Where is your wood stove?

by Cliff Quinn

In 1995, I knocked on the door of a small, whitewashed, log schoolhouse museum in central British Columbia. The museum was closed, but a note guided me next door to a bookkeeping business. Judith let me into the museum. As I walked alone through the collection looking at eyeglasses and wedding dresses, all nicely labelled with date and donor, something was missing. I heard no stories. I got no feeling for the town. Why was it there? Who were the people who owned these items? There were no answers. It was lonely and sad.

Was this your museum?

I have had a nagging thought in the back of my mind while building collections databases for museums and putting them on the web: what if people really don’t want to see all this stuff online? Back in 1994, I heard the Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN)’s National Database labeled as “uninteresting” because it was nothing but “curators talking to curators.” In all fairness, I think this criticism was true at the time. I do not think the public really wants to know the details about what museums usually claim as their most important asset: their collections.

Along with schools and libraries, museums have the reputation of being knowledge-based organizations. Sadly, like some schools, museums may see themselves, as Doug Worts described to me, “as authoritative warehouses that invite the public in to soak up the presumed inspired insights of staff about the collections.” No insult was intended; Doug is himself one of those very staff people. But I just can’t shake the feeling that sometimes museums exist in a vacuum, created by mandate and momentum, preserving whatever curios the public sends their way.

The Canadian Museums Association says that “museum ethics must reflect an ongoing dialogue between the museum community and the society it serves.” (Canadian Museums Association, 1995). I would expand on this and say that a museum's mandate must reflect the knowledge exchange between the museum and its community The picture that comes most readily to my mind is that of an old-time the general store: every day, the regulars sit around the wood stove, drinking coffee and offering their opinions on everything from politics to what should be stocked on the shelves of the store. Does your museum have a wood stove? Do you listen to what those regulars, visitors, docents, retired staff members, have to say?

Museums need to be able to identify the things they can do to link them to their communities. Interpretation programs need to draw on community resources and fill community needs. Museums need to know their own strengths and their weaknesses, then reinforce themselves using the strengths that often exist outside the walls of the museum, in the community itself. What's missing from the collection? Where are your gaps in knowledge? I believe the best place to look for resources to fill those gaps is to the community.

The knowledge-based museum can use objects in its collection as neurons in its memory. The knowledge it accumulates will reside in the spaces between these objects and in the stories provided by the people in the community. This new museum needs to recognize and nurture the network it is part of, and to help others see the importance of its role within that network.

Museums as Knowledge-Based Organizations

Knowledge is information in action: what you do with, and how you act on, all the information that you have collected. In this time of change and innovation, knowledge has become the key economic resource (Koulopoulus and Frappaolo, 1999).

Knowledge Management (KM) is creating value from what you know. It is capturing, organizing and storing, and making available what is in the heads of the people who contribute to your organization. Statistics Canada provides this definition: “knowledge management involves any systematic activity related to the capture and sharing of knowledge by the organization.” (Statistics Canada, 2002). This sounds like what museums have been doing all along. But is capturing knowledge anywhere in your mandate? The CMA defines a museum as an institution that “collects and preserves, studies, interprets, assembles and exhibits…objects and specimens of cultural value." (Canadian Museums Association, 2002). Likewise, ICOM describes a museum as something that “acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits…material evidence of people and their environment.” (ICOM, 2001). The problem with both of these definitions is that they are specific about material collections. What is intriguing is that both include words similar to “collecting, interpreting, exhibiting,” and most KM definitions also include three components: capturing, storing, sharing knowledge. These are the same activities, with a different focus. Museums already have the mandate to manage knowledge, but it seems that instead they are managing objects, because the wrong word was used in the definition. Every object in the collection does have at least one story, but most are silent, stories still locked in the heads of the donors, or gone with them to the grave. KM principles can provide insight and direction to museums wanting to capture and share the knowledge and culture of their communities. KM can provide a framework for capturing, managing, and viewing knowledge in a museum in the context of the communities around the museum.

People in Museums

Museums are built by, for, and around people. The curator works there. The town clerk drops by to see how her money is being spent. Teachers come by to see if it’s worth bringing the kids. Summer students are there to make a bit of money. Docents are there to share, guide, and help. Seniors come by to relive the past.

Docents, gallery educators or interpreters are often the main link between the community and the museum. “The framework for their work is the guided tour or program – a structured or semi-structured activity with an educational intent” (Castle, 2001). The semi-structured version of the program, however, is often based on what the docent knows. That knowledge walks out the door when the docent leaves.

Museums cannot "know" anything by themselves. They cannot contain knowledge in any kind of objective way. They contain objects. The people found in museums are where the knowledge resides. In the best case, this knowledge coincides with your collection and your people will know something about the stuff you have. Knowing is different from reading out of a book or a database. Knowing is understanding context and this is hard to capture.

KM Framework for Museums

So where to start? Don't focus on technology. Do focus on people. “Usually people begin a KM project by focusing on the technology needs, whether they want a database or a portal. But the key is people and process.” (Kaplan, 2002). It is important to select a strategic reason for implementing KM and then follow through with the planning, implementing, and assessing of a program to achieve that goal. Some examples of strategic objectives include: ensuring that people aren't lost by collecting basic biographies of all donors, docents, and staff; rationalizing your collection and collections policy by ensuring there is a story to go with every artefact; reducing turnover or increasing satisfaction in staff by building on their interests with training; and continuously improving the delivery of a program or service.

The Web and other technology tools can make museums more transparent to their communities than ever before. As the community looks through this window, effective management of what is inside becomes imperative and community input becomes crucial. Proper use of technology and tools can facilitate both internal management and public interface. To take advantage of the talents and skills of the community, the museum must expect the community to contribute. Managing the collection and assembly of content in museums becomes increasingly challenging as the responsibility for content contribution spreads beyond the walls of the museum. Electronic content management tools can fill the public interface with content.

