or restore?

The distinction here may be invisible to most members of the public (unlessthey are art critics), but it can be the subject of quite intense debate withinmuseums (Pye, 2001). At one pole are those who support the minimalistapproach to conservation – do as little as possible – at the other, there arethose who wish to restore the object to working order, replace parts, andrepaint it. In the first case, only the work which is essential to thepreservation of the object is undertaken, and additions are clearlydistinguished from the original; in the second the object is made to look likeand function as new. The private sector (whether independent museums,private collectors, private conservators or restorers) is often identified asthe ‘restoration’ camp. These issues are discussed from a variety ofviewpoints in the papers from a workshop on the conservation of scientificinstruments (IMSS, 2000). A rare example of this debate surfacing publiclywas a court case held in 1989, when Edward Hubbard refused to honour acontract he had entered into to purchase a vintage Bentley because heconsidered the car to have been so heavily restored that it was no longergenuine. (In fact, he lost the case, though this was because he was held tohave known about its state before he bought the car.)

When particular courses of action are debated for a particular object,the greatest number of options is left open if each party has the right ofveto in favour of the option that affects the original nature of the objectleast. More thorough replacement, more extensive restoration can alwaysbe done later; but once original parts have been removed or altered thenthey can never be recovered. Objects, which have been restored to asupposed earlier state, are objects where someone else has alreadydecided what they looked like. The collections of the Science Museumprovide many examples of the consequence of a past policy of thoroughrestoration. Objects now being prepared for exhibition or loan, or just forpreservation, are often found to have been in the past repainted in themuseum workshops, to have had parts replaced or re-engineered. TheScience Museum for the present adopts a strictly conservation policy,although it is likely that this will from time to time be reviewed. It wasawarded a National Conservation Award prize in recognition of itsconservation stance for work on its 1895 Panhard et Levassor car.

The minimalist approach to conservation is the one that leaves thewidest range of options open for other and future uses of the collections.Perhaps because of the rise of theme parks and heritage experiences,


perhaps because of active advocacy by the conservation profession,perhaps because of awareness of the need for authenticity in mattersvirtual, museums do seem to be more conscious of their preservation role.If they give up on their collections as the real thing what have they left astheir defining characteristic?


Conservation and museums

The national and international scene

In some countries, overviews of the preservation and conservation ofcollections are maintained at a national level. In Canada, the CanadianConservation Institute was established to do just this, to provide adviceto all Canadian museums, to develop standards, to research treatmentsand causes of deterioration, and also to provide conservation services. Itcontinues to operate successfully, although it is now required to raiseincome from charges for publications and services. The Dutch govern-ment famously instigated the Delta Plan in 1991, in which the entirepublicly owned national collections were surveyed and categorized, andbasic collections care undertaken (van Dijken et al, 2001; Cannon-Brookes,1994). A national conservation centre has now been established for theNetherlands. In Australia, the Heritage Collections Council takes anational overview of an interesting combination of digitization andconservation, and has published a national policy for conservation (CMC,1995). The USA has had a network of subsidized regional conservationcentres since the 1950s (Winsor, 1998). The UK has seen a series of surveysof conservation needs and conservators comprehensively reviewed, anddescribed by Winsor (1998). For a time the UK had a government fundedconservation centre that provided advocacy and advice, and ran a registerof recognized conservators, but that has now ceased.

Internationally, the Conservation Committee is by far the largestspecialist committee of the International Council of Museums (ICOM). Itholds triennial conferences for its twelve or thirteen specialist conserva-tion groups and these are major drivers of conservation research anddevelopment, and of international communication. The InternationalCommittee for Conservation (IIC) publishes a professional journal andholds biennial conferences on a particular theme. Most countries withmuseum provision have national conservation groups or committees.

Codes and ethics

Various organizations concerned with heritage define conservation intheir statutes and instruments of government (Bell, 1997; Sease 1998).Definitions and guidelines for conservation in museums centre around

two themes: first, the nature of the work carried out on objects,conservation versus restoration; and secondly, the role of the conservatoror other agent charged with carrying out the work.

The Burra Charter, drawn up by the Australian International Commit-tee on Sites and Monuments (ICOMOS, undated), refers to the conserva-tion of sites and the built heritage. Its principles can well be applied toother areas of material heritage:

1.4 Conservation means all the processes of looking after a placeso as to retain its cultural significance. It includes maintenanceand may according to circumstance include preservation,restoration, reconstruction, and adaptation and will be com-monly a combination of more than one of these.

1.5 Maintenance means the continuous protective care of thefabric, contents, and setting of a place, and is to be dis-tinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or recon-struction and it should be treated accordingly.

1.6 Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in itsexisting state and retarding deterioration.

1.7 Restoration means returning a place as nearly as possible to aknown earlier state and is distinguished by the introduction ofmaterials (new or old) into the fabric. This is not to be confusedwith either re-creation or conjectural reconstruction, which areoutside the scope of this charter.

2.1 . . . cultural significance means ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific orsocial value for past, present or future generations’.

Article 2. The aim of conservation is to retain the culturalsignificance of a place and must include provision for itssecurity, its maintenance, and its future.

Each of these definitions draws a clear distinction between preservationand restoration. It should be noted that the Burra Charter takes accountof the cultural context of the object (site or building) and all conservationdecisions must be based on this information. These issues are very wellreviewed by Elizabeth Pye (Pye, 2001: Chs 4 and 6).

Professional roles

A book on conservation management would be dull without a discussionof the actors in the situation – the professionals involved. Strife between


conservators and curators is said to be traditional. Curators are felt to bedefending a power base, symbolized by the object, which they feelconservators are attacking. They do not like to feel that they have to askthe permission of conservators to acquire or display or loan an object (or,indeed, of education staff in designing an exhibition).

Conservators are in general highly educated, well trained, profession-ally organized, and confident. Conservators are expected to possess ablend of historic and scientific knowledge, manual dexterity, and craftskills that must be extremely rare in employment in the twenty-firstcentury. Not only that, but they are also expected to be good at managingtasks, resources, and people. Until the arrival of collections managers,conservators were the only group in museums other than the curators,which had objects at the centre of its work and training.

Curators, historically, have been the most powerful and best-paid castein the museum working community. But division of labour betweenindividuals with differing expertise is one of the characteristics ofworkplace organization in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Asmuseums have grown, their collections have grown, and their public hasbecome more demanding, other disciplines have been employed toundertake some of the tasks formerly performed by curators, or undertheir direction – designers, educationalists, administrators, conservators,and latterly, registrars and collections managers. Curators have at thesame time lost the automatic right to the top jobs in museums. Thedirector of the Natural History Museum was before that a universityacademic; of the National Maritime Museum, a serving officer in theRoyal Navy; of the National Museums of Wales, a conservator.

Of course, there is a huge variation in the nature of jobs labelled‘curator’; it is often used almost in an ethnic sense, when people refer to‘curators’ collectively. In small museums, the person who does every-thing is likely to be called the curator. They would probably commentthat doing everything does not necessarily make one powerful or wellpaid. It is only in large museums that there are enough staff for a rangeof professional specialists to be employed. The word may in fact haveoutlived its usefulness. The Victoria and Albert Museum’s director,Elizabeth Esteve-Coll, ran into trouble over this suggestion, of course, inher failed attempt to re-badge the curators as researchers. Ironically, ahundred yards away in the Natural History Museum, collections staffhave specialized, but it is the ‘curators’ who are the underclass,performing collections management functions, while the powerful groupare the research scientists.

Museums as organizations are social constructs, and the people whorun them form a working community. What those people decide to do,and how they perceive their roles, will have far more influence on thenature of the museum, what it does, and the services it provides than will


any mission statement or management philosophy. Handy has describeddifferent organizational cultures (1996). He sees four types of organiza-tional culture, each personified as one of the Greek gods (the gods ofmanagement) – the power culture (Zeus), the role culture (Apollo), thetask culture (Athene), and the people culture (Dionysus). Different workgroups may well have different perceptions of organizational culture, andit may be that curators see themselves in terms of a steady stateApollonian role culture, or possibly as unmanaged Dionysian stars, whileconservators, relatively newly arrived entrepreneurial team players, actas efficient, busy, task orientated Athenians.

The earlier view of relationships is depicted in Figure 6.3. On the onehand is the conservator, who really likes working on individual objects atthe bench. The conservator is swamped with requests from curators forobjects to be conserved. The work is being undertaken for curators’ high-profile activities, for which the conservator will gain little credit. Theconservator is worrying about the state of the stored collections, andthinks they would be better shut away in darkness.

On the other side of the diagram are curators. They are defending acastle that is being undermined by conservators and others. Presidingover the scene are government departments, who prefer to providefunding for exhibitions and not for stores and collections care. At thebottom of the heap are the visitors, who are oblivious to the dramas beingenacted in the rest of the organization.

This is a caricature, of course, and it is in many ways becomingoutdated. The sheer scale of the tasks involved in preserving hugecollections has meant that in many organizations conservators areplaying a more proactive management role, and playing it very well. TheNational Trust, the Museum of London, most of the national museums,all expect this.

Few people are politically incorrect enough to attack conservators inprint, while it seems to be open field to attack curators:

Why, for example, nearly half a century after the importance ofdocumentation and retrieval systems was first widely understoodand accepted in the domain, are curators still complaining aboutlack of adequate collections data and information?

(Resource, 2001: p. 74)

In general we [curators] do not really apply the concept ofcollections research, which illuminates the objects, and givesperspectives, which on the one hand can guide us towardsselectivity rather than random in gathering, and on the other opensnew paths of knowledge.

(Fenton, 1992)


In the past, access to collections and interpretation of them has beentightly controlled by a curatorial caste. In the future, this willchange: controllers will become facilitators, and connoisseurs willbecome educators.

(Resource, 2001: p. 46)

What should be the role of curators? Few (though some) would still claimto be the surrogate owner of the collections, king of all they survey.Curating an exhibition has become a glamorous and high profile thing todo. It seems obvious that curators should be the knowledge bearers, thepeople who know the history of the collections and objects and what theysignify. Without that, the collections are nothing; they might as well be thecontents of a junk shop. But the collections have to be accessible, and theknowledge and information has to be available to all.

It seems best to leave the last word on this to Julian Spalding, museumdirector. He has explicitly recognized the turf wars that exist betweenconservators and curators. His remedy is very simple: conservatorsshould have total responsibility for, and charge of, the physicalcollections, and curators should stop seeing themselves as the owners ofthe collections and concentrate on understanding how to communicatewith the public. Conservators should be responsible not just for keepingthe object safe, but for making it safely accessible, too (Spalding, 1999).

The fatal triangle

The relationship of the professional to the object is another focus ofconflict. There are countless examples of conservators past and undoubt-edly present doing things to objects that have damaged them or alteredthem in undesirable ways. These are matched by curators insisting onexactly this sort of work being done, or on displaying objects inconditions in which damage is certain. The curator adopts a role ofpseudo-ownership; the conservator, that of carer, almost parent. Ashley-Smith has discussed the way in which conservators personify objects(1982: Ch. 1). On a rational level, curators may justifiably be concernedthat their proper concern and responsibilities for the object may beoverlooked, and conservators, that their careful and painstaking workwill be wasted due to careless handling or inappropriate storage ordisplay. A situation needing a rare degree of trust and communicationfrom both sides, indeed!

When a conservator works on an object it is entirely within their power,intentionally or unintentionally, whatever the specification for the workmay have been, to alter it in many drastic and fundamental ways.Cannon-Brookes proposed some years ago that the curator was responsi-ble for ‘what’ should be done, the conservator merely ‘how’ (1976). This


proposition is unsustainable. ‘What’ must depend on a diagnosis of whatis the matter, and this diagnosis depends on the skill of the conservator.Curators may wish to control the ‘what’, but in the real world the onlyeffective way to do this is through the wide promulgation of an agreedsystem of ethics. Practitioners have a right to a say in what they do; forexample, they are entitled to set and maintain professional standards(Ashley Smith, 1982).

What should be the functions of the participants in this triangle? Thereare two separate bodies of knowledge and areas of responsibility, andthey exist because museum objects exist in two metaphorical dimensions:the physical dimension, and the intellectual or information dimension. Ifthe object’s existence in either dimension is damaged, then the other,sooner or later, will be affected also. Conservators should have expertknowledge of the physical existence of the object: diagnosis of ills and ofthe alternative treatments available, the effects that a particular treatmentwill have, of its likely success, of the risks it carries, and of the ways inwhich it may affect the object’s historic integrity and authenticity; theymust communicate this knowledge. The curator must know whatconstitutes the intellectual dimension of the object: why is it in thecollection, what is significant about it, and why it is like it is. Both thesefields of expertise should be brought to bear in deciding what should bedone to the object and both participants have a duty to make sure thatthey acquire and maintain the necessary knowledge. And eitherprofessional party should have the right to veto active conservationintervention in favour of passive maintenance of the object, as discussedabove.

What is conservation?

It is often more productive to concentrate on what needs to be done,rather on principles and processes. (Perhaps this is an Athenian taskorientated conservator writing here!) The conservator is supposed to bethe expert in maintaining the physical dimension of the object, how toretard deterioration and remedy its effects, but how is this done?

The survey of conservators and facilities carried out by UKIC in 1987established the amount of time conservators spent then on variousactivities (see Table 2.1) (Corfield et al., 1997). It is likely, however, that thebalance of time differs between conservators employed in museums andthose working in private practice. It also seems likely that more time is nowspent on various aspects of managing preservation and collections care.However, the table gives a flavour of how conservation time may be spent.

The book published by the Getty Conservation Institute, The nature ofconservation: a race against time, discusses the crucial role that science playsin conservation, the rigorous training required, the nature of conservation


services, and the role of the conservator and their colleagues (Ward, 1986).Gignac in reviewing this work discovers ‘the multiple aspects ofconservation, a subtle and complex process, that can be as varied andbrilliantly fascinating as there are past and present cultures on earth, andyet, simultaneously, as practical and straightforward as good house-keeping’ (Gignac, 1988).

The processes of conservation have so many facets that it is difficult toconvey the full range of knowledge and skill that is included, from thediagnosing of chemical decay or hidden physical stress; the patient,painstaking removal of dirt, soil or corrosion to reveal the soul, thoughnot often the exact original appearance of the object; the surveying ofwhole collections to find out which of their members are the mostvulnerable and the weakest; the monitoring of the environment and theunderstanding of the subtle influence of the results; and the constantcommunication, diplomatic negotiation and persuasion necessary inorder to represent the object’s best interests. It is this great variety ofactivities, skills, and work that must be represented in the informationand understanding needed to manage conservation.

References

Ashley-Smith, J. (1982). The ethics of conservation. The Conservator, 6, 1–5.Australia ICOMOS (undated). The charter for the conservation of places of cultural

significance (The Burra Charter). Australia International Committee on Sites andMonuments.

Bell, D. (1997). Guide to international conservation charters. Technical Advice Note 8.Edinburgh, Historic Scotland.


Table 2.1 Proportion of work time spent by conservators on different activities(from Corfield et al., 1987)

% of work time

Conservation treatment and documentation 55Technical and scientific examination 13Teaching 5Display 5Conservation research 5Environmental control and monitoring 4Photography 3Enquiries from the public 3Supervising volunteers 2Casting, and other methods of reproducing objects 1Curatorial activities 1

Bennett, T. (1995) The birth of the museum: history, theory, and politics. London:Routledge.

Cannon-Brookes, P. (1976). The art curator and the conservator. Museums Journal75, 161–162.

Cannon-Brookes, P. (1994). The ‘Delta Plan’ for the preservation of culturalheritage in the Netherlands. Museum Management and Curatorship, 12,303–307.

CMC (1995). National Conservation and Preservation Policy. Cultural MinistersCouncil, Australia.

Corfield, M., Keene, S. et al., eds (1987). The survey. London: UKIC.English Tourist Board, 2001. TIPS: the Tourism Industry Professionals Site. URL:

http://ips.bta.org.uk/ (Accessed: July 2001).Fenton, S. (1992). Collections research: local, national, and international per-

spectives. In Manual of curatorship (J. Thompson, ed.) Ch. 49. Second edition.Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Gignac, G. (1988). Book review: The nature of conservation. Journal of IIC CanadianGroup, 13, 32–34.

Handy, C. (1996). Gods of management. Oxford: OUP.Hewison, R. (1987). The heritage industry. London: Methuen.IMSS (2000). Scientific instruments: appearance and evidence. Papers from a workshop,

the restoration of scientific instruments, Florence, 1998. Florence: Istituto e Museo diStoria della Scienza.

ICOM (1990). Statutes. Paris, International Council of Museums.Kenyon, J. (1992). Collecting for the 21st century. A survey of industrial and social

history collections in the museums of Yorkshire and Humberside. Leeds: Yorkshireand Humberside Museums Service.

Mann, P.R. (1989). Working exhibits and the destruction of evidence in the ScienceMuseum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 8, 369–387.

McGregor, N. (1999). Scholarship and the public. In Collections management (A.Fahy, ed.). London: Routledge.

Merriman, N. (1991). Beyond the glass case. Leicester: Leicester University Press.MGC (1992). Museums matter. London: Museums and Galleries Commission.MORI (2001). Visitors to museums and galleries in the UK. Research study conducted for

Resource. London: Resource.Myerscough, J. (1988). The economic importance of the arts in Britain. London: Policy

Studies Institute.Pye, E. (2001). Caring for the past: issues in conservation for archaeology and museums.

London: James and James.Resource, 2001. Renaissance in the regions: a new vision for England’s museums.

London: Resource.Sease, C. (1998). Codes of ethics for conservation. International Journal of Cultural

Property, 7, 98–114.Spalding, J. (1999). Creative management in museums. In Management in museums

(K. Moore, ed). London: Athlone Press.van Dijken, K. et al. (2001). Management and conservation in the Dutch Delta: the

Delta Plan for the preservation of the cultural heritage evaluated. Zoetermeer, 100bv:Institute for Research on Public Expenditure.


Ward, P. (1986). The nature of conservation: a race against time. Marina del Rey Ca:Getty Conservation Institute.

Weil, S.E. (1983a). Beauty and the beasts. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Weil, S.E. (1983b). Breaches of trust: remedies and standards in the Americanprivate art museum. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship, 2, 53–70.

Wilson, Sir D. (1989). The British Museum: purpose and politics. London: BritishMuseum Publications.

Winsor, P. (1998). Conservation in the United Kingdom. Cultural Trends, 33,3–34.


3 Management and information

In this chapter, the development of general management thinking and theplace of information in it are reviewed. Important approaches arediscussed. The climate for management in museums is described; as inother areas of the public services, it is subject to rapid and acceleratingchanges. This has had deep and far-reaching effects on the ways in whichmuseums manage their affairs and on how the different professionalsinvolved perceive their roles.

Views from general management studies

Management theories

Management theories are a great source of income for consultants and forthe business schools that supply them. The management guru is a well-recognized species. However cynical we may feel, however, some peoplehave analysed and described organizations and the ways in which theywork in ways that do offer helpful insights. Museums really are quitecomplex organizations. Conservation is at the cusp of several differentfunctions, and it can be helpful to be aware of these perceptions.

Many different views have been developed to explain the complexityof organizations, and how people can best be managed to obtain thedesired results (Clutterbuck and Crainer, 1990). Machiavelli wrote on themanagement of states in the fifteenth century and is still frequentlyquoted today. There have been a number of specific approaches tomanagement during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Taylor, in theearly 1900s, developed the theory of ‘scientific management’, a view ofworkers as mechanical parts of the production machine, in whichphysical work is separated from any mental interpretation. He concen-trated on the extremely precise specification of work as a number ofseparate tasks that led to the production line, work-study, and piecework.Henri Fayol, who depicted organizations in terms of hierarchical linemanagement, accountability, and structures, originated the term ‘bureau-cracy’. In America, in the Second World War, operations research (also

known as management science) developed in the Rand Corporation as away of controlling highly complex defence development projects. Inoperations research, quantitative models are applied to solve organiza-tional problems. Other views of management have been the humanrelations approach, the systems approach, and the contingency/situa-tional approach. Latterly we have seen business process engineering, atranslation of Taylor’s approach into modern terms.

At present in the UK the prevalent climate is for the hard numbers-and objective-based approaches implied by targets, performance indica-tors, and measurement (some would say obsessive measurement).These views of the world are termed ‘hard’ as opposed to ‘soft’ becausethey are based on the assumption that the world and the organizationswe have established are ultimately rational and understandable, andthat if we can apply a sophisticated enough analysis we will be able tocontrol them. There is a strong groundswell of other, ‘soft’ approaches,which reject this view. They take as their basis the assumption that theworld is too complex to be controlled or even predicted in any generalsense; what is important are the perceptions, interactions and motiva-tion of people, of values and of ongoing sustainable relationships.Advocates of these approaches point to the law of unintended con-sequences, which guarantees that something unexpected will resultfrom whatever measure one puts in place.

Some of today’s most influential management writers include CharlesHandy from the UK who provides a comprehensive look at organiza-tions and their functions (Understanding organizations, 1993), and PeterDrucker (The practice of management, 1999, first published in 1954). Bothhave tackled the complexities of not-for-profit organizations (Drucker,Managing the non-profit organization, 1995; Handy, Understanding volun-tary organizations, 1990). Henry Mintzberg’s writings on strategy (1992,1994) are always enlightening and his book Structure in fives will helpthose interested in organizational structures to understand some of theroots of the complexity of relationships in museums. Morgan exploressome of the metaphors used to explain organizations such as themachine, the brain, the system, etc. (Morgan, 1986). Handy’s moregeneral books are always interesting, for example, in Gods of manage-ment many personae from museums may be recognized (Handy,1996).

Management: different views

It is easy to assume that there is only one view of what sort ofmanagement brings success, and that people all share the same concerns– those that one holds one’s self, naturally. But of course people aredifferent; some are motivated by the wish for interest and self-fulfilment

Management and information 33

in their job, others do the job just to make a living, and place their maincommitment outside work. Both may be valuable to the organization, butthe adoption of crude measures such as performance related pay assumesthat everyone shares the second viewpoint. The first group of people maywell feel insulted by the implication that pay is the primary motivator forthem.

The overwhelming tenor of what we come across in daily life, innewspapers, television, and conversation is that tough managementbased on measurable objectives and short-term targets is what getsresults. This viewpoint is far from universally held. For example, in theirbook, The seven cultures of capitalism, Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars(1994) discuss the results of surveys into the attitudes of upper-middlemanagers in countries ranging from the USA, the UK, Germany, France,and the Far East (Singapore and Japan). Some examples of their resultsthat may surprise are:

A company, besides making profit, has a goal of attaining the wellbeing of various stakeholders, such as employees, customers, etc.

or:

The only real goal of a company is making profit

Agreement with the second statement ranged from 40 per cent in theUSA, 33 per cent in the UK, 24 per cent in Germany, to 8 per cent inJapan.

A company is a group of people working together. The people havesocial relations with other people and with the organization. Thefunctioning is dependent on these relations.

or:

A company is a system designed to perform functions and tasks inan efficient way. People are hired to fulfil these functions with thehelp of machines and other equipment. They are paid for the tasksthey perform.

Agreement with the second statement ranged from 75 per cent in theUSA, 55 per cent in the UK, 41 per cent in Germany, to 29 per cent inJapan.

Would you prefer a job, in which no one is singled out for personalhonour, but in which everyone works together.


or:

A job in which personal initiatives are encouraged and individualinitiatives are achieved.

There was a range of preference for the second statement: 97 per cent inthe USA, 90 per cent in the UK, 84 per cent in Germany, and 39 per centin Singapore.

If an individual has worked well for an organization for manyyears, but their performance has recently fallen badly belowstandards, they should be dismissed

In the USA 77 per cent agreed with this statement, compared to 42 percent in the UK, 31 per cent in Germany, and 19 per cent in Korea.

Analytical planning and strategy might be thought to be key to thesesuccessful hard approaches, but there are very different opinions, too, onthis. Mintzberg and Quinn (1992) richly illustrate this with a wide rangeof articles. The highly numbers-based, conscious strategy process mightbe expected to win every time, but Mintzberg’s own research shows thatmanagers in real life in fact spend hardly any time in reflective,systematic planning. Some fabled examples of commercial success havebeen the result not of deliberate strategy but of luck and entrepreneurialinstinct. For instance, the introduction of Honda motorcycles in the USA,which went on to rapidly capture the market there, occurred throughJapanese business people going to the USA themselves to set up theirmarketing operation and noting and quickly responding to whathappened there (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1994).

Systems views

A number of people look at organizations as systems. This is the mainapproach taken in this book. Writers on systems include Stafford Beer,with a cybernetics theory of organizations (1994), and Peter Checklandwith seminal books on soft systems including Soft systems methodology inaction (1999).

The systems approach is a whole intellectual view of the world,important to the development of management and of managementinformation. It was developed in acknowledgement that scientificreductionism was not adequate for the understanding of complexbiological and organizational problems. The scientific approach dom-inates research methods in Western thinking. In it, the aim is tounderstand the whole by studying each of its component parts. Yet in thereal world of people, organizations, and the environment, this can lead toa short term blinkered view, which focuses on a particular problem


without understanding how it is related to the context in which we allhave to live, and the catastrophic consequences well known fromenvironmental studies.

A management fad of the 1990s, business process re-engineering, was avariation on the systems approach. Organizations were analysed in arigidly logical manner, without the broader insights of the moreinvestigative systems methodologies. Some people now perceive businessprocess re-engineering as a crude tool for bringing about rapid costreduction without necessarily leading to a better functioning organization.

Information in management

The first edition of this book had the foresight to focus on information formanaging. More and more, the provision and flow of information, andaccess to it, is seen as fundamentally important to organizations. Theemphasis in management information is regrettably still on producingnumbers to describe and account for performance. There is still a gapbetween these figures and their interpretation and consequent action toaddress the problems they may reveal. It is relatively simple to requirefigures to be produced, much more difficult to understand what they tellus and to manage effective action. The general poor state of publicservices in the UK, for example, comes after two decades or more of aregime of numerical performance indicators, inspections, and centralistmanagement.

Missions and objectives

If management-by-numbers is not the recipe for success, should thenumbers be discarded? Views are often expressed that numbers, andinformation, are useful, if they are used in the service of what could becalled ‘management by corporate values’. Mission statements have beenalmost universally adopted as the way in which organizations should dothis. Management information, especially at a strategic level, is increas-ingly directed towards serving the mission statement and the objectivesderived from it. Peters and Waterman (1995), however, noted thatnumbers alone are not sufficient. They point to the overriding necessity to‘Figure out your value system. Decide what your company stands for’. Avalue system is not, of course, the same as a set of objectives.

Excellence and quality

Studies of how organizations operate in the Japanese economy, for longone of the most successful in the developed world, reinforced awareness


that numbers alone are not sufficient. For example, Ohmae (1991)contrasts the then prevalent management approach in the USA, stronglybusiness school, and numbers based, with that in Japan. But at the sametime he emphasizes that ‘No proper business strategy can be built onfragmentary knowledge or analysis . . . analytical method and mentalelasticity . . . are complementary’. Imai (1989) expounds the concepts of‘KAIZEN’, an all-embracing value system devoted to total quality.Analytical information is vital, but only as a tool in its application. It is anAmerican, W.E. Deming, who is credited with laying the foundations ofthe quality approach. Deming was brought to Japan in the early 1960s ata time when Japanese technology had lost its reputation for high qualityand innovative engineering, and Japanese goods were synonymous withcheap-and-nasty. Deming’s approach is closely allied to KAIZEN,described by Imai. It has been imported back from the East to the West ina less effective form as ‘Total Quality Management’, or TQM (Munro-Faure and Munro-Faure, 1992).

Interestingly, much of the current quantitative approach would beinimical to W.E. Deming (Aguayo, 1990). He identified five ‘DeadlyDiseases’ in Western management style:

1 A lack of constancy of purpose.2 Emphasis on short-term goals (especially profits).3 Evaluation of performance, merit rating, or annual review.4 Mobility of management.5 Management only by the use of visible figures with no consideration

for unknown figures.

In Total Quality Management, every operation in an organization isanalysed. For each, details of where work input comes from and what isrequired (i.e. the suppliers to the operation), and where work output goesto and what is required (i.e. where are its customers, and what do theyneed) are recorded. Improvements are effected until each piece of workneeds to be done only once, and reaches its customer, whether internal orexternal, perfectly correct and on time. Adopting Total Quality Manage-ment can be expensive; it requires the commitment of the entireorganization from top to bottom. Its adherents claim impressive success;its detractors, that the quality management assurance process only looksat the paper record, not at the actual quality of goods and services, andhence is a bureaucratic waste of time and money.

The basic philosophies of quality management have a lot to recom-mend them, but they spawn facile derivatives such as the Citizens’Charter, or the Quality Assurance Agency inspections of higher educationestablishments. These quick fix methods appeal to the short term,simplistic viewpoints of politicians. They have a number of drawbacks.


They simply address outcomes and not causes. They depend on outsideteams of ‘experts’ parachuting in, giving judgement, and going away.Thirdly, they rely on enormous mountains of paper being produced, mostof which is ignored once the inspection is over. The Best Value approachto local government quality assurance seems better founded; it seeks fora process to be put in place and judgement to be made by those whobenefit from services.

Performance measurement

The use of performance indicators is widespread by governmentseverywhere. Despite the problems inherent in objectives and manage-ment-by-numbers, government interest in the measurement of museumperformance is a reflection of current intense concern with the measure-ment and assessment of performance in public service functionsgenerally.

Most writers on strategic management deal with performance indica-tors as a means of monitoring whether plans are being achieved. Theymay be envisaged as a component in a control loop: plan, implement,monitor, correct performance, and then revisit plan. One of Peters andWaterman’s top ‘prescriptions’ (1995) is ‘Measure what’s important’.Interestingly, ‘. . . what’s important’ is by no means necessarily financial.Handy (1990) says that organizations should have a vision, a set ofspecific tasks, and a set of measures, which will indicate what successmeans in each task. The Best Value programme being applied to localgovernment in the UK does incorporate some of the principles of effectivequality management (Audit Commission, 2000).

However, the hazards of an approach based on measuring performanceare also evident. In 1997 the incoming UK Labour government set a targetto reduce waiting times for hospital treatment in the National HealthService. Ministers seemed to be unable to predict what duly happened:that hospitals would learn to hit their targets either by not letting peopleonto the waiting list in the first place, or by treating large numbers ofpatients with trivial complaints at the expense of those with more seriouscomplaints that would take longer to treat.

There is no doubt that it is difficult to find the right measures ofperformance for public service functions. Bowman and Asch (1987) onlydiscuss performance measures in the context of the conflicting objectivesand other awkward characteristics of this kind of organization. Whereoutputs, ‘effectiveness’, are not directly measurable then attention turnseither to the measurement and control of inputs, ‘efficiency’, or to proxymeasures – some aspect of the task that can be measured, such as thenumber of visitors to a museum. Handy observes, however, that ‘the hardoverrides the soft. Numbers matter . . . they had better therefore be the


right numbers’ (Handy, 1993). In the author’s experience, producinginformation that is truly relevant is just as elusive (and as expensive) aswhen Drucker wrote optimistically in 1954, in the first edition of Thepractice of management, that ‘Within a few years our knowledge of what tomeasure and our ability to do so should . . . be greatly increased’.

Performance can only be measured if objectives have been set. ButCheckland (1999) cites Vickers’ view of the barrenness and artificiality ofrational objectives as a model of the real-life social interaction thatconstitutes management:

In the cabinet, in boardrooms, in Trade Union branch meetings, oncommittees, and in our everyday life . . . the bulk of our activity isconcerned with establishing and modifying relationships throughtime, rather than seeking an endless series of ‘goals’, each of whichdisappears on attainment.

(Vickers, 1972)

There is, however, an important place for numerical measures, with thefollowing provisos: that they are honestly gathered and reported;externally audited; thoughtfully digested and interpreted; investigated tofully understand the causes of any deficiency; and finally, that findingsare acted upon. Cases such as incompetent hospitals or health care,gender inequality in pay, and more relevantly the standard of care ofpublic assets such as collections can only be addressed by collecting andacting upon numbers. However, Goodhardt’s law has to be borne inmind, that as soon as a measure is used as a target it ceases to be a validmeasure (see Chapter 10).

Not-for-profit organizations

Not-for-profit organizations like museums are often seen as tricky tounderstand. Museums are not businesses, and like much of the publicsector, their ‘products’ are hard to measure quantitatively. Number ofvisitors in through the door is one of the inputs; the real question is, whatis the outcome of their visit to the museum? Although much generalmanagement theory and writing is just as applicable to what isgenerically known as the ‘not-for-profit’ sector as to private firms, it isbusinesses which are offered overwhelmingly the most advice andexhortation. However, not-for-profit organizations have been receivingmore attention, as governments round the world apply what they see asthe forces for efficiency that exist in profit-making firms to the users ofpublic funding.

This often flies in the face of evidence that private sector managementis no guarantee of success, far from it. The most famous example is the


privatization of British Rail by the Conservative government, where thecompany formed to run the track was so incompetent that it eventuallycollapsed. Drucker and Handy address the special features of not-for-profit organizations in their respective books, Managing the non-profitorganization (1995) and Understanding voluntary organizations (1990).Bowman and Asch in their invaluable review, Strategic management (1987),tackle the problems of strategic management and decision-making inthese organizations. Difficulties derive from the structure of the organiza-tions, the workers in them (often professionals with greater allegiance totheir profession than to their employers), their complex, and conflictingobjectives, and the difficulty of objectively assessing performance.Museums are second to none in these features. Mintzberg (1994), The riseand fall of strategic planning, offers a typically sceptical and insightfulview.

The management of museums

The operating climate

Most sizable museums are in the public sector. In the past, market or atleast business-derived forces were engineered by government in the formof performance targets. Now museums in many countries are much moredirectly exposed to financial pressures arising from the changingeconomic climate. Their public funding has been cut and they arerequired to make up their income through commercial activities. Whilesome high profile large museums in cities, especially national museums,may be able to succeed in this, regional museums have far less ability todo so. They are also especially subject to pressures to put resources intoactivities for the public benefit and hence have less chance to generateincome. In the UK loss of their local government funding has severelydamaged regional museums (Resource, 2001). Museums could helpthemselves by being more responsive to local agendas and more effectivein delivering them, as museums in Glasgow and Tyne and Wear haveshown, but local governments increasingly have to make choices betweenfunding them or statutory duties such as education or health.

In some other countries such as the USA museums welcome the adventof private or commercial funding, which they consider to be much morereliable than government funding once their commercial capability hasbeen developed.

For those interested in changes to the management and governance ofUK museums from the 1980s onwards, an excellent review is given inthe series of articles by Allden and Ellis (1990, 1991a and b). The RaynorScrutinies of the Victoria and Albert and the Science Museum in 1981–2,which were primarily concerned with reducing waste in public


expenditure, were followed in the mid-1980s by the ‘Financial Manage-ment Initiative’. Important features of the Financial Management Initia-tive are delegated financial control, and the development of outputindicators and performance measures. The introduction of corporateplans for museums, investigations, and reports by the Audit Commis-sion (1991) and the Comptroller and Auditor General (1988), and theintroduction of performance indicators for the national museums by theOffice of Arts and Libraries were further developments of the FinancialManagement Initiative.

The arrival of the National Lottery and the Heritage Lottery Funddramatically changed the financial climate for capital investment, andmany museums have been able to address building related problems.Income for maintenance, including the collections, is still a concern, sincethis funding tends to be for new and indeed additional buildings.

National museums

The national museums are worth particular examination, because theyare in many ways subject to the most direct pressure to conform togovernment policies. Since they are relatively well protected financially,they have the resources to implement these policies in their managementand organization. Pressure on accountability has been exercised by theCivil Service mechanisms generally, by the government itself through thevarious culture ministries that have existed, and by Parliament throughthe National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

In 1982, the Raynor Scrutiny of the Victoria and Albert and ScienceMuseums was carried out, directed by Gordon Burrett (discussed by himin Burrett, 1985). These operations were designed to subject the civilservice to an outside view under the banner of Lord Raynor, from whatwas seen at that time as almost the national flagship company, Marks &Spencer. For the first time the effect of the traditional role of the curator,the Keeper-as-King (or as Burrett puts it, the Keeper Baron), the surrogateowner of the collections, on museum operations was examined by theorganizations’ political masters or mistresses. The effects of some of themajor changes of the early 1980s are reviewed in Cossons (1985).

From the late 1980s, the national museums were required by the Officeof Arts and Libraries to submit annual corporate plans for the followingfive years. This discipline forced them to be much more explicit aboutplans for all activities, including collections care and preservation. Thesecorporate plans were hybrid bid and planning documents, since theyincluded bids for funding, such as schemes for expansion, etc., as well asstrategic plans based on the grant-in-aid that the museums could actuallycount on. Government interest in corporate plans began to lapse, as tendsto happen, and they have been replaced by annual Funding Agreements,


which require museums to declare their targets and achievements againsta uniform framework. QUEST, the Quality, Efficiency and StandardsTeam, is a monitoring body reporting to the Minister on the work of hisdepartment and of the public bodies that it funds. Policy and strategy formuseums has largely been devolved to Resource, the Council forArchives, Libraries, and Museums. A programme of quinquennialreviews of government-sponsored museums is now underway.

Regional museums

Regional museums in the UK have been subject to similar pressures foraccountability, mitigated by their lower public profile. The museumregistration scheme (MGC, 1995) set standards, but it is the Best Valuepublic accountability regime (Audit Commission, 2000) that shows signsof having a profound effect on them. The Best Value principles are:

� challenge – why and how is a service provided?� compare – local performance with others (including organizations in

the private and voluntary sectors)� compete – embrace fair competition as a means of securing efficient

and effective services� consult – with local taxpayers, customers, and the wider business

community.

Regional museum organizations are drawing up comprehensive reviewsof museum services, including an overview of collections, and ofcollections care and management.

Resource, the government body for museums, published a root-and-branch review of UK museums in 2001 (Resource, 2001). This compre-hensive report examined every aspect of museums’ operations. Its focuswas on regional museums but it put forward a scheme for the betteroperation of English museums as a whole. It envisioned museums asmaking a real difference to society by ‘using their collections forinspiration, learning and enjoyment’ (Resource, 2001: 7). Museumsshould be an important resource and champion for learning andeducation, promote access and inclusion, contribute to economic regen-eration in the regions, use collections to encourage inspiration andcreativity, and ensure excellence and quality in the delivery of coreservices. The report points to many important achievements, but it alsospells out in depressing detail the ways in which museums have failed,through poor management, entrenched and inward looking attitudes,and above all insufficient funding. It recommends a system of largemuseums acting as regional hubs, providing services to smallermuseums, with Area Services providing a strategic role.


Issues in museum management

Griffin (1987, 1988, 1991) has illuminated many of the major managementissues in museums by reference to general management literature. In hisview (1987), museums are not very successful as institutions; theyconform to Mintzberg’s model of the professional bureaucracy, in whichspecialists work independently of each other and seek to control theadministrative processes that touch them. Staff are most concerned withthe product, not the market. Museums appear to be at risk of beingoverwhelmed by the search for money and related activities; few are clearabout what their business is. To remedy these ills, communication isessential. His second paper deals with conflict, choice theory anddecision-making, cultural revolution, staff issues, and corporate plan-ning; his 1991 article considers the role of museum governing bodies.Despite the time that has elapsed since Griffin wrote these articles,museums are still thoroughly recognizable, especially when it comes tothe attitudes of the professionals, curators and conservators, whosecentral concerns are the collections.

Accountability

In the UK, accountability for the operations of museums that are publiclyfunded is monitored by the Comptroller and Auditor General (who ashead of the National Audit Office scrutinizes central government affairs),the Audit Commission (for local government), and the Public AccountsCommittee of the House of Commons. The Department for CultureMedia and Sport has instigated a series of quinquennial reviews, whichwill be a root-and-branch examination starting with whether theorganization needs to exist.

Accountability for care of collections goes in and out of fashion. It isdifficult to demonstrate in what ways collections contribute to publicbenefit outcomes, and difficult to argue that they do. Ashley-Smith hastackled this central question to some degree (1999). As long ago as 1985Burrett had said, perhaps in some puzzlement:

What museum manager or trustee would dare to dissent publiclyfrom the view that museums should not acquire or keep objectswhich cannot be conserved to an acceptable standard . . . but thisprinciple is not in fact reflected even imperfectly in the actualpolicies of many, if any, museums.

Why would museums assemble this huge mass of apparently unused andunuseful material, he asks, when they were and are patently unable orunwilling to afford to maintain it properly? The Director of the Victoria


and Albert Museum (V&A) gave evidence to the House of CommonsCommittee of Public Accounts in 1988, and was rewarded for her honestyby being publicly pilloried. The newspaper headlines no director wantsto read included: V&A admits ‘disastrous failure’; A case of arts foroblivion; MPs warn of ‘breakdown’ in museums. Resource’s 2001 reportasks why people in museums are still complaining about the state ofcollections, when it clearly lies in their power to address these problems(Resource, 2001).

Standards and the management of collections and preservation

For museums in England, these areas are mainly in the domain ofResource, the Council for Archives, Libraries, and Museums, primarilythrough its museum registration scheme, now devolved to the regionalservices. Its predecessor, the Museums and Galleries Commission, wasactive in developing standards for collections curation and care, alongwith other museum functions. In America, the industry runs its ownstandards: the Association of American Museums has set up the MuseumAssessment Program (MAP). This is a four-part study of the organizationas a whole, its collections management, its public activities, and itsgovernance. A large part of the assessment process is self-study, in whichthe organization completes a detailed questionnaire (which at this timeare not publicly available). The Conservation Assessment, managed bythe US national organization Heritage Preservation, deals more specifi-cally with conservation and preservation. Collections care in America hasreceived statutory or semi-statutory attention, being the subject of aDepartment of the Interior Special Directive (US Department of theInterior, 1986). The more litigatious climate in the USA has also touchedcollections care and preservation, as in the cases cited by Weil (1983), andnoted by Ulberg and Lind (1989).

In general, then, the literature on the management of collections careand preservation shows the increasing introduction and raising ofstandards in both America and the UK. The roots of this are two-fold: firstthe desire of professionals to achieve excellence in what they do andsecondly a response to museums being held more accountable for theproper discharge of their functions and for the expenditure of fundswhether from public or private sources. The introduction of collectionsmanagement as a specific function in museums, with designated posts,has accelerated the development of standards.

Preservation awareness

The production and publication of the two surveys on the state ofconservation in museums, Conservation in museums and galleries and


The survey (UKIC, 1974; Corfield et al., 1989) did much to raise awarenessof the management issues surrounding conservation in museums at thattime. The preprints of a UKIC conference, Managing conservation (Keene,1990) encouraged people to take a new view.

There is a trend in the UK towards outsourcing interventive conserva-tion treatment, retaining in-house the functions of collections manage-ment and collections care or preventive conservation. In the USA this hasbeen to a large extent the case for some time. In some ways this can bebeneficial. Conservators who prefer practical activities and treatment canconcentrate on this, and benefit the collections by specializing inparticular materials or object types, while those who are willing to moveinto more general areas can do so without feeling that they areabandoning their duties. However, it could also be very bad news forcollections and conservators, because many museums are so poorlyfunded that the fees that can be charged for conservation are forceddown. This makes it difficult or impossible for conservators to attendconferences and take the time to update their skills. It also means thatpowerful advocates for conservation and for conservation approaches areremoved from the decision arena in museums. As providers of services,private conservators depend on doing what their clients, the curators,want them to. How many will insist on an ethical approach to treatmentat the expense of their families and mortgages? Will we see a return tocraft skills and secret treatments?

Conclusions

There are few museums in which all of the collections are already welllooked after. Where this is the case, their upkeep will continue to consumea substantial proportion of museum resources and this will need to beproperly managed and controlled. In many, perhaps the majority, the tasksof improving the condition and preservation of collections, which havebeen accumulated reactively, with little consideration of the practicalitiesof properly managing them are often enormous. If these tasks are to beaccomplished, then information on the size and nature of what is requiredmust be assembled, options for dealing with them weighed up, choicesmade and decisions implemented and monitored. For all these purposesaccurate, timely, and relevant information is essential.

In this country and abroad government pressures for accountability areforcing museums to adopt formal management processes. Consequently,museum managers and directors are drawing on the considerable body ofwork that exists on general management and management information.Management information is mainly quantitative information, but it isclear that the use of this information in not-for-profit organizations,


which include museums, presents particular problems that must beaddressed. Despite this, public sector museums are increasingly requiredto use quantitative measures of performance; indeed, these lie at the heartof any management information, and must be of central concern. Theimplications, for good or ill, of the provision and use of information onthe motivation of staff are a further important dimension that must betaken into full account.

