Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Papyrus Spring 2004


Published on

Papyrus Spring 2004

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Papyrus Spring 2004

  1. 1. Join us in Boston from September 19 to 22, 2004 for this year’s annual IAMFA conference. Although the New England Chapter is just getting organized, we’re looking forward to bringing you a great conference experience. Boston offers some of the country’s best museums and galleries, and is steeped in the history of early America. From the Freedom Trail to Fenway Park, and the Italian North End to Beacon Hill, Boston has something for everyone. Your hosts this year include facilities managers from several area institutions: Jim Labeck of the Isabella Stuart Gardner Museum, David Geldart of the Museum of Fine Arts, Robert Monk of the Peabody Essex Museum, David Roth of the Children’s Museum, David Grimard of the Currier Gallery and John Lannon of the Boston Athenaeum. Since the decision to host this year’s annual conference was made fairly recently, the program is still evolving. As of this writing, however, topics under consideration include lighting, security, green buildings and fire safety. In addition to an informative and enjoyable program of speakers and panelists, this year’s con- ference will also feature a small-scale trade show introducing participants to new facilities-related products and services. We also plan to visit each of the IAMFA member facilities in the area, and will certainly ensure that you sample as much of Boston’s famous hospitality and cuisine as we can fit in. As always, an active Guest Program will be part of this year’s conference, with visits to some of the area’s most popular attractions. There is a wide range of boat trips, mansion tours, whale watching expeditions and more to choose from. Free time will be programmed in as well, to allow guests a chance to explore Boston and the surrounding area on their own. Our hotel accommodations will be at the Back Bay Hilton. This hotel is located in Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood, which features an actual continuum of nineteenth century urban residential architecture. This is largely due to the fact that the landfill operation, which created Back Bay, took place over a number of decades—each of which had specific architectural styles. Most of our program destinations make it possible to use Boston’s extensive subway and bus system. We are looking into providing a weekly pass for all participants and guests. For more distant venues, we will board special buses and enjoy some of the sights along the way. We will be firming up details of the conference over the next few months—look PAPYRUSVOLUME 5 SPRING NUMBER 1 2004 New England Calling—The 14th Annual IAMFA Conference I N T E R N A T I O N A L A S S O C I A T I O N O F M U S E U M F A C I L I T Y A D M I N I S T R A T O R S continued on page 2 Boston Athenaeum—second floor reading room. INSIDE THIS ISSUE Letter from the President. . . . . . . . . 3 Regional Chapters Update. . . . . . . . 4 Wet Collections Facility Design . . . . 6 Electrical Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . 12 Benchmarking Review . . . . . . . . . . 13 Are you a Lifelong Learner?. . . . . . . 17 Treasurer’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 From the Editor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . 20
  2. 2. for an update on all conference activities in the summer issue of Papyrus. To enhance your conference exper- ience this year, I would also like to encourage all of you to participate in the Benchmarking Survey conducted by Ian Follett and Nancy Nauss of Facility Management Services. Those who have taken part in the survey in previous years have always learned a great deal, coming away with valuable comparative data concerning museum facilities. For more information, please contact Ian or Nancy in Calgary, Canada at 403-259-5964 or at Although this activity is separate from the actual conference, it has become a highly enjoyable and intensive lead-in to our three-day extravaganza. We look forward to seeing you in Boston this fall, for what we know will be a fabulous time in New England— just as our glorious autumn begins to take hold throughout the region. James Moisson Chairperson, 2004 IAMFA Conference IAMFA 2004 IN BOSTON The New England Chapter welcomes you! September 19–22, 2004 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUM FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS Ⅺ YES! Sign me up to attend the 2004 IAMFA Annual Conference in Boston, Massachusetts, USA Name: ___________________________________________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Institution:_______________________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________________ Postal/Zip Code: _________________ State/Province/County: ______________________ Country: _________________________ Phone: ________________________________ Fax: ____________________________________ E-mail: ________________________________ @ ______________________________________ Special dietary requirements:____________________________________________________ ALL FEES ARE PAYABLE IN U.S. DOLLARS Ⅺ Member conference fee: $375 (after Sept. 1, add $50) Ⅺ Non-member conference fee: $425 (after Sept. 1, add $50) Ⅺ Sign me up as a new member: $150 Ⅺ Guest program fee: $250 (after Sept. 1, add $50) Ⅺ One-day attendance fee: $150 per day Ⅺ MON Ⅺ TUE Ⅺ WED I require an invoice: Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No Please remit to: International Association of Museum Facility Administrators (IAMFA) P.O. Box 7518 Atlanta GA 30357-0518 USA SUGGESTED ACCOMMODATION We have reserved a limited number of hotel rooms at the Boston Back Bay Hilton for the period of Saturday, September 18 through Wednesday, September 22. The conference rate is $165 per night per room, single or double occupancy. Early hotel registration is strongly recommended during this busy season in Boston. To contact the Back Bay Hilton directly, call 617-236-1100. Ask for Reservations and make sure to mention the IAMFA conference to get the special rate. Or, you may call 1-800-HILTONS and ask for the Boston Back Bay Hilton. If you do prefer to do business with a different hotel, or if the Hilton is full, please bear in mind that we plan to make frequent use of the MBTA subway system. Please check the IAMFA website for updates at: ¡New England Calling—cont’d from page 1 Entrance to Museum of Fine Arts. Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University. ©PRESIDENTANDFELLOWSOFHARVARDCOLLEGE 2
