In response to Per Rekdall's many excellent suggestions for ICOM Reform, I appreciate his good ideas which should be retained. Before getting into means, I feel it is important for ICOM to go through the process of establishing its mission, vision and values as the Reform Task Force has started, then getting into the nitty gritty.
My concern is that what the Reform Task Force has commmenced is in fact Strategic Planning, not Reform. It may be necessary but I hope they do not loose track of the overall issue of Reform. In Melbourne, the sentiment was strong and it was to draft steps to reform ICOM in order to improve its relevance to its worldwide constitutency.
So as not to lose the full potential of the task at hand, I urge the Task Force to proceed in two steps, first developing these necessary tools for an effective organization in the 20th (sic) century, and secondly to plan a complete review of the ICOM structure. From my discussions with some members of the RF, the latter is felt to be premature now but my concern is not to lose the opportunity.
One of the excellent points that Per makes illustrates the necessity for reform and restructuring. It is over the role of the ICOM national committees vis-a-vis the national museums associations. This is a serious structural issue that does need to be reviewed. It is one that I know is sensitive, however, what isn't in ICOM. The fact of the matter is the national museum associations are in most cases stronger, more representative than ICOM national committees. Lets start with the premise that ICOM should be THE international museum organization, and everyone should be a member of it. The question should not be one of power or turf, it should be a question of how to develop the most effective museum system in the world. If we can agree on that, we can look at the various structural issues as means.
The only country to have rationalized the relationship is the USA (although it seems I have heard that another country has a different model too); I do not hold it out as the perfect model. Even ICOM's founders envisioned that national museum associations would be the basis for the ICOM structure (see first issue of ICOM news 1947) where they existed. Clearly ICOM national committees play an extremely important role where no broadly based national museum association exists, but after that duplication sets in. If a new relationship could be developed, ideally going as far that every member of the national association would automatically be an ICOM member, think of the power and the reach that our international voice would have. Lets dream!!
The role and importance of ICOMs international committees are of paramount importance. From my experience, this is where the real value and potential of ICOM lies. This is where professionals meet others, where exchanges occur, where development and debate are fostered. They are the nucleus of the triennial conferences, and of ICOM itself. This needs to be recognized and they need to be given more encouragement to become stronger and more effective under the ICOM umbrella, otherwise there is an alternative that we do not wish to think about.
I hope these ideas are useful to the limited discussions happening on this most important topic.
John McAvity
editor of INTERCOM news.
----------
From: Per Rekdal[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 5:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ICOM Reform Task Force (RTF) again
<fontfamily><param>Geneva</param>The RTF chairperson, Bernice Murphy,
have in two communications asked for response to the RTF Draft Paper.
In her latest communication, she stresses that it is necessary first to
establish the future goals - what we should stretch towards - before we
start making recommendations. And she compares to the planning of a new
museum: we must first find out what we want it to be, before we start
planning concretely.
There are dozens of recipes for how to plan change. Identify what we
wish for the future is one, identify problem areas another, identify
root causes for problems a third, have brainstormings mentioning
everything that comes to mind: wishes, concrete suggestions, small
issues, large issues, a fourth. The internet discussions are
functioning very much like brain-storming sessions, and I personally
like such discussions because they are not restrained, but bring out a
variety of issues, and these can be sorted out afterwards.
But, I agree: stating our goals is important as a start. However, if
our goal were stated simply as "we want our future ICOM to be a good
ICOM" it would not be a sufficient basis for planning. And this is
partly what I feel the RTF has done. Now, I admit I am a bit unjust. It
IS possible to see concrete fields being mentioned in the scenarios,
but this raises other problems: some of the fields are very concrete
and detailed (like the recommendations of different uses of databases
and electronic means of communication), others are very vague (like the
declarations in scenario D). The same problems of keeping the levels
apart are seen in the values statement, where "ICOM's network of
professional expertise" is described as a basic value, but is rather a
tool. Other examples could have been mentioned. Choosing a strict
method of going from one level to another always creates problems with
what belongs to which level. Unnecessary problems, one may add.
