Notes

Where our approach deviates is that we believe that each individual employee is motivated bya work-related identity, similar conceptu- ally to the museum-related identity described in Chapter 5. The basis for assess ment needs to be predicated on understanding these worker identities and helping to ensure that they are positive and maximally enacted. As we have pointed out repeatedly in this book, in the Knowledge Age, people the most robust repository of institutional knowledge-are an organization's most valuable asset. In the current climate of rapid societal and technological change, t is becoming necessary for knowledge workers to be in a continuous learning mode. Museums often find themselves unable to hire new employees with the mix of skills and backgrounds they need, the aging of the Baby Boom genera- tion threatens many institutions with the imminent retirement of their most knowledge-able employees, yet at the same time there is a decline in training of existing employees. Metrics can be put into place to guide managers in focusing training funds where they can help the most; however, remember that in the workplace as in the leisure world, free-choice learning is the predominant mode in which individuals gain their knowledge and foster innovation. So in addition to tra ditional training, employees need mentors and tutors, as well as the encour agement to develop and support informal "knowledge-sharing" groups, Each individual associated with the organization should be encouraged to under stand his or her work-related identity needs, to set annual learning goals and have these goals monitored and supported. To help foster a learning organiza- all members of the organization, from floor staff to trustees, should be empowered to act as both learners and teachers, as both trainees and trainers.


The bottom line is that staff, board, and volunteer learning and growth con- stitute the essential foundation for success of any Knowledge Age museum. This is a dimension in which rhetoric currently far exceeds reality in most museums. A few museums are making major efforts to pioneer ways of creat ing a more reflective and empowered workforce; good examples include th Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, Denver Museum of Art and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. External Relationships believe that no museum, no nonprofit for that matter, can long exist in the wenty-first century that does not develop meaningful long-term external relationships-relationships with the whole community, with strategic part- ner organizations, and with key individuals. This perspective is thus designed to ensure that the museum develop clearly articulated goals and objectives fo how it intends to build and sustain these various relationships and then mon- or and measure its success at satisfying those goals and objectives. As with the previous categories, identity comes into play. Not just visitors and employees have identity needs, but institutions too! What is the identity your institution wishes to project into the community, and how can you build and support that identity? What are the identity needs of your partner organizations? Is it rea- sonable to support those? The key to successful monitoring of success is to be as specific and concrete as possible. If for example, your museum has a partnership with the local school system you should define annual benchmarks of success for this part- nership. These benchmarks should not just be numbers of students served, though these might, as above, represent a useful indicator of support processes Rather, the benchmarks of success should be measurable outcomes that indi- cate what you, the museum, hoped to gain from this partnership (e.g.,commu nity awareness and appreciation, revenues, return visits by families, changes in students attitudes toward art, or science) as well as what your partner, history, the local school system hoped to gain (e.g., greater interest in school art, his tory, or science, improved test scores). Poor performance from this perspective would be a strong indicator of future decline, even in the face of current mis- sion success. Developing, maintaining, and successfully fulfilling relation ships is ultimately as fundamental to institutional success and vitality in the years ahead as are the other three target areas listed in this model.

Sadly, great examples of museums regularly and systematically assessing their community relations are hard to come by. However, some institutions have at appreci ated the need and made least the Buf small steps in this direction, including falo Museum of Science Museum of Fine Arts, Houston; Walters Art Gallery Baltimore; and the Japanese American National Museum, Los Angeles.