References

Aguayo, R. (1990). Dr Deming: the man who taught the Japanese about quality.London: Mercury Books.

Allden, A. and Ellis, A. (1990). Management: the flavour of the month. Museumdevelopment (November), 35–39.

Allden, A. and Ellis, A. (1991a). Back to the future. Museum development (January),39–40.

Allden, A. and Ellis, A. (1991b). Management, the problems of implementation.Museum development (February), 11–13.

Ashley-Smith, J. (1999). Risk assessment for object conservation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Audit Commission (1991). The road to Wigan Pier? Audit Commission LocalGovernment Report 1991, no. 3. London: HMSO.

Audit Commission (2000). Getting better all the time: making benchmarking work.London: Audit Commission.

Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the system for organizations. Chichester: John Wiley.Bowman, C. and Asch, D. (1987). Strategic management. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Burrett, G. (1985). After Raynor. In The management of change in museums.

Proceedings of a seminar held at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich,1984 (N. Cossons, ed.), pp. 27–29. London: National Maritime Museum.

Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice. Second edition. Chichester:John Wiley.

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester:John Wiley.

Clutterbuck, D. and Crainer, S. (1990). Makers of management. Basingstoke:Macmillan.

Comptroller and Auditor General (1988). Management of the collections of theEnglish national museums and galleries. National Audit Office Report. London:HMSO.

Corfield, M., Keene, S. et al., eds (1989). The survey. London: UKIC.Cossons, N., ed. (1985). The management of change in museums. Proceedings of a

seminar held at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, 1984. London:National Maritime Museum.

Drucker, P.F. (1995). Managing the non-profit organization. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Drucker, P.F. (1999). The practice of management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.


Griffin, D.J.G. (1987). Managing in the museum organization: I. Leadership andcommunication. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship, 6, 387–398.

Griffin, D.J.G. (1988). Managing in the museum organization: II. Int. J. of MuseumManagement and Curatorship, 7, 11–23.

Griffin, D.J.G. (1991). Conflict, tasks, responsibilities. III. Museums: governance,management, and government. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship,10, 293–304.

Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (1994). The seven cultures of capitalism.London: Piatkus.

Handy, C. (1990). Understanding voluntary organizations. Harmondsworth: PenguinBooks.

Handy, C. (1993). Understanding organizations. (Fourth edition). Harmondsworth:Penguin Books.

Handy, C. (1996). Gods of management. Oxford: OUP.Imai, M. (1989). KAIZEN: the key to Japan’s competitive success. New York: McGraw-

Hill.Keene, S., ed. (1990). Managing conservation: conference preprints. London:

UKIC.MGC (1995). Registration scheme for museums in the UK. Guidelines for registration.

London: Museums and Galleries Commission.Mintzberg, H. (1992). Structure in fives. New Jersey, Prentice Hall International.Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. London: Financial Times

Prentice Hall.Mintzberg, H. and Quinn, J. (1992). The strategy process. London: Prentice Hall.Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London: Sage Publications.Munro-Faure, L. and Munro-Faure, M. (1992). Implementing Total Quality

Management. London: Financial Times/Pitman Publishing.Ohmae, K. (1991). The mind of the strategist. New York: McGraw-Hill.Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R.H. Jr. (1995). In search of excellence. London: Harper

Collins.Resource (2001). Renaissance in the Regions: a new vision for England’s museums.

London: Resource.UKIC (1974). Conservation in museums and galleries. London: United Kingdom

Institute for Conservation.Ulberg, A.D. and Lind, R.C. Jr. (1989). Consider the potential liability of failing to

conserve collections. Museum News (January/February), 32–33.Vickers, G. (1972). Freedom in a rocking boat. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Weil, S.E. (1983). Breaches of trust: remedies and standards in the American

private art museum. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship, 2, 53–70.


4 Management tools: quantitativeplanning

This chapter explores the range of techniques that has been developed toassess options and take decisions. There is a large area of managementstudies, operations research or management science, that is concernedwith how quantitative methods and formulae can be applied to every-day problems and decisions. Many of the applications are not relevant toconservation, but some, such as cost-benefit analysis, some medicalassessment techniques, and numerical methods of options appraisalcould be helpful. A few methods have been selected as being applicableto conservation, and not so technically complex as to be confusing ratherthan enlightening. This chapter and Chapter 5 are complementary; thischapter focuses on quantitative and detailed techniques, while Chapter 5covers non-numerical methods of analysis and strategy development.

Management science and conservation

The decision areas

Quantitative and analytical analysis can be applied to any area ofconservation where work or objects can be quantified, where alternativecosts can be expressed, where areas can be measured, or where storageequipment or materials can be costed. These quantitative methods areparticularly useful in making bids for resources or funding. Although it isoften objected, with much validity, that collections preservation dependson quality rather than quantity, in practice it can be very enlightening to dosome scientific measuring in order to form or confirm one’s own opinion.

Much depends on the nature of the objects and on the problem. Forexample, an extremely important and valuable object that requiredconservation would probably receive it even at the expense of hundredsof others, which needed mounting or other first aid. Flood damagedobjects would be top priority for treatment, because they will be highlyunstable and liable to further deterioration unless worked on. There are

many cases where a decision is not so clear cut, for example, betweendifferent methods of achieving environmental control (mechanical airhandling versus passive control methods such as silica gel), or inassessing the effectiveness of alternative treatments.

General methods: operational research and management science

Operations research is defined by the Operational Research Society as‘the application of the methods of science to complex problems arising inthe direction and management of large systems of men, machines,materials and money . . . the distinctive approach is to develop a scientificmodel of the system . . . with which to predict and compare the outcomesof alternative decisions . . .’.

Operations research, then, consists of developing or applying logicaland mathematical models to assist in the solution of problems. Solutionsare such that they can be applied to other similar problems of the samegeneric sort. For example, there are well-developed operational researchapproaches to transportation problems, the analysis of demand, invent-ory control, project management, queuing theory, decision analysis. Cost-benefit analysis can be included in operational research, as can invest-ment appraisal as developed by the Treasury (see below). Two usefulreviews of the basics are those of Rivett and Ackoff (1963) and Littlechildand Shutler (1991). Wyatt (1989) gives a very accessible review of someother numerical techniques that can be used in planning, among themmultivariate analysis, inferential statistics, goal hierarchies, and goalplanning (including multi-objective, multi-criteria techniques); optimiza-tion, forecasting, and numerous others. The Treasury has developed aninvestment appraisal technique, which is used to support bids forsubstantial capital expenditure by the national museums. Ashley-Smith’sbook on risk assessment for object conservation discusses many of themethods of operational research (1999).

Operational research practitioners are very interested in ‘soft opera-tional research’ – methods similar to soft-systems analysis. Soft opera-tional research is based on an acceptance that defining the problem can beas important as finding a route to a solution. It regards it as essential toinvolve the actors in the situation in finding and implementing itssolution. It recognizes that in real life many (though not all) problems aretoo complex to be solved by a single pass of a quantitative method, andare more likely to require an iterative approach.

There are many uncertainties in complex public sector organizationssuch as local government. The consensus is that management scienceremains an extremely useful tool, as long as its limitations are recognized.These include the presence of multiple views when defining the problem;the difficulties posed because many problems exist within highly

Management tools: quantitative planning 49

complex systems; and the conservatism of the operational research/management science approach. The problem with the latter is that itassumes that the world is stable and highly predictable, with the peoplein it acting according to well-defined roles: the set of social, economic,and political relationships of which operational research/operationalresearch is a part. There are some extremely well known examples of thefailure of classical operational research/operational research, such as theaccident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station, and the collapseof the Alexander Keilland oil rig. The shortcomings of operationalresearch derive from three aspects of it:

1 It is an application of scientific method, and as such is highlyreductionist, in that it selects a well-defined part of a situation to studyand strictly controls the variables being examined.

2 Quantitative values often have to be assigned to variables, which areessentially qualitative and based on people’s perceptions.

3 It relies on the premise that problems recur and that generalizedalgorithms can be developed and applied to them.

Conservation costs and benefits

In conservation, there is the central problem of how to quantify the benefitsof better-preserved objects and the costs of deteriorated ones. Terry andChandra Reedy, in Statistical analysis in art conservation research (1988),review the use of statistics and suggest some approaches, mainly toassessing treatments and analytical results. But we can go wider than this.

‘Probability of conservation’ and ‘valuation of the cultural heritage’

Benarie, when editor of the European cultural heritage newsletter, occa-sionally explored these areas (Benarie, 1987, 1989). Benarie has dis-cussed the ‘probability of conservation of cultural heritage’, applyingthe principles of risk management from industrial engineering. Failuremode and effect analysis consists of: identification of the systemcomponents; definition of the ‘failure modes’, i.e. the way(s) in whichthe part could break; and modelling the behaviour of the system, oftenby a so-called event tree. Failure mode probabilities can be computedfrom the event tree. Benarie constructs an event tree from the factorsleading to the preservation of an object:

� Factors at its origin: its value at the time it was made, its bulk, thedurability of its substance.

� Owner or collector: the richer and more powerful, the more likely theobject’s survival.

50 Management tools: quantitative planning

� Liability to looting, pilferage, or destruction: intrinsic value, controversial-ity, geopolitical factors.

� Fluctuations in taste.� Time.

These are exogenous factors, outside the control of any institution; we arenot likely to be able to affect any of them. If factors intrinsic to the object,and events which can affect it, were substituted then these techniquescould be useful, perhaps for applying to the factors affecting thecondition of objects.

In Benarie’s second article, he reflects on the valuation of the culturalheritage (Benarie, 1989). The value of an article follows ‘a catenary curve,as in a freely hanging rope’ (Fig. 4.1). When new, the value of an object ishigh. As it gradually goes out of fashion and suffers damage, its valuefalls. In the course of time, it becomes rare and acquires scarcity value,and so its monetary value rises again, Benarie suggests, to somethingnear its original value. Benarie proposes formulae for calculating theamount of damage suffered, the expected half-life for an object and for apopulation of such objects, and the rise in price as a class of objectbecomes scarce. This could be a way of calculating the benefits ofconservation and preservation, and so assigning quantitative values.

Benarie’s curves reflect monetary value, and there will be manydifferent curves according to taste in the commercial world of owners anddealers. Changing taste, reflected in a varying purpose or ‘mission’, will


Fig. 4.1 Changes in the value of an object over time and the conjectural effectof conservation: a category curve

also affect the perceived value of an object to a museum, perhaps to thepoint at which it is disposed of and becomes vulnerable to exogenousfactors. The real ‘value’ of an object to a museum is derived from itsintrinsic historic relevance to the collections, but monetary value cannever be ignored.

This concept could assist in quantifying the benefits of preservationactions. Preventive action will as always be even more effective thanremedy in preserving value. If the object is prevented from suffering asmuch damage as might be expected, then it might be expected that thebottom of the value curve may be truncated, and the eventual value of anobject rare, well-preserved, and genuinely unrestored will be the greater.

Cost-benefit, or cost-effectiveness, analysis

Books reviewing the main principles of cost-benefit analysis are easilyfound, such as that by Walshe and Daffern (1990). Cassar has appliedthese principles to conservation (Cassar, 1998). Simple approaches, cost-effectiveness analysis, and payback period, are probably most relevant forconservation. In the more sophisticated forms of cost-benefit analysis,numerical measures are assigned to complex social and environmentalbenefits and disbenefits. One critic of cost-benefit analysis said of thereport on the siting of London’s third airport ‘it is not so much that theexperts prove or disprove something, but that . . . they can make anyproposition, no matter how simple, impenetrably complex and incompre-hensible’. The technique of options appraisal, which national museumsare required to apply to certain buildings investment decisions, is anexample of cost-benefit analysis where weightings are used. Weightingsare an attempt to judge benefits against factors other than simple cost.Although one cannot but see that it is possible to adjust the weightings soas to give the result one wants, the method can lead to some surprisingconclusions, often that the apparently more costly solution such as newbuild is better value than the less expensive ones.

Goal hierarchies and paired comparisons are described below; ifwished, they can be used to obtain a genuine consensus view of theweights to be assigned to benefits. As in the health service, anotherdifficult area, it is difficult to place values on the improved ‘health’ andlonger ‘life’ of an object. But if quantitative methods are used then it isessential to employ a method that allows factors other than strictlyfinancial ones to be properly incorporated.

The most straightforward application of cost-benefit analysis, althoughinfrequently adopted in museum applications, is that exemplified byAyres et al. (1989) in their analysis of the energy requirements of narrowversus wide parameters for temperature and relative humidity, indifferent climatic zones.


Staniforth (1990) has compared the estimated costs of remedialconservation treatment with those of installing environmental controlequipment. She used as examples for her model typical (albeit approx-imate) costs incurred in National Trust houses. Modifying a heatingsystem, using light control measures, and purchasing monitoringequipment would cost in the region of £50,000. Staniforth ‘guesstimates’that even these simple control measures can double the time betweenconservation treatments, from 50 to 100 years. Remedial conservationcosts for a typical National Trust house could fall from £10,000 to £5000,and so the environmental control measures could pay for themselves inten years. Because the National Trust uses mainly independent con-servators, treatment costs are more apparent than for many museums,where conservators also carry out preventive conservation. Added to thiswould be the benefits of the greater monetary value of the better-preserved objects, as well as the difficult-to-quantify benefits of theirgreater ‘historic integrity’.

Opportunity cost

This is the cost of not doing whatever was precluded by a chosen action.For example, you spend £10,000 on purchasing an item for the collectionrather than on fixing the roof of the store. Because the store is poorlymaintained, the opportunity cost of your decision is a flood in the storeand damage to the collections, together amounting to £20,000. Theconcept of ‘opportunity cost’ is particularly useful if applied to people-time. There is a finite number of work hours; shall we spend them onwriting grant applications, on carrying out urgent conservation treat-ment, or on replacing acid mounts for 100 objects?

Deciding priorities

Goal hierarchies

There are a number of variants on numerical methods applied toplanning. It is a weakness that some of them employ extremely complexstatistical formulae, and only an expert statistician could evaluate theresults with any confidence. A relatively straightforward method is theconcept of goal hierarchies (explained in Wyatt, 1989). This techniquefocuses on highlighting the essentials of unclear situations, the connec-tions between concepts, rather than the concepts themselves, which canbe too debatable or vague.

An example of one possible goal hierarchy for the summary concept‘well-being of historic collections’ is set out in Figure 4.2. There is no


Fig. 4.2 A possible goal hierarchy for the concept ‘well being of historic collections’

single, or ‘correct’ hierarchy; this version has been produced in order toassess the technique. Drawing up a goal hierarchy is not difficult. It canusefully be applied by a group working together, in which case it willdevelop understanding of the choices available and a consensus ondesirable actions.

A general goal is first agreed. The next step is to identify what would beneeded in order to achieve it, then the second-level factors, and so on. Onlyfour levels are shown in the example (Fig. 4.2), but one can sub-dividefurther, as in Figure 4.3. By the time one gets to the bottom level, theelements of a practical plan are appearing. However, throughout thehierarchy it is desirable to use goals that are as abstract as possible, sincethis facilitates lateral thinking. The example in Figure 4.3 descends topracticalities too near the top, but it shows the sort of thing that is intended.

Although a goal hierarchy can facilitate the development of a plan, it isstill no help in prioritizing what should be done. To assist with this, therelative importance of each goal at each level can be denoted by aweighting figure (Wyatt, 1989). The weightings for the sub-goals of eachgoal must add up to one. Figure 4.2 shows the weights assigned in thetrial exercise; Figure 4.4 shows a fragment of a weighted hierarchy.

The total contribution of each sub-goal to the central goal can becalculated. For example, the overall weighting of ‘Individually protectedobjects’ is 0.4 × 0.6 = 0.24. The overall weighting of ‘Effective treatments’is (0.6 × 0.6 = 0.36) plus (0.3 × 0.4 = 0.12) = 0.48. It occurs twice, and so itsweighting is the sum of both occurrences.

Some of the problems with assigning weightings will be immediatelyapparent to any conservator reading this. No two people will agree on the


Fig. 4.3 Further levels in a fragment of the goal hierarchy

STABLEOBJECTS

Multi-objectcare

Effectivetreatments

Individuallyprotectedobjects

Effectivetreatments

Trainedstaff

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.7

Experttreatment

weightings of different factors, and weightings may well differ fordifferent types of collection. It will be better if weightings are the result ofa group consensus. The group should be representative, not composedonly of those with an interest in a particular outcome.

Paired comparisons

This could be a very useful technique for conservation. Wyatt gives anexample of a simple version of it (1989). A list of elements contributing tothe main goal is drawn up. Each element is given a ‘Dominance score’against each other element, on a 10-point scale.

Applying this to conservation factors as in Table 4.1 is an interestingexercise. It seems easier to be objective in this method than in weighting ahierarchy of objectives, at least the first time the exercise is carried out. Forexample, most would probably agree that Appearance was greatlydominated by Environment as a contributing factor to the ‘well-being ofhistoric collections’; and that sheer Physical safety substantially dominatedboth Conservation and Environment. The overall results in this case, theImportance weighting, show that in the author’s opinion physical safety andthe stable chemistry of the object are much the most important factors.

Quantifying collections preservation

The costs of environmental control will never be nil, since it implies themodification of the ambient humidity, temperature, and air quality. Themore the environment has to be modified, the greater the costs are likely


Fig. 4.4 Fragment of a weighed goal hierarchy. The weightings for thesub-goals of each must add up to 1

Table 4.1 Paired comparisons for factors leading to ‘well-being of historic collections’

Key: Dominance scoring:

9 = overwhelmingly dominates8 = greatly dominates7 = substantially dominates6 = clearly dominates5 = weakly dominates

4 = weakly dominated3 = clearly dominated2 = substantially dominated1 = greatly dominated0 = overwhelmingly dominated

Physicalsafety Environment

Cons.treatment

Stablechem. Appearance

Historicintegrity �

Importanceweighting

Physical safety – 7 7 6 8 6 34 0.27Environment 2 – 5 3 1 4 15 0.12Cons. treatment 2 3 – 3 8 5 21 0.16Stable chemistry 4 5 6 – 8 6 29 0.23Appearance 8 2 2 1 – 3 16 0.13Historic integrity 2 5 3 2 1 – 13 0.10

�� = 128

� denotes ‘sum’; �� is therefore the sum of the sums. The Importance weighting is calculated as �/��: it thus represents thecontribution of each factor to ‘well-being’ as a whole.

to be, both of initial investment and of running costs. In exhibitions, thecosts may include less than ideal conditions in which to view the object.To provide proper information for decisions, we need a way to directlyrelate environmental conditions to the deterioration of objects.

Environment and deterioration: cause and effect

Although there is overwhelming international emphasis on the import-ance of creating a suitable environment for the preservation of objects,little attention has been paid to the quantification of the actual effects ofclimatic conditions on the deterioration of different materials. Michalski(1990) claims that the existence of standards stifles debate on and researchinto these fundamental matters. For instance, does the law of diminishingreturns operate, and at what point? What are the benefits of nearly ormore or less or usually attaining standards, which may be far, far lessexpensive than attaining them completely for 100 per cent of the time?The quantified basis for this new perspective is published in hissubsequent paper (Michalski, 1993).

Measuring environmental ‘threat’

Some studies which quantify the relationship of adverse environmentalfactors and damage to objects are listed in Table 4.2. Early work waslargely on the effects of light, e.g. Harrison (1953), Stromberg (1950). Bothcalculated the relationship between strength loss of materials andexposure to light (lux-hours and wavelength).

The actual, as distinct from predicted, effects on objects of differentvalues of relative humidity and particularly temperature are what weneed to understand. In the Conservation Analytical Laboratory of theSmithsonian Institution a materials testing programme has been under-way to develop a database of the mechanical properties of artists’materials such as paint, canvas, and grounds (Mecklenburg and Tumosa,1991). Some of the results will be applicable to other types of object madeof comparable materials. Mechanical properties include strength, stiff-ness, or flexibility, and elastic or plastic properties, i.e. the nature of thematerial’s response to forces. The combination of its physical andmechanical properties will condition the material’s response to changesin environmental factors such as temperature and relative humidity, andto physical forces such as those involved in transporting or moving anobject. Response will vary from the delamination of layered structures,such as painted surfaces, cracking, distortion, and many other effects,which are the familiar signs of deterioration.

Padfield and Jensen (1990) modelled the actual changes undergone bythe surface of wood during variations in humidity, bringing these


research results together with the costs of environmental control to makea quantified assessment of the benefits to be gained from differentoptions. Benefits will be specific to each type of material or object, forexample, Mecklenberg’s work is on paintings on canvas, and the resultscan be extended to many types of social history object with paint films onflexible supports, but they will not apply to objects mainly of metal. Thisapproach is essential, and it is now feeding through into standards orspecifications that can easily and routinely be applied.

Measuring ‘losses’: the deterioration of objects

The collections condition audit methodology, described in Chapter 9,describes some terms for accurately and consistently describing condi-tion. In a way, we need a concept like that being developed for cost-benefit analysis in health care, ‘quality-adjusted life years’, or QUALYs,though this concept too is plagued with shortcomings (Walshe andDaffern, 1990). QUALYs are an attempt to quantify the quality of life aswell as how long a person lives. For example, for someone with severe


Table 4.2 Published work including empirical measurement or modelling of theeffects of environmental factors on objects

Object type or material Environmental factor Reference

Textile fibres Light Stromberg, 1950

Paper Light Harrison, 1953

Natural dyes Light Cox Crews, 1988

Japanese colourants Pollutants (ozone) Whitmore and Cass,1988

Artists’ colourants Pollutants (nitrogendioxide)

Whitmore and Cass,1989

High volumes of woodor other organicmaterial(e.g. libraries orfurniture stores)

Relative humidity Padfield and Jensen,1990

Paintings on canvas Temperature + relativehumidity

Mecklenberg andTumosa, 1991

Archaeological iron Relative humidity:desiccated storage

Keene, 1994

Easel paintings andsocial history objects

Temperature + relativehumidity

Michalski, 1993

rheumatoid arthritis each year lived might only be worth 0.25 of aQUALY. Standard QUALYs for different medical conditions have beendeveloped by interviewing numbers of people, and through them, thebenefits of an operation or course of treatment can be assessed against itscalculated costs (McGuire et al., 1988). Objects do have an explicitlyacknowledged value, cultural, or monetary. This may have a greaterbearing on whether they are treated or not than will the outcome of thetreatment. For example, famous works of art damaged in attacks willalways be treated, even if they have to be heavily restored, though thismight well result in a low ‘QUALY’ score. Interestingly, the present publicmay well be satisfied, but one can envisage the future public recognizingthe low QUALY rating of an object and rejecting it. QUALYs for objectswould obviously relate to historic integrity, although physical integritymay be a part of this.

A further difficulty in measuring treatment success for objects is that,unlike people, we cannot say when an object is ‘dead’ (unless wespecifically define ‘death’ (Keene, 1994)). The simple and conclusivemeasure of life expectancy is denied us.

Quantification: do we need it?

In the absence of the rigorous assessment of different options, theoret-ical studies, undertaken using samples of new materials rather than themuch more complex chemical and physical systems that real, agedobjects represent, are translated straight into practice, and become‘received wisdom’. For example, as part of Turgoose’s work on thechemical processes causing partly mineralized iron objects to deteriorateafresh, he pointed out that a relative humidity lower than 18 per centwould prevent the most deliquescent of the minerals normallyinvolved, iron �-hydroxide, from deliquescing (Turgoose, 1982). Astandard was therefore set that archaeological iron be stored at 15 percent relative humidity or lower. It is now the general practice in manycountries to store this material in sealable boxes with desiccated silicagel. In 1991, however, a simple statistical technique used to evaluate thebenefits of medical treatment, survival probability (Mould, 1981), wasemployed to construct life tables for large samples of excavated ironobjects. The life tables enabled the comparison of the actual state ofpreservation of iron objects stored at ambient, fluctuating humiditywith that of those stored in desiccated conditions (20 per cent or lessrelative humidity, using the best practicable technology); no differencecould be found in the preservation of the two groups (Keene, 1994).Contrary to prevailing professional belief, scientific assessment of thatsample of objects led to the conclusion that it had been far more


effective to treat them than to store them in desiccated conditions. Theseresults certainly point up the need for assessment before new treatmenttechniques are widely adopted as effective.

Conclusions

Cost-benefit, or cost-effectiveness, analysis is at present hampered by thelack of data on the direct relationship of the environment to deterioration.Risk analysis, goal hierarchies, and paired comparisons help in identify-ing what is desirable, and thus in setting priorities. These are allnumerically based techniques, which can potentially assign numericalvalues to different choices. Since the initial numerical data can only beassigned subjectively, such values will always be of doubtful use.However, they were found to be an aid to analytical thinking. Forexample, it is quite interesting to note that where conservation treatmenthas been ranked against preventive measures (goal hierarchies, Figs4.2–4.4; paired comparisons, Table 4.1; robustness analysis: Ch. 5, Table5.3) it rates more importance and a higher priority than it is presentlyfashionable to assign it.

This chapter has reviewed numerically based approaches available toaid planning; the next chapter discusses some alternative analyticaltechniques not based on numbers.

References


Ayres, J.M., Druzik, J. et al., (1989). Energy conservation and climate control inmuseums. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship, 8, 299–312.

Benarie, M. (1987). Probability of conservation of cultural heritage. Europeancultural heritage newsletter on research, 1, 4.

Benarie, M. (1989). Valuation of cultural heritage. European cultural heritagenewsletter on research, 3, 4.

Cassar, M. (1998). Cost/benefit appraisals for collections care: a practical guide. London:Museums and Galleries Commission.

Cox Crews, P. (1988). A comparison of clear versus yellow ultraviolet filters inreducing fading of selected dyes. Studies in Conservation, 34, 85–97.

Harrison, L.S. (1953). Report on the deteriorating effects of modern light sources. NewYork: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Keene, S. (1994). Real-time survival rates for treatments of archaeological iron. InAncient and historic metals, proceedings of a symposium organized by the J. Paul GettyMuseum and the Getty Conservation Institute, 1991 (Scott, Podany and Considine,eds.). Santa Monica: GCI.


Littlechild, S.C. and Schutler, M.F., eds. (1991). Operations research in management.Hemel Hempstead, Prentice Hall.

McGuire et al., (1988). The economics of health care. London: Routledge.Mecklenberg, M.F. and Tumosa, C.S. (1991). Mechanical behaviour of paintings

subjected to changes in temperature and relative humidity. In Art in transit,preprints of a conference, London. Washington: National Gallery of Art.

Michalski, S. (1990). Towards specific lighting guidelines. In ICOM Committee forConservation, 9th Triennial Meeting, Dresden; Preprints. Marina del Rey, Ca.: GettyConservation Institute/ICOM Committee for Conservation.

Michalski, S. (1993). Relative humidity: a discussion of correct/incorrect values.In ICOM Committee for Conservation, 10th Triennial Meeting, Washington, DC,Preprints. Marina del Rey, Ca.: Getty Conservation Institute/ICOM Committeefor Conservation.

Mould, R.F. (1981). Introductory medical statistics. London: Pitman Medical.Padfield, T. and Jensen, P. (1990). Low energy control in museum stores. In ICOM

Committee for Conservation, 9th Triennial Meeting, Preprints, Dresden. Marina delRay, Ca.: Getty Conservation Institute/ICOM Committee for Conservation.

Reedy, T.J. and Reedy, C.L. (1988). Statistical analysis in art conservation research.Marina del Rey, Ca.: Getty Conservation Institute.

Resource (2001). Renaissance in the regions: a new vision for England’s museums.London: Resource.

Rivett, P. and Ackoff, R.L. (1963). A manager’s guide to operational research. London:Wiley.

Staniforth, S. (1990). Benefits versus costs in environmental control. In Managingconservation. Conference preprints (S. Keene, ed.). London: UKIC.

Stromberg, E. (1950). Dyes and light. ICOM News 3, 3.Turgoose, S. (1982). Post-excavation changes in iron antiquities. Studies in

conservation, 27, 97–101.Walshe, G. and Daffern, P. (1990). Managing cost-benefit analysis. Basingstoke:

Macmillan.Whitmore, P. and Cass, G. (1988). The ozone fading of traditional Japanese

colorants. Studies in Conservation, 33, 29–40.Whitmore, P. and Cass, G. (1989). The fading of artists’ colorants by exposure to

atmospheric nitrogendioxide. Studies in Conservation, 33, 87–93.Wyatt, R. (1989). Intelligent planning. London: Unwin Hyman.


5 Management tools: options andpriorities

The classic dilemma in conservation is whether resources of time andmoney should be put into remedial conservation treatment or intoenvironmental control or into first aid and improved storage methods.How do we prioritize and choose between the actions we could take? Iscreating the right climatic environment more important for the survival ofthe collections than their physical safety? When funds are limited, shouldthey be spent on conservation treatment, or on remounting objects forstorage? Should we bid for our improved store to be an existing buildingupgraded, or a new build project? These are some of the conflictingpriorities that conservators and museum managers have to choosebetween almost every week.

While Chapter 4 described some of the numerical, quantitativemethods than can help in decision-making, this chapter reviews non-numerical methods that can be even more useful. More generalapproaches to strategic planning are explored in Chapter 10.

Risk analysis

The principles of risk analysis and management have been summarizedby Crockford (1986). Many texts on risk management focus on financialrisk, for example in insurance or in currency dealing, but Crockforddiscusses the general principles of reducing risk itself as well as thefinancial consequences of it. This is an area that is highly applicable toconservation. In order to control and reduce the risk to resources, wemust understand the types of risk and the relationship between theirseverity and their natural frequency, systematically identify the sources ofrisk and measure them, take decisions on how to handle risk, developsystems of loss control, and finally plan how to recover from large-scaleloss should it occur.

The components of risks to collections

Risk is seen as being made up of four components:

� threats: the forces that could cause loss.� resources: what is at risk (in our case, historic objects and collections).� modifying factors that reduce the probability or the severity of the

consequences of risk.� the consequences if the threat materializes: the effect of the loss on the

operations of the organization.

Ashley-Smith has thoroughly explored the issues of risk to collections(Ashley-Smith, 1999). Michalski (1994) has also worked on this area, inorder to develop a general understanding of the risk to collections, and tocommunicate this clearly to professionals such as facilities managers andfire officers. He sets out the causes of deterioration internal to theinstitution (the threats) and categorizes the range of conservationresponses (the modifying factors) using the principles of fire preventiontheory. Threats he identifies as: physical forces, criminals, fire, water,pests, contaminants, radiation (light), incorrect temperature, and incor-rect relative humidity. These can be condensed into:

� physical forces� threats from people� threats from an inappropriate environment� threats from disaster.

Michalski analyses conservation responses in detail as a series of stages,again as in fire prevention and control, ‘prevent, detect, contain, control,and recover’.

Risk: severity and frequency

There is a relationship between the severity of risk and the likelihood thatloss will occur (Fig. 5.1). This analysis has obvious application to thedeterioration of objects or collections (Table 5.1). A disaster such as amajor fire will be catastrophic, rare, and difficult to predict, while eachoccurrence of damage due to a poor environment will be almostundetectable, but frequent and highly predictable. Yet a probability canbe calculated even for rare, catastrophic loss. For example, there havebeen three disastrous fires in historic properties in the UK in recent years:Uppark, Hampton Court, and Windsor Castle, as well as Norwich LocalHistory Library and Archive. The probability that another will occur in aparticular year and house, while small, is finite and could be calculated.

64 Management tools: options and priorities

Veryrare

Verycommon

Catastrophic

Trivial

Number of losses

Highlyunpredictable

Highlypredictable

It can be reduced by such measures as heat and smoke detectors, frequentpatrols, strict control over the use of hot working methods and smokingby contractors, etc.

Waller takes the approach that the risk is different for different types ofmaterial. Collections of plant material, minerals, and spirit collections offish clearly present different problems. By categorizing and numericallyassessing the risk he can decide priorities for action (Waller, 1994).

Loss control

Loss control is already familiar in museums as ‘preventive conservation’:the holistic analysis and prevention of causes of deterioration of collectionsand objects, from environmental control to disaster recovery planning.

In conservation we seem, although not perfect, to be somewhat aheadof our commercial counterparts, since Crockford (1986) regrets the

Management tools: options and priorities 65

Fig. 5.1 The relationship between risk and frequency, severity andpredictability

Table 5.1 Some threats to collections analysed by frequency, severity, andpredictability

Threat Frequency Severity Predictability

Unsuitable environment Very high Very low Very highRough handling High Low Good over one yearWater services leak Low Medium Good over ten yearsMajor disaster (other than above!) Very low High Minimal

compartmentalization of loss control into rigid specialisms: security, healthand safety, data protection, etc. We can, however, accept the message thatwhere the control of loss to the collections is concerned, storage andconservation, and indeed security, are points on a continuum, not separatefunctions. Table 5.1 shows a generalized analysis of some familiar threats tocollections. However, in statistical analysis of complex problems such asthose posed by collections, the average can often be less important than thedistribution and the outliers – the extreme cases. In this example, some typesof object will be very much more vulnerable to some threats than to others(e.g. an unsuitable environment could be catastrophic for unstable glass) sosuch a table could be compiled for each specific collection, and perhaps foreach different store. The table should really be multi-dimensional. Theshapes of the distribution curves for each column would differ according tothe type of collection, and could be an aid to strategic planning.

The consequences of loss

When the consequences of loss are mainly financial, a business is likelyitself to cover the small, predictable losses that present no threat to stability,but to insure against unpredictable but catastrophic loss: i.e. transfer therisk to another organization (the insurance company) in exchange for asmall, certain loss (the premium). It might be thought that in the case ofmuseum collections the risk (of serious loss of a collection or a valuableobject) is not primarily financial, and hence that risk cannot be passed onexcept by transferring the ownership of the resource. However, localauthorities do treat the risk as financial, although it is in the nature ofmuseum collections that they are largely irreplaceable. National museumsdo not insure their collections: instead, government indemnifies themagainst loss, although in practice they would not receive compensation forthe loss of collection objects. In either case, the institutions must take stepsto reduce the risk. The costs and benefits of various actions are not easilycalculated. The calculation of ‘loss’ as it applies to collections and objects isfurther discussed below; the effect of the loss on the institution’s operationcould also usefully be considered. Apart from the effect on its ability toachieve its central purpose through exhibitions and through havingcollections available for research, a museum needs to bear in mind thepossible damage to its reputation, and consequent effects on funding,either from a disaster that could have been avoided or through thediscovery that collections have deteriorated through neglect.

Decisions on risk

When the nature of the risk to collections is better understood, priority foractions and funding will need to be allocated to risks, which combine


severity and probability. This may well involve tightening up proceduresrather than making costly investments. For example, contractors workingon site always bring about a sharp increase in risk (for example, theUppark fire was a consequence of contractors hot-working lead on theroof). Floods have been caused by roof drainage being blocked bycontractors’ lunchtime sandwich wrappers. The Windsor Castle fire arosebecause of the incorrect installation of a light fitting. Damage to objectsfrom handling can almost always be reduced through designing effectiveprocedures and training staff to follow them.

When it comes to choosing between disaster control measures (firedetection and control, intruder alarms) and environmental improve-ments, a judgement will have to be made on which threat should beaddressed first; this will almost always be the risk of catastrophe.However, it is likely that the institution will eventually have to take mostof the measures it identifies, and that prioritization will be mainly amatter of spreading the expense over time. Really serious risks arisingfrom environmental conditions are likely to arise from structural defectsin the building, and will probably require radical solutions, such asmoving to a completely different storage building. Simply identifyingrisks and the costs of preventing them, and placing them in ordered lists,is likely to be a powerful aid to decision-making.

Many or even most threats to collections can be reduced by goodmanagement and by planning to avoid them at the design and briefingstage, which will minimize costs (Table 5.2). It may, for example, be moreeffective to divide stores into smaller fireproof enclosures, which willcontain the threat of fire, rather than to install expensive sprinklers, whichthemselves constitute a risk should they discharge by mistake. Services


Table 5.2 Threats to collections and costs of prevention

Threat Frequency Severity Predictability Cost of prevention

Environmental Very high Very low Very high Low if better controls/equipment needed;

High if building unsuitable

Theft, vandals Medium Medium Reasonable Normally low

Handling High Low Reasonable Nil – procedures only

Services leak Low Medium Reasonable Low at design stageVery high later

Disaster Very low High Minimal Can be highNormally lower at design

stage

should never be designed with pipes that run through stores. Storesshould not be situated below the water-table, or near a source of flooding.Exhibitions can be designed to minimize the threats to objects.

Contextual analysis: PEST and SWOT

PEST and SWOT are very well known and simple management tools.PEST means political, economic, social, and technical; SWOT representsstrengths and weaknesses (both internal); opportunities and threats (bothexternal). Both are useful for introducing reports recommending action,or reviewing the situation that an organization is in. They do not tend toresult in major insights.

A PEST or SWOT analysis would typically be a short list of about six oreight bullet points in each of the squares of a grid, or possibly in a reportwith a paragraph for each heading (see Exhibit 5A on pp.77 and 78).

Strategy development

There are almost as many different approaches to strategy developmentas there are writers on the subject. Bowman and Asch review the wholespectrum (1987, especially Ch. 14 and Table 14.2). They distinguish eightmain views, placed on a scale from ‘deliberate’ at one end (analytical,objectives consciously set) to ‘emergent’ (incremental, not analyticallyworked out) at the other. There is, they say, no one ‘correct’ method ofstrategic planning, although they incline to the more incrementalprocesses. What sort of method is right in a particular situation willdepend on the culture and other characteristics of the organization on theone hand, and the context and pressures in the outside world on theother. Mintzberg and Quinn (1992) have assembled a variety of articlesand readings, which give a spectrum of views on strategic planning, andMintzberg (1994) presents a typically stimulating view in The rise and fallof strategic planning. Rosenhead (1989) describes six techniques that fallinto the category of soft operational research, including soft systemsmethodology (described in Chapters 6 and 7), strategic choice, androbustness analysis.

Deliberate strategies

Much work has been done on strategy for commercial companies.Michael Porter is an often-quoted writer. Several of his articles areincluded in Mintzberg and Quinn (1992), and his approach has beensummarized by Bowman (1990). Ohmae (1991) writes for an American


audience but draws on the Japanese experience. He advocates first,identifying key factors for success, then the (customer’s) objectivefunctions – what is conceptually required from the product or process.Other writers describe the benefits of avoiding dwelling on the presentsituation – what is wrong – and starting instead with what should be.There is the notion of a ‘strategic staircase’, the steps of which consist ofcapabilities that must be acquired and strategies that must be developedin order to attain the mission (Hay and Williamson, 1991).

Deliberate approaches are also known as the moonshot type (Rosen-head, 1989: 196). The problem with them is that by the time you reach lift-off the world may have changed around you, and your struggle may haveled you into empty space. Rosenhead argues that the likelihood is that aplanned strategy for an organization will not confer competitiveadvantage, because it will be similar to those of other similar organiza-tions. Despite the benefits of an analytical, planned, approach, there is thedistinct risk that flexibility and creativity will be stifled.

‘Ladders of choice’

The concept of a ‘ladder of choice’ was developed by Farbey et al. (1993).The ladder leads from what the institution must do because ofcommercial or other pressure, to the highest rungs, which potentiallybring the greatest benefits but also the greatest risk of failure. Their modelhas been developed in the context of strategy for information technologydevelopment, but it has general applications. On the lower rungs of theladder the institution has little choice. These are things it must do becauseits competitors provide a similar service or product, and thus customersexpect this. On the higher rungs the activities are optional, and while thebenefits may be much greater, because the organization will be offeringsomething distinctively different, so are the risks, because the develop-ment may turn out to be inappropriate. For museums, the lowest rungsfor collections care will be to account for their collections and to keepthem secure. In real life, their physical preservation is a rung higher. Itmay be that the highest rungs introduce public involvement in thecollections care process. For example, the National Museums andGalleries on Merseyside has set up top-flight collections care facilitieswith substantial elements of public access. This has turned out to beextremely successful. The ‘ladder of choice’ concept can be used inevaluating success as well as in developing strategies.

Emergent approaches

There has been a lot of research into the success and evaluation ofstrategic planning by those working on the use of information technology.


On the whole, emergent strategies – where plans develop incrementallyas a series of small-scale steps – appear to have the most successfuloutcome. Earl (1992), investigating strategies for information technologyin five well-known companies, found that highly emergent, unplanneddevelopments, arising directly from operational needs, were the mostlikely to be implemented and used. There is however the risk withemergent strategies that the organization takes only a short-term view,and too unplanned an approach can be experienced by staff asdirectionless drift. Some ‘soft’ analytical approaches aim to combine thebest of both perspectives, and a few of them are summarized below.

Strategic choice analysis

This approach has been described by Friend (1989), who workedprimarily with local government planning. It combines techniques fromoperational research with concepts developed in the Tavistock Institute ofHuman Relations. Friend distinguishes three categories of uncertainty inselecting from different alternative actions:

� uncertainty from the working environment� uncertainty about values� uncertainty about related decision fields.

And four modes in which people work when planning strategy:

� shaping� choosing� designing� comparing.

Friend describes several techniques for use in each mode. Figure 5.2illustrates the working modes and how the planner moves between themwhen developing a strategy. Figure 5.3 illustrates the application of one ofthe techniques, the analysis of decision areas and links between them, in‘shaping mode’. The scene as a whole is not very complex. In fact, all thedecision areas are linked, but by the constraint of the availability offinance; most of these actions are likely to have to be taken eventually,and the main decision is about priorities rather than alternatives. Thiscursory investigation suggests that this methodology is more applicableto strategic planning for the wider system, the museum itself, where agreater variety of strategic directions offer themselves, than to theconservation sub-system. This brief description is far from doing justiceto the strategic choice approach, which clearly does offer many usefultools (for instance, analysis of comparative advantage, the setting out offeasible decision schemes).


Upgadeair con-

ditioning tomain

galleries Improvepackaging/mountingfor objects

Expandprogrammeof conser-

vation

Vacateless good

stores

Install morecompactrackingsystems

Installstand-alone

air cond.units instores


Fig. 5.2 Working modes in strategic choice analysis. Planners can movebetween modes at random

Fig. 5.3 Strategic choice analysis: the analysis of decision areas and linksbetween them in ‘shaping’ mode

Robustness analysis

Robustness analysis is ‘a format for exploring aspects of planningproblems under uncertainty, not a method for finding an answer’(Rosenhead, 1989). It is applicable to situations of uncertainty, whichinclude the operational climate in many museums today. Robustnessanalysis is predicated on the recognition that it is impossible for anyoneto know what the future will be like; that any strategy based on a futureextrapolated from the present is likely to rapidly become irrelevant, butthat it is possible to imagine a range of futures, and develop plans to takeaccount of this. There are two important keys to uncertainty planning:first, that the existence of multiple possible futures is acknowledged andsecond, that decisions (the commitment of resources to an action) aredistinguished from plans, which are the foreshadowing of sets ofdecisions. Plans can be altered losing nothing but time; however, it maybe objected that nothing is gained from this either, and credibility andcommitment may be lost.

The whole methodology is quite complex, but the concept ofrobustness analysis, which lies at its heart, is relatively simple. A plancontains a number of stages at which decisions on different courses ofaction must be taken. The alternative courses of action lead to differentoutcomes. The desirability of each outcome will depend on which of thepossible multiple futures comes to pass. Decisions, outcomes, and futurescan be set out diagrammatically, as in Fig. 5.4.

This technique clearly needs a good deal of practice before its fullpotential is realized. Rosenhead points out, however, that it can besimplified as much as is desirable for a particular situation as long as its keyfeatures are retained. Its striking advantage is that it is directed toclarifying the key question, ‘what should we do now?’ and explores actualconsequences, when most of the other techniques that have beeninvestigated only help to understand the desirability of different actions.

Case study

The Historic City Museum has to do something, but what? The council’sBest Value review has shown that dramatic improvements are needed forthe care of the stored collections. If the stores continue to look likejunkyards heads will roll. But in spite of this commitment fromcouncillors, it is not possible to commit funding for more than a yearahead. By that time, local government funding may well have beenreduced, and the museum may be much more reliant on income fromvisitors. How can the museum use the short-term funding to bring aboutimprovements to collections care that would be useful in the future?