We must try not to make the reform work a circumstantial and long
winded affair. In my opinion, ICOM does not need to be revolutionised.
We need moderate changes in order to optimise ICOM's functionality.
Better functionality gives more flexibility. And flexibility makes it
possible to continuously follow up the most important issues. The
meaning of ICOM lies in its ability to follow up issues that at any
time are important for the cultural heritage, museums and museum
professionals. Some of these issues will be timeless, others more
short-lived, but they must all be treated in a way that is relevant in
the presence.
What hinders flexibility?
First of all, ICOM's limited finances. We must find ways to increase
income, to save expenses in areas that are no longer as relevant, and
possibly decentralise expenses.
Secondly, we are hindered by the members' lack of time and limited
access to grants. Decisions about members' time and access to grants
are generally made within their own country. We must find ways to make
ICOM-work important within each nation.
Thirdly, we are hindered by the way ICOM is organised and communicates.
We must find ways to change from heavy/slow to light/quick, without
loosing coherence and impact.
How do we do it? Here are a few suggestions.
1) Finances
- identify other organisations that have been successful in securing
income, find out how they do it and whether this can be fitted to ICOM.
Explore the "costs" and benefits of higher income through diverse
channels, identify to which purposes income can be acquired.
- identify the legal constraints for handling income, find solutions.
- identify the factors within ICOM that may hinder income (for instance
the membership structure) or promote income (number of members, etc.)
- identify fields that are costly, but perhaps not as relevant any
more
- identify fields where money can be saved thorough organisational
adjustments (like: I am sure the "one voting, two non-voting"-system is
time consuming for the Secretariat and therefore costly)
- identify fields where money can be saved through new technology (like
electronic communications)
- identify fields where money can be earned through new technology
(like: can different types of databases become an asset that can be
traded?)
- find out whether more of ICOM's work and expenses can be
decentralised to the national (and eventually international) committees
or whether one can go the other way (like: the national committees pay
more to have secretarial work done more effectively at the ICOM
Secretariat).
- discuss the ethical sides of the different types of income, make
recommendations about ethical limits.
2) Members' lack of time and money
- strengthen the national committees by making them co-operate closer
with the (if existing) national museum organisations and thereby
increase ICOM's relevance/importance for heritage and museum affairs in
each country
- try to find ways whereby ICOM may be seen as relevant also for the
museums (qua institutions), by looking into the membership benefits for
institutions and by trying to find organisational ways to attract
institutions into ICOM (special committees?)
- find out whether a foundation can be established (or reawakened) that
can give grants to individual members.
3) Organisational and communicational changes
- discuss the pro' and con's of an Executive composed with members
representing global regions and possibly (groups of) international
committees, discuss whether the number of representatives in the
Executive should be increased, discuss whether all executive members
should routinely be distributed to standing committees working on
central issues, etc.
- discuss how the workings of the Executive and the Advisory can be
made more effective (like: In my opinion having to wait for the minutes
of the Executive and the Advisory for a year is absurd and the practice
in based on unnecessary formalism. Like: Prepare the issues that are to
be discussed in the coming meetings in such a way that they can be
informally discussed on the e-mail distribution list for the
Executive/Advisory, and save time and enable us to be more effective at
the Executive and Advisory meetings).
- identify the legal problems connected to the relation between ICOM
and the international committees and search for solutions (like: give
more independence and more responsibility to the international
committees? Stricter book-keeping?).
- identify the economic problems of the international committees and
discuss alternative solutions (few large committees or opposite? more
freedom to act independently or opposite?)
- discuss the role of the international committees in ICOM and consider
recommendations
- discuss the role of the passive members in ICOM and discuss how ICOM
can be more attractive for passive members (in all organisations the
majority are passive members, and it is important to give them benefits
because they are paying a large part of the bill for those being
active).
