REVIEWING SIGNIFICANCE 2.0 (2012)a framework for assessing museum collections’ significance, management and use

© Caroline ReedMuseum and Heritage Consultantwww.carolinereedconsulting.comcaroline.reed@tiscali.co.uk

1

REVIEWING SIGNIFICANCE 2.0 (2012): a framework for assessing museum collections’ significance, management and use

1 Introduction

Reviewing Significance 2.0 is an updated version of the original Reviewing Significance framework published by Renaissance East Midlands (REM) in 2010. It has been developed by Museum and Heritage Consultant, Caroline Reed. Firmly following the principles of the original, Reviewing Significance 2.0 incorporates the streamlined introduction to the methodology given in this document and some improvements to the original assessment tools – making them even easier to use.

In 2010 REM commissioned Caroline Reed and a team of curators from University College London’s Museums and Collections Department to work with six pilot museums to establish criteria and develop a model for assessing collections’ meaning and value and reviewing current levels of usage and standards of care and management. Their approach was inspired by two key sources: the Collections Council of Australia’s Significance 2.0: a guide to assessing the significance of collections and UCL’s own ‘Collections Review Rubric’ – used between 2007 and 2009 to survey nearly 380,000 objects across four Accredited museums and numerous departmental teaching collections.

The resulting REM Reviewing Significance framework has supported museums to develop better understanding of their collections and how they might be used. It helps museums create a robust evidence base to inform strategy, resource allocation and development as well as rationalisation, de-accessioning and disposal. It provides tools for presenting review data graphically and for building a clear narrative for communicating collections’ or individual objects’ importance to governing bodies, managers and funders.

Since the publication of Reviewing Significance, Caroline has used the framework as part of a Museums Association Effective Collections project and led on the development of a parallel model for use with moving image archive collections for the London’s Screen Archives network (See Sources and Resources section at the end of this document). As a result she has produced this second edition: Reviewing Significance 2.0.

The Reviewing Significance methodology uses two complementary processes: The Significance Assessment Process supports museum teams to pool their perspectives and think laterally as they explore objects’ and whole collections’ meaning and value for a variety of audiences and review objects’ importance in the context of a museum’s identity, remit and strategic objectives.

The Collections Review Process offers a time efficient methodology for ‘scoring’ and comparing current levels of collections management, care and documentation with levels and types of usage. It encourages the reviewing team to think realistically about objects’ potential and consider how this might be realised.

Used singly or together the two Processes help to identify ‘hot spots’ for intervention and investment of available resources. The benefits will be: Better understanding of collections and how they might be used A strong evidence base to inform strategy, resource allocation and funding bids for collection

management, rationalisation and development A narrative for communicating collections’ importance to governing bodies, managers and funders Identifying pre-eminent items and collections with a resonance for specific community groups,

specialist users and local, regional, national and international audiences

2

2 The Significance Assessment Process

The Significance Assessment Process is not a tick-box exercise. It uses two key ‘thinking tools’ to help assessors probe the meaning of the object(s) under review and develop clearly expressed Statements of Significance to communicate that meaning in a variety of contexts.

Limitations on staff numbers and time mean that, in most museums, the assessments will be led, and largely delivered by just one or two people. At the start of the Process, however, museums will find it helpful and informative to create a small, cross-disciplinary team to trial the method and decide on any adaptations needed to make the tools more relevant to the museum’s collections, target audiences, project and wider objectives. The different perspectives, expertise and knowledge of colleagues from across e.g. curatorial, conservation, learning, outreach, marketing and front of house departments will help inform the Process and make it more useful to the whole museum. Volunteers should be involved and it might be useful to draw in external partners - especially for smaller museums with fewer specialist staff. Including outsiders can provide a very useful stimulus for lateral thinking about objects - challenging the museums’ traditional assumptions and asking awkward questions!

