Reading List: May 2015

Image source: http://www.dsargentblog.us/reading-list/

In the spirit of Thoughts Parked, or "I need some place to put this down quickly so that I don't forget" here are some things that I've been reading this past month that have caught my attention:

Why Do We Experience Awe? (New York Times)
Do museums matter, and if so, why? One potential point of view is that museums are capable of inspiring awe. But is a sense of awe important? This article by Paul Piff and Dacher Kelter briefly explores the impact that a sense of awe can have on us as human beings, based on their psychology research. Among other findings, they note that people who experienced awe "... cooperated more, shared more resources and sacrificed more for others — all of which are behaviors necessary for our collective life". My take: museums inspire awe and feeling awe helps make us better people, ergo museums matter. A lot.

Book: Mindset The New Psychology of Success by Carol S. Dweck Ph.D.
Never mind the business-school-speak on the cover (including phrases like "How we can learn to fulfill our potential") - this book makes a solid point about one of the key elements of being successful in the 21st century: how you define the why of your successes can determine your future. Sounds simple, right? Not exactly. But it does boil down to two diametrically opposed viewpoints:

1. When you succeed, it's because you have an innate talent - you were born for this stuff! It comes naturally to you, and anyone who challenges you must be an idiot. Failure is intolerable and humiliating, you never fail, and if someone thinks you did it was actually because they didn't see that it really wasn't your fault.
2. When you succeed, it's because you worked hard, you dealt with the inevitable setbacks along the way, and you never stopped learning. People who challenge you actually help you to see alternatives, to explore them, and to learn other points of view.You know that failure is just a part of the process of exploring and discovering, so failure generally motivates you to try again - maybe with a little more preparation or from a different angle, but you feel determined to figure it out.

The book get a little repetitive at times (what business book doesn't), but perhaps that's done to hammer home the ideas and emphasize how important it is for you to think carefully about your own mindset, and also to consider how you treat other people. The author's bottom line: the Growth Mindset (number 2 above) is superior to and leads to much more success than the Fixed Mindset (number 1 above). In addition, it's possible to change your mindset - if you just put your mind to it!

A (2015) rumination on wayfinding in museums by Lynda Kelly on the #musdigi blog
The author muses about digital tools to support wayfinding in museums, and includes a very useful list of requests for anyone who is developing such tools. She concludes "Ultimately however, and based on the research cited at the beginning of this post, I’m thinking that the joys of just wandering around for visitors, discovering unexpected delights, is what still makes a museum visit unique. How will this be factored into future digital (and other) wayfinding tools?"  It's an interesting point, but perhaps slightly biased toward a specific visitor type. John Falk's research has indicated that museum visitors have a variety of goals, based on their sense of identity as they undertake participation on any given day. Lynda's joy at "just wandering around" fits cleanly within Falk's Explorer category - which includes people who are driven by curiosity and who are comfortable with uncertainty and discovery. But those very comforts for Explorers are seen as impediments to other types, such as those who've come as Facilitators or Experience Seekers. Interestingly, I think that most museum professionals - particularly we in the digital tech area - fall into the Explorer group. We should be careful not to cloud our understanding of visitor needs with our own desires. As my friend and colleague Kate Haley Goldman has often reminded: "You are not your target audience". Best approach: test early, test often, test with the visiting public, and always elevate the importance of listening to your customers over making decisions for them based on your own biases.

Creative Time’s Anne Pasternak Will Take the Helm at the Brooklyn Museum by Benjamin Sutton on Hyperallergic
Three cheers for the Brooklyn Museum! A bold choice, an accomplished woman at the top position, and (gasp) an outsider! Well, maybe not a total outsider, but certainly a leader who honed skills outside of the narrow world of fine art museums. I have high hopes for exciting programming tied closely to the community, for innovation, for breaths of fresh air. Looking forward to seeing it unfold in Brooklyn.

How to Communicate Visually with your Team by Dan Hogan for Fast Company
The author makes a compelling argument for sharing information, including "With so many different communicator types in a business, visuals can help everyone understand the company’s products and goals while staying on the same page". He recommends visuals that range from whiteboards to stick figures to GIFs. The real point, IMHO, is that clear and effective communication is vital to keeping everyone aligned, informed, and rowing in the same direction. Visuals are a great tool for making that happen - although not the only tool ... there is no single perfect answer (darn). Thanks to @daladarling for pointing me to this article.

