A Value Articulation Intensive (VAI) participant shared an interesting resource with me over the summer during a discussion we were having about measuring the value of cultural institutions — The Culture, Arts, Heritage and Sport Economic Impact Model (CAHSEIM) is a prime example of what happens when cultural institutions lack the resources, imagination, or wherewithal to define success on their own terms. In the absence of leadership from museums, governing bodies will define success for museums using terms that they are comfortable with.
The Culture, Arts, Heritage and Sport Economic Impact Model (CAHSEIM) serves as a prime example of what happens when cultural institutions lack the resources, imagination, or wherewithal to define the terms of success on their own terms. In the absence of leadership from museums, governing bodies will define success for museums using terms that they are comfortable with.
To their credit, the authors are transparent, diligently reminding the reader how models work:
Much like all economic models, it is important to note that CAHSEIM uses assumptions to estimate economic impacts. Ultimately, all economic models, including CAHSEIM, are inherently limited by their reliance on assumptions. Models are only as reliable as their assumptions, and due to their assumptions only produce approximations of what they are seeking to measure.
There’s nothing wrong or, perhaps more accurately, incorrect about evaluating cultural institutions in this way. It’s just that doing so puts museums on an unfavorable playing field. Context matters, and in this rather traditional economic assessment, museums are inevitably competing with many other solutions that are just as, if not more, effective at driving results. If we’re measuring value in terms of GDP, employment, tax revenue, or labor income, then we have to ask, are museums the best solution to improve these metrics? Would a shopping mall generate more tax revenue? Would a stadium provide more employment opportunities?
Again, it’s not that these questions aren’t valid; it’s just that museums may have no inherent competitive advantage when competing on these terms. Why are these the default terms? Because government agencies are, like museumgoers themselves, not experts in museums. To let them define the terms of success is a lot like walking into one of your galleries and asking visitors what they want from a museum. They have no idea — they don’t know what’s possible. It’s the museum’s job to define what’s possible and where it will create value.
There’s strong evidence that museums do provide unique value to communities in terms of public health (broadly defined) and social well-being. But no external funder or stakeholder is going to be aware of that, let alone step forward and define museum success on those terms for museums. They will default to evaluation methods familiar to them, and if museums accept those terms without question or without offering an alternative, they will cede their strategic position. It makes no sense to define an organizational strategy but not carry the vision that informs that strategy to external stakeholders.
“It’s not that simple,” you say. “We can’t just go to the [state/province/funder] and tell them we don’t accept their metrics.”
You’re right. But this isn’t about rejecting existing frameworks — it’s about expanding them. You can combine acknowledgement with addition. You provide the economic data stakeholders expect while introducing complementary evidence that reveals your institution’s distinctive value.
Consider this reframe: “We recognize economic impact as one important dimension of institutional value. To provide you with the most complete picture, we’ve also measured our contributions to community well-being, educational outcomes, and social cohesion — areas where our impact may be underrepresented in traditional economic models.”
Think of the one (or ten) people on your staff who are experts in this kind of communication — what would happen if you turned them loose on a challenge like this? It may be that they’re just looking for permission to lead in conversations like this.
We might think that this approach is ambitious, bordering on naïve, but the question is: naïve compared to what? Imagining or hoping that someone else will come along and change the rules of the game for us? That’s the real pipe dream.