Fig. 5.4 Robustness analysis: decisions, outcomes and futures applied to the Historic City Museum’s investment decision

The museum sets up a Care of Collections Working Party to help decideon priorities. They first define two different imagined futures as:

1 that most of its funding will continue to come from the council, whichwill therefore insist on accountability for both collections preservationand access to the collections, through the Audit Commission and theMuseums and Galleries Commission Standards;

2 that local government funding, and therefore pressures for account-ability, will sharply diminish. Pressures to attract more visitors andprovide more services will increase, and access to stored collections canassist this.

In both these scenarios, the most desirable outcome is one in whichcollections are well cared for and also stored in ways that can be madeaccessible to the public.

The decision to be taken is what major area of collections improvementto invest in? This is recorded on the left-hand side of the analysis diagram(Fig. 5.4). The choice of investments forms the next column. The centralcolumn shows one or two alternatives for each investment choice, linkedby lines. Finally, there are four possible outcomes, combinations ofpreserved/deteriorating objects and closed/visible storage. A line indi-cates where an investment alternative can be linked to an outcome.

A simple value (desirable, acceptable, undesirable) is ascribed to eachoutcome under each future. Finally, the outcome values to which the linesfrom each of the investment choices lead are counted up (Table 5.3).

The diagrams and processes look complex, but the working party findthat if they work carefully through the process it is quite clear. They coulduse more levels of decision and more futures if they wish to do so.

The working party discusses their results (Table 5.3). Since desirableoutcomes are of most concern (rather than the avoidance of undesirable


Table 5.3 Robustness analysis: preferred and unpreferred options left open byalternative decisions on investment in collections preservation

Investmentchoice

Options left open

D A U

Air conditioning 2 1 1 KeyRacking 2 1 5 D: desirableStores 2* 0 3 A: acceptablePackaging 0 1 3 U: undesirableConservation 2 1 1

*Outcome accessible by two routes.

ones) then no one decision has a clear advantage, but investment inpackaging (protection and support for individual objects) alone will notcontribute significantly to any desirable outcome. It is assumed thatpackaging would prevent objects being seen, and so this is ruled outbecause it would preclude visible storage (which need not necessarily bethe case). A decision to invest in racking will open no more desirableoutcomes than other options, but it carries a much higher risk ofundesirable outcomes (inaccessible storage), because of the need todecide between normal and roller racking. Roller racking would make thecollections easy to retrieve, and maximize cost-effectiveness in the use ofstorage space, but it really would preclude any practical form of directaccess to the stored collections.

The two decisions (conservation and air conditioning) that keep openthe most desirable outcomes, and minimize the risk of undesirable ones,both imply investment in the preservation of the collections themselvesrather than in the means of displaying or storing them. This conclusionseems obvious as soon as the working party utters it, but it certainly hadnot been at the start of the exercise.

The museum applied the analysis in a simplified manner, but theresults prompted some interesting observations. Insight can be gained inthis way by imposing simplicity. Analysis may prompt investigation ofother choices. One needs to be imaginative, and to be ready to completelychange the frame of reference for decisions. When the Historic CityMuseum conservators go on to develop a strategic plan (Chapter 10), theyrealize that choices should not be between major avenues of investment,but between different stores, as candidates for a coordinated package ofstore-by-store improvements.

Conclusions

In this and the previous chapter, several different logical and numericaids to decision-making and planning have been investigated. Each ofthem has uses in managing the conservation of museum collections. Allof them assist in clarifying the nature of the decisions to be taken. Themethods will also assist individual and organizational learning if staff arewidely involved, especially if the planning processes are iterative, withevaluation and review at regular intervals. Although institutions maysubscribe to the idea of corporate learning, it can be hard for them to findthe time and circumstances for this. Ways of assisting this include settingaside a specific planning day, the familiar management away days, or aspecial staff seminar.

Finally, the importance of applying cost-benefit and opportunity costprinciples to planning itself should be borne in mind. The costs of


indecision are well known; planning blight can severely affect morale andland the institution in a slough of inertia. Elaborate assessment processescan themselves have an opportunity cost in time and effort – what is notbeing done because of this?

References


Bowman, C. (1990). The essence of strategic management. London: Prentice Hall.Bowman, C. and Asch, D. (1987). Strategic management. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Crockford, N. (1986). An introduction to risk management. Cambridge: Woodhead-

Faulkner.Earl, M. (1992). Putting IT in its place: a polemic for the nineties. Journal of

Information Technology, 7, 100–108.Farbey, B., Land, F. et al. (1993). How to assess your IT investment. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.Friend, J. (1989). The strategic choice approach. In Rational analysis for a problematic

world (J. Rosenhead, ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Hay, M. and Williamson, P. (1991). Strategic staircases: planning the capabilities

required for success. Long range planning, 24, 4, 36–43.Michalski, S. (1994). A systematic approach to preservation: description and

integration with other museum activities. In Preventive conservation: practice,theory, and research. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa Congress, September1994. London: IIC.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. London: Financial Times,Prentice Hall.

Mintzberg, H. and Quinn, J. (1992). The strategy process. London: Prentice Hall.Ohmae, K. (1991). The mind of the strategist. New York: McGraw-Hill.Rosenhead, J. ed. (1989). Robustness analysis: keeping your options open. In

Rational analysis for a problematic world. Chichester: Wiley.Waller, R. (1994). Conservation risk assessment: a strategy for managing resources

for preventive conservation. In Preventive conservation: practice, theory, andresearch. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa Congress, September 1994.London: IIC.



Exhibit 5A: PEST and SWOT analysis for theHistoric City Museum

PEST analysis for the situation of the Historic City Museum

Political

� Pressure for accountabilityfor collections care

� Pressure for the museumto deliver services

� Pressure to demonstratethe collections are useful

� Bid culture: constantchallenge funding

Economic

� Constant decrease inmuseum funding

� Difficulty of Historic CityMuseum raisingsponsorship in theHistoric City

� Closure of businesses inHistoric City

� Government financeavailable via challengefunding that has to be bidfor

Social

� People see collections asdusty bits

� Conservation can beperceived as too preciousand nitpicking

� People are very interestedin conservation work

Technical

� Rising health and safetystandards, hence costs

� Cost of equipmentreplacement andinvestment, e.g. fumecupboards

� Increasing understandingof preservation


SWOT analysis for the Conservation Department of theHistoric City Museum

Strengths

� Trained and experiencedstaff

� Well equippedlaboratories

� Respected by othermuseum departments

� Strong managementethos

� Outward looking

Weaknesses

� Expensive to run� Perhaps seen as too high

profile� Staff at the top of their

grades, could providesubstantial savings

Opportunities

� Possibility of themuseum becoming aregional hub andproviding services toother museums

� External funding, e.g.research projects, specialfunds

� Public interest inmuseums

� Pressure for access tocollections (they mustlook good)

Threats

� New emphasis on peopleand services not oncollections

� Possibility of outsourcingconservation

Ext

ern

alIn

tern

al

6 A systems view of museums

Museums, like other organizations in recent decades, have found a blastof change affecting the roles that they are expected to play, and what isrequired of the people working in them. Part of this is due to theenormous increase in the size of the collections. Organizational arrange-ments that were adequate to manage collections where individualcurators could hold in their own heads the identity, significance, andwhereabouts of most, if not all, the objects in their care are not at allappropriate to circumstances where collections commonly numberhundreds of thousands of objects. As has been shown, the growth incollections has mostly taken place only from the 1960s.

Because of perceptions still based on the past combined withcontinuing rapid change, it has been difficult to see clearly howcollections preservation should best be managed. In order to properlyunderstand the nature of the new tasks we need to step back from thesituation in which we are immersed, and understand what preservationreally entails. A powerful and illuminating method of enquiry has beendeveloped during the last twenty years, and used in management studiesand consultancy. Rooted in systems studies, it is known as the SoftSystems Methodology.

The systems approach

Systems theory

Systems theory has been important in studies of organizations and thedevelopment of approaches to management. The Open Systems Groupcompilation of papers (1972) offers a variety of views of the manyapplications of systems work. Checkland (1999) in his book, Systemsthinking, systems practice has set out a detailed review of the developmentof systems theory and its application.

Systems theory arose between 1940 and 1950, as biologists inparticular began to recognize the limitations of scientific method.Scientific method is very powerful; it has gained almost complete

supremacy as a way of understanding the world, profoundly shapingour society and indeed our whole outlook. Yet scientific method is ahighly reductionist view of the world, founded on the premise firstdeveloped by Descartes in the eighteenth century: that we can under-stand the whole by studying each part separately. In scientific experi-mental method, very precisely targeted hypotheses are developed andtested. The results are expressed in such a form that the tests can berepeated and either confirmed or refuted by others, especially since theresults are usually numerically expressed.

However, scientific method has serious limitations. Many centuriesago, Aristotle stated that ‘the whole is more than the sum of its parts’.There are many examples of unintended consequences completelyswamping the benefits of applying scientific knowledge. Examples arethe use of DDT against insect pests, drug side effects such as thalidomide,and BSE (bovine spongiform encaphaly) as a consequence of feedingcows processed material from other animals, some of which werediseased. At the same time as the reductionist approach becomes evermore powerful, its failures to take account of the world as a whole systembecome catastrophically more apparent. Especially when living organ-isms or organizations are concerned, it is not possible to understand theworking of the whole by studying it as a series of discrete parts. If theworld is imagined as a hierarchy of complexity, with inanimatecomponents at one end through living organisms to societies or ecologiesat the other, scientific method becomes the less powerful the morecomplex the area of interest.

The systems approach has two main roots. One is in the study ofbiological systems, where the biologist von Bertalanffy, developed ideasabout systems and presented a ‘general system theory’. He envisagedthat there would arise a high-level meta-theory of systems, which couldbe mathematically expressed. Bertalanffy was the person who firstdeveloped the concepts of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ systems. ‘Closed’ systemsare essentially mechanical and cannot adjust themselves to take accountof external changes, whereas ‘open’ systems are purposeful and canadjust themselves so as to continue operating in a changing environment;examples are biological, ecological, and organization systems.

A second major root for systems thinking lies in work on communicationand control systems. Here, Norbert Wiener developed the theory ofcybernetics, a conceptual framework for machines ‘on which all individualmachines may be ordered, related, and understood’. The Rand Corpora-tion’s work in this area during the Second World War is often seen as thefoundation for operations research and management science.

Systems thinking now has a wide variety of applications, includingengineering, manufacturing, sociology, geography and planning, politics,information, and information technology.


Operations research, systems and soft systems

Although systems approaches have an overarching unifying theme,within them there is a significant dichotomy between so-called ‘hard’ and‘soft’ methodologies. ‘Hard’ methods, such as the quantitative andlogically based techniques described above, assume that the world is byits nature systemic, that we can discern these systems or install new ones,and if we are clever enough, fix them so that they work properly. The softviewpoint is that the world is not by its nature systemic; the system in thesoft systems methodology lies in applying a systemic analysis to the real-world ‘mess’ (to use Russell Ackoff’s term), in the hope that improvedunderstanding will help us to bring about improvements.

Hard systems approaches include mainstream operations research andcybernetics, expounded principally by Stafford Beer (Beer, 1985). Beer’swork gained such credence that he was summoned by PresidenteSalvador Allende of Chile to apply his concepts to the running of thewhole country (unfortunately his remedy was not effective, sinceAllende’s government was subsequently overthrown). The well-knownstructured information systems analysis methods such as structuredsystems analysis and design method (SSADM) are hard approaches. Softapproaches include the strategic choice techniques described previouslyin Chapter 5, and would include prototyping, evolutionary development,and socio-technical approaches to information systems design.

The soft systems methodology

The soft systems methodology is important both for its general spirit ofenquiry through the involvement of the actors in the situation, and for theanalytical tools it offers. It has been developed by Peter Checkland in thespecific context of academic research into organizations, applied in, andinformed by management consultancy (Checkland and Scholes, 1999).The particular strengths of soft systems methodology are that itencourages an open mind and a highly imaginative approach to thenature of the problem and solution alike, and that it provides tools forfacilitating structured discussion by the actors in the situation them-selves. The stated objective of the method is to bring about ‘real, desirablechange’. A successful outcome would usually aim to include changes inthe perception of those within or in charge of ‘the situation’. The softsystems techniques are also finding increasing application in the earlystages of developing information systems.

In essence, the method consists of developing understanding of the realworld situation-of-interest, and then imagining one or more abstract

A systems view of museums 81

Systemsthinking

Realworld

Rootdefinitions

Analyses1, 2, 3

Criteria forefficacy,efficiency,effectiveness

CATWOE

Relevant systemsand systemsconcepts

Richpicture

Conceptualsystems

Compare

Models ofpurposefulactivity –relevant onesselected

Take action toimprove …

Real worldproblemsituation

Structured debate

Accommodations(not seeking consensus;

conflict is endemic)

systems, which would be relevant to it. The insights gained like this arethen applied, by contrasting the real world with the abstract situation.This brings about further insights during structured discussion of whatwould constitute ‘real, desirable change’. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 depict themethod diagrammatically. In this chapter and the following one, the soft


Fig. 6.1 The soft methodology: the user moves between the abstract systemand the real world, constantly comparing the two

Fig. 6.2 Diagram of the soft methodology

systems methodology will be employed to enable us to understand whatthe tasks of collections preservation consist of, and hence what informa-tion is needed to manage them.

Soft systems tools

The soft systems methodology consists of a number of analyticaltechniques, used in sequence, but also iterated (repeated) as under-standing develops. At first it was interpreted as a series of prescribedstages, but it has now been found that it can be used much more flexibly.The analyst can select and make public those components that seem mostapplicable rather than following a sequence. Its essence still lies incontrasting the real world with an imaginary system or systems thatwould be relevant to it. The soft systems toolkit consists of:

� Real world understanding: the Rich Picture.The analyst or the actors depict the world by means of a graphicsummary of it. This encourages an overview approach.

� Real world understanding: Analyses 1, 2, 3.The Rich Picture is supplemented by analyses of the nature of theproblem (Analysis 1), of the cultural situation (Analysis 2), and of thedistribution of power (Analysis 3). Each analysis is a series of preciselytargeted analytical questions; undertaking these analyses can be mostenlightening for the participants. For examples of Analyses 1, 2, and 3see Exhibit 7A on p. 111.

� Systems concepts: relevant systems.From these analyses, and in particular from the Rich Picture, or from anequivalent discussion, a number of strictly abstract concepts can bedeveloped which would be relevant to the situation which is of interest.The relevant system or systems can be illustrated using conceptualdiagram(s).

� Systems concepts: root definition.Drawing on the concepts from the favoured relevant system, acomplete yet concise definition of how the relevant system would beembodied in the context of the real world is developed.

� Systems concepts: the conceptual system.The root definition is employed to construct a diagram showing theprocesses implied by the root definition and the dependencies betweenthese processes.

� Systems concepts: the CATWOE check.The root definition and conceptual systems are checked for theseelements; the customers, the actors, the system’s transform, theWeltanschauung (implicit and underlying view of the world), theowners, and the environment in which the system operates.


� Systems concepts or real world: criteria for system management.EFFICACY (how to measure whether the perceived system is workingproperly); ECONOMY (performance divided by cost); EFFECTIVE-NESS (would the overall objective be better met by doing somethingaltogether different?). These criteria can be established either for theconceptual system or for a real-world prescription.

� Systems concepts contrasted with real world.The conceptual system or systems are then compared and contrastedwith the real world, and this assists the actors to determine real,desirable improvements.

In real life applications, the analyst will concentrate on those aspects ofthe methodology that they find most helpful. The analyst may not admitto be using this method at all; they may just pose a series of questions fordiscussion. The importance of the method lies primarily in the structureddiscussion it engenders, which it is hoped gives rise to new perspectiveson the situation of interest.

Museums as systems

The problem situation unstructured

The unstructured situation has been portrayed in Chapter 2, Museums,collections, and people, and Chapter 3, Management and information.

The problem situation expressed: the Rich Picture

A Rich Picture diagram (Fig. 6.3) is used to express the main features ofthe problem situation more vividly than written text, especially the issuesat stake. The first stage towards examining the role of conservation mustbe to examine the museum system, which is relevant to these processes,and so conservation is depicted in the context of museums in general.

The relevant elements of the Rich Picture are:

� the processes: in the museum – management, conservation, curation,exhibition

� the collections: consisting of objects, stored and exhibited� the people: managers, curators, conservators, designers, and very

importantly, the public� inputs and outputs: within the system – collections not preserved

become collections preserved� outside pressures: the National Audit Office, the government, other local

or national government influences


Fig. 6.3 A soft systems Rich Picture of conservation in museums. The focus is on issues, rather than tasks or processes

� many issues: among them, that curators feel threatened by the rise ofother museum professionals, that many conservators prefer to spendtime actively treating objects rather than preventing damage, that thereare many reasons why a particular object may be a candidate forconservation at any one time, conflicts of priority, difficulty decidingwhere to start in conserving objects, and pressure for accountabilityfrom outside bodies.

The starting point for analysing and understanding the preservationsystem for museums is to clearly depict the current situation. The RichPicture highlights one important issue in particular. This is the growthand use of collections, which in the absence of growing resourcesmilitates against their preservation. This arises from, and is partsymptomatic of, the role conflict between curators, the surrogate ‘owners’of the collections, and conservators, who see themselves as ‘carers’ or‘guardians’ of their long term quality. The later analysis expresses this asdual system objectives (see Relevant systems below).

The Rich Picture does not depict structures or tasks at all clearly,although it does show conservation work taking place. In the light ofongoing change in the roles and management of museums, responsibili-ties and roles are still unclear, with consequent conflict. The task in thesoft analysis was to inspect the situation, as it existed in the real worldand to propose an abstract system of tasks and functions that would moreeffectively reflect the purpose of museums.

Relevant systems

The museum system that we need to imagine is one relevant to theconservation and preservation of its collections. The various definitionsof museums that exist have been helpful in compiling the Rich Picture,but they are not descriptions of systems. More than one relevant systemneeds to be developed, to aid freedom of thinking. From the Rich Picture,a variety of relevant systems for museums are suggested, among them asystem to:

� focus on the tasks of preserving the collection rather than on inter-professional rivalry

� provide management information on the preservation of thecollections

� minimize the number of objects that needs to be treated (because theyare all in good condition)

� set and apply standards for the care and maintenance of objects� maintain original objects in good condition for exhibition or other

‘use’.


What lies at the heart of the activities and purposes of museums? Thismay best be approached by first considering other types of organiza-tion. What about a factory making shoes, or any other commodity forsale, a record office, or commercial exhibitions? Figure 6.4 showsdiagrammatically some systems with their inputs and outputs. Aproduction system takes raw materials, turns them into something else,and passes them out of the system. A records office takes somethingwhich constitutes original evidence, organizes and maintains it, andmakes it available to the public in a form as nearly unchanged aspossible; i.e. as primary evidence. In a commercial exhibition the fate ofthe products is irrelevant (except for their cash value); the system is totransform possible customers into eager customers.

What is the least that a museum can do and yet be a museum?Preservation and interpretation of collections are the dual concepts at theheart of museums. Would display alone suffice? An organization such asthe Sainsbury Centre that is simply a venue for a changing series of


Fig. 6.4 Concepts for relevant systems for different organizations compared

displays would not qualify, although it might be known as ‘a gallery’.Does preservation alone make a museum? The British Rail Pensions Fundheld a collection but it in no way constituted a museum. To be a museum,an organization has to hold a collection in some ongoing way and alsoprovide access to them for people, even if only privately. It is notnecessary to acquire new objects, and indeed many ‘closed’ collectionsexist, such as the Wallace Collection and the Dulwich Picture Gallery. Aswell as the quality of permanence, there is also the implication that acollection consists of objects that are meaningful and capable of beingordered according to some concept or principle. Together these imply thatthe objects are in some way unique and therefore irreplaceable. There areovertones that the meaning that is in some way inherent in the objects ismade explicit by virtue of their being members of a museum collection, asmuseum objects. The relevant system that seems to best represent thissituation of interest is:

A system to permanently maintain an irreplaceable and meaningfulphysical resource and to use it to transmit ideas and concepts to thepublic.

In this system, one input is being used in two separate systemstransformations, as in Figure 6.4d. This combines the two essential featuresof museums, expressed in all definitions and in most implements ofgovernance: to maintain collections and also to exhibit them and use themin other ways to transmit ideas, etc. Collections have two conceptualdimensions: the intellectual, comprising their information content andsignificance, and their physical presence. Since they are of real objects, eachunique because of its historical context or associations, collections can beseen as ‘an irreplaceable resource’. The term ‘resource’ implies somethingbeing used up. Nothing can prevent objects gradually deteriorating, anddisplaying them generally accelerates this; therefore, this term seemsappropriate. Exhibitions, lectures, educational activities, actors in galleries,and all the other public service activities of museums today are essentiallydifferent ways of transmitting ideas and concepts to the public.

The actual relevant system, then, is a dual one, comprising of both theprocesses that go on inside the system in Figure 6.4d. The processes are‘maintenance’ and also ‘transmission’. Each of these takes the same‘meaningful objects’ as its input. Each of them outputs ‘preserved objects’and also objects of which the meaning is explicit.

Alternative museum systems

The museum relevant system depicted here might be called the classicalsystem, but in Chapter 2, section Paradigms for collections on p. 16, it wasshown that there is a variety of uses for museum collections: display,


demonstration, and evidence. Do these various uses imply differentrelevant systems?

In another relevant system (Fig. 6.5b), objects themselves are anessential input, because the operation of the system, if no restrictions areplaced on it, entails the alteration of the objects by replacing parts,repainting, etc. This might eventually be to such an extent that they are nolonger the same as they originally were. In this case, it might be said thatthe physical dimension of the object is out of step with its intellectual orinformational dimension. It is supposed to be a genuine historical object,but in fact it is no longer so.

If Figures 6.5a and 6.5b are, respectively, the ‘classical’ museum systemand one where collections are used for demonstration, is a third type ofsystem required where the primary purpose is display? The primeexample of this is a picture collection. In systems terms, display can beseen as a form of demonstration. Running a historic engine ormaintaining a historic house will lead to original parts wearing out andeither continuing to exist in a changed form, or being replaced ormodified. In a similar way, exposing a picture to light energy in displaywill result in changes to colour, texture, and physical and mechanicalproperties. The system in Figure 6.5b appears to be generally relevant tocollections for demonstration and display. Dual objectives still seemnecessary, but instead of a permanent resource, historic objects are beingmaintained for demonstration.

Is there a sense in which the two different relevant systems, Figure 6.5aand b, can be expressed as one? In both cases, historic objects are both aninput and an output. If they are in a museum, then objects willdeteriorate, whether from display, demonstration, or natural processes,


Fig. 6.5 Relevant systems for a generalized museum, and one having‘demonstration’ of objects as its primary purpose

and they need to be maintained. Perhaps there is a compromise system inwhich historic objects are maintained as nearly as possible in theiroriginal form.

Sticking to the simple relevant system, the concept for a system thatwill do this is illustrated in Figure 6.6.

Root definitions

The relevant system that has been adopted for the purpose of thisdiscussion is:

A system to build and permanently maintain an irreplaceable andmeaningful physical resource and to use it to transmit ideas andconcepts to the public.


Fig. 6.6 The general concept for a museum system

The next stages in the analysis are to develop the abstract conceptembodied in the relevant system, and use it as the basis for a rootdefinition. A root definition describes the features of the real worldsituation in some detail in the light of the relevant system. A first attemptat a root definition for a museum might be:

Root definition of a museum, Version 1:A system which uses public money to acquire and maintain anirreplaceable and meaningful physical resource and maintain it for thefuture, and to use and reuse it to transmit ideas, concepts, and insightsabout culture or history to the general public.

Part of Checkland’s soft analysis process is to check the root definition forcompleteness by examining the following elements, designated by theacronym CATWOE (Checkland and Scholes, 1999).

� Customers: The beneficiaries of the system, in this case, the public. Thecomplication arises because the museum public is the ongoing public;people a hundred years hence, not just today.

� Actors: Those who carry out the activities in the system – they need tobe specified.

� Transformation: What the system does to its inputs in order to transformthem into outputs. The input to the system is the irreplaceable andmeaningful resource, and the output, both its maintenance and theresource with the meaning made explicit. Inside the transformation iswhatever the system does in order to maintain the resource and makeit meaningful.

� Weltanschauung: The underlying view of the world which makes thesystem relevant. In this case, this is that the public desires museums asplaces that permanently hold objects, which for a variety of reasons areirreplaceable.

� Owners: Those who have sufficient power over the system to cause it tocease to exist. This is implicit in ‘public money’ – whoever provides theresources can also withhold them.

� Environmental constraints: What constraints does the system take asgiven? That the organization is permanent, that objects, as a resource,are essentially non-renewable, that they must be preserved for thefuture.

The CATWOE process is used not so much to check that all elements areincluded as to be a tool for thinking about the relevance and complete-ness of the root definition. Working through it resulted in fairlyfundamental adjustments to the root definition in particular, ‘actors’ wereinserted, and a variety of means of ‘transmission’ were specified.


Root definition for a museum, Version 2:An organization which receives funding to permanently preserveobjects which are irreplaceable and meaningful because of theirhistoric or social significance or aesthetic qualities, in which trainedpeople are employed to build and maintain collections in order to usethem to transmit ideas and concepts to the public through display,publishing, lecturing, or other means of communication.

Of particular importance is the Weltanschauung – the ‘world view’. Itssignificance is underlined by the discussion above of alternative relevantsystems. The world view from a demonstration museum is said to be thatalthough objects are irreplaceable it is not important to preserve thempermanently. They are to be used to help people experience the past. Theworld view from the ‘classical’ museum system is that the collections areto be permanently preserved in some sort of ‘original’ state. It is obviousthat the world view has profound implications for the conservationsystem, and that differences may account for many of the issues andconflicts identified in the Rich Picture.

A first version of the root definition was developed in 1988. By 1991pressures on public organizations to contract out work to the privatesector had greatly increased. The root definition was revised to embodythe principle that, while it is necessary for trained people to undertake thework, it is not essential to employ them:

Root definition of a museum, Version 3:An organization which receives public funding to permanentlypreserve objects which are irreplaceable and meaningful because oftheir historic or social significance, or aesthetic qualities, in whichtrained people build and maintain collections in order to use them totransmit ideas and concepts to the public through display, publishing,lecturing, or other means of communication.

A conceptual model

A conceptual model shows the activities, which would be the logicalconsequences of picking the chosen relevant system. It is essential tomaintain an abstract view, in order eventually to gain a sharp contrastwith the real-life system shown in the Rich Picture. To ensure that theview of the real world maintains its abstraction, we need to draw both onthe relevant system and its concept, and on the root definition. Whatwould it be essential to do in order for the relevant system to operate?The relevant system includes two different basic, but interlocking,processes, one concerned with the physical, irreplaceable resource, andthe other with its meaning: the knowledge and information connected


PROVIDEfinance,staff, etc.

TRANSMITideas andconcepts

MAINTAINobjects

PLAN,MONITOR,CONTROL

RESEARCHknowledge

PREPAREobjects

SYNTHESIZEideas

BUILDcollections

An organization which receives public funding topermanently preserve objects which areirreplaceable and meaningful because of theirhistoric or social significance or aesthetic qualities,in which trained people are employed to build andmaintain collections in order to use them totransmit ideas and concepts to the public throughdisplay, publishing, lecturing or other means ofcommunication.

with it. Figure 6.7 is a more formal systems view of the processes, whichseem to be implied in the root definition.

Since the collections are of original objects, and they are permanent (theresource is non-renewable), it is clearly essential to physically MAINTAINthem. Collections need to be BUILT, in which we can include adding tothem, organizing the objects, recording and maintaining associationsbetween objects and information (their meaning), and if necessary refiningthe collections by means of disposal. If ideas and information are to betransmitted, then obviously there must also be a means to buildknowledge: i.e. RESEARCH. The resource and the knowledge of it must becombined in SYNTHESIZING ideas for transmission. The objects will needto be PREPARED both to ensure that their appearance does not distractfrom the concepts they are meant to ‘transmit’ (a missing leg does call intoquestion the meaning of a chair) and to guard against damage, but withoutcompromising their originality, since they will in due course be reused totransmit other, different ideas. Since a system must operate in a purposeful


Fig. 6.7 Conceptual model for a museum system. Arrows indicate logicaldependencies

way, there must also be the means to PLAN, MONITOR, AND CONTROLall these activities.

For the purposes of this study, providing resources such as staff andfinance and producing the means of transmission of ideas, concepts, andinformation to the public are held to be outside the boundaries of therelevant system. They are obviously critically important to the operationof an organization, but they need not be understood in detail here as partof the relevant system itself.

Were we undertaking a full analysis for a museum, the processesinherent in each of these frontline activities would need to be developedand detailed in accordance with the root definition. But the museumanalysis here is only preliminary to analysing the preservation sub-system concerned with preservation.


Real world and system contrast

The comparison stage is the means to the end of the soft analysis process;the identification of ‘meaningful, desirable change’, carried out jointlywith the parties within and in control of the situation. The ‘success’ of themethodology depends on those involved responding in a rational way tothe enlightenment brought by a new view of life. In this, soft analysis isno different from other reviews undertaken by management consultants,except that soft analysis, in common with other socio-technical methods,can explicitly engage the actors themselves in the analysis of theirsituation.

The process of comparison can be more or less structured, according tothe preference of the analyst. It is not proposed to go deeply into thecomparison stage. The aim of this study is to uncover what informationis needed within the system, not to make it function better; its primaryconcern is information for the conservation of the collections. We need tofocus in on this.

It is likely that the root definition would be broadly acceptable tomuseum ‘actors’. It is not far removed from most definitions of museums.Thus, if the root definition has been reflected accurately in the conceptualsystem, the conceptual system processes will be a fair basis for contrastwith the real world. An examination of each of the processes in theconceptual system is shown in Table 6.1.

A major contrast between the Rich Picture and the conceptual systemis the lack of processes in the Rich Picture. The conceptual model focusessharply (as was the intention) on the processes needed in order for thesystem to operate. The impression that is gained from the Rich Picture isthat the system’s purpose is to give meaningful roles to differentprofessionals, who put much energy into defending their positions,

power, and roles. The processes themselves are hardly visible. Anotherfeature is the conflict of priorities. Discussions of museum organizationsby Burrett (1985), Griffin (1988), etc., indicate that this view is notinaccurate. It might be concluded that the main item on an Agenda forAction could usefully be to focus on outcomes and the tasks andprocesses needed to achieve them rather than on who does what, andcontrols whom.

The changing scene

It is crude to categorize all museums like this. In a way, the Rich Pictureshows worst practice in the past. These days, many more individualmuseums have some of these desirable processes in place than was thecase previously. Few have all of them. This change is due to pressures formeasurable results, for greater accountability, for higher standards, andalso for organizational adaptation to meet new requirements (Spalding,1999). The new structures that are emerging fit the system depicted in theconceptual model much more closely than did the previous prevalentarrangement, where the organizations and the collections were dividedinto fiefdoms ruled by ‘Keeper Barons’. A common feature is thatcollections management (which sometimes includes conservation) is


Table 6.1 Comparison of the real museum world with the processes of theconceptual system

Process Exists in real world?

Build collections Much more emphasis on acquisition than on makingcollections and information into an integrated workingresource

Research knowledge Some art historical research, but little in museumcollection terms

Maintain objects The physical state of many museum collections showsthat this has had a low priority in planning and finance

Prepare objects This is the top priority for conservation where provisionfor this exists

Synthesize ideas This activity has high priority in museums that haveany sort of exhibition programme

Plan, monitor, control In the national museums this is assuming a higherpriority – but corporate plans can be window dressing,with little relation to actual plans

established as a function in its own right. The local government processesof Best Value are also driving this practical view.

It seems, therefore, that the situation shown in the Rich Picture hasbecome unsustainable in many museums due to changing circumstancesin the real world. The new organization arrangements conform muchmore nearly to the processes shown in the conceptual model.

References

Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the system for organizations. Chichester: John Wiley.Burrett, G. (1985). After Raynor. In The management of change in museums.

Proceedings of a seminar held at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, 1984 (N.Cossons, ed.), pp. 27–29. London: National Maritime Museum.

Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice (Second edition). Chi-chester: John Wiley.

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester:John Wiley.

Griffin, D.J.G. (1988). Managing in the museum organization: II. Conflict, tasks,responsibilities. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship, 7, 11–23.

Open Systems Group (1972). Systems behaviour. London: Paul Chapman inassociation with the Open University.

Spalding, J. (1999). Creative management in museums. In Management in museums(K. Moore, ed.). London: Athlone Press.


7 The preservation system

Analysing the operations of museums generally in systems terms hasprovided a context for the analysis of conservation itself. Maintenanceand preservation lie at the heart of the museum system, and this taskis wider than the treatment of objects alone.

As an aid to maintaining an abstract view of a system in which oneis oneself an actor, it is helpful to consider other different or com-parable systems. Preserving museum collections is close to the conceptof terotechnology (Checkland, 1999: 202–206). Terotechnology isdefined as:

A combination of management financial, engineering and otherpractices applied to physical assets in pursuit of economic life-cycle costs. Its practice is concerned with the specification anddesign for reliability and maintainability of plant, machinery,equipment, buildings and structures, with their installation, com-missioning, maintenance, modification and replacement, and withthe feedback of information on design, performance and costs.

(Checkland, 1981: 205)

Although there are similarities, there are also important differences.Terotechnology is primarily concerned with minimizing the financialcosts of not caring properly for assets, whereas in museums it is thepreservation per se of physical assets, not the control of the costs ofmaintenance, that is the purpose of the system. Therefore, in museumsthere is less emphasis on acquiring, and replacement is not, in the puresystem, possible, since the particular state of wear and historicalassociations of the original could never be reproduced. The uniquenessof a museum object derives from its association with information(indeed, its embodiment as information); this is not necessary interotechnology.

Checkland offers a conceptual model for terotechnology, redrawn inFigure 7.1 (Checkland, 1981: 204).

Decide what physicalassets to acquire

and how to use them

Acquire physicalassets

Replacephysical assets

Monitor'care for'

Monitor'use'

Care for physicalassets

Use physicalassets Feedback

information todesign, etc.

The real world: the Rich Picture and Analyses 1, 2, and 3

The museum Rich Picture (Fig. 6.3) depicts the real-world conservationsituation, and observations made in Chapter 6 where that is discussedapply to it. Issues especially relevant to conservation are that the preferredactivity of many conservators is actively treating objects, that there isdifficulty in deciding priorities between the maintenance of collections andtreatment, and between one treatment task and another. The generalimpression is that conservation is seen as a service to other more importantactivities, rather than as the central preservation function of museums.There is no logic or control over the flow of work.

The Rich Picture has been supplemented by undertaking Analyses 1, 2,and 3. These consist of a series of very carefully designed questions.Debating the answers to these can be as enlightening and interesting as any


Fig. 7.1 The conceptual system for terotechnology. Arrows indicatedependencies. (After Checkland, 1981, Fig. 15)

stage in the soft methodology. The results of the analyses are shown inExhibit 7A on pp. 111–113.

Relevant systems

A relevant system for conservation could be directly derived from theconceptual model for a museum. However, a number of relevant systemsfor conservation can be imagined from the Rich Picture, and it is preferablenot to converge too rapidly on one solution. Issue-based systems would bethose that:

� increase awareness among curators (as people holding power within thesystem) of the requirements for preservation

� make the museum’s operations more purposeful� prioritize conservation activities� focus on the tasks of preserving the collections rather than on inter-

professional issues� make sure that the care of objects gets enough resources.

It has been decided to focus on task-based systems for the present study.These could be those that:

� treat and restore objects� minimize the number of objects that need to be treated� set and apply scientific standards for the care of objects� maintain a non-renewable resource.

From the museum model itself, the relevant system that arises is:

Relevant system 1A sub-system to permanently maintain an irreplaceable and meaningfulphysical resource

The essence of this system, the transformation, can be expressed in evenmore abstract terms, shown diagrammatically in Figure 7.2:

The preservation system 99

Fig. 7.2 The central concept or ‘transform’ in the conservation relevant system

Relevant system 2To maintain collections or objects so that the resulting condition, C2, isthe same or better than the objects’ past condition, C1.

The essence of these relevant systems can be combined, and this is shownin the concept illustrated in Figure 7.3.

Root definitions

A first root definition for conservation could be:

First root definition for conservationA sub-system of a museum in which trained people work to preserveobjects that have been collected, remedying damage, and removingcauses of future deterioration so that the objects, when displayed, cantransmit appropriate concepts.

The CATWOE for this root definition would be:

� Customers: The customers are the owners of the objects, the public bothnow, who benefit from better appreciation of displays, and in theindefinite future;

� Actors: Trained people;


Fig. 7.3 A concept for a relevant preservation system

� Transform: Collections (or objects) in one condition, C1, transformed intocollections (or objects) in the same or better condition, C2 (see Fig. 7.2);

� Weltanschauung: The world view. The same as for museums, i.e. that thepublic wants museums to permanently maintain collections of real,original objects, and to provide ideas, etc., for their entertainment andeducation;

� Owners: The museum system itself can cause any preservation sub-system to cease to exist;

� Environment: The collections are preserved in order to serve the purposeof museums, i.e. to transmit ideas, etc. Preservation is not in museums anend in itself, since an institution that merely stores collections is not amuseum, although it could certainly employ a conservation departmentor service. Therefore, it must be clear that the conservation sub-system ispart of a wider system.

The museum root definition and the comparison of the conceptual systemwith the real world (Chapter 6, section Real world and system contrast) canbe revisited here. The systems of real world museums do embody theduality of the abstract conceptual system. How can we express the need topreserve the object in its original form while accepting that time andmaintenance will alter it? The concept of ‘historic integrity’ is suggested,because it implies not that an object will undergo no change – this isimpossible – but that changes, whether intentional or unintentional, will beaccurately recorded and the effects on the object will not be concealed. Italso implies the crucial association of object and information.

Root definition for conservation: ‘final’ versionA sub-system of a museum in which trained people preserve thehistorical and physical integrity of museum collections for the presentand future public, by maintaining objects, preventing deterioration,controlling use, and raising awareness of requirements for preservation.They thus contribute effectively to museum objectives.

The conceptual model

The conceptual model for the system that would carry out the processesimplied by the root definition is shown in Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5 showsthe details of the processes. The conceptual model needs to be checked forits viability as a system. This is done against the criteria below.

Systems check:

� Sub-systems? Yes.� Connectivity? Yes – both between sub-systems and with the wider

system.


BUILDcollections

'USE'objects

9.Take control

action

MANAGEall activities

1.PREVENT

deterioration

5.PROVIDE

trainedpeople

8.PLAN ANDMONITOR

sub-systemactivities

7.DEFINE

CRITERIA for'effective''efficient'

'efficacious'

3.CONTROL

'use' ofobjects

2.MAINTAINphysicalcondition

6.CONTRIBUTE

to museumactivities

4.CONSERVE

historicintegrity

� Environment? The wider museum system.� System boundary? These processes form a distinct and related group.� Resources? It is understood that finance and people are available through

the wider system.� Continuity? By virtue of the wider system itself.

The only source for the processes shown in the conceptual model must bethe root definition. Outside the preservation system are processes from themain system; the building of the collections and the use of objects. Theprocesses in the conceptual model for preservation are:

� PREVENT deterioration by providing suitable conditions, procedures,etc.

� MAINTAIN physical condition of collections, by rectifying deteriorationand removing its causes.

� CONSERVE historic integrity of collections, i.e. the object-as-evidence.


Fig. 7.4 Conceptual model for the preservation sub-system. Arrows indicatedependencies

9.Take control

action

1. Preventdeterioration

Identifycauses of

deterioration

Provideconditions

Specifyconditions forpreservation

Communicatere preservation

Acquireskills

Maintainskills

5. Providetrained people

8. Plan and monitorMonitor efficiency

(resource vs. output)

Monitor effectiveness(progress against

objectives)

Providemanagementinformation

Planactivities

7.Define criteria for

'effective''efficient'

'efficacious'

Setpolicies

Raise awarenessof how topreserve

Establishprocedures

and standards

3. Control 'use'

Specifyappropriatecondition

Developbetter

treatments

Treatobjects

2. Maintaincondition

Prepareobjects for

display, etc.Provideexpertadvice

Examine objectsand recordinformation

6. Contribute tomuseum activities

4. Conservehistoric integrity

Know whatconstitutes it

Agreetreatmentswith curator

Record allwork onobjects

� CONTROL use: set policies for use, demonstration, display, etc., andraise awareness of what contributes to preservation.

� CONTRIBUTE to museum activities such as exhibition, publication,information, etc.

� PROVIDE trained people: by hiring qualified people, and by maintain-ing their skills and knowledge.

� MANAGE all activities: define criteria for effective operation, plan andmonitor, take control action.

For the monitoring and control sub-system, which is the focus of theexercise, a series of measures need to be established. These are:

� Efficiency: Is the system working properly? This would be tested bymonitoring collections condition over time, as the question here iswhether the system can maintain the condition of collections.

� Economy: Is the system making the most effective use of resources? Thismeasure is quite difficult for conservation, but it might be expressed in


Fig. 7.5 Detailed conceptual model for preservation

terms of the size and condition of the collections in relation to the moneydevoted to their maintenance.

� Effectiveness: Is this the best way to achieve the overall, high-levelobjective?

Real world and system contrast

As in the comparison of the museum conceptual model with the RichPicture, most of the activities in the preservation model do occur in theRich Picture, but not as a coordinated, purposeful system. Again, muchof the mismatch occurs because the actors in the scene are unclear asto their role. They do not see themselves as undertaking com-plementary tasks in pursuit of a common goal (to preserve thecollections and communicate their meaning). Rather, they focus on theinternal politics of who has the first call on resources, and who has thepower to set priorities and decide what happens to objects. Instead ofa preservation operation or task, there is a conservator with a proces-sion of people bringing work. The accuracy of the Rich Picture wasdiscussed in Chapter 6.

The purpose of this analysis is to arrive at information needs. But theopportunity can also be taken to analyse the organizational system itself,at this general level. In Table 7.1 the detailed conceptual model, Figure7.5, is compared with the real world.

From analysis into management

Collections management systems are in widespread use in museums.However, as yet they do not easily provide information for managing,such as the number of objects in a store, the environmental parametersset for a store, or even the size of the store. Properly designedinformation on the state of the collections and the work of conservationcould be extremely helpful in managing preservation.

Soft systems conceptual models can be used in different ways todefine information systems; they are even better for defining informa-tion for managing. A way of using a conceptual model is as thebasis for the series of questions set out in Figure 7.6. The conceptsof objective setting, critical success factors, and performance indicatorsare all widely used in management today. This analytical techniqueis variously known as a ‘total study process’ or a business analy-sis. Ohmae (1991) has especially developed the concept of successfactors.


Table 7.1 Comparison of preservation in the real museum world with theprocesses of the conceptual preservation system (see Fig. 7.5)

Process Exists in real world?


This includes pest control, display design, appropriatestorage conditions. Seldom thoroughly done, due tolack of awareness as identified above

2. Maintain physicalcondition ofobjects

Usually top of the list of preservation processes, this iswell established in most museums, either as anin-house activity or by contracts with privateconservators or other organizations.‘Maintenance’ includes removing causes ofdeterioration such as acidity in paper, rectifyingdamage, and monitoring condition. Surveyingcollections condition has been considered importantfor some time. General method developed as part ofthis research (see Ch. 5)

3. Control ‘use’ Best developed in the form of conditions for loans.Includes proper procedures for handling, transport,etc. ‘Awareness of conservation needs by curators . . .’was third priority for conservators in 1987 Survey(Corfield et al., 1989). Still hard for preservation to betaken seriously in many museums

4. Conserve historicintegrity of objects

Trained conservators are mostly very aware of theneed to avoid making an object ‘like new’, and torecord what is done to it. Where the ethic is todemonstrate objects’ function this may not beconsidered so important

5. Provide trainedpeople

As examples of a craftsmanship approach to objectmaintenance show, specialist training is necessary ifthe causes of deterioration are to be understood andeliminated, rather than the object simply beingrestored to ‘a supposed earlier state’

6. Contribute to othermuseum activities

Much of the work conservation is undertakenspecifically for other museum activities, particularlyexhibition. Also, observations during conservation orthrough examination contribute to the informationabout objects

7, 8, 9. Manage sub-system activities

The tendency is towards planning preservation ofcollections as a continuum from storage through toremedial conservation: cf. increasing numbers of‘collections management’ posts


Aims andobjectives

What are the purposes of theorganization?