Onwards and Upwards: Museum Succession in America (The Economist)
Time marches on, and many major art museums in America are looking to replace Directors as they retire over the next few years.This article looks to challenge assumptions, and points out, "The impending influx of new blood at the top offers museums an opportunity to rethink the job and question many of the assumptions that underlie traditional museum operations" and "Refashioning museums to appeal to future generations means devising a new vision. Up-and-coming directors face three major challenges: engaging more imaginatively with audiences, addressing America’s changing demographics and negotiating the ever more delicate balance between rich donors and the public." Finally, I'm very intrigued by this bit near the end of the story: Elizabeth Merritt ... says she thinks some of the most successful future directors may well come from non-traditional backgrounds: technology, journalism or community work: “not because those sectors are more successful than museums, but because an ‘outsider’ would bring a fresh perspective to our work.”
Hmm. See thoughts on Anne Pasternak at the Brooklyn Museum above. Frankly, I'm all for art museums striving to be more innovative and engaging, through whatever means necessary (as long as the integrity of the institution and the safety and long-term viability of its collection is assured).

Movie Producer Brian Grazer Explains How Asking The Right Questions Will Make You A Better Boss on FastCompany.com
"Questions are a great management tool" says Brian Grazer. Smart article full of good advice on the perspective of leadership. For example: "Curiosity at work isn’t a matter of style. It’s much more powerful than that. If you’re the boss and you manage by asking questions, you’re laying the foundation for the culture of your company or your group. You’re letting people know that the boss is willing to listen. This isn’t about being "warm" or "friendly." It’s about understanding how complicated the modern business world is, how indispensable diversity of perspective is, and how hard creative work is. Here’s why it’s hard: because often there is no right answer". In the knowledge economy, where puzzles are common and solutions are rarely black/white, it's a great approach to show the respect and trust in your staff by asking and asking and asking until the answers become at least a bit more clear.

Product teams: The next wave of digital for NGOs? by Michael Silberman on MobLab
One of the main points of this post is well-described by the accompanying image:

Image Source: http://www.mobilisationlab.org/product-teams-the-next-wave-of-digital-for-ngos/

By taking a "product approach", company resources are treated as valued over time and kept up-to-date through dedicated effort, as opposed to the tradition of a big launch and then a wait until another big launch will be needed. The latter creates over-lapping cycles of exhaustion; the former elicits quality work over time at manageable effort levels. In addition, the overlap with the Agile methods we've been employing here at the MIA are inspirational.

British Museum to Give Live Tours over Periscope 
Interesting experiment by the British Museum, who will have "... British historian and broadcaster Dan Snow on hand to lead a 30 minute journey through the exhibition's white marble statues, terracotta works, bronzes and ornate vases". Wave of the future? Short-lived fad? Time will tell.

Okay, I think that's enough for the time being. I hope that sharing some of these might be useful to you - each of these articles has helped inform and/or motivate me to continue learning. We are all works in progress, after all. 

The Digital Flood: Nonprofit Sector Sessions at DAMNY 2015

Note: this post originally appeared on LinkedIn on May 15, 2015

I had the pleasure of attending and participating in the Henry Stewart DAMNY event on May 7 & 8, 2015. I have attended events organized by Henry Stewart in the past, and as always this was run professionally, offered great content, and was an opportunity to network with colleagues across multiple industries and sectors. For a museum nerd like me, it's particularly important to rub elbows (er, brains?) with folks from the private sector who are thinking strategically and implementing practical methods for sharing/selling content. Most inspiring.

I was honored to be asked to lead a set of back-to-back sessions, with a focus on the nonprofit, cultural heritage sector. First up, I had a great time prepping and presenting a session titled "Swimming Through the Digital Flood" with two of my expert staff at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts: Frances Lloyd-Baynes - Content Database Specialist, and Joshua Lynn - Digital Media Specialist. At the risk of sounding overly-proud, I consider myself and our organization very lucky to have such knowledgeable and dedicated staff on board. Our session provided an overview and update on a strategic, IMLS-funded project we have underway to re-think our entire array of digital assets and how we store and access them. Our presentation is posted on slideshare, in case you'd like to dig into that topic a bit. Spoiler alert: we're working hard on an open source DAMs tool that could be used across our sector, stay tuned for a release in late summer 2015 on Github.

For our first session at DAMNY 2015, the room was packed, and those in attendance seemed to enjoy the presentation.

 
As the 50 minute presentation drew to a close, I invited the attendees to stick around for a deeper discussion facilitated by me. We called it "A Nonprofit Working Session: Learn, Connect, Look Ahead". As you might be able to tell from the title, our objectives included the opportunity to continue the focus on the nonprofit sector, expand the dialog with attendees, and provide opportunities for networking - all grouped around the core topic of digital asset management. We had about 30 takers, so after a couple minutes to catch our breath we dove right in.

