Wednesday, 29 April 2009

'Organisational change' session at MW2009

I was chairing the session so my notes are a bit sketchy. It's worth reading the full papers and following the slides online.

Intro notes: it's an interesting moment for the sector, maturity of approaches to the web. Turning the analytical gaze inwards, working towards a more effective, integrated and considered use of technology. This brings new challenges in managing expectations and demand. Wider consultation means adapting our language and understanding, but the benefits of collaboration are worth it.

Organisational Change for the On-line World – Steering the Good Ship Museum Victoria
David Methven, Head, ICT, and Timothy Hart, Director, Information Multimedia and Technology, Museum Victoria, Australia.  Slides: http://www.slideshare.net/museumsandtheweb/tim-hart-david-methven-organisational-change-for-the-online-world-steering-the-good-ship-museum-victoria


Tim Hart started, talking about their in-sourcing model; build capability, drive money otherwise spent outsourced inside the org. Interruption by David! Trying to change org culture, 'blah blah blah'. They used an audience volunteer for dramatisation!

Therapy for Tim. Circle. Telling people what we should be doing, not how. Changing work practices. Not consulting us, asking us what we want to do and how we should change what we're doing.

Process. Once strategy was done, job not done. Didn't understand how much ownership the org wanted of the strategy. People who weren't involved in the process kicked up.

Established exhibition production processes.

Interesting conceptual model. Relationship.

Internal experience of applications, IT systems.


Down To Earth: Social Media and Institutional Change
Patricia Deiser, Museum voor Communicatie; and Vincent de Keijzer, Gemeentemuseum, The Netherlands. Slides: http://www.slideshare.net/museumsandtheweb/vincent-de-keijzer-patricia-deiser-down-to-earth-social-media-and-institutional-change


Vincent and Patricia: addressing people who are not willing or able to come to the museum. New roles for the public. Make use of knowledge, time, enthusiasm of the public.

Brave new world, head spinning. But had to get down to earth. Colleagues were being polite, but no one was actually doing anything. Realised approaching it in the wrong way - presenting it as something everyone is doing, we should be doing it. But should try to convince them about what would benefit them in these web 2.0 things. Had to seduce them. Much harder to do. Asked experts from outside the museum to help develop online strategy. Stop talking with people outside the museum, start talking with people inside the museum about this. Let people discuss it among themselves. Let them go online, learn about it for themselves. Low profile platform for staff to experiment. Start with your own, internal community, build a community from there.

Continuous access to cultural heritage with university of Amsterdam. Built a platform for museum staff, for ideas, proposals, projects. Asked Patricia, as a student, to research, interview colleagues. Outsider perspective.

Machiavelli quote.

Patricia's research: How do people interact with public, how much do they know about web technology, do they use it themselves; what are they enthusiastic about?

Talked about research process. Showed colleagues examples of other things. Asked colleagues to research their presence online on e.g. Flickr, see what people had already put out there.

Models of staff members from the research: Lecturer - likes to prepare thoroughly, then make a publication/presentation of it. One-way focus. they send their knowledge out to the public, not interested in feedback from people who aren't also scholars.

Fear of losing expertise if everything goes online.

Educators - not people in education dept, label for group. More into interaction, want some feedback . Teacher - pupil relationship. Afraid of examples where people could load UGC onto website.

Presenters - same attitude to communication as educators, but more advanced in web technology.

Interactors - already working with the public, do want to have interaction with public, but not advanced with technology. Old school education departments

Connectors - same attitudes to public, but advanced in using web technology.

Mapped staff into the categories. Difficult diagram to show internally! Scale of communication style (one way, two way focused) and use of technology. Difficult to get everyone into connectors corner, but at least get people to move up scale on use of technology.

Communities of practice.

Everything that goes onto desk goes onto website.

Still needs a lot of social skills, persuasion.


After the Heroism, Collaboration: Organizational Learning and the Mobile Space
Peter Samis and Stephanie Pau, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, USA. Slides: http://www.slideshare.net/psamis/after-the-heroism-collaboration-organizational-learning-and-the-mobile-space

Stephanie and Peter: digital and analogue resources. Benefiting from experience of other institutes either as staff change or working with other orgs.

Interpretive goal process. Cross departmental dialogue and interpretive brainstorm process. Workshop - answers to basic questions to help formulate a strategy.

Key questions - what's the rationale for this project? Why here, why now?
List 1 - 3 main visitor take aways.
Who's the intended audience, and why?
What didactic elements are planned? What other modes of interp inc multimedia should we consider?

Case studies. Showing how the process worked in exhibs with really different requirements.

Peter - evaluation studies. Different modes of use - wall texts vs multimedia guides.

"What a visual interface brings to the party..." Break picture into components, not a slave to a minute and a half overview.

What people want - pre-loaded vs call in.

Sharing usage figures - ace.

What information did on-site visitors not get? if they didn't have the cell phones. Breakdown of what content was available by which methods.

No comments:

Post a Comment