What must it do in order to achievethese purposes?

How can it tell if it is succeeding?

What information is needed toprovide these measures?

Key performanceindicators

Critical successfactors

Informationfunctions

The essential processes of the conceptual system can naturally beexpressed as objectives. These are discussed below.

1 To prevent deteriorationThis is done by ensuring that the environmental, physical, and otherconditions in which objects and collections are kept are appropriate totheir preservation. Preventing deterioration is much more efficient andeffective than rectifying the consequent damage.

2 To maintain and improve the physical condition of the collectionsThis is qualified, so that standards set by the museum for theircondition are met. It may not be an effective use of resources tomaintain every item in the collections in top exhibitable condition;sometimes, untreated objects may constitute a better source of evidencethan treated ones. It will usually be better to set a basic standard forcondition below which no object should fall.

3 To control damage from useUse includes handling, exposure to light, demonstration, etc. Museumobjects are there to be used in display, etc., but this nearly alwaysaccelerates the processes of deterioration. Policies need to be set onprocedures for and the extent of use. Policies will only be effective,however, if people subscribe to the need for them, so raising awarenessis integral to controlling use.

4 To conserve the historical integrity of objects in the collectionsUnless the objects are the ‘real thing’ they are not properly mean-ingful; they cannot play their proper part in transmitting ideas, etc.An objective needs to be set to specify the kind and degree ofrestoration, for example, separately from maintaining physicalcondition.


Fig. 7.6 The ‘business analysis’ process

5 To provide trained peopleAll these activities require knowledge at graduate level or higher, andsome of them require excellent manual skills as well. Knowledge andskills need to be constantly updated.

6. To contribute effectively to museum activitiesAs well as the major museum objective, to preserve collections, thepreservation sub-system can contribute to preparing objects fordisplay, recording, and passing on observations about technique,composition, etc., and providing expert advice on policies, authentic-ity, and the use of objects.

7. (Processes 7, 8, and 9) Manage all activities efficiently and economically, andto make sure that they are the most effective way to attain objectivesManaging these activities implies developing a strategic view, plan-ning activities, monitoring them, and taking control action wherenecessary. This needs to be applied to each of the objectives.

The results of using the preservation conceptual model (see Fig. 7.5) asthe basis for understanding information requirements are shown inTables 7.2 and 7.3. In the soft analysis, we already considered whatprocesses would be essential to the operation of the conceptual system asimplied by the root definition. Table 7.3 summarizes the full analyticalprocess from objective to success factor to performance indicator toinformation function. Objectives have been derived from the mainprocesses of the conceptual system; clearly, the detailed processes arewhat must be done to meet them. From these can be derived themeasures, the key performance indicators in business analysis terms,which will show whether or not the organization is succeeding inmeeting its objectives.

Since this book is concerned with managing, only the informationfunctions mostly concerned with this need be considered in depth. Theseare:

F1 Set standards for and monitor the condition of objects and collectionsas discussed in Chapter 9, Collections condition;

F2 Set standards for, monitor, and record the storage and displayenvironment as discussed in Chapter 8, Preservation;

F5 Plan, schedule, and monitor work as discussed in Chapter 11,Planning and monitoring work;

F6 Manage resources: time, money, space as discussed in Chapters 10,Direction and strategy; 11, Planning and monitoring work; and 13,Future, present, past;

F8 Provide management information on whether objectives are beingmet as discussed in Chapters 10, Direction and strategy; 11, Planningand monitoring work; and 13, Future, present, past.


Information functions 3 and 4 are to do with adding to the richness ofinformation about objects; function 7 concerns acquiring and usingexpertise.

Conclusions

Over the last five years or so the perspective on conservation inmuseums has changed. From being thought of as work done in


Table 7.2 The processes and sub-processes in the conceptual model forpreservation (see Fig. 7.5)

Main process Sub-processes


Identify causes of deteriorationSpecify conditions for preservationProvide preservation conditions

2. Maintain physicalcondition

Specify appropriate condition for objects andcollectionsMonitor conditionTreat objects to remove causes of or rectifydeteriorationDevelop improved treatments

3. Control ‘use’ Set policiesEstablish procedures and adopt standardsKnow requirements for preservationCommunicate requirements

4. Conserve historicintegrity

Know what constitutes historic integrity for objectAgree treatments with curatorsRecord all work on objects

5. Provide trainedpeople

Acquire skills through hiring policy, courses, etc.Maintain skills through reading, refresher courses,conferences

6. Contribute tomuseum activities

Prepare objects to ‘transmit ideas and concepts’Examine objects and record observationsProvide expert advice

7, 8, 9 Manage sub-system activities

Define criteria for ‘efficient’, ‘effective’, ‘efficacious’Plan activitiesMonitor efficiency (resources vs. output)Monitor effectiveness (progress against objectives)Provide management informationTake control actionReview ‘efficaciousness’: is this the best way tomeet the overall objective?

laboratories by conservators to a series of individual objects, thereis now a clear perception that preserving collections is a holisticactivity that must be the concern of everyone in museums. We wouldnot have got very far in understanding the information needed tomanage this function by examining the previous narrow definition.Checkland and Holwell (1993) have reviewed the use of the softsystems enquiry process in developing information strategy. They see

it as contributing to the conceptualization not just of the informationan organization requires, but to ‘coherent thinking about purposes,organization and information support’. This conceptualization is ‘cru-cial if a satisfactory combination of organizational purposes, activity,structure and information support is to be achieved . . . it is the domainwhich is usually missing from the [information systems] strategyliterature.’ Indeed so!


Table 7.3 Management preservation for information

References

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: John Wiley.Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice (Second edition). Chi-

chester: John Wiley.Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1993). Information management and organiza-

tional processes: an approach through soft systems methodology. Journal ofInformation Systems, 3, 1–15.

Corfield, M., Keene, S. et al. (1989) The survey. London: UKIC.Ohmae, K. (1991). The mind of the strategist. New York: McGraw-Hill.



Exhibit 7A: Soft systems analyses 1, 2, and 3

ANALYSIS 1: The intervention

Problem situation To understand the organizationalnature of the preservation of museumcollections, in order to understandwhat information is needed to managethem

Clients The readers of this book

Clients’ aspirations To obtain a better mental model ofpreservation in museums so as tounderstand what information we needto manage it

Problem solvers The author (readers can also try themethod!)

Resources available Own understanding and experience;feedback from seminars, etc.

Constraints Cannot involve the clients in theanalysis

Problem owners:who feels we shouldaddress this?

Conservation managers; museummanagers

Implications ofselected problemowner

Conservators concerned mainly withpractical treatment may not find theanalysis very relevant

Reason for regardingthe problem as aproblem

Professional relationships tend to cloudissues; widespread cynicism aboutmanagement-by-numbers

Value to the problemowner

Will enable more proactive approach towork; will enable greater influenceover priorities, etc.

Problem context:how will we knowwhen the problem issolved?

When conservation and museummanagers feel confident that they havea full and accurate picture of thepreservation of their collections, and ofplans for maintaining and improvingthis.


ANALYSIS 2: The social context

Roles, norms, values in the context of the problem situation

Roles: what roles areplayed by thoseconcerned withpreservingcollections?

Curators: uncertainty about their role,but evolving into ‘responsible for theinterpretation and intellectual aspect ofcollections’Conservators: evolving into‘responsible for the maintenance of thephysical aspect of the collections’Museum directors, managers:‘super-curator’, but evolving into‘responsible for each of the severaldifferent objectives of the museum’

Norms: what doesthe organizationexpect?

‘Keep on conserving the objects’ butevolving into ‘help the museum todemonstrate responsible stewardship ofthe collection’

Values ‘Guardian of historical memory banks’,but evolving into ‘enabling people tobenefit from the collections andexpertise’.


ANALYSIS 3: Power

In relation to the problem situation:

Disposition of powerconcerning thecollections

Still largely with curator as surrogateowner, but moving towards those whoact as collections managers

Nature of powerconcerning thecollections

Priorities for work programmes(whether work is on exhibitions +programmes or on preservation)Control over resourcesControl over the size of the collectionand hence the size of the preservationtaskControl over what conservationtreatment is usedPhysical access to places where objectsare kept

Processes by which power over the collections is:

Obtained Through control over line managementstructure and distribution of resources

Exercised Through procedures for dealing withcollections and line managementcontrol

Preserved By defining intellectual work assuperior to technical and physical work

Passed on By appointments to museum directorand other senior posts

8 Preservation

To establish the conditions for preservation is one of the nine basicprocesses of the preservation system (see Fig. 7.5). Preservation –preventive conservation – is not easy. Like rigorous quality management,preservation will affect procedures and work practice in practically everymuseum operation. It includes raising awareness of what can be done toavoid damage to objects. Many necessary measures are negative ones –‘thou shalt not’ – and attempting to implement them unfortunately givesconservators a reputation for being negative spoilsports.

Conservators are often urged to compromise. This notion could do withsome examination. Compromise in these terms can be taken to meangiving permission for objects to be displayed or housed in conditions thatare less than optimal. This is not the conservator’s role. The conservator’srole is to be a source of expert knowledge of the effects on objects of variousphysical and climatic factors, and of how these factors can be modified, andto give their opinion and advice accordingly. The conservator cannot saythat in their opinion a watercolour will not fade if displayed at 2000 lux if itis their opinion that it will fade. As a designer once remarked to me, dealingwith conservation requirements is no better and no worse than dealingwith building or fire regulations. They exist for the wider benefit and haveto be worked with, if the organization so decides.

If the organization so decides – it is often not the conservator’s role togive permission or to forbid the use of objects at all; the most they can dois to give their best advice as eloquently and as professionally as they canand they should not assume that those being advised will ignore whatthey say. This might change – in Spalding’s view of the world they wouldbe responsible for this, and for damage if it occurred (1999).

Where the notion of compromise enters is in accepting that the riskfrom imperfect conditions over a finite period may be minimal. Risksfrom environmental factors may in fact be less serious than we previouslythought. Innovative ways are being found to address requirements. Thewatercolour could be exhibited at 2000 lux for ten days and still be withinThomson’s standards if it was stored in darkness for the rest of the year.In fact, although 50 lux is accepted as the maximum light level forsensitive material, the conservator cannot even say that the watercolour

will not fade if it is displayed at 50 lux. Fifty lux was chosen as the lightlimit not because it does no damage, but because that is the lowest lightlevel at which people can effectively perceive colour. Recent studies haveindicated that people aged over fifty need higher light levels, and so thestandard should be adjusted to take this into account. Conservators’efforts might sometimes be better spent ensuring that security lightingwas minimal out of visiting hours – something that nobody coulddisagree with.

If they are to be expert advisers, then there is a strong obligation onconservators to be genuinely expert. One of the first duties of thepreservation conservator is to keep up with the latest thinking on theeffects of climatic factors. These are likely to become less significant, notmore, as real life effects are assessed. The view is now well accepted thatthe preservation of objects does not depend on a perfectly stable climate.Several authors of papers to the IIC Congress in 1994 explored it instimulating ways, especially Michalski, Waller, Frost, and Ashley-Smith etal. (all in Roy and Smith, 1994).

Conservators are highly knowledgeable and intelligent, and they havea wide variety of technical backgrounds. They are also very good atnetworking on an international scale. In conservation there really is agreat deal of real understanding of the effects of environmental factors onobjects, of how these factors can be controlled, and of highly innovativeways in which this can be done. There is certainly more understandingand knowledge than is found in most heating and ventilating engineeringcompanies. The trouble is that conservators lack credibility with theseother professionals, because they do not hold their recognized qualifica-tions, and because contractors can be sued (though in my experience thisis rare) if what they install fails to provide the specified conditions. Theirony is that air conditioned buildings may actually be less stable thannon-air conditioned ones (Oreszczyn et al., 1994).

Preservation standards and policies

Standards for the museum environment should, ideally, express theresults of expert work and knowledge in a form that can be easilycommunicated and the application of which can be monitored. Outsidestandards for museum operations can be a valuable counterweight to thedrive for accountability based on finance and public activities alone.Conservators should seize on standards; they are an official validation ofprofessional knowledge and opinion. The relevance of standards tomuseums generally is discussed by Caton (1991). Cassar and Keene(1990) review their application specifically to conservation. Fortunately,there are many recognized standards and guidelines for the conservation

Preservation 115

of collections. Standards may exist, however, but the organization needsto express its organizational will to apply them by specifically adoptingas policy those it considers most relevant.

Standards and specifications for the environment for collections arethoroughly dealt with by Thomson (1994), and in the extensive literature.These now include the curatorial standards that were developed by theMuseums and Galleries Commission for different types of collection(Paine, 1992–1998).

Standards do have to be used with circumspection. Many authorsadvocate the use of fixed standards. Michalski (1990) puts forwardanother view. Standards are too rigid, he argues, and encouragesinstitutions to disregard the undeniable fact that some objects willdeteriorate even though standards are observed.

Whatever the degree of faith in standards, neglect and lack of care canquickly lead to the destruction of collections, and there are ways ofproceeding that will promote their preservation. The most importantfactor is the policy of the organization, and the most effective measureswill be a mix of standards, monitoring, reporting, procedures, and theattitudes of people. Michalski sets out a detailed and comprehensiveapproach (1994).

Standards are commonly adopted for temperature, humidity, and light,but parameters for gaseous and particulate pollution are less oftenspecified, because they are much more difficult to measure and expensiveto control. Thomson gives parameters for these factors, but other than forparticulates such as dirt and dust they are not included in someimportant standards, for example, BS 5454: 2000 (BSI, 2000), the BritishStandard specification for library buildings, other than for mechanical airhandling; or in the Museums and Galleries Commission Standards in themuseum care of . . . collections (Paine, 1992–1998).

Reviews and reports

From time to time, it will be useful to take an overview of preservation inthe museum. This will entail special investigations, to draw together theresults of ongoing monitoring, and to assess factors such as storagequality that it is not useful to monitor continuously. Investigations likethis will form the basis for strategies for preservation. Examples areassessments of the standard of stores, and audits of collections condition(see Exhibits 9C on p. 164, 10B and 10C on pp. 189–192, and Chapters 9and 10). Information will need to be collected to answer the questions:

� What are we aiming to achieve?� What is the size of the tasks we will be addressing?� What resources will be needed?

116 Preservation

� What are the tasks needed to achieve it?� How should we plan to do it?

Judgements and assessments of quality

To a conservator, environmental monitoring usually means loggingtemperature, humidity, and light, but many of the most drastic effects onthe well being of objects are brought about by aspects of the environmentthat can only be assessed by making a visual judgement. Examples are theadequacy of space in stores, whether buildings are sound or have leaks,whether conditions are clean or filthy dirty, whether objects are adequatelyenclosed or supported, and whether organizational procedures aresatisfactory, such as those for putting objects away after use. The Museumsand Galleries Commission’s Standards in the care of . . . collections (Paine,1992–1998) set out desirable standards for these aspects.

Like numerical information, this more qualitative information shouldbe collected at regular intervals. In order to set targets for improvement,and measure progress, these non-numerical assessments need to becategorized in some way.

Stores assessments

Appropriate storage is the foundation for effectively preserving collec-tions. There are several models for stores assessments. In the USA, theDepartment of the Interior is responsible for archaeological collectionsand archives held by the National Park Service. Special Directive 80–81,issued in 1986, required any National Park site having collections toassess the standard of storage annually, to declare what improvementswere necessary, and to report action since the report the previous year.Also in the USA, the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) and NationalInstitute for Conservation (NIC) jointly developed a procedure andpublished guidelines for conservation assessment. This is an explanatorychecklist, which took a holistic view of the care of collections. Itssuccessor, issued by the US Institute of Museum and Library Services,looks to be a less useful tool. The Assessment Questionnaires are meantto be used by independent consultants from another institution orworking privately, who are commissioned by a museum to visit it andreport on the care of its collections. The report then forms the basis foraction and for seeking grants.

Other more general views of the care and management of collections,again in the USA, are gained through the Museum Assessment Program(MAP). The Association of American Museums runs this, on behalf of theUS Institute of Museum and Library Services, which provides grants. Theprogramme encourages assessment and improvement among museumsin a similar way to that described for the Conservation Assessments. In

Preservation 117

the UK, the Museum Registration programme from Resource performs asimilar function. The Museums and Galleries Commission’s Standards inthe museum care of . . . collections (Paine, 1992–1998) does not includeassessment checklists, but does provide detailed guidelines on howcollections should be cared for.

Case study

Stores assessments

The Conservation Department in the Historic City Museum is becomingmuch more outgoing, and as they all make more visits to the stores, theconservators become very aware that they are only able to treat a tinyproportion of objects in the collections. Each conservator is familiar withsome stores, those that house their particular type of collection, but fewof them have visited all of the stores. They know that, as in manymuseums, while storage for some collections was exemplary, storage forothers verged on disastrous.

Storage improvements are in the air, because the museum is in the earlystages of specifying a large new off-site store, which will take the contentsof many of the existing stores. The Conservation Department has beenencouraged by the senior management team to develop a strategy forcollections preservation (see Chapters 9 and 10). They decide that as part ofthe work to develop this strategy they should survey all the museum’sstores, identify necessary actions, and summarize the results in the strategyto back their recommendations to the museum’s senior management.

The conservators are not sure how to collect and analyse theinformation. The museum has many different stores – altogether aboutthirty separate spaces. From attending conferences and visiting museumsabroad, they know about developments in America, in particular, theConservation Assessment and Museum Assessment Program, and theNational Park Service Special Directive (NPS, 2001, Part I and AppendixF). They consult the survey of science and industry collections inYorkshire and Humberside (Kenyon, 1992), which assembled this sort ofinformation. Based on the MGC Standards, some museum services haveproduced schemes of Range Statements to assist regional museums withtheir Best Value reviews, which are also very helpful (South WesternMuseums Council [SWMC], 2000).

The Head of Conservation will be the person to draw together the resultsand draft the report, so she strongly favours a uniform format for assessingthe stores, producing minimal text. The American formats, althoughrecording much useful information, seem rather wordy. However, a veryuseful feature of the National Park Service Special Directive is that majordeficiencies of stores have to be declared, and progress on rectifying them

118 Preservation

reported each year. The Yorkshire and Humberside survey was the resultof a consensus of many people in the surveyed museums; it offers a formatthat is quick to complete and analyse, but it omits information about thestore building itself, which is an extremely important factor. Therefore, anew Stores Assessment Form is devised that combines, the conservatorsagree, the best features of the existing variants (Fig. 8.1). To give the surveythe maximum authority, the assessment elements are checked against theMuseums and Galleries Commission’s Standards in the museum care of . . .collections (Paine, 1992–1998).

It is a comparatively rapid exercise to assess the stores using these newforms. A conservator and one or more of the relevant curators visits eachstore for the assessment. It is simple to compile a written report from theresults, and to give it even more impact the Head of Conservation decidesto supplement the report with graphic summaries, as in Figure 8.2.

The Head of Conservation feels that there is an opportunity here toencourage cohesion within the department, as well as to broaden people’sperspectives. A seminar is therefore arranged for the whole conservationdepartment, in which each section in turn presents their results andfindings. This turns out to be an excellent experience for some, but isperhaps more appreciated by the heads of section than by everyone.There is an immense amount of material to digest – too much for aconsensus view to form – and some conservators feel that there has beena lot of work for little actual progress. However, the results from thecompleted forms are supported by the many suggestions and observa-tions that have arisen in discussion. The Head of Conservation is able togo away and write what she feels is a coherent and realistic strategy, onethat it will be difficult for the museum to reject (see Exhibits 9D and 10C).The conservators as a whole are, appropriately, now the best-informedgroup in the museum on the general state of the collections.

Collections condition audits

A third area that may be the subject of special investigations and reportsis the condition of the collections – how successful is the museum indischarging its duty to preserve them? This is dealt with in detail in thenext chapter, Chapter 9.

Environmental monitoring

The UKIC Survey found temperature and humidity to be recorded inabout half of all the museums and galleries that responded (Corfield et al.,1989). Clockwork thermohygrographs are still in widespread use – oneinstrument must be left in each location being recorded and eachinstrument produces one paper chart per week, fortnight, or month,

Preservation 119

Fig. 8.1 Stores assessment form. Detailed and comprehensive, this can rapidly be filled in. Actions are tobe noted at all points

depending on the interval selected (Fig. 8.3). Instruments and systemsthat record digital measurements on electronic media are also commonlyused. They may be linked to building management systems that controlair conditioning plants. Figure 8.4 shows an example of a chart producedfrom an electronic data logger.

Light is usually monitored by single measurements taken with anelectronic lux meter, rather than continuously. Standards are expressed interms of a maximum level of lux or ultraviolet light, so this is oftensufficient. If the object is lit by natural light, levels will have to berecorded continuously, because levels will vary and a single reading willnot suffice (assuming the level is not overwhelmingly high, which it maywell be). Continuous readings also make the alternative form of standard,for kilolux-hours per year more feasible to administer (Thomson, 1994).Instruments are available to continuously or cumulatively log lightexposure. Exposure can also be monitored by the Blue Wool Standard test

122 Preservation

Fig. 8.2 Diagram summarizing the results of stores assessments. Thiscommunicated the results very clearly

(BSI, 1978), in which pieces of textile dyed with colourants with knownfading characteristics are exposed. These can give shockingly graphicinformation on the effects of light on an object.

Pollution, whether gaseous or particulate, is seldom measured; Thesurvey (Corfield et al., 1989) recorded only fifteen museums out of 938 asdoing this. Some simple test strips for measuring some pollutants aredescribed in Kenjo (1986) and Grzywacz (1993) describes other passivesampling devices. The Museum of London has employed passivemonitoring for nitrogen dioxide using diffusion tubes, which are sent to alaboratory for analysis. Hackney (1984) has reviewed other methods ofmonitoring gaseous pollution. By and large, though, it is more realistic toemploy consultants to measure pollution, and this is more likely to be partof a research programme than a normal monitoring exercise. Consultantswill normally use electronic monitoring and measuring instruments.

Pests. An excellent example of pest monitoring and its use is given byFlorian (1987). The variables recorded included those for time, geo-graphical location, and insect species. All were used to diagnose theproblem, eradicate active infestations, set up new procedures forprevention, and design ongoing monitoring.

Presenting and using environmental data

Analysis over time

Temperature and humidity may be recorded either in analogue form bya recording pen on a paper chart (Fig. 8.3), or else as digitalmeasurements taken at set intervals (printed out as a chart, Fig. 8.4). Inthe case of analogue thermohygrograph records, each chart contains awealth of data (and one can quickly accumulate enough data to fill afiling cabinet), but it is extremely difficult to make much general sense ofthis. In management terms, we need answers to questions such as:

� For what proportion of the time is the environment within/outside the setparameters? (This monitors whether set standards are being attained.)

� What is the variation per hour/day/week/year? (Fluctuations aresometimes more damaging than even sustained levels at an inap-propriate relative humidity or temperature.)

� Is there a diurnal or other regular pattern to variations? (If so, theremay be a cause that can easily be corrected.)

The first and second questions can potentially be answered if measure-ments are recorded digitally instead of graphically, since computersoftware is supplied with the instrument with which to analyse the data.The software that is supplied by the digital instrument manufacturers

Preservation 123

Fig. 8.3 Recordings from weekly clockwork thermohygrograph charts for a gallery during January. The arrow indicates adistinctive peak in relative humidity due to temporary failure of the chiller unit

Fig. 8.4 Chart from digital recordings using an electronic data logger. The arrow indicates the same peak as inFig. 8.3

facilitates graphic presentation, and will give some statistical informa-tion. To really undertake the necessary statistical analysis, the data needsto be downloaded into a spreadsheet and manipulated as an entirelyseparate operation.

Although records from clockwork thermohygrographs are very difficultto use to gain an overall picture over any length of time, they do haveparticular advantages, because the readings are continuous (i.e. analogue)rather than being taken at a series of fixed intervals, as are those fromelectronic data loggers. For example, the clockwork thermohygrographchart in Figure 8.3 shows a record of a period in a gallery. The distinctivelyshaped peak (indicated by an arrow) to 70 per cent relative humidity at thebeginning of the week ‘7th January’ has a highly characteristic form,known from past experience to indicate a failure or cut-out of the heatingand ventilating system chiller unit. This could not be deduced from thedata logger chart, Figure 8.4, that simply shows a peak at that point (againindicated by an arrow). This illustrates a loss of information, because thereadings on the thermohygrograph chart are continuous, whereas the datalogger was recording at set intervals of half an hour. Although electronicdata loggers can potentially save a lot of time, analogue instruments maystill have their place, due to the richness of the information they offer to anexperienced interpreter. Thermohygrograph charts can be used in varioussimple ways to give approximate answers:

� Proportion of time within set parameters: visual estimates can be made oftime outside parameters and regularly recorded as figures, and asummary chart can be drawn to give an idea of fluctuations over alonger period of time (e.g. Figs 8.5, 8.7). Digitally recorded output canbe presented in charts with the time axis compressed (e.g. Fig. 8.6a).

� Variation per hour/day/week/year: normal paper charts are adequate forshort periods, but a summary chart (see Figs 8.5 and 8.7) is needed ifvariation over a longer period is to be shown.

� Monitoring recurrent variation: the same chart can be left in place forseveral cycles and as several traces accumulate, trends becomeapparent.

Maximum/minimum charts (Figs 8.5, 8.7) are an obvious derivation ofthe familiar thermohygrograph charts. The most effective forms ofmanagement information seem to be these or line graphs with the time (x)axis compressed (Fig. 8.6a).

Analysis by area

Environmental monitoring can be displayed spatially, showing the stateof the environment at a point in time in the form of a plan of the building.

126 Preservation

Although useful for analysing the problems in the system, this is lesscrucial for understanding the effects on objects.

In the case of pest management, it is recommended that observationsbe recorded not only by time of year but also on a plan of the building sothat a visual pattern can be quickly built up (Florian, 1987). The same isthe case when monitoring gaseous pollution. Trends over time are ofinterest, since one would wish pollution levels to decrease, rather thanincrease. But to understand what is happening it is also necessary toreveal pollution gradients by comparing levels in different areas, e.g.outdoors, in the entrance hall, deep within the display galleries, andinside a showcase (Hackney, 1984).

Building management systems

Monitoring, presentation and control can be done in other ways. Buildingmanagement systems are becoming more common. Such systems are likenetworked data loggers and control systems combined. The spaces in thebuilding are monitored for whatever factors are of interest, as is the stateof the plant and the controls. Every aspect of the plant can be individuallycontrolled, provided that it is connected to the system. Computer screenscan display the state of the environment in the form of a plan of thebuilding, or in one place over time. These systems can also continuouslystore logged environmental measurements over time.

Discussion

Is one method of monitoring better than another? Figures 8.3 and 8.4 arecopies of charts from analogue thermohygrographs (clockwork instru-ments with hair hygrometers) and digital data loggers for the same fourweeks in January. The specified environmental parameters were 50 to 55per cent relative humidity, 20°C.

Although the traces look at first sight reassuringly level, closeinspection shows that a high proportion of the time is outsidespecifications. For most of the week of the 6th January relative humiditywas up to nearly 60 per cent. For most of a day in the week of the 20thJanuary it was down to 40 per cent, and there were other sharp deviationsfrom time to time. The charts, especially if seen one at a time at weeklyintervals, do not permit an overall view of conditions, although they doprovide a rich source of data.

In the data logger chart for one of the same galleries during January(Fig. 8.4), the vertical scale has been expanded, giving a much moredramatic picture. The same features can be seen as on the analoguethermohygrograph trace, but in addition, the regular drops in relativehumidity that occur every Monday (when the plant was switched off formaintenance) stand out clearly. On the normal charts they are less

Preservation 127

128 Preservation

Fig. 8.5 Chart summarizing weekly maximum and minimum relative humidityover five years

obvious because they occur at the beginning of the chart. This is a digitalrecording, and any area of the graph could be shown at an expandedscale for closer inspection.

The summary max/min graph (Fig. 8.5) shows the maximum andminimum relative humidity. It is a very effective means of indicating

Preservation 129

Fig. 8.6 Charts from the same digital recording using an electronic datalogger. (a) Four weeks, drawn with the time (x) axis compressed. (b) Four days,drawn with the time (x) axis extended

130 Preservation

overall seasonal variation and departures from specified parameters, but itgives no indication of how long deviations from specifications lasted. Likethe data logger presentation (Fig. 8.4), it makes deviations fromspecification much more apparent than do weekly thermohygrographcharts.

The question is, which visual impression is closest to the effects of suchdeviations on objects? How much do environmental fluctuations matter?Is there a Pareto curve (80 per cent of the benefit comes from 20 per cent ofthe effort) for the benefits of a non-fluctuating environment? Padfield andJensen’s theoretical data (1990) seem to show that in wood there is littleresponse to short-term fluctuations. Michalski (1993) gives evidence thatsome objects can sustain prolonged drops of as much as 40 per cent inrelative humidity, but that others will be damaged by a fall of 25 per cent.The effect of falls of much less than 25 per cent he finds to be negligible. If,at any time in its history, an object has been kept for any length of time in awidely fluctuating environment, then most of the damage that can occurwill already have done so. Changes in relative humidity will damage onlya few objects, particularly composite ones, and ones with a laminar

Preservation 131

Fig. 8.7 Charts summarizing weekly maximum and minimum relative humidityover three 6-month periods. Seasonal fluctuation is clearly shown

structure such as paintings. More will be damaged if biological activity(mould) arises due to elevated relative humidity. Prolonged exposure tohigh relative humidity, and rapid and very large fluctuations, will be moredamaging than periods of time at low humidity.

Do we then assume that fluctuations such as that on the 7th January,shown both on the thermohygrograph chart (Fig. 8.3) and on the datalogger chart (Fig. 8.4) do not matter? In this particular case, the objects inthese galleries had been exposed to many such fluctuations, and worse,over time. For example, on a previous occasion, the air-handling systemfailed completely at the height of the summer, and the galleries wereexposed to humidities of 80 to 90 per cent for over two weeks. Only onecase of damage to objects could be clearly attributed to this – somemedieval coal, in which the sulphide mineral had decayed causing its totaldisintegration. However, objects may have suffered damage, such as liftingveneer, that would only become apparent in the long term and by that timethe link to this particular system failure would be lost.

132 Preservation

Case study

Managing the environment

The Historic City Museum has about fifteen recording thermohygro-graphs producing either weekly or monthly charts. It is obvious thatenvironmental conditions in some of the stores and galleries are far frommeeting generally accepted standards. Yet, although records have beenkept for a number of years, it has been almost impossible to getenvironmental control improved.

The problem has two components. First is the nature of the buildingsand the spaces themselves. The museum building was constructed in the1920s. It is a substantial concrete and masonry structure in whichventilation is mainly natural, with mechanical air supply only to a fewspecific galleries. There is no possibility of any large-scale investment inair-handling plant for most of the museum. Some of the stores are locatedin this same building, but others are in a substantial brick-builtwarehouse not far from the museum.

The second part of the problem is to do with people and organizations.The museum’s buildings, plant, and services are maintained andmanaged by the Buildings and Estates Department of the local authority.The services engineers are often slow to act, and they seem to have littleinterest in tackling the museum’s problems.

It is decided that a regular forum for communication might help thesituation. A committee is therefore established, to meet quarterly toreview problems (and successes!) and agree on and monitor action. Aswell as the engineers and the Head of Conservation, the museum’s

house manager is included, since she controls the in-house maintenancebudget.

The engineers’ first move is to claim that they have never been givenspecifications for the museum spaces, apart from the few galleries withmechanical ventilation. This seemed implausible, and one had to wonderwhy they had not asked for specifications? Simple specifications ofrelative humidity and temperature are drawn up for each of the spacesfor which the engineers are responsible.

Next, a conservator is designated Environmental Liaison Conservator.This person will coordinate environmental monitoring by the differentconservation sections, monitor and analyse the results, and be a singlechannel of communication with the engineers. As well as contacting theengineers informally when necessary, she prepares summary charts forthe two-monthly museum environment meetings, and reports on whatthey show (e.g. Fig. 8.7).

As soon as the state of the environment on the central site can moreclearly be understood, a programme is set up to review the environmen-tal control packages, particularly for the stores, and modify them orinstall new ones as necessary. The cost of this turns out to be far less thananticipated; in the region of £3000 to £4000 per store if new equipment isneeded. In terms of maintenance budgets this is peanuts.

Through these meetings and information, the museum is at lastcommunicating its requirements clearly and it has created a forum wherenecessary action can be decided on, planned, and monitored. If only wecould say that there has been a dramatic improvement in environmentalconditions. It is true that some newly installed plant has been brought upto correct operation fairly rapidly. But, in spite of much genuine co-operation by the local authority’s senior representative, hardly any of thenew equipment that has been agreed has been installed. The environmentin the galleries, never good, is if anything deteriorating still further.

There seem to be several reasons for this apparent lack of success.The museum has no real power over the local authority, because theauthority is also a major funding body for the museum, which puts itin a weak negotiating position. The local authority personnel sufferfrom organizational problems of their own. The engineers are obviouslyunder qualified for their jobs. The museum building is old, and thelocal authority is reluctant to invest money in a structure which itthinks has a finite life. Information may be necessary for effectiveoperation, but alone it is not sufficient.

But still, the foundation of understandable, accurate, and sufficientinformation and data on the environment will benefit the museum, bothas the basis for firmer diplomatic action with the local authority and alsoif the maintenance and operation of the environmental control plant iscontracted out. It is of great benefit when planning and specifying the

Preservation 133

new store, as environmental records for areas with mechanical ventilationin the museum can be compared (unfavourably!) with those for thenaturally stable off-site warehouse store.

As a result, the museum is able to decide with some confidence thatexpensive mechanical HVAC will not be necessary for the new store, aslong as certain structural design principles are adhered to. The buildingshould if possible be a substantial masonry one; storage spaces should ifpossible be enclosed by offices, ceilings and roof spaces, and circulationcorridors; and storage spaces should be as completely sealed as possible, soas to obtain the fullest benefits from the thermal mass of the building.

Tales of the environment

It is a cause of particular difficulty that architects and services engineersare familiar with environmental control by means of mechanical airhandling, to the exclusion of all other possibilities. This is changing;architects are now much more aware of alternatives, and there arebuildings, including record stores (for example, Hampshire CountyCouncil archives store in Winchester, and the Suffolk County RecordsOffice), that are constructed so that they need the minimum mechanicalcontrol. However, stories about over-reliance on expensive mechanicaland computerized systems are commonplace. Here are a few stories toillustrate the principles described above. The stories are all true.

Story 1: No connection

A small-scale ventilation system is designed and installed to control theenvironment in three large sealed showcases. A computerized buildingmanagement system is set up for the whole building, with a monitor ineach showcase, but the individual monitors for each case are not properlyidentified. Either way, the conservators monitor the cases independentlyusing separate data loggers and find that the environments in the casesrarely meet the specifications. After two or three years with noimprovement, an important loaned object has to be returned to its owner,and a trusted and skilled engineer is called in. He finds that the air-handling ducts passing air from the ventilation plant to the showcaseshave never been connected to the plant.

Story 2: Not invented here

A medium-sized museum has always had problems with its airconditioning plant, which fails to produce the specified environment. Totry to tackle this, the museum employs a consulting engineer to review

134 Preservation

the design of the system for each gallery as it is redesigned. For onegallery, due to house particularly delicate objects, the engineer producesdrawings that will fundamentally alter and improve the air supply andextract systems. He is unfortunately not called on to monitor theinstallation of the system, which is undertaken by sub-contractors. Whenhe reappears on the scene, after some expensive delays to the project, heis horrified to find his drawings in a torn dusty heap in the corner, withthe redesigned system bearing no relationship to them. As installed, itwill not work. The project suffers thousands of pounds’ worth of delaywhile the worst mistakes are rectified.

Story 3: Separate spaces

The temporary exhibition gallery in a museum is well known for itsfluctuating and damp environment, although it is supposed to have fullair conditioning. When an exhibition including important borrowedpaintings is planned, it is decided to make greater efforts to improveconditions. The engineers are asked to run the plant for a month beforethe exhibition to allow for acclimatization. They do so, but for two weeks,in spite of all their efforts, the environment fluctuates wildly. Eventuallythey investigate thoroughly and discover that, during the construction ofa previous exhibition, the air-conditioning control sensors have beencompletely enclosed in a sealed space against a poorly insulated outsidewall.

Conclusions

There is a general and generic problem with the standard of expertise andpeople who work on building and services maintenance. This makes itextremely difficult to tackle environmental problems at their root, butwith persistence and accurate information one can sometimes succeed. Ifyou find an architect or a services engineer who really understands theprinciples of environmental control and is willing to be imaginative intheir application, treasure them and never let them disappear into thewilderness.

Conservators need to evolve preventive conservation into preservativeconservation. Conservators need to be highly alert to developments in theunderstanding of the effects of the environment on objects. While theyshould stand firm in their expression of their expert opinion, they shouldmake sure that they are expert, and be very aware of the different waysin which desirable conditions can be created.

Conservators have often succumbed to the temptation to put their timeand effort into monitoring the environment, rather than into investigating

Preservation 135

what real, simple improvements are possible through changing proce-dures and communicating with engineers and maintenance staff. Thedifficulty of effecting improvements, even though obvious, should not beunderestimated. It is easy for conservators to be seen as encroaching onother people’s patches, as indeed we do. Patience, persistence, and timeare needed. Always try applying brains and imagination, and theinherent characteristics of buildings and materials, to a problem beforereaching for the mechanical environmental control plant. Alwayssynthesize data into information before acting.

Finally, it is worth remembering that it is not changes in relativehumidity and temperature that cause the worst damage to collections.Much more serious risks and damage arise from grossly unsuitablestorage – dirty, overcrowded, with buildings that are not wind- orweather-proof; catastrophe when contractors are working in the buildingwhich houses the collections; or leakage or flood due to a badly chosensite or services routed through stores.

References

BSI (1978). BS 1006: 1978. Methods for the determination of the colour fastness of textilesto light and weathering, International Organization for Standardization Recommenda-tion R105. Milton Keynes: British Standards Institute.

BSI (2000). BS 5454: 2000. The storage and exhibition of archival documents. MiltonKeynes: British Standards Institute.

Cassar, M. and Keene, S. (1990). Using standards. In Managing conservation.Conference preprints. (S. Keene, ed.). London: UKIC.

Caton, J. (1991). Setting standards. Museums Journal, January, 34–35.Corfield, M., Keene, S. et al., eds (1989). The survey. London: UKIC.Florian, M. (1987). Methodology used in insect pest surveys in museum buildings:

a case history. In ICOM Committee for Conservation, 8th Triennial Meeting,Preprints, Sydney. Marina del Rey, Ca.: Getty Conservation Institute/ICOMCommittee for Conservation.

Grzywacz, C.M. (1993). Using passive sampling devices to detect pollutants inmuseum environments. In ICOM Committee for Conservation, 10th TriennialMeeting, Preprints, Washington, DC. Marina del Rey, Ca.: Getty ConservationInstitute/ICOM Committee for Conservation.

Hackney, S. (1984). The distribution of gaseous air pollution within museums.Studies in conservation, 29, 105–116.

Kenjo, T. (1986). Certain deterioration factors for works of art and simple devicesto measure them. Int. J of Museum Management and Curatorship, 5, 295–300.

Kenyon, J. (1992). Collecting for the 21st century. A survey of industrial and socialhistory collections in the museums of Yorkshire and Humberside. Leeds: Yorkshireand Humberside Museums Service.

Michalski, S. (1990). Towards specific lighting guidelines. In ICOM Committee forConservation, 9th Triennial Meeting, Preprints, Dresden. Marina del Rey, Ca.: GettyConservation Institute/ICOM Committee for Conservation.

136 Preservation

Michalski, S. (1993). Relative humidity: a discussion of correct/incorrect values.In ICOM Committee for Conservation, 10th Triennial Meeting, Preprints, Wash-ington, DC. Marina del Rey, Ca.: Getty Conservation Institute/ICOM Commit-tee for Conservation.

Michalski, S. (1994). A systematic approach to preservation: description andintegration with other museum activities. In Preventive conservation: practice,theory, and research. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa Congress, September1994. London: IIC.

NPS (2001). The Museum Handbook. United States of America National ParkService.

Oreszczyn, T., Cassar, M., and Fernandez, K. (1994). Comparative study of air-conditioned and non air-conditioned museums. In Preventive conservation:practice, theory, and research. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa Congress,September 1994. London: IIC.

Padfield, T. and Jensen, P. (1990). Low energy control in museum stores. In ICOMCommittee for Conservation, 9th Triennial Meeting, Preprints, Dresden. Marina delRay, Ca.: Getty Conservation Institute/ICOM Committee for Conservation.

Paine, C., ed. (1992–1998). Standards in the museum care of . . . collections. London:Museums and Galleries Commission.

Roy, A. and Smith, P., eds (1994). Preventive conservation: practice, theory, andresearch. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa Congress, September 1994.London: IIC.

Spalding, J. (1999). Creative management in museums. In Management in museums(K. Moore, ed.). London: Athlone Press.

SWMC (2000). Collection Care Standards: Self-Assessment Pack. South WesternMuseums Council.

Thomson, G. (1994). The museum environment (Second edition). London: Butter-worth-Heinemann.

Preservation 137

Exhibit 8A: Results of stores assessment survey

STORE DATAASSESSMENT RESULTS

KEY: g = good; a = acceptable; p = poor; u = unacceptable

Store nameCollectiontype

Area,m2

Volume,m3

Percent.full

No. ofobjects

Protec-tion

Build-ing

Environ-ment

Space,access

Equip-ment

Overallrating

No. of objects

AcceptableNot

acceptable

Anvil la.1.1 General 710 3,900 110 15,943 a a a p p a 17,000Anvil la.1.2 General 47 150 90 4,000 a g/a a a a a 4,000Anvil la.1.3 General 39 105 90 3,000 a g/a a a a a 3,000Anvil la.1.4 General 96 150 100 80 a a a a a a 80Anvil la.1.5 General 41 100 75 2,500 a a a a a a 2,500Anvil la.2 General 460 2,300 150 5,500 a p p p p p 5,500Anvil la.3 General 200 1,200 100 8,400 a a a a a a 8,400Anvil la. yard General 500 200 n/a 70 u u u u uNew Road 1 General 120 240 50 5,886 a a/p p p p p 5,886New Road 2 General 43 112 150 5,990 a a/p p p p p 5,990Stitch Row General 500 2,000 110 40 p p p u uDisplay (10%) General 1,900 n/a 3,100 g g a g g g 3,100Art Store pict 91 228 95 1,200 a a/g a p p a 1,200Print Store pict 77 193 95 11,500 a a a/p a a a 11,500Warehouse 1 General 60 2,766 g g a g g g 2,766Warehouse 2 General 100 150 a a a a a a 150

Totals: 2,924 12,778 70,125 53,696 17,486

Percentages: 77% 23%

percentage of objects

9 Collections condition

It is arguably the first duty of museums to care for and preserve thecollections, since these are the physical assets, owned by the public, forwhich the organization is accountable. There are many organizations doingwonderful but ephemeral things, such as arts organizations; but it ismuseums that are the guardians of the tangible national inheritance. If themuseum fails to deliver on one of its other services this can generally beremedied; but if it allows the collections to decay this is usually irrevocable.Monitoring the condition of collections can be seen as an audit process,based on clear definitions, which allows the state of preservation ofdifferent collections to be compared one with another, between differentinstitutions, or over time. Successive comparable surveys over time are theonly obvious way to establish whether collections are deteriorating or not.

Collections surveys should not answer the question, ‘which objects needconservation?’ but more important questions such as ‘is the institutionsucceeding in its basic duty to preserve the collections?’ and ‘which parts ofthe collection are most in need of preservation measures?’ Such auditsshould take as little valuable conservation time as possible, and give resultsthat can be analysed and expressed numerically. Condition and damagecan be categorized in standard ways that can apply to all types of collection.It is not necessary to examine every object in a large collection; statisticaltechniques can be used to design sample audits, as they are for politicalpolling, sociological research, marketing, etc. Results can be calculated forthe whole collection, and presented in simple and understandable ways.

An important component of the conceptual system for conservation(Chapter 7) was the management processes, ‘set criteria for efficiency,economy and effectiveness’, and ‘monitor processes’ (Fig. 7.5). Table 7.3related these processes to an information function, ‘set standards for andmonitor the condition of objects and collections’.

