Post on 09-Apr-2018
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
1/23
Light Touch Peer ReviewCanterbury City Council:
Museums & Galleries Service
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
2/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
1
Contents
Theme 1: Leadership and Governance 7
Theme 2: Policy and Strategy 9
Theme 3: Community Engagement 11Theme 4: Partnership Working 13Theme 5: Resource Management 15Theme 6: People Management 17
Theme 7: Customer Service 19
Theme 8: Performance, Achievement and Learning 21
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
3/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
2
Background
The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) is a Non-Departmental
Body sponsored by the Department for Culture Media and Sport and is the
lead strategic agency for museums, libraries and archives. We work to improve
peoples lives by building knowledge, supporting learning, inspiring creativity
and celebrating identity.
MLA has been commissioned by Canterbury City Council (CCC) to undertake
a Light Touch Peer Review (LTPR) of its Museums Service. A Light Touch
Peer Review allows a team of people who understand the pressures and
challenges of running museums, libraries or archives to review the practices of
the service in a challenging but supportive way. This process allows a
constructive discussion of its strengths and weaknesses and provides
recommendations of how improvements can be made.
Peer reviews are about MLA helping museums, libraries and archives, and
local councils drive their own improvement. In carrying out this LTPR, MLA will
support Canterbury City Council through a targeted approach providing
practical help and expertise to help them plan their services improvement. In
providing an external perspective we will help them deliver on their potential.
We have agreed the following principles:
The value of the LTPR is as an opportunity to take a fresh look at the
Museum Service with the assistance of a professional peer and other
consultancy support
That LTPR is a partnership between the Review Team and CCC with
the express intention of supporting self-improvement
LTPR will benefit CCC most if there is capacity given to the process
and engagement from senior figures and colleagues
That LTPR is one stage in a longer term supportive/improvement
relationship between CCC and MLA.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
4/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
3
Context for this Review
The LTPR was undertaken at a challenging time for Canterburys Museums
Service. A reduction in the budgets for the service for 2010-11 led to
proposals for closures and reductions in service; proposals to which there was
strong local opposition. This opposition, and the consultation exercise that
followed, demonstrated a high level of support for the Museum Service and,
mindful of this, the Council agreed that the cuts should be delayed to 2011/12
to allow some time to develop ideas and implement changes.
The LTPR is just one of the mechanisms through which the council can
develop those ideas and plan for service improvements. However it is
important to stress that the emphasis of the LTPR process is on long-term
strategic improvement planning. It encourages authorities to take a broader
look at the service to ensure that it identifies the outcomes it is or should be
contributing to, and builds the partnerships that are necessary to the
achievement of these outcomes. It is for the authority itself to determine its
budgets and the level of resources allocated to each of its services, within that
context.
The review team
The Review Team comprised:
Wendy Parry - Regional Manager (South East), MLA
Neil White - Local Government Relationship Manager (East Region),
MLA
Sarah Wilkie - independent consultant
Helen Eccles, Programme Manager - Museum and Workforce
Development, Renaissance South East
The team spent one day on site and in that time was able to meet with:
Cllr Darren Ellis, Portfolio Holder for Museums and Galleries
Museums and Galleries Advisory Group
Colin Carmichael, Chief Executive
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
5/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
4
Velia Coffey, Director
Janice McGuinness, Head of Service
Ken Reedie, Curator of Museums and Galleries
Katie Ginger, Visitor Service Manager
Martin Crowther, Education Development Manager
Craig Bowen, Collections and Research Manager
Manda Gifford, Outreach Officer: Coastal Museums
Staff focus group
Council Officers focus group
Partners and stakeholders focus group
Prior to the on-site day a telephone interview was conducted with Krystyna
Matyjaszkiewicz, Gallery Exhibitions Manager, who could not be available on
the day.
