In this paper we seek to disentangle the reasons that limit collaborations between museums and universities. Our standpoint is that collaboration is desired by both organizations as it could lead to richer outcomes in the design and research of new technologies in museums. However, little attention is paid to how this kind of collaboration actually happens and how it could be enhanced. This is why our focus is on teamwork, especially in the particularities of the collaboration of external design-researchers and museum professionals. This paper examines the collaboration between a university and a museum, in a situation in which these institutions collaborate in the production of interactive artefacts for exhibition space. As in other cases, collaboration between museums and other institutions is not always easy: participants of collaborations have expectations and needs that are far from obvious to everyone. In this paper, we present a case study on a course on Public Space and Social Inclusion, organized by the Museum of Science in Trento (Italy) and the EIT ICT Labs Doctoral School. During the course, the participants developed a set of original ideas to explore possible ways for the museum to become a cultural hub, and to look into the role it can play for community building. This case study gave us the opportunity to delve deep into the dynamics of the interactions between museum and university partners involved in a collaborative process. We conducted and analysed interviews with university representatives and museum staff to discover how they experienced the collaboration and what they were expecting from it. Analysing these interviews, we observed the need to follow three principal elements for a successful collaboration. Partners have to start together a collaboration planning in advance their intention and moments for exchanging mutual feedback and systematically review the project. Partners should plan their collaboration in advance, explicating their expectations for the project and setting dates for exchanging mutual feedback to review the project systematically. Time management is crucial. It is important to make clear which deadlines are fixed and which flexible, when it is time for deep reflection and when there’s a need for hurried action. In general, the participants would benefit from communicating their working practices and talking frankly about their expectations.

1. “You could have told me!”
Collaboration on the Design of Interactive Pieces for Museums
A case study
Teresa Macchia, University of Trento, Italy
teresa.macchia@unitn.it
Mariana Salgado, Aalto University, Finland
mariana.salgado@aalto.fi
Abstract: In this paper we seek to disentangle the reasons that limit collaborations between museums and
universities. Our standpoint is that collaboration is desired by both organizations as it could lead to richer
outcomes in the design and research of new technologies in museums. However, little attention is paid to how
this kind of collaboration actually happens and how it could be enhanced. This is why our focus is on teamwork,
especially in the particularities of the collaboration of external design-researchers and museum professionals.
This paper examines the collaboration between a university and a museum, in a situation in which these
institutions collaborate in the production of interactive artefacts for exhibition space. As in other cases,
collaboration between museums and other institutions is not always easy: participants of collaborations have
expectations and needs that are far from obvious to everyone. In this paper, we present a case study on a course
on Public Space and Social Inclusion, organized by the Museum of Science in Trento (Italy) and the EIT ICT Labs
Doctoral School. During the course, the participants developed a set of original ideas to explore possible ways for
the museum to become a cultural hub, and to look into the role it can play for community building. This case study
gave us the opportunity to delve deep into the dynamics of the interactions between museum and university
partners involved in a collaborative process. We conducted and analysed interviews with university
representatives and museum staff to discover how they experienced the collaboration and what they were
expecting from it. Analysing these interviews, we observed the need to follow three principal elements for a
successful collaboration. Partners have to start together a collaboration planning in advance their intention and
moments for exchanging mutual feedback and systematically review the project. Partners should plan their
collaboration in advance, explicating their expectations for the project and setting dates for exchanging mutual
feedback to review the project systematically. Time management is crucial. It is important to make clear which
deadlines are fixed and which flexible, when it is time for deep reflection and when there’s a need for hurried
action. In general, the participants would benefit from communicating their working practices and talking frankly
about their expectations.
Keyw ords: collaboration, museum, university, design, interaction design.
Introduction and background
The creation of digital and interactive technologies for museums can often benefit from collaboration
between museum personnel and external designers, who have the latest knowledge about advanced
technologies. However, little attention is paid to what in fact happens in these collaborative projects
and how the co-operation could be enhanced, considering the diverse goals of the partners. While
museum personnel might be mainly interested in exhibition design and in the way it could be
enhanced with the cutting edge technologies, the design-researchers could be seeking an opportunity
to experiment and test new practices and artefacts in real context. Thus, in a case like this, it is likely
that these di ffering goals and expectations affect the dynamics of the collaborations. As Berry outlines
(1998), collaborating on projects that involve di fferent communities is a complex process that implies
sharing interests and scopes, commitment on schedules, personal and social skills, as well as
patience and persistency.