The first team assessment, whether of an individual item or a collection/sub collection, might be expected to take an hour or even longer. After that, using the Process will speed up considerably. Once a few assessments have been carried out and the group ethos has been established, it should be possible for smaller teams or an individual assessor to run through the whole Process quite quickly and bring their Statements back to the group for sign off. It is advisable to nominate one person from the team to manage the Process, finalise the draft Statements of Significance and ensure consistency.

There are two Significance Assessment tools: Significance Assessment Grid (PDF, colour coded green) Statement of Significance Template (MsOffice Word document)

They can be used to support assessment of individual objects, sub-collections or a whole museum collection. They help the assessment team to: Analyse what the museum already knows (and doesn’t know) about the object(s) under review Think through what that means about their significance for different audiences, and in the context of

the organisation’s wider remit and collections Distil the revealed information and its meaning into a succinct, convincing Statement of Significance Identify areas and contacts for further research

The Significance Assessment Grid

The Grid consists of a structured series of prompt questions presented in tabular form. When using the Grid, assessors should consider what can be learnt from direct examination of the objects themselves and from catalogue descriptions, contextual paperwork, related archives or objects elsewhere in the collection.

The questions are grouped under six column headings: A PROVENANCE/ACQUISITION B RARITY/UNIQUENESS C VISUAL & SENSORY IMPACT D CONDITION/COMPLETENESS E HISTORICAL MEANING F ‘EXPLOITABILITY’

Assessors are prompted to consider how what is known or can be observed about these aspects of the objects impacts on their significance - firstly in general terms:

3

1 KEY POINTS

and then from five different perspectives: 2 NATIONAL / INTERNATIONAL 3 REGIONAL / CROSS-REGIONAL 4 LOCALLY SPECIFIC 5 COMMUNITY / GROUP 6 ORGANISATIONALLY OR SITE SPECIFIC

The letters and numbers in front of the column and row headings provide a grid reference for recording data on the Statement of Significance Template.

Although numbered, the sequence of the rows is not intended to be read as hierarchical: ‘national / international’ significance is not classed as having any greater weight than ‘local’, ‘community’ or ‘organisational’. The weight attached to each of the categories will differ between organisations and individual projects.

As presented in the framework, the Significance Assessment Process does not seek to ’score’ or rank individual objects’ or collections’ significance. However, a museum using the Process to help sift material for use in a short-term project - e.g. a digitisation, outreach or display programme - might wish to develop its own scoring system based on the project’s strategic priorities. Any scoring or ranking system developed for more general, long-term use, or to inform irreversible decisions – e.g. around disposal - would need to be not only transparent, but ‘future proofed’ – taking account of any potential future changes in organisational or user interests and priorities.

The Significance Assessment Grid column headings: A PROVENANCE/ACQUISITIONThe questions in this column on the Grid prompt assessors to consider how any of the following might impact on the objects’ significance: The original meaning and function of the object or specimen – what it was made and used for, when,

where, why, by whom and for how long Any known changes in how or why it was used, or in its significance to its users The chain of ownership that brought it into the museum collection – and how fully that is documented The acquisition process, including any external funding or support and any proactive collecting policy

that informed the museum’s decision to acquire it

B RARITY/UNIQUENESSHere the object(s) are considered in relation to other examples in publicly accessible collections: Is the object unique, rare, unusual or an example of an extinct or endangered species? Is it a particularly fine example of its type? Does it have unusual distinguishing features? Is it a typical or characteristic example of its type? Is it of a quality, class or type rarely accessible for viewing as part of a public collection?

C VISUAL & SENSORY IMPACTHere the questions prompt consideration of the aesthetic appeal of both natural and man-made objects, and of the power of their visual and/or sensory impact: Do or might the object(s) evoke a strong personal or particular cultural response? The impact might be

positive or negative and might lie in the objects’ symbolism or stylistic associations as much as in the quality or otherwise of design, manufacture or constituent materials

Smell, sound, tactile qualities and other aspects of the object not necessarily discernable through the glass of a showcase should be included

4

Objects’ impact might depend on the ‘state’ in which they can be seen or experienced – e.g. if the object is a musical instrument, can it can be played and heard? If it is a piece of machinery, can it be seen in operation?

