“We already do this” is something I sometimes hear from museums. As I talk with a group about the value of various outcomes and what the museum might want to prioritize, someone will say some version of “We already do this.”
Sometimes it’s a bit of a realization (“Aha!”). We’ll be talking about a couple of different user outcomes, and someone on the team will say, “Oh wait, we’re already kind of doing this, aren’t we?”
Other times it’s a little bit more of an objection: there’s a slight current of “We already do this, so why are we talking about it?”
It’s funny to watch how different people can reach the same conclusion and feel so differently about it. The same framework, drawn from the same research, that makes one person feel validated and eager to explore the implications is, to another, permission to stay rooted in their current practice.
In any case, both are right. In a real way, there’s nothing new about the outcomes that museums generate for their users. My colleague John Falk’s research, gathered in <em>Leaning Into Value</em>, shows these are truly universal benefits that virtually every museum provides, to varying degrees, to practically all its users. In fact, I’d argue that if I were hosting workshops where I was presenting something genuinely novel, that would be a real problem. Novel things are short-lived. When was the last time your museum adopted an entirely new practice? It’s possible someone can walk into a museum and say, “Here’s a totally new way to think and behave in your work,” and that proposal gets absorbed and fully integrated without any trouble at all, but I doubt it. Bolted-on things tend to rust and get discarded sooner or later.
That isn’t to say that there’s nothing new here. The person who says, “We’re already doing this, aren’t we?” with a bit of “Aha!” in their voice is recognizing that well-being outcomes bring a degree of specificity and intention to the museum that was previously absent.
For example, this week I was working with a history museum in the Midwest. The team had completed MaP’s Outcomes Assessment, and we were discussing the results. This museum is entering a capital campaign and expanding its footprint; additional space opens up new possibilities for how the museum can serve its public. The team discussed feeling more confident about providing a stimulating experience. They wondered how much they were supporting a relaxed, calm experience. These outcomes are in tension with one another. John’s research shows that museum visitors appreciate both, and there’s no reason a museum can’t provide both, but the outcomes gave the team language to ask strategic questions that matter to users. Things like:
We think we’re doing a pretty good job providing that sensory stimulation outcome, but are we really? What would need to happen for us to prove or disprove that?
Do we want to use our newly gained space to create more of a balance between these two outcomes, or are others more important?
What would happen if we really tried to go all out on both of these outcomes? (In my conversation with the director after the workshop, I described this as the salty watermelon strategy: Watermelon is inherently sweet, but if you add salt it becomes strikingly sweet. Pairing contrasting elements like stimulation and relaxation can be a powerful bet.)
Without user outcomes, it’s all too easy to focus on the challenges or interests of the experts who run the museum. Picture a different museum in the same position, seizing on new space to share more of the collection in ways that a curator thinks are important. That would benefit some users (i.e., other curators and professionals like them), but the museum that chose that path would miss out on an opportunity to define or challenge its experiential posture.
So, no, none of this is new. We can be grateful for that. What is new in working with user outcomes is that it forces intentionality and raises questions that are otherwise buried. The questions are strategic. They have no easy answer. Unless you’re proactive in creating the conditions that will produce the data you need to make a good choice, it really can seem as though you’re at an impasse because there’s no right answer to who are we? Or what can we offer to people that is uniquely valuable to our communities? That is the nature of strategic challenges. You can’t “best practice” your way out of them.
If you find yourself thinking, “We already provide these outcomes,” ask yourself what that means. Does it mean you now have a way to improve and challenge yourself and your coworkers to get even better at supporting your users? Or does it mean that you now have permission to keep doing things the way you always have?
We worked with four museums on user outcomes over the past few weeks. I wonder if more of you are having these conversations and would like to share what you’re hearing. Where are you seeing traction? Where do you face resistance? Let me know in a reply to today’s letter.
Have a good weekend,
— Kyle