In the context of educative and creative environments that imply mutual learning and sharing of
experience and resources, collaborative experiences are recommended and even desirable (Fischer,
1999). Following similar reasoning from Binder et al. (2013), collaboration is about reflecting and
participating on design activities and actions, realizing outcomes, ful filling and responding to common
and divergent expectations in a joint effort, in a group. However, communities of people have di fferent,

2. if not opposite needs, and requi re practices, processes or objects to support and allow communication
in shared spaces (Robertson, 2002). As Berry underlines (1998), collaborative activities and projects
are tough experiences with a potential for success, where maj or problems often arise from a lack of
cultural understanding and from digression to unrelated themes.
To understand collaboration more deeply it is helpful to step back and distinguish between
cooperation and collaboration. While cooperation occurs between individuals, groups, and
organizations working together on a specific task for a limited amount of time, collaboration focuses on
present and current projects and future possibilities (Hord, 1986).
Currently there are several reasons for the museums to collaborate with various cultural institutions.
For example, the recent introduction of web services and digital interactive artefacts that modify the
museum visits increases the need for including new actors in the museum environment (see for
example Cole, 2004; Stogner, 2009; Kaptelinin, 2011). The evolution of the museum environment
imposes a combination of knowledge, skills and competences between museum experts and
interaction and heritage designers in order to develop suitable products and services for enhancing
museum experiences (Proctor, 2010). Museums engage visitors and inspire everyday life through
multiple inputs: proposing workshop and educational activities for visitors, providing devices for
enhancing the visit and creating personalized museum-paths (Simon, 2010; Hooper-Greenhill, 2013).
Therefore it is vital that museums play an active role in broadening the networks between local and
international cultural, educational and entrepreneurial organizations to stimulate the creation of
common endeavours within the cultural heritage domain.
The case study presented in this paper is an empirical analysis of this kind of an alliance. The
collaboration started with a phase of enthusiasm, but did not progress beyond the initial phase. This is
why in the study we seek to unknot the reasons that might influence and impede collaborations
between museums and universities. Our belief is that collaboration is desirable for both organizations
and could lead to richer outcomes in the application of new technologies in museums for both
organizations that are regularly joining forces to design and research into possibilities of new
technologies in museums. However, little attention is paid what happens in these collaborations and to
the way they could be enhanced although many interaction designers have carried out fieldwork in the
museum context see eg: Ciol fi & Bannon, 2002, Dalsgaard et al., 2008, Salgado, 2009 Stuedahl
&Smørdal, 2011, Macchia et al. 2014).
Case study: collaboration in action
In November 2012, Salgado and Galanakis hold a course in Trento, Italy on public space and social
inclusion for doctoral students. The course was a collaboration of the Doctoral school of Information
and Communication Technology, the Museum of Science in Trento (Italy) and the EIT ICT Labs
Doctoral Training Centre. It brought together students from different backgrounds and with a variety of
competences to discuss and examine the theme of designing social inclusion for and in museums.
With the perspective of the opening of the new building for the Museum of Science in Trento,
participants developed a set of original ideas to explore possible ways for the museum to become a
cultural hub, and to understand the role it can play for community support. The outcome of the course
was a varied set of design concepts, related to the impact of the museum on the cities surrounding
them. The students produced a series of videos to show to the museum and university staff how thei r
design concepts could enhance museum visits and connect Trento inhabitants to the new premises.
The presentations were followed by a deep discussion on future possibilities of each of these concepts.
Students received positive feedback from the museum staff, including the di rector of the museum.
Despite this, the course did not generate further collaboration based on the development of the
proposed ideas. After the course, certain designs that resemble d the concepts presented by the
students during the course have been introduced. This caught our attention, since none of the
participants of the course had been asked to collaborate in developing and implementing the ideas
created. Therefore, we asked oursel ves: why di dn’t the museum call us to collaborate? Why, even i f
they knew we were interested and engaged in similar research topics, did the museum not invite us to
participate in the development of these concepts?
To gain a better understanding on the dynamics of collaboration between museums and universities,
we decided to organize a workshop, inviting participants from the course as well as the museum staff.
As it proved di fficult to organize time for a common meeting, we had to revert to doing interviews
instead. This variation at first considered as a misfortune, was then said to be a good opportunity to
discuss and freely investigate the different perspectives on the case. We conducted four semi -

3. structured interviews that were built around three independent themes: first ly, we asked what the
interviewees mean by the term of “coll aboration” and how they see the relationship between the
university and the museum; secondly, we inqui red about present or past collaborative projects
between these agencies; thirdly, we requested the interviewees to describe an ideal collaboration in
the form of a future scenario; an finally, we opened the discussion on the case study at hand.
