Collaboration and Rationalisation

Submitted by Sandy Nairne, 10 June 2001

The Working Party examined why collaboration and rationalisation are important for the future of the UK museums and galleries sector, what areas of regional museum work would be best advanced by collaboration and rationalisation, and how these terms could be part of an agenda for change.

Collaboration and Rationalisation

Collaboration and rationalisation can be seen as two distinct parts of ordered change. Natural forces market pressures, the demands of users (which are considered in the working party report on ?Markets and Users?), changes in local government ¹ or in the administration of charities will not in themselves bring the step change that is desired by those using or working in museums and galleries. Intervention and funding are required. However, making change, while important, is not enough in itself. Producing public benefit is the essential aim - as the Museums Association acknowledges in its revised definition of museums (Museums Association Ethics Committee, 1999) - whether in the display of artefacts, the finding of new audiences, the sharing of knowledge, the advancement of research or the reduction of costs.

1. Introduction and initial issues
2. Collaboration
3. Rationalisation
4. The way forward: a new framework
Notes
Abbreviations
References

1. Introduction and initial issues

There are a number of issues that are crucial to understanding how collaboration and rationalisation will be central to a wider programme of change. Some are immediate pre-conditions ? the removal of barriers ? others are longer term objectives which will ensure the success of the change programme.

Structure

There must be a more formally agreed structure or policy that sets out the relationships and responsibilities of local, regional and national museums and galleries. Presently the roles are established by custom and history, and are not determined by best practice or any national overview. Significantly, there is no single coherent statement of museums policy for England. Treasures in Trust (DNH, 1996) reviewed museums? provision and made numerous recommendations, the majority of which have been taken forward by the DCMS, not least through A New Cultural Framework (DCMS, 1998) ² . This is not in itself a matter of definition, but of clarifying purposes, roles and links. Only government or better its national specialist agency, MLA, can set out such a structure. Such a structure should also link museums and galleries to the wider cultural sector.

Mapping

The regional mapping of museums, completed by three area museum councils ? South East (South East Museums Agency, 2001) South West (South West Museums Council, 1999) and West Midlands (West Midlands Regional Museums Council, 2000a; 2000b) - and covering the content, scale and importance of collections and the standard of public services is an essential background condition for determining ordered change through collaboration and rationalisation. As recommended in MLA?s draft Stewardship Strategy (MLA, 2001a), the regional mapping process should be taken forward and also complemented by national strands (whether marine collections or 18 ^th Century paintings), which should be worked on by regional and national specialists working together. Both approaches need additional central funding, but also creative management to ensure that disparate museums and galleries co-operate and common standards are applied. A knowledgeable overview could lead to regional collecting agreements ? possibly following the model established by the Delta Plan, Netherlands. It is also important to establish mapping in relation to skills. Knowing where skills are held is an essential complement to encouraging new collaborations, and will make a real difference in encouraging links across different parts of the museums and galleries sector ³ .

Trusteeship

A shift from a narrow concept of ownership to the broader notion of public trusteeship is essential: for the better governance of museums and galleries and in order to encourage collaboration (Rothschild, 2000). This applies whatever the governing structure of each museum or gallery (whether independent, local authority, university or national ). This change of attitude may take time to achieve and will require the further efforts of the Museums Association and other professional and co-operative bodies.

Ends and means

Both collaboration and rationalisation, as processes of change, need clarity of purpose. The success of close co-operation in joint work on digitisation (Smith, 2000), in developing an education project in common (Cox et al, 2000), or the use of shared storage facilities (MLA, 2001a) must be based on agreed purposes, agreed outcomes and agreed measures of success. This is likely to be achieved with a written agreement. Whether the collaboration or rationalisation is proposed by an individual museum, a funding body or a regional agency, a broker or facilitator may be crucial in moving the process forward as well as supporting it in the longer term.