  3. 3. 3 Dear IAMFA Members, I hope this spring issue of Papyrus finds everyone well. On behalf of all the attendees of the San Francisco Confer- ence, I would like to again thank Joe Brennan and the California Chapter of IAMFA for hosting a truly memorable conference. Joe and his support team somehow arranged perfect weather for our 13th Annual IAMFA gathering. (Let’s hope the streak continues!) A note of interest to all our members: we have a change in our upcoming 2004 annual conference site. We had originally planned for Pittsburgh as the site of the 2004 conference. However, Larry Armstrong had to withdraw, and Boston has become our site for the 2004 conference. James Moisson of the Harvard University Art Museums, along with his colleagues in the New England Chapter of IAMFA, have gracefully accepted our request to host the 2004 conference. Information about the conference and the guest program is included in this issue of Papyrus, and more detailed information will be avail- able in the summer issue. The dates set for this year’s conference are—mark your calendars—September 19–22, 2004, and I’m sure we’ll all enjoy a Tea Party of our own. In other related news, I’m pleased to announce that Larry Banister of the Milwaukee Public Museum has accepted the Board position of Secretary and Papyrus Editor. Larry has already attended the mid-year IAMFA Board Meeting, which was held in Boston, and is now well on his way with this, his first issue of Papyrus. I would like to welcome Larry and his support staff, and thank them for their efforts and willingness to join the IAMFA Board. Once again, I would like to endorse the Museum Benchmarking Survey which Ian Follett from Facility Manage- ment Services Ltd. will be conducting. The results of this survey will again be part of our program in Boston. If you haven’t received a survey participation application, you can contact Ian by e-mail at This data is worth every effort!! To learn more about the benefits of benchmarking, please see pages 13–16 in this issue which includes information from the San Francisco conference, as well as a Survey Participation Agreement for the 2004 Benchmarking event in Boston this September. This year has brought the retirement of some of our longest-serving members, and they will be greatly missed. We extend our best to all of them and wish them well. These retirements leave some vacancies in our organization, however, and I urge each of you to help recruit new members to fill the void. As you know, growth is important in any organization, so let’s all encourage new members to join us, as others move on. As the President of IAMFA, many e-mails are forwarded to me regarding facilities issues, and I’m fortunate to experience the dialogue that relates to the core mission of our association. Solving facility issues with the input of others, and learning from others’ exper- iences helps our members immeasurably during difficult times. It’s very comforting to realize that we stand united in sup- porting each other. I commend our members for their willingness to take time to correspond when called upon. As many of you may know, this September we will have two Board positions open, and we will need to have a slate to present during our annual business meeting. If any of you are interested in running for a Board position—or know of someone who is—please contact any current board member so that we can include all the names before this year’s annual elections, which will take place at our September conference. We look forward to seeing you in September, and may Spring bring much sunshine and fresh outlook towards better things to come. William Caddick President, IAMFA Letter from the President IAMFA President, Bill Caddick IAMFA Board of Directors President Bill Caddick Art Institute of Chicago Chicago, USA V.P., Administration Guy Larocque Canadian Museum of Civilization and Canadian War Museum Gatineau, Canada V.P., Regional Affairs Toby Greenbaum Library & Archives of Canada and the National Museums Gatineau, Canada Treasurer Kevin Streiter High Museum of Art Atlanta, USA Secretary and Papyrus Editor Larry Bannister Milwaukee Public Museum Milwaukee, USA Chairman — Conference 2004 Jim Moission Harvard University Art Museums Cambridge, USA Chairman — Conference 2004 Rogelio Diez Museo Guggenheim-Bilbao Bilbao, Spain For additional contact information, please visit our website at
  4. 4. 4 Well, it’s a new year and, as most of you know, I am the new Vice-President of Regional Affairs for IAMFA. Those of you who were lucky enough to participate in our last conference in San Francisco will know that there are plenty of challenges in front of us— both collectively as a group, and as Regional Chapters. We have several ongoing chapters (it takes only five member organizations in good standing to form a Regional Chapter), and several new chapters in the works. We also have chapters that have been highly active in the past, but which now seem to have lost their vital signs as original members retire or move on to bigger and better things. First, let’s talk about possible new chapters. Several of our newer members have taken on the challenge of organi- zing new Regional Chapters. Joe May (J. Paul Getty Trust) in Los Angeles, California is working towards estab- lishing a Southern California chapter. IAMFA has also received interest from an institution in Amsterdam. In addition, Patricia Morgan from the Auckland Art Gallery in Auckland, New Zealand is organizing IAMFA’s first chapter in the southern hemisphere. If any IAMFA members have ideas on establishing new chapters, or have names of institu- tions and facilities managers who should be contacted, please let me know. I’d also like to share some of our recent successes. We now have a new regional chapter in the Northeastern United States. The New England Chapter of IAMFA not only discovered that they had an instant chapter after their atten- dance at our September conference (yes—there were already five member organizations in the area), but has also volunteered to organize our next one! Jim Labeck (Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum) is the Regional Chair, while Jim Moisson (Harvard University Art Museums) is the Chair of the Conference team. They clearly will have their hands full over the next several months orga- nizing another praiseworthy conference, which—as those of your who have organized a conference can attest— always leads to an even stronger regional chapter. They have already attracted two new members: Bob Monk (Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts), and David Grimard (Currier Museum of Art in Manchester, New Hampshire). Furthermore, in November, the gang in Boston attended a forum called “Alliance for Response” held by the Heritage Emergency National Task Force. This is the second forum, sponsored by the Heritage Emergency National Task Force, related to cultural heritage and disaster management (taskforce@ The goals of these forums are to: • provide education on local disaster management issues and protocols; • raise awareness of the need to protect cultural and historical resources; • encourage disaster planning and mitigation, and • develop strong networks to facilitate effective local response. Jim Moisson reported back that the workshop was more than worthwhile, with good attendance by institutions and service providers from throughout New England. I would like to welcome our New England chapter into the IAMFA fold and wish them good luck—and of course any help we can provide— in organizing the next conference. News from the Northern California Chapter has come to us via Joe Brennan. The Chapter will be meeting quarterly during 2004, with their first meeting held this February at the Oakland Museum of California. The Northern California Chapter is actively seeking new members both from museum institutions, and from vendors and consultants as contributing members. Joe and his Chapter wanted to thank everyone once again for making the conference in September an informative and enjoyable event. IAMFA members would, in turn, like to thank Joe and his crew for organizing a pleasant and eventful conference for the edification of us all. Peter Fotheringham reports from London that the U.K. Chapter met in Edinburgh on December 5. Fifteen institutions were represented from Edinburgh, Liverpool and London. They had a very informative day organized by Robert Galbraith at the National Galleries of Scotland, and came away with much useful informa- tion that will be worth following up. The morning was spent with a series of presentations on topics such as energy conservation and advances in lighting technology. The afternoon was spent visiting Robert’s new purpose- built storage unit, and walking through his large construction project. He is Toby Greenbaum, Chairperson, Regional Chapter, Ottawa-Gatineau Canada Regional Chapters