There were ten students who took the course and a museum producer that actively contributed and
gave feedback during the work in process. We chose to interview the professor, who was in charge of
the coordination of the course, two of the doctoral students who followed the course. Among these
students one pursues her research in the museum field, while the other has previously collaborated
with the museum. The fourth interviewee was a museum professional.
For the purpose of this paper we took notes of the interviews, and translated meaningful paragraphs
from Italian, observing recurrent thoughts and themes. The data was analysed without predefined
hypotheses or preconceived theories.
Data analysis
In this section we summarize the major themes, which arose from the interviews and that outlined
different but overlapping opinions about positive and negative aspects of the collaboration. In the
analysis of this set of interviews, we observed three main recurrent themes: sharing in the beginning,
managing time schedules and speaking frankly.
Sharing in the beginning
A good start is the basis of a successful collaboration. In fact, all four interviewees stressed the
beginning of the project as the cornerstone of the interaction. For example one of the interviewees
described this phase as “a t ough and delicate moment” i n which the partners had to reflect on thei r
corresponding needs and expectations. The museum professional, however, mentioned that t here is
an intrusi ve aspect on the uni versities’ approach to collaboration. He argued, that the communication
from the university was inexistent, until “they sent a report in which they already tol d what they
planned to do […] but they do not k now our pub lic”. He also emphasized the necessity for a
transparent and equal communication between partners, starting before the actual project is launched.
Museums and universities are cultural institutions with similar aims of preserving; sharing and
improving culture and knowledge, but the way in which they achieve thei r results differs. For example,
while the university has structured procedures for educating through lessons and tests, the museums
envi ronment supports lifelong education and motivates the audience through engaging in a free form
dialogue. These di fferences, in a collaborative situation, accentuate the need for transparency and
clarity about mutual needs and expectations. In fact, one aspect highlighted by the interviews was the
differences in perspecti ves. While museum staff has the aim of “creating and offering something of
quality every day”, as noted by the museum professional, academic designers tended to consider the
museum as a test bed for experimental actions. This interviewee stressed the di fficulties that the
partners had in understandi ng each ot her’s needs and aspirations. In addition, the interviews
underlined the importance of sharing plans, concepts, ideas, and (co)involvement.
There are expectations that are not based on the experience of working together. This is exemplified
by the quote by a museum professional. “Ideal would be to work together in writing the project and
diving the tasks. The university could do the theoretical part and the museum the implementation ”.
Even though the person is talking about dividing the work together, she al ready assumed which would
be the role of each of the partners. In the specific case of the collaboration with doctoral students with
a background in design, there is a need to consider their involvement in the design and development.
The challenge lies in committing di fferent partners in the collaboration and making everybody feel that
they are doing the project together – in contrast with this being a project that the students come to do,
or that the museum personnel does with the support of designers. Sharing objectives, methods and
work practices from the beginning could lead to the ideal situation, in which both partners have a
sense of ownership of the project. This would be ideal, as both would then work hard to make it work
and improve the outcome, not only during the construction and development but also in the phase of
“design-in-us e”. However, the mutual interdependence that is created in the process of working
together, might call for further discussion. In many cases, including the one analyzed in this paper, the
partners have different funding sources; this in turn creates a s ense of det achment of the others’
needs and scopes. This is why drawing mutual points of commitment is import ant. In the very

4. beginning both partners have unclear expectations and it is only within the interaction with the other
that opportunities arise.
Managing time schedule
Time management is different when considering doctoral students, academic people and the museum
staff. As matter of fact, most full-time funded doctoral students, the group of participants of this case
study, can decide by themselves how to manage the projects and commit to them. They are
autonomous in setting their own research agendas and developing them further. For example, one of
the doctoral students told us that she had changed the focus of her research activities from museum
context to other fieldwork because of time issues. She said: “You need to understand, that problems in
the collaboration made me change the topic of the doctoral thesis, and I had to ask for an additional
year to finish my doctorate… because with all the schedule changes here and there I could not
advance in my research”. This unfort unate experienc e highlights the importance of making binding
decisions on the common schedule. On the other hand, museums have very tight time frames for the
design and production of exhibitions. Teams are committed to the schedules and being late can cause
dysfunctions in the whole team’s collaboration process. People might be waiting for others’
contributions, unable to advance their own part of the process. Both museum and university partners
have strict deadlines for fi nishing certai n obj ecti ves on time. Respecting each other’s schedules and
fixed dates is a priority.
