ICOM-RTF PROCESS:

I note with appreciation Per Rekdal's recent comments about the document
the ICOM -RTF Task Force has circulated. It is might be helpful if I
respond, on behalf of the Task Force, as the Co-ordinator.

I also wished to express our appreciation for the time that Per, and so many
other ICOM members have taken to continue and expand the debate via ICOM-L.
While at times it has been difficult, the members of the Task Force have
not participated directly in this debate so that it may be genuinely
free-flowing. Nonetheless, we have certainly been listening attentively.

Following Per Rekdal's recent queries, I offer the following responses:

1. WHAT IS THE TASK FORCE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THROUGH ITS RECENT (FIRST
WIDELY CIRCULATED) DOCUMENT?
The document recently disseminated through ICOM-L was deliberately staying
ONE STEP BACK from RECOMMENDATIONS. There are precise reasons for this.
a) THE CENTRAL CHALLENGE OF ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE.
The first challenge for the Task Force has been to establish some AGREED
VALUES for ICOM - a basis of core values around which a more detailed
picture of the organisation can be built. It has been crucial to address
one broad issue first: WHAT KIND OF ORGANISATION DO MEMBERS WANT ICOM TO
BECOME?
b) The recent document from ICOM-RTF requested responses, in clearly stated
terms, on VALUES, MISSION and A BROADLY SKETCHED VISION OF ICOM FIVE YEARS
HENCE.
c) The document has adopted FIVE SCENARIOS OF DEVELOPMENT in order to gain
reaction from its membership on a governing framework through which we
could shape and discipline a change process.

2. A COHERENT PICTURE OF A DESIRED FUTURE IS A PRECONDITION TO SHAPING CHANGE.
Before speaking directly about ICOM, perhaps I can offer an example which
is familiar to many of us, the building of a new museum. Rather than
analysing what is wrong with the museum facilities we already have or know
well, and then constructing a new one around fixing those faults, we first
need to ask: what kind of new museum do we want to bring into being? Once
we have described such a vision, of the museum-to-be-created, we would then
seek the input of all Board, staff and crucial funding authorities on the
agreed-upon vision (and actually, only on the vision).

The vision determines the programs, and the programs determine the forms
and spaces required to "house" and accomplish all that is envisioned.

With this example, we could replace the word 'museum' with ICOM, and the
sequence is equally relevant.   This is the sequence of thinking that the
RTF is
following, and which is described in more detail at the end of this
memorandum.

At this point I have to put my own opinion personally on the line, and open
it to debate. In my opinion, gaining a co-ordinated picture of a desired
organisational future has been the first and most important task to address.
a) Being able to agree on and describe a desired future is a fundamental
precondition of successful organisational change - rather than reaching to
a constitution or STATUTES, or even current FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
b) Without an agreed statement of what ICOM wishes to become in the next
few years, there is no secure foundation on which to begin making
RECOMMENDATIONS for SPECIFIC CHANGE necessary to enable that future to be
accomplished. It is not possible to draw up a map of the most important steps
to take to move forward.
c) Organisational change is about CHOICES (among many different opinions),
agreed PRIORITIES (among a variety of suggested emphases), and SHAPING SOME
STEPS - in sequence, and measurably - to achieve planned results.

3.  THE NEED TO FIND CONSTRUCTIVE WAYS TO TAKE US FORWARD.
My greatest concern in this first phase has been that if the Task Force
moved to RECOMMENDATIONS, without first establishing an agreed picture of
desired change - and seeking consensus for this occur - then we would have no
secure basis on which to draw up any proposals at all.  We could risk going
straight towards an Advisory discussion with a prepared list of detailed
adjustments, in which much divergence would open up (frequently about
VALUES, inhibiting any agreement on MECHANISMS).
a) If that occurred, then we could again simply face one of those most
frustrating
Advisory discussions that we all have experienced at times, in which no
AUTHORISED or WELL-COORDINATED way forward can be gained, to enable people
to feel some real progress.

4. THE NEED TO OBSERVE A FORMALLY RESTRAINED TIME-TABLE OF LEGISLATING ANY
CHANGE.
If such a disjointing debate as I have sketched out above were to occur,
then there would be no chance of advancing any very far-reaching
recommendations towards Barcelona (the General Assembly, July 2000) and
beyond.
a) In the worst case, we would simply feel victims again of the 6-year
process of gaining constitutional change through ICOM, and the reform
process would then need to be started up again by others.
b) I have observed the frustration of many good ideas for change during the
years I have been involved with ICOM. The circumstances and cases have been
different, but there has been a continuing set of problems inhibiting
change.
c) There have in the past been many good arguments put forward, with good
reasoning and good will, from well qualified individuals. They have seemed
to me to fail constantly for want of two things: (a) an agreement on
shared professional ground and objectives; and (b) following on from that,
an agreement to try to move forward in a co-ordinated way, overcoming minor
differences, in less than a six-year time scale to bring about change
(according to the constraints of ICOM's constitution).