  5. 5. 5 certainly very busy and will have an excellent new facility at the National Gallery once work is completed this summer. Many thanks to Robert for hosting the day! The U.K. Chapter agreed that its next meeting will be held at the Science Museum’s new Dana Centre in London on March 12, 2004. The Dana Centre is adjacent to the main Science Museum, and is also very close to the Natural History Museum’s Spirit Building, which will provide attendees with an oppor- tunity to see the Spirit Building and the Science Museum’s Welcome Wing. The meeting will be jointly hosted by the Science Museum and the Natural History Museum. The meeting has been timed to allow Graham Pellow of the Natural History Museum to chair the meeting prior to his retirement. Many of you will remember Graham from his visits to annual conferences, and the Chapter hopes to give him a good send-off on that day. The Ottawa Chapter held its first meeting of this session in February at the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology, with a presentation of the Long-Term Development Plan for the Canada Aviation Museum presented by Bob Chartrand, Executive Director, Major Capital Projects. Future topics and meeting times have yet to be established, but will be reported upon in the next issue of Papyrus. The New York Chapter needs to be recharged, as its Chair, Lloyd Headly has moved on to a new job within the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, and most of the remaining membership has retired. IAMFA will be lobbying the new facilities managers in our member institutions to try to resuscitate the New York chapters. Straight from the Smithsonian, Fletcher Johnston reports that IAMFA has gone underground. The Smithsonian has been undergoing a very slow reorganization to a single facilities management organization for all the museums in the Smithsonian family. This centralized organization is now in place, and the hope is that, rather than spending a lot of time reacting to the changing priorities of an organiza- tional influx, more time will be available in the Spring to jump-start IAMFA activities. Meanwhile, internal training on benchmarking and other pertinent facilities subjects have been taking place, so the Washington IAMFA gang has been keeping in touch. We hope you are all taking advantage of any opportunity to lobby on behalf of IAMFA with your museum colleagues. Please let me know if I can be of any help in recruiting or in establishing new chapters, or in helping in the ongoing business of your existing chapters. Thank you to the chairpersons who have kindly provided me with the updates that I have shared with you on these pages (and please forgive me for the liberties I took with the information you sent me!). I am looking forward to hearing more about the regional chapters in the near future! Toby Greenbaum Vice-President Regional Affairs, IAMFA Chairpersons of Regional Chapters Ottawa-Gatineau Chapter, Canada Terresa McIntosh Portrait Gallery of Canada Northern California Chapter, USA Joe Brennan San Francisco Museum of Modern Art New England Chapter, USA James Labeck Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Jim Moisson 2004 IAMFA Conference Chair Harvard University Art Museums New York Chapter, USA Looking for a new Chairperson United Kingdom Chapter Peter Fotheringham National Gallery, London Washington/Baltimore Chapter, USA Fletcher Johnston Hirshorn Museum & Sculpture Garden Future Chapters Southern California Chapter, USA Joe May J. Paul Getty Trust New Zealand Chapter Patricia Morgan Auckland Art Gallery — Toi O Tamaki Atlanta Chapter, USA Kevin Streiter High Museum of Art Bilboa Chapter, Spain Rogelio Diez Museo Guggenheim-Bilbao Chicago, USA William Caddick Art Institute of Chicago
  6. 6. 6 By current codes and standards, the safety of a Hipopta agavis specimen is treated in the same way as the Palos Verde Blue: a different kind of butterfly caterpillar you might find in a museum. This would not be so troubling, except that the Hipopta agavis specimen being referred to here is the “worm” in tequila (actually it’s in mescal), and the location is a distillery, not a museum collection storage facility. But the specimens in your wet collections are significantly more valuable, and it is just this issue that begins to separate and inform how difficult it is to properly plan and design a wet collection facility. The Smithsonian Institution’s (SI) National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) wet collections are among the largest in the world, and contain over 18 million wet collection specimens primarily from vertebrate and inverte- brate zoology, herpetology, and fish collections. Containers range from several hundred-gallon stainless steel tanks with sharks, to 100-year-old five-gallon (18.9 liter) brittle glass con- tainers to two-ounce (59.1 ml) vials. The collections are primarily stored in 75% ethyl alcohol, which is the key hazard commodity. Facilities and equip- ment currently used by CM and research staff range from Second World War surplus to modern research tools such as a scanning electron microscope. The key factor driving the SI decision to build this facility is the safety of the public, staff, and collections, followed by preservation of these collections, and the desire to open up space at the NMNH building on the National Mall. In the pre-planning process, a deci- sion was made to move these collections with staff to a new facility at the Museum Support Center (MSC) in suburban Maryland. The case statement developed in 2002 defined a project scope of 150,000 square feet (13,800 m2), with roughly 110,000 square feet (10,120 m2) for collections storage, 30,000 square feet (2,787 m2) for collections manage- ment (CM) and research, and 10,000 square feet (929 m2) for support and corridor space. After an appropriation from Congress in mid-2003, the project proceeded into programming and design in the Fall of 2003. The Smithsonian assembled an in-house client team that included SI staff (collections manage- ment, researchers, architects, engineers, and safety and health professionals), MSC staff, Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations (OFEO) staff including architects and engineers, the SI Office of Safety and Environmental Management (OSEM) including safety and health pro- fessionals, and EwingCole as design architects and engineers. The schedule mandated completion of project design in early Summer 2004, in order to bid and award the contract by Fall of 2004 to fulfill the requirements of the appropriation. This article highlights issues that influenced the final design and, while not a template or checklist, it serves as a case study of the complexity and elevated costs associated with a wet collection storage facility. Some issues are “local” to the project; others are more universal to wet collections. For the most part, the issues around the CM and research lab wing are similar to those encountered at any wet lab, and will not be the focus here. Process With an extremely tight timeframe for a project of this scope, the EwingCole design team elected to start the process in September 2003, with a three-day charrette (workshop) that was attended by 25 users from the NMNH and MSC, the cognizant safety and health author- ities, and designers, in order to set the tone for a collaborative process sensi- tizing the different project partners to each others’ concerns. The process Beyond Hipopta agavis— Wet Collections Facility Design by Walter L. Crimm and Bryan L. Stemen Smithsonian Museum Support Center (existing Pod 3)—Wet Collection Specimen shelving and storage. Photo: Mickel Yantz, Smithsonian Institution.