D CONDITION/COMPLETENESS Here the aim is not to generate a condition statement, but to explore: What the current condition of an object might reveal about its history of use - e.g. what wear to a

garment or tool shows about how, how much and by what sort of person tit has been used; whether there has been more than one generation or type of user

How and how much an object has been restored; how carefully restoration has been researched; whether restoration has reduced the object’s ‘authenticity’ - perhaps diminishing evidence of use – and how far it enhances understanding of the original appearance and function

Whether an object has lost significance because it is badly deteriorated or incomplete

E HISTORICAL MEANINGThe assessors’ responses to the questions here will be informed by the thinking already done about ‘Provenance/Acquisition’, ‘Rarity/Uniqueness’, ‘Condition/Completeness’. Are the objects associated with a particular person, family, community group, event, place or activity? Doe they reflect an historic theme, process or pattern of life?

F ‘EXPLOITABILITY’ The questions here prompt consideration of objects’ potential for various sorts of use within and beyond the museum: Whether and how objects are currently used, or might be used, to serve a range of purposes - e.g.

display; research; answering enquiries; formal and informal learning; profile raising and tourism (local, regional, specialist)

Objects’ potential to inspire creativity and/or support the work of the creative industries Objects’ economic potential – perhaps as an inspiration for saleable items or because of their iconic

status and marketing appeal

The Significance Assessment Grid row headings:1 KEY POINTSThis is the place to identify and consider overarching points of significance about the object(s).

2 NATIONAL/INTERNATIONALConsider here whether objects and collections are of outstanding international quality or research potential: perhaps supreme examples of their type in the UK, or strongly associated with nationally or internationally known events, themes, movements or people.

3 REGIONAL OR CROSS-REGIONALBefore considering the questions in this row, the assessment team will need to decide what constitutes the museum’s region. This could be a county or a group of counties, or a geographical area that straddles county and political boundaries. The prompt questions encourage assessors to consider whether and how objects might be significant to regional identity and sense of place – and perhaps to regionally determined social, economic and cultural objectives and community cohesion.

4 LOCALLY SPECIFICConsider here whether objects are significant to specifically local identity and sense of place as well as locally determined social, economic and cultural objectives and community cohesion. As with ‘regional’, when planning the Significance Assessment Process, the assessment team will need to agree what ‘local’ means for their museum. It could be a particular geographical area or simply defined by local government boundaries. It might be a more loosely defined catchment area for potential repeat visitors who regard the museum as representing their area or meeting their specific cultural needs. For some services, e.g. a

5

countywide service, there may be several meanings for ‘local’ - It could mean both the whole county and/or a specific locality, town or village.

5 COMMUNITY/GROUPConsider here whether objects may have especial significance for a particular group or section of the community. When planning the Process, the assessment team should consider whether they wish to prioritise the representation or needs of any particular target group. The term ‘community/group’ is used here to include a diversity of groups and group types. Communities might have strong, current local representation or be dispersed more widely across the region and/or beyond - e.g.: Subject experts with specialist knowledge or expertise – this might extend to partner museums within a

Specialist Subject Network or other professional grouping People defined, or who self define, because of their ethnicity, faith, sexuality, mental or physical well

being, levels of wealth and poverty, social class etc. People defined, or self-defining, because of their working or life experience - e.g. a particular migrant

workforce, former workers at a particular site or trade, etc.

6 ORGANISATIONALLY OR SITE SPECIFICThe questions here prompt consideration of objects’ direct relevance and meaning within the context of the museum, its buildings or immediate environs, its wider collections and collecting policy. Many museums will also need to consider relevance to their parent body and its objectives - e.g. local authority, university, National Trust etc.