The professional from the museum interviewed noticed that “There was not a desirable integration of a
reflection carried out by the university with the one carried out by the museum”. Even though the
question of why this happens is still open, we think that proposing occasions for common reflectio n
could be a proper solution. A common agreement is needed also in terms of constantly updating the
state of the project. From the beginning partners need to clarify how these up dates will be
communicated. In fact the rewarding projects described by one of the students and the museum
professional, have common features. In both cases partners were transparent in their intentions and
capacities. In addition they kept on updating thei r work in progress. The museum professional
commented on the way in which the collaboration is to take place, emphasizing the importance of
mutual understanding and the importance of understanding the competencies of each institution in
order to plan activities and milestones. When discussing the organizing of the activities, one of the
students said: “there are people assigned [to maintain the relationship with the museum] we are
getting all t he informati on from them… Since we have a really small part on the project and the [other]
partners have a bigger part of it, I think it’s not creating any huge discrepancy, it is actually ok ay since
they work in the bigger picture”. There is thus a need for communicati ve rol es in the proj ects, with
people responsible for keeping the whole team informed about the status of the work. If this is not
possible, all the team members should communicate their progress to each other weekly.
Talk frankly
It is hardly a surprise, that using terms such as “i nsiders ” or “outsiders” hi nders the coll aboration,
making it di fficult to create a sense of togetherness in the team. Once a doctoral student enters a new
envi ronment, it is important to introduce to her the places (exhibition spaces, development areas, etc.),
background information and themes of the exhibitions but also the working practices that the museum
professionals have. It is not very common that external partners are introduced to these practices,
however beneficial this could be.
The professional from the museum interviewee noted that “In the mus eum there is a public to whom
you must go and you have to conquer, their attention is not given for granted. University partners do
not k now our audience”. Sharing audience research done in the museum could be key for the external
collaborators, in order to better understand the museum as a millieu and the audience. Also, doctoral
students could take benefit from the participation in the events organized within museum experts so as
to look into museum professionals’ discussions and practices.
Collaboration between museums and universities, even if desirable, is not easy since the reasons for
collaborating might be different and not explicit. For example, one of the students described her
disappointing collaborative experience and speculated about the possible reasons for the partner to
disappear, such as overlapping activities or absence of time. She told that the partner had backed out
saying ‘if the ot her museum is not participating, we’re not participating either’. Here the partner was
referring to an expected collaboration with another museum that was involved in the project. As the
doctoral student referred “the other museum changed [the idea] because they didn’t have an online

5. paying method, but our concept would have worked without one.” As percei ved by the int erviewee, the
participation of one of the two museums was related to the participation of the other, even though this
intention was not expressed in the beginning of the collaboration. The university partners interpreted
this as a lack of interest in the project per se and also as a lack of honesty. They would have expected
to get a transparent view on the arrangements and involvements that had to do with the project from
the very start. Besides, the external researchers might have benefitted from getting the information on
the deadlines of parallel projects – to understand why a certai n person “has disappeared”. If we get to
know more about the working practices of our partners, we might have better clues for interpreting
their behavior and actions.
The person interviewed from the museum noticed that: “esteem and empathy, synergy created
between the individual actors is crucial. This is not only a collaboration within institutions”. For this to
happen, we need more instances of working together, instead of presenting each others al ready
planned projects. Esteem and empathy happen in process of co-design, while partners share a certain
goal, and ownership towards the project. The human touch interferes in the dynamics of collaborations,
this can never be neglected while studying mechanisms that affect design outcomes.
Continuing the discussion on the reasons for collaborating, the four interviewed agreed on the
successfulness of the course on public space and social inclusion, even though they expressed
different levels of willingness to participate to such kind of experiences. On one hand, the professor
interviewee and one of the doctoral students perceived the course very useful. They valued the
creation of networks and a reservoi r of knowledge as well as building of respect between the
institutions. On the other hand, the museum professional saw the benefits of the course in terms of
quick and dirty collaboration, as a possibility to investigate new trends and new possibilities, to
improve or implement designs, and breed a corpus of collaborators to gather di fferent and original
perspectives. Thus, he saw the collaboration with doctoral students as a way to get inspiration and up -
to-date ideas on what is going on in the field of IT. However, for university researchers in the design
field, informing and inspi ring the development of exhibitions is only one way of collaborating. Other
ways such as co-designing, and consultation in the decision making process have not been explored
in the context of this particular case. We believe that there is room to enhance the collaboration in
order to explore its limits. It is not only a question of being sincere, but also of being flexible. In
collaborati ve projects there is a need to adapt and be flexible towards others’ expectations and ways
of doing.
