Guest Post: Embracing Metadata Change: Too Hot, Too Cold, or Just Right?

Guest post authored by Josh Lynn, Digital Media Specialist, Minneapolis Institute of Art
Original post published on LinkedIn Pulse

 

"... digital asset metadata cannot be represented by a single, unchanging metadata model and schema. Data architects need to embrace flexible models that allow metadata to vary widely across asset types and that accommodate constant change."

 – Demian Hess, “Managing Digital Asset Metadata,” Journal of Digital Media Management, Vol. 3, No. 2 (November 2014).

An inflection point occurred at the Minneapolis Institute of Art (Mia) when we were awarded an IMLS grant for our Enterprise Content Management (ECM) project. The goal was straightforward: create an interface for federated search across museum data systems including the Digital Asset Management System(s), Collections Management System (the database for all works of art), and Web Content Management System. In other words, “one stop shopping” for all the great stuff being created across Mia’s various divisions and departments. As a digital asset management professional, I knew the task would be daunting. On the other hand, I was equally inspired by the opportunity to re-imagine a metadata model that had become bloated and inflexible over the years. I’m happy to report that Mia now has a shiny new ECM search interface in place, aptly named MetaMia (thanks IMLS!). What’s more, Mia now has a flexible metadata model for feeding MetaMia healthy, lean metadata. Now that we’ve spoiled the suspense, here’s the back story.

Mia’s enterprise DAMS was implemented over a decade ago. As you can image, the system has seen a number of system upgrades and the addition of a few metadata fields over the years. About 5 years ago, we established an API process to push metadata from our Collections Management System into the DAMS, for images of collections objects (that’s the “art”, my friend) specifically. This process also feeds DAMS images to the museum’s website, artsmia.org. The API sync was a start, but left 60% of our digital assets in relative seclusion within the DAMS. Meanwhile, the DAMS has become home to over 180,000 assets, growing by 27,287 assets year-to-date. Our metadata model had also grown... to over 250 unique fields, many of which had become deprecated, duplicated, or disused. Additionally, swaths of our fields were like desert islands – even where ISO metadata schema existed out in the world, XMP mapping had not been consistently configured within our DAMS.

But that’s not all! Consequently, the search index was bogged down with this deprecated, duplicated, and disused metadata, ensuring less-than-relevant search results for our users. You could call it metadata bloat. And that bloat was creating increasing inflexibility in our metadata model, degrading system performance, and creating a confounding user experience. Indeed, the tangled underbrush of metadata was threatening the very foundation of our DAMS. So, with a generously funded IMLS grant in place (along with a ticking clock, limited staff, and a lot of work on our hands), we set out to create a new metadata specification named Mia Core.

The Mia Core metadata makeover began with some serious reflection. First, we didn’t want to get into the same situation again. Ever. Therefore, a flexible metadata model was a necessity. The ability to painlessly add and remove schema future-proofs Mia Core for the changes we’re certain will occur, but cannot predict. Next, we resolved to keep it simple – more Library Science, less Rocket Science


Our new, flexible metadata model makes it easier for system administrators to maintain and develop the DAMS, it also makes it easier for catalogers, creatives, and general staff to contribute to, search, and retrieve from the DAMS. We even assigned easy-to-understand display labels for our users, for example “Keywords” rather than “DC:Subject”.

We also resolved to keep Mia Core (mostly) standards-based. By embracing recommendations from the Federal Agencies Digitization Guidelines Initiative, we quickly established a simplified set of minimum embedded metadata (based on Dublin Core) for all asset types, including audio, design, photo, and video. Because no single metadata standard can do it all, we then mapped in select schema from various standards and specifications including IPTC, Creative Commons, PLUS, VRA Core, XMP and more. This standards-based approach ensures the interoperability of our metadata – from desktop to DAMS and back again. Naturally, we have also created a small set of local fields for workflow process, including approvals, embargo, and quality control. Furthermore, we’ve added fields for expanded API data sync and publication routines, including ArtStories. After all, there isn’t a standard for everything, and we’ve got creative work to do. And, because XMP is a part of Mia Core, metadata seamlessly flows throughout workflows, from desktop to DAMS to the wider ECM system.

