Museum Systems in Italy

MUSEUM SYSTEMS IN ITALY

National Interest September 2013

Research conducted by the IULM University – Milan (Università di Lingue e Comunicazione) for Aspen Institute Italia

This work presents the results of a study conducted by the IULM for Aspen Institute Italia between September 2012 and July 2013 on the subject of museum systems. The overall aim of the research undertaken was to assess the state of play as regards Italian museum systems by examining a number of case studies of such groupings considered significant by museum operators themselves.

1. Introduction The integration of museums into “system-type” networks is an increasingly common organizational form adopted by museum operators with a view to reaping significant benefits, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, in a culture market that is becoming more and more demanding and challenging, especially for smaller operators (Pencarelli and Splendiani, 2011). A “museum system“ is a particular kind of “museum network“. While “museum network“ refers to a non-specific grouping of museums which, through various forms of interaction, seek to improve their activities and performance, use of the more restrictive term “museum system“ entails that the network has its own structure, well-defined rules and fixed objectives. The phenomenon, which emerged in the 1990s (Bagdadli, 2001), is assuming ever greater significance in Italy, thus necessitating a careful consideration of its working dynamics – such as the ways in which it engages participating museums, their visitors and the local area in which they are situated – as well as its effectiveness in terms of virtuous impacts on the local community in its broadest sense (Santagata, 2000; Valentino, 2003). The study was confined to local area-based systems, that is to say, networks of museums belonging to the same locality. It does not cover systems grouped on a thematic basis, comprising museums focused on the same subject matter, and excludes systems that are the product of top- down planning models, such as the so-called Poli museali (or museum consortiums). The decision to adopt systems that are local area-based in part stems from the assumption that the preservation and enhancement of the cultural heritage of a specific geographical area can contribute to the socio-economic development of the relevant locality (Centro Studi TCI, 2000).

2. Research methodology The research was conducted in several stages, over a period of around 10 months.

Stage 1. Analysis of the literature on the subject This phase took place during the first two months of the project. The working group examined the existing body of learning on the subject of museum networks and systems with the aim of identifying the issues that run through the literature in this field. In particular, from a reading of essays, conference proceedings and research articles, the following areas of inquiry emerged (the relationships between which are illustrated in Figure 1 below):  the forces driving the formation of museum systems;  the purpose of collaboration between museums;  the structure of museum systems;  the results achieved through collaboration; and  the factors which facilitate and impede the functioning of museum systems.

Figure 1. Research areas identified

For each research area, questions were drawn up to be put to those heading up Italian museum systems. The set of questions was incorporated into a questionnaire, which then became the main data collection tool.

Stage 2. Identification of the most research-worthy cases and possible subjects for interview The second phase of the project mainly occupied the first three months of work, although it also carried over into the next two months. It was conducted in two steps. Firstly, in order to identify an initial group of cases worthy of study, several experts in the field, academics and operatives were contacted, and sources examined during the previous stage were consulted. After putting together an initial list of cases of museum systems, in the second step those in charge of these systems were contacted, not just to gauge their willingness to be interviewed, but also to expand the list with further cases in line with a “snowball“ methodology (David and Morgan, 2008). In other words, museum system managers suggested the names of colleagues whose experience could be of potential interest to the research. Cases were added to the final list when the names suggested by museum system managers coincided. The cases chosen for study were therefore the following: 1. the Turin Museums Foundation (Torino Musei); 2. the Lecco Provincial Museum System (Sistema Museale della Provincia di Lecco); 3. the Mantua Provincial Museum System (Sistema Museale della Provincia di Mantova); 4. the Valtellina Museum System (Sistema Museale Valtellina); 5. the Rovigo Provincial Museum System (Sistema Museale Provinciale Polesine); 6. the Bergbaumuseum (a network of mining museums in the Province of Bolzano); 7. the Museums of Maremma (Musei di Maremma); 8. Carnia Museums (Carnia Musei); 9. the Sienese Museums Foundation (Musei Senesi);

10. the Ravenna Provincial Museum System (Sistema Museale della Provincia di Ravenna); 11. Piceno Museums (Musei Piceni); 12. the Umbrian Museum System (Sistema Museale dell’Umbria); and 13. the Castelli Romani e Prenestini Mountain Community Museum System (Sistema Museale Territoriale dei Castelli Romani e Prenestini).

As made evident by the list and Figure 2 below, these cases “cover“ most of Italy’s central and northern regions, where the phenomenon of museum systems has so far emerged most strongly.

Figure 2. The geographical coverage of the research (the figures indicate the number of cases studied within a given region)

Stage 3. Data collection This phase took place in the fourth, fifth and sixth months of the research. Museum system managers were interviewed using the previously developed questionnaire in order to collect information directly from those in charge of running the cases under study. The questionnaire included “open” questions, where interviewees were free to respond in a manner and time that suited them best, and “closed“ multiple choice questions, where their opinions were to be expressed by rating on a scale of 1 to 5. The interviewees demonstrated great willingness to respond on all areas of research interest and to provide possible further sources of information. Hence, in addition to primary sources, secondary sources were also used to collect data, thereby enabling a greater understanding of the complexity of the phenomenon (Bailey, 1982). These additional sources included websites, publications by the museum systems, management reports, proceedings of conferences in which museum systems managers had taken part, and printed brochures. The data gathered was then tabulated. It is stressed that the closed questions were not used with the aim of developing quantitative indicators on which to base statistically reliable conclusions, but rather to prompt conversation with interviewees on topics of interest.