  7. 7. 7 proved invaluable in setting the stage for project scope as well as “building a team view” of the project. For the purposes of this article, all issues were divided into eight categories which influenced the design: 1. User Programmatic Space Needs 2. User and Facility Operational Protocols 3. Site Issues 4. Local Jurisdictional Input 5. Safety and Risk/Hazard Assessment 6. Building Core and Shell Design 7. Building Systems Selection and Design 8. Schedule and Budget Remarkably, by the end of the three- day charrette, most of the issues were identified, criteria for decision-making were established, and a work plan and milestone schedule for SI and EwingCole activity was developed and approved. The charrette reinforced that each of these issues was linked, setting the stage for a process that was iterative, demanding that team members balance each issue in light of its impact on the other issues. Through a process lasting three months, the team met regularly to discuss these issues and find solutions which would best meet the criteria set for the project. What was discovered was that, unlike most collections faci- lities, the process was not linear and was driven by very complex issues that did not lend themselves to “off-the-shelf” solutions. In brief, these issues include: 1. User Programmatic Space Needs • Storage Pod—The amount of floor space needed was determined by face area of shelving, assuming shelves were 12 inches (300 mm) or 18 inches (450 mm) deep, and no higher than seven feet to the top of the highest shelf. The face area approach allowed the design team to measure what was currently used and apply factors for height of shelves and density of bottles on shelving, in direct comparison to current space. The users set criteria that the Pod should accommodate 20 years of growth—based on the past five years of growth, which have been fueled by orphaned or de-accessioned collections, as well as the arrival of new field specimens. • Collections Management and Research Space—Space programming began with independent space for each collections’ team, customized to fit different work styles, as well as the frequency of collection movement for loans to other researchers around the world. A shared bulk alcohol, glass jar, and shipping material storage area was developed to pro- vide general storage space, which was severely lacking in past facility design. The collections management group also needed significant space for processing incoming collections, for relabeling, and for moving speci- mens from one fluid medium to another. 2. User and Facility Operational Protocols Currently, some activities take place within the wet collection storage areas that do not satisfy the health and safety criteria set by the SI. New protocols Smithsonian Museum Support Center (existing Pod 3)—Wet Collection shelving and tank storage array. continued on page 8
  8. 8. 8 were thus established at the outset; these protocols were felt to be realistic and achievable, since better support space would be adjacent to the storage pod. • Storage Pod—Since the specimen bottles and tanks within the Pod allow evaporation and their sheer quantity does not make replacement feasible, it was agreed that the Pod would be safer if minimal ongoing collections maintenance and research activity occurred within the area. The design of the Pod as a limited occupancy space allowed the design team to simplify building systems. Since large tanks are difficult to transport—and allow tremendous evaporation due to their surface areas when lids are removed—an exami- nation lab was designed to fit within the Pod as independent spaces to provide a safe working environment. • Emergency Response—A protocol was developed for response to dif- fering events, advising staff when to respond themselves, when to call building security/safety staff, and when to call the local fire department. Space was provided to accommodate any necessary emergency equipment. • Collections Management and Research—Most facility research labs are wet, but use minimal equipment and solvents to perform their work. Maximum amounts of alcohol per space were established to limit fire risk. Labs were designed to be modular in order to allow flex- ibility, except for fixed infrastructure equipment such as fume hoods, exhaust snorkels, and sinks. Within the research labs, glassed-in office space was developed to provide a safe separate working environment from wet areas. 3. Site Issues • Zoning—The Museum Support Center is a complex previously developed by the SI. Since the SI is a Federal Government entity, public review was minimal. • Geotechnical reports showed that differential settlement of the very heavy building (concrete, filled with liquids) would be likely without substantial strip footings. This proved to be an expensive budgetary cost. • Utility capacity investigation indicated deficiencies in two areas: — Electrical power in the area grid has proven unreliable and of poor quality, forcing the use of two incoming services to provide redundancy in the case of inter- ruption from one substation. — The fire protection water supply was limited to a single 10-inch main looping around the MSC, and was being supplied from a single tap at the street. Given the severe fire water demand requirements for the commodity class being protected, the maximum size of each storage compartment within the Pod was limited to approximately 4,800 square feet (441.6 m2), forcing the building to be divided into 18 compartments which had an adverse impact on the efficiency of compactor shelving. Additionally, it added a series of two-hour fire-rated barriers around each of the interior compartments, which resulted in more zones for the building systems such as HVAC, along with the attendant costs. • Site Footprint—The footprint was limited by setbacks from the road, distances to existing facilities, and parking, thus forcing the building to be three stories in height. This increased the size of footings and their associated costs • Setbacks—Due to the hazards of the building, the site previously selected had to be modified to keep proper distances from local roads, forcing removal of some existing parking, as well as relocation of Overhead view of existing Wet Collections storage at the Smithsonian Museum Support Center (existing Pod 3). Beyond Hipopta agavis—continued from page 7
  9. 9. 9 the building fire lane and the fire service main and fire hydrants. • Building Height—While free from local restrictions, the height of the building was taller than the existing facility by approximately 12 feet (3.64 meters), and the deviation was beyond what was originally envisioned in master planning established for the complex. The deviation had to be reviewed and approved by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) for final approval. 4. Local Jurisdictional Issues Never underestimate the importance of this part of the design process. As a Federal Government entity, the Smithsonian was in a position to set the fire protection, health and safety criteria for inhabitants and collections. This is fortunate, given the complexity of the project and the lack of clear governing codes (prescriptive codes) to deal with the issues previously described. The design process started by working with prescriptive codes—including the International Building Code and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) criteria, among others—and supplemented performance-based design in certain areas to reach an adequate level of safety as determined by the SI’s Safety and Health profes- sionals. While the requirements in a local jurisdiction might be less stringent, the process of reaching consensus might be much more difficult, given the complexity of the project and the gen- eral lack of knowledge on the subject of fluid-based collections and the hazards with which they are asso- ciated. Working closely with the users and EwingCole design team, these issues were discussed in the first three-day workshop, and continued throughout the design process. 