The Statement of Significance Template

Supplied as an MsOffice Word document, the Statement of Significance Template is designed to capture assessment teams’ responses to the prompt questions on the Significance Assessment Grid and develop a clear, easily communicated Statement that summarises all the thinking done and evidence collated. The Statement will express the team’s understanding of the objects’ current and potential significance to the museum and to a range of audiences. The statement might demonstrate how the object(s) could support the use and interpretation of other items in the museum collection.

Working with the Grid and TemplateAs described above, each box on the Significance Assessment Grid has a series of ‘prompt’ questions. For ease of reference, each box can be clearly identified by its grid components. This example shows box ‘A1’:

A PROVENANCE/ACQUISITION

1 KE

Y PO

INTS

Do we know who created, made, owned or used it? Do we know when/why it was made or produced? Do we know when / for how long it was used? Is its place of origin or manufacture known and documented? Is there a well-evidenced chain of ownership and use? Is it unusually well-provenanced and/or documented for its class or type? Do we know how/when/why it was acquired by the museum and from whom?

There is a table on the Template for each column on the Grid (A-F) and each table is broken down into the same numbered rows as the Grid (1-6).

Even though many of the questions could have ‘yes/no’ answers, this is not a ‘tick box’ exercise. At every point on the Grid it is important to assess and capture the implications of the team’s responses to each of the prompt questions. The Template provides a structure for assessors to bullet point their responses as they work through the prompt questions. One member of the team needs to act as ‘scribe’ – ideally typing directly into a Word version of the Statement of Significance Template on a computer. It is important to record dissenting views as well as points on which there is consensus.

6

The figure below shows table A PROVENANCE/ACQUISITION as completed by one of the REM pilot museums for the original Reviewing Significance framework. They have bullet pointed all the key points coming out of the assessment team’s discussion that was prompted by the questions in boxes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 on the Grid:

Each table on the Statement of Significance Template ends with an Assessment Summary box. The aim is to draft a paragraph or two that reviews and summarises all the bullet pointed comments. Quickly drafting the summaries or making a few agreed notes in the box as the team works its way through the Process helps the scribe to ‘weight’ the importance of the bullet points appropriately and capture the essence of the team’s thinking while it is still fresh.

This figure shows the Assessment Summary relating to the table above:

7

Writing, using and revisiting the Statement of Significance

With the bullet points and Assessment Summaries or notes for all the tables on the Template completed, the scribe will be ready to create a first draft of the Statement of Significance. Assessment Summaries for each table can be dropped into the Statement of Significance section of the template. This gives the basic outline of the Statement. It should then be a simple job to edit it into a final version, taking out any duplication and making sure that key points are emphasised and expanded as necessary. The Statement should then be circulated for comment and agreement by the whole team.

The Statement should be written to stand alone, ready for presentation to colleagues, partners, and funders and to inform future generations of museum staff. Museums may choose to allocate a field in their collection documentation system to hold Statements of Significance as they are developed for individual objects and collections. It could also be useful to retain the completed Statement of Significance Templates on file as a record of the assessment process.

Further research and consultationWorking through the Grid will flag up opportunities for further research and consultation. Assessors may want to explore internal records about the acquisition and subsequent use of material. The Process may identify colleagues, or people from outside the museum whose specialist knowledge, experience or cultural understanding could be illuminating. There is a Further research and consultation section at the end the Template for capturing ideas about potential contacts or lines of investigation.

As more research is done and opinions sought from a variety of external partners, the original Statement of Significance should be re-visited and updated to reflect new information and understanding.

When working with individuals or groups from outside the museum, the team might consider using Revisiting Collections, a method developed by the Museums, Libraries, Archives Council and Collections Trust that supports museums and archives to open up their collections to public scrutiny, explore multiple layers of meaning and significance and capture new knowledge and perspectives in catalogues and documentation systems (See sources and resources list at the end of this document).