The work we’ve done over the past few years has reestablished a strong foundation for our DAMS and ECM system alike. Freed from an outdated metadata model, we are now positioned for future capacity. In the meantime, we’ll keep working to ensure Mia Core remains our Goldilocks metadata model – not too big, not too small, but just right. And because Mia Core is system agnostic, it can be applied to Enterprise and Open Source DAMS alike. After all, it’s good to have options. It is also good to share, and we’re keen to share what we’ve learned with the LAMs (Libraries, Archives, Museums) community and beyond.

If you would like to hear more about our project, my colleague Frances Lloyd-Baynes and I will be presenting at the upcoming Henry Stewart DAM Chicago 2015 event in September, where 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. We hope to see you there.

Guest Post: Preparing for the Deep Digital Media Dive

Guest post authored by Frances Lloyd-Baynes, Content Database Specialist, Minneapolis Institute of Arts
Original post published on LinkedIn Pulse

When we started our journey to “improved digital media management” at Mia (Minneapolis Institute of Art) four years ago, we knew what we wanted (long term vision? tick). Our problem? Missing and inaccessible digital assets, with no way to get at and reuse them without making a whole lot of phone calls, wasting time and resources. (See Douglas Hegley, “The Mystery of the Missing Map and Other Digital Disappearances”.) We knew the assets were out there: they’d been created and maybe used once, but where the heck were they now? So our task was clear: get in a new DAM, fill it, serve it up, problem solved.  We made our plan, submitted our grant, and received funding to make our vision a reality. (Thank you, IMLS!)

Life is never that simple, though, is it? Filling the technology gap with a new DAM has been easy, but it is turning out to be the less impactful part of what we are delivering.

Yes, we needed a home for the assets being churned out by our designers, videographers, photographers, and educators. It had to be easy to use, straightforward, and integrate with our existing systems (an enterprise DAM, a works of art database, and website CMS). We chose an open-source DAM -  ResourceSpace (by Montala) - so we could access the underlying code and  tailor it to our needs. Our grant allowed us to bring in a developer to work on both ResourceSpace and the final piece of our project puzzle: a new search interface to unify all of our digital content systems.

ResourceSpace has (since June) simply and beautifully delivered a place to house and provide access to all of those wayward digital assets. Yet the new unified search interface is turning out to be the star of our project, with the potential to change significantly our digital media landscape. ResourceSpace makes finding assets easy; our other, enterprise DAM is less user-friendly. Our works of art database is both complex and has seriously restricted access. And none of the content systems on their own can provide a complete overview of the content we have related to our collections and our activities.  Enter MetaMia.

 

So very Meta

 

MetaMia is the new, browser-based interface we created to join all this content for one deep, inquiring dive. How did we do it? We extended our existing APIs (application program interfaces) to draw out the content from the source systems, then brought in ElasticSearch and Kibana to index and deliver that content up via browser interface.

In MetaMia, every word is searchable, all fields discoverable. Users can choose any or all of the four underlying systems to search, filter for asset types (video, audio, collection records, etc.) and for data mapped across systems, as well as use a field-by-field advanced search option. Assets are not only discovered, but can be directly downloaded from MetaMia, removing the need for our less-tech-friendly users to interface with our more complex systems. For a museum of (mostly) non-techies, it’s pretty heady stuff. (We received a spontaneous round of applause when demo-ing MetaMia at a recent all staff meeting.)

Early in the project, based on information we gathered from stakeholders, our team developed a set of guiding principles for managing the organization’s digital content. The core principles are

• Simplification (of processes; discoverability; use)
• Maximized resource (staff effort; asset use/re-use; system use/re-use; re: asset value)
• Flexibility (of formats; systems; use contexts; access/discovery; input/output)
• Clarity (clearly documented assets; standardized metadata; intuitive systems; museum processes & policies; user awareness)
• Independence (of formats; of users (i.e. they are capable); of systems)  
• Commitment (of the organization towards staff, support, resource)

With ResourceSpace and MetaMia, we are confident we have largely succeeded in fulfilling these principles. There’s still work to do, of course.