Business viability

In an increasingly competitive cultural market, there will be many occasions where it would make sense for partnerships, including mergers and take-overs, to build capacity into the sector. Where the pride of the current stake-holders makes this course of action unthinkable, then credible and disinterested brokerage should be available.

MLAs

As is well known, the gap in resources must be bridged between the larger regional museums and museums services (which may have either nationally important designated collections or regional responsibilities or both) and the national collections. The gap has become a chasm, and as well as debilitating the ability of many regional museums and galleries to work with the nationals, it also severely restricts the ability of regional museums to contribute to regional collaborations or support rationalising processes.

A linked symptom is the divide between the salary levels of those working in national museums and those in city, university or local museums ⁴ . This gap is severely disabling in preventing the proper movement of staff around the country.

Barriers to change

A few additional barriers to change must also be overcome:

• The negative effects of the intense competitiveness for limited funds (conceivably encouraged by the diminishing value of Lottery funds available to the heritage) and the unnecessary complexity of funding in the heritage sector ⁵
• Differences in governing structures and accountability amongst museums
• Inadequacies of skills (MTI, 1998) and capacity to make change
• The lack of long term strategic planning

Collaboration and rationalisation need to be seen as ways of doing things better and producing benefit, not simply ways of reducing the call on the public purse which they will not necessarily produce.

top

2. Collaboration

Definition

There are a number of useful definitions of relationships (collaborations, partnerships, networks and co-operatives), together with lists of success factors (Arnold-Forster and Davies, 1998). To these can be added the concepts of adoptions and alliances. In the context of this Task Force, the more general term of ?collaboration? is sufficient. While there are a number of different ways in which museums, galleries and agencies can collaborate successfully, the crucial thing is that they should see that it is in their best interest to do so.

Fields of Collaboration

Some fields of collaboration are more likely to be successful at a regional level and produce ?natural? support from stakeholders (politicians, funders, governors and volunteers): joint marketing (see for example, the working party report on markets and users), co-operative education schemes, training, provision of specialist conservation services (tracked in Winsor, 1999), amongst them. Other fields of collaboration (including joint storage and collection management services Information and Communications Technology ⁶ , training, curatorial expertise) will need careful political work to gain support whether across a city, a region or across the country. There are a few areas particularly suitable to national-regional collaboration (such as sharing the use of collections, bringing together specialist expertise and the dissemination of new skills). Indeed, Arnold-Forster and Davies (1998) found that most collaborations focus on touring exhibitions and loans; training; sharing of skills and facilities; international contacts; and outstations.

Sub-sectors of the museums constituency have already established inter-regional collaborations based around other issues. Grass-roots benchmarking clubs, designed to provide essential management and trading information, are operated by the Association of Independent Museums, by the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions and by the Group for Large Local Authority Museums (GLLAM). 22 museums contribute to a the former?s Comparative Trading Surveys; and, 22 museum services to the latter?s annual benchmarking exercise.

National ? Regional Collaborations

Collaborations between national and non-national bodies are the norm in the libraries and archives field. Both the British Library and the Public Record Office maintain proactive and collaborative relationships with the rest of their sectors. However, the relationship between national and non-national museums and galleries needs improving considerably before similar collaborations are conceivable (MLA, 2000a). But, as the President of the Museums Association, has insisted, ?Collaboration? has to be the way ahead? for museums (Patrick Greene cited in Nightingale, 1999).

A number of models of collaboration between national and regional collections have emerged in recent years. Some types of collaboration work on a continuing basis without special funding and are principally based around sharing specialist expertise. Some departments of the British Museum have, for example, long encouraged such a co-operative approach. Others, such as the National Maritime Museum and the National Gallery, have pioneered the creation of networks mapping specialist collections. The National Maritime Museums has voluntarily adopted a leadership role for maritime history in museums through the UK; the National Railway Museums has a similar role for railway history. The National Museums of Science and Industry is establishing a National Collections Centre at Wroughton, which will provide storage space for any museum willing to pay; and the National Army Museum maintains a special relationship with Regimental Museums and the Ministry of Defence (MLA, 2000a: Annex 7).