Recommendations
Fruitful opportunities of collaboration between museum staff and university are always readily
available and there is even enthusiasm for such processes. However, we have found through our
interviews that there are some impediments that can disturb the flow of collaboration, putting its
success at risk. Based on our analysis of these interviews, we suggest the following list of
recommendations in order to overcome these potential breakdowns:
 Share ownership. A successful collaboration is open-ended: it sets objectives in a common
space. It leaves room for both partners to set the agenda together in the situation, without
imposing ideas or expecting the other to perform certain tasks.
 Be transparent and flexible. Talk about your intentions, working plans and deadlines. Be
clear about your expectations, about the future of the project and the collaboration. Be honest
about your own resources, skills and commitment.
 Reflect together. From the very beginning, schedule moments for sharing ideas, giving
feedback, analyzing the progress together and for open reflection on the collaborative
experience.
Conclusion
We have here presented reflections about one case study in relation to the collaboration between a
museum and a university, starting from the point to which collaboration is desirable for designing
digital services and products for the museum. People who collaborate within universities and
museums have different, often opposite, skills and abilities that need to be clarified at the starting point
of the collaborations. Therefore, partners’ intentions and expectations have to be stated while partners
are starting a project. In addition, they should be open to changes on what they have planned. New
modes of collaborations will emerge in the future that will reinforce trust and confidence between

6. partners in both organizations. This could lead to more creative ways of working together. For t his to
happen we have to work together under certain premises: being transparent and flexible, analyzing
together the results and sharing the ownership on our projects.
Bibliography
J. Angus. Innovations in practice. Journal of Museum Education, 1(2), 2012.
N. Berry. A focus on art museum/school collaborations. Art Education, Vol. 51, No. 2, 1998.
T. Binder, G. De Michelis, P. Ehn, G. Jacucci, P. Linde and I. Wagner. Design Things, A. Telier. The MIT Press Cambridge,
Massachusetts, London, England, 2011.
L. Ciolf i, L. Bannon. Designing Interactive Museum Exhibits: Enhancing visitor curiosity through augmented artefacts. Eleventh
European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, 2002.
T. Cole and S. L. Shreeves, The IMLS NLG program: fostering collaboration. Library Hi Tech, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 246 – 248, 2004.
P. Dalsgaard, C Dindler, E. Eriksson. Designing for participation in public know ledge institutions. Proceedings of the 5th Nordic
conference on Human Computer Interaction, 2008.
G. Fischer. Symmetry of ignorance, social creativity, and meta-design. In KBS Special Issues “C&C’99”, 1999.
J. Harrison. Shaping collaboration: Considering institutional culture. Museum Management and Curatorship 20, 195–212, 2005.
E. Hooper-Greenhill. Museums and their visitors. Routledge, New York & London, 2013.
S. Hord. A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational Leadership, 43(5), 22-26. (1986)
V. Kaptelinin. Designing Technological Support for Meaning Making in Museum Learning: an Activity -Theoretical Framew ork.
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Science. 2011
T. Macchia, L. Diaz and V. D’Andrea. Participating in Inf rastructuring. The active role of visitors and curators in museum. A
Matter of Design: Making Society through Science and Technology. 5th STS Italia Conference, 2014.
N. Proctor. Digital: Museum as platform, curator as champion, in the age of social media. Curator: The museum Journal , 53(1),
January, 2010.
T. Robertson. The public availability of actions and artefacts. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11 (3-4), 2004.
M. Salgado. Designing for an Open Museum. An Exploration of Content Creation and Sharing Through Interactive Pieces.
University of Art and Design Helsinki. 2009.
N. Simon. The participatory museum. Museum 20, 2010.
M. B. Stogner. The Media-Enhanced Museum Experience: Debating the use of Media Technology in Cultural Exhibition.
Curator, 52/4, 2009.
D. Stuedahl, O. Smørdal - Computers and Composition, Designing f or young visitors’ co-composition of doubts in cultural
historical exhibitions, 2011.