I notice that I am getting more specific as I am working my way
downwards. But ok: sooner or later in this process we have to become
very specific.
The RTF Draft Paper writes about increasing the importance of ICOM. I
do not see that as part of an organisational reform, but rather as a
potential benefit of an organisational reform. Acting pro-actively, be
advisor for governments around the world, etc, are political measures
decided upon by the Executive/Advisory and our ability to do so is
dependent on an optimally functional ICOM. THAT is what I feel the RTF
should be about: making ICOM an optimal tool.
Kind regards
Per B. Rekdal
ICME chairperson
PS:
Below is the result of another attempt at commenting the RTF draft
statement. I do not know how interesting it is, but those who are fond
of long messages are welcome to read:
</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><bigger><bigger>>VALUES
> - museum and cultural heritage ethics and standards
</bigger></bigger>Yes
<bigger><bigger>> - respect for diversity
</bigger></bigger>Very good
> - mutu</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Geneva</param>al
assistance
Yes
> - ICOM's network of professional expertise
This is not a value, it is a tool for - among other things - giving
mutual assistance. Does not fit here.
> - sustainable development in different social contexts.
This is not a value either, but a goal, though a very recommendable
one. Should at least be rephrased.
> MISSION
>ICOM is the international organisation of museums* and museum
professionals*
>committed to the protection and communication of the world's cultural
>heritage*.
>ICOM defines international ethical standards for museums, and
promotes
>professional practices and mutual assistance through its world-wide
networks
>of expertise.
>As a non-governmental, not-for-profit organisation, ICOM advocates
>sustainable development* and respect for the world's cultural
diversity.
I would add something like:
ICOM constitutes a global network for professional information,
exchange, debate and mutual assistance.
>SCENARIO A.
>ICOM IS THE RESPECTED LEADER IN THE MUSEUM FIELD INTERNATIONALLY AND
AN
>ACTIVE WORLD PARTICIPANT IN THE CULTURAL HERITAGE SECTOR.
>
>A.1 ICOM is visible and recognised in the print and electronic
media as
>a leader in the international museum and cultural heritage sectors.
Its
>opinion is sought and recorded.
>A.2 ICOM is recognised by its significant partners and
stakeholders, who
>consult it regularly regarding world-wide museum and cultural
heritage
>issues.
>A.3 ICOM has put into practice its three-year Action Plan that
>identifies its major platforms and partners (e.g. European Union,
UNESCO,
>ICOMOS, ICCROM) and the means for ensuring that ICOM is an active
>contributor to crucial debates.
>A.4 Based on its three-year Action Plan, ICOM has anticipated the
key
>issues for museums and cultural heritage bodies, and initiated
appropriate
>and effective position papers.
>A.5 Both members of ICOM and the leaders in the cultural heritage
sector
>report that ICOM is prepared to discuss issues in a proactive way.
>A.6 Through its issues-identification, research and database, ICOM
has
>enabled National Committees to brief national governments on issues
that are
>international (e.g. UNIDROIT).
>A.7 ICOM is identified by its members and partners as a leader in
>bringing forward and following through on sensitive positions
concerning.
>difficult issues (e.g. Illicit traffic).
>A.8 The skills required to take a leadership position for museums
and
>cultural heritage are present in ICOM through its President,
Executive
>Council, Advisory Committee, Secretary-General and Secretariat.
>A.9 The National Committees have recognised and acted upon their
>expanded role and responsibilities as a resource base and database for
ICOM.
If read as a wanted reality and not wishful thinking, the above is
ambitious, and requires either an impressive growth of personnel in the
ICOM Secretariat, or a world where we - the ICOM members - would be
able to use much more of our time to ICOM work. I would say that the
scenario is a bit unrealistic - taken literally. Nevertheless, every
element in the scenario above is something to stretch towards.