Other schemes have been developed as the result of specific grant funding. The Heritage Lottery Fund?s ?3/4 million Museums and Access Fund has made possible five touring exhibitions from national collections and the multi-faceted Tate Partnership Scheme between Tate and five regional galleries. This scheme stresses that the partnership is two-way, that the choices should originate, wherever possible, from the regional galleries, and involves skills exchange as well as the loan of works.

Other models, such as the National Portrait Gallery?s loan and touring schemes, offer extended loan programmes for short or longer periods, and are extremely valuable in allowing the re-allocation of objects or works of art to places where new audiences will be attracted to see them.

These national-regional collaborations are important and act as a useful means of supporting change and development. They should be extended. But they must not be confused with the real and immediate need to improve the resources available to regional museums. It is the linking of new resources to regional collaboration that will be crucially effective.

Regional and City Collaborations

Arguably, a priority should be determined for supporting co-operation and collaboration across a city or a region. It is in this way that continuing gains can be made in the improvement of services to the public through the deployment of complementary skills, knowledge and resources. In a larger city this is likely to mean the development of a city network between the city-funded, university and independent museums and galleries. Collaborations may be more particular and may focus on particular areas of audience development or, more general marketing, or on the creation of joint programmes of exhibitions, educational work, sharing of curatorial expertise or complementary displays. These collaborations will also benefit from being extended out from existing regional museum services.

Across a region it may involve the formation of regional ?hubs?, centres or networks. These may be city-based, but equally may be based on the orchestration of services and resources from a variety of institutions brokered together and orchestrated, in some instances, by the Area Museums Council (Pender, 1997). It is essential that however organised the best use of skills are brought into collaborative use in the widest sense. Regional collaborations need also to be seen in the context of the Regional Development Agencies and the newer Regional Cultural Consortiums (DCMS, 1999), and with reference to regional plans and strategies. It would be wrong to assume that there can or should be one single ?hub? for each region, as the suitable expertise may be needed from several organisations. There are several different kinds of museums and galleries and organisations that can play complementary roles here.

A situation could be imagined where ?hubs? or regional centres provide a particular specialism, for example education or conservation. Thereby a number of ?hubs? could provide the range of expertise required across a region. These ?hubs? would be supported to allow them to build capacity and sustain themselves as well as offering excellent services and support to other museums and galleries within the region.

Success Factors

Good collaborations can be assessed in a number of ways. That assessment will be needed by partners, funders and brokers and will be based on:

• Encompassing more than the interests of particular individuals
• Establishing and then checking against a number of objectives, which may differ between collaborators (whether reduction in cost, improvement of service, finding new users or creating new income)
• An agreement to make positive change within a set period of time
• An understanding of the good management of alliances and partnerships
• Creation of capacity (and the requisite skills such as negotiating or project management)
• Sustainability and forward planning

Brokers

There is an important role for those who can broker the setting up of good collaborations: helping overcome negative perceptions, clarifying the advantages, setting out the route and arbitrating any differences of view. Good brokers will include national funding bodies and professional interest groups, and prominently the area museums councils. They should help in the process of creating regional collaborations, and supporting national - regional partnerships and links.

top

3. Rationalisation

Good and bad change

A sharp distinction should be drawn between crisis-led change and ordered rationalisation. The first has often been seen as the negative reason for the closure of a particular museum or the disposal of a collection, and is frequently triggered by a crisis in funding or a clash over de-accessioning ⁷ , Ordered rationalisation involves the proper stewardship of resources, when public objectives can better be served by consolidation across a city, region or field of collecting (MLA, 2001a). Recognition should also be given to a cycle of natural change which results in the opening and closure of smaller museums. Many of these may not be subsidised and may call on very little public support. A more complex issue arises when a medium-scale or larger museum is no longer required. Regional leadership, whether provided by a museum authority, a university or a regional agency is then essential to lead a strategic assessment towards rationalisation.

