As anyone who’s ever had building work done on their house will tell you, anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. So it stands to reason that a multimillion-pound capital project in a heritage environment, involving a myriad of different contractors, will run into a few hitches along the way. 
Although funding is tight, the number of building and refurbishment projects in the heritage sector remains relatively high. In the past few months alone, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has announced £30m in capital grants across the UK, plus a further £11.5m towards an expansion of the National Army Museum in London and £1.5m for a new Huguenot Heritage Centre in Rochester. 

Multimillion-pound building projects such as the V&A at Dundee and the Tate Modern extension in London are on course to be completed in the next few years. 
Of course, the glossy brochures and publicity shots that accompany the opening of a new building or exhibition space never hint at any problems behind the scenes. But recent cases such as that of National Museums Liverpool (NML), which successfully sued AEW Architects last year over faults in the £72m Museum of Liverpool, have shone a light on an issue that is not talked about much in the sector – at least openly.
The Museum of Liverpool build is an interesting case study. After discovering geometric flaws in their original design, the architects altered their building plans without permission from the museum, installing a large plinth to rectify the earlier problems. 
Horrified at this “abomination”, as it was later described in court, NML had the plinth removed but was unable to afford the necessary remedial work. As a result, it was forced to keep part of the museum’s outdoor terrace fenced off from the public for more than two years after its opening. Meanwhile, on two other occasions, poorly installed ceiling panels collapsed and hit people underneath them.
Pitfalls
NML may have been particularly unfortunate, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg, says the director of one large regional museum, who preferred to remain anonymous due to an ongoing legal case. 
“The NML dispute was quite unusual because most of the time no one hears about the projects that go wrong,” he says. “We are in a dispute and it was only through this that I became aware of a number of other capital projects that had run into difficulties. 
“There’s a bit of a silence about it in the museum profession. There’s an element of professional pride and also, if you’ve spent millions on a project, you don’t want to give the impression that it didn’t go well because it might affect future funding. Then there’s a fear of legal redress if you talk about contractors that don’t perform well.”
But the director is concerned that this culture of silence means that the sector is missing out on the opportunity to pass on valuable learning that could help to address some recurring issues. 

“We need to find a way in which museum professionals might be able to share their learning and intelligence,” the director says. “I want warts-and-all workshops and a nurturing system so that people can really get a sense of the world they’re entering into.”
Part of the problem, he says, is that large-scale design and build projects are a rarity for most institutions, so museum professionals often undertake this type of work with no previous experience. “The first time you undertake a capital project is when you make all the mistakes, but they keep happening because we don’t talk about them.”
So what are the pitfalls? Clearly there are issues on both sides of the client-contractor relationship that need to be addressed. The museum director believes one sticking point is the clash of cultures between the museum world and the construction industry.
Although his institution’s current dispute is with a specialist supplier, “much more often it’s an issue with people who work in general construction coming into the heritage environment and treating it with disrespect,” he says. 
There have been several cases of contractors causing damage to listed buildings. In March this year, one building company was fined for destroying a medieval timber frame in the 16th-century hall that it was renovating. 
“Speak to anybody and they will come up with similar horror stories,” says the director. “Ultimately, construction professionals have seen it all before and want to control the process themselves. They don’t like intelligent clients who ask questions. But you have to ask difficult questions. You have to barge in with your elbows out.”
Everyday sexism
Sexism can be a problem too. “It’s an extremely male construction industry working in a very female environment,” the museum director says. “It’s common for a female museum director to be sitting around the table with 20 men. They already have their own processes and their own language and they don’t make it easy for people to participate. Accept that you will be patronised.”
This culture clash can lead to some uncomfortable situations arising. “One of our contractors had to throw two people off site because they had been shouting homophobic abuse at a member of our staff.”
Of course, many construction companies are exemplary and it’s not just a simple case of problems between builders and museum staff. The director believes that the sector’s general unwillingness to speak openly has enabled bad practices to take hold among some of the museum sector’s more specialist suppliers and consultants. 
“A classic example is contractors putting their bids in low and making their money at the end by making claims of changes to the brief. Some companies can rack up thousands in additional claims this way,” he says.
Shoddy materials and workmanship are also an issue. In one project, showcases installed by a bespoke manufacturer started to come away from the walls because of poor-quality rawlplugs, while the cabinets themselves were not sealed properly and offered no protection to the objects inside. The contractor argued that it had no obligation to meet a standard performance level because it wasn’t specified on the contract. 
Museums can be reluctant to criticise such companies openly, he adds, partly because of the threat of libel, and partly because “it’s such a small world, it’s inevitable that you’ll end up working with them again”.
“Nail down everything in the contract when it is written,” he advises. “Don’t accept and sign off poor quality work.” 
But there are two sides to every story, and bad habits in the museum sector can also cause problems in capital projects. “For us, something that can become really contentious is the project brief,” says one exhibition designer. “This can vary from the lack of a clear brief to being asked to solve problems that are not within the brief. 
“It’s quite common for us to waste time and fees resolving issues that should be dealt with internally. We were recently asked to explain the pros and cons of one museum’s collections policy and display approach – something that should have been discussed internally first.
“Communication is really important. Be realistic about what the project is going to entail and come to the table with some consensus. Make sure everyone has bought into the project brief beforehand.”
Caught in the crossfire
Occasionally, museums don’t do their homework properly. “We might be given a brief to develop a realistic exhibition proposal for a HLF application, but asked to include things that we know will fall outside what HLF will fund,” the exhibition designer says.
Managing expectations is also an issue. “Sometimes, consultants are brought in to be the bearers of bad news [to funders] because no one wants to say what needs to be said. We end up having words put in our mouth by someone on the inside who doesn’t have the balls to say it themselves, and then get caught in the crossfire.
“It comes down to effective client leadership,” the exhibition designer says. “When large teams and lots of different stakeholders are involved, coordination becomes an issue. Clarity of roles and responsibilities is key. Consultants are often blamed if there isn’t good communication between them, but that’s what happens when a project isn’t properly managed all the way through. Projects that go well always have very good management in place.”
Unethical practices crop up among museums too. “Fishing for free advice or ideas is a really big bugbear,” says the designer. “We were recently asked to provide three fully costed, fully designed proposals for one bid – it’s basically like being asked to do the work for free, especially if you factor in that someone else may have already been chosen for the project. There are definitely cases where you see work that looks an awful lot like an idea you put forward.”
The bidding process in general can be problematic for contractors. “It’s fairly unique to the design industry in the heritage sector [to be asked for creatively detailed bids] – other sectors have moved towards credentials-only pitches,” the designer adds. 
“Part of the problem is that museum people are naturally risk averse and they’re not design literate. There is a lack of understanding of how much time and money we have to put towards a bid. It’s become more and more onerous and we’ve actually pulled out of tenders as a result.”
Stephen Greenberg, one of the founding directors of exhibition design consultancy Metaphor, agrees. “All our competitors have issues with the tendering process, especially the two-stage lottery bid. It’s often not clear if there is already an incumbent for the role – we’ve been in that position where we have worked with the client already and we’ve felt that the client wants to work with us again, yet there still has to be a large tender shortlist. Similarly, we suspect other firms are in a similar incumbency role.
“It’s become a process of filling in ridiculously long forms just to create an audit trail,” Greenberg says. “It costs each firm thousands and it must be simplified – do short interviews for the tender first and then fill out all the forms. Clients should be able to get who they want and spare us and them the agony.” 
But for inexperienced professionals, having the finer details worked out in advance can be vital, says Fiona Talbott, the head of museums, libraries and archives at the HLF. 