The team was appreciative of the welcome and hospitality provided by the
service and would like to thank everybody that they met during the process for
their time and contributions. The way in which the needs of the team were
taken care of in the build up to the review and whilst on site by Peter Davies
deserves a special mention.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
6/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
5
Summary of findings and recommendations
At the end of the on-site day the Review Team presented its initial findings to
Colin Carmichael, Velia Coffey, Janice McGuinness and Ken Reedie. The
headlines from that presentation have been incorporated into this report as part
of a more detailed written account of the findings of the review. The main body
of the report is structured around the eight themes of the IDeA self-assessment
benchmark tool completed by the service prior to the review.
Overall key strengths
The Leader, other Members and senior officers are all very positive
about the role of heritage in supporting the broader work of the council
While budget cuts are seen as a driver of change, those leading the
service acknowledge that they should not become the main driver
The Cross-party Museums and Galleries Advisory Group is very
supportive of the service and open to change
A lot of people want to work with the Museums Service: recent events
have galvanised support, and there is a clear opportunity to turn that
support into strategic partnership working
Staff are committed to the service, in many cases passionate about it
Main issues for consideration
The Review Team did not develop a strong impression of a shared
vision for the service
The service needs to be braver in taking risks
Many staff do not feel empowered and lack the confidence (and support
of managers) to take decisions and implement ideas
Plans developed specifically for the Beaney need to be embedded
across the service
There are differing views (within the service and the council more
generally) about the levels of priority that should be given to diverse
customer groups
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
7/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
6
Community engagement work is not yet culturally embedded in the
Museum Service: it is too often linked to external funding opportunities
or triggered by others
The use of external funding is on the whole piecemeal and ad hoc
Recommendations
Following the LTPR, a number of recommendations are made below to
address the key issues for consideration summarised above.
Members and senior officers should work together to develop and
articulate a clear vision for the Museum Service that will underpin
improvement and provide much-needed context for the service review.
Senior management should identify and implement systems that would
empower staff, encouraging them not only to think creatively and come
up with ideas but also permitting them to put these into practice, even
at the risk of failure
The service should seize the opportunity presented by recent events to
capitalise on the current willingness of stakeholders, working with them
to create a shared vision and to formalise partnership working
The service should develop a coherent marketing strategy and
audience development plan which would segment and identify target
audiences and their different needs to inform future planning and
prioritisation
The service should adopt a more proactive and strategic approach to
community engagement in order to position the service more strongly in
terms of its contribution to broader council and community objectives.
The service should develop a more coherent funding strategy, using its
experience of successfully raising funding for the Beaney project, and
its emerging partnerships, to enable access to more diverse funding
streams, and exploring more commercial opportunities
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
8/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
7
Detailed findings
Theme 1: Leadership and Governance
Strengths
There is clarity at most senior level about need to reshape the service
While budget cuts are seen as a driver of change, those leading the
service acknowledge that they should not become the main driver
The Cross-party Museums and Galleries Advisory Group is very
supportive of the service and open to change
Areas for development
The Review Team did not develop a strong impression of a shared
vision for the service
There is a need for greater transparency towards your partners,
towards staff, and towards the general public
Staff need to be empowered and to feel able to think creatively and to
innovate
The service needs to be braver in taking risks
The Chief Executive is strongly supportive of change within the service and
expressed the view that meeting budget reductions should be secondary to a
more strategic review to address different options for service delivery. The
Review Team welcomed the openness and honesty of several senior officers
who articulated similar views.
However there is not yet a strong, shared vision for the service and work to
develop such a vision should be an urgent priority. Members and senior
officers should work together to develop and articulate a clear vision for the
Museum Service that will underpin improvement and provide much-needed
context for the service review, and will support improved partnership working
with external and internal stakeholders. As part of this process it should seek
to find and to articulate its place within the authoritys overall vision, ensuring
coherence between the two.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
9/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
8
It is apparent that the Cross-party Museums and Galleries Advisory Group is
very supportive, and its members willing to put politics aside in the effort to
create the best possible service for the city. Relationships between Members
and Officers seem largely positive. However the Review Team felt a need for
a more open and transparent approach to the work of this group, for instance
allowing interested members of the public to attend part at least of the
meetings.