Surveying collections

Surveys can have a variety of objectives (Table 9.1). At least three types ofsurvey are needed to provide a truly comprehensive view of collectionspreservation:

Table 9.1 The objectives of surveys, factors relevant to these, and data thatneed to be collected

Surveyobjective Relevant factors Data needed

Audit condition Condition of individualobjectsStatistics on collectionscondition

Condition auditDamage types and severity

Identifycauses ofdeterioration

Environment: space,enclosures, supports/mounts,growth of collection, humidity,temperature, light,contaminants, pests,provenanceUse: display, handling,repairs/conservation,examination, running/demonstration of objects

ObservationsEnvironmental records: past,presentDamage types and severityRecords of use

Diagnosetrend

Condition: past vs. presentLikelihood and rate of futurechange, i.e. vulnerability andstabilityFactors which have caused/likely to cause damage

Condition past (?inferred)Condition presentCondition predicted future (=stability)Present and likely futureenvironmentPresent and likely future use

Affect trend Change environment (seeabove)Modify use (see above):display conditions, handling/use procedures, conservationprocedures, running ordemonstrationModify object: treat or restore

Most potent causes ofdeterioration

Assessresourcesneeded

Space, buildings, plans(HVAC, etc.)Equipment (racks,cupboards, etc.)Materials (for mounts, etc.)Time, skillsFinance

Size of task (e.g. number ofobjects, volume, storagearea, etc.)Nature of task (e.g.mounting, treatment, refitstore, new store)Account/cost of resource(e.g. conservator/years, sq.ft.of storage)


Table 9.1 (Continued)

Surveyobjective Relevant factors Data needed

Assessbenefits

Present use of objects,potential use, informationpotential, relevance toinstitution‘s purpose,monetary value, uniqueness,quality of workmanship,physical quality (e.g.wholeness), aesthetic quality

Present use (e.g. objectsdisplayable, books readable,drawings accessible)Curatorial assessments ofworthNumbers of objects beingsuccessfully preserved (i.e. incondition defined acceptable)

Recommendpriorities

Institutional objectivesResources vs. benefitsConsequences of ‘donothing’

Conservation/preservationpoliciesCost/benefit calculationsusing above dataVulnerability of objects/collectionsJudgements re willdeteriorate or not

Collections condition 141

Preventive conservation assessments

In order to diagnose and eliminate the causes of deterioration, thepreservation environment needs to be assessed in the broadest sense,covering institutional policies, procedures, available staff and skills, thehistory of the collections and space and physical resources for theirpreservation. Tools for this are discussed above in Chapter 8.


Data on the condition of objects and collections themselves – the subject ofthis chapter. These complement preventive conservation assessments.

Curatorial assessments

Curatorial assessments of the importance of the object as part of thecollection: i.e. of its significance for the intellectual dimension of thecollection. This sort of assessment is clearly essential when settingpriorities for action to be taken as a result of condition surveys, and forallocating resources. The most systematic and ambitious work on this isthe Dutch government’s Delta Plan, a national initiative to address the

backlog of collections management work in Holland (Directorate-Generalfor Cultural Affairs, 1992; Cannon-Brookes, 1994).

Once an overview of the state of the collection has been provided bythese general audits, object-by-object surveys will still of course berequired. For example, to plan remedial conservation projects, one willneed to know which objects are the highest priorities, and for this anobject-by-object survey is essential.

Existing work

Most published work on surveys concentrates either on detailedcondition reports on individual objects or on every-object surveys ofcollections undertaken to decide which objects should have priority forconservation. There are general surveys of regions or collections types.Forms for collecting survey data are usually tailored to a particular typeof collection, which makes it difficult to compare the condition ofdifferent collections. The first published report of a condition survey,which collected the same categories of data for a diverse collection, is tobe found in Walker and Bacon (1987), in an every-object survey for theHorniman Museum. Where only a sample of objects has been inspected,the selection has not been statistically designed but informal: e.g. everytenth object. However, a survey of the Library of Congress usedstatistically designed sampling to infer the condition of the twentymillion books from a sample of 1000 (Wiederkehr, 1984).

Most reports cite only an analysis of objects by type and conservationcondition grade; not, for instance, condition by damage. This is becauseit is scarcely feasible to cross-tabulate two or more data variables by hand.Many extant surveys have not yet had their data analysed at all, but thisdoes not mean that they are useless; the information is also used as acomplete collections inventory, as a basis for future condition monitoring,and as an immediate source of information about environmentalproblems. In most cases the information collected informally by observ-ing storage conditions and obvious causes of damage has been used atleast as much as the survey data itself.

Defining the data

Museum collections are extremely diverse, ranging from beetles totraction engines; flints to oil paintings; costumes to spacecraft. At firstsight, it seems impossible that the condition of such a variety of objectscould be described by a common set of terms. But it was found onstudying surveys from different institutions that the terminology todescribe ‘condition’ in different types of object was in fact quite similar.


Administrative data

These are the main terms used in analysing data and reporting results.Because museum collections are so diverse, even these seemingly obviousterms need to be defined to take account of collections which are oftenonly partly inventoried, disorganized in store, and have no factualestimate of collections size.

� Collection. An administrative unit within the overall collection of theinstitution. There can be collections and sub-collections withincollections.

� Store. A self-contained room in which collections are kept.� Store location. An important concept, on which the survey design rests.

The smallest identifiable grouping of objects within a store, e.g. a shelf,a box on a shelf, a group of objects on the floor, each drawer within acabinet of drawers. If a shelf has some free-standing objects, and otherscontained in a box, then the free-standing objects would count as onestore location, the box another.

� Object. The concept of objects-within-objects is a familiar problem inmuseum data definition: for example, is the object the tea set, or anindividual cup or saucer? For condition audit purposes, the auditorsdecide what is most appropriate and record the rule they establish.Normally, an object made up of component parts is taken to be a singleobject.

� Object identification. The inventory or acquisition number. Thoughdesirable, particularly for repeat surveying over time, for a collectionscondition audit objects do not need to have individual numbers, andthey often lack them.

� Descriptive of object. The amount of data collected on this is optional,and may vary according to individual institutions’ or collections’needs. It may include:

Simple nameMaterialsManufacturing processesType (e.g. photographic process)

Data which might relate to, but do not describe, condition mayoptionally be included here: fragility (the object may be fragile but inperfectly good condition); completeness; working or not. These termsdo not necessarily reflect deterioration.

Describing damage

A selection of survey forms collected from various museums contained inall 77 different terms to describe damage and deterioration, many of whichwere synonyms. They can be grouped within eight broad terms (Table 9.2):


Table 9.2 The eight main terms under which types of damage can be grouped, and terms relating to some collections

Structural damage

Majorstructural

Minorstructural

Surfacedamage Disfigurement

Chemical/internal Biological Accretions

Bad oldrepair

General Separatepieces/part;Loosecrack;Large tearlikely tospread;Largeholes;Majorsplits;Partsmissing;Mechanicaldisorder

Crack;Small tear;Puncture;Smallholes;Smallsplits;Obviouslyweak;Looseattachment;Bent;Warped;Creased;Distortedelements,e.g. feathers

Flaking/liftedpaint, etc;Peeling;Paint/surfacelosses;Bruised;Cupped;Delaminated;Crazed;Dented

Scratched;Stained;Abraded;Discoloured;Faded;Tarnished;Colours bled

Crumbling;Friable;Desiccated;Exudations;Grease;Salts

Insectattack;Moth;Woodworm;Foxed;Rodentdamage;Mould;Mildew

Dirty;Encrusted;Surfacesalts;Deposits;Greasy

Adhesive;Misalignment;Staples;Sellotape;Patches

Furniture Very loosejoint;Separatedattachment

Lifted veneer

Paper Very badlycrumpledwith split;Very badlycreasedwith split;Very badlydistorted/rolled

Cockled;Crumpled;Folded

Acid;Yellowed;Chemicallychangededges;Matt burn;Redoxspots;Metalimpurity

Tape;Sellotape

Books Separatedor nearlyseparatedspine/cover

Acid paper;Red rot

Textiles,fibre

Split seam;Badlycreasedwith split;Seriouslycrumpled;Crushed

Shrunken;Detachedfibres

Deterioratedsilk;Acid dyes

Clumsystitching;Alterations

Pictures Cupped paint;Losses;Flaking paint;Lifted paint

Blanched;Deterioratedcanvas

Ceramics/glass

Chipped;Small crack

Saltdamage;Crizzled

Encrustations

Metals Corroded;Rusted

Solder

Major structural damage Chemical deteriorationMinor physical damage Biological attackSurface damage Bad old repairsDisfigurement Accretions

A Victoria and Albert Museum survey of library collections used theframework described here, but extended it by listing detailed termsunder each of the broad terms. For example, ‘major structural damage’included: boards off; boards missing; spine off; spine missing; spine split;sewing broken; leaves detached; corners broken; boards severely mis-shapen; boards broken.

Describing condition

� Condition grade 1 GOODObject in the context of its collection is in good conservation condition,or is stable.

� Condition grade 2 FAIRFair condition, disfigured or damaged but stable, needs no immediateaction.

� Condition grade 3 POORPoor condition, and/or restricted use, and/or probably unstable, actiondesirable.

� Condition grade 4 UNACCEPTABLECompletely unacceptable condition, and/or severely weakened, and/or highly unstable and actively deteriorating, and/or affecting otherobjects: immediate action should be taken.

‘Action’ means something done to the object itself, rather than to itssurroundings or environment.

There are several different aspects to ‘condition’, which have been usedin different (or even in the same) surveys (Buck, 1971; Walker and Bacon,1987):

� insecurity (Buck, 1971, and the V&A in early surveys): mechanicalstresses, stability, or vulnerability

� disfigurement (Buck, 1971, and the V&A): appearance of object� conservation priority (Horniman, Museum of London, British Museum,

and others): how urgently is conservation needed?� condition rating (National Maritime, Public Records Office): e.g. good,

fair, poor.

All the factors listed are valid aspects of ‘condition’. They can becombined in the definitions of broad summarizing terms, as in Figure 9.1.


Excellent

Stability Conservationurgency

Appearence Fitness foruse

1

2

3

4

Con

ditio

ngr

ades

Am

ountof information

The worse the condition of the object, the more there is to say about it(Fig. 9.2).

The concept of ‘stability’ is central to the definition of ‘condition’. Whatconservators are really doing when they describe ‘stability’ is predictingthe rate at which an object is likely to deteriorate. An object, althoughotherwise stable, might be graded ‘highly unstable’ (or its equivalent)because of a detached piece, which would be common practice: this is aprediction that the object will suffer serious change due to the fragment’spermanent loss.


Fig 9.1 Aspects of the condition of an object

Fig 9.2 The amount of data needed to describe condition. The worse thecondition of the object, the more description is needed

The condition of an object needs to be defined in the context of itsparticular collection. For example, a pot that is in separate shards may bein GOOD condition as part of an archaeological archive, while thedefinition for an applied arts ceramic collection may place it in theUNACCEPTABLE category.

Data on damage will give information on why the object has beenassigned its condition grade. For example, ‘biological deterioration’combined with condition grade 4 implies pest infestation or active mouldgrowth; grade 4 coupled with ‘major physical damage’ implies aninsecure break or a detached part that ought to be re-attached to avoid itsloss.

There is debate about the number of grades: between three and five.Using five grades means that the majority of objects are assigned themiddle, indeterminate grade. It is not very useful to know that 50 per centof the collection is in neither good nor bad condition. Three grades do notallow sufficient discrimination between different grades of condition, andagain have the disadvantage of an indeterminate grade.

Other possible data

Other useful data could be collected as part of the audit process. It wouldbe simple to record the suitability of the object’s store location. It is alsoeasy to record what work is needed to render the condition of the objectacceptable. If additional data are collected it is strongly advisable todesign a restricted number of terms or categories, like those for damageor condition, so as to expedite the process of analysis.

The audit method

The basis of the sampling design arrived at is statistical method, by whichwe can learn what we want to know about the population (the wholecollection) from statistics gathered about a sample (Rowntree, 1988). If thesample is selected randomly from the population, then from it we canpredict the accuracy of the estimate about the population. We can also sayhow confident we are that the results from the audit can be applied to thewhole collection (the confidence level).

There are several advantages in using a statistical sampling method.Audits take less time, which is important, because conservators are inshort supply, and auditing itself does nothing directly to improve thecondition of the collection. Condition is comparative, and seeing a widesample of objects over a short time leads to better-informed assessments.And it is very difficult to make sense of large quantities of data, whetherthey are analysed by hand or by computer.


Audit procedures and sampling

There are six distinct stages in an audit:

1 specify the objectives and scope of the audit, and decide on the timeavailable

2 undertake a pilot audit, to establish the variability of the collection andquantify the task

3 analyse the pilot audit results and design the sampling procedure4 collect the data (conduct the audit itself)5 analyse the data6 report the results.

Audit specification

The amount of time to be spent on the audit must be decided in advance;it is integral to the statistical design.

If the results of the audit are to be adopted and used (‘owned’) by theinstitution generally, it is very important that both curators andconservators jointly work on as many stages as possible. Some obviouslysuitable tasks for cooperation are:

� to establish the objectives and scope of the audit, describe the nature ofthe collection, and note particular aspects of it that are of interest andthat should be covered by the audit

� to agree the administrative data that will be used in analysing theaudit

� to define the audit variables (what is ‘an object’ in the context of thiscollection? Does condition grade 4: UNACCEPTABLE need moreprecise definition?)

� finally, to work in pairs to actually undertake the survey.

Pilot audits

A pilot audit collects together the necessary information to design thesample and tests out the audit procedures. Necessary information willinclude information about the collection(s), information about how theyare organized in store, quantifications of the size of the task (typically,how many store locations, and how many objects can be examined perday), and data on the statistical ‘variability’ of the collection (see theAudit sampling design section below). It gives an opportunity to test outthe means of data collection – whether in paper form or by computer. Itenables the data definitions to be tested in the context of the particularcollection, and rules on their application to be agreed. For example,


inexperienced auditors may have set the criteria for condition grade 4:UNACCEPTABLE condition too low, so end up having to add ‘even moreurgent’ classifications as the audit proceeds!

The pilot audit can be expected to take up to 20 per cent of the total timeavailable for auditing (see Exhibit 9A on p. 161, and Kingsley and Payton,1994). It needs to be carefully thought out, so that all parts of the collectionare covered evenly. The pilot audit procedure can be changed if necessaryduring its course (in the main audit the procedure that has been designedshould be rigidly adhered to unless it becomes clear that the design isseriously flawed). The information required from pilot audits and theprocess of undertaking and analysing them is illustrated in Exhibit 9A.

Audit sampling design

The statistical method adopted is a two-stage systematic samplingprocedure, with storage location as the first stage and individual objectsthe second. This allows samples to be designed to allow for differentlevels of between- and within-location variability. This is comparable toselecting every nth street, and within that street, every xth house tosurvey. Sampling design and formulae are discussed in detail in Keeneand Orton (1992), and its application in practice in Kingsley and Payton(1994). Exhibit 9A shows examples of survey designs.

How many objects need to be surveyed?

It seems paradoxical, but the primary determinant of sample size is notthe size of the collection, but its variability (Rowntree, 1988: Ch. 5). Thus,it is incorrect to assume that surveying a particular percentage of acollection will give results that can be extrapolated to the whole. Thefactors that determine sample size are:

� The variability of the collection‘Variability’ in audit terms means the number of objects per location,and the proportion of objects in the different grades of conditionwithin different locations. The more variable the collection the largerthe sample required. For example, if most store locations contain onebadly damaged object and nine in good condition, then the collectionis not considered very variable – whether one or a hundred storelocations are sampled, we will confidently be able to predict that 90per cent of the collection will be in good condition. But if the numberof damaged objects varies from four out of five in one location to onein a hundred in the next, then it is going to be much more difficultto predict the result for the whole collection – the collection isvariable in survey terms. We will need to examine more locations. A


prior pilot survey will detect how variable it is. The results of thepilot survey will show how large a standard deviation (i.e. 20 percent) would result from the analysis; if it is too large, then the timeallowed may have to be increased.

� The confidence limits required and the standard deviation (range) in which theresults are to be expressed, which are linkedConfidence level is expressed as a percentage, such as ‘95 per centconfidence level, applying to objects in condition grade 4’. It indicatesthe degree of confidence in calculating the condition of the wholecollection from a sample, as in ‘we can be 95 per cent certain thatbetween 79 and 105 objects are in unacceptable condition’. Ninety-fiveper cent is a good level to choose.

� The amount of time allocated to the auditIt is actually useful in designing an audit to allocate a specific amountof time for the process. Two person-months are probably enoughwhatever the size of the collection, i.e. one month if two people aredoing the inspection, as is good practice. The time allowance shouldinclude a person-week for a pilot survey and a person-week foranalysing and writing up the results.

Which objects to survey

The sampling design (i.e. every fifth object from every ninth storelocation) is calculated by applying the statistical formulae to the pilotaudit results. There is a computer program that will do this. The processis not very simple, however, and many audits have an informal design,i.e. one in ten objects. Informal audit designs are acceptable for smallcollections, but for those such as photography or libraries, months of timecould be wasted. Alternatively, most statistically designed audits use asample of around 1000, as you will notice from opinion polls. The Libraryof Congress audit covered twenty million books in a sample of about1000. The question here is how should the 1000 be selected?

The objective of the sampling design can be expressed as:

To design the most effective way of selecting a sample of objects toinspect, given that x objects can be examined in the time available(figure from the pilot survey), in order to calculate the proportion ofobjects in condition grade 4, to 95 per cent confidence limits. If thereare too few objects in condition grade 4, then condition grade3 + condition grade 4 can be designated.

The aim is to achieve a balance between the proportions of the locationssampled and the proportion of objects sampled within each selectedlocation (Keene and Orton, 1992).


These are known as the sampling fractions. For example, for an auditof a social history collection every fourth location was sampled, andwithin those, every eighth object, both counts starting from a randomlyselected first location or object (Exhibit 9A, Pilot surveys). Or, for avaried collection including both single large objects and groups ofobjects, object types were separately sampled (Kingsley and Payton,1994).

Whether the sample is statistically designed or informal, it is stillvery important to select objects at random, and only if they are canstatistics about the sample be used to calculate parameters for thecollection. In an informal sample (say every tenth object) the first objectmust be selected randomly by drawing a ticket, etc., and subsequentobjects must be chosen according to a predetermined systematicprocedure. You can invent your own rules, but you must record themand stick to them.

Using an informal method with only one stage of sampling (e.g.every tenth object) has the advantage that it is very simple toextrapolate the results from the sample to the collection as a whole.Statistical techniques can still be used, if wished, to calculate the rangeand the confidence limit for the whole collection. The disadvantages arethat considerably more objects may have been audited than necessary,scarce specialist time may not have been put to the best use, andunnecessary quantities of data may have to be analysed.

Gathering the data: the survey itself

It is almost essential to conduct the survey in pairs: a conservator and acurator. Two opinions are better than one when it comes to deciding oncondition grades. If curators are not included in the process then theyinevitably feel that their work on the collection is being inspected. Andtwo people are needed so that one can inspect objects and the otherrecord the data.

There is a choice between recording audit data on paper or oncomputer. Paper records are permanent, accessible, and some analysis iseasily done by hand (Exhibit 9C is a typical audit form). The dis-advantage of paper is the bulk that quickly accumulates, and thatstatistical analysis beyond simple counts and percentages is in practiceimpossible.

Simple computer databases can provide an electronic form for enteringaudit records, which can then be listed and counted. Simple analyses suchas percentages can be performed, using pre-designed report formats.Some typical results from the database provided in Microsoft Works™ areshown in Exhibit 9D on p. 165.


Analysing and presenting data

Data from audits can be analysed in several main ways.

Descriptive information

The data analysed here are the administrative information that has beencollected. These variables can by analysed in as much detail as required.For example, photographic collections might be analysed by type ofobject: negative, print, etc., and by photographic process. These datawould be held in an inventory of the collection, but if an inventory doesnot exist they will be invaluable.

Information on fragility, completeness, whether in working order, etc.,can be analysed if the need for this has been anticipated in the audit datadesign and data coding. Though not directly relevant to condition, thisinformation is useful for collections care and management generally.

Analysis: Simple lists.Output: Lists of object types, stores, collections, etc. Because a sampleonly is collected, ‘object type’ has to be fairly broad, for instance, if‘object name’ were to be analysed then lists would be too detailed to bemeaningful, and many named objects would not be represented. Evenso, ‘object type’ is a very quick way of producing an outline descriptionof a collection.

Quantitative information

Sample audits are designed to enable quantitative information aboutwhole ‘populations’ to be calculated from data from smaller samples.Quantitative information can be derived about the collections, including:

� Numbers of objects in collections, sub-collections, object types.� Numbers of objects in stores.� Numbers of objects in different condition grades (therefore needing or

not needing conservation).� Numbers of objects that have suffered different types of damage.� Numbers of objects needing mounting or other particular types of work.

And as a spin-off . . .

� Numbers of objects lacking a valid inventory number.

The results of this quantitative analysis can be combined with informa-tion on resources, i.e. work rates – numbers of objects conserved/mounted/cleaned, etc., in a year; materials, such as amount of mountboard required to cut n mounts; prices of boxes, to quantify the resourcesneeded to improve the condition of collections to some target state.


Analysis: Counts of cases (object records) by different groups; statistics:standard deviation, maximum number, minimum number; cross-tabulations; application of the statistical formulae designed for auditanalysis.Output: Quantified lists, tables, histograms, bar graphs. Information onresource requirements: price of required packaging, conservator/yearsto treat all objects in condition grade 4, etc. For examples of tables andnumerical output, see Exhibit 9D; the expression of these statistics asgraphs is illustrated in Figure 9.3, (a) and (b).

Comparative information

Both numbers and proportions of objects analysed by different variablescan be used to make comparisons of collections size, collections


Fig 9.3 Some ways of presenting the results of collections condition audits

condition, etc. The proportion of objects in grade 3 and grade 4 combinedmay be used as an index of condition. Comparing proportions of damagetypes may assist in understanding the causes of deterioration.

Analysis: Cross-tabulations of object type (or other grouping: e.g. store)by condition grade, with percentages. Log-linear, or contingencyanalysis, to compare the condition of different object groupings. Thestatistical chi-squared test of significance (if required). Percentages ofobjects with different types of damage.Output: Tables and figures. Percentages and other bar graphs; piecharts. See Figure 9.3, especially (c) and (d), and Exhibit 9D.

Correlational information

Information on how statistics relating to condition grades correlate withthose for damage factors will undoubtedly be of interest. It can beexpected that the relationship will be indicative of the causes ofdeterioration.

Analysis: Scatter diagrams, correlation coefficient (if necessary).Output: Tables, but principally graphs. For example, the table‘Condition grades by damage types’ in Exhibit 9D shows that all theobjects in condition grade 4, UNACCEPTABLE, have suffered majorstructural damage.

Conclusions on audit data analysis

All this is very simple information, invaluable for collections care andmanagement, and planning conservation. However, it is characteristic ofcollections information generally that it can be analysed in the same wayat many different hierarchical levels (Fig. 9.4). This means that manyseparate, though similar, audit analyses need to be performed. These inturn result in piles of tables, diagrams, etc. It can be a daunting task tomake full use of the information and to draw conclusions. It is also quitean undertaking to extract a general view. The complexity of actuallymaking use of the information from audits is the main reason for urgingthat only really essential data be collected.

Reporting audit results

The presentation of data and information from audits should follow therules of good practice set out by Chapman (1996). An example from theHistoric City Museum is shown in Exhibit 9E.


The readership of the report should be considered. If it is a detailedreport to a curator or within the conservation department it can be full,but if it is a high-level report to councillors or trustees it should bemuch briefer. Ask yourself: ‘What do I expect to happen when the[trustees] have read this?’ or, ‘If I were a [trustee], what would I needto know so as to understand the significance of this report?’ Acollections condition audit report could potentially include a lot ofinformation, but much of it can be brief. Some areas, particularly thoserelating to the causes of deterioration, would be explored in depththrough a complementary preventive conservation survey. To avoidduplication they should only be touched on in a collections conditionaudit report. See also Table 9.1.

Different collections often need separate, mini-reports of their own.The digestion and summarizing of many separate reports, even if theyfollow a common format, is (like really understanding the data) aconsiderable task.


Fig 9.4 The hierarchical nature of museum collections data. Large or complexinstitutions will have even more organizational tiers in their collections

Monitoring condition over time

If a new random sample of the collection were to be taken for each re-auditing exercise, few if any objects would be common to both audits.Any real change in the overall state of the collection might be masked bythe variability introduced by the sampling procedures. The best wayaround this may be for subsequent audits to include a subset of theoriginal sample in the new survey, probably about a third of the original.More detailed logging of data on the subset may be required in order tospot differences more easily. The subset would provide a benchmarkagainst which the other parts of the audit can be measured. The subsetitself would have to be randomly selected.

There is some work based on this, and on using particular types ofobject as tell-tale signs on condition (SPNHCC-CC Assessment Sub-Committee, 1990). This is especially relevant for mineral or fossilspecimens, many of which become unstable outside a particular range ofrelative humidities.

Case study

The Historic City Museum conservators have carried out collectionscondition surveys from time to time, as part of their drive to set workpriorities based on the needs of the collections. They realize that theyonly need the minimum data, but they have been inspecting everysingle object. They know that surveying is important, but it is still veryboring. One of the conservation sections has been really conscientious,and over eighteen months they have surveyed around 5000 objects. Oneday, one of these conservators is talking to a statistician working on theanalysis of pottery for archaeology reports. The conservator describesthe results of the collections surveys. The statistician scribbles a fewfigures on the back of an envelope he happens to have handy, andannounces that if what they are interested in is the condition of thecollection rather than the condition of each object then they could havegot results that were just as reliable by surveying 500 objects out of the5000. The conservation department is totally convinced that samplesurveys are the way to go!

The sampling approach soon comes into its own. A government report(it might have been Committee of Public Accounts, 1989, or Resource,2001) is highly critical of collections care in national museums. Thedepartment writes a Strategy Proposal for the preservation of thecollections and presents it to the senior management (see Chapter 10,Exhibit 10B on p. 189). It recommends a comprehensive audit of the stateof care of the Historic City Museum collections. Obviously, this has to be


rapid; if it takes years, everyone will have forgotten about thegovernment report. The conservators decide that six person-months isenough time to do this – long enough to broadly assess the condition ofthe collections. It will also provide a better idea of their scale.

The conservators discuss their plan with the Director and DeputyDirector, to make sure that they support it and that the results of theaudits will be taken seriously. The Deputy Director calls a meeting for allcurators, in which the Head of Conservation presents the project, andasks for curatorial cooperation and assistance.

The audits and reports

Pilot surveys are carried out on all collections, so as to calculate how thetime available should be used. Using the results, the friendly statisticiancalculates the optimum survey design. Some of the audits have a formalstatistical design. For the prints and drawings collection, 40 solanderboxes are selected at random, and 25 per cent of the objects in each ofthese boxes are examined; a mere 2 per cent of the objects in thecollection. The social history collections are much more varied, and hereevery eighth object in every fourth store location is surveyed. In others,an informal sample design is used (costume: every fifth object). Somepilot audits are described in Exhibit 9A.

The audits are all completed within the given time, including analysingthe results and writing reports on individual collections. Examples ofsome of the statistical results are shown in Exhibits 9B and 9D and inFigure 9.3. See also Kingsley and Payton (1994), for a description of a latercondition audit.

The Head of Conservation has to digest and summarize the contents oftwelve reports on different collections. As she eyes the twelve box filesfull of paper audit forms, and taps the same column of figures into hercalculator for the third time just to be sure, she also resolves that fromnow on audit data will be kept to an absolute minimum, and that it willbe collected and analysed by computer.

Consequences

The results for each collection need to be seen in context. Reports onindividual collections are only issued to curators once the overallsummary report has been compiled by the Head of Conservation. Thesummary report is circulated to all curators, with a copy of the relevantindividual report. A meeting is held for collections staff. The con-servators’ world is now composed of two sorts of curator: those whoare aggrieved because they feel that the audit results criticize the waythey have cared for their collections, and those who are aggrieved


because their collections have not yet been audited. It is pointed outthat an honest recognition of problems, based on factual evidence, willhelp the museum to obtain the resources to remedy them and toprioritize work.

The newly available figures on the scale of the collections have a majorimpact on the senior managers in the museum. A presentation of theaudit results is subsequently made to the Board of Governors (Exhibit 9Eon p. 169). Collections care is pushed higher up the museum’s corporateagenda. Tables showing the number of objects in the collections haveappeared in every annual report since they became available (andestimates have not changed much over ten years!). However, it is difficultactually to assess the conservation resources required. This is partlybecause the statistical calculations are quite complicated, but morebecause any figures that resulted seem impossibly ambitious. In any case,there is clearly a huge amount of work to be done on each collection. Theresults are therefore incorporated broadly into the first draft of a paper onstrategy for care of collections.

The conservators conclude that having the data available carries nearlyas much weight as did the actual statistics.

The law of unintended consequences also comes into play. Theconservators innocently thought that the reaction to their diplomatic buthard-hitting report (Exhibit 9E) would be something like ‘what a seriousstate of affairs – we must rectify it’. But another political spin is, ‘we can’tpossibly let this sort of information become public – we would becrucified for this’. The way to counter this is obviously to have a plan toimprove matters, and be seen to be doing it. But if resources are stretched,and there are other priorities with a higher public profile, this sort ofmanagement information can be very unpopular.

Conclusions

A lot of time and effort has been put into surveys: time that could bespent on treating and caring for collections. In the past, very largeamounts of data have been collected, and too little use has been made ofthem. Surveyors launch into form design and data collection – surveyingitself – without thinking through what it is they want to discover, andwithout undertaking a trial, or pilot survey to test out the process fromthe start right through to the analysis and report stage. Without anoverview and an objective, information at individual object level assumesmore importance to the surveyor than information about collections. Yetit is information at the collections level that really enables us to managetheir preservation.


References

Buck, R.D. (1971). What is condition in a work of art? Bulletin of the AmericanGroup-IIC, 12, 1.

Cannon-Brookes, P. (1994). The ‘Delta Plan’ for the preservation of culturalheritage in the Netherlands. Museum Management and Curatorship, 12,303–307.

Chapman, M. (1996). Plain Figures (Second edition). London: Stationery OfficeBooks.

Committee of Public Accounts (1989). Management of the collections of the Englishnational museums and galleries. First Report. House of Commons: Session1988–89. London: HMSO.

Directorate-General for Cultural Affairs (1992). Delta Plan for the preservation ofcultural heritage, Fact Sheet C–11-E 1992. Ministry of Welfare, Health andCultural Affairs, P.O. Box 5406, 2280 HK Rijswijk, The Netherlands.

Keene, S. and Orton, C. (1992). Measuring the condition of museum collections.CAA91: Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (G. Lockeand J. Moffett, eds). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Kingsley, H. and Payton, R. (1994). Condition surveying of large varied storedcollections. Conservation News, 54 (July), 8–10.


Rowntree, D. (1988). Statistics without tears. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.SPNHCC-CC Assessment Sub-Committee (1990). Defining standard procedures

for assessing the condition of a fluid-preserved collection. In ICOM Committeefor Conservation, 9th Triennial Meeting, Preprints, Dresden. Marina del Ray, Ca.:Getty Conservation Institute/ICOM Committee for Conservation.

Walker, K. and Bacon, L. (1987). A condition survey of specimens in the HornimanMuseum: a progress report. In Recent advances in the conservation and analysis ofartifacts. London: Summer Schools Press.

Wiederkehr, R.R.V. (1984). The design and analysis of a sample survey of the conditionof books in the Library of Congress. Library of Congress Report. Washington DC:Library of Congress (unpublished, but whence the introduction on themethodology is obtainable).



Exhibit 9A: Two pilot surveys in the Historic CityMuseum

Pilot Survey 1: Social history collection

An extremely mixed collection, number of objects unknown, a largeproportion not on inventory. Objects ranged from jewellery todomestic items to vehicles, in eight different stores.

This survey was to be undertaken through a fixed term contract.Two person-months were available in total, totalling 44 person-days. Resources were allocated as follows:

Pilot survey: 4 person-days(including 1 day analysis and report)

Survey: 35 person-daysAnalysis and reporting: 5 person-days

30 person-hours were allocated to the pilot survey. Half a day wasallocated to each of eight stores. In each store, all the objects in a fewstore locations judged to be typical of the store were surveyed. Intotal, 684 objects were examined in 42 store locations. As well assurveying the locations, the surveyors drew a sketch map of thestore showing the arrangement of racks, etc., and counted the totalnumber of store locations.

1. Time spent on pilot survey (predetermined): 30 person-hours2. Number of storage locations surveyed in the time: 423. Number of objects surveyed in the time: 6844. Total number of storage locations (as counted in pilot

survey): 29935. Mean number of objects per location: 166. Approximate total number of objects in collection: 49 000

(mean number per location � total number of locations)7. Number of objects that could be surveyed in the time allocated

for the survey: 171 objects per day � 35 person-days = 5985(number of objects surveyed per person/day � person/days forsurvey)


Applying the formulae in Keene and Orton (1992) to thedetailed results of the pilot survey, the sampling design arrived atwas to sample one location in 4, and within each location oneobject in 8. To ensure a random selection, a sequence is decidedon for the store locations, for example, always start at the left-hand end; work through each rack bay by bay; in each bay ofracks, start at the top and work down. A number between 1 and4 is chosen at random (by drawing a ticket, or from randomnumber tables) and the first store location is chosen by countingthat number from the first one. Similar rules are developed forselecting objects within a store location (shelf, drawer, box, orfree-standing).

Results (percentages of objects per condition grade):

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4GOOD FAIR POOR UNACCEPTABLE

Pilot survey: 60% 46% 15% 1%Full survey: 47% 34% 12% 6%

Pilot Survey 2: Collection of works of art on paper

A well-organized collection of about 10 000 inventoried objects, keptin 684 solander boxes.

Time allocated for survey:Pilot survey: 1 person-dayFull survey: 9 person-daysAnalysis and report writing: 3 person-days

Pilot survey: 1 person-day. All objects ineach of 6 boxes were surveyed.

Variability: 8 to 48 objects per boxMean number of objects per box: 29.23Survey rate: 37 objects per hourConclusion: 2154 objects (20% of the total)

could be surveyed in the timeavailable

However, applying the formulae resulted in a survey design of 1in 4 objects in each of 40 solander boxes: only around 272 objects, or2% of the total.


Results (percentages of objects per condition grade):

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4GOOD FAIR POOR UNACCEPTABLE

Pilot survey: 5% 52% 35% 8%Full survey: 6% 22% 56% 13%

Actual time for survey (22.2 objects surveyed per hour):Pilot survey: 1 person-dayFull survey: 2 person-daysAnalysis and report writing: 3 person-days

Exhibit 9B: Examples of results from collectionscondition audits in the Historic City Museum

Population statistics for the collections

Social history collectionsSample design: 1 in 4 locations; in each location surveyed, every 8th

object

Total objects calculated by:

Total store locations

number of locations surveyed� number of objects surveyed � 8

Store

Totalstore

locationsLocationssurveyed

Objectssurveyed

Approx.total

objectsSmall objects General 797 215 506 15 006Small metals Metal St. 42 12 27 756Machines West St. Gr. 473 137 367 10 137Furniture etc. West St. 1st 144 46 63 1 578

Costume and textiles collectionSample design: every fifth object

Store

Totalstore

locationsLocationssurveyed

Objectssurveyed

Approx.total

objectsWomen’s Costume store n/a n/a 765 3825Men’s 266 1330Accessories 693 3465Children’s etc. 175 875

Exhibit 9C: A typical form for collecting audit information on paper

Exhibit 9D: Examples of using a simple database program Microsoft Works™

LIST AS INPUT

sub-coll Location count acc no name maters CON ma mi su bi ch di ol ac work remarkstoys 24t-sh3-rhs 12 87.171/7 cash register stee;pain;pl 1 1toys 24t-sh5-rhs 10 nn yo yo stee;string; 1toys 24t-sh5-rhs 85.131 plas;meta;card worm in appl 2 1 Sellotapetoys 24t-sh7-mid 36 A.23501 leat ball 3 1 1 seams brokentoys 24t-sh7-mid 82.218/6 cube ston;pain 2toys 24t-sh7-mid 80.496/27 bead glas 1toys 24t-sh7-mid A.21901 ball holder ivor 1toys 24t-sh8-r-ba 10 18835 ball wood 1 1 1toys 26t-sh3 49 85.308/5 john bull prin card;wood;me 1games 26t-sh3 85.524/12 game, wembley plas;pape;ca 2 1 1 box brokengames 26t-sh3 81/486/25 game, twist plas;card 2 1 box brokentoys 26t-sh3 84.375/6 kingfisher felt;plas;ca 1toys 26t-sh3 84.413/28 basket weaving plas;card 1toys 26t-sh3 84.447/18 citadel card;plas;pa 1toys 26t-sh3 84.447/8 citadel giant card;plas;pa 2 1 box brokendolls box on floor 12 nn doll text;cera;me 2 1 1 crumpledtoys orange cr/fl 13 72.4/17 toy piano text;wood;me 2 1 1 textile frayedtoys top of cupbs 6 82.117 model gallows wood;meta;gl 2 1 1 1models modsl-sh2-t/ 10 nn 2 horses wood;pain 4 1 1 v. fragilemodels modsl-sh2-t/ nn carr. + people wood;pain 4 1 1 v. fragile(cont. . . . )

Locations in audit:20

Locations with enoughobjects to inspect:

19

Objectsinspected:

60

STATISTICS BY STORE LOCATION

Counts and row per cents.

Damage typesLocation Sub-coll Count Samp Cond1 Cond2 Cond3 Cond4 MA MI SU BI CH DI OL AC

17t-sh4-fr doll fur 22 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 10.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50%

17t-sh6-fr doll fur 52 7 3 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 242.9% 28.6% 0.0% 28.6% 29% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29%

18t-sh2 doll fur 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

20t-sh1-rh models 80 10 7 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 070.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

22t-sh1-rh models 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 00.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

(cont. . . . )

Totals: 471 60 29 22 4 5 7 9 11 0 4 3 1 2248.3% 36.7% 6.7% 8.3% 12% 15% 18% 0% 7% 5% 2% 37%

Cond1 Cond2 Cond3 Cond4 MA MI SU BI CH DI OL AC

STATISTICS BY SUB-COLLECTION

Damage typesSub-coll Count Samp Cond1 Cond2 Cond3 Cond4 MA MI SU BI CH DI OL AC

doll fur 85 10 3 4 1 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 430% 40% 10% 20% 30% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40%

dolls 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100%

games 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 00% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%

models 238 32 17 10 2 3 4 1 7 0 3 1 1 1353% 31% 6% 9% 13% 3% 22% 0% 9% 3% 3% 41%

toys 136 15 9 5 1 0 0 3 4 0 0 1 0 460% 33% 7% 0% 0% 20% 27% 0% 0% 7% 0% 27%

Totals 471 60 29 22 4 5 7 9 11 0 4 3 1 2248% 37% 7% 8% 12% 15% 18% 0% 7% 5% 2% 37%

TABLE OF CONDITION GRADES BY DAMAGE TYPES

Counts and row per cents.

Damage typesCondition

grade MAJ MIN SURF BIOL CHEM DISF OLD ACCR Totals

1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 290.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 24.1%

2 1 8 7 0 1 3 0 11 224.5% 36.4% 31.8% 0.0% 4.5% 13.6% 0.0% 50.0%

3 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 425.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

4 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 5100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 60.0%

Totals: 7 9 11 0 4 3 1 22 6011.7% 15.0% 18.3% 0.0% 6.7% 5.0% 1.7% 36.7%

C1 C2 C3 C4Number in condition grades: 29 22 4 5Per cent.: 48.3% 36.7% 6.7% 8.3%

Locs. sampled: 19Locs. with too few objects: 1

Number of objects examined: 60Tot. objects in all locs. in survey: 471

Average objects per location: 23.55Maximum num. objects per location: 108Minimum num. objects per location: 3SD for counts of objects/location: 27.462


Exhibit 9E: Report on collections preservation

THE HISTORIC CITY MUSEUM

Preserving the collections

1. Introduction: the context

Stewardship of the museum’s collections is an important service..The Best Value regime requires the museum to review the quality ofits service, and to set out a process of continuous improvement. Asthe first step in this, the collections were surveyed to establish theircondition, and the stores and displays were evaluated againstagreed standards. This report sets out the results of these surveysand proposes a forward plan for monitoring and review.

2. The condition of the collections

The survey took place between March and April this year. Thecollections surveyed were social history and industry. This surveytook 7.5 person/weeks including the pilot survey, the full survey,analysis and reporting.

In all, there were found to be 30,250 objects in the collectionscovered by the survey. 1471 objects were selected via a standardsampling procedure. Applied to the whole collection, the resultsshow that 68% of the objects are in good or fair condition, 22% arein poor condition, and 11% are in unacceptable condition and arelikely to be deteriorating.

Within the Social History and Industry collections, there are anumber of sub-collections. There was considerable variation in thecondition of these collections.

It is objects that are actively deteriorating, i.e. in unacceptablecondition, that are of most concern. Of the 45 different collections,

14 collections had no objects in UNACCEPTABLE condition21 collections had 1–20% of objects in UNACCEPTABLE condition6 collections had 20–30% of objects in UNACCEPTABLE condition4 collections had over 30% of objects in UNACCEPTABLE condition


Objects in UNACCEPTABLE condition included many made of newmaterials – resins, plastics, man-made fibres, etc. – which are difficultto preserve. However, there are measures that can be taken.

3. The quality of the storage and display environment

The places where objects are kept were surveyed in May. Theprocedure used was the nationally accepted method (DCMSPerformance Indicators 1999), which is based on the MGC Standardsfor the care of . . . collections.

Each store or space was assessed against five main qualityheadings: Protection (security and risks); Space and access facilities;Building quality and maintenance; Environment (light, humidity,pollution); Storage equipment. From the assessment, the store wasassigned an overall rating: Good, Fair, Poor, Unacceptable.

Over 75% of the collections are kept in stores that are acceptableor good. The 25% that are in poor or unacceptable storage aremainly large objects. Even these are vulnerable to poor conditions:for example, vehicles are damaged by high humidity, which causescorrosion and mould growth on upholstery.

There are also some small collections of very vulnerable objectssuch as those made of modern materials which are not kept in thespecialized storage conditions needed for their preservation.

4. Planned actions

4.1 Stores: urgent actionSome stores are so unsatisfactory that they require major action. Inthe meantime urgent action is needed to guard against the risk ofcatastrophic loss through fire, theft or flood. Alarm systems will berepaired immediately and regular security patrols organized.

4.2 Stores improvements: major projectsThe museum has agreed a three year target for 80% of its collectionsto be stored in conditions that are acceptable or better. To attain thistarget, one or both of the New Road stores will have to be eitherimproved or else vacated entirely. These stores are not large – 550square metres in total – but they contain nearly 12,000 objects.

Year 1: Quantify and cost collections storage requirements, includ-ing object movementSpecify storage requirementsIdentify alternative spaces, cost and assess options


Make budgetary provision for storage improvements andseek funding

Year 2: Specify and tender works; begin worksPrepare collections for move, including review fordisposal

Year 3: Complete works; move collections.

4.3 Stores improvements: minor projectsMany desirable actions have been identified that can be achievedwithin existing budgets and resources. Based on the stores assess-ment, a work plan has been drawn up for each store.

4.4 Collections condition: planned actionsParticularly vulnerable collections that are stored in poor conditionshave now been identified. Measures will be taken urgently toimprove conditions pending complete re-storage, e.g. storingobjects in sealed containers with buffer material which will regulatehumidity fluctuations. The most vulnerable collections, for exampleToys, which includes many objects made from modern materials,are being surveyed object by object to check the accuracy of thesurvey results, and to assess their conservation needs. Followingthis, a work plan will be drawn up and costed.

5. Monitoring and reporting

The museum wishes to be able to provide these statistical data. Inthe case of storage quality, they can be produced annually, andsupplemented by report against planned actions.

In the case of collections condition, of their nature the statisticswill not alter greatly over the course of a year. They are alsoexpensive to produce, although there is virtue in continuity. Themuseum therefore proposes to survey and report on a third of thecollections each year. In this way, the collections will be completelymonitored on a three year cycle.

Head of Conservation

Note to readers:

The statistics and graphs for the stores surveys can be found in Chapter 8,Figs. 8.1 and 8.2, and Exhibit 8A.

