Innovation in Museum Displays.
Project Evaluation
April 2015
Clients: Nottingham Trent University
East Midlands Museums Service
Project report by:
Heather Lomas Consulting
CONTENTS
Page
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
3
2
INTRODUCTION
5
3
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
6
4
ANALYSIS
4.1
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES AND OVERCOMING CHALLENGES
7
4.2
WORKFORCE SKILLS AND DEVELOPMENT
11
4.3
ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE
11
4.4
INNOVATION
12
4.5
COLLABORATION
13
4.6
SUSTAINABILITY OF INNOVATIVE PRACTICE
13
4.7
VALUE FOR MONEY
14
4.8
DISSEMINATION
14
4.9
DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICE
15
4.10
MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT
16
4.11
ASSESSMENT PANEL
16
4.12
USE OF MENTORS
16
4.13
FEEDBACK FROM MENTORS
17
5
CONCLUSIONS
19
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
22
7
APPENDICES
23
2
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Funded through an Arts Council England Renaissance Strategic Support grant of £115,000, Innovation in
Museum Displays (IMD) was a project delivered in the East Midlands, as a partnership by Nottingham Trent
University and East Midlands Museums Service. This report highlights the overall findings from evaluation of
the project as a whole and makes conclusions and recommendations for the future.
The project delivered its outcomes from 2013-2015 and worked with eight museums; the project aims were to:
 Support display/interpretation projects that break new ground for the applicant museums by:
o inspiring ambition and aspiration
o engendering, facilitating and sharing innovative practice in audience engagement and
participation in museum displays across the region
o sharing and publishing the results nationally.
The project objectives were defined to
 Promote excellence,
 Increase audience engagement with museum displays, particularly through user-generated
content,
 Foster resilience and sustainability through the creative use of resources
 Increase confidence and aspiration in the workforce by recognising creativity in the East
Midlands.
 Successful applicant museums were selected by an independent judging panel and were awarded
funding in the form of small grants. Additional resources provided mentor support to all museums,
professional support, administration of the programme, workshops, website development,
dissemination and overall project evaluation.
 Innovation and success was judged on an individual basis for each project. Participants were
encouraged to take risks, test new methods of working, learn from failures and mistakes and
experiment with new ways of working.
 There were challenges for projects, but overall all involved demonstrated levels of success in new
approaches to display and exhibitions, organisational change, embedding new ways of working, skills
development, reaching new audiences, increased partnership and collaborative working. and
sustainability of innovative practice.
 There is much to be recommended for future dissemination of learning from this project for other
museums and cultural organisations and there is a clear appetite to develop and implement this model
further.
 The Arts Council England grant enabled the projects freedom to challenge their ways of working, look
to the future, take risks and develop new ways of working. The confidence this has embodied has
enabled individuals and organisations to make organisational shifts in this area of work and create new
areas of good practice.
The recommendations are as follows:


The success of the IMD project suggests it could be repeated with other museums in the East Midlands
and beyond; the use of grant aid to support further projects should be considered.
The use of mentors was a cost effective way of sharing knowledge and expertise amongst museums
and practitioners in the region. It would be useful to look at ways to extend this practice throughout
3
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015







museums in the region. If continued clearer guidance should be developed to define the mentor
relationship with supported museums.
Current participant museums should be considered to provide a mentoring and/or buddying role for
new projects.
If repeated, the project should review and further develop guidance for reporting and monitoring by
participant museums and mentors.
Greater support should be considered at the application stage to ensure more museums have the
confidence to apply.
If future projects are developed consideration should be given to extending timescales to allow
sufficient time for development and testing alongside project delivery, taking full account of budget
planning within organisations.
Support with evaluation should be integrated into future projects from the outset and should build on
the lessons learned from the 2013-2015 projects. This should take full regard of the points made in this
report regarding the positive aspects of flexibility, risk taking and ability to fail.
Musuems should continue to evaluate the outcomes of their individual projects and consider the
impact of this on their development and organisational change.
Dissemination of the good practice and lessons learned is essential. Further dissemination of the
outcomes of individual projects should be completed. This could include master classes, conferences,
hosting of research visits, presentations at forums, mentoring of new projects.
4
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
2 INTRODUCTION
This report was commissioned by Nottingham Trent University and East Midlands Museums Service to evaluate
the Arts Council funded Renaissance Strategic Support fund project ‘Innovation in Museum Displays’.
The project ran from 2013 to 2015 with two cohorts of four museums in each cohort (originally there were nine
museums involved but due to organisational constraints Belper North Mill were withdrawn from the project).
The total project grant awarded from Arts Council was £115 000, of which £60 000 was allocated directly to
museums for project delivery. The remaining funding covered mentor support, professional support,
administration of the programme, workshops, website development, dissemination and overall project
evaluation.
The project focused around addressing the five Arts Council England goals as set out in Culture, knowledge and
understanding: great museums and libraries for everyone.
1. Excellence is thriving and celebrated in museums and libraries
2. More people experience and are inspired by museums and libraries
3. Museums and libraries are sustainable, resilient and innovative
4. The leadership and workforce in museums and libraries are diverse and
highly skilled
5. Every child and young person has the opportunity to experience the richness of museums and libraries
The evaluation comments on the effectiveness of the programme overall, assessing whether aims and objects
have been met, defining overarching conclusions and providing recommendations for future work and
developments.
The aims of the Innovation in Museum Displays project were to:

Support display/interpretation projects that break new ground for the applicant museums by
o inspiring ambition and aspiration
o engendering, facilitating and sharing innovative practice in audience engagement and
participation in museum displays across the region
o sharing and publishing the results nationally.
The objectives were defined as to
 promote excellence,
 to increase audience engagement with museum displays, particularly through user-generated
content,
 to foster resilience and sustainability through the creative use of resources
 increase confidence and aspiration in the workforce by recognising creativity in the East
Midlands.
Museums applied to be part of the programme by submitting a project outline; an independent panel of
assessors approved the participant museums.
Museums were allocated a mentor to support their project, provide specialist expertise and inspiration.
All museums attended an initial workshop to learn more about the programme, meet other participant
museums and to be assigned to their mentors..
5
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The methodology centered on assessing the agreed evaluation areas, these were:








Project strengths and weaknesses
Challenges faced and overcome by projects
Workforce and skills development
Organisational change or difference to the organisation
Evidence that the projects have delivered:
o Innovation
o
Collaboration
o
Sustainability of innovative practice or sustainable models for innovation
o
Value for money
How has information about the project been disseminated?
Development of best practice – what can others learn from this project?
Commentary on the delivery and management of the project as an entity.
A combination of site visits, telephone interviews and structured email responses were used to source
feedback from museums and mentors. In addition a review of paperwork and feedback reports from museums
were assessed.
Interviews were conducted with the following museums:






Derby Museums Trust
Lakeside Arts Centre
Woolsthorpe Manor
Sharpes Pottery Museum
Swannington Heritage Trust
Sir John Moore Foundation
Additional museum participants were Creswell Heritage Trust and Hardwick Hall
The following mentors were interviewed:



Jim Grevatte
Jodie Henshaw
Andrea Hadley Johnson
Additional mentors were Carolyn Abel and Martin Broadhurst.
Further feedback was obtained through attendance at the Innovation in Museum Displays Summary Workshop
on 14 April 2015.
6
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
4 ANALYSIS
4.1 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES AND OVERCOMING CHALLENGES
4.1.1 Strengths
Museums identified a wide range of project strengths. All museums mentioned the freedom the structure of
the project provided in enabling them to develop, evolve, test and if necessary change their individual delivery
model. This approach encouraged museums to take risks and adopt a more entrepreneurial attitude. In reality
few projects failed, but the financial safety net of the project enabled the risk taking to work effectively and for
museums to feel confident in testing new ideas.
The strengths identified focused around the following themes:
Freedom to enable projects to succeed through development and evolution
Projects valued the opportunity to develop ideas, work creatively and for ideas to evolve and plans to change
over the life of the project. This was a new way of working for many museums, which previously would have
followed a more rigid plan for delivery.
Sir John Moore Foundation commented ‘The funding enabled us to do something we wouldn’t have been able
to do and for it to be incorporated into something wider and provide added value, which was great.’
‘The flexibility of the programme has really given everyone a boost. It’s not like we have been expected to follow
a defined path, just explore ways to get the outcomes we wanted. The creative process has enthused everyone.’
Derby Museums Trust.
‘There was lots of ‘winging it together’ and the lessons learnt have reduced the ‘winging’ since the project
ended.’ Swannington Heritage Trust.
‘This type of project is essential until participation becomes the norm as it helps heritage professionals firstly
justify trying more participatory activities within their organisation, and secondly provides a support network
for those who don’t do this as a matter of course. Eventually, they may not be needed, but it is a long way
away!’ Hardwick Hall.
Engaging new audiences
Museums maximised the opportunity to develop and work with new audiences. This included working with
young people, schools, volunteers and hard to reach groups. Several museums developed projects to enable
co-production and greater involvement from audiences in planning developing and delivering projects.
Woolsthorpe Manor provided a budget for young people to directly develop the PRISM project.
Young people from the project commented ‘I have really enjoyed being part of something scientific outside of
school. Working in a group of people of a similar age alongside someone who has had experience in these kinds
of projects really adds enjoyment to the project.’
Sharpes Pottery Museum also worked with young people using new approaches
7
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
‘Our project tried out new ways of engagement we looked at different ways of talking to our public and we’re
not afraid to do it again.’
Hardwick Hall worked with different volunteers and school groups
‘The highlight was watching the school group grasp quite difficult concepts and ask really pertinent questions,
showing just how engaged they were…and watching the look on our volunteers faces as they did so (pleased,
faintly surprised and then a dawning realisation that this project would be fun!).’
Developing a culture of risk taking
Musuems were supported in project development and encouraged to take risks and experiment with new ways
of working. For example Derby Museums Trust welcomed the opportunity to develop a test bed for ideas.
‘This project allowed us to move from seeing digital as add on to it being integral and incorporated; the next
display project will consider digital aspects from the outset.’
Swannington Heritage Trust were keen to use the opportunity to present heritage in a less traditional way
‘The maximizing risk approach was attractive; it provided opportunity and a licence for a different approach
from the normal one taken on heritage sites.’
Supported by the funding museums developed a greater confidence to develop new ideas.
‘We worked with the young people and saw what they could come up with. It was terrifying at the start
wondering what they would say, but they came up with new interpretive ideas and it was dynamic and
changing.’ Sharpes Pottery Museum
For several participants this approach enabled increased confidence in creating exhibitions and displays.
Working with mentors
All projects valued the input from the mentors. This was a valuable learning opportunity and the expertise
from specialists boosted the creative thinking and confidence of participant museums. Museums commented
that mentors – provided