BUT: the scenario mixes obvious goals regarding the importance of ICOM
with ambitious and very vague ideas about several databases. Databases
are extremely costly to establish and are absolutely worthless if not
maintained. They can be fantastic helpful tools or they can be a
constant headache for the Secretariat and a source of frustration for
those finding only yesterdays or wrong data in them.
The scenario also implies being pro-active on a world scale and giving
advice to world leaders. I am not saying that ICOM cannot do this, but
it does sound as if the underlying suggestion is to establish a large
consultancy company, with lots of museum and cultural heritage trouble
shooters standing ready.
I am very sceptical to three year action plans and the like. They are
too often like the old Soviet five year plans that always where
obsolete before they were even published and contained page upon page
of wishful thinking, but very little on how to realise the plans. I
think it is far more important to bring ICOM's daily work in the
Secretariat as well as in the committees up to a functional and
effective level, very pragmatically and without too many declarations.
>SCENARIO B.
>BASED ON ITS CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND NETWORKS OF EXPERTISE,
ICOM HAS
>ADVANCED THE SHARING OF PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE.
>B.1 ICOM's International Committees and where appropriate,
Affiliated
>Organisations, are recognised by ICOM and the museum sector as the
primary
>resources for matters concerning professional knowledge and practice.
>B.2 Working with the applicable International Committees,
Regional
>Organisations and where appropriate, Affiliated Organisations, ICOM
has
>developed and delivered regional programs that introduce professional
>practices based on the Code of Professional Ethics.
>B.3 In addition to their own priorities, International Committees
have
>identified key topics in their areas of professional knowledge and
practice
>that are directly relevant to ICOM's vision. These have been
supported
>through case studies that are available to ICOM members through the
>Documentation Centre, publications, and ICOM's Web site.
>B.4 ICOM has mechanisms in place that facilitate the sharing of
>expertise (e.g. a model or workbook on the development of AFRICOM and
ICOM
>Arab) through developmental programs that identify training
methodology and
>definition of standards.
>B.5 The ICOM Code of Professional Ethics has been reviewed and
revised,
>as required.
>B.6 ICOM and its International Committees are collaborating with
>national museum associations in delivering training and professional
>capacity building.
Here again is a mix of this and that.
Yes, it is about time that the code of professional ethics is revised.
Not at all very much changed, but it contains elements that are loose
and need perhaps be omitted or straightened up.
The code of ethics is extremely important as a value base, but is far
too narrow and too timeless as a tool for developing regional programs
and professional practices.
Defining key topics is done all the time in the international
committees, but what is suggested here may seem like a large
publication programme? With case studies, etc.? I am not sure what is
meant here, but I think opening up for electronic publications through
international (and national) committee websites is both cheap and will
be seen as a matter of course in a few years anyway.
Definition of standards and training methodology through handbooks
sounds recommendable, but also with a possibility of creating a stale,
change-resistant tool.
>SCENARIO C.
>ICOM PROVIDES A SUPPLE AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNICATIONS
AND
>ADVOCACY.
>C.1 ICOM has identified the key issues affecting the museum
sector, and
>pursued the means to publicly advocate and communicate ICOM's values,
>policies and knowledge concerning these issues through:
>a) its constituent bodies
>b) the appropriate communications vehicles.
>C.2. ICOM has in place the means and the trained staff to increase
its
>effective use of electronic and other media.
>C.3 ICOM has advanced its commitment to electronic networking at
all
>levels, thereby ensuring ready communications and fluent responses.
>C.4 ICOM provides electronic fora for discussion amongst its
members;
>these also function as educational, training, and capacity building
tools.
>C.5 ICOM has implemented an effective and proactive
Communications
>policy, which seeks to support world-wide equity and varied attention
to
>museum and cultural heritage issues.
>C.6 ICOM has broadened the distribution of its communications
through
>its partners and commercial networks and agencies.
>C.7 The ICOM Web site receives an international 'best site' award
for
>effective design and communication.