The statistics and graphs for the collections condition surveys are in Fig.9.4 and Exhibits 9A, B, and C.

10 Direction and strategy

A clear sense of direction and an agreed framework for action are widelyconsidered to be among the most important factors for success inorganizations. There is an interesting divergence of views, however, onexactly what is desirable by way of strategic planning, and on how muchcan be achieved through plans and strategies. Many writers draw adistinction between longer-term missions and value systems and short-term plans and targets. There is an argument that continually striving tomeet short-term targets is one of the causes of the ills that our Anglo-Saxon, work-orientated society brings – we might be better off develop-ing long-term relationships – but objectives play such a dominant part inour culture that most of us would feel disorientated without them.

Terminology

There is little consistency in what different authors, or managers, meanwhen they use different terms. This is what is meant by the terms usedhere.

Policies: The rules on how the organization intends to behave inprinciple in most circumstances. For instance, ‘the policy isthat an object will not be lent unless loan conditions are metby the borrower’.

Strategy: An overall pattern of action for a long time ahead by whichan organization means to achieve its high-level objectives.There are connotations of competitiveness.

Objectives: Major or minor, long- or short-term, for the whole museum orfor individuals, these are the things it is hoped to achieve. Forexample, to bring all stores up to [specified] standards wouldbe an objective. A strategy might serve high-level objectives,or objectives might be set in pursuit of a strategy.

Procedures: How things are to be done generically: i.e. loan proceduresset out the actions and the sequence required if any object isto be lent.

Plan: A course of action for either a specific project or for a workgroup for a short period of time (say up to two years). A planwill consist of a series of specific actions with indications oftime and deadlines.

Targets: Specific time or numerical quantities or tightly definedobjectives to be met by means of a plan.

Goal: Used by other authors with a variety of meanings.

Statements of purpose

A statement of purpose (often known as a mission statement) is anexpression of the overarching aim of an organization in terms relevantto its context. The proponents of mission statements claim that, ifformulated through a process of consensus, they give a sense ofdirection to an organization. The concept seems to have first arisen inthe late 1950s, supported by Drucker in the 1970s, who stressed theneed for a business to define its purpose. We have already seen(Chapter 3, Management and information) that various writers onmanagement interpret the concept differently, the focus varying fromunderlying values to more specific objectives about scope, functions,etc. It is a rare organization that lacks a mission statement nowadays,and museums have followed this fashion.

From the employee’s point of view, such statements offer apparentlyfirm ground on which to base working policies and procedures. But itis difficult to evaluate their real usefulness. Mission statements oftenchange quite drastically after quite a short time. While the intentionmay be that a mission statement will express priorities, at least for themedium term, and thus reduce the conflict between the differentobjectives in museums, it can also become yet another focus for such aconflict. Many museums already have a ‘mission’ – the legislation, localgovernment policy statement, etc., by which they are established, whichexpresses the intentions of the ‘owners’ of the museum – Parliament,the local authority, or the Board of Directors.

Mission statements are for the whole organization rather than its parts.But it is obviously feasible for statements of purpose to be drawn up bythe various operating units of an organization. This may carry the riskthat units will pay more attention to their individual objectives than tothat of the organization itself, especially if those units are controlled byprofessionals who adopt standards set by external groups (Griffin, 1987).However, institutions such as museums are essentially in the informationbusiness, and need ‘knowledge workers’. They have no choice but toemploy highly trained professionals. Debate in professional groups canoften be wider ranging and deeper than in individual institutions, and

Direction and strategy 173

outside professional standards help to counteract the inward-lookinginertia which has afflicted some museums. Furthermore, professionalbodies can influence public opinion and in the case of conservation,rather successfully.

A statement of purpose and role for conservation is best founded onthe organization’s legislative remit. It could be expanded along the linesof one of the root definitions derived from the soft systems analysis, andsupplemented by a description of the role of conservation, drawn fromthe objectives that have arisen from the analysis. This high-levelstatement should be developed and finalized in discussion with all themembers of the conservation staff, and then sent out for general commentby curators and other relevant groups. It must then be formally adoptedby the ‘owners’ of the organization, for example the Board of Trustees.The processes of formulating and adopting the statement will give themajor part of the benefit. An example of such a statement is given inExhibit 10A on p. 189.

Policies

Policies may be at a very high level, for instance a national policy on theimportance of the heritage, such as that of the Cultural Ministers’ Councilin Australia (CMC, 1995), or they may be at an organizational level. Eitherway, they translate the organization’s guiding purpose, values andmission into statements, which lay out the rules on how the organizationintends to behave in principle in most circumstances.

Conservation policies

Policies can be difficult to distinguish from strategies. For example, it maybe the museum’s policy that objects in the collections should not beavoidably deteriorating. This is a statement of intent or principle. Onestrand of a strategy to achieve this might be to vacate stores that do notmeet requisite standards, but this strategic measure could also in somecontexts be described as a policy.

Policies should refer to accepted standards or guidelines. In the UK,there are two major sets of museum standards: SPECTRUM, the UKMuseums Documentation Standard (Museum Documentation Associa-tion, 1997), which sets out many of the principles for collectionsmanagement, and the Standards in the museum care of . . . collections,published by the Museums and Galleries Commission (Paine,1992–1998). As well as these, there are relevant standards for libraries(e.g. BSI 2000) and archives, and for the storage of photographs and othermedia. Standards are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 8.


Strategy and planning

A strategy sets out the framework by which longer-term objectives can bereached. It will form the basis for more detailed short-term planning. Astrategy may be based on visionary intuitive feelings about the way theworld will be, or at the other extreme it may be the outcome of a highlyanalytical process. The relationship between longer-term strategy andmore immediate planning is depicted in Figure 10.1.


Fig 10.1 The relationship of statements of purpose, strategies, and plans

Strategies, particularly, look a number of years ahead into what will givethe institution a competitive advantage or better achieve its purpose inthe future. Although a strategy may have a long-term objective, five yearsahead is a maximum time-scale for practical purposes; indeed, it willoften be found to be too long, since the world will change long beforeYear Five is reached. Plans even for two years ahead will need to berevised at least annually (sometimes, one feels, weekly).

Approaches to strategic planning

Some methods that can be used to develop strategies have been set outin Chapter 5, Management tools: options and priorities. To summarize,there are many different approaches to strategic planning, ranging from‘moonshot’ (highly deliberate and analytical, probably involving quanti-tative analysis) to ‘incremental’ or ‘emergent’ (fairly short-term planswhich are highly responsive to conditions in the outside world) to thetotally sceptical.

Each of these approaches has its own virtue, and it is likely that usingmore than one technique to explore the future will bring the greatestbenefit. Experience suggests that it is very valuable for a group to take thetime to look as far ahead as it can, and to generate imaginative views ofwhere it would like to be in the future. Subsequently it will need to gatherthe data and information to test or move towards their aspirations. At thesame time, the group needs to be very aware of and responsive todevelopments in the present. This responsibility falls particularly on thesenior manager or leader of the group. Put another way, the value ofstrategic planning will lie as much in promoting institutional learningand a shared mental model of what could or should be done and how, asin the superior plans that are produced. Whether the techniques come bydiktat from above or by involving staff at all levels is more important thanwhich method is employed. What is important is speed – lengthyconsultation may lead to paralysis by analysis. People are constantlylooking over their shoulders, and they cannot express their views freely,for fear this may cast them in an unfavourable light.

Many writers emphasize that it is important to pay attention to theimplementation of a strategy, as well as its formulation (e.g. Hay andWilliamson, 1991). At conservation level, sensible strategy will build onand extend plans that are already accepted, rather than proposingdepartures in a completely new direction. It is very important to consulteveryone who could be affected. Discussing factual information on theproblems of storage and care of collections can be an invaluablelearning process for the whole institution, if it can be persuaded to puttime into this.


Strategic planning in museums

A strategy must take account of what the museum must do, but this willnormally be taken care of by shorter-term plans and day-to-dayoperational work. Strategic planning will be more useful for the higherrungs of the organization’s ‘ladder of choice’ – what could we do thatwould give us a real advantage (see Chapter 5, section Strategydevelopment and Fig. 10.2). But publicly funded museums are not likecommercial companies. A major difference is that most of their fundingcomes not from the customers who most obviously and directly benefitfrom their services, but from local or national government. Museums

have to keep an eye not just on the people who come through the doorthis year, but on their collections, which it is hoped will serve the needsof users in a hundred years’ time, and on those who pay for the servicethrough taxes but do not physically visit.

There are very few things that a publicly funded museum can do toguarantee its survival. Performance in areas such as visitor numbers ismore likely to determine whether the museum thrives, but the majorinfluence is probably the state of the local authority or other fundingbody’s finances. Neglect and decay or loss of the collections might well because for closure, but excellent care will not ensure success. It is necessary,but not sufficient.

The Museums and Galleries Commission pursued an objective offostering a commitment to high-quality collections care, and thus


Fig 10.2 A strategic staircase towards the preservation of collections

strengthening those bottom rungs of the ladder of choice. Their strategyfor achieving this had several strands, for example, the MuseumRegistration scheme, in which museums must meet certain standards,including those for collections management and conservation (MGC,1995), and their Standards in the museum care of . . . collections series (Paine,1992–1998). Their objective, however, was only valid in the context of aWeltanschauung in which museums are provided as part of a publicservice provision that is seen as a necessary good, and hold collectionstowards that end. In a different world view, if only the minimum essentialservices are to be provided publicly, and cost per visitor is a drivingstatistic, then the existence of permanent public collections could becomea net liability, not an asset. Museums, in seeking to gain strategicadvantage, should urgently be looking up the ladder for innovative waysin which the whole body of the collections can be made useful; otherwise,as many a trustee or councillor has asked, why are we keeping them?

This question is more and more at the front of people’s minds. The UKgovernment has set objectives for service to the public, for education,access for people of all classes and ethnic backgrounds, and for socialinclusion. The usefulness of the collections is an issue that has to betackled. In its strategic report, Renaissance in the regions, Resource calls forthe collections to be used as the basis for these desirable activities(Resource, 2001). Many governments all over the world share theseaspirations, and museums everywhere are affected in similar ways.

But to return to strategies, consulting Bowman and Asch’s Table 14.2(Bowman and Asch, 1987: Ch. 14), and placing museums as ‘pro-fessional bureaucracies’ (Griffin, 1987), we may predict that ‘uncon-nected’ strategies will have been found in museums in the past. Theseoriginate in enclaves – actors loosely coupled to the rest of theorganization produce patterns in their own actions in the absence of, orin direct contradiction to, central or common intentions; strategies areemergent organizationally, whether or not deliberate for the actors(Bowman and Asch, 1987: 366, 370).

Past approaches have been discussed by Griffin (1988), Foster (1985),and Kovach (1989), among others. The processes described by Griffin andFoster were ‘emergent’, and coincided roughly with that named byBowman and Asch (1987, Table 14.2) as unconnected; Kovach takes amore deliberate, planned view. However, changes in the environmentand power structure of museums, arising from governments’ account-ability requirements and organizational restructuring, have shifted theplanning style well towards the formal end of the spectrum, althoughtheir management style and inertia due to age and size still weigh againstformal planning. ‘Planned’ strategies originate in formal plans: preciseintentions exist, formulated and articulated by central leadership, backedup by formal controls to ensure surprise-free implementation in a benign,


controllable or predictable environment; strategies are mostly deliberate(e.g., Lord and Lord, 1991).

For some time now, national museums and local authority museumsin the UK have been required and encouraged to take a much moreformal approach: national museums through the funding agreementsrequired by the sponsoring government ministry, the DCMS andregional museums through the Best Value local government process.There are many sources of advice, from whole volumes such as Themanual of museum planning to booklets (Lord and Lord, 1991; MGC,1996). The ultimate long-term strategy has to be the Delta Plan in theNetherlands, where the public collections of the entire country wereevaluated and their documentation and care assessed and planned (vanDijken et al., 2001).

Corporate plans

For several years, government-funded museums in the UK, as in Canada,the USA, and Australia were required to produce corporate plans (Griffin,1988). A corporate plan is normally produced annually and covers aperiod of years ahead, perhaps four, or five, rolled forward each year.

Corporate plans perform a number of functions. They are broadlyequivalent to a business plan. They are strategic planning documents inthat they set out plans for a forward period, with detailed objectives yearby year. They are bids for finance in that they contain proposals that canonly be realized if funding is made available. They are reportingdocuments with progress reported against the previous year’s objectives.Corporate plans will normally report the museum’s performance againstobjectives or performance indicators. Their format varies greatly, fromtext based with qualitative reports on performance, to strongly numbersorientated, with quantitative targets and measures.

A corporate plan should include broad strategy and some top-levelplans for managing the preservation of the collections, since this is aprimary function of a museum. When developing a conservationstrategy, one objective should be to have a summary of it included inthe corporate plan.

Business plans

A business plan is a ‘road map to success’ – it describes how anorganization will operate, either for a period ahead or for a particularproject or initiative. A business plan may include quite detailed andlengthy descriptions and discussions, or be just a simple spreadsheetshowing costs versus income. The UK Heritage Lottery Fund provides auseful guide to business plans, as part of its grant application instructions


(HLF, 2001). A business plan will usually commence with a summary. Itwill often contain the following elements.

� The background: The history of the organization, mission, aims, purpose,recent achievements, funding sources.

� The project or proposal: Brief description, objectives, and how they meetyour main purpose.

� The market: Why the proposal would be wanted, results of marketresearch, overall market size and characteristics, current trends andforecasts, major opportunities, competition, pricing and marketingpolicies, PEST analysis (see Chapter 5). Must be supported byindependent figures.

� Options appraisal: Range of options considered, reasons to support theone selected.

� Risk assessment: Technical, financial, economic, market, management,legal.

� Management and personnel: Who will be in charge, key managers,professional advisors, volunteers, training and staff development, andorganization charts.

� Background financial information: Income/expenditure accounts, cashflow, balance sheets, assumptions underlying the forecast.

� Projected financial information: Capital costs, projected operating sur-pluses/deficits, net current assets/liabilities, cash-flow trends.

Strategies for conservation

Conservation departments are relatively small, and many have a fairlyanalytical style in how they manage their affairs. In them, a formal,analytical planning style may usefully be developed. However, if thestrategic planning process is too far out of step with that of the rest of theorganization then it may suffer ‘organizational invalidity’, hostility, orlack of credibility. If a strategy developed like this is to be accepted, thenit will need to be presented very carefully. However, if the organization isbeing pushed in this unfamiliar direction the new approach may bewelcomed if it is launched diplomatically.

Conservation strategies may be more likely to command confidence ifthey are incremental rather than ‘moonshot’. In practice, this would meandeveloping plans for one or at most two years ahead, and buildingconfidence by regularly reporting progress against plans to seniormanagement. There may well be a series of internal papers, to raiseinstitutional consciousness, to get agreement to broad directions, todevelop more detailed plans and to report progress. Each step should laythe foundation for the next step, and reinforce the idea that somethingserious is being undertaken. This may sound very low key, but such anaction can be seen as quite revolutionary if an organization is not used to


consciously planning its affairs. Gradually, plans can be presented inmore strategic terms for longer periods. Outside pressure for greateraccountability from the museum can be used to accelerate the process –suddenly, a department with clear plans and monitoring becomes not anoddity but an asset.

It is not always necessary to be so cautious, as the National Museumsand Galleries on Merseyside’s (NMGM) bold and successful plan todevelop a new publicly accessible conservation centre showed. In thiscase the museum’s senior management already viewed conservation as atop priority function and a potential public asset. This plan was chosen inpreference to less radical alternatives as the result of an options appraisal,a consciously analytical and quantitative planning technique that ispromoted and required by UK government departments and theTreasury. Resource in its 2001 strategy paper applauded the achievementsof the NMGM in general, including the Conservation Centre, as a‘handsome response to government investment’. Many grant-givingbodies such as the UK Heritage Lottery Fund require options appraisals;in fact they are commonplace now (Cassar, 1998).

A conservation strategy could be viewed as a strategic staircase (Fig.10.2). The first step, to define preservation problems, could prompt aprogramme of stores assessments and collections condition audits (seeChapter 8, Preservation, and Chapter 9, Collections condition). The stepsthereafter, establishing conditions for preservation and rectifying dam-age, may well not be serial across all the collections, but be undertaken inparallel for particular collections or stores. At the top of the staircase,conservation could be a public attraction, built into the museum’smission to educate, to inform, and to actively involve the public.Conservation displays and exhibits are always extremely popular, andperhaps conservators (or museums) should be more ambitious aboutplacing this activity centre stage.

Case study

Strategies for conservation

A national report is published on the results of a comprehensive surveyof the country’s collections. The Historic City Museum conservators areexcited to see the headlines in the national newspapers: ‘A case of arts foroblivion’, ‘Museums fail to care for nation’s treasures’, ‘Museumtreasures decaying’, ‘MPs warn of disastrous failure’, ‘Museum admitsdisastrous failure’ (see Keene, 1991). This is the moment to try someemergent strategy making for the Historic City Museum collections.Although the conservators know well enough what the problems are,there is no time to quantify and analyse. What is needed is a plan to plan,which will gain the agreement of the senior management to some


practical steps forward, and prepare the ground for a subsequent fullerapproach. A succinct report (see Exhibit 10B) is rapidly written, andpresented to the Director and the senior management team.

Although it has been written very quickly, the report is well considered.It draws attention to the museum’s legislative remit, and to the fact thatother museums have been checked up on and publicly found wanting. Itpoints out that the museum, however, is not unique in having problems. Itstates that the situation is serious, but that the museum already has someplans (the stores improvements) to address defects. It recommends severalpractical actions that should be taken, which will need staff time, andtherefore management consent, but no extra funding at this stage.

The first strategy report leads to the development of the storesassessments (see Chapter 8) and the collections condition audits (seeChapter 9).

The process of drawing up the fuller strategy for the care of collectionsbegins. It is based on the results of the condition audits and storesassessments. A whole-day seminar is held for the Conservation Depart-ment. The objectives derived from the soft systems analysis are reviewed;with slight amendments they are taken to represent the desired futurestate of affairs. The information gathered in the collections conditionaudits is matched against the key success factors, which have beenidentified in the systems analysis (see Chapter 7, Table 7.3). Eachconservation section then reports on its respective stores survey,illustrated with slides.

The record of the discussion is used to draw up alternative courses ofaction. This results in a new draft strategy proposal (summarized inExhibit 10C), which is carefully titled a Discussion Paper, so as to allowfor input both from senior management and from curators and othermuseum departments. Important features are: it builds on existing plansfor stores moves and improvements rather than proposing a radical newset of plans and it identifies the need for senior management to devotemore attention to care of collections issues.

The senior management team broadly accept the paper. The DeputyDirector arranges a meeting for both curators and conservators, so thatinput from all sides could be sought. This wider meeting is a fairly stormyoccasion, since the curators feel that the descriptions of shortcomings areaimed at them. In defence they cite incidents where, they say, con-servators have exacerbated or ignored problems. However, the meetingends with agreement that, whatever the cause of previous problems, thisis now in the past, and that the newly outlined strategy is a practical wayahead. Both curators and conservators agree on the fundamentalimportance of proper budgets for stores and storage equipment, and ofthe support of senior management for collections care. The new strategycan be seen as a strategic staircase (Fig. 10.2).


Case study: review

The discussions and presentations have provided the whole CollectionsDivision, conservators, curators, and management alike, with an unri-valled overview of all the collections, not just the ones each section isfamiliar with. The defensive attitude of curators might have beenmitigated had they taken a greater part in the condition audits and storesassessments. On the other hand, this might just have delayed the process.Also, it is senior management policy for the conservation department toadopt a high profile and active stance, and the conservators’ assertiveaction in undertaking the surveys and presenting the reports underlinesthat they mean to use their new powers. It was important for theconservators to establish the attitude of management and the extent oftheir powers in advance – had they not had support they would have hadto adopt a much more conciliatory approach. This would probably havebeen effective with some curatorial departments, but not with others, andit would certainly have been very time consuming.

Performance

The performance indicators that are used by an organization have thepotential to greatly influence its priorities and directions. Performanceindicators have been in common use in UK museums since the autumn of1991, when the then Office of Arts and Libraries, the governmentdepartment for museums, requested national museums to produceperformance indicators annually.

It is quite difficult to measure the real success of an organization or afunction; it is much easier simply to measure activity. The number ofobjects conserved does not tell us about the condition of the collections;the number of objects in good condition does not tell us what thatnumber is likely to be in the future; the number of visitors does not saywhether the museum is fulfilling its mission. In the words of DavidHenke, a Guardian journalist, writing in 1989 about the push foraccountability in public services, ‘what matters is not the activity of theseagencies [the Health Service and the Department of Social Security], butthe standard of health and the level of poverty’.

But still, we probably do need numbers. For collections care, it isimportant to find performance measures that carry as much weight asthose for public programmes, which have the advantage of easilyunderstood measures such as visitor numbers and financial performance.

Schemes of performance indicators for museums have been publishedand discussed since the 1980s. Ames was one of the first writers (1988) –he follows Handy’s interesting recommendation that every number


should be a proportion of some other number (Handy, 1990). Amesadvocates using the amount of finance devoted to different activities asthe main measure: this, he says, is the most objective assessment of amuseum’s true priorities. But this is an input, not a measure of success inmeeting objectives.


Performance indicators in practice

Other reports and reviews have been published in different countries,including Australia and the USA. There have been various schemes in theUK, from both local and national government. National government haspublished a number of schemes and the national museums, which itdirectly funds, have been required to report performance indicatorsannually since the early 1990s, albeit against several evolving schemes.The UK Audit Commission (which deals with local government) is nowwell ahead of the game. Along with its Best Value scheme it has publishedthree management reports on performance measurement, performanceindicators, and targets (Audit Commission, 1999 and 2000a, 2000b). Theseconstitute a sophisticated approach to these tools.

When UK museums themselves were surveyed for current practice in1993, the Museums Association found that over 80 per cent of museumssupplied performance information to their governing bodies (MuseumsAssociation Public Affairs Committee and University of Leeds School ofBusiness and Economic Studies, 1994). The report found that perform-ance indicators are also used in strategic decision-making, in satisfyingexternal information demands, in monitoring the use of resources andsupporting bids for resources, and in identifying areas for managementattention. Respondents were offered a selection of ten ‘commonly used’indicators. In spite of its identification as a key area for concern by boththe Auditor General and the Audit Commission, none of them related tocollections care. The four key indicators were found to be cost per head ofpopulation, cost per visit, income as a proportion of gross costs, anddocumentation backlog as a proportion of the total size of thecollection.

A review of one of the UK national museums in 2001 reported that theDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport had required performancereports on nineteen different occasions during the year. The particularscheme of between seventeen and twenty-two indicators was devisedfrom an expensive exercise by management consultants. Some of themeasures were impossible to implement. No wonder performanceindicators are often seen as an expensive and misleading waste of time.As Andrew Marr, a journalist from the Observer wrote in 2001: ‘it isunlikely that reports complaining about poor value for money measure-ment in the arts will give us more culture’.

Performance indicators for conservation

But after all this scepticism, numbers matter. What truly matters forconservation? First it is necessary to understand what the purpose of theorganization is, and from this are drawn the objectives. Then, for eachobjective, the factors, which are critical for success, are identified. Fromthese factors, measures are relatively easily derived. QUEST, the UKgovernment watchdog for the clients of the Department for Culture,Media and Sport, has published a report that uses these generalprinciples (QUEST, 2000). It must be said that, although logical, it iscompletely impenetrable and uninspiring.

A comprehensive scheme based on QUEST lines is set out in Exhibit10D on p. 193. This could form the basis for an annual report onconservation, with objectives 1 and 2 included in a corporate report.

The measures of collections care most commonly cited are number, orproportion, of objects in acceptable condition, and number, or proportion,of objects stored in conditions that meet a defined standard. Both thesemeasures are obviously useful, although with caveats.

A statistic for collections condition does provide a snapshot report ofaccountability to care for and preserve the collections, although itmeasures past performance and cannot predict the future. There needs tobe further research into repeatability of results. There is unlikely to bemuch change in this statistic year on year, because improvement requiresobjects to receive conservation treatment, and compared to the totalnumber of objects in the collection, the number that can be treated in ayear will be very small. But this is still an eminently understandablemeasure of performance in a very important area.

Statistics on the quality of storage could predict future success incollections preservation, as well as measuring proper stewardship. Asdiscussed in Chapters 8 and 9, standards for the environment and forstorage express what is known about conditions that will avoiddeterioration. If accepted standards are met, then the collection shoulddeteriorate more slowly.

Both statistics need to be proportions or percentages, as one museummay have relatively few but very large objects, while another might havea numerically huge collection of photographs. Six aircraft cannot usefullybe compared to six thousand photographs stored in poor conditions. Tenper cent of each collection is better, but still not very meaningful.However, if in the previous year 20 per cent of each were in poorconditions then the change to 10 per cent is clearly an achievement. Thus,it is useful to be specific about types of collection, as in Figure 9.3. Trendin the same museum year-on-year is useful (see concluding remarks inthe report in Exhibit 9E on pp. 169–171), but comparison betweenorganizations is not so easy.


Proponents of the market and competition-driven model of the worldsay that opening up the affairs of museums to at least semi-publicscrutiny is exactly what will raise standards. Sceptics maintain thatperformance measures fail to address the multiple objectives and variedcriteria which apply in not-for-profit and public service organizations.This has given rise to ‘Goodhart’s Law’ – if a measure is used as a targetit ceases to be a good measure. It is really very encouraging to observethat the ingenuity of the people affected by formal schemes far exceedsthat of the designers of the schemes. Simple figures can always besubverted, if indeed they do not promote exactly the opposite of whattheir creators intend; the real world is far too rich and interesting a placeto fit into the impoverished perceptions of political theorists. The long-overdue Law of Unintended Consequences says that every undertaking,however well intentioned, is generally accompanied by unforeseenrepercussions that can overshadow the principal endeavour. Performanceindicators and targets supply ample support for this proposition.

Conclusions

This chapter has reviewed the ways in which museums and conservatorscan address the high-level matters that set the framework for success inconservation and give conservators and all those concerned withconservation the sense of direction that they need. Two general viewsexist. Perhaps people do need a rallying cry, a summit to strive for. On theother hand, Checkland and Vickers, among others, argue against thegoal- and target-orientated view that dominates affairs in our Westernworld. Instead, they say, what is important is to take the long-term view,and to foster and maintain relationships over time. Instead of havingconstantly changing targets, our long-term strategy should be to achievebalance with our partners and our world.

To get the job or marry the girl is indifferently an end, a means anda goal; it is an opportunity for a new relationship. But the object ofthe exercise is to do the job and live with the girl; to sustain throughtime a relationship, which needs no further justification but is, or isexpected to be, satisfying in itself.

(Sir Geoffrey Vickers, Freedom in a rocking boat, 1972)

Even Peters and Waterman, those well-known gurus, say that if asked for‘one all-purpose bit of advice for managers’ they would be tempted toreply, ‘Figure out your value system. Decide what your company standsfor’ (Peters and Waterman, 1995: Ch. 9). This is not the approach of short-term goal-orientated performance league tables. And W.E. Deming, the


founding architect of quality management, gives fourteen points formanagement if they are to achieve true quality: point 10, ‘Drive outslogans, exhortations and numerical targets’ and point 11, ‘Eliminatequotas or work standards, and management by objectives or numericalgoals.’ Deming cites ‘deadly diseases’ that afflict Western managementstyle, including:

1 A lack of consistency of purpose.2. Emphasis on short-term goals (especially profits).3. Evaluation of performance, merit rating or annual review.4. Mobility of management.5. Management only by the use of visible figures, with no consideration

for unknown figures. (Aguayo, 1990).

These quotations illustrate that the view which is currently fashionable inthe UK is not the only one that can be sustained, and that it is rejected bysome of the most respected and management thinkers around. Chapter 3discusses the extremely broad divergence of view on management stylein different countries. The best approach can be expected to be a mixtureof techniques and approaches. For real motivation, people need a sense ofdirection, but they also need values; encouragement to work hard showsthat their contribution is important, but they also need to feel that theyare in some degree in control of their work. Finally, they need informationon progress, perhaps proposed and initiated by managers, but developedby the managed and used for them as well as for their managers as ameans of monitoring progress towards the agreed ends.

References

Aguayo, R. (1990). Dr Deming: the man who taught the Japanese about quality.London: Mercury Books.

Ames, P.J. (1988). A challenge to modern museum management: meshing missionand market. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship, 7, 131–157.

Audit Commission (1999). A measure of success: setting and monitoring localperformance targets. London: Audit Commission.

Audit Commission (2000a). Aiming to improve: the principles of performancemeasurement. London: Audit Commission.

Audit Commission (2000b). On target: the practice of performance indicators. London:Audit Commission.

Bowman, C. and Asch, D. (1987). Strategic management. Basingstoke: Macmillan.BSI (2000). BS 5454: 2000. The storage and exhibition of archival documents. Milton

Keynes: British Standards Institute.Cassar, M. (1998). Cost/benefit appraisals for collections care: a practical guide. London:

Museums and Galleries Commission.


CMC (1995). National Conservation and Preservation Policy. Cultural MinistersCouncil, Australia.

Foster, R. (1985). Programme planning. In The management of change in museums.Proceedings of a seminar held at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (N.Cossons, ed.). London: National Maritime Museum.

Griffin, D.J.G. (1987). Managing in the museum organization: I. Leadership andcommunication. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship 6, 387–398.

Griffin, D.J. (1988). Managing in the museum organization. II. Conflict, tasks,responsibilities. Int. J. of Museum Management and Curatorship, 10, 11–23.

Handy, C. (1990). Understanding voluntary organizations. Harmondsworth: PenguinBooks.

Hay, M. and Williamson, P. (1991). Strategic staircases: planning the capabilitiesrequired for success. Long range planning, 24, 4, 36–43.

HLF (2001). Application pack. London: Heritage Lottery Fund.Keene, S. (1991). Audits of care: collections condition surveys. In Storage. Preprints

of the RAI conference, London. London: UKIC.Kovach, C. (1989). Strategic management for museums. Int. J. of Museum

Management and Curatorship, 8, 137–148.Lord, G.D and Lord, B. (1991). The manual of museum planning. London: HMSO.MGC (1995). Registration scheme for museums in the UK. Guidelines for registration.

London: Museums and Galleries Commission.MGC (1996). Producing a forward plan. MGC Guidelines for good practice. London:

Museums and Galleries Commission.Museum Documentation Association (1997). SPECTRUM: The UK Museum

Documentation Standard (Second edition). Cambridge: Museum DocumentationAssociation.

Museums Association Public Affairs Committee and University of Leeds Schoolof Business and Economic Studies (1994). The use and value of performanceindicators in the UK museums sector. London: Museums Association.

Paine, C., ed. (1992–1998). Standards in the museum care of . . . collections. London:Museums and Galleries Commission.

Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R.H. Jr. (1995). In search of excellence. London: HarperCollins.

QUEST (2000). Modernising the relationship: a new approach to funding agreements.London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.


van Dijken, K. et al. (2001). Management and conservation in the Dutch Delta: theDelta Plan for the preservation of the cultural heritage evaluated. Zoetermeer, 100bv:Institute for Research on Public Expenditure.

Vickers, G. (1972). Freedom in a rocking boat. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.



Exhibit 10A: Conservation: statement of role

� To monitor the preservation of the collections by periodic auditsof condition

� To conserve and clean the objects in the collections, so as tomaintain their historic and physical integrity, and ensure theirbest possible appearance when on display

� To monitor the environment and other damage preventionmeasures, and take or initiate appropriate action

� To research and develop treatments for these collections, espe-cially the particular materials and objects in the museum’scollections

� To advise on and monitor the effects of display or demonstrationon objects; to maintain such objects

� To provide and organize training for staff and for others in themuseum in conservation, preservation, and the protection ofobjects

� To contribute to all the museum’s activities as effectively andefficiently as possible

Exhibit 10B: The Historic City Museum’s firstconservation strategy paper

The Historic City Museum

STRATEGY PROPOSAL: THE PRESERVATION OF THECOLLECTIONS

1. Purpose of this paper

This paper has been written for the consideration of the Director andDeputy Director, following the Auditor General’s report, to antici-pate what the findings might be should this museum be similarlyassessed. It presents a summary of the situation and recommendsfurther action to be undertaken within the next two years.


2. Context: the present situation

At present a very high proportion of the collections can be estimatedto be actively deteriorating, due to:

� Overcrowded and unsuitable stores with poor or no environmen-tal or dust control

� Displays in which the design actively promotes deterioration� Acquisition policies which have until recently taken no account of

whether there is space to house or resources to care for additionsto the collections

� Too few staff to treat objects to reverse deterioration or tootherwise care for them.

This situation must be of serious concern: the museum is clearly notperforming its duty ‘. . . to preserve and care for the collections’. Inthis it is not alone. The recent report from the Auditor General,discussed by the Public Accounts Committee, has highlightedsimilar deficiencies in the national museums, and this has drawnwidespread attention in the press.

3. Conclusions

Substantial improvements to the care of the collections are alreadyplanned, but they need to be extended. We should capitalize on thecurrent climate of public concern by assessing our problems,extending our existing plans, and costing the implementation, inorder to make our own response to these public reports.

4. Recommendations: action needed

The museum should take advantage of this climate of opinion todevelop a clear strategy for preserving its own collections, and thento seek additional funding to achieve this. Several of the improve-ments outlined below are already planned or are being imple-mented. However, other improvements, for instance the resourcesneeded for remedial treatment, have not been planned. We nowneed to draw together these lines of action into:

� A clear strategy for improvements as a whole, with a coordinatedplan for implementation

� Quantification of what needs to be done� Realistic costings for both resources and staff


5. Outline strategy

Management: ensure that the preservation function is represented atall levels of the museum’s management

Storage: vigorously develop existing plans for improved collectionsstorage

Displays: when galleries are rebuilt, take advantage of this toincorporate best conservation practice in the design. Undertake aGalleries Refurbishment programme, working through existinggalleries to upgrade displays and treat objects

Acquisitions: develop much tighter acquisition policy and assessresource implications before decision is taken to acquire

Remedial conservation required: identify priority areas in collec-tions through sample condition audits; estimate work required;undertake more detailed condition surveys of targeted collections;quantify resources needed

Resources: Quantify staff requirements for both galleries pro-gramme and also preservation programme; cost; develop proposals;seek funding.

Head of Conservation

Exhibit 10C: The Historic City Museum’s secondstrategy paper (summary)

THE HISTORIC CITY MUSEUM

STRATEGY FOR THE CARE OF THE COLLECTIONS

Summary

This discussion document builds on its predecessor, the StrategyProposal for the Preservation of the Collections. Since then, the


Condition Audit of the collections has been completed; thecollections have been quantified; there has been a detailed StoresAssessment Survey; and the New Stores Plan has been approved andis under way. The present strategy report is the basis for developingpractical, detailed annual plans for improving the condition of thecollections, which will be built into the Museum Plan.

Recommendations

� A prerequisite is for the museum to define or adopt standards, forboth preventive care and for the condition of the collections.

� Senior management should make a more obvious commitment tocollections care. This should take the form of a Care of Collectionscommittee, chaired by the Deputy Director. This will balance thework of the effective and active Publications and ExhibitionsCommittees.

� The recommendations and work plan from the Stores AssessmentSurvey should be implemented. This survey complements theCollections Condition Audit. Actions have been listed andprogress can be monitored.

� As each collection is moved into better storage, the objects shouldbe cleaned and repacked, and improved storage equipmentpurchased. This requires time to be committed by curators as wellas conservation staff.

� The storage space on the main site should be completelyreviewed, and collections moved to more suitable stores wherenecessary.

� Programmes of archival packaging, etc. for the paper collectionsshould be established, concurrently with work on the three-dimensional object collections.

� For remedial conservation treatment, specific projects should beset up, targeted at those collections shown to be priorities in theCondition Audits, but selected to take account also of theircuratorial importance.

� Commit more staff time and resources to collections care. Stafftime is needed from the conservation, technicians, objectsadministration and curatorial groups.

� Establish a substantial budget for storage equipment and materi-als. Consideration should be given to contracting out certainlarge-scale tasks (e.g. making archival boxes, garment bags andpadded hangers).

Conservation Department, 1994


Exhibit 10D: A scheme of performance indicatorsfor conservation

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR CONSERVATION

OBJECTIVE 1: To maintain and improve the physical condition ofthe collections

Establish a programme for condition auditsMeasures: Schedule for auditing condition established and adhered to

Audits undertaken vs. plan

Maintain collections conditionMeasures: % of objects per collection in stable or good condition

Change in % over time for each collection

Treat objects needing remedial treatmentMeasures: Numbers of objects in worst condition treated vs. target

Develop improved treatmentsMeasures: Research and development projects completed vs. plan

OBJECTIVE 2: To prevent deterioration by ensuring anappropriate environment

Establish suitable environment: existing areasMeasures: Achievement of set standards

Establish suitable environment: new galleries or displaysMeasures: Number of new displays or galleries vs. number in which

conservation specifications were met

Maintain good standards of storageMeasures: Total number of stores vs. number reaching standard

OBJECTIVE 3: To contribute effectively to museum activities

Meet deadlines for exhibition preparationMeasures: Number of events vs. deadlines for preparation of objects

for display, etc., met


OBJECTIVE 4: To raise awareness of preservation needs, and ofthe concepts and methods of conservation, in other professionalsand in the public

Communicate through professional and other lecturesMeasures: Number of lectures given by conservation staff

Encourage visits to the laboratoryMeasures: Number of visits by individuals or groups to the

laboratory or workshop

Take on studentsMeasures: Number of students taken on; source

OBJECTIVE 5: To make the most effective use of resources forpreservation

Manage use of timeMeasures: Planned use of time vs. outcome

Work on top-priority objectsMeasures: Of objects treated, % which were top priority for

importance and need for treatment

OBJECTIVE 6: To acquire and maintain the necessary skills

Attend relevant courses, conferences, etc.Measures: Number of courses, etc., attended: total, and per person

Outside views of qualityMeasures: Number of competitive grants obtained, source; publica-

tions in refereed journals

11 Planning and monitoring work

General directions can be agreed and broad strategies developed, buthow do we get to where we want to be? At an operational level, objectivesor targets need to be set for the work required to achieve strategic aims;plans need to be developed for the year or two years ahead; or perhapsprojects need to be specified and accomplished. Resources have to beallocated. Progress against plans needs to be monitored and reported.Operational plans for conservation have to interleave work for amuseum’s various front-of-house or curatorial projects with that forpreventive conservation.

Because developments such as new galleries or exhibitions requirecapital expenditure, planning for interpretation activities in museums isoften well developed. The need to attract visitors, coupled with thepreference of curators for public activities, often means that interpretationtakes over resources for cooperative inter-departmental work, whileactivities focused on the care of collections have a lower priority. The wayto counteract this is to give plans for collections care activities a higherprofile, to get actual projects and targets agreed. If you do not state whatyou think needs to be done, why it needs to be done, and exactly how itis to be achieved, then you have no hope of gaining support andcooperation.

Planning work and communicating plans

The best basis for planning work overall will be a strategic framework, onthe lines discussed in Chapter 10. Once overall objectives exist, it is easierto set out the tasks that need to be undertaken to achieve them. But makeno mistake – planning is hard work, needing time, concentration bymanagers, and discussion with all those who are doing the work. Andunless progress is monitored and consequent action taken, planning islargely pointless, and will lead to disillusionment. Figure 11.1 illustratesthe relationship of strategy, planning, monitoring, and reporting.

There are many approaches to work planning and scheduling. Threewill be discussed here: development planning, management-by-objec-

Statement of Purpose External pressures

Corporate Plan:Museum objectives,

indicators

Divisional /Departmental

objectives,strategies

Specialreports

Departmentalplans,

Museumproject

schedule

Sectionalwork

plans /schedules

AnnualDepartmental

reports

Reports toBoard –quarterly

Sectionwork

reports –monthly

tives, and project planning. Development planning combines a view ofbroad objectives with more detailed plans for a few years ahead. Inmanagement by objectives, a detailed list of objectives for a time period,usually a year, is negotiated and agreed with each member of staff, in acascade from the most senior to the most operational. Project planning isthoroughly familiar in museums, in areas such as exhibition production.It can be used more generally, however, if work is defined as chunks,which are then treated as projects.

The problem with using general objectives arises when they are nottranslated into detailed work plans for individuals or teams. Without adetailed plan for a year or so ahead, it is difficult for anyone to see howexactly he or she is contributing to general progress, however enthusiastic-ally they may subscribe to the vision. The problem with management-by-objectives is the converse; the focus on individuals can mean that general


Fig 11.1 The relationship between strategy, planning, monitoring, andreporting

directions are lost sight of, and this can lead to a very short-term view,unless the process of longer-term strategies and planning is also apparent.

The means by which plans, of whatever type, are communicated isimportant. What use is a plan unless you tell people what it is? This maysound obvious, but it is amazing how reluctant people can be to divulgetheir plans, presumably in case they meet with opposition. There is aplace for circumspection, of course, but this is in the essential, butdifferent, realm of organizational politics, not in planning actual work.The format for presentation is important, too. Lists or text do notencourage an overview; graphic or tabular representations are muchbetter for the higher levels of planning for more than a year ahead.

Development planning

This describes a format-based technique. It is quite widely used inschools, and sometimes in the national museums’ corporate plans.Development plans are for organizational groups rather than forindividuals; individual work plans should be based on them. Theycombine a view of broad objectives with more detailed plans for a fewyears ahead. Development plans may be communicated through tabularformats. They should be drawn up with as much general cooperation aspossible, and reviewed and revised at least once a year.

Historic City Museum’s conservation development plan, shown inFigure 11.2, matches the plans for general objectives. It combines acomprehensive and fairly detailed plan for the coming year with a lessdetailed look at priorities for the three years ahead.

Programme planning

If there is some programme that needs to be affected, such as improvedhealth and safety practices, or a store that needs general improvement,then this is the way to get it done with the minimum fuss. Use a tableformat as in development plans. Divide the programme into the logicalobjectives that need to be achieved, and the tasks needing to be completedagainst each objective. In the next column note who is responsible, andfinally, the date by which the task should be achieved. The form is updatedafter each meeting of the team and re-circulated as the action list. Itbecomes a combined agenda and minute of the meeting, and is ready atany instant to present as a progress report (see Exhibit 11A on p. 214).

General schedules

Table 11.1 is a checklist showing the start dates for major projects and workprogrammes that the Historic City Museum conservation department is

Planning and monitoring work 197

Fig 11.2 A development plan for conservation, looking several years ahead

concerned with over a two to three year period. It is a good way ofchecking with other players – curators, for instance – whether they areworking to the same date. It allows newly proposed projects to be quicklyand easily assessed against existing commitments, but it does not showongoing work such as environmental monitoring, checking displays andstores, etc., that is not on a project basis. However, tasks that areconservation led, or are to do with preventive conservation, are included,such as the galleries refurbishment, because they have been established asprojects. The work schedule is also illustrated in Figure 11.3, this timeusing a graphic representation.

Management-by-objectives

Whereas development planning shows the big picture, management-by-objectives focuses on the individual person. Starting with seniormanagers and cascading down, each member of staff agrees with theirmanager a list of tasks to be worked on or completed for a period of time,


Table 11.1 Schedule of conservation tasks and projects in order of start date


Conservation Start Dates Schedule 1995–97

Project Start date Finish date

Tokyo loan Ongoing End May Yr 1Galleries refurbishment – end of early 19th C. Ongoing April Yr 1Prehistoric gallery reconstruction Ongoing 1st Dec. Yr 3Toys exhibition 14 Aug Yr 1 1st Jan. Yr 2Jewellery exhibition dismantling Jan. Yr 1 Jan. Yr 1History Dept. study collects. projects Jan. Yr 1 July Yr 1Feeding the City exhibition 1st Sep. Yr 1 1st Dec. Yr 2Working City collections survey 1st May Yr 1 1st Aug. Yr 1Stores move: preparation: Applied Arts 1st May Yr 1 1st Jan. Yr 2Steven Prior exhibition 1st May Yr 1 1st Aug. Yr 1Theatres case 1st May Yr 1 1st June Yr 1Stores move preparation: Paper collections 1st Aug Yr 1 1st May Yr 2Feeding the City – objects for publication 1st Oct Yr 1 7th Dec. Yr 1Galleries refurbishment: Imperial City 1st Jan. Yr 2 1st Jul. Yr 2Costume gallery cases 1st Oct. Yr 1 Jun. Yr 2Tokyo loan return 7th Nov. Yr 1 1st Dec. Yr 1Collections move: Metals and General Stores 1st Jun. Yr 2 1st Aug. Yr 2Galleries refurbishment: late 19th C. (textiles) 1st Feb. Yr 2 1st Aug. Yr 2Galleries refurbishment: 20th C. City 7th Aug. Yr 2 1st Feb. Yr 3Late 20th C. gallery – objects for catalogue 1st Oct. Yr 2 1st Jan. ’98

Fig 11.3 An overall conservation work schedule, graphically represented

usually a year. Objectives should include measures, targets, and dead-lines, although these can be quite difficult to devise and are often notincluded. It can be difficult to properly cover ongoing work that a persondoes – environmental monitoring for example – that does not lend itselfto division into specific objectives, although improvements can beplanned, such as more regular analysis and presentation of results in thisexample. Management-by-objectives is often used in conjunction withperformance assessment and performance related pay. Progress shouldbe assessed at two or three interim stages each year.

