Julia Moore's description of how the Indianapolis Art Center limits stress
reminded me of the following:

In February of 1996, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Professor at Stanford, visited
the University of BC Faculty of Commerce to talk about a paper she and
Shonal L. Brown were preparing for publication ("Product Innovation as Core
Capability:  The art of continuous change" - Administrative Science
Quarterly, likely spring/summer of 1996).  The study they had completed took
place in the high tech industry and focused on innovation.

The authors concluded that effective/successful companies (as opposed to
failing, unsuccessful, or even just-muddling-through companies) all do three
things:  (1) their organizations are organic, held together more by
communication than structure; (2) they build on the myths of the past and
actively probe the future; and (3) they make transitions at predictable
intervals (i.e., they create rhythms based on time, not projects).  This
latter point is their contribution to stress/burnout.

How rhythms work is this:  Most companies establish 2-year (24-month)
projects.  If that gives them too much time, they add features; if too
little, reduce features.  The routinized schedule reduces expensive down
times, creates synchronization which allows people to get into the flow,
establishes a relentless pace which delivers significant projects, and
trains the market.  (There are always multiple projects, most smaller than
the principal one, but each company had found some optimal mix.)

People working in these high productivity, rapid response organizations
claim that it's the rhythms that keep them from burnout.  Though they work
under stress, it's more eustress than distress because there's less
confusion about what's happening when.  People also know that if projects
grow, they won't be permitted to slide into the time allocated for other
projects.  These rhythms are probably more like school years, the performing
arts, and magazine publishing where rhythms are pre-set, everyone knows what
they are, and the size of the project, not time, becomes the variable.
Constraints can also produce high creativity and innovative solutions.

Seems that museums that produce one big exhibition each year, with smaller
ones and public programs slotted somewhat predictably into those patters,
are heading in the same direction.  Would be interesting to hear from such
museums about the up- and down-sides of organizational rhythms.

And if that doesn't work, why not switch to Margarita Mondays before 10 a.m.?

Kersti Krug
Museum of Anthropology
The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada

------------
At 12:32 PM 8/30/97 -0500, J./B. Moore wrote:
[spaces snipped]
>Here are some things we have tried at the Indianapolis Art Center:
>1)  Periodically re-evaluating the programs, events, etc. and consolidating
>to do fewer and better things--less stress on staff and less confusion for
>the public
>2)  Organizing the year so that not all departments are frantic
>simultaneously--helps with overall morale and customer service
>3)  Staff retreats--days when the whole staff gets off-site to discuss
>theoretical issues not related to daily business
>4)  "Resting the players" after big projects--alternating high-energy with
>low-energy projects
>5)  Doing more with out-of-house committees of volunteers
>6)  Margarita Fridays after 5:30 p.m.!
>
>Julia Moore
>Indianapolis Art Center