5. Safety and Risk/Hazard Assessment Properly defining the potential hazards and preliminary storage configurations which could adversely affect the safety of people, collections and the facility was the first step in determining an acceptable level of fire safety within Pod 5. Following hazard identification, the exercise involved postulating a series of potential scenarios or events with anticipated consequences (Failure Mode vs. Consequences), as well as determining the likelihood of the event occurring. From this process, a reason- able baseline was established, in order to develop an umbrella of protective features aimed at limiting the severity of possible events to an acceptable level. Predicated upon this concept, Pod 5’s basis of design incorporates multiple protective features to reduce or mitigate the consequences of potential events to the lowest achievable levels. The protection scheme does not rely upon one system or protective feature, but builds in layers of protection that strive for a higher level of safety beyond basic code minimums. The basic guidelines for the assess- ment of risk, and defining an acceptable level of safety within Pod 5, can be broken down into three priorities and a simple equation. Priority One is protection of people, Priority Two is protection of collections, and Priority Three is protection of property (the facility). An oversimplified equation may be as follows: Acceptable (PEOPLE) Loss = 0 + Acceptable (Collections) Loss or Damage = As close to zero as reasonably achievable based on postulated scenarios. + Acceptable (Property – Building) Loss or Damage = As close to zero as reasonably achievable based on postulated scenarios. = An Acceptable Level of Fire Safety within Pod 5 Defining an acceptable level of risk and/or fire safety within such a complex facility can be extremely challenging. It should be understood from the begin- ning that wet collection hazards are truly unique, and that much of the prescriptive code criteria does not always answer the issues that arise. It is certainly not a one-to-one correlation in many cases. Thus, performance-based design, infor- med by prescriptive codes, may need to be developed to properly address such issues and provide a suitable level of protection for people, the collections, and the facility. Smithsonian Museum Support Center (existing Pod 3)—Wet Collection Specimen shelving and storage. Photo: Mickel Yantz, Smithsonian Institution. continued on page 10
  10. 10. 10 A summary of risk lessons: • Identify the potential hazards early in the design and continue to further define and refine the hazards list as the design process develops. • Stay focused on human safety as a primary concern through the selection of building components and systems, and ensure that thorough protection meshes with these elements. • Attempt to define what is an accept- able level of loss for collections and property, with the intent to keep this loss as low as achievable. • Don’t base your protection scheme design on one system or protective feature, but incorporate layers of protection from multiple features to ensure a balanced design. 6. Building Core and Shell Design • Structure—To accommodate the weight of the contents—as well as to minimize pockets in the structure, floor-to-floor heights, and the ability to provide a four-hour fire-rated wall around the Pod—concrete was selec- ted for the building structure. The location of the project adjacent to other collections storage facilities made vibration during construction a concern, forcing the building to be moved farther away, and resulting in relocation of some current surface parking. • Building Shell—Following the prece- dents on the site, as well as to achieve a four-hour fire rating to separate the building from adjacent collections storage buildings, precast concrete was selected. The roof material was selected for its compatibility with fumes being exhausted onto the roof. • Compartments within the Pod—As previously discussed, within the Pod, two-hour fire-rated multi-zoning compartments were developed to limit the spread of an event. This also forced multi-zoning of building systems, providing fire-rated corridors, and numerous other expenses. A fire within one compartment would only have an impact on a small percentage of the collection. • Compact Shelving—Despite its high cost, compact shelving is ultimately less expensive than building addi- tional floor space for a structure in which only a limited number of users would be present. However, compactors could not achieve their full efficiency since six-inch stops had to be utilized to ensure that shelving units were spaced far enough apart to allow fire sprinklers to achieve the desired coverage on the lower shelves and below the compactors. Manual compactors were felt to be safer, keeping the source of potential ignition out of the Pod, in addition to the fact that no manufacturer could be identified which made an electrical compactor approved for use in the hazardous environment. However, units were grounded to minimize static charge build-ups should they occur. Few manufac- turers are capable of producing compactors for this loading capacity. The tracks for the compact-shelving units were set flush to the floor. The gaps between rails and con- crete flooring were increased and grated to develop a reservoir with the capacity to contain the amount of fluid that could be spilled in any event. Since the local water/sewer authority would not permit intro- duction of certain concentrations of alcohol, the reservoir was enlarged, and drains were set up two inches, so that fire protection discharge would dilute any alcohol prior to its discharge down the drain. • The CM and research wing was more straightforward within the parameters of what would be expected for a research facility. The most critical aspects were providing individual controls for HVAC systems, dimmable lighting, and efficiency in designing the building systems to grid these areas without compromising flexibility now or in the future. Alcohol-resistant floor, wall and ceiling finishes were specified. 7. Building Systems Selection and Design Building systems are interrelated to the protocols and uses in the storage Pod and CM research areas. Wherever possible, devices and systems were kept out of the storage areas to minimize the need for service within the Pod, and to reduce the chance of fire or explosion. • Fire Protection for the Pod does not rely solely on one system type but on a variety of systems to provide layered protection. The protection scheme is truly a balanced design, and incorporates innovative auto- matic sprinkler protection using a high density of .6 gpm/sq. ft. (24.41 l/m/m2) over a maximum area of approximately 4,200 sq. ft. (386.4 m2), coordinated with heat baffles and floor spread control trench drains, hydrocarbon gas detection, a complete fire detection and alarm Smithsonian Museum Support Center (Existing Pod 3) Specimen Shelving Array and Wet Collections Storage. Photo: Julie Hoskin, Smithsonian Institution. Beyond Hipopta agavis—continued from page 9
  11. 11. 11 system, Hazardous Location Electrical Fixtures (Class 1, Division 2 per NFPA 70—The National Electrical Code), standpipe and hose station connections, and a combination of passive features with both two-hour fire barriers around each compart- ment, and four-hour fire-rated walls forming a protective cocoon around the entire collection Pod. The fire water supply limitation and antici- pated sprinkler operation area essentially shaped the compartmental configuration. • HVAC Systems—The evaporation rate for ethyl alcohol is significantly less at 65°F (18°C) than at 70°F (21°C); thus, the building was designed to be maintained at a consistent tempera- ture of 65°F (18°C). For reasons of budget, package units were selected to be placed on the roof, with shafts supplying and returning air in two compartments on three floors each from each unit. Ductwork was minimized to decrease floor-to-floor heights, and was supplied with a single run horizontally high across the front, and low across the rear. Since stationary shelving was used along these perimeter walls, capacity loss was minimal. Due to low emer- gency power availability, redundancy was kept to a minimum. Interlocks for HVAC units were coordinated into alcohol detection sensors mounted at 18 inches (450 mm) above the floor along the perimeter to increase outside air to 100% if concentrations reach levels that are 25% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) for ethyl alcohol. Unfortunately, sustainable design principles were not budgeted, and while desirable, could not become a part of the pro- ject design. This is regrettable, since the potential air changes were higher than in a typical collections storage facility, due to the evaporation from older bottles with leaky seals. • Electrical Systems—Wherever pos- sible, devices such as light switches and all convenience power outlets were kept outside the Pod to mini- mize potential ignition sources and thus chance of explosion. Within the Pod, Class 1 Division 2 lighting and self-illuminated exit signs were specified. However, other wet col- lections facilities have elected to connect lighting to alcohol detection sensors, allowing significantly less expensive fixtures to be specified. This issue was researched exten- sively, but the requirements of The National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) made it clear that it would be better to use protected electrical fixtures, given the configuration of the storage Pod. The team did not feel that a suitable degree of reliability could not be developed for integrating the electrical system into the gas detection and building fire alarm system. This criteria, coupled with the need for UV filtering, limited fixture choice and proved to be costly. • Plumbing Systems—Plumbing system criteria and design solutions were fairly straightforward. The most critical element was to provide a design solution for containment and drainage within the storage Pod, allowing containment as well as diluted fluid drainage within the criteria of the local water authority. Since these systems are expected to be rarely used, moving the traps to locations where a trap primer can be used without concern for sparking was the only complicating factor. The desire of collections managers and researchers for a piped alcohol system for the labs was ultimately rejected, due to the lack of a pre-designed and fully labeled system acceptable to the SI, and the costs involved in developing such a system. 