Management-by-objectives can be a good way of gaining control of awork group where work has not been explicitly defined. It is criticized forbeing heavy on time and paper, and for embodying a mechanistic view oflife. There can also be problems with coordination between differentgroups, since the emphasis is very much on the work of the individual. Itis a perfect excuse for inflexibility, as in ‘it’s not in my objectives’. Still, ifstrict control over individual work is required, management-by-objec-tives is about the only way to achieve it. It is particularly useful whensomeone is starting a job – a simple ‘to-do’ list is very reassuring and,conversely, if disciplinary action is contemplated or under way.

Project planning

Project management is becoming a way of life in museums. It is aconvenient way to organize all sorts of work, not just exhibitions, and toestablish control of the work agenda and resources. Project planningimplies that a task is defined, a plan to complete it is set out, agreementis given, and resources committed. Progress on the project tasks and theuse of resources then need to be monitored.

Project planning encompasses some useful concepts and tools. Soft-ware packages are available that can assist, and might well be useful inscheduling conservation work programmes. There are also some usefuland generally applicable project management tools.

� Bar charts (sometimes called Gantt charts, after their inventor). Thesesimply show the duration of tasks within a project in a similar mannerto the work programme chart in Figure 11.3. A project bar chart isshown in Figure 11.4. Connecting lines can show if the beginning of onetask depends on the completion of another.

� PERT charts. These show the sequence of different tasks within aproject, and where one depends on the completion of another. Anexample is shown in Figure 11.5. From this, one can also work out thecritical path; the string of dependent tasks that add up to the time aproject must take.


� Project monitoring and scheduling. There are two ways of approachingthis. One is driven from calendar dates; the project tasks are plannedover time, and progress on them is monitored on planned dates, eitherat set intervals or on identified stage completion dates. On a complexproject, this is usually best achieved at regular project meetings, whereproblems can be identified and future action planned at the same time.The other project scheduling approach is event driven; key events areidentified and target dates are set for their completion. Naturally, theseapproaches can be used in combination.

� Some ways not to run a project successfully. Have a project plan (completewith chart) carefully drawn up at the outset, and then ignore it, taking nosteps to monitor the project and taking no action to correct its course. Orrun the project in isolation from the real world, rescheduling the projectdates every time progress slips. Or halve the number of staff or thebudget allocated to the project half way through it. These scenarios maysound implausible, but they really are not uncommon. A publishedreport on the Stock Exchange automated settlement project, Taurus,


Fig 11.4 A project bar (Gantt) chart for atypical sequence of activitiesnecessary to put on an exhibition

which wasted many millions of pounds, identified the ‘reschedule it’syndrome as the prime cause of its failure. It is absolutely crucial to takeearly slippages seriously, but this is psychologically quite difficult, asone usually wants to be optimistic about a project one is running,especially in the early stages. Brown (1992) produced a really usefulbasic guide. If your project is giving you trouble, and you need to feelthat there is someone else worse off than you, then Crash!, a bookdescribing the woes of large information technology projects, will cheeryou up no end (Collins and Bicknell, 1998).

Allocating resources

The allocation of staff and financial resource requirements can also beplanned. In conservation, by far the greatest proportion of money goes onstaff (probably over 85 per cent). A possibility is to allocate percentages ofstaff time to work, whether ongoing requirements or projects. Logging


Fig 11.5 A project PERT, or critical path chart. This shows how each activitydepends on the other being completed. The critical path (the activities that addup to the longest period) is shown in bold. Start and finish dates could beattached to the other activities

the actual use of resources against that planned can be a powerfulmanagement tool. For example, the museum might decide that 50 percent of conservators’ time should be spent on preventing damage to andimproving the condition of the collections, rather than on improving theappearance of objects for exhibition. Logging actual time spent againstsuch aspirations can be most revealing (see Fig. 11.8). Planning the use ofstaff time can be extremely time consuming, however, although detailedassessment of the time that tasks will take is the basis of estimating forcommercial conservation jobs.

To plan the use of time, one can either ask each conservator, ormanager, to estimate how much time each of the range of tasks andactivities known to be coming up will require, and total up thepredictions, or else take the total time available and allocate it betweenthe known tasks.

The first approach will almost certainly result in a requirement forabout twice the time available. The second approach runs the risk of workexpanding to fill the time available. In practice, a manager will developan instinct for whether there is too much work to be fitted in, or too littleto occupy the work group’s time fully. Either way, monitoring the actualtime spent (discussed below) will gradually improve the management ofthe available resources (defined as matching the plans to the actualoutcome), though at the expense of increased management overheads.

Monitoring and reporting

Monitoring conservation processes

The processes of conservation are the actual work that goes on in order tomeet the objectives of maintaining the collections, ensuring the bestpossible appearance of objects on display, and adding to the knowledgeabout them. These processes thus include scientific examination, con-servation treatment, and ‘preventive’ activities such as mounting printson acid-free board and environmental monitoring.

Monitoring and reporting can be quantitative or text-based. There aresome aspects of conservation work for which numbers matter, if used inthe right way. For conservation, two obvious quantitative measurementsare numbers of objects conserved and amount of time spent on differentactivities. But experience shows that, to tell anything useful, quantitativework logging must be very specifically designed for the purpose. Thebroader the group of people the categories of time use cover, the lessuseful the results. It is only useful to know how many objects have beenconserved if one knows also what objective prompted the work:collections maintenance, exhibition (a), exhibition (b), programme (z),


and how badly the objects needed treatment. Two hundred prints mayhave been de-acidified and mounted, but perhaps there were threepriceless watercolours that were a much higher priority.

Computerized conservation record systems, if used, can be designed toproduce many of the necessary data, but it can be preferable for people togather and report information on paper, using the data from thecomputerized records to check from time to time. Having to record andreport on how they are spending their time has a motivating effect onstaff, but only if the results are promptly analysed and fed back to them,and if the resulting information is used in ways that benefit them. Ifeveryone is involved in reporting the necessary information, thispromotes a thorough understanding of the results.

If quantitative reporting is not felt to be appropriate then written reportscan also help focus the minds of the staff and inform their managers. Suchreports should have a structure of headings based on the work group’sobjectives; otherwise they will be difficult to relate to plans.

Monitoring the use of resources

Information on time can, of course, be used to calculate information onthe cost of different activities.

The use of conservation time is monitored in some museums (e.g.Ashley-Smith, 1990, Figs 4 and 5). In many laboratories, as in privatepractice, staff record the use of every fifteen-minute time block. In amuseum, it will be normal for about 50 per cent of an employee’s timeto be used on core activities (management and administration, liaison,training, research, and environmental and preventive conservation),leaving about 50 per cent for specific projects or activities. Time sheetscan record either the absolute amount of time spent on differentactivities, in whatever level of detail is required, or else the percentage,if only a broad brush approach is needed. The trouble with time sheetsis that they have to be analysed, and this can take appreciableadministrative time. It may be found useful only to monitor the use oftime for defined periods at intervals, or just to monitor time spent onparticular activities that are of interest, such as loans or exhibitions orspecified projects.

Presenting and using management information

Presenting information

Conservators are extremely good at keeping records on the variousaspects of conservation, to the point where the quantity of data becomes


embarrassing. But when it comes to making sense of this mass of datathey are less successful.

To be effective as management information, data must be presented informs that address the relevant questions, either to inform decision-making or else to help to assess progress against objectives, and that areeasily and quickly understood. In Plain figures, Chapman (1996) gives aview of how this can best be done. There is a choice, she points out, to bemade between words, charts, or tables for presenting information; fornumerical information, charts, or tables are usually necessary. The designof tables will depend on whether the data is presented to demonstrate apoint, or for reference. Charts are always for demonstration. Both chartsand tables must always be explained by a verbal (written) summary. It isgood practice first to analyse the data; then to write the verbal summary;then to design the tables or charts to clearly illustrate the points beingmade. Chapman gives detailed instructions on good design. Furtheradvice on the design of charts and graphs is given by Tufte in The visualdisplay of quantitative information (1983).

Reedy and Reedy (1988) reviewed the use (and briefly the presentation)of statistical analysis in published conservation papers; they found thatmost published work fell short of good standards both in the statisticaltechniques used and in presentation.

Feedback

Whether reports are quantitative or text-based, it is absolutely essentialthat they are rapidly digested and fed back to those reporting, and thatsome use is seen to be being made of the data produced. Otherwise, staffwill conclude that they need not produce reports, since they are not used.Examples of the graphic presentation of information on conservationwork are shown as Figures 11.6, 11.7 and 11.8.

It could be particularly useful to produce an annual report thatsummarizes progress over the year. An annual seminar for staff to reviewprogress and plan ahead is an excellent way of encouraging a coordinatedview of the future and of motivating staff.

In fact, though, the most useful information does not emerge unlessdata are collected over several years. If strategy is set for three to fiveyears ahead, then this is the sort of period which should be reported on.Even exhibition projects usually extend over more than one year. Thissort of information will be of great interest to staff, not always in the waythey expect. For instance, it can emerge that more time than had beenthought has been spent on conservation initiated projects, and if so thiswill help to dispel the impression that conservators often have that theyhave no control over how work time is allocated, and to build confidencethat conservation-led projects can make a real difference.


Report writing and presentation

Information acquired is only useful if it can be digested and communi-cated effectively. Reports for senior managers should look attractive andbe clearly laid out. The exception to this is when there is a house style forsuch reports. In that case, it must be observed, even though it will usuallylook terrible. Diagrams are very useful, for example, Figure 8.2,comparing the quality of storage for different collections, was acclaimed:‘the information just jumps out at you’. In any case, a report should besuccinct. It is essential to start by asking oneself what one wants tohappen as a result of the report and to place oneself mentally in the seniormanagers’ shoes. What do they know already, that they need not readagain? What are they interested in knowing? The ultimate aim of mostreports is to obtain more resources, whether of finance, of staff posts, orof commitment of time from other parts of the organization.

The contents of a report should include:

� An executive summary, usually not more than a page long.� A brief statement of the purpose of the paper.� A paragraph or two giving the background and context.� The report itself, illustrated if possible.� Conclusions.� Recommendations.

Short tables or lists of important numbers that are discussed in the textcan be included, but long, detailed tables or analysis should be attachedas appendices, or produced as a separate report to be available ifrequired.

Case study

Work planning and reporting

The Historic City Museum conservators know that work monitoring canbe extremely useful. Most of the excavations carried out by the museum’sArchaeology Division are funded from grants from the developers of citysites. Contract posts for the conservation of the finds can be covered bysuch funding, but only if the need can be justified in detail. Therefore, theArchaeology Conservation Section keep detailed figures on numbers ofobjects needing conservation and on the rate of work, and use them innegotiation, with fair success.

The museum is taking on more exhibition projects generally, and thismeans more work for conservation. At the same time, the Department’spositive steps to plan strategically and monitor the condition ofcollections has given them an excellent view of what needs to be done if


the museum is to properly discharge its duty of care towards them. Howcan the Conservation Department persuade the museum generally to seethat conservation-led work is as important as exhibition-led projects?

The conservators think that if they translate their strategic plans intodefined projects, targeted at particular tasks or areas of the collection,they may be able to get these accepted as part of the museum’s formalannual plans. The main conservation projects are the galleries refurbish-ment project, aimed to improve the condition and care of some of themost important objects, and improvements to the care of the storedcollections, linked to a large stores move. The amount of time to bedevoted to these projects is estimated and they are accepted ascomponents of the museum’s overall planning schedules. As time goeson, however, the conservators began to feel that exhibition and loanprojects are eroding the time available for collections care. They begin tomonitor in great detail the use of time and the reasons for treating objects,and to report carefully selected statistics.

Productivity

One of the easiest outputs to quantify in conservation is the number ofobjects treated. This information is so misleading that it should only beused with great circumspection. Some of the obvious flaws are that smallobjects can be treated more quickly than large ones, and objects that arequickest to treat are often those for which treatment is least urgentlyrequired. The Paper Conservation Section find that objects in the worstgrade of condition take nine times as long to treat, as do those that onlyneed cosmetic improvement. The true measure of the museum’s successin preservation is, they realize, the number of objects that do not needtreatment!

However, numbers still matter. Using figures on the number ofobjects conserved over several years (Fig. 11.6), the conservators canshow the average cost of treating an object (by taking the wage plusmaterials cost and dividing by the total number of objects per year).The cost was very low. And further, work output had greatly increasedover the previous few years, thus justifying the two extra conservationposts they had been allocated.

What had generated the work?

This question is crucial to conservation, because unless they arespecifically targeted, few museum projects are likely to result in thetreatment of the objects that need it most. The charts in Figure 11.7analyse the Historic City Museum’s conservation output according to the


project that initiated it. From Figure 11.7a, it was satisfactory to note thenumber of objects treated for the conservation-led galleries refurbish-ment. Until they see the analysis, the conservators did not realize howsuccessfully they have pursued their own agenda. Archaeology conserva-tion can easily be seen as working on objects only for a site archive, butin this case the Archaeology Section is able to demonstrate that a largeproportion of work has been for off-site displays, for developers andother publicity. Two exhibitions have been extremely object-intensive: thehundreds of items treated for the Jewellery exhibition look set to beoutnumbered by those for Votes for all, which with many objects yet to betreated is forming a substantial proportion of work for both the Textileand Paper Sections.

From Figure 11.7b it can be seen that the work of the Paper Section wasmore evenly spread over different projects than was that of the othersections. It was often said that every exhibition includes items of paper,and this seems to be well founded. The work of the other sections hadbeen dominated by one or two projects each.

Where did their time go?

Very simple data on time spent and objects conserved can be analysed insome quite sophisticated ways. Figure 11.8a shows how conservationtime was spent. About half of the total time was available for differenttypes of activity or project, after core activities (liaison, preventiveconservation, leave, and vacancies) were allowed for. About two-thirds ofconservation time was spent on display projects: loans and temporary


Fig 11.6 Numbers of objects conserved in the Historic City Museum overseveral years

Fig 11.7 Analysis of numbers of objects treated for different projects. (a) Total objects treated for each project. (b) Proportions ofobjects treated by each conservation section, by project

exhibitions. One third of project time was spent on conservation-ledprojects: the study collections themselves and the refurbishment of thepermanent galleries.

In Figure 11.8b, the actual use of conservation time is compared withwhat had been planned a year previously. More time had been spent ontemporary exhibitions (8 per cent of time planned, 19 per cent of timespent), and less on the conservation of the study collections (16 per centplanned, 10 per cent spent). None of the other variations was far outsidethe 5 per cent departure which it is realistic to expect from the planneduse of time.


Fig 11.8 Analysis of numbers of objects treated and time spent over a year

The use of conservation effort as measured by numbers of objectsconserved is shown in Figure 11.8c. By far the most objects numericallyhad been treated for the archaeology collections. This activity hadreceived extra funding as part of the archaeology service. After that, itwas exhibitions that prompted the treatment of most objects, which areseldom the objects that most need treatment. This question can be furtherexplored if objects treated can be analysed by their condition grade, asestablished in condition audits or surveys.

In Figure 11.8d, proportions of objects treated and proportion of timeare compared for each activity. The highest ratio of objects treated to timewas found for the archaeology interim collections, where many types ofobject are treated in batches, and for the galleries refurbishment, whichwas a conservation-led project. The lowest ratio was for exhibitions,where there is a lot of essential liaison, input to display design, etc.

By monitoring numbers of objects and time spent on projects theconservators could put the case for extra staff to be allocated forparticular projects. In particular, they could argue that if sponsorshipfunding was sought then it should cover conservation costs, too.

Planning for skills and quality

How can the objective ‘Ensure trained people’ be monitored? It is easierto monitor input than output. Someone may attend a conference, followa course, but has it done them any good? Essentially, it is reputation thatis being monitored here. Peer judgement of expertise is expressed ifarticles on technical matters or conservation treatment are accepted forpublication. An outside view of the quality of work can be gauged ifnumbers of enquiries from fellow professionals and requests to takestudents are logged, although for real information these statistics wouldneed to be compared to those for other institutions.

Conclusions

Information for managing work cannot be directed solely towardsperformance measures and indicators, nor is it predicated on a particularmanagement system. Experience shows that it is often useful simply tocollate data on operations, without building them into a permanent, rigid,system. Even when it is not immediately useful, management informa-tion can be frequently drawn on, e.g. estimating time required for tasks,calculating levels of charging, and justifying staffing levels. If motivationis one purpose of an information system, then the process itself ofregularly reporting on what one has done, and seeing the results of those


reports made public to the rest of the work group, exerts a subtlepressure, even if no judgement is made on the results. People workharder if it seems that someone considers that what he or she is doing isimportant enough to be measured and monitored. This is a possiblereason not to totally computerize information gathering and collection.‘Management information systems’ is the term for computerized infor-mation systems, but what we need is information for managing. This isnot to deny that computerization would be useful, but it is neithernecessary nor sufficient for effective management.

References

Ashley-Smith, J. (1990). Managing conservators. In Managing conservation,conference preprints. (S. Keene, ed.), pp. 16–20. London: UKIC.

Brown, M. (1992). Successful project management in a week. Institute of Manage-ment/Hodder and Stoughton.

Chapman, M. (1996). Plain figures (Second edition). London: Stationery OfficeBooks.

Collins, T. and Bicknell, D. (1998). CRASH: learning from the world’s worst computerdisasters. Simon & Schuster.

Reedy, T.J. and Reedy, C.L. (1988). Statistical analysis in art conservation research.Marina del Rey, Ca: Getty Conservation Institute.

Tufte, E.R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT:Graphics Press.



Exhibit 11A: A programme plan from the HistoricCity Museum

Stores Assessment project: report mid December

Task Progress/notes

Responsibility Completeby

List all stores andstore spaces

Completed Stores managerHead of Conservation

14 Jan

Contact curatorsSchedule visits

Stores manager 14 Jan

Agree quality criteriaDesign assessment

form

Standardschecked

Head of Conservation 31 Jan

Make assessmentvisits

Assessors 27 Feb

Input and analysestatistics

Assessors 14 March

Analyse assessmentreturns; write report

Head of Conservation 31 March

12 Conservation and digitization

This chapter deals with conservation and its relationship to informationtechnology. Digital technology, or information technology, affects con-servation and conservators in three main ways. First, there is thecomputerization of conservation records and information about scientificexamination. Secondly there is the acquisition, handling, and analysis ofinformation about the preservation of the object, such as quality of storageand collections or object condition. Then thirdly there are important issuesto do with preserving digital assets themselves, which may come into thedomain of conservators: virtual conservation for virtual collections.

The first part of the chapter discusses issues around computerizedconservation records, the second, managing the preservation of digitalassets.

Conservation records on computer

Most of the earlier issues about what to record about collections, objects,and collections management have been resolved, and the MuseumDocumentation Association’s Museum Data Standard, SPECTRUM,summarizes the agreed standard (Museum Documentation Association,1997). Computerized collections management systems are commonplacenow. Yet still it is rare for an organization to be able to purchase acomputerized collections management system and simply input itsrecords. Every museum and gallery has a unique set of requirements, andthey arise from its particular niche, its collections, and its priorities. If theneeds of the people and the objects are to be met then their requirementsmust be analysed and set out as a specification.

The nature of the information

Conservators are fairly clear about conservation records. By and large, weknow what we ought to record and what we want to record. Professionalconservation has been around long enough for conservation records tohave proved their usefulness in action, as part of the history of an object.

However, problems do arise. There is enormous variation in theamount of detail recorded, for example. This partly arises from the variednature of the objects. For some types of collection or object, wherehundreds of objects may receive the same treatment, the system may infact hold all the conservation information. In contrast, an eighteenthcentury dress, or an easel painting, would have a whole file, often severalfiles, to record treatment and observations. The treatment informationmight include photographic records, sketches, radiographs, the results ofscientific analysis, and records of detailed observations of the object, aswell as a highly detailed record of the actual treatment. All theseinformation items might be in the same file as the object treatment, orthey might be in separate places, such as a radiograph storage system, orthe records of an analytical laboratory.

Would a computerized system hold all these disparate kinds ofinformation? Almost certainly not, even though there are systems thatwill hold digitized copies of documents and images. What the systemcould do is to record the existence and reference numbers of these items,with a brief description and summary of each. A conservation recordssystem, then, is most likely to be a catalogue or summary of other, fullerdocumentation. In that way, it can allow for diversity; conservators cankeep their preferred form of record, yet the essential core of informationon each treatment is uniformly recorded, and accessible to everyonedealing with collections.

Computerized and paper records compared

It is useful to compare the benefits of paper records with those ofcomputerized ones (Table 12.1). Each type has its virtues; they shouldcomplement each other. Both types of record have costs of management,and ultimately require conservation themselves.

Information for preservation

Other conservation information is directly related to the preservation ofobjects. As we have seen throughout this book, the task of preservingcollections is essentially one of management, and as such it is heavilydependent on information. This includes information about the state ofpreservation of the object, as derived from condition reports; data aboutcollections, derived from collections surveys; data about the environmentthe object is kept in and about the factors that cause deterioration.

Data about the condition of individual objects is a fairly straightfor-ward addition to records of treatment. It will be helpful if the same termsand definitions are used to summarize extended condition records as are


used in condition surveys, and if there is some linkage to update thecondition grade of an object after it is treated.

Data about condition surveys is a rather different matter. It requires extrainformation to be recorded, about the event of a collection survey: its date,the nature of the process, those conducting it. Some systems aspire togenerate random samples of objects to be examined. This assumes thatevery object is listed on the system, and there are large time overheads forlocating the listed objects. The methodology proposed in Chapter 9 avoidsthis necessity. It is unlikely that the main system will be able to undertakethe analysis of survey records – dedicated software such as a spreadsheetor a simple database system is far more practical.

This leaves data and information about the preservation environment.This has received the least attention, yet is perhaps where information canmake the greatest contribution to preservation.

Conservation and digitization 217

Table 12.1 Records on paper and computerized records compared

Paper or physical records Computerized records

� Permanence. We know that ink andpaper last for centuries, even inadverse environmental conditions.Permanence of digital recordsdepends on many factors (see thesecond part of this chapter).

� Variability. Records for differentkinds of object vary enormously.

� Completeness. It is difficult toenvisage computer systems holdingall the information in some fullconservation records, even inscanned form.

� Transferability. In an age wheremuch, or most, conservationtreatment is carried out byprofessionals independent of themuseum, paper or physical recordsare easily transferable, whileelectronic ones could conjure up ahost of problems. (But should acontract specify that the outsideconservator input their treatmentrecords or provide them intransferable format?)

� Overview and analysis. Can obtainmore from the data by synthesizingand analysing it: e.g. provide anoverview of records and count andanalyse them.

� Flexibility. Information can bepresented in an infinte variety ofways as required, via reports.

� Synthesis with other data. Datafrom different parts of the systemcan be combined, e.g. for objects,conservation and catalogueinformation; for workflow, whichobjects are required for anexhibition.

� Speed and convenience. In aproperly functioning system (arethere any?) information can veryquickly be delivered; even a slowsystem (surely not!) is moreconvenient than going to a differentlocation to find a file.

� Distribution. Information can beaccessed by multiple users: soconservation information is nolonger locked away in conservationfiling cabinets

Information about preservation conditions and the quality of theenvironment has been reviewed and discussed in Chapter 8. There it wasshown that the large volumes of data that are routinely collected could bethe source of powerful management information if they are analysed andthe results synthesized and properly presented. This analysis can onlyrealistically be undertaken with the aid of computers. Many of the dataare derived from computerized recording systems, whether data loggersor building management systems. However, they still need analysing toproduce the exact information that is required. This probably meanscapturing the data and transferring them to a stand-alone database orspreadsheet program. Conservation requirements also differ from normalbuilding operational ones in that we need data for very extendedtimescales. The implications of this are discussed in the next section.

So conclusions on information for preservation are that computers canplay a vital part, data is plentifully available, but there is unlikely to be anoff-the-shelf solution to the data processing requirements. Deriving usefulmanagement information from the data on more than a day-to-dayoperational basis depends on management inclinations and requirements.

The conservation information requirement

To specify what a system is to do, a client organization develops arequirement. This consists of a series of statements – often hundreds ofthem – that specify exactly what data the system should hold, and how itshould behave. When choosing a system, various suppliers are asked totender against the requirement, and when it is delivered the chosensystem is checked and tested to make sure that it meets the specifiedrequirement. Therefore, what is needed for conservation records is to setout the requirements. The ideal is for the system to be able to show thevital information pertaining to the conservation and care of an object, andthe preservation of collections, along with the catalogue and collectionsmanagement information that relates to it.

We have already gone a long way towards knowing what informationwe need. In Chapter 7, the actions and processes that would be requiredin a system to preserve unique objects were understood. Now we need totake that understanding and use it as the basis for an informationrequirement for monitoring and managing the preservation system. Ourhope for the system will be:

� that it will derive and make available more of the information fromconservation records than can easily be accessed from physicaldocumentation;


� that it will enable us to obtain from those same records information onworkflow and work management;

� that it will integrate conservation records into the rest of theinformation about the object that is held in the museum system.

Equally, we will hope that we will be able to examine and enhanceinformation held in other parts of the system, such as the object catalogueinformation.

The first level information requirements are set out in Figure 12.1,drawn from Table 7.3, and analyses them in more detail. This could beused as a checklist in drawing up a requirements catalogue. Althoughmost of the requirements described could be useful, it would be unlikelyfor all of them to be implemented in the same system. Some of themwould be impractical to computerize, or would work better if left aspaper records or reports; some of them will be very low priority. Therequirements are detailed in Exhibit 12A (see p. 231).

1 Set, monitor standards for conditionThis set of requirements deals with part of the preservation informationthat we have identified as fundamental to the process. If the objective ofthe preservation system is to maintain collections to a condition notworse than their current condition, then information about this is crucialto monitoring and managing the system. Therefore, there are require-ments to record condition audits; that they have taken place, and theirresults; to maintain records of individual object condition; to update thecondition grade of an object – is it in condition 1 (GOOD), or is it incondition 4 (UNACCEPTABLE)? Then there are requirements for asample of possible reports that will search the database and producestatistics or lists. The system should be able to analyse and report anoverview of condition grades for collections, or for stores, or for objectsthat have not been treated recently; it should be able to list objects bycondition grade; it should be able to analyse damage factors, for examplein monitoring for pests or for handling damage. Finally the system mustbe able to report and print out full condition reports for objects.

2 Set, monitor standards for environmentNext is a set of requirements to do with maintaining information aboutthe object’s environment. It is doubtful that many, or any, collectionsmanagement systems are able to deal with this sort of information,which relates to locations and buildings. It is often seen as moreappropriately dealt with in a building management system. Thesesystems do not necessarily store data for very long. It would certainlyenhance the preservation management information to be able to link itto object information. Even without this link it is extremely useful tohave location information available, especially if stores assessments are


regularly carried out, as advocated in Chapter 8. In general, therequirements would prompt conservators or collections managers tothink about all those detailed environmental monitoring records, toanalyse them, and to use them proactively to manage preservation.

3 Analyse and examine objectsThese requirements are about recording the existence of documentationrecording object examination, and the results of the examination. Thesedata would need to be closely linked to catalogue information aboutthe object. Not only should the system record information and results,it should be able to catalogue the resulting records, such as photo-graphs, radiographs, and printouts from analytical instruments.

4 Record treatmentsAs one can see, there is much more to conservation recording thansimply the treatment documentation. However, this is still extremelyimportant, of course. Records would include treatment proposals,possibly to be signed off by a curator to signify jointly agreed action;management data about the conservation job, i.e. an occurrence oftreatment at a particular date, by a particular person (or persons), andperhaps the reason for the treatment, the needs of the object,preparation for an exhibition or for operating the object. Then there isthe record of treatment itself, the procedures, and the materials used. Ifthese data are to be useful for any sort of analysis of treatment efficacy,surely long overdue, then there needs to be a list, or thesaurus ofdefined terms for conservation treatment. This is not an impossibletask, indeed, the Museum of London has developed such a list and usesit routinely in recording the conservation of its vast variety ofcollections objects (see Exhibit 12B).

5 Plan workHere is where automation could help with managing work. In a busymuseum with many activities going on, the system should be able tomaintain a list of events that are generating work, with deadlines andso on; to list objects required for them, and their progress through theconservation workflow; to report on conservation jobs (as definedabove). Most systems should be able to do this.

6 Manage resourcesThis is commonplace for computerized systems, but it will notnecessarily be part of the collections management system. Theserequirements however could be essential for a private conservationpractice. It would be very helpful for a museum that was managingoutside conservation to maintain contact and company information andso on. Monitoring budgets and expenditure, and the cost of treatment,could certainly be done. If one receives private medical treatment thenall components are recorded and invoiced: the cost of materials, the costof the medical practitioner, the cost of nursing and accommodation.


Fig 12.1 A function hierarchy map for conservation

7 Maintain skillsMaintaining skills was identified as crucial to the preservation system.Again, this would not normally be integrated into a collectionsmanagement system. Many museums publish annual reports, whichoften include lists of publications and outside appearances; the UKgovernment required numbers of publications to be reported as aperformance indicator for curatorial staff. Experience suggests that it canbe extremely useful to be able to provide or volunteer information aboutskills and external outputs, and so meeting these information require-ments in one way or another is strongly recommended. (Spreadsheetscan be ideal for this, since it can so easily sort and count lists.)

8 Provide management informationThese requirements have not been detailed, as they are covered underall the preceding requirement headings.

Case study


The Historic City Museum conservators are onto their third computer-ized records system. They feel it is time to look back and see what lessonsthey can learn!

Their first system was a result of their wish to take advantage of themuseum’s first networked system – this was a Unix system, before thedays of package programs arrived to make life supposedly simple. Afriendly archaeologist set it up for them, and for the relatively simplerecords for archaeological conservation it was quite useful. It heldinformation about the conservator, the object, and the treatment. Many ofthe concepts, such as the conservation job, have survived usefully rightthrough to the newest and most sophisticated system.

The disadvantages of the Unix system were that it was extremely basic,and that the conservation system was seen as a low priority add-on. Thefiles of records could not be properly combined and sorted, and when thissystem was superseded by the second one, no-one transferred the filesfrom the old system to the new one, which could not easily cope withrecords in that form. So most of the input data was lost. Luckily theconservators, being a sceptical bunch, had kept their normal paperrecords as well, so although they learnt a serious lesson in the issues ofdigital preservation, this was not disastrous.

The second system was a much more sophisticated one. Not at all putoff by their experience, the conservators set out to use this one for theirrecords, too. At that time, there were few tailored packages available,either for collections records or for conservation records. An organizationhad to build its own system using the underlying database managementsystem, in this case Oracle™.


The museum really had no idea of what it had taken on with this system.Its enthusiastic records manager was sent on a two week Oracle™ course.He came back fired up and ready to create a system to serve theinformation needs of the entire museum, from finance and personnel tocollections and even – with some reluctance – conservation.

Some of the wilder ambitions were discarded, and a database to holdbasic collections catalogue information was developed. Attention thenturned to a conservation records system.

A formal information analysis was carried out and an outside softwareconsultancy was taken on to develop the system for conservation records– not a very complicated job. The results were disappointing. The analysisseemed to have been accurately expressed, but the system was not inpractice usable, because it was too cumbersome and time-consuming.However, the conservators struggled on, becoming more and more expertin information analysis at the same time as they lowered theirexpectations of what the final system would do. Eventually theconservators used their system without linking it to the rest of the dataabout the objects, because the system was too slow to handle objectcatalogue information as an integrated part of catalogue information.

Ironically, as is so often the case in compiling management information,the processes of working on and developing the system produced a majorpart of the benefit. Lists of standard terms were compiled for use by allfour conservation disciplines, for conservation treatment and for objectmaterial for example. All conservators began to record the essentialinformation about their work. It became obvious that this informationwas useful, and what was more, what was recorded was only that whichwas essential. Once it became possible to produce information about thesource of and reason for undertaking conservation work – a vitalmanagement tool – the value of this was seen by all.

In due course it was time to move onto a third collections system. Theone selected this time was a commercially developed collectionsmanagement package. Again, it used Oracle™ as its underlying databasemanagement system. The analytical products of the second system –standard term lists and definitions – were incorporated into the system.What was disappointing was that the records from the previousstandalone conservation record system could not be combined with theobject catalogue records in the new system. This was mainly because therehad inevitably been so much inconsistency in the use of object numbers(which are always very complex in museums) and other object identifica-tion. However, the records were printed out and they now form a valuablepaper record, supplementing the fuller conservation documentation.

The good news is that the value of the information that theconservators were supplying is fully recognized in the new system. Nowit is found that conservation observations augment and add in many


important ways to the information from curators and others dealing withthe collections. The new system also properly integrates information fromdifferent curators dealing with objects from different viewpoints, and agenuine knowledge base is beginning to develop. The lesson may be thatmuseum collections information really is extremely complex, and it isonly latterly that systems are available that have the requisite complexityand sophistication to handle it.

Digital preservation

This part of the chapter concerns virtual conservation – the preservationof digital collections, which will, of course, be added to in the course ofconservation. Digital collections are increasingly going to be part ofmuseum collections (Jones-Garmil, 1997; Keene, 1998; Howell, 2000).Their care and preservation might be thought to be outside the concernsand the remit of conservators and conservation management, but this isnot necessarily the case. The first director of the Australian nationalproject, PANDORA, the national collection of Australian online publica-tions, was a paper conservator. As she has remarked, approach, attitude,and mindset were more important than any particular skills; technicalpeople often simply did not understand what the objective was. Similarobservations are often made in the case of the conservation of objects forwhich specific training or education does not exist, such as hightechnology instruments or even vehicles – it is concepts that matter.Digital collections are already turning up extensively as part ofconventional collections, for example, sound archives as part of socialhistory collections, historic computer programs and digital artworks.

So there is every reason to be informed about digital preservation.Fortunately, this area receives a good deal of attention, as public moneyeverywhere is poured into funding large scale digital resources: cultural,as in the case of museum projects; educational, with resources for schoolsand further and higher education; or as government information.

Digital assets

A variety of digital assets need to be preserved. They include bothmaterial that is of its nature digital, such as databases and computerprograms, in which are included interactive productions: CDROMs,interactive websites, on-gallery productions; and secondly, digital surro-gates for physical objects, such as photographs, images of all kinds,digitized documents, and digital copies of analogue sound recordingssuch as tapes. Material such as emails and electronic publications fallsomewhere in between: it is ‘born digital’, but it could be preserved ifprinted out, as a physical surrogate for an original digital object.


A thorough review of the issues and practice of digital preservationsuch as Jones and Beagrie (2001) reads like a catalogue of all the thingsmuseums ought to do to assure the preservation of their physicalcollections. There is however one stark difference between the actual andthe digital. The actual will often survive, or even thrive on, years,decades, centuries, or millennia of neglect, whether benign or even theordinary sort. Digital collections, on the other hand, can hardly survive aday without the positive action of skilled and expensive attendants, not tomention little details like an assured and high quality electricity supply.Nothing in the digital world will surprise us (it has been rather nicelydescribed as the Land of Cockaigne – the never-never land of opulenceand indulgence) but at a time when people are questioning thepracticality of preserving the ever-increasing quantities of actual collec-tions, how can we seriously contemplate the cost and elaborateprovisions for maintaining the whole, or even a substantial part, of theblizzard of digital material?

However, digital assets there will be, and in large quantities. So let usconsider the factors to do with their preservation.

Preserving the virtual

Essentially, digital preservation consists of management, since there arefew physical actions that can be taken to preserve digital materials. Wehave briefly considered the nature of digital collections. Let us reviewnow how they deteriorate, and what are the issues around theirpreservation.

Digital assets are much more demanding than actual ones, since theyrequire the ongoing existence of technology, including the skills ofpersonnel. The survival of the physical media that embody the digitalassets is of no use; the technology has to be able to cause the digital assetsto exist as more than just magnetic blips. While sound recordings morethan a hundred years old exist and can be played, these are analogue:physical traces on media. Pianola rolls and Jacquard loom programs existphysically, but the oldest surviving digital assets are probably theoperating systems for some early computers from the first half of thetwentieth century. Not a long track record!

The central problem is that digital materials depend on both softwareand hardware to exist at all. In theory a digital image file could exist asneutral data, which could be read by any imaging software andhardware. This is what standards for such files are meant to assure. Inpractice it is likely to be extremely difficult to use current computerequipment to read a digital file that has been created say two decadesago. To ensure the continuing survival of the digital resource in a usefulform it is necessary to convert it at intervals in some way to forms or


formats that can be read by current technology. Conservators willinstantly be alert to the implications of this: is the original beingpreserved, or if not, why preserve it?

Digital deterioration can therefore be classified in a number of ways. AUS taskforce was commissioned to look into these problems in 1996. Astheir report said: ‘Digital materials, regardless of whether they are createdinitially in digital form or converted to digital form, are threatened bytechnology obsolescence and physical deterioration.’ These are additionalto the familiar catalogue of risks to collections: physical forces rangingfrom disaster to environmental conditions; risks from people includingfor digital collections human error in operating computer equipment; loworganizational priorities.

Digital preservation: issues and definitions

This overview is drawn from the practical and thorough workbookdeveloped by Jones and Beagrie (2001).

The first issue to consider is the all-important policy for preservingthese new assets. Different measures need to be taken depending on adecision for how long they are to last. Of course the decision must berecorded and the necessary actions carried out, not just for the first yearor five years or so, but for as long as we designate these items forpreservation. It needs to be decided at the time they are created whetherthe asset is going to be categorized for:

� Long-term preservation: continued access to digital materials, or at leastto the information contained in them, indefinitely.

� Medium-term preservation: continued access for a defined period of timebut not indefinitely.

� Short-term preservation: access only for the foreseeable future, or untiltechnology renders the asset inaccessible.

The next issue is how one keeps track of these digital assets. Tangibleobjects generally embody information that can be decoded by arthistorians. And we know that the objects are there because we can seethem. Digital assets have to be catalogued at the time they are created,because otherwise we don’t even know that they exist.

Metadata then is catalogue information about digital assets, andwithout it we can’t find what we want, and we won’t know it is there,nor what it is should we come across it by chance.

Next we come to the processes to do with being able to read and usedigital assets in the future. As we all know, thanks to the efforts of


Microsoft ably supported by Intel, we can scarcely read text files morethan a few years old, let alone complex digital images. There are twomain schools of thought on how to approach technical obsolescence.Some people say that it is easier to emulate the software that ran theoriginal files so that it works on new machines:

Emulation: The imitation of obsolete systems on future generations ofcomputers so that the emulated software can make the digital assetaccessible.

Other people say that it is better to convert the digital asset into a new fileformat that newer software can run:

Migration: The transfer of digital assets from one generation oftechnology to the next. Migration preserves the information content ofthe digital asset but does not necessarily result in an exact digitalreplica, nor in the original features of display and appearance.

Either way, storage media for digital assets are physically not verydurable. Iron oxide particles deposited in carrying media onto syntheticresin tapes are definitely a recipe for trouble. Optical media such asCDROMs consist of a number of layers of different materials, which isnever a good sign for their future. So it will almost certainly be necessaryto adopt:

Re-formatting: Copying information content from one storage mediumto a different storage medium (media reformatting) or converting fromone file format to a different file format (file re-formatting).

This leads us to the final issue we need to consider. If files are beingconverted or copied, how closely do they need to resemble the originalfile that was created? Is this important at all? What if someone amendsthe content? So we also need to consider:

Authenticity: That digital material is what it purports to be. Thetrustworthiness of an electronic record, or the fact that a ‘born digital’asset is the same as it was when it was first created. Authentication is theprocess that would attempt to establish the degree of authenticity.

Exacting requirements

Digital assets, then, have very exacting requirements – much moreexacting than the original objects (although it must be accepted that onlya small random set of actual objects survive for us). Actual objects have


survived in nearly their original form for a thousand, even severalthousand years; digital assets require constant active attention, andmachines functioning to tolerances of millions of a millimetre.

Ongoing work

The international academic community is aware of these issues. A DigitalPreservation Coalition has been formed in the UK. There are others in theUSA, and in Australia, and elsewhere. But these are very difficultfundamental issues and even unlimited funding, were it available, cannotsolve them completely.

I echo the views of Jones and Beagrie. In their view and mine, digitalpreservation has to start at the time of acquisition (or creation) just asdoes the preservation of actual collections. It may not be a popularsuggestion that many of the millions being spent should be identified asfor short-term benefit only, but it seems much more sensible to develophard-headed policies for what digital material really does need to bepreserved, and concentrate resources on that, than to set out to preserveeverything and fail at random. (Then again, it might be argued thathistoric records largely survive at random!) A categorization is suggestedin Table 12.2.

In the author’s opinion, it is highly advisable to convert digital assetsto physical print form if possible, since the latter is far less demanding,more durable, and in the long-term more easily accessible.


Case study

To digitize or not?

A company specializing in commercial digitisation for record and filingpurposes approaches the Historic City Museum. The company has thechance of participating in a European Union project to explore ways ofusing this technology for cultural resources. They offer the museum thechance of being the pilot for this. The proposal relates to the records aboutthe collections objects. The museum keeps an individual file, or set offiles, for each object for which there are records, and this means tens ofthousands of files. Many of the objects are historically extremelyinteresting, and a file will often contain correspondence with famouspeople who have owned the object or been associated with it.

At first glance, this seems a really good idea. The records can be mademuch more widely available, and scholars will surely be eager to benefitfrom the easy access. However, the more the museum staff work throughthe implications of this, the more impractical it seems. What will happen

when documents are added to a file? Will it be the curator or theconservator who is responsible for scanning in the document andcataloguing it in the system, or will it be the hard-pressed documentationcentre? How will the museum distinguish records that have been scannedfrom those that have not? So many high quality digital images willrequire a very substantial computer system to store them, let alone abroadband network to transmit them around. Who will manage thesystem, make backups, and make sure the data is entered correctly? Howwill the museum pay for all this? Reluctantly, the museum staff thank thecompany, and decline their offer.

References

Besser, H. and Yamashite, R. (1998). The social and economic implications of theproduction, distribution, and usage of image data. Report produced by the School ofInformation Management and Systems, UC Berkeley for the Andrew W. MellonFoundation and the Museum Educational Site Licensing project.URL: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Imaging/Databases/1998mellon/(Visited 26.10.2001).

Jones, M. and Beagrie, N. (2001). Preservation management of digital materials: ahandbook. London: Joint Information Systems Committee.


Table 12.2 Digital material categorized for short term, medium term, orlong term preservation

Short termpreservation

Medium termpreservation

Long termpreservation

� Interactive multimediaon-gallery productions

� Web interfaces todigital information

� Digitized partial setsof surrogates ofimage-basedcollections,e.g. photographs

� Contextualinformation aboutcollections andobjects

� Data in databasesrelated to collectionsand to conservation

� Digital objects –sound recordings,artworks

� Possibly, high qualitysurrogates forphysical images,texts, etc. (althoughadvancing technologyis likely to render thequality unsatisfactory)

� Digital publicationsnot existing in printedform

Jones-Garmil (ed.) (1997). The wired museum: emerging technology and changingparadigms. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Howell, A. (2001) Preserving information in a digital age: what’s the difference?The Paper Conservator, 25, 133–150.

Keene, S. (1998). Digital collections: museums and the information age. Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Museum Documentation Association (1997). SPECTRUM: The UK MuseumDocumentation Standard. (Second edition). Cambridge: Museum DocumentationAssociation.



Exhibit 12A: Requirements Catalogue for aconservation information system


The system should be able to keep a record of condition audits ofcollections and prompt when a scheduled survey is due.