It was an honor to be asked to facilitate this second session, and I was determined to make it meaningful to all in attendance. Because we'd just come off a rather fast-paced and information-dense presentation, I was hoping to strike while the iron was still hot. I polled those in the room: What are the DAM-related topics that are most on your mind? What would you like to discuss most? It didn't take long for the group to list five:

1. Starting from scratch: implementing digital asset management systems, making decisions, sorting through needs
2. Adoption, or “phase two”: what comes after a DAMs has been launched?
3. Video: the unique challenges of digital video assets
4. Metadata: models and standards
5. Rights management, with particular details specific to the cultural sector

We then assembled into five breakout tables, hurried through introductions, then focused our work into three main themes:

1. Challenges
2. Successes
3. Wouldn't it be great if ...

I gave the breakout groups only five minutes on each theme - yes, that's short, maybe to the point of cruelty, I know. But in my defense the idea was to push them to be succinct, to stay with high-priority issues, and to work together as a group effectively. Luckily, all five groups rose to the occasion.
I asked each breakout group to report back to the entire room, again keeping the pace fast and asking only for the most-salient points. I'll summarize the main messages below, but for those of you who just can't resist that sort of thing, I've compiled more-detailed notes on a shared document.
My top seven take-aways, across all three themes:

• It's vitally important to assess - honestly - both your situation and your aspiration. Where are you now, and where to you want to go? Figure this out prior to implementing and/or changing your digital asset management approach.
• Hiring and Learning are key. Get skilled people on staff, train them up, constantly. After all, you don't go deep sea diving without taking a few scuba lessons.
• DAM is an ecosystem of professional practice, not a software package. Expecting lines of code to fix your problems is always ineffective. However, when you combine strategy + implementation + methodology + change management + professional discipline + ongoing training, it can add up to success and enable your DAM practice to be a dynamic central hub for all content creation and distribution.
• Metadata: if only we could all agree! My favorite nerd joke here: Metadata standards are just like toothbrushes - we all know that we need them, but no one want to use anybody else's.
• Video is tough! But guess what? It's growing exponentially. No heads in the sand on this one, people.
• Managing rights and licensing and permissions is also tough. Most of us don't have a suite of intellectual property lawyers on call.
• Collaboration benefits us all. The more opportunities we have to share, learn, offer encouragement, and build systems together, the more likely we'll succeed.

I sincerely hope that the dialog will continue. For those in attendance, be sure to reach out to those colleagues you met. Even if you didn't attend, here are some resources and places we can all continue to connect:

Henry Stewart Conferences
The DAM Foundation
Twitter: #musetech
Twitter: #drinkingaboutmuseums (seriously)
Twitter: #DAM (altho this hashtag is also used re: holding back water!)
The Museum Computer Network
Museums and the Web

And I'm sure there are plenty more - perhaps you would add your favorite in the comments below.

In meantime, keep up the DAM good work, and let's promise to keep each other in the loop!

Griot: An Open Source Toolset for Sharing Engaging Stories

Update, January 2018: This post (below) from 2015 describes the initial phase of a project to build and utilize an open source storytelling platform. Since that time, Mia has initiated a second phase of this initiative, backed with funding from the Knight Foundation, to re-imagine and upgrade the platform. The new software, called Lume, is scheduled for release in Summer 2018.

Original post:


The Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) has created an open source toolset for crafting and sharing engaging stories. The software tools – which create an optimized website - were developed in-house as part of the museum-wide project called The Digital Experience (nicknamed TDX).

Screenshot: ArtStories, published on the Griot toolset, featuring highlights from the Minneapolis Institute of Arts

TDX is a cross-functional effort to delight our visitors by delivering interesting and accessible stories based on the museum’s vast collection using digital platforms. The MIA will continue to refine and implement the tools, while at the same time sharing them with the wider community in hopes of finding collaborative partners who will use and expand the functionality going forward.

The first phase of the TDX project was launched in November 2013, to coincide with the re-opening of the MIA’s African Art Galleries. Phase 2 was launched in February 2015, expanding the range of stories to include museum highlights across the entire collection. The museum branded the digital delivery as “ArtStories” to help visitors locate and recognize each installation (they can also access the stories on their own devices, onsite or offsite). The roll-out has been met with positive response from audiences and the press. The stories are accessed every day - engaging people, driving social interactions and shared experiences, as well as allowing individuals to dive deeply into the content on their own.

The development team has dubbed the software toolset "Griot" (a West African term for a wise story-teller). The toolset provides user-friendly methods for crafting stories, and incorporating multimedia content (e.g., images, audio, and video). The stories are presented online or in-gallery via an internet browser (works best on Chrome).