8. Schedule and Budget The pace of design proved to be a real challenge, given the interactive process of design and the large numbers of staff and design professionals involved in decision-making. However, the costs are significantly larger for wet collections facilities than for dry collections. The building’s architectural design is straight- forward, and under no circumstances should you expect to lessen the safety of the building to meet budget criteria. Conclusions Should you be planning a wet collec- tions facility, consider the following recommendations: 1. Spend planning money upfront prior to going to your Board or funding agencies for an allocation. 2. Based on our list of the eight categories above, develop a list of knowns and unknowns under each item and work to define this scope as clearly as possible prior to budgeting. 3. Bring in the local authority having jurisdiction at the beginning of dis- cussions, and frequently thereafter throughout the design process. 4. Create a task force of users and others to make sure they can live with the decisions operationally. 5. Hire consultants who understand the complexity of these kinds of buildings. Since the project is defined by the influences of safety and operations on a series of decisions about a building and its systems, it fits the dictionary definition of a POD—“A protective container or housing”—to preserve the NMNH collections for the future. So, why is Hipopta agavis in the bottom of the bottle? According to the Ask Jeeves search engine, “as proof of alcohol content and apparently alters taste, color and smell of the liquor.” Walter L. Crimm, AIA, is Vice-President of Cultural Practice at EwingCole, based in Philadelphia. He can be reached at 1-215-923-2020 or at Bryan L. Stemen, CSP, CFPS, is a Fire Protection Engineer with the Smithsonian Institution’s Office of Safety and Management in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at 1-202-275-0732 or at
  12. 12. 12 There are opportunities in maintenance, as there are in life which, if not taken in a timely fashion, disappear. One such critical opportunity in the life of electrical equipment that handles relatively large amounts of power, is preventive maintenance. In the museum world, there is often not enough funding to do everything we should do or would like to do. Although it’s a relative bargain, electrical maintenance is often neglected for too long. Recently, we assisted a client in recovering from a catastrophic sub- station failure that was primarily due to a lack of preventive maintenance. When the substation failed, it literally burned down several sections of the substation and badly contaminated the remaining sections of the substation with vaporized metal and carbon. The cost of replacement of that sub- station—including labor, materials and temporary provisions to feed-affected loads—exceeded a half-million dollars. That does not include the cost of lost business. The temporary provisions took more than two full days to install; and the ordering and installation of a new substation took more than three months. The substation was double-ended with primary equipment maintained a few times during the life of the system. The secondary 480VAC sections of the substation had not been maintained at all for many years. The burn-down occurred in the secondary 480VAC sections. Damage was severe enough to make the double-ended feature useless. Had the 480VAC sections been properly maintained, it is more than reasonable to presume that the failure might not have occurred at all. Minimal maintenance of electrical equipment that handles reasonably large amounts of power should include an annual visual and infrared inspection of insulating surfaces and all connec- tions. Every five years, maintenance should also include the cleaning of all insulating surfaces and bus work, testing of proper breaker operation, measuring insulating values and mea- suring conductance values. The cost of this type of maintenance would be in the range of $800 U.S. for visual and infrared inspection each year, and $6,800 U.S. for more comprehensive testing every five years. In short then, an investment in main- tenance of $10,000 U.S. every five years would have better preserved and pre- vented the premature replacement of a half-million dollars plus capital investment. A pretty good return on investment. Arthur Miller, P.E. is a consulting engineer with over thirty-five years of experience, whose practice spans the U.S. from coast to coast. He can be reached at miller@miller- or toll-free at 1-866-347-1877. Electrical Maintenance: An Opportunity Often Missed by Arthur Miller Circuit breaker lugs. Circuit breaker interior.Molded case circuit- breaker in distribution panel board. Switchgear bus. Substation damage.
  13. 13. 13 Museum Benchmarks 2003, Survey of Facility Management Practices This was the third annual benchmarking survey. It focused, for the first time, on a comprehensive listing of good and best practices used in the facility management of museums and art institutions. Key performance measurements were also repeated, allowing for a three-year history of trends. Also for the first time, a Customized Survey Report was prepared for those participating institutions that requested it. This cus- tomized survey report compared side-by-side, on the same page, the performance measurements of the participating institution to industry average performance measurements, and showed additional analysis by type of museum. Eighty museums and art institutions have participated in the Museum Benchmarks Surveys of 2001, 2002 and 2003. An Annual Exercise Participants at last year’s Benchmarking and Best Practices Workshop in San Francisco voted once again to continue the benchmarking survey as an annual exercise. Some Highlights of Museum Benchmarks 2003, Survey Report • Area Cleaned Per Custodial Worker 2003 2002 2001 21,600 ft2 25,800 ft2 23,900 ft2 2,100 m2 2,400 m2 2,200 m2 • Cost of Custodial Services Totally or Mostly Outsourced ($US) $1.28 per sq. ft. $13.78 per sq. m. • Cost of Custodial Services Totally or Mostly In-House ($US) $2.22 per sq. ft. $23.90 per sq. m. • Area Per Building Maintenance Worker 2003 2002 2001 31,200 ft2 36,400 ft2 33,500 ft2 2,900 m2 3,400 m2 3,100 m2 • Cost of Building Maintenance ($US) $4.27 per sq. ft. $45.98 per sq. m. • Area Per Security Worker By Facility Type Fine Art: 6,000 ft2 600 m2 History: 14,000 ft2 1,300 m2 Archives: 42,600 ft2 4,000 m2 • Outsourcing Services Provided by Contractor (totally or in combination with employees) Custodial services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% Equip. maintenance (elevators, etc.). . . . 87% Grounds maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74% Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37% Exterior building maintenance . . . . . . . . 71% Benchmarking Review by Ian Follett Left to right: Ed Richard of the National Gallery of Canada, Christian Pagé and Pierre LePage of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and Richard Harding of Black and McDonald. continued on page 14
  14. 14. 14 Benchmarking and Best Practices Workshop 2003 This one day Workshop, always part of the benchmarking exercise, was held in San Francisco immediately prior to the IAMFA Conference. The following institutions were represented at this Workshop: Art Institute of Chicago Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki Canadian Museum of Civilization Canadian Museum of Nature Harvard University Art Museums Library and Archives Canada National Gallery (London) National Gallery of Art (Washington) National Gallery of Canada Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History The Arts Center (Spartanburg) The British Library The Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh The Getty Center Workshop Highlights • Survey Results Presentation and discussion of Museum Benchmarks 2003 results and trends • Identification of Good and Best Practices Participating institutions were asked in the survey questionnaire if each practice (of 13 pages of listed practices) was a good/best practice that should be utilized by all facility managers—or not. • Best Practice Presentations — Facilities Methods Improvement Control System Joe May, The Getty Center — Service Call Centre Lucie Lanctôt, Canadian Museum of Nature — Computerized Maintenance Planning and Work Management Joe May, The Getty Center — Funding Models for Life Cycle Replacement of Aging Building Components Guy Larocque, Canadian Museum of Civilization • Focus Groups Four separate groups discussed the following topics: — How to Motivate and Reward Employees and Contractors — How to Practice Environmental/ Green Building Management — How to Be Proactive vs. Reactive — How to Improve the Museum Benchmarks Report Peter Fotheringham of London’s National Gallery, James Moisson of the Harvard University Art Galleries, and John DeLucy of the British Library. Purchase of Museum Benchmarks 2003 Survey Report The Report can be purchased for $1,000 U.S. Please contact Ian Follett, Facility Management Services Ltd, at, 1-403-259-5964 or fax at 1-403-255-7116. The Report, the result of a 30-page questionnaire, includes a four-page Executive Summary of Results, a five-page listing of facility management-related operational definitions, and 22 pages of Data Analysis. Data was gathered and analyzed on the following topics: description of facilities, space util- ization, temperature and relative humidity, custodial services, utilities, building maintenance, exterior grounds maintenance, building security, cost of building operations, outsourcing, good/best practices (a seven-page listing) and important issues facing facility managers. The best practices of participating institutions, as listed and briefly described by each institution, are also included in the Survey Report. Benchmarking Review—continued from page 13