“One thing we see a lot of is problems with costs. The two-round process definitely brings this to light; a number of projects have to ask for an uplift when they come in for round two because they have estimated the costs incorrectly.”
So what can be done to ensure capital projects run more smoothly? The HLF already offers professional support to grantholders and will appoint a mentor if needed. 
Breaking the silence
However, Talbott is aware that even then, some grantees can be reluctant to bring problems to light. 

“We’re not always informed – they don’t want to drag us further in as they’re worried it might have implications for their grant, which of course it wouldn’t. It’s much better to try to resolve things in the early stages before it gets to a point where they become too entrenched.
“Another problem we see is people being over-ambitious,” Talbott says. “Sometimes organisations have a vision that’s much bigger than they can deliver. They seriously underestimate how much time and resources a project will take.”
The HLF is planning to launch an “online communities” forum on its website later this year, which will enable past and present applicants to connect with each other via message boards.
“This might allow people about to undertake a capital project to connect with others who can provide them with some good support and advice, and perhaps then continue that conversation offline.”
Resources like this could be one step towards encouraging museum professionals to share what went wrong – and why – in a secure environment. 
Show and Tell: New Approaches to Display and Interpretation, a Museum Practice seminar, is being held on 11 June in Glasgow. 
Sam Mullins, director of the London Transport Museum
As director of the London Transport Museum, Sam Mullins headed a £22.4m refurbishment of the museum’s listed building between 2005 and 2007. 
“Big projects have an extraordinary capacity to run into all sorts of issues,” Mullins says. “You have to be prepared to deal with the unforeseeable. 
“The partnership that we employed split apart acrimoniously mid-project when the conceptual architect fell out with the on-site architect. But the strength of our project was that we had a really strong backbone – we knew the vision of the museum we wanted to create.”
Mullins agrees that the sector needs more openness on this issue. “The willingness to share failures is very valuable,” he says.

Here are his top tips for museums about to embark on a capital project:
  • Have your vision clear. Be an intelligent client and leave no room for doubt.
  • Control costs at the point of order and create a strategic financial reserve, which nobody else knows about but you. 
  • Ask contractors for both formal and informal references and check whether there have been any claims against them. “It’s very hard and expensive to change things later on – it makes the choosing of those contractors really crucial.”
  • If you’ve got any doubts about contractors or aspects of the project, crystallise them as soon as possible.
  • Foster a good working relationship with your contractors from the start so that everyone is as invested in the project as much as you are. “That way they will be prepared to go that extra mile rather than get all contractual,” Mullins says.
  • Use specialist designers for specialist spaces. “Architects like to think they can design everything. They may be very talented but this should be resisted. They often don’t listen to practical needs – they just want something that looks good.”
  • Don’t underestimate the work that a big project takes. “It moves at the pace of a sprint, not a marathon. In the first week, you will be asked to decide things far in advance of when they will happen. Hesitation can cause a big time delay.”
  • Have one fixed point through which everyone goes, so that there are no mixed messages. “We washed all our dirty linen behind closed doors, so the museum’s line was always very clear in meetings with outside contractors.”