Factors for Change

Two sets of criteria can be considered when assessing whether a museum is really still required within a region. The first set focuses on the specific conditions which may apply:

• Easy access to similar or better collections
• Replicated collections
• Low visitor numbers
• Not valued by local people

There is also a broader set of criteria including the following factors:

• Cultural significance
• Economic/tourism contribution
• Community value
• Educational value

Many of these issues are likely to become the focus of attention under Best Value.

Oversight of change

Change through rationalisation needs enormous care. Issues of collections need to be disentangled from those of museums and galleries as institutions, as well as from the frequent complication of the proper use of historic buildings. The over-riding factor of the different needs and demands of local users will mean that one solution will not fit all, but the overview of a regional collecting agreement will help. Notwithstanding the difficulties, the climate across the sector is very much more conducive to well-considered change than in previous years.

top

4. The way forward: a new framework

Although declining resources may lie behind the reasoning for collaboration or rationalisation, both processes should be linked to the better management of resources for maximum public benefit ⁸ . Both processes will logically be better managed in a climate of positive development, as part of new investment in the sector. Either a carrot or a stick may be required in making change, but the carrot is the wise choice. With the right incentives, those involved will have a positive approach to change.

The principle to be recognised in adding resources to the sector is that of involving key regional museums and agencies in the process. This will ensure that a strategic overview is applied and will add value through advice and brokering: making connections between museums and galleries at a regional level.

Equally, there is a method to offering new funding to the regional museums which will be beneficial to their long term future. This method involves making a separation between two kinds of requirement referred to above.

• The need to support those regional collections which are of national importance and where these simply place too high a burden on the local authority, university or independent trust which manages them.
• The need to create regional ' hubs' or centres which can serve in a collaborative way to support the management and development of other regional and local collections, as well as increasing access to them.

In the first case (a kind of daughter of designation) there needs to be a more complex assessment by which collections should qualify for such support. This can also be a way of ensuring that the best advantage is taken of collaborative arrangements whether regional, national or even international. A sophisticated methodology for teasing out the respective roles of different types of organisations is needed. A draft matrix of the potential for change which might aid the proper assessment of particular museums or galleries as institutions within a regional context was considered by some members of this group.

Such a matrix could also be employed in the second case where funding is needed to support regional hubs or centres, as well as national specialist collaborations.

Any new framework must set out the connections between:

• A set of regional museums and galleries, connected through regional hubs, centres or networks
• A common national pool of expertise and knowledge
• A set of national collections supporting regional partners.

Within a national framework set out by MLA, the Area Museum Councils (or regional museums, libraries and archive councils) might be brought into the process of allocating resources as they can be important agents of change.

Wherever possible the guideline of regional self-determination should be applied. Partnerships and collaborations will develop out of satisfying need, not by dictat, whether applied at a national or regional level.

top

Notes

Please note: Use the 'Back' button on your browser to return to the text.

^{1 There have been two major episodes of changes to the structure of local government since the Local Government Act (1972), both of which have impacted on local authorities support for museums and galleries in different ways. The first was the abolition of the six metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council in 1986, after which their funding responsibilities were transferred to various national and regional funding bodies . The second, was the reorganisation of local government in England, Wales and Scotland. In Wales and Scotland the former two-tier structures were replaced in April 1996 by new unitary authorities. In England reorganisation was undertaken through the Local Government Commission's examination of the shire counties, and change was based on piecemeal reviews of different areas of the country. This resulted in an extended period of gradual change, and a patchwork of different structures in different areas. (For a summary of local government reorganisation see ACE, 2000).}

^{2 See Babbidge (2001: 4-9) for a detailed analysis of this process.}

^{3 MLA's draft Stewardship Strategy recommends an audit of the cultural heritage workforce ( MLA, 2001a).}