  15. 15. 15 • Thank You All best practice presenters — Joe Brennan, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, for great hospitality and arrangements for the workshop room, equipment and catered luncheon — All those who helped in the development of the survey questionnaire — Bill Caddick and IAMFA members for their endorsement and support of this annual benchmarking survey Some Uses of Survey Data • To identify strengths and weaknesses • To establish goals and action plans (strategic planning) • To justify costs and practices • To support business cases for change • To identify institutions with best practices • To learn from these institutions Key Benchmarking Requirements and Objectives Essence of Benchmarking: Learning from Others • Humility: others can do some things better • Learning from others is faster (and therefore smarter) than starting from scratch • Learning must be a continuous process • It’s not about getting a good report card • “What” (the benchmark) without “how” (the process) is an empty statement • Measurements are overemphasized, processes (practices) are overlooked • A key tool for — Staying competitive — Supporting customers — Effectiveness — Strategic planning Joe May of the Getty Center and Ian Follett of Facililty Management Services Ltd. Ian Follett, BAA, CFM, is the President of Facility Management Services Ltd., based in Calgary, Canada. He has over 30 years’ experience as a facility manager and management consultant specializing in facility management. He can be reached at Richard Kowalczyk of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum and Guy Larocque of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
  16. 16. 16 The undersigned institution wishes to participate in Museum Benchmarks 2004, Survey of Facility Management Practices, and agrees to: • Provide complete and accurate data in a timely manner. • Maintain the confidentiality of the survey questionnaire and survey data. • Use the survey data for internal organizational purposes only. • Not provide the survey questionnaire or survey data to any other organizations or individuals. • Pay FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD $1,875 in U.S. currency to benchmark one facility. PAYMENT IN FULL IS DUE UPON REGISTRATION Ⅺ If you require an invoice, please check. Fee • $1,875 U.S. which includes a Customized Survey Report [see below] • Due upon registration. The fee includes: • Survey Questionnaire Development Approximately 25-40% of the survey will gather data on new subjects • Customized Survey Report that includes: – Survey data Charts of all data from all participating institutions listed under each institution’s name – Survey Results (individualized) Charts and graphs of industry averages, ratios and trends that compare the performance measurements of each participating institution to industry average performance measurements – Executive Summary A summary that provides comments and recommendations on key performance measurements and practices in facility management • Full day workshop, including best practices and networking Key Dates • February–May, 2004: Receipt of Survey Participation Agreement • March–June, 2004: Distribution of Survey Questionnaire • July 1, 2004: Return of Completed Survey Questionnaire • August 31, 2004: Survey Report mailed to Participating Organizations • September 19, 2004: Benchmarking and Best Practices Workshop in Boston Excuses for Not Benchmarking • We’re too busy doing projects (i.e., we’re too busy working hard to learn how to work smart). • We participated in a benchmarking survey previously and we’re right in the middle of the pack (i.e., we’re happy to be average; continuous learning is not important). How Do I Sign On or Get More Information? Complete and return the Survey Participation Agreement, or contact Ian Follett at: Tel.: 1 (403) 259-5964 Fax: 1 (403) 255-7116 E-mail: Website: This Year’s Survey: Museum Benchmarks 2004, Survey of Facility Management Practices NOTE: Thanks to the Smithsonian Institution’s sponsorship, this year’s fee remains the same as last year. SURVEY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Institution Date Signing Authority (please print) Title Signature Telephone No. Mailing Address Mailing Address Fax E-Mail Address Please fax the completed agreement to: Ian Follett President FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD Tel: 1-403-259-5964 Fax: 1-403-255-7116 E-mail:
  17. 17. 17 1) Learning doesn’t just happen; it must be a conscious activity Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 2) In general, people learn when they need to or have to Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 3) My learning didn’t end when I graduated from school Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 4) All jobs, no matter how routine, offer learning opportunities Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 5) People learn better from success than mistakes Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 6) It is my responsibility to create learning opportunities, not my company’s Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 7) I can recall a valuable lesson learned at work in the past week. Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 8) There are opportunities for me to share learning and hear about the learning experiences of others. Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 9) I keep learning logs to document lessons learned. Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No 10) I place a high premium on learning. Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No How do you rate? Give yourself 2 points for each “Yes” answer and 1 point for each “No” answer. 18–20 points: You get an “A” for attitude! By recognizing that effective learning is conscious, committed to memory and communicated, you are likely maximizing learning oppor- tunities. By embracing continuous learning, you are probably enjoying high levels of achievement. 14–17 points: Don’t leave learning to chance! You might appreciate the benefits of learning, but may need to make a more conscious effort to retain lessons learned. Try to make one change to enhance learning, such as keeping a learning log or sharing lessons learned with colleagues. 10–13 points: Don’t let learning lag! Continuous learning isn’t something that will go away if you ignore it long enough. Don’t wait for someone else to provide learning opportunities – they’re all around you. Credit: PRIORITY MANAGEMENT Member Michael Downs — Hagley Museum and Library Barry Fuchs — Children’s Museum of Richmond Thomas Goller — Japanese American National Museum Elfyn Hughes — Museum of Welsh Life C.R.M.C. Keeman — Rijksmuseum Ian MacLean — Canada Science and Technology Museum Corporation Robert Monk — Peabody Essex Museum Paul Svirbel — Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh Robert Webb — Powerhouse Museum Associate Gordon Bailey — Asian Art Museum Lezlee Kryszewski — Milwaukee Public Museum Ken Moffett — Japanese American National Museum Rick Peterson — San Francisco Museum of Art Spence Stehno — Milwaukee Public Museum. Subscribing Igor Bienstock — Cosentini Associates Bruce Causey — Corporate Care Vince DiPiero — Allied Security Ed Katz — Steed Marketing Mike McCaughin — The Edward Pike Company/ ProPM, Inc. Anthony McGuire — McGuire Engineers Kristin Rennett — Barton Protective Services Affiliate Mark Malekskshi — Cosentitni Associates New IAMFA Members The International Association of Museum Facility Administrators is pleased to welcome the following new members: Are You A Lifelong Learner? by Ian Follett Rate your learning style by answering “Yes” or “No” to indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements.
