Sharing the R+D load with other museums

Richard Urban at Museumatic rightly brought up the issue of inter-museum competition in a recent post. Understandably, some museums emulate others when bits of good practice come along, but wouldn't a more collaborative approach get us all further faster? The point is:

Working together to develop a community-wide research agenda that can then disseminate information and resources out to the community as a whole seems like a responsible and ethical way to approach this problem.... A research lab seems to be something we are seriously lacking here in museumland.... Who am I missing that does this kind of research on other kinds of museumtechnology issues?

Well, in the UK context, the London Museums Hub captures some of this collaborative spirit. The LMH is a partnership between 4 London museums (including the London Transport Museum, where I work), designed to share skills and improve capacity, with the aim of disseminating shared learning to other museums in the region.

Perhaps an even more radical approach could be taken, where more energy is devoted to shared R+D work. What I mean is a kind of think tank approach, where partners even take part in combined brainstorming, and envisioning of museum futures. I have to come clean and say that I'm not really fully in the loop here: it may be that this kind of thing is already going on, either/both formallly or/and informally. If it hasn't been formalised, then there is clearly an opportunity here.

If we think creatively beyond the competition for funding, there may be a way to have our cake and eat it. The whole point of sharing is that the more you do it the better it works. What is unique about any given museum? It's collections. If we work together to develop technologies that can drive improvement in the user experience--even beyond the framework provided by LMH, new and productive combinations might be possible. The growing museum blogosphere is evidence of a collaborative ethos. Let's make the most of it. Overly idealistic? Maybe. Worth thinking about? Definitely.

Offline/online: changing the rules of engagement

It all started with digitisation.

Naturally, this generally works in one direction: offline to online. Objects are photographed; records cleaned, updated, expanded; a user interface designed, tested and launched. All very well.


There's nothing at all wrong with this picture of course: digital collections are fantastic resources and do much to improve access.

Interestingly, though, the process of producing digital collections introduces a limitation at the most basic level. This approach enshrines the opposition 'offline/online' or 'physical/virtual'. This, again, makes perfect sense. Physical objects pre-date their virtual avatars, just as museums have a long pre-digital history.

One consequence worth highlighting is that this creates a reactive relationship: work is done offline, and then this is translated into a given online presence. We've done this offline thing, now we'll put it online--create an online version. A common reflex is to do this with print publications, though there's a growing awareness that what works in print doesn't often work online.

But it's too easy to replicate this way of working across the board, which stunts the process of innovation somewhat.

If museums are going to capitalise on the potential of online (including of course web 2.0 tools and platforms), then this must surely begin with a rethinking of the planning process. This could start with a focus on what participants will gain from the experience, not how this will happen. The point is to take a holistic view so as to undercut 'offline vs. online thinking'.

Thinking in terms of a mixed economy of delivery channels might also yield interesting results. If a project's key deliverables are conceived as offline (a print publication, a temporary exhibit,
a museum-based interactive), then perhaps inevitably, 'online' is short-changed (can anyone remember a project that was meant to have an online component, but that there was no provision in the project budget to pay for it?).

Physical deliverables, like traditional museum objects, are comforting. But it's time to start thinking outside the display case. And this is something of a risk--though a diminishing one.
Online must be integral to project planning, so that it's chosen because it can add value to the project. Everyone who plans projects is now responsible for understanding at least some of
the ways the digital delivery channel can be used, and the innovative options it opens up.

At bottom, this comes down to basics. What sort of institution do you want to be? Web 2.0 means that what was once A to B is now perpetual motion. Even when online interaction between a community of visitors (which includes the museum itself) doesn't lead directly to a visit, it adds critical value. Visitors are getting used to becoming contributors. Are you getting up to speed?