This scenario is consistent right through, and I agree with all points.
Also acknowledging that the ICOM Secretariat needs "the trained staff
to increase its effective use of electronic and other media".
>SCENARIO D.
>MEMBERS EXPERIENCE ICOM AS PROACTIVE FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT AND
>INNOVATIVE.
>D.1 ICOM's governance and operational structure have been
redefined to
>ensure that it is responsive, flexible and efficient.
Of course.
>The organisational structure is defined as a circle, which
incorporates the National and
>International Committees, the President and the Executive Council, and
the
>Secretary-General and Secretariat.
Meaning?
>D.2 ICOM has core policies on Communications, Publications,
Internet,
>and Membership.
ICOM does not have a communication, internet and membership policy now?
Obviously it has, though it can be improved and made more explicit.
>D.3 There has been an increase of 25% in the number of members who
have
>joined ICOM's International Committees.
This is uninteresting. The percentage of members in the international
committees could easily be raised to a 100% if choosing international
committee was as compulsory as stating your name and address upon being
member. But a higher percentage of members in the international
committees does not ensure higher activity. It does however increase
mailing costs for the international committee dramatically. The
international committees need a higher number of ACTIVE members, not
necessarily a higher number of passive ones.
>D.4 There is evidence that members are committed to the concept,
and act
>upon the opportunities that ICOM provides, to contribute to the
museum
>sector world-wide, as well as to receive personal/professional
benefits.
Yes? And?
>D.5 ICOM itself, and its National and International Committees,
have
>developed and implemented programs that are inter-committee,
inter-regional
>and inter-disciplinary.
I assume it means: more than now. This may have strong implications for
the way we look upon the committees or it may not.
>D.6 Over 75% of the respondents to a survey of members identify
ICOM
>News as providing them with timely information on ICOM itself and its
future
>activities and programs.
Which would imply that ICOM News is worth reading also for those not
being board members in the international and national committees. This
is probably not so much the case now.
>D.7 ICOM-L and specialised Web discussion groups are actively
used.
Of course.
>D.8 The International Committees and Affiliated Organisations are
>actively positioned as 'Standing Committees' of ICOM; they define
issues and
>provide a pool of expertise that ensures on-going participation by a
>diversity of specialists.
Interesting, would need lot of resources somewhere.
>D.9 ICOM is identified as a facilitator for the exchange of
expertise
>internationally (e.g. similar to the Museum Security Network).
Also interesting.
>SCENARIO E.
>ICOM MEMBERS FEEL THAT THEY ARE PART OF A LIVING ORGANISATION, THAT
THEY ARE
>CONSULTED AND THEY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
>E.1 ICOM operates as an active resource base that facilitates the
>exchange of expertise amongst the Committees, regions, individual
members
>and the Secretariat.
>E2 ICOM has developed an up-to-date database on museums that is
>available electronically.
>E.3 ICOM has identified contact individuals in particular museums
>(following the example of the Dutch Museums Association) who are cited
in
>the ICOM on-line database and offer expertise.
>E.4 Models for co-operative programs have been developed and
circulated
>for adoption, both nationally and internationally.
>E.5 ICOM has been overwhelmed by the positive response to a query
on its
>membership application/renewal form asking what expertise each member
can
>offer. These offers have been translated into the core of the Museum
>Resources Database.
>E.6 Key ICOM individuals, such as the President, Chair of the
Advisory
>Committee, Executive Council members and the Secretary-General are
present
>and visible at important museum and cultural sectors meetings, as well
as at
>ICOM Committee meetings held in various part of the world.
This is partly overlapping with scenario D.
</fontfamily>
Per B. Rekdal
Director
Exhibitions, Education and Public Services
The University Museums of Cultural Heritage
P.O.Box 6762 St. Olavs pl.
N-0130 Oslo, Norway
Tel. (-47) 22 85 99 64
Fax (-47) 22 85 99 60
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
www.ukm.uio.no
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
|