The Griot package includes three specific tools for (1) authoring content, (2) presenting stories, and (3) tiling & annotating large images to enhance zooming, panning and to highlight particular details. The tools can be used to produce mobile device-ready experiences and/or to develop websites.  Because the software is open source, it is available for free and can be used by many different types of organizations. In addition, open source enables any skilled developer to modify the software and to contribute those modifications to the project, enhancing Griot for all who use it.

Griot open source software that created the ArtStories responsive design website is one major deliverable of The Digital Experience (TDX) project. TDX was initiated in 2013 to deliver new interpretive media and technology projects that inspire and delight audiences and support deeper visitor engagement. All TDX projects meet the following strategic goals:

• Interfaces are quickly and easily navigated
• Provide multiple layers of content for varied audiences
• Enable self-guided exploration and learning
• Content has the greatest impact – audiences remember the stories, not the technology
• At the museum, encourage users to engage and/or re-engage with the collection
• Enable and encourage lively social interaction
• Accessible to all ages, cultures, education level and socio-economic standing
• Develop products using iterative cycles that include direct audience input

A survey of available software to accomplish TDX goals showed a paucity of open source options for audience engagement and storytelling. The MIA endeavors to be a leader in the cultural heritage field, developing software to meet needs beyond its own walls. By sharing the software tools openly and at no cost, the efforts of the TDX project are available to support museum interpretation and delight audiences widely.

To develop Griot, the TDX project considered:

• Visitors seek concise information that offers context, to help them understand and engage with the objects nearby.
• Museum tour guides can use the interface effectively.
• Art works will be presented with engaging stories, differing in tone to traditional museum didactics (more friendly, less formal, readily accessible).
• While visitors are increasingly bringing their own smart devices along on museum trips, the museum will continue to provide devices for those who do not.
• Content is shared via the internet to anyone who has ability to connect.

Of course, one of the most-important aspects of digital story-telling is each story itself. To empower the MIA's professional curatorial staff, a series of collaborative writing workshops were held over time.

Curators work with media production staff to craft engaging and intriguing content, published via the Griot toolset.

The second phase of Griot/ArtStories was completed museum-wide in February 2015. Announcing it to the public, the museum noted “ArtStories invites you into an interactive, in-depth conversation about great artworks, from hidden details to secret backstories. Zoom in. Dive deep. ArtStories is a web app. It’s available on iPads in the MIA galleries, and it’s also optimized for your smartphone or computer. Try it on your personal device as you explore the galleries or from the comfort of home.”

All ages can enjoy ArtStories, and the content is crafted to enable and encourage social interaction.

Griot specifications

• AngularJS MVW Framework
• WordPress CMS (similar systems could be adapted – Drupal, Joomla, etc.)
• JSON

Griot toolset components and documentation

• HTML5 application http://github.com/artsmia/griot
• WordPress plugin for annotating images & writing content http://github.com/artsmia/GriotWP
• Image tiling http://github.com/artsmia/tilesaw

Building Griot: How We Work
The TDX project embraces and depends upon cross-functional teams to deliver engaging content. A Core Team is made up of producers and developers, and a wide array of vital stakeholders provide guidance, content, and feedback at every step along the way. As always, it starts and ends with the Audience.

 The TDX project uses an iterative approach to software development. This begins with early prototypes – often sketches on paper – brought to the public for formative testing. Visitors are asked specific questions about the interface design, and their responses are collected, collated, and turned into action plans. From this feedback, working versions of digital interactives are built, and the cycle is repeated: visitors try them out, respond, and those responses are taken into account to build out the production version. For any given project, the team will go through from 3 to 6 cycles.

Museum visitors respond to an iteration of ArtStories, recording their impressions for developers to review.

This ongoing, iterative approach enables the museum to deliver experiences that the public has helped shape. Once final versions are installed and in-use at the museum, MIA conducts formal evaluations using standard evaluation methods (observation, timing and tracking, interviews). The data is analyzed and shared with the team before they begin the next production cycle. Combining formative testing, multiple iterations and summative evaluation empowers to team to work directly with the public in order to deliver engaging and inspiring content.
Is Griot Successful?
In 2014, the MIA contracted with Audience Viewpoints Consulting to evaluate the integration of in-gallery technology from the visitor viewpoint. Primary findings of the summative evaluation included:

• MIA visitors will use technology in the galleries. They will spend a significant amount of time with the technology, and will read aloud and discuss as they do so. The technology was used effectively and with positive response by individuals and groups.
• The use of technology does not detract from visitor focus on the art. The technology was transparent, allowing audiences to focus on the collections and their context. When visitors left the gallery, the descriptions of their visit were almost exclusively about the art, and notably not about the technology.
• People who used the technology spent more time in the exhibit than those that did not use the technology (even after subtracting the time spent using the technology).