Many members of staff, at different levels within the organisation, were
supportive of their immediate managers, but many also expressed a need for
more autonomy. The team heard several accounts of good ideas that went
unheard, of decisions that had to be referred upwards, of plans that had to be
changed at short notice when over-ridden, and of difficulties in doing their job
due to a feeling of not having full control of all aspects. It will be important in
taking the service forwards that the organisation finds more effective
mechanisms for involving staff and ensuring that the good ideas expressed to
the Review Team find a voice within the service and can be turned into real
opportunities.
With the exception of its recent work on the Beaney development project,
Canterburys Museum Service does not appear to be a risk-taking
organisation. The Review Team felt that the lack of staff empowerment could
be a factor in this, and consider that it has in the past had a negative impact on
relationship-building with partners, and had led to a stasis in terms of service
development. If the service is to respond positively to current and future
challenges it needs to develop a less risk-averse culture and to be braver in
allowing, and in learning from, failure. If it is able to do this, the Review Team
felt that there could be real potential for the service to progress and turn these
challenges into opportunities for growth.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
10/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
9
Theme 2: Policy and strategy
Strengths
Culture is at the centre of the Corporate Plan
The Leader is very positive about the role of heritage in supporting the
broader work of the council
Areas for development
A clearer articulation of priorities would support service planning and
partnership working
Plans developed specifically for the Beaney need to be embedded
across the service
The service would benefit from a coherent marketing strategy and
audience development plan to inform future planning
Involving staff in the planning process would improve awareness of
service priorities and strengthen morale
The Review Team welcomed the positioning of culture within Canterbury City
Councils Corporate Plan, and the recent revision of the Cultural Policy to
reflect the new enabling and commissioning roles for local councils. It was
heartening to hear the Leader talk of the importance of heritage to an historic
city such as Canterbury.
Although these and other more specific plans exist for the service, those
working in it and with it were unable to articulate clearly its strategic priorities.
Greater clarity would support service planning and partnership working.
Both Members and Senior Officers talked about the need to learn from good
practice elsewhere, which MLA will be happy to facilitate. However the
organisation does not appear to have yet developed the appropriate systems
to learn from and embed good practice from elsewhere in the City Council or
indeed from within the Museum Service itself. There are several good plans
and strategies in place for the Beaney Project (the development of a new art
museum and library), including a strong community engagement plan and
audience development plan, but the Review Team saw no evidence that the
service had fully developed and implemented systems to widen the scope of
these to encompass the whole service.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
11/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
10
Many people from both inside and outside the service talked about the need to
balance different and at times conflicting priorities: preserving the citys
heritage versus opening up access; collecting versus income generation;
balancing international, national and locally important exhibitions. In particular,
the Review Team observed some tensions between the community offer and
the desire to feature more strongly on the tourist agenda. The team concluded
that the service would benefit from a coherent marketing strategy and audience
development plan for all the museums, led by the Museum Service, in order to
segment and identify target audiences and their different needs to inform future
planning and prioritisation. The Councils own Marketing Department should
be able to advise on this and to provide expert support on the marketing
strategy element of this work.
Some staff expressed a desire to be more involved in service planning at an
operational level in order to bring the specific expertise of their role to the
decision-making process. The Review Team recommends that finding ways to
enable this would improve staff awareness of service priorities, ensuring that
potential opportunities are not missed and that plans are deliverable. It would
also have a very beneficial impact on staff morale and commitment to the wider
organisation.