Using the Significance Assessment Process in your organisation:

Useful applications for the Significance Assessment Process include: Capturing and structuring in-house knowledge from across paper based files and other sources, and

identifying knowledge gaps where external input is required Selecting material and developing key interpretation themes for new displays, temporary exhibitions,

education or outreach programmes, web based resources etc. As a succession planning tool, capturing knowledgeable staff’s expertise and understanding of the

collections Introducing new staff / volunteers / external supporters / partners to the collections Knowledge transfer when working with external subject specialist(s), researchers, community groups

etc. – especially when used in conjunction with Revisiting Collections Prioritising resource investment in - e.g. conservation, cataloguing or digitisation - especially when

undertaken in conjunction with the Collections Review Process Considering material for rationalisation, including transfer or disposal Supporting planning to meet the Arts Council England (ACE) Museum Accreditation Collections

Development (acquisition and disposal) Policy requirement Proactive acquisition planning and decision making on whether to accept offered material Developing a clear evidence base to demonstrate the public value of collections and/or support funding

bids Developing the case for recognition of a collection’s significance - e.g. under the ACE Designation

Scheme

8

3 The Collections Review Process

Using the Collections Review Process generates a robust, easily presented set of data, pinpointing collections’ strengths and weaknesses and flagging up anomalies between care management, documentation, accessibility and actual or potential usage.

As with the Significance Assessment Process, when planning and trialling the Collection Review Process, reviewers will find it helpful to convene a small steering group of colleagues from across the museum representing curatorial, outreach, education, exhibition, preservation and cataloguing perspectives. The group will need to set the parameters for the Process – agree objectives and decide what storage areas or collection types are to be reviewed, at what level of detail. They should consider the Usage and the Collections Management Grids and decide whether to make any modifications to meet specific organisational or project requirements. This might apply particularly to the Usage Grid, where criteria might need to be adapted - e.g. a university museum might wish to look especially closely at material’s potential for undergraduate teaching and academic research. The steering group should also identify any expert advisors needed to support the on-going Process.

The Process is designed to be conducted fairly intensively over a reasonably short period by a small, dedicated review team. This ensures consistency and efficiency as the reviewers develop confidence and speed. Reviewers need to have a basic understanding of collection care and management, but need not be conservators or subject experts in the field of the collection. As part of the project planning and at set intervals, however, they will need access to colleagues and/or external advisers who have that specialist expertise and can give specific guidance about both objects’ preservation requirements and current or potential usage. The review team need to know what to look out for – and when to ask for specialist advice. They will need to work systematically – noting queries as they go and presenting these to their specialist advisers in a way that makes efficient use of everybody’s time.

Unlike the Significance Assessment Process, the Collections Review Process is a score based data analysis system. The collection under review is divided into individual Review Units, ‘scored’ by comparison with criteria outlined on the Usage Grid and the Collections Management Grid. Scores are logged on the Collections Review Survey Form. There is a Collections Review Notes Form for recording supporting information or queries. Data from the Survey Form is entered into the Collections Review Datasheet for analysis. This provides an easily presented overview of survey outcomes for all the Review Units assessed, flagging up ‘hot spots’ for intervention.

So, the Collections Review Process tools are: Usage Grid (PDF, colour-coded orange) Collections Management Grid (PDF, colour-coded yellow) Collections Review Survey Form (MsOffice Word document, colour-coded to match the Grids) Collections Review Notes Form (MsOffice Word document, colour-coded to match the Grids) Collections Review Datasheet (MsOffice 2010 Excel spreadsheet, headings colour-coded to match

the Grids and review data colour-coded, with ‘traffic-light’ colouring system)

Review Units

The size of the Review Units is flexible. The Collection Review Process can be used on a grand scale - to give a broad-brush assessment of a large collection distributed across a number of storage areas, but it can also be used to undertake a much more detailed analysis. The scale and resolution can be adjusted in line with the objectives of the review project, the delivery deadline and the availability of staff.

Determining the size of the Review Units is the critical first step in planning the Collections Review Process. When reviewing the contents of just one or two storage areas, a sensible Review Unit might be a single shelf- or box-full of material. Teams conducting a very focussed project, or one dealing with very large objects, might wish to treat each individual item as a Review Unit in its own right. Conversely, the system

9

will work well, and still provide valuable data, when used on a much bigger scale, taking whole bays of shelving or even whole storage rooms as Review Units.