Future plans for Griot include:

• Continue improving Griot tools using iterative cycles based on audience input.
• Grow the network of collaborative partners who implement and possibly extend Griot for the benefit of all.
• At the MIA, add more content to ArtStories for deeper and richer engagement with the collection.

The team at the MIA hopes that this software package, and the demonstrated results of using it to delight our audiences, helps all museums to continue to achieve their missions - all of which include making sure that all people can access, learn from, connect with, shared, and be inspired by the amazing collections entrusted to the institutions in our field.

More information and links for Griot.

Credits:
The MIA wishes to thank a long list of contributors to the success of Griot and ArtStories
The TDX cross-functional project team members included staff from the following museum divisions: Curatorial, Learning Innovation, Audience Engagement, Visual Resources, and Media and Technology. The project team ultimately extended to include several other departments of the museum. (Please see below a link for Supporting Document 4: TDX Project Team.)
Douglas Hegley: Executive Sponsor, Director of Media and Technology, project conception
Karleen Gardner: Steering Committee, Director of Learning Innovation, interpretive writing
Matthew Welch: Steering Committee, Deputy Director and Chief Curator
Mike Mouw: TDX Project Manager, project coordination
Alex Bortolot: Curatorial Content Strategist, research, content creation, interpretive writing, story editing
Paige Patet: TDX Project Assistant, project coordination, content creation, interpretive writing, story editing
Amanda Thompson Rundahl: Head of Interpretation, content creation, interpretive writing
Andreas Marks, Chris Atkins, David Little, Dennis Jon, Eike Schmidt, Erika Holmquist-Wall, Jan-Lodewijk Grootaers, Jennifer Komar Olivarez, Jill Ahlberg Yohe, Liz Armstrong, Nicole LaBouf, Patrick Noon, Rachel McGarry, Risha Lee, Thomas Rassieur, Yang Liu: Curators, research, content creation, and interpretive writing
Dawn Fahlstrom, Heather Everhart, Kristin Lenaburg, Kristine Clarke, Natasha Thoreson, Nicole Soukup, Nicole Wankel, Roma Rowland: Curatorial Administrative Assistants, WordPress authoring, image and video acquisition, rights coordination
Britta Jepsen, Camille Erickson, Elise Poppen, Laura Scroggs, Laurel Gramling, Zachary Forstrom: Curatorial Interns, research, interpretive writing
Meaghan Tongen: Media and Technology Project Coordinator, agile software development ScrumMaster, rights coordinator, WordPress training
Jennifer Jurgens: Graphic Designer-Web/Interactive Media, interface design and layout, art direction
Tom Borger: Web Developer, WordPress plugin development, front end integration
Kjell Olsen: Web Developer, image tiling / annotation development, front end integration
Andrew David: Head of Software Development, API development, infrastructure design
Tim Gihring: Editor, content creation, interpretive writing
Amanda Hankerson, Ana Taylor, Charles Walbridge, Dan Dennehy: Photography
Josh Lynn: Digital image processing, metadata coordination, image file preparation
Heidi Raatz: Image rights consultation
Mike Dust: Video and audio producer/director
Ryan Lee, Xiaolu Wang: Videography, video editing, installation
Mike Tibbetts, Rose Nelson, Ryan Jensen, Steve Scidmore: IT support, installation, maintenance
Frances Lloyd-Baynes: TMS consultation
Michael Lapthorn, VJAA: gallery iPad furniture design
Al Silberstein, Shawn Holster, Tom Myers: iPad furniture construction
Steve Johnson: Electrician

The Right Kind of Rejection

Note: this post originally published on LinkedIn

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/28946154@N00/3043955183/

I've spent nearly two decades working in museums. I love it. That being said, I don't love every part of it. I had an experience this week that gave me pause to think a bit (and now to write a bit) about our field - and frankly this may apply to any number of other fields, although that's not for me to say.

I am a strong advocate for professionalization. I believe in the power of a commitment to being the best that we can be. I try to apply that to my own work, to the work of my institution and its staff, and - when I can - across our field more widely. Professionalization in the museum sector remains a debate, but I'm firmly in the "yes, please" camp.

Professions are advanced by many methods, but one tried-and-true approach is sharing. In order to share, we submit our work - perhaps as articles for publication, projects for recognition, and/or proposed conference sessions and workshops. Sharing drives wider dissemination and supports iteration - we build on one another's work, and thus need not re-invent the wheel time and again. "Research is a pyramid, with previous discoveries serving as the foundation for later research".

Once submitted, our work is subjected to judgment: somebody, or some body of somebodies, reviews-evaluates-decides whether our submissions are worthy to be shared, via whatever channel is at the judges' disposal - journals, websites, awards, conference sessions, webinars, etc.