The Review Team observed that clear distinctions were often made between
professional and non-professional staff, i.e. qualified curators and front of
house, and felt that at times this was leading to tensions within the
organisation. Closer working between these groups and a breaking down of
barriers would lead to a more dynamic and creative work environment, in which
ideas were encouraged. This would support the service in moving forwards by
ensuring that it did so as a single team with shared ambitions for success.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
12/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
11
Theme 3: Community engagement
Strengths
There is good work on individual projects in partnership with the
councils Community Development team
Some staff and other council officers spoke enthusiastically of the
importance of local museums in building community identity
This is acknowledged to be a developing and improving area for the
service
Areas for development
Community engagement work is not yet strategically embedded in the
organisation: it is too often linked to external funding opportunities or
triggered by others
There would appear to be tensions within service between the
community offer and a more traditional collections/curatorial focus
The excellent Community Engagement Plan developed for the Beaney
has yet to be rolled out across the service
Community engagement work is acknowledged to be an important and
developing area for the service, but is not yet culturally embedded in the
organisation. For example, the Review Team was impressed by the quality of
the Community Engagement plan developed for the Beaney Project, but
disappointed to learn that this has yet to be rolled out across the service. In a
similar way, good individual projects developed and delivered in partnership
with the councils Community Development team appear ad hoc and largely
driven by opportunities identified by that team rather than by those working
within the Museum Service itself. A more proactive and strategic approach to
community engagement would help to position the service more strongly in
terms of its contribution to broader council and community objectives.
The Review Team observed some tensions within the service between its offer
to local communities and a more traditional collections or curatorial focus. For
instance, some staff expressed the view that a recent trend towards more
community led exhibitions had attracted fewer visitors as only local groups
were interested in these. Conversely, bought-in national exhibitions, which
had been staged more frequently in the past, had attracted visitors to the city
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
13/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
12
from outside the region. These were seen by some as being closer to the
services traditional role of preserving and making available heritage. The
organisation would benefit from a clear statement of purpose in relation to its
community work, and managers should work with staff to help them
understand this aspect of the museums role.
The Review Team made a broad distinction between three obvious audience
groups: local people with a strong interest in and support for culture; local
people as yet not very engaged with the cultural offer in the city; and tourists
and other visitors to the area. This is naturally a very blunt analysis. As
mentioned above, a coherent marketing strategy and audience development
plan could help the service to segment and identify these and many other
potential target groups, understand their different needs and make considered
decisions about these sometimes conflicting priorities.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
14/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
13
Theme 4: Partnership working
Strengths
A lot of people want to work with the Museums Service: recent events
have galvanised support
There is a clear opportunity to turn that support into strategic
partnership working
Areas for development
Potential partners (within and outside council) dont have a strong
sense of the Museums Services vision orpriorities
The service needs to capitalise on opportunities, create a shared vision
and formalise partnership working
The service needs to develop trust in its partners and be more open
with them
The Review Team was impressed by the positive attitude of stakeholders
towards the Museum Service and by their keenness to engage with the
organisation. There is an honest acknowledgement from both within and
outside the service that mistakes have been made in the past, and a genuine
willingness to put these to one side and to work together to seek improvements
while responding to current challenges. The service should seize this
opportunity to formalise its relationships with these stakeholders and create
what one potential partner described as a Heritage Working Group. The
intention would be to create a body with genuine responsibilities for influencing
the way the Museum Service develops, which would in turn give the wider
community some control over the cultural offer within the city.
The success of future partnership working will depend on greater clarity of
vision, in order to develop shared priorities with partners. The service would
also benefit from being more open with and trusting of its partners. Some in the
stakeholder group felt that if there were more transparency at an earlier stage
about the challenges facing the Museums Service, then they as partners would
be in a better position to determine how they might be able to help.