^{4 Babbidge (2001:30-31) summarises 'pay for the job' in the museums workforce}

^{5 For details of the complexities of the funding to the sector and an analysis of the value of levels of support from the Lottery distributors on a year-by-year basis, see Selwood (2001a; 2001b).}

^{6 It has already been proposed that MLA should investigate the extent to which management systems in museums, libraries and archives can inter-operate to share relevant information (MLA, 2001b: 2-1)}

^{7 See, for example, the history of museums operated in Kirklees Metropolitan Council, which reflects that of many local authorities in the second half of the 1990s (Davies, 2001)}

^{8 It has been suggested that while 'core funding from local authorities? held up remarkably well' over the second half of the 90s, the detailed analysis of 26 large regional museums and sector literature suggests that a number of other factors may have conspired to make life more difficult for regional collections than for some time before (MLA, 2000b: 4.6)}

top

Abbreviations

ACE Arts Council for England

DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DNH Department for National Heritage

GLLAM Group for Large Local Authority Museums

MTI Museums Training Institute

top

References

ACE (2000), Artstat. Digest of Arts Statistics and Trends in the UK 1986/87-1997/98. London: Arts Council of England

Arnold-Forster, K and Davies, S (1998) Collaboration Between Museums. London: Museums and Galleries Commission

Babbidge, A (2001) ?UK museums ? safe and sound??,Cultural Trends 37. London: Policy Studies Institute

Cox, A, Lamb, S, Orbach, C, Wilson, G ( 2000) A Shared Experience. A qualitative evaluation of family activities at three Tate sites. London: Tate

DCMS (1998) A New Cultural Framework. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DCMS (1999) Regional Cultural Consortiums. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DNH (1996) Treasures in Trust. London: Department of National Heritage

Davies, S (2001) 'Local authorities' in Selwood, S (ed.) The UK Cultural Sector: Profile and Policy Issues. London: Policy Studies Institute

MTI (1998) Review of Management Training and Development in the Museums, Galleries & Heritage Sector. Final Report. Museum Training Institute

Museums Association Ethics Committee (1999) Ethical Guidelines: Access. London: Museums Association

Nightingale, J (1999) ?Partnerships are vital for future funding?, Museums Journal, June 1999: 6

Pender, T (1997) Review of Area Museums Councils of England, Report to the Department of National Heritage. London: Department of National Heritage

MLA (2001a) Preserving the past for the future: A Stewardship Strategy for MLA. Draft. Prepared for MLA by Julie Carpenter, Education for Change; Nick Moore, Acumen; and, Sara Selwood, University of Westminster.

MLA (2001b) Information and Communications Technology and the Development of Museums, Archives and Libraries. A Strategic Plan for Action. London: MLA

MLA (2000a) Improving the relationship between national and non-national institutions. Board paper. London: MLA

MLA (2000b) Regional Collections. Towards a Sustainable Future. Discussion paper. London: MLA

Rothschild, Lord J, (2000), Speech at the Royal Academy Annual Dinner, 23 May (unpublished).

Selwood, S (2001a) ?Museums and Galleries? in Selwood, S (Ed) The UK Cultural Sector: Profile and Policy Issues. London: Policy Studies Institute

Selwood, S (2001b) ? The National Lottery? in Selwood, S (ed.) The UK Cultural Sector: Profile and Policy Issues. London: Policy Studies Institute

South East Museums Agency (2001) A Measure of Success. Winchester: South East Museums Agency

South West Museums Council (1999) Mapping Project 1999. Taunton: South West Museums Council

Smith, L (ed.) (2000) Building the Digital Museum: A National MLA for the Learning Age. London: MLA

West Midlands Regional Museums Council (2000a) Priorities for Museums Development in the West Midlands. Bromsgrove: West Midlands Regional Museums Council

West Midlands Regional Museums Council (2000b) Fast Forward. Appendix. Bromsgrove: West Midlands Regional Museums Council

Winsor, P (1999) ?Conservation in the UK?, Cultural Trends 33. London: Policy Studies Institute

top