4. How is your organisation coping with the
profile of how to present the museum for the
public – what are the management issues?
(Costs, interpretive style, interpretive
messages).
5. How much knowledge do you need at the
bottom of your organisation to run an AOAM?
6. How are we looking into knowledge from the
management point of view?
Do we need to have the knowledge in the
house, and if so, on which level?
7. Who is running the business?
An archeologist or a marketing manager?
8. Is this something that volunteers,
archaeologists, enthusiasts can cover, or are
the skills needed among staff?
9. Does the picture we show using experimental
archaeology accurately reflect the past?
11. Should craftspeople be in T-shirts in a special
area prepared for presentations, or in
character: 1st or 3rd person?
12. What way shall we lead the museum concept –
houses with signboard or houses filled with
action and museum teater?
13. How can we improve our working conditions
regarding a stressful environment in
summers?
14. Do we make reconstructions for the public or
as an experiment?
15. • How to implement new media interpretation
methods depending on the size and nature of
organisation
16. How can we construct and maintain structures
which balance academic credibility and the needs of
visitors?
17. What happens if we leave our houses cold and
damp for 9 months of the year = decaying replicas,
damage to structures and an impression that
people in the past lived in misery and squalor?
19. Summary: what we are going to do
WP2 Improvement of museum management at partner museums
Dr Steve Burrow
Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales
12 April 2012
20. WP2 > Review of management issues
20
Results…
• Responses from 7 partners
• Issues shared by multiple partners
Fundraising, marketing, relationship to parent organisations
– Developing and maintaining buildings
– Managing staff and volunteers
21. WP2 > Overview
Major parts of the work package
• Management of buildings (St Fagans)
• Management of staff and volunteers (Foteviken)
21
22. WP2 > Management of buildings
The major capital assets of most AOAMs…
• Construction issues
• Maintenance issues
22
23. WP2 > Management of buildings >> European perspective
Learning from our partnership…
• Study of one building at each partner venue
• Interview with person responsible
for the building
• Survey of the building by a
museum conservator
23
26. 26
WP2 > Management of buildings >> next six months
OpenArch
• Planning permission to build our structures
• Completion of interview and survey at
Modena
(Not really OpenArch, but a result of this partnership)
• Open an exhibition at the Hunebedcentrum
27. Series of surveys before each meeting based on the
other work packages, to see how much difference
they make to the partners before and after.
28. Gathering of organisations with related interests in
building management at museums
Gathering of other museum organisations with
interests which overlap with EXARC (IMTAL,,
NOOAM, EAOM etc)
29. The role of interpretation. The results will be
presented for discussion in a workshop. with
specific approaches to interpretation, notably
the cost / benefit of 1st and 3rd person
interpretation.
30. Product: a summary report describing how people
work today and trying to establish what we hold in
common and proposals for ways forward
SUBJECTS TO COVER ON SLIDE
First draft of work package looked at management problems which are faced by every organisation. We were asked to focus it more closely on issues relevant to AOAMs.
This led to the survey from which we identified, issues relating to buildings and people as the most important. And we’ve built our work package around that…
Foteviken leads on people management and the relationship to interpretation. St Fagans focuses on issues relating to buildings because that’s where most of our efforts are focusing over the next five years in any case.
SUBJECTS TO COVER ON SLIDE
- Major division of tasks in the work package
SUBJECTS TO COVER ON SLIDE
Cost a lot to build.
Most significant visual selling point for AOAMs.
Limited life span (20 years for a roundhouse in northern Europe)
Compromises necessary to meet modern legislation
Important to get them right and keep them right as time and visitors take their toll.
Lots of different ways of doing this. Build in-house, employ external contractors, build with volunteers.
Criticism of archaeological validity.
Challenge of knowing what to do with them when we’ve got them.
Want to find out what everyone is doing so we can share best practice.
SUBJECTS TO COVER ON SLIDE
Aim to undertake a review of one building at each partner
We haven’t checked this with each partner yet, but hope it won’t be a problem…
Review consists of an interview with someone responsible, and a visual survey of the building lasting about one day.
Carried out the first one at St Fagans and another one at the Hunebedcentrum during our last meeting. (Hope Harrie can confirm that it was fairly painless).
Simple thing we learnt from this was the benefit of raising the ground level of land below the building before construction to mitigate against damp. Probably obvious to many of you, but not something we’d thought to do.
SUBJECTS TO COVER ON SLIDE
Having identified the best way of doing things we hope to apply these approaches during the construction of several buildings which we are erecting at St Fagans over the next few years.
Medieval court
Iron Age village, to replace the one I showed in the previous slide.
SUBJECTS TO COVER ON SLIDE
Hope to pull together the results of this strand of the WP at the S Fagans meeting.
SUBJECTS TO COVER ON SLIDE
Major steps in the next six months…