Useful outside perspective
Opportunity to think through ideas
Confidence to take risks
Guidance and inspiration
‘For a volunteer led Trust that lacked experience in museum work and a knowledge of ideas that have been
used elsewhere this [the mentor] made a terrific difference.’ Swannington Heritage Trust.
‘Andrea was a star to work with; so lovely and creative. I really got a lot from her mentoring!’ Hardwick Hall
Workshops and sharing of ideas
8
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
The project workshops were successful for the majority of participant museums as they encouraged an initial
sharing of knowledge and ideas, a bringing together of project leads, mentors and museums and inspiration for
innovative developments.
‘The initial workshops and the talk by Graham Black were inspirational; we felt we could do something cutting
edge as a small museum with limited resources.’ Sharpes Pottery Museum
Research trips to other museums to experience best practice also proved an effective learning experience
‘We found the research trips were very helpful in looking at what other museums were doing and what was
working for them.’ Derby Musuems Trust
Flexibility of the budget
The experimental nature of the projects means that they evolved and developed over time. Museums valued
the flexibility afforded within their individual grants, enabling them to experiment, change project plans,
incorporate new ideas and have flexibility within the budget to experiment.
Lakeside Arts Centre valued the allocated project funding ‘Having a dedicated budget suddenly felt like we had
the license to do something properly.’
Swannington Heritage Trust commented ‘ The freedom to change details within the project was much greater
than with other grant programmes and this was very welcome and made it much easier to operate.’
Projects purchased a range of equipment and materials to support creation of displays; this has enabled reuse
to support development of further exhibitions and was seen as a long lasting benefit of the programme.
Evaluation
In many case museums did not have strong evaluation plans in place at the start. Contrary to conventional
project planning, which suggests robust evaluation plans should be in place once a project commences,
evaluation was not stressed at the start of the projects. This proved to be a positive aspect of the project
enabling freedom for museums to be responsive to development needs.
Although museums could see the benefit of final project evaluation all welcomed the fluidity and freedom
which the lack of rigid evaluation provided.
Woolsthorpe Manor commented ‘Defining the project at the beginning was hard due to the nature of it
evolving and putting in place evaluation criteria would have stifled it.’
4.1.2 Weaknesses
There were relatively few weaknesses identified by the projects. Participants embraced the opportunity for
experimentation and risk taking meaning that weaknesses were few. The areas identified were:
Evaluation
Musuems recognised that projects had developed and delivered often without detailed evaluation in place and
this was something they should be addressing.
9
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
Timescales
Several projects felt the timescales were too short for the delivery of the projects, particularly with project
testing and amendments. The flexibility of the programme, which all projects identified as a strength in some
cases resulted in slower progress, as new ideas were explored and sometimes rejected, in a bid to reach the
desired outcome.
Sharpes Pottery Museum commented
‘Some unforeseen changes in personnel and working impacted on the delivery of the project’
Lakeside Arts Centre commented ‘We had some internal organisational problems of capacity and involvement
which had we had more time would have made our project stronger.’
Hardwick Hall expressed the need for time commitment to be built into the project ‘It takes time! There needs
to be at least one dedicated staff member to keep the focus of this type of project as it can easily be lost in the
‘day job’, especially if the organisation taking part doesn’t normally ‘do’ this kind of thing.’
Project success based on individuals
Project success was over reliant on engagement from individual staff or volunteers. Several key personnel left
organisations before projects were completed, which in some instances led to an unsatisfactory conclusion.
Organisational buy-in and commitment to projects would have ensured less reliance on individuals and a more
sustainable outcome for results.
4.1.3 Challenges
In identifying project challenges museums were also identifying solutions to challenges. The following areas
were identified as challenges:
Project development
Using a co-production process, such as at Derby Musuems Trust, Lakeside Arts Centre, Sir John Moore
Foundation and Sharpes Pottery Museum ensured people were engaged from the outset. However, as projects
adopted an evolutionary approach it was not initially clear what the outcome would be and this proved difficult
for some staff and volunteers.
Sharpes Pottery commented ‘Doing something differently necessitated a cultural change for staff and
volunteers, but now we can see the whole workforce thinking differently.’
‘Individual project design was a challenge, but flexibility of trying things out enabled them to be changed’ Derby
Museums Trust
Sir John Moore Foundation observed ‘Some areas really stretched us, we commissioned an artist to develop a
water feature and workshop with young people, but it didn’t do what it was supposed to do and we had to
change it. This was a good learning curve for us and for the artist, next time both sides will fully understand the
brief.’
10
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
Workforce capacity
Several museums experienced pressures with staff and volunteer capacity, as projects evolved and grew.
Swannington Heritage Trust commented ‘We were only a small number of volunteers at the beginning and
doing everything ourselves, we would have benefited from employing a project manager.’
‘We needed more volunteers and advertised locally but didn’t manage to recruit any ‘Sharpes Pottery Museum
4.2 WORKFORCE SKILLS AND DEVELOPMENT
A variety of skills, knowledge and experience were developed by museum staff and volunteers, co producers
and new audiences. The following skills were identified:












Useful in developing bids for funding applications
Very practical skills – putting together exhibitions, learnt from mentor and other people who were
brought in
Volunteers learnt about installing exhibitions
The experimental nature of projects forced us to be flexible and think differently
Confidence - have developed new ways of working and a new vocabulary plus a confidence to talk
outside the sector
Knowledge of using new and different equipment
Skills in developing relationships and collaborative working with schools and young people
Workforce and volunteers all using new and different social media
Developing of new relationships and partnerships that will last
Attended workshops and learnt news skills in digital
Never done anything like it before – working with teenagers was a new skill
Young people as volunteers, they developed skills in confidence, teamwork, project management,
empowering, responsibility to deliver, research and budget management
Fewer opportunities for skills development were evidenced in those museums that were already working in a
more innovative way with displays and exhibitions, for example Derby Museums Trust and Sir John Moore
Foundation already had well developed skills in areas of co-production with young people and partnership
working.
4.3 ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE
The majority of projects involved new and innovative ways of working for the museums, which has had a
positive impact on how organisations view exhibitions and displays and on future work with audiences and
volunteers.
In some cases projects have enabled a greater organisational shift and have enhanced the possibilities to lever
in additional funding to support new ways of working for exhibitions and displays. For example, the
Woolsthorpe Manor project has provided a focus within the National Trust for delivery of science in new and
innovative ways.
11
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
‘The project has challenged the culture of our organisation to think in a more innovative way and to work with
teenagers and develop new projects - it’s left a legacy that can be used again and can promote what we do in a
positive way.’ Woolsthorpe Manor
‘We have shifted the focus of the organisation to work positively; in planning our 2016 programmes and
exhibitions we will be looking for a community involvement centre. We now have a template for a model for
exhibitions and engagement that we can use again with a different focus.‘ Sharpes Pottery Museum
‘The Project enabled our organisation to crystallize our thinking on outreach and development. Working with a
group which had life of its own and with individuals who were very motivated was great and it’s very good for
the organisation to be developing that.’ Lakeside Arts Centre
‘It benefits participants in all senses of the word; people inside the organisation benefit from an opportunity to
train in a new set of skills, try something new and see their place through new eyes. People from outside the
organisation who are involved in the project benefit from a chance to really get involved with something that is
normally done behind closed doors, and visitors participating in their own way get to have their say, feel part of
something larger and feel more engaged with the heritage around them.’ Hardwick Hall
Derby Museums Trust and the Sir John Moore Foundation were already working in a collaborative and
innovative way, as part of normal practice. The impact of the project on organisational change for them was
less obvious.
‘As an organisation we already take risks so not a major step change for us in how we operate, however the
specifics of working digitally have shown the need for this to be integrated and part of wider project planning.’
Derby Musuems and Art Gallery
‘There was less organisational change for us because this approach is understood and part of our day to day
working.’ Sir John Moore Foundation.
4.4 INNOVATION
The focus for all museums was to encourage innovative ways of working. The degree to which museums
achieved this was measured from their own individual benchmark of current innovative practice.
All museums demonstrated innovative thinking and delivery within their organisations.
‘The project was innovative for us. There was lots of evaluation built into the project and this can help us for the
future as we have evidence based data that can be used again We have developed new interpretative ways for
the museum to work with – it was a dynamic evolving process and elements were constantly changing. The
innovation was taking the risk – co creation was fantastic and terrifying – we’d no idea what the children would
come up with.’ Sharpes Pottery Museum
‘The innovative element was to work with young people 14-17 as a new audience and to allow the project to be
led by them. We have provided an environment for young people to experience science and to be themselves,
and we wanted to do something different and to test as we went along. I am really proud to be involved in the
project as it has evolved and being shaped by the young people involved. It’s very exciting.’ Woolsthorpe
Manor
‘We have used an innovative use of digital in gallery spaces at our new nature gallery at Derby Museum, it uses
sounds and art mixed with history and science.’ Derby Museums Trust
12
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
‘As an orgnisation we are new to producing exhibitions and so open to new ideas – so we found it invigorating
to try out our ideas.’ Swannington Heritage Trust
‘We have seen the innovation is part of our wider ‘heritage by stealth’ approach. This project has made us think
more clearly about how to achieve heritage by stealth and we’ll be putting that into practice.’ Sir John Moore
Foundation
‘We have developed an interactive work station for the gallery and a virtual website catering for everyone’s
needs and we’ve worked with a wonderful group of people with a natural personal interest who still want to be
involved and work with us.’ Lakeside Arts Centre
4.5 COLLABORATION
The majority of projects commented on the positive impact of new and established collaborations and
partnerships, these included working with different schools and groups and working with colleagues and
organisations, from within and outside the cultural sector.
Sharpes Pottery Museum commented ‘Kyati was paid to support us and the knowledge and experience she
brought from Derby Museum and Art Gallery really helped us to put it into practice.’
‘Co production is collaborative and our project worked with volunteers, businesses, universities, the public and
other museums to contribute to the final interpretation.’ Derby Museums Trust
‘A really important part of our project has been the engagement with other parts of the university and with
other organisations, such as Nottinghamshire Archives , the Galleries of Justice and other museums; its’ been
good for us to work with other organisations.’ Lakeside Arts Centre
‘We are working with a group of year 8 students from Tibshelf Secondary School as a major part of the
project……The teachers involved in the project are really excited and I think that this project will build some
lasting relationships with them.’ Hardwick Hall
‘Positive elements of the project were working with the Institute of Physics and the links the project has allowed
us to make with schools, colleges, festivals and celebrities; Dallas Campbell is supporting the project and this
was a real boost for the young people.’ Woolsthorpe Manor
4.6 SUSTAINABILITY OF INNOVATIVE PRACTICE
The outcomes from projects have provided new ideas which museums are embedding in their future
developments. Individuals were enthusiastic about the positive aspects of the projects, the lessons they have
learned and the changes they will make to the display and audience engagement processes.
The grant funding has provided for a range of equipment and support which will allow creation of future
displays and exhibitions.
The sustainability will be achieved most effectively through a change in approach and organisational culture.
The projects recognised the need for change, they developed confidence and are enabling change to occur.
New approaches for exhibition and display will continue in the museums.
13
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
‘The co production at Derby has meant that we have met new people from outside the sector which has helped
us as well as developing our audiences. We will maintain and develop these connections for the future.’ Derby
Musuems Trust
‘The display space has grown in importance ….it is now seen as an integral part of the Arabella themed
interpretation for the year.’ Hardwick Hall
‘We are currently looking to develop other projects off the back of the PRISM project, including enhanced
interpretation on site, using the principles of this project to influence all our future interpretation. Staff have
confidence to start the project to approach interpretation in new ways and to develop new audiences.’
Woolsthorpe Manor
‘It’s great to see our small, but strong group continuing beyond our IMD project.’ Lakeside Arts Centre
‘The project was a slow burn but with lasting impact as it has involved many in the community to be involved –
new members have joined the trust as a result of it and new volunteers from this.’ Swannington Heritage Trust
4.7 VALUE FOR MONEY
General consensus from museums evidenced that the project delivered value for money. Individual project
grants were relatively small, but this encouraged a more creative approach to new interpretative approaches
and ones which can be cost effectively replicated in the future.
Projects took a holistic approach to the value gained from the projects, which was not solely focused on project
outputs but included the workshops and mentor time, both of which were highly valued.
‘Our project was also hugely supported by in kind support, but it’s sustainable and still continuing which is a
good use of our funding.’ Lakeside Arts Centre
‘Although we ended up with less than we asked for the value for money is apparent and the legacy of our
project is the end product which can be taken out and used again at shows and as part of outreach.’
Woolsthorpe Manor
4.8 DISSEMINATION
The dissemination of learning around project delivery, outputs and impact is an area for development.
Individual projects have not yet disseminated the learning sufficiently and it is clear that museums in the wider
sector would benefit from learning about these projects.
Some museums usefully incorporated dissemination about development within their project delivery, mainly
through use of social media.
‘Our increased used of twitter and social media enabled more dissemination about the project generally and the
updating and sharing was a critical part of the project. Some of our co producers were businesses and there
was cross learning and sharing with artists as well as business, which was good.’ Derby Museums Trust
‘The outcomes of the project are disseminated through the display and through our website – but we recognise
that showing how we got there, through the project, could be more widely shown.’ Lakeside Arts Centre
14
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
‘Our young people are using social media to disseminate information about the project and our staff are
speaking at meetings and forums and internally we are sharing information within the National Trust. When
the project is completed it will be more outward facing.’ Woolsthorpe Manor
As the phase two projects are completing, this is an ideal time for information about all the projects, their
delivery outputs and impact to be shared to a wider audience.
There are plans for future dissemination, for example at the East Midlands Heritage Conference, in June 2015.
In addition the use of research visits by other museums, sharing at conferences and fora, creation of case
studies, a series of master classes/seminars/training days, development of the website and links to MDEM
projects, funding and information streams could also prove beneficial.
4.9 DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICE - WHAT CAN OTHERS LEARN FROM THE PROJECT?
Museums are keen to share their learning and development with other organisations. All museums identified
a range of areas of best practice development, these are:













Benefits of developing working relationships with children and young people and how involving the
local community in co creation can lead to dynamic workshops and results
By co creation we have cemented a partnership relationship with the children and the schools
It was scary to start with, but good to challenge ourselves
Our working relationship has developed and increased with Derby Musuems Trust, which is really
positive for our museum and we have gained such a lot from closer working relationships with other
museums on the project too
It has been really important to have a go and not to be scared to test things
We feel that there is a lot for other museums to learn from a co-production approach, it takes effort to
keep people inspired and engaged, but it is worth it, the results can be amazing
IMD has enabled us to think creatively to make our project work. Using twitter has been great for
being active and sharing
Harnessing the enthusiasm for local and family history and using that to develop new audiences can
really work. It has been great to take that and use it in wider arts context of a play, film ,theatre and
for it to show the potential for that to be so much more
It’s important for our project that it has a recognisable brand
Partnership working was very important to make new links and to sustain them for the future
Taking risks and testing new ideas and being prepared to fail and learn and adjust thinking were all part
of the project resilience, we will be using this approach again
Using volunteers to be engaged in projects is extremely worthwhile; we have further ambitions to
develop working with young people who are not into science
It’s important to collaborate at all levels and understand why you’re doing a project and who it is for;
working with young people provides a great new perspective
15
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
4.10 MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT
All museums spoke in positive terms about the overall management of the programme by NTU and EMMS.
There was a feeling of freedom and flexibility with the programme, but this was framed within project
boundaries and support.
Points raised included:




It was easy to apply for the funding and the mentoring support was fantastic.
The project went very smoothly and the support of the team, especially Charlie, was invaluable.
We knew we could have asked for help on the project if we needed it.
One museum commented that the application was over bureaucratic.
‘Applying was a straightforward process but it felt like they still wanted lots of information at
the beginning and wanted you to have planned it – even though we planned it we had to make
some changes. Much better for them to have given us the money and see what we came up
with’.
There were issues raised regarding confusion over the overarching project objectives which appeared to lack
clarity, a point which was reflected in approaches by some projects, where clear guidance would have enabled
tighter individual project delivery. It would have been more effective to have project objectives clearly defined
at the commencement of the project.
There was also some confusion about reporting, monitoring and information required by NTU/EMMS and
mentors also commented that more guidance in this area would have been helpful.
Innovation in Museum Displays focused on supporting projects which would demonstrate quality of practice
and would deliver against their project outcomes. The decision to withdraw Belper North Mill from the project
due to organisational changes at the museum was in line with the aims of the project. The funding allocated to
this project was redistributed amongst remaining projects.
4.11 ASSESSMENT PANEL
A panel of experts was used to assess applications to the Innovation in Museum Displays project. Panel
members were located outside of the region to ensure all projects could be judged without preconceptions.
The panel judges were: Katy Ashton, Manny Coulon, and Rachel Cockett.
4.12 USE OF MENTORS
There was unanimous praise for the use of mentors. Museums highly valued the opportunity to work with a
specialist with an external perspective. Mentors worked extremely well, providing support and
encouragement, but also a realistic view on what could be achieved and sustained.
For mentors employed in museums the role enabled cross fertilisation of ideas and a modest income
generation for the mentor’s institution.
Freelance mentors considered the fees provided were below normal daily rates, but they gained from the
sharing of ideas and valued the opportunity to be involved.
16
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
‘The mentor was great, it can be isolating in a small museum so having someone there to consult was great; she
brought a different perspective to how we work.’ Sharpes Pottery Museum
‘The mentor was fabulous; he provided digital technical specialism and really helped in a key part of the project.
Our mentor was from outside the sector, but he’s a good supporter of museums and we will use this
collaboration to develop future projects.’ Derby Musuems Trust
‘Carolyn Abel was fantastic, really helpful in making us more realistic about our aims and making us rethink
from the beginning.’ Lakeside Arts
‘It was great having a safety rope. We could take risks knowing our mentor was there to pull us back if
needed.’ Swannington Heritage Trust
‘Jim really helped by facilitating the first session and providing visions and ideas about where it could go, he
encouraged us to push the boundaries and try new ideas and he expanded the horizons of our volunteers’.
Woolsthorpe Manor
4.13 FEEDBACK FROM MENTORS
Feedback from mentors provided the following points:



It was important for mentors to be used effectively and fully integrated into projects – the most
successful projects had maximised the input of mentors.
Mentors worked best when they were kept fully abreast of project development and could intervene at
key moments. With one project the mentor felt they had not been used sufficiently and the project
outcome suffered as a result.
Mentors enabled museums to stay focused on the project and supported delivery.
‘One challenge is that timescales for funded projects can feel artificial and putting the museum under
pressure put the project at risk of the museum defaulting to its original way of thinking. As mentor I
was able to keep the museum on track – we weren’t looking for safe, we needed innovation’

It was invigorating for mentors to use their knowledge and expertise to support projects.
‘I felt chuffed to be asked to be a mentor, it was a great CPD opportunity for me, I like to give back and
think I am helping people for the future and I would like to do it again.’
‘The payment to my museum was really useful and helped the organisation to see the benefit in
releasing me to provide this support.’
‘I used my skills in different ways; I was coaching and supporting but also planting seeds to encourage
more innovative and creative thinking.’
‘I think it’s a brilliant project. Museums need to feel invigorated and alive and to delight people and it’s
great to be able to help with that.’
‘I felt I provided added value on top of the project and was able to help the project redefine its aims and
I also provided suggestions on practicalities. I’m definitely interested in doing it again.’
‘As a mentor I gained lots from being involved. I’ve absorbed ideas and thinking and I’ll be passing
these on and using them in other areas of my work. It was nice to work with people who think
differently.’
17
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015


Mentors supported project development, but in some cases they would have welcomed the
opportunity to return and provide support for project outcomes to be more fully embedded in the
organisation.
Mentors felt that their role required improved definition and guidance from the outset. It’s clear the
role is different for each project, but some information for both mentor and mentee project to
understand roles would have helped with clarification.
18
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
5 CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the feedback from projects has reached the following overarching conclusions:
The aims of the project have on the whole been met, with outputs and impact from the projects demonstrating
an increase in museums developing new and innovative ways of approaching displays and exhibitions.
The Innovation in Museums Displays project has highlighted the importance of museums moving forward,
considering how displays and exhibitions can be approached in the future and challenging the acceptance that
current practice is sufficient.
The opportunities afforded through the Arts Council England funding was pivotal in project success. In
particular, the encouragement provided to support museums in taking risks and learning from mistakes
enabled and enhanced different approaches to displays and a confidence within organisations to embrace the
unexpected.
5.1 INNOVATION





Innovative practice in developing museum displays is evident in all museums involved in the project.
Judging the success of innovative practice was based on the initial starting level of the museum; some
museums started with limited experience of display creation, where others started from a more
advanced position.
Musuems developed new ways of working, more creative approaches, confidence and experience of
working with new audiences and they have subsequently embedded new ways of working for their
organisations.
Several of the museums (in particular Derby Museums and Sir John Moore Foundation) were already
working in successful collaborative and co production way, so although they developed and engaged in
different way of working it was more of an extension of current best practice.
The greatest impact of innovation was evidenced in those museums that had no previous experience of
co production, working with new audiences or closely developed partnership working.
The Innovation in Museum Displays project recognises that this funding has enabled a start to the
process of change and organisational thinking about displays and engagement with audiences.
5.2 FLEXIBILITY OF THE PROGRAMME