Next: we receive word. We find out if our submission was accepted. Typically, this news comes in one of two forms:

1. The simple Yes/No This response is often couched in carefully-crafted positive-sounding messages. Something along the lines of "Thank you for your outstanding submission. We received a great many worthy entries, and the decision-making process was very difficult this year. Unfortunately, your submission was not selected. But we encourage you to submit again next time!" It's almost a version of the infamous "it's not you, it's me" cliche.

2. Detailed Feedback Regardless of acceptance or rejection, word comes back WITH detailed feedback from the judges. By carefully considering the feedback, the submitter can learn: What were the strengths? Weaknesses? Any blind spots? What could be improved? Why was the submission accepted/rejected? What could be done to make things better, both in terms of the work itself and any later submissions? What are the next steps we can take to make this better? And one final note: receiving such feedback communicates a level of respect and actual encouragement from the judges to the submitter.

Question: Which of these two responses serves to advance the field? I believe the answer is obvious: it's number 2. The information that we receive as feedback is vitally important, for all of the parties involved.

Submitters learn the parameters around measures of success, understand how their peers evaluate their work, become informed about subsequent work and subsequent submissions – learning concrete ways to improve over time.

• Contrast that with folks who are rejected but receive no feedback: they have no understanding about how the work was evaluated, develop suspicion of bias or politics having been involved, gain no concrete steps to improve subsequent work, and ultimately lose motivation to try again - regardless of the syrupy language in the rejection notice. Ouch.

Judges also benefit by providing clear and constructive feedback. First and foremost, shouldn't that be their role in the first place? If they cannot honestly and professionally evaluate work and provide clear reasons for their conclusions, I'd proclaim them unfit to judge. And all of the time they've committed to judging: shouldn't that investment of time result in adding value to the profession? As a judge, it's your opportunity to inform, teach and inspire - please take advantage of that. It's your chance to contribute to the field.

My point: to contribute to the professionalization of our chosen field, all of us should make the commitment to respect one another and collaborate as strongly as we can. That includes providing clear, constructive and timely feedback to each other whenever possible.

Alternatively, I suppose we could just submit everything to the Journal of Universal Rejection.

The Mystery of the Missing Map and Other Digital Disappearances

Note: This blog post originally published on LinkedIn.

When I first arrived at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts in 2011, I was undertaking a newly-created leadership position with responsibility for all things technical and digital. Rather than rush in with guns blazing, I realized that I needed to spend some time really understanding the needs of the organization. Of course, I found there were many. It was during this initial “listening tour” that I first heard about the mystery of the missing map, and that’s the story I’d like to focus on here.

Once upon a time, a museum hired a graphic artist – at great expense – to create a beautiful digital design for a large map of continental Africa, to be applied directly to the wall in a gallery. The effort was a smashing success. The map was visually impressive, told a great story, and brought the nearby collection to life for visitors. Of course, like all museum installations, this was a time-limited experience. Soon the walls were repainted as the institution marched forward. Then, perhaps five years later, another project came along that could re-use that expensive and gorgeous map. A call went out across the realm: bring forth the map! The response was … crickets. Then the whispering began. Who had the map? Who had that file? What was it called again? Did we save it anywhere? Staff contacted other staff, who then contacted more staff. Investigations branched out across several different operational units. Soon, a number of employees had dropped their work and were digging through old network shared folders, boxes of CDs, and even local hard drives, searching, searching, and searching for several days. Finally, the frustrated and exhausted group gave up. Another graphic designer was hired, and the effort and expense were repeated.

The mystery of the missing map became a metaphor for a long-standing approach to managing digital assets: ad hoc. In fact, the story became a sort of proxy for an entire body of recent digital work that had essentially disappeared. Sound familiar?

To those of us in the information management professions, this is the kind of thing that makes our blood boil. When you layer in the fact that my area – the non-profit cultural sector – typically operates with limited funding and limited staffing, it really adds to the frustration. We simply can’t afford to lose the digital assets that were painstakingly produced to fulfill our mission.

Now, I want to be clear about something. I’m not blaming anyone. Staff who work in cultural sector organizations are diligent, hard-working, incredibly sincere, and very smart. They do their best, day after day. What they often lack are the tools needed to improve the WAY they do their work. And many times that staff has limited or no exposure to best practices in other industries, and thus never knows to question the methods they use in their own workplace.

I think we can agree that 21st century audiences demand unprecedented access to meaningful and portable content. This had led many sectors to transform, to see themselves as vast digital publishing enterprises. The cultural sector is no different. The need to craft and share stories, engage funders and provide inspiration to audiences - new and traditional - has never been greater. We are producing, and will continue to produce, a veritable flood of digital content. Are we equipped for this transformation?