How do we justify KM?

Results of KM initiatives rarely provide hard dollar figures. The return on investment (ROI) in KM systems is most often a combination of less tangible benefits. "[Institutions] that did translate their knowledge value into dollars said overwhelmingly that ROI was demonstrated through productivity increases...creating economic value in the workplace, even during the downshifting economy." (Delphi Group, 2002). Heritage institutions create value for the community and value for themselves through the culture, heritage, and memories that they preserve using KM. KM allows the organizations to function more efficiently and should create a more satisfying and rewarding environment for employees.

Figure 1. Traditional adaptation is by structural reorganization, often abandoning knowledge and experience in favour of new processes that soon become new problems.

Figure 2. A knowledge-based organization continually evaluates and discards ineffective behaviours while keeping the successful things its people have learned, relying on competence rather than structure. Let's try to align some of the justifications with strategic objectives:

• we can reduce replacement costs by keeping staff longer;
• we can reduce collections costs by only keeping the stuff we know about;
• we can improve the quality of the school programs;
• we can increase the number of people who come to workshops;
• we can get more volunteers.

Small galleries and museums can reap large benefits by applying KM principles to their operations and philosophies. Many technologies, including document management, search and retrieval, repositories, object technology, workflow, intranets, and portals, can contribute both to internal efficiency and external relationships in all organizations. Small staff numbers in small museums are an advantage when managing change: there are not as many people to convince or train. In addition, getting and keeping council and committee members on board is much easier in a small museum.

Recommendations

Davenport and Prusak (1998) offer five KM principles:

1. Foster awareness of the value of the knowledge sought and willingness to invest in the process of generating it.
2. Identify key knowledge workers who can be made into a supportive team.
3. Emphasize the creative potential in complexity and diversity. Avoid simple answers to complex questions.
4. Make the need for knowledge generation clear.
5. Introduce measures and milestones of success.

These principles emphasize the need to get all stake holders to buy into the knowledge philosophy. The community must believe in what the museum is doing or there must be a very strong proponent of KM in the community. Key people must work together to make something constructive and measurable happen. Start small and modular. Any of the following practices could be examined as places to start implementing KM:

Set goals. Look at your organization and define the strategic need.

Assess readiness in process, culture, technology, leadership, and measurement Are you ready to undertake this? Are the key players on board?

Change the culture. Change the mandate of the museum and perceptions in the community. Set policy that encourages openness and transparency of museum knowledge. Recognize that knowledge isn’t numbers, it’s stories.

Evaluate what you know. Conduct a knowledge audit in the museum, explore "Cultural Asset Mapping" (Dorfman, 1998) at the individual, museum, and community level, finding out what people know and what they want to share.

Identify tools (such as portals) that solve specific problems like content management, and encourage two-way transfer of knowledge.

Keep in mind that KM is a process and an attitude, not a piece of software. Make it easy for people to contribute and participate. Paper forms, free entry in return for tidbits of knowledge, web repositories, signature blocks on e-mails that ask questions, or pictures on a web site are all ways to get your community involved. The community knows more than the museum. Use the position and influence of the museums associations. Implement KM and knowledge-sharing solutions at the Association level to demonstrate their power and effectiveness. Share knowledge between Associations and museums. Make knowledge-sharing a national and international issue Lead. Associations and senior museums should stay current through their technology programs with standards such as XML (a new model for data storage and retrieval) that will make the information held by museums more accessible. Associations should demonstrate the implementation of new standards and tools wherever possible. Managing knowledge in museums is not a new concept, but making this process an explicit part of your mandate is. Collections have always been central to museums' operations but now the focus must expand to include not just objects, but all the stories represented by those objects. KM can instruct the change in culture necessary to recognize, capture, organize and share the cultural assets of the community. Knowledge Management focus in museums will help managers clarify their job, the generation of new knowledge based on knowledge of the museum's community. Whatever the size or location of your institution, applying KM principles will allow you to learn more from your community, your staff, and your volunteers. The former will build links so strong that the community would never consider letting the museum go. The latter will build such strong staff loyalty that the museum will always have the best people and the most efficient organization.

References

Canadian Museums Association. 1995. Bylaws of the Canadian Museums Association. Ottawa: Canadian Museums Association.

Canadian Museums Association. 2002. From the CMA definition of ethics. Ottawa: Canadian Museums Association. Retrieved from http://museums.ca/ethics/definitions.htm 2002/07/01.

Castle, Margaret Christine. 2001. Interpreters, docents and educators: ways of knowing, ways of teaching in a history museum, an art gallery, and a nature centre. PhD thesis at the University of Toronto. Retrieved from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/NQ63617 2002/07/19.

Davenport TH, Prusak L. 1998. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. p154.

Delphi Group. 2001. Content and Knowledge Management in Practice. Retrieved from http://www.delphigroup.com/research/reports/cm_km_in_practice.htm 2002/7/27.

Dorfman, D. 1998. Mapping Community Assets Workbook. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 20p.

ICOM. 2001. ICOM Statutes. International Council of Museums. Retrieved from http://www.icom.org/statutes.html 2002/05/07.

Kaplan S. 2002. KM the right way. CIO Magazine July 15, 2002. Koulopoulus TM, Frappaolo C. 1999. Smart things to know about knowledge management. Milford, CT: Capstone.

Statistics Canada. 2002. Survey of Knowledge Management Practices. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.ca/english/concepts/pdf/science/0506-1.pdf 2002/5/15.