 

Making Meaning

 

Now that we have the search infrastructure, the pressure is on to offer up meaningful results. That means providing consistency (of content, structure, and language) across systems in ways we have not had to deliver before. As a collections data specialist, this is the stuff I get excited about: capturing that data, structuring it and controlling it to make meaning.

‘Making meaning’ requires getting the data into each system and associating it with the assets, into the right fields, and using consistent language. Here we have issues. We have significant gaps in the data we’re capturing - things we know people want to search by, but cannot because it’s not there now. Some of our systems have deeply complex metadata structures, others have virtually none. Some have built-in authority controls, others not. There is indeed work to be done to level the field.

The project is now drawing to a close and my final, personal goal, is to build a layer across all our systems for linking to common vocabulary controls. We are still working out how to deliver this, but looking at linked open data (LOD) to help. We need tools that sit outside individual systems, but which can be shared, e.g. the Getty’s vocabulary tools (Art & Architecture Thesaurus, Thesaurus of Geographic Names, and Union List of Artist Names) now being released in LOD format. And we need tools that can extend the meaning of our content (e.g. via translations into other languages) to a global audience.

Focusing on implementing a solution with the widest possible reach will help us move what is now an internal-only service to deliver deep content to a world of potential users. As it evolves, MetaMia will serve its assets directly back to our website, enabling the world to see the media-rich content we hold related to art, culture, history and our collections.
Mia is committed to the open source movement. Be assured that all our developments will be shared with the community via the Mia Github site.

If you would like to hear more about our project, my colleague Josh Lynn and I will be presenting at the upcoming Henry Stewart DAM Chicago 2015 event in September, where 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. We hope to see you there.

Reading List: June 2015

A sampling of what's been intriguing me this past month (June 2015):

Smartphones,selfies and salvaging art tradition: museums grapple with technology tension
by Jeremy Story Carter for RadioNational
I tweeted this one out, just because it's a relatively concise summary of what many of us grapple with daily at the intersection between fine art and digital technology:

Re: #musetech @sree says "let's work together & increase access w/out reducing scholarship" Could not agree more! http://t.co/zmJqSTIzmr

— Douglas Hegley (@dhegley) June 3, 2015

The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Bunk But I Don't Care | WIRED by Sarah Seltzer
The author points out that the popular and well-known Myers-Briggs personality test is reductive, simplistic, and based on a false assumption that we are defined by clear dichotomies. In addition - and for me this harks back to my graduate school training in psychology - the test doesn't meet the basic tents of social science:

• Lacks reliability (isn't consistent over time)
• Isn't valid (doesn't hold logically)
• Isn't independent (plenty of variables muddying the waters)
• Isn't truly comprehensive (doesn't explain everybody)

And yet ... the author argues that the test is still useful. "Any means for busy adults to take time to comprehend ourselves and see how our styles converge and diverge from others has a use ... "

I find this interesting. There are so many possible "personality tests" and/or organizational tools used by businesses to identify strengths and weaknesses in teams and/or individuals. Most of these would suffer in light of the same criteria. However, if the output of the instruments can be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, it can be argued that each has the potential to foster:

• Insight
• Tolerance
• Empathy
• Patience
• Embracing diversity

What Makes an Organization "Networked"? by Greg Satell for hbr.org
The author argues that the industrial revolution required bureaucracy to meet scale, then the information age engendered matrix organizations in an attempt to foster cross-functional collaboration. He goes on to argue that even the matrix organization cannot keep up with the rapid change of pace and the complexity of the marketplace " ... matrices, in a sense, led to the worst of both worlds, a cumbersome organizational structure and the inability to adapt to fast changing contexts." So what to do? So-called small world networks, which arise organically in any connected system, are seen as the next step in business evolution. Interestingly, he doesn't proclaim that flat organizational structures nor holocracy are necessary to achieve the most-effective networking. What matters most are clustering (small groups of individuals working together closely and focused on a goal) and path length (the distance, or number of links, between clusters). Shorter path length increases communication and enables alignment and productivity. Organizations must encourage networking, and leaders should instill passion and commitment. While this formula, in my humble opinion, is a bit of a simplification, I find it resonates with leadership styles that I attempt to embody. If anything, the article reminds me that success isn't based only on the raw number of connections across the organization, but on the inter-connectedness of the clusters within the organization. Achieving that is truly silo-busting.