The Usage Grid

Unlike the Significance Assessment Grid, the Usage and Collections Management Grids do not use prompt questions. They offer a set of criteria against which each Review Unit is scored. Although designed to be complementary, there is clearly some overlap between Significance Assessment and the Usage element of the Collections Review Process.

The column headings on the Usage Grid are as follows:A POPULAR APPEAL / MARKETABILITY: Scores objects or groups of objects for their instant appeal or resonance, highlighting items already seen as ‘iconic’ by the museum or its users

B SUPPORTS LEARNING: Assesses how useful material is or might be to support organisational and other learning priorities

C ENQUIRY / RESEARCH: Assesses how important material is or might be to support specific and cross collection enquiries and research

D SIGNIFICANCE: This gives you the opportunity to record an indicative, summary significance assessment. It could draw on the Significance Assessment Process outlined above if that has already been carried out, or may flag up the need for that Process to be carried out for certain objects or sections of the collection

E CURRENT PUBLIC ACCESS: Assesses current levels of access to objects themselves and to information about them and highlights material already used for display, outreach or other public focussed applications The scoring system for the Usage Grid is:0 UNKNOWN: This indicates a need for further research before any decisions are made about the

material’s preservation/retention – especially where there are resource implications1 VERY HIGH2 HIGH3 MODERATE4 LOW5 VERY LOW

The Collections Management Grid

The Collections Management Grid is not seen as a substitute for more comprehensive self-assessment tools such as the Museum, Library and Archive Council’s Benchmarks in Collections Care framework (See sources and resources list at the end of this document). Its purpose is rather to provide a time and resource effective methodology that gives a snapshot of the current level of collection management and care being offered to each Review Unit in the survey.

The Grid takes the reviewers through a process that helps identify and record good practice and flag up deficiencies - scoring each Review Unit under the following headings:

F SECURITY / EMERGENCY PLANNING: Reviews emergency planning, security provision and management for the whole area in which the objects are held and the security levels offered by individual storage and display units

G DISPLAY / STORAGE AREA & UNITS: Assesses storage conditions and practice

H PACKING & DISPLAY MOUNTS: Assesses housing and packing materials

10

I ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING / CONTROL: Assesses environmental conditions and the monitoring routine

J CONDITION ASSESSMENT: Assesses the condition of objects, identifying items that require additional monitoring, conservation, cleaning or repair

K OWNERSHIP: Identifies the ownership status of objects and highlights instances where ownership is disputed or unknown, or where ownership status is inadequately documented

L DOCUMENTATION / CATALOGUE: Assesses adequacy, completeness and accessibility of documentation

The scoring system for this grid is:1 EXCELLENT2 GOOD3 FAIR4 POOR5 VERY POOR

The Collections Review Survey Form and Notes Form

The Collections Review Survey Form is a simple, paper-based logging system that supports the capture of scoring data in-situ (e.g. within a storeroom) where using a laptop for direct data entry may not always be convenient.

Structured as a table, with column headings taken from the Usage and Collections Management Grids the form provides a row to enter location information, scoring data and very brief notes for each Review Unit. The lettering of the Grid headings A-L facilitates concise note taking – e.g. a note about the key reason for a lower than expected score under ‘SECURITY / EMERGENCY PLANNING’ would be annotated ‘F’.

Sometimes more extensive notes are required and a separate Notes Form is also supplied – allowing reviewers to record comments and queries about aspects of the Review Unit as a whole or about individual objects.

The Scoring System

Clearly, when there are multiple objects within a single Review Unit there are likely to be major differences between the scores for individual items. Averaging the scores would provide bland and unhelpful data. To get the most out of the review, it is important to ‘weight’ the score in a way that will flag up either problem areas and/or particularly significant material. Weighting the scores works differently for each of the two Grids:

11

When assessing Review Units against the criteria on the Usage Grid it is important to apply the highest rating that could be applied to any single object within the Review Unit to the whole Unit. This locates and highlights individual objects that have potential for new or increased usage.