  18. 18. Kevin Streiter Treasurer, IAMFA 18 Greetings from your 2004 IAMFA Treasurer. It was wonderful seeing all of you at the conference in San Francisco this past September. As always, the success of our organization hinges upon the interest and participation of our dedicated members. The confer- ence was attended by over 80 IAMFA members and guests, as well as a half- dozen non-members. Joe Brennan and the Northern California chapter really did a bang-up job and they deserve all of our thanks. We can’t say enough about the generosity of the conference sponsors. Their support was crucial to the success of our gathering. The Board would like to recognize the following conference sponsors and thank them on behalf of the IAMFA membership: Guardsmark ABM Industries LSI Lighting Thyssencorp Rutherford & Chikene Energy Team IAMFA would like to additionally thank all the providers of venues and transportation, and the vendors who participated in the conference. Other Business As we enter into a new season, I thought it would be an excellent time to update everyone on our membership and the general state of our finances: our invoiced membership is currently at 91 Regular members, 27 Associates, 21 Subscribing members, and 5 Affiliate members. Thanks to all of you who have already sent in your checks. Your annual certificates of membership will be arriving shortly. The Board is also in the process of contacting lapsed members from the past few years to invite them back into the IAMFA fold. Our expenditures and income are all in good order and tracking normally. I look forward to working with James Moisson and the New England Chapter on the finances for the upcoming 2004 conference. Some of you have asked about paying dues and conference fees by credit card. Currently we can only A Word from Your Treasurer Isabella Stuart Gardner Museum Courtyard in Boston. accept checks. Please excuse any inconvenience this may cause. If this changes, you will be alerted via e-mail, or in the pages of the next issue of Papyrus. Have a productive new session, everyone. As always, don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments on IAMFA membership or any other IAMFA issues. I look forward to seeing you all in Boston this Fall! Kevin Streiter Treasurer, IAMFA
  19. 19. 19 On behalf of the membership and Board, we invite you to join with other museums and cultural organizations through- out the world in becoming a member of the only organization exclusively devoted to museum and cultural facility admin- istrators: the International Association of Museum Facility Administrators (IAMFA). As a member, you will join a growing list of museum and cultural facility administrators in their efforts to provide a standard of excellence and quality in planning, development and design, construction, operation and maintenance of cultural facilities of all sizes and varieties of programming. The Association currently has representation in several countries on three continents. Our goal is to increase membership in institutions throughout the world. Your involvement in the IAMFA will continue the growth of the organization and provide you with excellent educational and networking opportunities. As your colleagues, we look forward to welcoming you to membership in the IAMFA. Cordially yours, The Board of the International Association of Museum Facility Administrators Membership Opportunities Join the IAMFA at any of the following levels and enjoy full benefits of membership: Regular Member — $150 annually. A regular member holds the position of principal administration in direct charge of the management of facilities, and represents their institution(s) as a member of the association. Associate Member — $50 annually. An associate member is a full-time facilities management employee (professional, administrative or supervisor), below the level of the facility administrator of the member association. Affiliate Member — $50 annually. An affiliate member is any full-time employee of a member institution who is not directly involved in the facilities management department. Subscribing Member — $300 annually. A subscribing member is an individual, organization, manufacturer of supplier of goods services to the institutions who ascribes to the policies and programmes of the Aassociation, and wishes to support the activities of the Association. Become a Member of the IAMFA and Get a Friend to Join YES! I would like to join the IAMFA as a: Ⅺ Regular Member $150 Ⅺ Associate Member $ 50 Ⅺ Affiliate Member $ 50 Ⅺ Subscribing Member $300 Institution: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Title: ________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________ State/Province: _______________________ Zip/Postal Code: _______________________ Country:_____________________________ Phone: _____________________________________ Fax: ____________________________________ E-mail: ______________________________ ALL FEES ARE PAYABLE IN U.S. DOLLARS Ⅺ I enclose a check in the amount of $ ____________________ Ⅺ Please invoice me ¡ Send in your membership dues by using the convenient form below. Don’t forget to make a copy to give to a colleague. Please remit to: International Association of Museum Facility Administrators c/o Kevin Streiter, High Museum of Art 1280 Peachtree Street N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 U.S.A. Website: Ⅺ I am interested in joining. Please have a member contact me.
  20. 20. 20 Dear Colleagues, This is my first issue as IAMFA Secretary and Editor of Papyrus. The design of Papyrus will stay the same, thanks to the insightfulness brought to our newsletter by my predecessor Pierre Lepage, and we will continue to strive for balance in providing articles that you will find both interesting and informative. The strength of Papyrus is in the feedback and participation of IAMFA members. It is also a catalyst in helping to jumpstart thought and even debate on facilities issues which affect us all. In these pages, we hope that you continue to find valuable information that helps you with your own facilities management challenges. We also hope to provide a forum in which to encour- age better industry-wide practices in operating museums and caring for our priceless collections. As a new member of IAMFA—thrust into the position of Secretary and Editor with great delight— I appreciate the unlimited background and experiences of my colleagues, and look forward to benefiting from your insight. My own diverse background covers electrical system design, construction and commissioning, with later emphasis on facility management and business administration. I welcome any contri- butions you or your associates may wish to make to the range and depth of articles we can provide here in Papyrus. I know that it can sometimes be difficult to find the time to write an account of your own thoughts and experiences in facilities management. I would like to encourage you, however, to consider what you may be able to share with your colleagues. After all, who better to advise others than those who have already been in the trenches? At present, we here at the Milwaukee Public Museum are facing our own logistical challenges as we prepare to welcome a new traveling exhibition. We are honored to be hosting The Quest for Immortality from Egypt, which is now touring a limited number of venues throughout the United States. For a museum of our size, you can imagine the number of hours and ded- icated people that such a production entails. But I’ll save the behind-the- scenes details for a later date—when I submit my own article on project management! In the meantime, what kinds of challenges are you currently facing? Your commitment to IAMFA is a valuable asset, enhancing facility management around the world. With your membership fees and your active participation in the business of the Association, you help us all strengthen our practices and procedures in the essential field of facilities management. I look forward to hearing from all of you during my appointment as Editor, and I look forward to seeing you all at this September’s annual conference in Boston. Larry N. Bannister Secretary, IAFMA From the Editor’s Desk Larry Bannister, Editor, Papyrus IAMFA/Papyrus SPRING 2004 Editor Larry Bannister Papyrus Correspondents Bill Caddick Art Institute of Chicago William L. Crimm EwingCole Ian Follett Facilities Management Services, Ltd. Toby Greenbaum Library & Archives of Canada & the National Museums Arthur Miller Miller Engineering Kevin Streiter High Museum of Art Bryan L. Stemen Smithsonian Institution’s Office of Safety and Management Production Coordination Lezlee Kryszewski Milwaukee Public Museum Design and Layout Phredd Grafix Editing Artistic License Printed in the United States by Graphicolor, Inc. ISSN 1682-5241 Statements of fact and opinion are made on the responsibility of authors alone and do not imply an opinion on the part of the editors, officers, or members of IAMFA. The editors of IAMFA Papyrus reserve the right to accept or to reject any Article or advertisement submitted for publication. While we have made every attempt to ensure that reproduction rights have been acquired for the illustrations used in this newsletter, please let us know if we have inadvertently overlooked your copyright, and we will rectify the matter in a future issue.