Where good partnership work already exists, for instance within the council,
this is often based on good informal networks and relationships between
individuals. Officers from Arts Development and Community Development
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
15/23
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
16/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
15
Theme 5: Resource management
Strengths
The service is accessing a lot of external project funding
People within and outside the organisation are aware of real
opportunities to increase income (e.g. through retail and commercial
avenues)
Areas for development
The use of external funding is on the whole piecemeal and ad hoc
need to develop a more coherent funding strategy
Use partnerships to enable access to more diverse funding streams,
and more commercial opportunities
Use technology more effectively to manage resources
The Review Team was struck by the success of the service in accessing
external funding, most notably for the Beaney Project, but also for a number of
other initiatives. The approach taken to putting together the multimillion pound
funding package required for the redevelopment of the Beaney demonstrates
that the service has the potential to work at corporate and departmental level to
translate strategic objectives into a deliverable funded project.
However, as with many organisations, the use of external funding elsewhere in
the service appeared to the Review Team to be on the whole ad hoc and
reactive. The Museum Service would benefit from the development of a clear
funding strategy, using the learning from the Beaney experience, to enable
officers to focus on the most relevant funding streams, match new
opportunities to priorities and anticipate future possibilities. As part of this
strategy, the service should identify how the more formal partnerships
arrangements recommended above might open up access to more diverse
funding streams, and more commercial opportunities.
Both Members and Officers stressed a particular need for the service to
improve its retail offer, looking at and learning from best practice elsewhere in
the sector. For example, one officer suggested that there could be
opportunities to work with local craftspeople to offer high quality products that
would appeal to the tourist market. Several also pinpointed the Roman
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
17/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
16
Museum as having the potential to become more commercial in its approach
and thus generate more income for the service.
The Review Team also encountered several instances of individuals within the
organisation having interesting ideas about how best to maximise resources,
and it would seem that these are not always finding a voice. One talked of the
potential, especially in the coastal towns, for local f irms to sponsor relevant
exhibitions, but felt that such ideas had been batted back too often, so had
given up on raising them. Senior management should consider how staff with
ideas about income generation might be empowered to pursue them.
In terms of how existing resources are deployed, front of house staff raised a
specific concern about wastage of printed marketing and promotional
materials. They feel that these are often received too late to be of real use,
sometimes several weeks after the exhibition which they are promoting has
started, and that consequently many are thrown away. Similar concerns were
raised about the delays in repairing items, filling empty cases etc.
Another specific concern relates to the efficient use of technology to help
manage resources. The Review Team heard about tasks being carried out on
paper that could be more quickly performed with the help of IT.
Canterbury benefits from having six museums, each with a distinct offer. It is
important though that while making these distinctive offers each is seen as part
of the whole Museum Service. Moving forwards, the service needs to assess
the best way to allow for differing and locally-focused collections, activities and
exhibitions, while also making the most efficient use of resources through
service-wide (or potentially wider) delivery mechanisms. Stakeholders
expressed the view that not all the museums have to be run directly by the
Council, suggesting that there could be different models of delivery and
different ways to use the council's limited resources to maintain a museum
service, for example running them in partnership with the Universities or asvolunteer-run community museums.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
18/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
17
Theme 6: People management
Strengths
Staff are committed to the service, in many cases passionate about it
Areas for development
Staff see themselves as working for the Museum Service rather than
the council and in some cases, for an individual museum
Staff do not feel empowered and this is impacting negatively on morale
Staff talked with some enthusiasm about their role in the Museums Service,
and most had clear views about its value to their users. However the Review
Team felt that in many cases their enthusiasm was for their specific part of the
service, rather than for the service as a whole, and that relatively few saw
themselves as working for Canterbury City Council.
Staff reported that on the whole senior management keep them well-informed,
though some spoke of getting mixed messages about the recent closure
proposals, leading to a degree of uncertainty about their own future in the
service. They feel able to feed comments and suggestions upwards but
reported that only rarely do they receive feedback on their comments or
understand what action has been taken (or the reasons for non-action).