8 Ways to Tell if You're a Good Boss, on Leading with Trust blog
Okay, so this blog post starts off with a rather silly Wizards of Oz reference & photo, but read on and perhaps find some food for thought about leadership and being a "good boss". It's based on the findings from Google's People Operations unit, in which they crunched a lot of feedback in an attempt to find out what makes a good boss. It's a summary of course, and perhaps lacks nuance, but when I read through, it made me pause for a moment to think about whether I consistently meet these criteria. I won't repeat the list here, please click through and read for yourself. I will say that I *think* I strive to meet these characteristics, although I'm sure that I fall short at times. I plan to share this post with my team and get their thoughts not only on the criteria but also on my/our performance. Might not always be easy to look in the mirror honestly, but in my opinion it's an extremely useful effort that can pave the way for better success. Am I a good boss? I have to leave the answer to that question up to those who work with me.

Image Source: http://bit.ly/1e4Qkz1

This is the Product Death Cycle, by @andrewchen

I think this article interested me so much because it seemed to argue against being customer-focused. However, as I re-read it, I think it's making a more nuanced point. While I suppose it's possible to emerge from some kind of intensive period of seclusion with "the next big thing", I also think it's much more likely that iterative cycles that include customers help most companies develop products that are more-refined, more likely to work, and capable of creating buzz leading to peer-to-peer marketing.

That being said, shirking the responsibility for designing products by simply polling the public isn't the same thing. If you are saddled with a poorly-performing product, then asking people what color to paint that thing isn't really going to move the dial. I'd argue that there must be a balance of some kind - take the poor product, redesign it with public input, then test it to see if the new product is improved (on whatever measure your company cares about). In short, it's less about "what features should we add?" and more about "what are our customers trying to accomplish and how can be help them?"


Making Decisions Transparent, by Joan Baldwin on Leadership Matters blog
The author makes strong points about the importance of a transparent style of leadership. I was particularly struck by the ties made to trust, learning, and respect for alternative points of view that arise from effective transparency and sharing. I also agree wholeheartedly with the point that a " ... closed-door process left everyone else free to fill in the narrative. And narratives, whether created at museums or schools, whether about policy, personnel or change, take on a life of their own." I was discussing my decision-making with a colleague last week, and reflecting on my discomfort at making any decisions completely on my own. I much prefer to sound things out and explore the ripple effects of any decision with other people, before "deciding" - I put that in quote, because to me it often feels more like a consensus + commitment than it does a decision. By sharing the process openly and honestly, everyone has an ownership stake in the decision itself and (I think) more skin in the game to help reach successful outcome. Like collaboration, transparency isn't a magical pill that solves all problems - handled poorly it can lead to suspicion of incompetence! But applied professionally and thoughtfully, true transparency empowers an entire organization.


Back to Basics: Setting Priorities on @lifehackorg
The author of this post makes the very important point clearly: "When we don’t set priorities, we tend to follow the path of least resistance". We are all susceptible to this. When feeling overwhelmed, it's a lot easier to deal with your Inbox or check out the latest Twitter feed than it is to really dig in and figure out the hard stuff.

To overcome this problem, the author lays out three potential strategies, and advises us to try each in order to understand what works best for each of us individually. I'll summarize briefly here, but I recommend you read the article (it's short) to learn more.

1. Eat that frog: Tackle the hardest, least-pleasant task FIRST, every day.
2. Move big rocks: Prioritize, then focus on those priorities. 
3. Organize tasks using Covey quadrants: This enables you to see clearly what you should be working on, instead of constantly reacting to whatever crosses your plate.