The system should be able to record a summary assessment of thecondition of an object as a condition grade, i.e. good, fair, poor,unacceptable, and record other associated information in code orkeyword form such as fitness-for-purpose and damage.

The system should prompt the altering of condition gradesfollowing conservation treatment (see under Conservation treat-ment records).

The system should allow any authorized user to enter a ‘conserva-tion alert’ for an object, in the form of a flag and a concise remark,if for instance someone noticed that an object in a store neededurgent attention.

The system should be able to aid in condition assessment, bymaintaining definitions of condition grade in terms of lists ofparticular types of deterioration that particular types of objectmay have suffered, such as, in the case of books: bindingscompletely off – the worst condition grade; with staining – fair.

The system should be able to undertake the statistical design ofcondition audit surveys.

Reporting and output

The system should be able to list and give counts of objects in agiven conservation condition grade, generally by collection orobject type, etc., and undertake other sophisticated listings, e.g.objects for a particular museum project vs. condition grade,condition grade vs. damage, ‘fitness-for-use’, etc.

The system should be able to report the current condition grade ofan object.

The system should be able to report the dates of audits of acollection or of a location.

The system should be able to give statistics on a survey of acollection/location – condition grades, percentage of objects in acondition grade.

The system should be able to undertake the statistical analysisneeded to apply statistics from samples to a whole collection.


The system should be able to list objects by damage category,fitness-for-use, or other audit category.

The system should be able to report statistics on damage types forobjects in a collection/location.

Environmental conditions

The system should be able to record a policy on the standard forquality of store locations. This would consist of a series of idealenvironmental specifications for different types of object, i.e.paper, textiles, metals, photographic negatives.

The system should be able to record an environmental specificationfor an object location, in terms of temperature, relative humidity,gaseous and particulate pollution, lux level, lux hours (also storageequipment, fullness). In an hierarchy of store locations, the envi-ronmental specification for a location should by default be that forthe location next up the hierarchy. The user should be able to pick aspecification from the policy on standards, and customize it.

The system should be able to record an environmental specificationfor an object or a group of objects such as a collection in similarterms.

The system should be able to record a judgement as to whether ornot the actual conditions in the location reach its specification ornot. This could be in terms of quality of a number of definedcharacteristics, e.g. building characteristics, fullness, storageequipment suitability, environmental control, security.

The system should be able to record if an object is light sensitive,record the maximum permitted light exposure, and for such anobject allow the user to record the length of time it has beenexposed to light.


The system should prompt the user to inspect a location and assessits quality against its specification.

The system should warn the user if a location it is proposed to movean object or a collection into has a specification or characteristicsnot up to the standard specified for it.

The system should warn if a light-sensitive object has reached a setproportion, say over half, its permitted light exposure.

The system should be able to list the specifications of a store locationor an hierarchy of object locations and the record of their actualconditions.


Condition assessments and reports

The system should be able to record condition assessments ofobjects by allowing the user to select from a ‘pick list’ of standardterms.

The system should be able to record fuller condition assessments ofobjects, either as free text relating to object parts or in ahierarchical format, with a top-level record describing, forexample, the basic and overall condition assessment, and a lower-level record describing the assessment in more detail in terms ofthe particular condition of particular parts. The user would alsoenter the reason for the condition assessment.

The system should prompt the user who updates a lower-levelassessment of an object to update the associated higher-levelassessment. Hierarchies could be customized for particular typesof object.

The system should automatically add the assessor’s identity and thedate of the assessment to the details entered.

The system should maintain a ‘pick list’ of system-held generalterms for condition, for use in constructing condition reports.

Reports and output

The system should be able to report the condition assessment for anobject or for a defined group of objects, to conservators or to loansmanagers, etc.

Conservation treatment records

The system should be able to record treatment proposals for objectsor in general for a type of object, including a diagnosis of thecauses of deterioration and details of the proposed treatment, andits agreement by a conservator and a curator, and the estimatedperson-time (and cost?) for the treatment.

The system should be able to record a conservation treatment, interms of a sequence of procedures carried out on an object and theparts of an object, the materials used, duration of procedure, etc.This could be at various levels of detail.

The system should prompt the person recording a conservationtreatment to alter the existing condition grade (presumably forthe better), but maintain a record of the previous conditiongrade.



The system should be able to report conservation treatments andother conservation operations (i.e. treatment, condition assess-ment, scientific examination) for objects by a maker/artist.

The system should be able to report a list of objects treated using aspecified procedure or a conservation material during a period.This is because materials or procedures sometimes turn out to bedeleterious in the long term, or to aid in resource management.

The system should be able to tell the user the accession number of anobject from a distinguishing characteristic, e.g. the title of a picture,or show the user the treatment record from, e.g. the title.

Scientific examination

The system should be able to record details of an analysis in termsof the technique or instrument used, the results, the inferencesfrom the results, the conclusions, and a brief free text summaryreport. The latter should be passed automatically to form part ofthe catalogue details of the object.

The system should be able to record the occurrence of an object in aphysical record, such as a photograph, an X-radiograph, or arecord of an instrumental analysis. Such a record may be createdeither in a ‘conservation operation’ or in a procedure which is partof a ‘conservation operation’.

The system should be able to maintain a list of such physicalrecords, including the type, i.d. number, date created, etc.


The system should be able to list physical records of a particulartype by i.d. number, or object number, originator, etc.

The system should be able to list physical records in which an objectoccurs.

The system should be able to list the scientific examinations under-taken on an object or a type of object or a collection and detailsabout them, or to list simply the summary reports on them.

The system should be able to list objects scientifically examinedusing a specified procedure over a period, e.g. which objects havebeen X-radiographed?

The system should be able to list objects which have beenscientifically examined by an outside party or laboratory during aperiod.


Working objects

The system should be able to hold a care/maintenance plan for anobject.

The system should be able to support a default care/maintenanceplan, to be used as a template for a plan for particular objects.

The system should be able to record whether an object is suitable foroperation or not suitable for operation, and the reasons why.

The system should be able to record a list of people authorized tooperate an object which is designated as being suitable for this.

The system should be able to support the maintenance of anOperating Log for working objects, containing a record of alloperations (cf. other history of object use records – exhibition,loan).

The system should be able to record special conditions for operatingobjects, e.g. those of the Health and Safety Executive, and promptfor the necessity of applying these should the object be booked foruse, loan, access, operation, etc.


The system should be able to provide a list of all objects designated as‘working’, as ’suitable for working’, or ‘not suitable for working’.

The system should be able to provide diary reminders formaintenance actions on all working objects.

The system should be able to prompt necessary action on anindividual object’s care programme, such as to undertake checksor work, e.g. lubrication or adjustment.

Manage conservation work

The system should be able to record a ‘conservation operation’, thisbeing anything undertaken on an object such as conditionassessment, treatment, scientific examination, details to include:the person or outside firm who did the work, the date it wasdone, and the time, costs and other resources for the job.

The system should be able to maintain a list of museum projects oractivities, details to include: start date, completion date, andscheduling status, i.e. future, ongoing, terminated, completed.

The system should be able to maintain a list of objects which arerequired for each project, and the conservation work status of theobject: not needing treatment, needing treatment but not yettreated, treatment complete.

The system should be able to update the list of objects for the projectautomatically when treatment is recorded as complete.



The system should be able to list all the ‘conservation operations’that are recorded for an object.

The system should be able to list the museum projects that an objecthas been involved in.

The system should be able to show a list of objects for a conservationproject by accession number.

The system should be able to show a list of objects for a conservationproject sorted by conservation work status.

The system should be able to report on objects listed for all projectswith deadlines before a specified date or within a particular timeperiod.

The system should be able to give management informationstatistics such as number of objects worked on during a timeperiod for a person or for a conservation group; number of objectsworked on for a project.

The system should be able to list and count objects which have beenthe subject of conservation operations during a time period, bycollection.

The system should be able to give statistics on above, and graphicoutput.

The system should be able to list objects treated during a period, bycollection or object type.

The system should be able to show whether conservation has beendirected to the most needful objects, by reporting a list of objectstreated during a period by their condition grade prior toconservation, and calculate statistics on the above, with graphicoutput.

The system should be able to report conservation procedures whichhave been used over a period (but only where occurrences aregreater than a certain number, say 50). This would aid in resourcemanagement, health and safety management, etc.

Manage conservation resources

The system should be able to keep a register of outside laboratories,conservators, or firms.

The system should be able to keep a list of conservators’ namesagainst posts, to use in connection with recording conservationoperations, the skill level of those doing the work, etc.

The system should be able to maintain an inventory of equipment,its maintenance requirements, etc.


Exhibit 12B: Illustrative sample from the list ofdefined conservation treatments

interleavedlaminatedliftedlinedlubricatedmaskedmouldedmountedneededneutralizedpackedpaddedpinnedplasticizedplanned recallpolishedpressure driedreassembledreconstructedrecoveredreinforcedrelaid

relaxedremoved backingremoved coatingremoved consolidantremoved corrosionremoved dirtremoved dustremoved earthremoved facingremoved lacquerremoved old repairremoved otherremoved soilremoved stainremoved tarnishremoved waxrenumberedreplacedreplatedreshapedretouchedrinsed


Exhibit 12C Illustrative sample of definitions oftreatment terms

The meaning of each term is defined, sometimes with examples, and warnings aregiven of terms that should not be confused with it.

– REASSEMBLED: To put the component parts of the object back into place bymechanical means.

– do not confuse: Reconstructed, clothed.– rebound: see bound.– RECONSTRUCTED: To join fragments or parts together using adhesive.– do not confuse: Reassembled, adhered.– RECOVERED: To provide a new outer covering layer.

example: The book was recovered with buckram.– REINFORCED: To adhere an additional physical support to part of an object.– do not confuse: Lined, supported.– RELAXED: To cause the object to become limp and/or more flexible, by applying

moisture or solvent vapour.example: The parchment was relaxed by placing in a humiditychamber.– do not confuse: Dressed.

– RELAID: To reattach existing thin layers.example: The India-laid print was relaid.

– REMOVED: To take away things not to be returned to the object, chemically ormechanically.

– do not confuse: Disassembled, dismantled, bleached.specify: REM-BACKING: To remove old lining or backing and its adhesive.

– REMOVED CORROSION: To remove corrosion products.– REMOVED DIRT: To remove unidentified unclean matter

– do not confuse: Removed dust, removed-soil.

13 Future, present, past

Information for managing the preservation of collections must takeaccount of the three dimensions of time. For the future, we need plans,strategies, inspiration about the direction we are going in, and the meansof predicting the fate of objects and what museum stakeholders willwant. In the present, we all need information about what is happening toobjects and to our plans. From the past, we need to know about what hasalready happened, so that we can analyse the causes of undesirableeffects, and project from past to future.

Information for all

Information for managing is not useful only to managers. Everyonebenefits from managing their work, and needs information to do sosuccessfully. The information, then, must meet the three requirements setout at the start of this book: it must be based on values; it must serveobjectives; and it must be useful to the people doing the work. As Handysays (1990):

Proper systems are pathways not prisons; telephone wires notfences. They are the discipline, which gives purpose to liberty,which allows one to be free yet part of a bigger whole. They cannotbe left to chance because the principles on which they are built arenot instinctively obvious.

Many writers stress that everyone doing the work needs informationabout it. Information to allow conservators themselves, as actors in a‘meritocracy’, a substantial measure of control and feedback on theirwork will be even more important than usual: ‘complex work cannot beperformed unless it comes under the control of the person who does it’,as observed by Mintzberg (1992). Practical conservation is highlyfulfilling. When conserving an object, one receives instant and powerfulfeedback on the progress of the work, even though, if the wrongtechniques or materials are used, the improvement one sees may be short

term. So, if feedback on the wider value of their work is not available,conservators will feel little commitment to the purposes of the organiza-tion, and can instead transfer all their loyalty and energy to the objects orcollections themselves. This exacerbates the effect of the conflict, which isinherent in the dual museum goals of preservation and display, and leadsto the complaint commonly heard from managers of conservation, thatconservators are only interested in practical conservation.

Information for the future

Values, strategies, plans, are how information can serve the future. Ourcrystal ball for discerning the fate of objects lies in standards monitoringand damage prevention. As in Michalski’s scheme (1994), ‘prevent,detect, contain, control, recover’ – risk avoidance is the first step:monitoring these measures is the second: recovery, i.e. conservationtreatment, is a last resort.

Information in the present

Information about work is information about the present. How are theobjectives to be achieved? What processes are necessary in order for thework to be done? How are resources to be provided? What are theconstraints? Are plans and targets being met? There needs to be a regular,formal reporting cycle for both work and the use of resources.

Information from the past

Most present information only makes sense if it is seen as part of a flowof events. This includes budgetary information, productivity information,and environmental information. The condition of objects in the future canonly be predicted by interpreting their condition now in terms of changesthey have undergone in the past. By looking at information as acontinuous flow from the known past to the measurable present, we canpredict and try to influence the future.

The value of information

It is not easy to evaluate the benefits of management information. It willseldom lead to any directly attributable and quantifiable improvement inperformance. Nearly all the significant benefits are qualitative rather thanquantitative, improvements to effectiveness rather than efficiency. Vari-ous writers, however, have proposed ways in which information formanaging can be evaluated.


In Land’s view, there are three major sources of information: the realworld, which can be inspected; the informal system, informationobtained by talking with people, which is the major provider ofqualitative and evaluative information; and the formal informationsystem, an artefact the purpose of which is to filter real-world data andpresent them in a relevant and easily understood form (Land, 1985; Landand Kennedy-McGregor, 1987). The latter forms the basis for hisevaluation schemes. The cybernetics model developed by Beer offersanother view on the function of information systems. In this, aninformation system ‘reduces the variety of the real world’ (Beer, 1985:Section 2) thus enabling managers to see the state of the wood rather thanthat of all the different trees.

From these ideas we can see two potential problems if the informationgenerated is not properly thought through: the wrong information maybe chosen for the artificial approximation which is the system, and also,it may inaccurately or insufficiently depict the real world. These must bereasons why emergent systems, those that are developed gradually by thepractitioners themselves, generally perform better than planned ones –there is simply more chance to get them right. There is a particularly highrisk with computer-generated information that it may not properly reflectthe real world. Compiling and analysing figures oneself, aided bycomputers to be sure, gives an insight into their real meaning that is neverobtainable from ready-generated tables.

The benefits of management information are, in theory, considerable.Managers gain an improved mental model of the organization and itsactivities and they gain power, since well-informed, knowledgeabledepartments gain respect. Good information allows organizations tolearn. Benefits for people at the operational levels of the organization willinclude better motivation, commitment to objectives, and self-generatedimprovements in work practice.

It is one of the prime duties of a manager to provide information tothose being managed. Managers, especially senior ones, can feeloverwhelmed by the vast volume of information they receive. But it isessential that they filter and summarize what is important and pass iton to those whom they manage. If anyone wants to know more, itshould be openly supplied. Systems exist for formally achieving this,such as Team Briefing, in which information cascades down from thesenior management group. The problems are that the process becomesmechanical; that information is manipulated to give staff only goodnews; that the length of the communication chain leads to boredom. Itis certainly not easy to surmount these problems. Some approaches areto brief several levels of staff at once; to communicate honestly, badnews and uncertainty as well as good; by managers making the effortto show staff why high-level information is important to them, by

Future, present, past 241

involving staff in discussions, and by making sure that information getsfed back up as well as down.

In return, those being managed should reciprocate by making theirupward communications succinct, accurate, authoritative and to thepoint.

Evaluation

It takes time, energy and commitment to produce plans, monitoring andfeedback over a sustained period of time. From time to time, we shouldstop and ask ourselves, ‘Is it worth it?’ Evaluation means addressing thisquestion. There are five areas that should be examined.

Organizational development

A major benefit should be that changes are assisted or brought about andinstitutional learning is facilitated. This will be achieved if the informa-tion meets the first of the three basic aims – that it is based on values.

One of the most valuable things that information can do is to bringabout a state of better self-awareness by the organization, which willdispose it (i.e. all the workers in it) to make real, desirable changes. Inevaluating this area, we might look for signs of changes in organizationalstructure or in work organizations that address the issues depicted in theRich Picture (see Fig. 6.3).

Well-informed, knowledgeable, outward looking organizations anddepartments gain power and respect. If a department sets out itsobjectives, plans and monitoring information explicitly, it will achieve areputation for efficiency. This will not attract universal approval. Inmuseums, senior managers may well appreciate and make use of bettermanagement information, but many people in museums feel that a too-rational approach is alien to them and out of step with the corporateculture. Now that numerical performance indicators are so prevalent, itis fashionable to be cynical about them, and a department that is tooenthusiastic about them may be perceived as obsessive and timewasting by those who do not like effective management.

Robustness

Has the system continued in use; has it been adapted to meet changingneeds? This will help to indicate whether the information is servingobjectives, the second of the three major aims for managementinformation.


Regular collection and provision of information will only be sustainedif people find it worth the effort. One could say, therefore, thatinformation systems evaluate themselves; if they are not useful thenpeople will fairly quickly cease producing the data for them, and takingthe trouble to analyse it and feed it back.

Staff motivation

Does the system make staff feel that their work is important, and thusworth an interest, or does it make them feel spied on and untrustworthy?In other words, is it useful to the people doing the work?

The information that will both indicate and affect staff motivation willbe that directly related to output from what people spend most of theirtime doing: i.e. the level of activity – objects treated, lectures given, etc. Itis not just information that will influence productivity, but the processesof obtaining it. If people know that their work and productivity isimportant enough that information is collected about it, it affects theirattitude. If the people above you take an interest in your work, it affectsyou!

Efficiency

What is it costing to produce the information, in time or money? Timewill be spent:

By conservators:

� on completing timesheets and work reports� in conducting collections condition audits� in collecting and analysing environmental monitoring information� in conducting stores assessment surveys� in reading and digesting the reports that result.

By middle managers:

� in collating and analysing timesheets and work reports� in planning work more formally than might otherwise be the case� in writing reports, e.g. to contribute to strategic planning.

By conservation senior management:

� in analysing and reporting both upwards and downwards on timeused and progress against targets

� in spending more time than might otherwise be the case on planningand monitoring progress


� in planning, organizing, and writing up special reports, e.g. on the stateof stores and preventive conservation, collections condition audits, andpreservation strategy.

Some of this time will have to be spent whatever system of managementis in place. Although some extra time will be spent on analysing, forexample, environmental monitoring data, without such analysis its use isvery limited. It will help if the use of information is developed incooperation with all the staff. The producers of the information can berelied on to design the system that works most efficiently and effectivelyfor them.

Disbenefits

No endeavour results in perfection. Warning notes are sounded by someauthors about the straitjacket that can be imposed by too conscious asystem of planning and control. There could be a danger if the systembecame fossilized, operated for the benefit of management only. It could beobjected that time spent by senior managers on paper-based activities suchas analysing and reporting might be better spent on keeping in close touchwith the work of the department – on management-by-walking-about.

A formal system of regular written or verbal information is not enough.Equally important is an informal information system: chats in corridors,chance meetings in the tearoom, staff seminars. Land (1985) has identifiedthe importance of this other information dimension. Each of thecomponents of the information system, formal or informal, must addressthe need to give a sense of direction and purpose in the real, messy world,at the same time as organizing people to get a multitude of things doneon time and to a high standard.

Case study

The Conservation Department has a reputation for efficiency, fromexplicitly setting out its objectives and plans, and monitoring andreporting on them regularly, as described in Figure 11.1. The museum’ssenior managers appreciate and make use of better managementinformation, but many curators have art history backgrounds, and feelthat a too-rational approach is alien to them, and will stifle creativity.

Accountability is a major benefit from the information that is beingcollected. The department is able to say how its time is spent, and thishelps in getting vacancies filled, and indeed in ensuring its survival. Theinformation gives it the ability to prioritize work, to organize it so that itfits the time available, and to estimate accurately the conservation


resources needed for projects the museum wishes to undertake. The factthat information is collected makes staff feel that their work is importantand salient to the organization, and morale in the department is good.

For some years accountability has been the keyword. Cuts to publicfinances have forced a fundamental reappraisal of the museum’sobjectives and of how it organizes its staff. All of a sudden, the sort ofinformation that the Conservation Department has been producing is notconsidered the slightly embarrassing evidence that there are manage-ment-orientated persons around, but considered a major asset. TheConservation Department finds itself able to provide real, hard evidenceof the need for better care and management of the collections, based onstatistics and rational argument. This is the sort of thing that Boardmembers are used to taking notice of.

Case study: Future (1)

The thrust of the museum’s work has to change from collecting andfieldwork to caring for, refining, and making use of the collections italready has. More staff and resources are allocated to conservation, and aCollections Management Department is set up. The number of jobs entitled‘curator’ decreases, and the Conservation and Collections ManagementDepartments take on more of the responsibilities that previously belongedto curators. There is now a much better fit with the concept of a museumdeveloped in the soft systems analysis (see Fig. 6.6). The museum obtainsmajor capital funding for a new store, and as the collections are moved intoit their storage and documentation are greatly improved.


However, this way of life is not to be permanent. The museum exists ina state of constant flux, of constantly evolving external requirements. Ithas to respond to market forces – the wishes of its stakeholders andvisitors and also to the changing policies and priorities of its fundingbodies, both national and local. The museum is meeting its account-abilities for the collections much better, but pressures are growing toprovide more for its public. It has to renew its galleries, provide moreexciting temporary exhibitions, active education programmes for schoolsand adults, and respond to the new opportunities presented byinformation and communications technology. Will these imperativesoverwhelm its achievements in improved standards of collections careand conservation?

In the new operational climate, the overriding imperative is forexcellence. The museum has to do more for its visitors and create itspresence in the information age, but this cannot be at the expense of its


standards of collections stewardship: its essential ‘museumness’. It isrequired to provide statistics on its performance. How can it achieveexcellence in both areas at once?

The earlier restructuring has led to major operational improvements,but there are still anomalies. The responsibilities of conservation,collections management, and the curators are blurred in many respects.Also, the whole museum organization has to focus on delivering publicbenefits.

The museum’s senior staff have changed. The new director sees care ofcollections as essentially a matter of good housekeeping. In his view, thegrowth in collections staff and resources for these bureaucratic functionshas subverted the museum’s priorities, which ought to be aboutcommunicating culture. Creativity is being stifled. The museum under-takes an interminable strategic review. It is decided that althoughcollections care and management are obviously indispensable, this is onlyvalid under the direction of curators.

Although some curators are delighted to resume their overarching role,many of them have appreciated the better organization and care of thecollections and taken advantage of it to broaden their roles. In particularthey have been able to co-operate more with other museum activities.They are not pleased to find that once again they have to plan storage,supervise object moves, and keep signing forms authorizing conservationtreatment. Meanwhile, the other museum departments continue toperceive curators as persons obsessed with dusty bits and pieces.


Pressures to make better use of the collections intensify. Research,knowledge, and information became more crucial, and curators have tospend more time on this, and on interpretation, such as working with theEducation Department to engage the public with the collections. TheCollections Management Department takes over complete responsibilityfor the physical collections: their conservation, care, documentation, andstorage. Its responsibilities include the use of and access to the collections.An important objective is to increase public use of and access to them,through opening stores to the public, organizing events featuringconservation, and efficiently providing objects for exhibitions anddisplays (Spalding, 1999). Of course it also has to maintain the highstandards of collections care and preservation that it has itself established.This means that, among other things, the museum cannot continue to addto the collections as it had done in the past – its resources for their careand housing simply cannot not keep pace.

But the museum needs more than that. It has to manage its informationand knowledge resources as thoroughly and carefully as its actual


collections (Keene, 1998). It has to have specialists in this as well ascurators. A Collections Information Department mirrors the CollectionsManagement Department. Its role is to organize, add to, and use theinformation about the objects and their context, and to provide the meansof communicating to the public through information and communica-tions technology. It is responsible for providing information for theactivities of all the museum staff: the Collections Department, theProgrammes Department, and the Public Affairs Department. Theprimary role of curators now is to add to the information resources andrecommend on physical acquisitions, and to work with all other groupsin the museum to interpret and communicate about the collections.

Conclusions: a new view

The collection, conservation, and documentation of original objectsand research on them are the essential foundations on which allmuseum services rest.

The road to Wigan Pier? (Audit Commission, 1991: 15)

(Museums) can make a real difference to people’s lives by usingtheir collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment.

(Resource, 2001: 7)

The collections held by all museums and galleries are part of thedistributed national collection, a hugely significant and importantnational asset.

(Resource, 2001: 89)

Not long ago, conservators ranked ‘awareness of conservation needs bymanagers’ as the most important factor affecting the preservation of thecollections, even above improvements to stores or more conservation staff(Corfield et al., 1989: 26). In the early twenty-first century, this awarenesshas largely come about. It has been assisted by government policy, byrequirements for accountability, by grant-giving bodies such as theHeritage Lottery Fund in the UK requiring new buildings to meetstandards. It has also been assisted by conservators themselves, develop-ing, and publicizing the means of creating preservation conditions andmanaging preservation at collections level.

Are conservators the victims of their own success in putting acrossthe need for preservation management? Their roles are becomingdifferentiated, into preservation and conservation management on theone hand, and conservation treatment on the other. While some may seethis as a problem, others recognize it as an opportunity. It can lead to


career success. For the first time in the UK a national museum has aconservator as its director, and others are deputy directors of majornational institutions.

We should recognize this success. Conservators have benefited fromtheir excellent education and qualifications. They have proved theirability to take a broad view of their responsibilities, and to gather dataand present it as management information must have been an importantcontributing factor. Management information has proved to be apowerful new tool for conservation in the future. Conservator managersare taking advantage of a wide range of techniques from generalmanagement. Conservators’ recommendations carry weight because oftheir professional approach to presenting reports and information.Performance measures and indicators have been used to good effect. Theidea of collections conservation being achieved through management andmonitoring is seen to be at least as effective as is conservation throughtreating objects.

Future developments

Conservators and museum managers still need to create the political willto take greater account of the long-term functions of museums, to balancethat for the more obvious short-term benefits of display and exhibitionand interaction with audiences. Providing hard, quantified facts is stillessential, but we must also demonstrate that the actual collections areuseful. We need to construct a means of moving the political consensus infavour of the long-term objectives of preserving the collections forlearning and information. This enterprise needs to call into play themeasurable, factual standards and accountability mechanisms of per-formance indicators, the watchful eyes of the National Audit Office andthe Audit Commission, international standards and codes of ethics, andthe general push for greater professionalism in museums. Each museumneeds to develop clear, explicit strategies and plans, and to reportinformation on progress regularly and publicly, based on factualinformation on what needs to be done.

Museums must also demonstrate that the collections are useful now.Collections must be seen as a component in the museum system as awhole, not in isolation. In Chapter 1, the section Museums, sets out someexamples of successful collections access projects, in which collectionshave become part of the museum’s complete offer for visitors. There isminimal conflict between care of collections and access. The largest, andmost crucial group of museum users are those in the future. The only wayto assure the collections are there for them, too, is to demonstrate thatthey also serve the needs of people today.


References

Audit Commission (1991). The road to Wigan Pier? Audit Commission LocalGovernment Report 1991, no. 3. London: HMSO.

Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the system for organizations. Chichester: John Wiley.Corfield, M., Keene, S. et al., eds (1989). The survey. London: UKIC.Handy, C. (1990). Understanding voluntary organizations. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Books.Keene, S. (1998). Digital collections: museums and the information age. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.Land, F.F. (1985). Is an information theory enough? The Computer Journal, 28, 3,

211–215.Land, F.F. and Kennedy-McGregor, M. (1987). Information and information

systems: concepts and perspectives. In Information analysis (R. Galliers, ed.),Sydney, Australia: Addison-Wesley.

Michalski, S. (1994). A systematic approach to preservation: description andintegration with other museum activities. In Preventive conservation: practice,theory, and research. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa Congress, September1994. London: IIC.

Mintzberg, H. (1992). Structure in fives. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.Resource (2001). Renaissance in the regions: a new vision for England’s museums.

London: Resource.Spalding, J. (1999). Creative management in museums. In Management in museums

(K. Moore, ed.). London: Athlone Press.Vickers, G. (1965). The art of judgment. London: Chapman & Hall.


Index

Access to collections, 20, 21Accountability, 21, 43–4, 248

national museums, 41–2regional museums, 42

Actors, in systems analysis, 91, 100Administrative data, 143, 153Air conditioning, See EnvironmentArchaeological collections, 17Association of American Museums, 44

Museum Assessment Program(MAP), 5, 44, 117–18

Audit Commission, UK, 21, 41, 184,248

Audits of collections condition, SeeCollections condition audits

Authenticity of digital material, 227

Bar charts, 201Beer, Stafford, 35Best Value approach, 16, 38, 42, 184Blue Wool Standard test, 122–3British Museum:

collections, 14, 15visitors, 13, 15

British Rail Pensions Fund, 88British Standards (BS), 116Burra Charter, 24Business plans, 179–80Business process re-engineering, 36

Canadian Conservation Institute, 15,23

Cars, historic, 19–20, 22

Case study, 9–10, 72–5, 183collections condition audit, 157–9,

161–71audit reports, 158, 169–71consequences, 158–9pilot surveys, 161–3

conservation records, 222–4conservation strategies, 181–2,

189–92development plan, 197, 198–9digitisation, 228–9environment management, 132–4future scenarios, 244–7programme plan, 214stores assessments, 118–19, 138work planning and reporting, 207–12

CATWOE check, 83, 91, 100Charts, 206

bar charts, 201Checkland, Peter, 35, 81, 97–8Closed systems, 80Codes, 23–4Collections, 1–3, 4–6, 16, 93

access to, 20, 21digital, See Digital collectionspurposes of, 16–20

implications for museummanagement, 19

implications for preservation,19–20

risks to, 64size of, 14–15, 17usefulness of, 178variability of, 150–1See also Conservation; Preservation

Collections condition audits, 119, 139,141

audit method, 148–52audit specification, 149number of objects to survey,

150–1pilot audits, 149–50sampling design, 150which objects to survey, 151–2

case study, 157–9, 161–71audit reports, 158, 169–71consequences, 158–9pilot surveys, 161–3

data analysis, 153–5comparative information, 154–5correlational information, 155descriptive information, 153quantitative information, 153–4

information system requirements,231–2, 233

monitoring condition over time,157

reporting results, 155–6, 231–2surveys, 139–42, 152, 159

curatorial assessments, 141–2data collection, 152, 217preventive conservation

assessments, 141published work on, 142

terminology, 142–8administrative data, 143describing condition, 146–8describing damage, 143–6

Comparative information, 154–5Comptroller and Auditor General, 41,

43Computerized records, 205, 215

case study, 222–4comparisons with paper records,

216, 219See also Conservation records;

Digital collectionsConceptual model:

museum system, 92–4preservation system, 101–4

Condition audits, See Collectionscondition audits

Condition description, 146–8

Conservation, 1–3, 22, 24, 28–9assessment, 117–19awareness of management issues,

44–5codes and ethics, 23–4costs and benefits, 50–3loss control, 65–6management of, See Managementmonitoring conservation processes,

204–5national and international scene,

23outsourcing, 45performance indicators, 9, 185–6,

193–4policies, 174probability of, 50–2professional roles, 24–9records, See Conservation recordsroot definitions, 100–1standards, 44, 115–16strategies for, 180–3

case study, 181–2, 189–92vs restoration, 22–3See also Conservators; Preservation

Conservation records, 215–24case study, 222–4computerized records, 205, 215

comparisons with paper records,216, 219

information for preservation,216–17

information requirement, 217–22nature of the information, 215–16requirements catalogue, 231–6

collections condition audits,231–2

condition assessments andreports, 233

conservation treatment records,233–4

environmental conditions, 232manage conservation resources,

236manage conservation work, 235scientific examination, 234working objects, 235

treatments, 220, 233–4

252 Index

Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers,Paris, 5

Conservators, 2, 5, 45professional roles, 25–8, 114–15

Corporate plans, 179Correlational information, 155Cost-benefit analysis, 49, 52–3, 61

opportunity cost, 53Cost-effectiveness analysis, 52–3, 61Cultural significance, 24Curatorial assessments, 141–2Curators, 25–8Customers, in systems analysis, 91, 100Cybernetics, 80, 241

Damage description, 143–6Data analysis, 153–5

comparative information, 154–5correlational information, 155descriptive information, 153quantitative information, 153–4

Data collection, 152, 217Data presentation, 123–34Delta Plan, Netherlands, 23, 141–2,

179Deming, W.E., 37Department for Culture, Media and

Sport, 43, 184, 185Descriptive information, 153Deterioration, 20

description of, 143–6digital, 226environmental effects, 58–9, 114–15measurement of, 59–60prevention of, 106See also Preservation

Development planning, 195–6, 197case study, 197, 198–9

Digital collections, 224–8case study, 228–9digital assets, 224–5preservation, 224, 225–8

exacting requirements, 227–8issues and definitions, 226–7ongoing work, 228

Digital Preservation Coalition, UK,228

Drucker, Peter, 33Dulwich Picture Gallery, 14, 88

Economy:in soft systems analysis, 84measures, 103–4significance of museums, 3, 15–16

Effectiveness:cost-effectiveness analysis, 52–3, 61in soft systems analysis, 84measures, 104

Efficiency, 243–4in soft systems analysis, 84measures, 103

Emergent strategies, 69–70Emulation, 227Environment, 101

assessment, 117control of, 134–5

case study, 132–4costs and benefits, 52–3

effects on collections, 58–9, 114–15measurement of, 58–9

fluctuations, 131–2in systems analysis, 91, 101monitoring of, 117, 119–32

analysis by area, 126–7analysis over time, 123–6building management systems,

127data presentation and use,

123–34recording, 232standards, 107, 116, 219–20

Ethics, 23–4Evaluation, 242–4

disbenefits, 244efficiency, 243–4organizational development, 242robustness, 242–3staff motivation, 243

Event tree, 50–1Excellence, 36–8

Fading, 20Failure mode, 50

Index 253

Feedback, 206Fire risk, 64–5Flooding, 67–8Funding, 4, 40–2

case study, 72–4

Gantt charts, 201Getty Conservation Institute (GCI),

USA, 28, 117Goal hierarchies, 52, 53–6Goals, 173Goodhart’s Law, 39, 186

Hampton Court fire, 64Handy, Charles, 33Hard systems approaches, 81Heritage, 12

valuation of cultural heritage, 50–2Heritage Collections Council,

Australia, 4, 23Heritage Lottery Fund, UK, 4, 41,

179–80, 181, 247Heritage Preservation, USA, 44Horniman Museum, 142Humidity:

fluctuations, 131–2monitoring, 119–23, 127–32

over time, 123–6See also Environment

Information, 6–9, 205–7, 239–42conservation records, 215–16

information requirement, 217–22feedback, 206for preservation, 216–17for the future, 240from the past, 240in management, 36–40in the present, 240presentation of, 205–6report writing and presentation,

207use of, 8–9value of, 240–2See also Conservation records

Insurance, 66International Committee for

Conservation (ICC), 23International Committee on Sites and

Monuments, 24International Council of Museums

(ICOM), 23Investment appraisal, 49

Japan, 36–7

KAIZEN system, 37

La Villette, Paris, 21Ladders of choice, 69, 177Law of Unintended Consequences,

186Light, 114–15

damage caused, 20monitoring, 122–3See also Environment

London Transport Museum, 21Loss:

consequences of, 66measurement of, 59–60See also Deterioration

Loss control, 65–6

Maintenance, 24See also Preservation

Management, 2–3, 32–6collection implications, 19information and, 6–9, 36–40

feedback, 206presenting information, 205–6preservation conceptual model

use, 104–8report writing and presentation,

207understanding the task, 7–8using information, 8–9value of information, 240–2See also Information

objectives, 106–7

254 Index

of museums, 40–5accountability, 43–4national museums, 41–2operating climate, 40–1preservation awareness, 44–5regional museums, 42standards, 44

scientific management, 32theories, 32–3views, 33–6

systems views, 35–6Management science, 48–50

decision areas, 48–9operations research, 49–50

Management systems, 127Management-by-objectives, 195–7,

199–201Metadata, 226Migration, 227Mintzberg, Henry, 33Mission statements, 36, 173–4, 189Monitoring:

collection condition over time, 157conservation processes, 204–5environmental conditions, 117,

119–32project monitoring, 202resource use, 205

Moonshot strategies, 69Museum Assessment Program, USA,

5, 44, 117–18Museum Documentation Association,

UK, 174, 215Museum of London:

collections, 14–15High Street Londinium exhibition, 13pollution monitoring, 123

Museum Registration Scheme, UK, 5,42, 118, 178

Museums, 3–6, 12–16as systems, 84–95

alternative museum systems,88–90

conceptual model, 92–4real world and system contrast,

94–5relevant systems, 86–90root definitions, 90–2, 94

changing scene, 95–6economics and, 3, 15–16management of, See Managementnumbers of, 13operating climate, 40–1role of, 3–4, 9, 12–13social significance, 3strategic planning, 177–9users of, 20–3See also Collections

Museums and Galleries Commission,44, 177–8

standards, 20, 116, 117, 118, 174,178

National Audit Office, 21, 43, 248National Gallery, 16–17

collections, 17visitors, 13, 15

National Institute for Conservation(NIC), USA, 117

National Museums and Galleries onMerseyside (NMGM), 69

Conservation Centre, 2, 6, 181National Park Service, USA, 21, 117National Trust properties, 18, 53Natural History Museum, London,

15–17, 25collections, 15, 17

Norwich Local History Library andArchive fire, 64

Not-for-profit organizations, 39–40

Objectives, 36, 106–7, 172management-by-objectives, 195–7,

199–201Open systems, 80Open Systems Group, 79Operations research, 32–3, 49–50, 81Opportunity cost, 53Organizational culture, 26Organizational development, 242Outsourcing, 45Owners, in systems analysis, 91, 101Oxford County Museum, 21

Index 255

Paired comparisons, 52, 56PANDORA project, Australia, 224Performance indicators, 38, 183–6

for conservation, 185–6, 193–4in practice, 184

Performance measurement, 9, 38–9PERT charts, 201PEST analysis, 7, 68

case study, 77Pests:

management, 127monitoring, 123

Pilot condition audits, 149–50case study, 158, 161–3

Planning, 175–6, 195–9, 220development planning, 195–6, 197

case study, 197, 198–9management-by-objectives, 195–7,

199–201programme planning, 197

case study, 214schedules, 197–9

project planning, 196, 201–3resource allocation, 203–4work planning, case study, 207–12See also Quantitative planning;

Strategic planningPlans, 173, 195

business plans, 179–80communication of, 197corporate plans, 179

Policies, 172, 174conservation policies, 174

Pollution monitoring, 123, 127See also Environment

Porter, Michael, 68Preservation, 2–3, 16, 22, 24, 114–36

awareness of management issues,45

collection implications, 19–20costs and benefits, 50–2digital collections, 224–8

digital assets, 224–5exacting requirements, 227–8issues and definitions, 226–7ongoing work, 228

environmental monitoring, 119–32information for, 216–17

quantification, 56–60deterioration, 59–60environmental effects, 58–9

reviews and reports, 116–19collections condition audits, 119quality assessments, 117stores assessments, 117–19

standards, 44, 115–16systems approach, 97–109

conceptual model, 101–4management implications, 104–8real world and system contrast,

104, 105relevant systems, 99–100Rich Picture, 98–9root definitions, 100–1

See also ConservationPreventive conservation, 65

assessments, 141See also Conservation; Preservation

Prioritization, 53–6, 63case study, 72–5contextual analysis, 68goal hierarchies, 52, 53–6paired comparisons, 52, 56risk analysis, 63–8See also Risk analysis

Procedures, 172Programme planning, 197

case study, 214schedules, 197–9

Project planning, 196, 201–3

Quality, 36–8Quality assessments, 117Quality, Efficiency and Standards

Team (QUEST), 21, 42, 185Quality-adjusted life years (QUALYs),

59–60Quantitative analysis, 48–9

collections preservation, 56–60deterioration, 59–60environmental effects, 58–9

conservation costs and benefits,50–3

need for, 60–1Quantitative information, 153–4

256 Index

Quantitative planning:deciding priorities, 53–6

goal hierarchies, 52, 53–6paired comparisons, 52, 56

management science, 48–50operations research, 49–50

Rand Corporation, 33, 80Raynor Scrutinies, 40–1Real world understanding, 83–4Records, See Conservation recordsReformatting, 227Relative humidity, See HumidityReport writing and presentation, 207Reporting:

collections condition audit results,155–6, 231–2, 233

case study, 158, 169–71conservation processes, 204–5environmental conditions, 232preservation reports, 116–19scientific examinations, 234work reporting, case study, 207–12

Resource, 42, 44Resources:

allocation of, 203–4collections as, 88management of, 107, 220, 236monitoring the use of, 205

Restoration, 22–3, 24Rich picture, 83

museum system, 84–6, 92, 94, 95–6preservation system, 98–9, 104

Risk analysis, 63–8components of risks to collections, 64consequences of loss, 66decisions on risk, 66–8loss control, 65–6severity and frequency of risk, 64–5

Robustness analysis, 72, 73, 242–3Root definitions:

conservation, 100–1museums, 90–2, 94

Sainsbury Centre, 87–8Sampling design, 150, 151–2Schedules, 197–9, 202

Science Museum, 16–17collections, 14, 17conservation policy, 22Financial Management Initiative, 41Raynor Scrutiny, 40–1Wellcome Wing, 21

Scientific examination reports, 234Scientific management, 32Scientific method, 79–80Skills maintenance, 222Smithsonian Institution:

Conservation Analytical Laboratory,58

Garber Centre, 6Soft operational research, 49Soft systems analysis, 7–8, 81–4, 91,

111–13tools, 83–4See also Systems approach

Sovereign Hill, Australia, 13SPECTRUM standard, 174, 215Stability, 147Staff motivation, 243Standards, 20, 44, 115–16, 174, 178

for condition, 107, 218–19for environment, 107, 116, 219–20

Statements of purpose, 36, 173–4Stores, 5, 21

assessments, 117–19case study, 118–19, 138

Strategic choice analysis, 70–1Strategic planning, 8–9, 176–83

business plans, 179–80conservation strategy, 180–3

case study, 181–2, 189–92corporate plans, 179in museums, 177–9See also Planning

Strategic staircase, 69, 177, 181Strategy, 172, 175–6Strategy development, 68–72

deliberate strategies, 68–9emergent approaches, 69–70ladders of choice, 69robustness analysis, 72, 73strategic choice analysis, 70–1

Structured systems analysis anddesign method (SSADM), 81

Index 257

Surveys of collections, 139–42, 152,159

curatorial assessments, 141–2data collection, 152, 217number of objects to survey, 150–1preventive conservation

assessments, 141published work on, 142which objects to survey, 151–2See also Collections condition audits

SWOT analysis, 7, 68case study, 78

Systems approach, 35–6, 79–81museums as systems, 84–95

alternative museum systems,88–90

conceptual model, 92–4real world and system contrast,

94–5relevant systems, 86–90root definitions, 90–2, 94

preservation system, 97–109conceptual model, 101–4management implications, 104–8real world and system contrast,

104, 105relevant systems, 99–100Rich Picture, 98–9root definitions, 100–1

soft systems analysis, 7–8, 81–4, 91,111–13

tools, 83–4Systems theory, 79–80

Tables, 206Targets, 173Tate Modern, 20Te Papa Tongarewa Museum, New

Zealand, 3–4Temperature monitoring, 119–23

over time, 123–6See also Environment

Terotechnology, 97–8Thermohygrographs, 119–32Threats to collections, 64, 67Time sheets, 205Total quality management (TQM), 37Total study process, 104Tourism, 3, 15Transformation, in systems analysis,

91, 101Treatments, 237

records, 220, 233–4terminology, 238

Udvar-Hazy centre, Washington, 6Uncertainty planning, 72Uppark fire, 64, 67US Institute of Museum and Library

Services, 117

Victoria and Albert Museum, 20director, 25, 43–4Financial Management Initiative,

41Raynor Scrutiny, 40–1

Visitors to museums, 15

Wallace Collection, 14, 88Welsh National Folk Museum, 18Weltanschauung (world view), 91, 92,

101, 178Windsor Castle fire, 64, 67Work planning, case study, 207–12

See also Planning

York Archaeological Trust,Archaeological Research Centre(ARC), 6

Yorkshire and Humberside museums,15

258 Index

managing conservation in museums - · pdf filemanaging conservation in museums second edition...

Documents