Example:Review Unit is a shelf containing 20 objects, 17 have little potential for use in learning and would score just ‘4’ (low). Three of the items have clear potential for use in National Curriculum based activities and score ‘2’ (high). Here the whole Unit (i.e. the whole shelf) is given a ‘2’. The notes section of the Collections Review Survey Form is used to flag up the three ‘star’ items, citing their reference numbers.

Conversely, when assessing Review Units against criteria on the Collections Management Grid reviewers should apply the lowest rating that could be applied to any single object within the Review Unit to the whole Unit. This will flag up items that require attention.

Example:Review Unit is a shelf contains 12 objects and 11 of these score ‘2’ (good) for CONDITION ASSESSMENT, but one item rates as a ‘5’ (very poor) and needs urgent attention. Here the whole Review Unit is scored ‘5’ and a note is made to identify the object and describe the problem.

More detailed information about individual objects and/or the Unit as a whole should be captured on the Collections Review Notes Form.

The Collections Review Datasheet

The Collections Review Datasheet allows for presentation of typed up data from the Collections Review Survey Form in an easily readable spreadsheet format.

The original REM Reviewing Significance framework provided two versions of the datasheet (in MsOffice Excel versions 2003 and 2007). Reviewing Significance 2.0 provides just the MsOffice Excel 2010 version. This allows the scores recorded on the survey form to be automatically colour-coded using a ‘traffic-light’ system: 5 = red, 4 = orange, 3 = yellow, 2 = pale green, 1 = bright green, 0 = grey. (The colour coding is automated using the ‘Conditional Formatting’ function in Excel 2010 –pre 2007 versions of Excel lack this function and the colour coding has to be done manually)

This ‘traffic-light’ colour coding flags up Collection Management Grid scores at the ‘poor’ end of the scale and Usage Grid scores at the ‘low’ end as red/orange. Collections Management Grid scores at the ‘good-excellent’ end and Usage scores at the ‘high’ end are shown as yellow/green. This makes it easy to spot anomalies - e.g. where the ‘supports learning’ score is ‘very high’ (green), but the ‘public access’ or ‘documentation’ score is ‘very poor’ (red). The colour system will also highlight variations in management or use between individual Review Units in the same store – or across a number of storage areas.

The zero, ‘unknown’, score from the Usage Grid is flagged up in grey – indicating that more research work needs to be done before any decisions can be made about the Review Unit.

The figure below shows a Collections Review Datasheet partially completed by one of the REM pilot museums for the original Reviewing Significance framework (staff names and security data obscured).

12

Using The Collections Review Process In your organisation

Useful applications for the Collections Review Process include: Generating a systematic, quickly achieved and readily presented overview of collections: what is where;

how it is currently being used and managed and what its potential might be Providing an evidence base to support development of ACE Museum Accreditation policy and planning

documents Spotting problem areas in collections and information management Providing objectively generated evidence to support resource allocation and funding bids Reviewing the impact and/or effectiveness of current access provision and interpretation As a helpful monitoring and handover tool - especially when preparing for a change of collection

managers Preparing for external inspections and self-assessment reviews Quickly identifying material that would benefit from closer scrutiny through the Significance

Assessment Process

13

4 Reviewing Significance 2.0 tools available for download from Collections Link

THE SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Significance Assessment Grid – PDFThe Grid poses a series of prompt questions within a structured framework. The questions will help you explore what your organisation already knows about the material you are assessing and what that might mean in terms of its significance to a variety of users.

Statement of Significance Template - MsOffice Word documentThe Template helps you capture the key thought processes stimulated by using the Significance Assessment Grid and develop a succinct ‘statement’ that summarises and presents all the available evidence about the current and potential significance of your single item, sub collection or whole collection.