The flexibility and freedom afforded through the structure of the project was a highly successful
approach. It allowed museums to develop confidence and attempt more risk orientated approaches to
display and exhibitions. In particular colleagues felt empowered to work with new audiences and in
different ways with stakeholders. This was a new approach for many of the museums, the license to
fail, learn and develop new approaches supported museums to create exciting new displays which they
can build on in the future.
19
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
5.3 SHARING INFORMATION WITH OTHER PARTICIPANTS


Museums valued the opportunity to meet with other participants at the programme meetings. In
particular, museums found the talk by the Graham Black at the initial meeting to be inspiration and
excellent at encouraging museums to experiment and test their boundaries of innovation.
Interaction with wider colleagues through mentoring or research visits was also beneficial.
5.4 MENTORS


The use of mentors has been hugely beneficial for the project. All museums involved commented on
the positive interactions and support they have received from their mentors.
Mentors enjoyed sharing their knowledge and in many instances gained further knowledge and
experience to support their own practice.
5.5 TIMESCALES

In several cases the 12 month timescale for project completion proved to be difficult and too short.
The innovative nature of the projects and the need to test and adjust delivery meant that a longer
timescale could have been beneficial.
5.6 DISSEMINATION


Currently there has been limited dissemination about project success and outputs; some information is
available on the Innovation in Museum Displays website
http://emms.org.uk/innovation_in_museum_displays/ and there are plans to increase dissemination
and to enable a wider profile both regionally and nationally for the results. In the initial stages this has
resulted in a programme summary meeting, bringing all museums together in a day of sharing and
reflection, but plans also include presentations at the East Midlands Heritage Conference in June 2015,
a range of wider booked conference presentations and further development of case studies.
Projects should be encouraged to provide information about success via their own channels. However,
access to learning is not available for all projects due to corporate restrictions on website content for
some sites, for example the National Trust.
5.7 COST EFFECTIVENESS


Museums in the programme received relatively small grants to develop their projects. The output,
impact and sustainability resulting from the projects demonstrate the cost effective nature of the
projects.
Equipment purchased as an integral part of projects will enable a legacy of good practice to be
embedded for the future.
20
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
5.8 EVALUATION


All participants recognised the value of project evaluation. However, in many cases clear evaluation
was not embedded from the outset. This was actually a project strength as a less rigid approach to
measuring impacts enabled a more organic approach to project development and was less constraining
for the museums involved, allowing for greater creativity and innovative ways of working.
Some museums had limited experience of evaluating display and exhibition projects and further work
on this could assist with future sustainability.
5.9 LEGACY




Participant museums were keen to ensure that the skills, knowledge and confidence gained during the
projects would continue.
Feedback suggested that some organisations had found the application process challenging and for
future projects additional support at the initial stages would be beneficial.
It was clear that some projects lacked long term organisational buy-in and that individual personnel
were very much driving involvement in projects; this presented a challenge when individuals moved
on.
All involved welcomed the idea of encouraging knowledge transfer with peers and for current project
participants to be considered for a mentoring role in future projects.
21
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
The success of the IMD project suggests it could be repeated with other museums in the East Midlands
and beyond; the use of grant aid to support further projects should be considered.
6.2
The use of mentors was a cost effective way of sharing knowledge and expertise amongst museums
and practitioners in the region. It would be useful to look at ways to extend this practice throughout
museums in the region. If continued clearer guidance should be developed to define the mentor
relationship with supported museums.
6.3
Current participant museums should be considered to provide a mentoring and/or buddying role for
new projects.
6.4
If repeated, the project should review and further develop guidance for reporting and monitoring by
participant museums and mentors.
6.5
Greater support should be considered at the application stage to ensure museums have confidence to
apply.
6.6
If future projects are developed consideration should be given to extending timescales to allow
sufficient time for development and testing alongside project delivery and taking account of budgetary
planning within organisations.
Support with evaluation should be integrated into future projects from the outset and should build on
the lessons learned from the 2013-2015 projects. This should take full regard of the points made in this
report regarding the positive aspects of flexibility, risk taking and ability to fail.
6.7
6.8
Musuems should continue to evaluate the outcomes of their individual projects and consider the
impact of this on their development and organisational change.
6.9
Dissemination of the good practice and lessons learned is essential. Further dissemination of the
outcomes of individual projects should be completed. This could include master classes, conferences,
hosting of research visits, presentations at forums, mentoring of new projects.
22
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015
7 APPENDICES
7.1 APPENDIX 1 – PROJECTS AWARDED FUNDING
Phase 1 successful bids:
Creswell Crags
Sharpe's Pottery
Swannington Heritage Trust
Sir John Moore
Phase 2 successful bids
Derby Museums
Hardwick Estate
Lakeside Arts Centre
Woolsthorpe Manor
Phase 2 incomplete project
Belper North Mill
23
Innovation in Museum Displays Evaluation report April 2015