The team formed the view that staff at all levels in the service lack a sense of
empowerment. Many spoke of decisions that had to be referred upwards or
that, if made, were later overthrown. The team saw little evidence that initiative
and creative thinking were encouraged and celebrated. People used phrases
such as Its not my job to ... or Ive given up raising ideas. Senior
management needs not only to encourage staff to come up with ideas but also
to permit them to put these into practice, even at the risk of failure. This would
have a very beneficial impact on morale, create a positive learning culture
within the organisation, and could enable it to explore innovative ways of
improving the service at little or no cost.
The Review Team observed some confusion over the line management of front
of house staff. Clarity about this would help to improve internal
communications, especially between front of house staff and senior
management.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
19/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
18
The Museum Service would seem to be making good use of volunteers;
however the Review Team formed the view that putting greater trust in these
volunteers would enable the service to reap greater benefits from their
involvement. For example, allowing them more access to IT systems (within
carefully controlled parameters if necessary) would enable them to take on a
wider range of responsibilities. Allowing established volunteers to work
unsupervised would free up staff for other duties.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
20/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
19
Theme 7: Customer service
Strengths
The coastal museums in particular have good awareness of their
importance to local people
School teachers are known to value the service
Systems are in place for customers to express their views about the
service
Areas for development
There is a need to think more about the customer rather than the
collection
There are differing views (within the service and the council more
generally) about the levels of priority that should be given to diverse
customer groups
Customer awareness of the service is patchy: there are issues with
signs, posters, leaflets etc
It was clear to the Review Team that many in the organisation recognise the
importance of getting the customer experience right. However there are
differing views (within the service and the council more generally) about the
levels of priority that should be given to diverse customer groups. One person
talked about new and jazzy exhibitions being given too high a priority at the
expense of the historical collections, while another felt that the service should
focus more on what was unique to Canterbury and less on objects that
everyone has. There were conflicting views on the value of locally relevant,
community-led events and exhibitions versus nationally significant touring
exhibitions. A clearer strategy for the identification of priority customer groups,
and better communication of those priorities and the rationale behind them to
staff, would resolve some of these differences of opinion and unite the service
in its efforts to improve its offer to customers.
Staff were able to describe the systems that are in place for customers to
express their views about the service, but were unclear about the level of
influence these had on service planning.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
21/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
20
Many at all levels in the organisation (including Members) raised a specific
concern about publicity. It is felt that there are particular issues with signs (out
of date, shabby or non-existent), posters and leaflets which are limiting
customer awareness of the service.
Unfavourable comparisons were made with the commercial heritage
destinations in the city. Stronger partnership working with these would enable
the service to learn from good practice elsewhere.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
22/23
Light Touch Peer Review Canterbury City Council: Museums & Galleries Service
21
Theme 8: Performance, achievement and learning
Strengths
The service has evaluation mechanisms in place for projects
There are processes and systems for customers to express their views
about the service
Areas for development
It is not clear how evaluation feeds into service planning
There is a lack of feedback loop (for staff, partners and customers)
The Museum Service needs to become more of a learning organisation
It was clear to the Review Team that the service has evaluation mechanisms in
place for projects, but less clear how evaluation feeds into service planning.
Neither staff nor partners were able to clearly describe the process whereby
they received feedback on performance information. For example, teachers
had been consulted about plans for the Beaney, but were unsure about the
extent to which their views had been taken on board.
There is a theme running through this LTPR of a lack of empowerment and of
risk-taking, which if addressed would enable Canterbury Museum Service to
become much more of a learning organisation supporting staff at all levels to
think creatively, to implement new ideas, to evaluate and learn from the results
(including what doesnt work), and to feed that learning into improvement
planning for the service.
8/8/2019 MLA Light Touch Peer Review CCC Museums and Galleries Service Oct 2010
23/23
Museums, Libraries& Archives Council
Grosvenor House14 Bennetts HillBirmingham B2 5RS
T +44 (0)121 345 7300F +44 (0)121 345 7303
info@mla.gov.ukwww.mla.gov.uk
Leading strategically, we promote best
practice in museums, libraries and
archives, to inspire innovative, integrated
and sustainable services for all.