Three potential strategies, and not a comprehensive list, but at least thought-provoking. I think at the core it's about having an intentional and thought-through approach to your work, whatever form that may take. People who've worked with me probably get sick of me interrupting meetings by saying "Wait, what are we trying to do here?" Each time I ask that question, I'm trying to reframe the discussion to focus on the meaningful goal(s) and then make sure that we're driving toward that set of goals, instead of getting mired down in details or spinning off into scope-creep hell. That's what "Back to Basics" is ultimately about for me.

A (Somewhat) Tongue in Cheek Digital Strategy Consultation

Image source: http://www.ayantek.com/week-digital-strategy-3714

 Note: the following post is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, at least mostly. I don't believe that there is a single "correct" way to go about crafting or using any kind of strategy, including a digital strategy. That being said, there are elements that most digital strategies have in common. I find that I am often asked "would you share a copy of your digital strategy?" by other organizations. Hmm. I actually don't have a digital strategy per se; digital is part and parcel of the overall strategy here at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, woven carefully and intentionally into the fabric of what we do as a museum that is dedicated to audience engagement. The requests typically come from colleagues with whom I have an existing relationship, so I feel justified in replying with a somewhat casual attitude and (I hope) friendly manner. It goes something like this:

Dear Worried Digital Strategy Maker,

As you know, I'm not the biggest fan of stand-alone digital strategies. Especially the kind that end up as nicely bound paper binders collecting dust on a shelf.

Image source: http://news.lib.ncsu.edu/scrc/files/2014/01/bush_binders_crop.jpg

 Instead, I'm a big fan of Strategy. You know, Strategy strategy. One strategy. THE strategy.

But that's not to deny that having some organization, prioritization, and guidelines around digital technology isn't needed.

Now, in my opinion this whole digital strategy thing requires more than just a short and sassy reply , so clearly <your organization> must fly me to <your city> very soon for a full-day discussion session, right?

Image source: http://www.caledonianblogs.net/gcusa/files/2014/06/take-off-16xxggv.jpg

Hmm. On the unlikelihood of that happening anytime soon, here are some things that you might find useful, or that you might choose to ignore entirely. Up to you. Please share as you see fit, most of this is stuff that I - or someone else much smarter than me - has already put out there. I realize of course there is so much more to it than this paltry list, but maybe something here can be of assistance.

I'm a firm believer in Guiding Principles, which can be used to establish a consistent framework for decision-making and prioritization. Every organization would develop somewhat unique Guiding Principles when it comes to technology, but you might consider things like:

• The roles and responsibilities of all technology staff are defined and communicated.
• All technology projects include a commitment to end-user testing and iterative development cycles.
• The decision-making process around technology projects is clear, shared, and applied consistently.
• etc.

I think the key here is to understand what is important to your organization, and to formulate a sort of structural promise that your digital technology stuff will be free of BS, transparent, collaborative and professional. And once promised, your job is to deliver on it, everyday.
 
Also consider Importance and Difficulty as the key axes for a straightforward schema you could apply to  making tough decisions. Something like this:

Okay, I'm running out of time now - I have to go to yet another meeting to explain myself (sound familiar?). Before I dash off, here's some more stuff that might help you:

For dealing with prioritization, check this blog post: http://thoughtsparked.blogspot.com/2015/01/leading-change-how-to-prioritize.html

IMHO being a "servant leader" will empower your digital tech staff to shine. And applying the lessons of Agile approaches (aka Radical Management) can also drive to success in today's world. Read this book: The Leader's Guide to Radical Management

Big questions remain - some are explored on these slides: http://www.slideshare.net/dhegley/digital-strategy-the-arts-a-reflection-on-l

We're museum people, so we have a responsibility to engage audiences, smartly. These slides offer one way to think about this: http://www.slideshare.net/dhegley/overall-interpretive-framework-v2

Okay, okay, I still haven't really helped you with digital strategy, have I? Sigh. Check out this super-smart slide deck: http://www.slideshare.net/jaspervisser/crash-course-in-digital-strategy-museumnext?qid=d84d5f2c-f6db-41e1-a59b-225fbf63d405&v=default&b=&from_search=2

Oh, and don't hire any tech people until you read this book: Smart and Gets Things Done

Best of luck, and I'll be watching for those plane tickets,

Douglas

Trust and Leadership

I had the pleasure and honor this morning to participate in the #LikeABoss event organized by Pollen. The morning meeting was held here at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) so rather convenient for me! What follows is a woefully incomplete report on the event, but at least a chance to keep the concepts in our awareness.