As an organization, we were able to rally around the missing map metaphor and begin to establish better working models. Perfect? Well, not yet, and maybe never, but certainly improving. Our challenges are many:

• Accelerating digital media production.
• Workflows established for print-production being misapplied to digital.
• A plethora of metadata models.
• Lack of cataloguing staff.
• Myriad digital asset management system software packages – too many choices.
• Our big “elephant in the room”: how are we to deal with the wave of born-digital contemporary art joining our collections?

These challenges must be met if we are to sustain and enhance continued audience engagement across the field. We are not alone in making progress on all of these fronts, and we believe that strong collaboration is a key to our mutual success. At upcoming conferences, such as the Henry Stewart DAM NY event in early May 2015, we’ll be sharing our work and its results. Note: As a reader of this post, you can register for that conference at a discount by using the code MINNEAPOLIS100

As a sector, we will be more likely to succeed when we learn from each other, share our wins as well as our stumbles, expand our professional networks, and set the stage for continued dialog. Let's put our heads together and look to the future, one without any more mysterious digital disappearances.

Leading Change: How to Prioritize

Let's see if this is a familiar scenario:
You've been tasked to lead an organizational change. Maybe you are taking on a new role, or a new career path at a new organization, or maybe it's an internal challenge that's been handed to you. Regardless, you are assigned with changing the course of your business through whatever operational unit is under your leadership. Somewhere deep inside, you whisper, "Oh boy".

Facing Reality
Of course, change is hard! Change is often complex, with so many potential moving parts that it seems impossible to wrap your mind around the whole thing. And upon first blush, any change - no matter how small - seems to have a wide-ranging effect throughout the business unit or even across the enterprise: pull one string, and the proverbial sweater looks like it might unravel.

This makes leading change seem daunting, or even overwhelming. Where do you start?!

I have a suggestion. Like most suggestions, it's going to involve a bit of oversimplification, and few assumptions, any one of which can be questioned. I will argue that you've got to start somewhere, and when it's hard to decide how and where to start I like to rely on a rational rubric or schema. You might even call it a conceptual framework.

This schema is based on four essential pillars that support any successful organization: People, Vision, Focus, and Process.

I will try to put this into a narrative form: in order to be successful, an organization needs to hire excellent employees, provide a meaningful purpose for their work, ensure that the projects they work on are important and in support of the vision, and use methods that are effective and proven/professional. In priority order, you've got to look at Who, Why, What and How.

In the perfect world, all four pillars are operating at 100%. As I think most of us agree, the world is not perfect. 

So back here in reality, we as leaders are likely to inherit operational units that are achieving some level of excellence in each pillar. Let's look at this through a hypothetical situation (note to anyone who has worked with me: this is not a real-life story, I'm making it up to illustrate the approach, there is no reference to any of you in here, honestly).

In this new challenge you've been given, you start by taking a hard, disciplined, as-objective-as-possible look at what you've inherited. In this hypothetical, illustrated above, you've got a decent team, almost half have the potential to be strong contributors. However, and despite the fact they do have at least a few good projects underway, the truth is that there is little unifying vision to speak of, and the approach taken by each team and/or individual looks like it's basically ad hoc. By assessing this as your current state, you can decide where to turn your attention as you implement change as quickly and effectively as you can. You need to attack your areas of weakness, in the right order, but of course you can't do so while ignoring any of the other pillars, because extreme weakness in any of them will put stress on the others.

To be more concrete, even if you go on a super-lucky recruiting binge and bring in a contingent of fantastic new employees, as soon as they learn that there is no real vision and really poor practices, they will under-perform and (worse yet) abandon ship quickly. (I'm exaggerating for effect here; one other possible scenario is that those very same fantastic new employees will demand - and then lead the effort to implement - a clearer vision, better focus, and improved methods. But I digress.)

It starts with people. In the seminal and highly-influential Netflix Culture Deck, slide number 20 sums it up as "Great Workplace is Stunning Colleagues". In fact, when it comes to employee performance, many of us have seen that even one bad apple is capable of spoiling the whole barrel. If you have any weaknesses in your personnel, you've got to start there.

While you are recruiting, you will quickly find it impossible to hire the great ones until you can tell them why your organization exists and where it hopes to go. That requires a vision statement that is true, concise and meaningful (dare I say pithy?). Entire books have been written about crafting vision statements, I won't try to offer step-by-step instructions in this short blog post, I'll just emphasize that it's vital and ranks right up there after people.