5. THE TASK FORCE'S NEXT MEETING (APRIL 2000)
The Task Force ICOM-RTF will meet for the third time at the beginning of
April.
a) Our overriding concern has been to allow the opportunity of responses
from the Advisory and ICOM membership to the document we circulated on the
broad issue of an agreed statement of VALUES, MISSION, and a GENERAL
PICTURE of ICOM's desired future.
b) We have anticipated that there would be one opportunity we could provide
this year to gain responses BEFORE we craft any RECOMMENDATIONS to go to
the Advisory Committee and Executive Council, to go out with the
papers prepared for the June 2000 meetings in Paris. (The papers will go
out later in April.)
c) We organised our time-table of work to provide this opportunity for
consultation and feedback from the Committees and membership of ICOM. We
hope this opportunity will be taken. We will then use the results in
shaping our Recommendations to the Advisory.
d) We hope that this procedure will help shape some more well-prepared
grounds of discussion in Paris in June (responding to specific
RECOMMENDATIONS for change to be circulated in time for the June Advisory
Committee discussions).

TO SUM UP AGAIN WHERE WE ARE NOW:
I hope the rather long explanation in this present memorandum helps to
provide some background on the Reform Task Force's work and thinking to
date.  I thank Per Rekdal for his many interventions on ICOM-L - one of
which, most recently, has moved me to try to provide this detailed
explanation of the Reform Task Force's work.

We need your responses to what we have done, which will directly assist us
in our April meeting to shape recommendations.

In particular, we need from each of the Committees your specific comments
on these issues:
1. According to the values and mission outlined in the document circulated,
and the scenarios developed around these, is this the kind of organisation
you want ICOM to be/or become?
2. Do you think these five scenarios will meet the needs of your Committee?
Is there an additional scenario you would like to see? Or is there one
stated already that is not at all important to your Committee?
3. What would the effects of these scenarios be on ICOM committees you are
familiar with?
4. What would be the effect of these developments on the resources which
you now have? More importantly, what new or expanded resources would you
require or recommend?
5. We have asked people to consider both HUMAN RESOURCES (since ICOM is
traditionally run on a very large voluntary human resource input and
participation in its activities), alongside FINANCIAL RESOURCES (which
traditionally have been very small in comparison with the size and scope of
the organisation).

Finally, may I close with an outline of the process as we expect it to
develop, so that everyone is aware of the entire sequence we envisage, and
in particular, the next steps.

1. Drafting of the Values, Mission and the Strategic Goals of ICOM (October
1999 - January 2000)
2. Opportunity for comment, critique and identification of the impact of
the strategic goals on ICOM Committees - in general terms - from the
Advisory Committee and the Executive, as well as from ICOM-L (February 2000
- March 15)
3. RTF's co-ordination of the responses and the drafting of documents for
review by the Executive and the Advisory (April 2 - 15)
At its meeting on 2-3 April, the RTF will integrate all comments received
from the Advisory and from ICOM-L, and draft the material which is to be
discussed by the Executive and the Advisory in June. Part of this material
will be initial Action Plans for each of the strategic goals; the RTF can
draft the key points for these in April, for discussion by the Executive
and the Advisory.
The work of the RTF may also include initial consideration of Statute
revisions for those areas within its mandate.
The RTF will give priority to those Actions which affect the organisational
structure of ICOM and therefore have policy implications (for example, the
constituent bodies of ICOM and their make-up).
4. Distribution of these papers to the Executive via e-mail etc. (April 15)
5. Adjustment of the documents based on comments received, and circulation
to the Advisory (May 12)
6. The agenda for the Advisory will allow substantial time for comment in
the plenary session, as well as in the separate National and International
Committee meetings.
7. Once the Advisory and Executive have completed their work in June, the
RTF will bring together the documents and provide direction and
a format to
the Secretary-General to pursue three key tasks:
a) assess where ICOM is now and what its capabilities and resources are
CURRENTLY;
b) table these findings with the RTF/Executive for a cross-checking process;
c) develop Action Plans (real, measurable ones with responsibilities and
dates assigned), in time for the December Executive.
8. Once finalized, the documents for the General Assembly in Barcelona will
be circulated as required.

We look forward to receiving your comments and
to further discussions at the Advisory.

Bernice Murphy
Vice-President, ICOM
(Co-ordinator of ICOM-RTF - the Task Force for review and restructuring of
ICOM)

Bernice Murphy
PO Box 1269, Potts Point [Sydney]
NSW, Australia 2011
Fax: [61-(0)2] 9357 2159
e-mail:<[log in to unmask]>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html