I don't know about you but things start to go a bit blurry around the edges when I look at performance indicators and other associated targets for too long.
Maybe some government ministers are beginning to feel the same, as a flurry of reports and announcements over the summer have suggested cutting down on targets (see p11).
The fact that James Purnell, the new culture minister, mentioned reducing the number of hoops the arts have to jump through in his first speech to the sector was viewed by many as good news. Could it be that the arts would finally be valued for themselves rather than for their ability to look after our mental health, keep crime down and regenerate urban wastelands?
Well, let's not go too far. No one has said that all targets will be ceremonially burned on the announcement of the next comprehensive spending review. And most people will admit, though sometimes begrudgingly, that there have to be some measures - so long as they are the right ones (see p25).
Two of the most important things in a museum are the objects and the people who work with them. Yet collections care and workforce development are rarely measured (the only workforce statistic that the department for culture collects is the number of days lost through sickness per employee).
Now Brian McMaster has been appointed to review culture targets and people from museums have been asked to contribute. It sounds obvious, but it's probably worth stating again: targets should be standardised; meaningful measures of intrinsic value would be helpful; and, above all, keep it simple.
On a separate note, I'm sure you will have noticed that this month's Museums Journal looks a bit different. After extensive readership research and a lot of thinking about form and content this is the end result.
To coincide with the redesign a web archive of Museums Journal articles will be available from this month and all jobs will be online too. A neat package we think; the only performance indicator we care about is whether you like it.
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
Maybe some government ministers are beginning to feel the same, as a flurry of reports and announcements over the summer have suggested cutting down on targets (see p11).
The fact that James Purnell, the new culture minister, mentioned reducing the number of hoops the arts have to jump through in his first speech to the sector was viewed by many as good news. Could it be that the arts would finally be valued for themselves rather than for their ability to look after our mental health, keep crime down and regenerate urban wastelands?
Well, let's not go too far. No one has said that all targets will be ceremonially burned on the announcement of the next comprehensive spending review. And most people will admit, though sometimes begrudgingly, that there have to be some measures - so long as they are the right ones (see p25).
Two of the most important things in a museum are the objects and the people who work with them. Yet collections care and workforce development are rarely measured (the only workforce statistic that the department for culture collects is the number of days lost through sickness per employee).
Now Brian McMaster has been appointed to review culture targets and people from museums have been asked to contribute. It sounds obvious, but it's probably worth stating again: targets should be standardised; meaningful measures of intrinsic value would be helpful; and, above all, keep it simple.
On a separate note, I'm sure you will have noticed that this month's Museums Journal looks a bit different. After extensive readership research and a lot of thinking about form and content this is the end result.
To coincide with the redesign a web archive of Museums Journal articles will be available from this month and all jobs will be online too. A neat package we think; the only performance indicator we care about is whether you like it.
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