Looks like your team(s) have a few good projects going, and that's great because those can be used as examples to inform upcoming project decisions. In other words, once you're moving the talent in the right direction and they are inspired by the vision, make sure that the work they do is right in line. I'd argue for allowing as much self-direction as possible in this effort, but perhaps that's a topic for a later post.

Finally, even when talented & inspired staff have rewarding assignments, if you can't ensure that the tools and methods available to them are at least up to par, the entire effort is bound to fail. Teams should be able to define what they need, but it's also part of your job as a leader to challenge methods and provide ample learning opportunities for your team(s) so that they can enter a cycle of continuous improvement.

The course for your role as a leader of change is now set. You've got to work on people and vision, while keeping an eye on projects and methods - allowing the new blood to contribute to those (and giving them credit along they way).

Now let's jump one year ahead in time and see how you've been doing (remember, this is all hypothetical, so time travel is possible). You've been diligent and focused, working on the pillars in priority order. Time to take another hard, honest look at where you stand, so that you can reset your plans for the coming year. This exercise, done regularly, can help you know where to mete your efforts to help your organization succeed.

Looks like you've made some good hires. More than 50% of your team is seen as talented. And you did the right thing by focusing on the vision, making a great deal of progress in getting alignment and inspiration - although clearly you've got work left to do (and that could be related to the staff, you may have some holdouts who are just plain resisting). You've added a few good projects, and methods are getting better. Nice.

A Couple of Final Thoughts
I prefer to share these types of visualizations with my entire operational unit. I believe in radical transparency, and in being honest. People appreciate honesty, and (sadly) they aren't accustomed to it in their professional careers. By being open about this process and about your perspective on where things stand, you'll help your increasingly-talented staff get on board - and take an active role - with the other changes that are taking place.

Expect some fits and starts. This is not some kind of magical formula that solves all ills. It is also not exactly math or science, it's just one way that I've found to offer an effective guide to making decisions and setting priorities throughout the process of leading change. Onward and upward!

The Importance of the First Follower

There is no such thing as a leader who does not have any followers. According to dictionary.com, a leader is " ... a person who guides or directs a group". Even the most-brilliant new idea, even the smartest person to have ever lived, even a self-important narcissist ... none of these will be leaders until they have followers.

I'm not the biggest fan of the term "follower", because I think it may evoke an impression of blind faith or unquestioning obedience. In this case, I'm only distinguishing leader from follower in the formal sense; the leader guides the group, the group is made up of followers. Each follower may be a leader of one or more other groups, so in this case follower is not in any way disdainful. Frankly, we all follow, it's our nature.

All leaders need followers. And in actuality, it's the first followers who - in essence - lead the rest of the followers to follow. Hmm, that sounded rather tautological.  Allow me to illustrate by an example.

My favorite - if somewhat silly - interpretation of this is the widely-shared YouTube video titled "First Follower: Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy". Have a look:

Forgiving the poor-quality video and the goofiness of the visual presentation, there is so much great stuff in this short video, I'm not sure where to begin. But (of course) I'll try. Here are aspects of the video and it's narration that really resonate with me in my ongoing pursuit of learning how to lead.

• Want to lead? Be easy to follow. Be accessible, share your vision, invite participation. 
• When a First Follower decides to follow, the leader succeeds by immediately embracing him or her as an equal. It's so important for the leader not to make it all about him or herself. Remember: without followers, you are not and cannot be a leader.
• A First Follower is TRANSFORMATIVE. He or she changes a "lone nut" into a leader, by choosing to follow. Emphasis on the choosing part - the First Follower has chosen to take the risk of believing in the leader. This concept is widely under-appreciated. 
• The First Follower is the LEADER of the next set of followers! "New followers emulate the follower, not the leader" - in other words, as leaders we can rant until we're blue in the face AND try like crazy to lead by example, but guess who everyone is ACTUALLY watching to see HOW to follow? It's the early followers, of course. 
• It takes a lot of courage to be the First Follower, perhaps more courage than to be the innovative leader. Innovative leaders already believe in their idea or project or direction; First Followers have to buy in BEFORE ANYONE ELSE HAS DONE SO. That's taking a huge risk, because if the First Follower is wrong, he or she will be ridiculed for making a bad choice.

As leaders, it is incumbent upon us to invite, encourage, recognize and show deep gratitude for our First Followers, and the first circle of additional followers that he or she might bring in. The temptation, of course, is to believe that it's all about us, we drive the team, right? In many ways, that's a false and ego-centric conceit. Imagine giving your big strategic pitch to a room with nobody in it!

Your First Followers are actually your true leaders.

Thank you to anyone who has taken the risk of embracing one or more of my crazy schemes. Without you, I'd be nothing important and certainly not a leader.