THE COLLECTIONS REVIEW PROCESS

Usage Grid – PDFThe Usage Grid presents a set of criteria to help you assess and ‘score’ both current and potential usage of the material you are assessing.

Collections Management Grid – PDFThe Collections Management Grid presents a set of criteria to help you assess and ‘score’ the current level of collection management provision being offered to the material you are assessing. Its purpose is to provide a time and resource efficient methodology that will give you an immediate ‘snapshot’.

Collections Review Survey Form - MsOffice Word documentThe form provides a simple, paper-based logging system to help you capture scoring data in-situ (e.g. within a storeroom). It includes a small space for notes.

Collections Review Notes Form - MsOffice Word documentWhere more extensive notes are required this structured Notes Form allows reviewers to record comments and queries about aspects of the Review Unit as a whole or about individual objects.

Collections Review Datasheet - MsOffice Excel spreadsheet (2003 and 2010 versions available)The datasheet enables you to present typed up data from the Collections Review Survey Form in an easily readable spreadsheet format. Two formats of the datasheet are provided - in MsOffice Excel versions 2003 and 2010. The MsOffice Excel 2010 version provides for scores recorded on the survey form to be automatically ‘traffic-light’ colour-coded as they are entered on the spreadsheet.

14

5 Get involved

Reviewing Significance Network The Reviewing Significance Community of Practice online network is hosted by the Collections Link website www.collectionslink.org.uk . It supports colleagues from across the museum and archive sector who want to share and learn from others’ experience of using the Reviewing Significance framework and the related The Screen Heritage UK Collection Assessment Toolkit.

Collections Link’s online Networks are designed to help users to connect with other practitioners, share content, ask questions and get advice from colleagues. To join the Reviewing Significance Network you need to register on the Collections Link website. Registration is free and allows users access to the networking functions that will enable a Community of Practice (COP) to operate online. This will then enable you, amongst many other functions, to:

Contribute resources – share your knowledge and expertise with other professionals Comment on resources Contact other members of the COP and share information and guidelines or ask questions Contact other networks such as software providers

For more information contact the Collections Trust’s Networks Officer, Laura Whitton: laura@collectionstrust.org.uk

15

6 Sources and references:

The original Renaissance East Midlands Reviewing Significance Framework:Currently, the full framework document with pilot case studies and tools are downloadable from the former Museums, Libraries and Archives Council’s website: http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/regions/east_midlands/info_for_sector/collections_buildings/collections_projects

The framework document is also available on the Collections Link site:http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/programmes/reviewing-significance/671-collections-reviewing-significance-framework

Collections Council of Australia’s SignificanceThe Reviewing Significance significance assessment criteria were inspired by the Collections Council of Australia’s Significance: a guide to assessing the significance of cultural heritage objects and collections (published 2001, 2nd edition 2009, online version 2010): http://significance.collectionscouncil.com.au/home

University College London’s Collections ReviewThe Reviewing Significance Collections Review tools were inspired by a survey methodology developed and applied by University College London’s Museums and Collections department in 2007-2009:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums/review

The Screen Heritage UK Collection Assessment ToolkitFunded by Film London and London’s Screen Archives: the regional network. Developed by Caroline Reed in partnership with film archivist David Cleveland. The full toolkit, case studies and all relevant tools are downloadable from the London’s Screen Archives website. Follow the links through Professional Resources from the home page: www.londonsscreenarchives.org.uk

Benchmarks in Collections Care Now in its second edition the Benchmarks checklist can be used to measure levels of collections care and prioritise how they might be improved: Benchmarks in Collections Care http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/programmes/benchmarks-for-collections-care

Revisiting CollectionsRevisiting Collections is a methodology developed by the Museums, Libraries, Archives Council and Collections Trust that supports museums and archives to open up their collections to public scrutiny, explore multiple layers of meaning and significance and capture new knowledge and perspectives in catalogues and documentation systems: http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/programmes/revisiting-collections

16