I was assigned a dual role at the meeting: as both table host and "pop-up speaker". Great chance to meet with new, smart people doing excellent work here in the Twin Cities.

There was a panel that addressed the overall concept of Trust. The general theme was trust in the workplace, and also how trust and leadership are intertwined in every organization.

The lead panelists for the morning included Adrian Ho @adrianho, Nicole Middendorf @NicoleMiddendor, Lucy Swift from TPT, and Wokie Weah @WokieWeah

After a moving and empowering performance by spoken word artist Sha Cage @shacage , attendees dove into a series of pop-up speakers and table discussions.

I was given the honor of being the first pop-up, probably because of MIA hosting the event. I was asked to provide an anecdote, and then to pose a question about trust. It went like this:

 I was hired here at the MIA nearly four years ago to drive positive change for the museum through dynamic leadership in digital technology - both in terms of operations (internal) and delighting our audiences (external).

Trust is a choice - when I choose to trust you, that trust typically must be earned, and that process takes time. However, I didn't have time. I needed a transparent, open, trusting culture and I needed it fast - or making big changes was going to hit huge hurdles.

I made a choice, perhaps a risky one. As I met with all of my staff - remember, I was a complete stranger to most of them - I said "I trust you. I trust you to do your work, to do it well, and to be committed and passionate about making this museum successful". I followed that up by empowering them to form self-directed teams, to set their own work methods, and to solve the many puzzles before them - while openly discussing priorities along the way.

My question: Can we influence how trustworthy another person can be, by investing our own trust in them even before they've "earned" it?

This led to an interesting response from Lucy Swift, who contrasted trust with trustworthy, the latter requiring a set of skills, the former being more of an interpersonal relationship. Interesting.

There were breakout conversations, and then more pop-up speakers. Digging into the twitter feed for that morning would give you a nice road map through the topics discussed and considered.

I did not take detailed or copious notes during the event (sorry!), instead trying to focus on my role as a table host and engender conversation. Still, I managed to scribble down a few things, leaving this rather impressionistic and utterly incomplete list:

• Many books were brought up by panelists, we need a reading list (see below for a partial accounting)
• TED talks on these topics can be very helpful
• Reorganizations ... top-down approach erodes trust
• Closed office doors = bad
• "Upper management" communication always matters, even in small and relatively flat organizations
• From the Nerdery: frequent short meetings called "Clarity Check ins" help keep people on board and aligned
• At the MIA, in the Media & Technology Division, departmental meetings are organized and run by the staff, not by senior management
• Competition within a company can be greater across organizational silos
• Measurement tools can be useful: Meyers-Briggs, Strengthsfinder, Enneagram, and Competing Values Framework all were mentioned
• Departments tend to cluster on these measures, partly because managers tend to (unconsciously) hire clones of themselves

There was quite a twitter flood during the event, following #LikeABoss (which is also - unfortunately - a hashtag used by arrogant people bragging about how great they are - is that ironic or what?).

So, what did I miss? Plenty, I'm sure. Please chime in or post a link to your own summary in the comments below.

Epilogue: Books & blogs
There were several influential books on leadership brought up during the event. Here are the ones I recall and/or mentioned myself:

The Leader's Guide to Radical Management, by Stephen Denning
Traction, by Gabriel Weinberg
Mindset, by Carol Dweck
The Speed of Trust, by Steven Covey
Blog: Fast Company  
Blog: Harvard Business Review 
NY Times: Corner Office

I'd love to see Pollen put together a reading list from the panelists, I think many attendees would appreciate it.

All in all, a really great event and fun/energizing way to begin the day. I hope to stay connected to Pollen and contribute in any small way that I can. I also hope to cross paths with the folks who sat at my table as I continue to build my network here in the Twin Cities.

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!