GenevaThe 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: Arial>VALUES > - museum and cultural heritage ethics and standards Yes > - respect for diversity Very good > - mutuGenevaal 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. 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