Stages 4 and 5. Analysis of the data and preparation of this report After all the data was collected, it was analyzed in the course of the seventh to ninth months of the study. The analysis produced a simple but comprehensive snapshot of the state of play of Italian museum systems with respect to the five areas of inquiry. Below we describe the case studies and present the results of the data analysis under the different areas of inquiry. As previously noted, the bar graphs represent the mean values of the responses to closed questions and have been prepared solely as a quick aid to interpreting the results that emerged from the more extensive conversations held with the heads of museum systems.

3. The case studies The museum systems identified are locally-based groupings. In other words, what the museums that join the systems studied have in common is the fact that they are located in the same geographical area. Only in one instance did the museums in question share a common thematic focus in addition to being in the same geographic area; this was the case of the mining museums system in the Province of Bolzano, which may arguably be considered a museum district (Sibilio Parri, 2004). It is considered important to draw attention to this point given that, though falling outside the scope of this research, significant examples exist of museum networks and systems that are linked exclusively on a thematic basis (as is the case with the Museums of Industry – or Musei d’Impresa – and Diocesan Museums). The case studies relate to museum systems developed largely at the provincial level, in addition to the municipal-level system in Turin, the inter-municipal Musei Piceni, the regional museum system in Umbria and two cases of networks developed within self-governing alpine communities (or comunità montane: Carnia and Castelli Romani e Prenestini). The cases studied by the working group varied widely in terms of how long they have existed and their size, as illustrated in Figure 3. In respect of the former, the cases studied ranged from recently-established systems (such as the Rovigo Provincial Museums) to systems that came into being as much as 25 years ago (such as Carnia Museums). In terms of their size, the group of cases includes both systems comprising a few museums (such as that in Turin, composed of four museums) and networks encompassing dozens of museums (such as that in Umbria, which incorporates over 100 museums). The sample of cases chosen therefore guaranteed a level of heterogeneity sufficient to ensure that the empirical data was as representative as possible of museum systems found throughout Italy (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Figure 3. Size and time in existence of the cases studied

Below we describe each of the cases briefly, focusing on how they have developed. 1. Turin Museums. The Turin Museums Foundation (Fondazione Torino Musei), a non-profit organization that does not distribute its surplus funds, was established in 2003 to pursue the policies and cultural guidelines adopted by the Municipality of Turin, in keeping with and in extension of the historical functions and specific missions of its individual constituent museums. It furthers the purposes of conserving, maintaining and enhancing cultural assets received or acquired in any capacity, and ensures the management and development of museum and cultural activities, always with a view to containing costs and increasing revenues, through the involvement of private parties. It was founded by the Municipality of Turin in agreement with banking foundations and the Region of Piedmont. 2. The Lecco Provincial Museum System. This system was established in 2008 at the initiative of the Province of Lecco in order to ensure an economical, efficient and effective delivery of services through cooperation between local authorities in their efforts to preserve and enhance cultural heritage. Its objectives are: to foster and further develop coordinated activities; to share and rationalize resources; to enrich the relationship between museums and the province by promoting cultural itineraries; and to facilitate exchanges of information and equipment between institutions, as well as research programs and the cataloging of assets. 3. The Mantua Provincial Museum System. This system was established in 2004 by will of the members of the provincial government of Mantua, as endorsed by the entire province following a series of consultation groups comprising the heads of major local museums conducted in 2002-2003 in accordance with the guidance and requirements of Lombard Regional law. The system is based on a feasibility study, co-funded by the Lombardy Region and directed at all provinces in the region, for the establishment of a museum network. 4. The Valtellina Museum System. This museum system was founded in 2011, at the behest of the Province of Sondrio, in order to place a collaborative partnership that had already

existed since 2007 between several museums in the Valtellina area on an official footing. Its coordination, instituted without considering any reference models, is aimed at reducing costs by exploiting the complementary resources available. It has emerged as an initiative geared to optimizing the results of marketing and productivity efforts. 5. The Rovigo Provincial Museum System. This system came into being in 2013 as the result of the desire of a number of museums and the Province of Rovigo to raise awareness of, develop, improve and promote museums in the area. Formalization of the arrangement via an agreement, administered by the Culture Department of the Province of Rovigo, was preceded by an analysis of local resources and a study of reference models by the proponents of the initiative. 6. Bergbaumuseum (a network of mining museums in the Province of Bolzano). This system was established in 1988 on the initiative of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, in fulfillment of the desire of local political authorities to reopen disused mines and convert them into museums. 7. Museums of Maremma. Set up in 2003 pursuant to a proposal of the Province of Grosseto, the “Museums of Maremma“ provincial museum system was formally constituted in 2006 with the participation of all the municipalities involved and with its administration entrusted to the Division for Culture Policies - Museums, Archives and Libraries of the Municipality of Massa Marittima. The need to promote local museums, improve their financial sustainability and broaden their cultural mission has led to the preparation of preliminary feasibility studies and a consideration of neighboring cases of museum networks. The Tuscan Mining Geopark (Parco minerario delle Colline Metallifere Grossetane) became a member of the network in 2012. 8. Carnia Museums. This museum system was created in 1998 at the initiative of the local Mountain Community authority for the purpose of enhancing and showcasing the cultural heritage of the Carnia area. The authority conceded to calls by smaller localities for improved visibility and a share of resources, and positioned itself as a partner in a European-funded project (via Interreg IV Italy-Austria), thereby securing co-finance to set up the network’s office. 9. The Sienese Museums Foundation. The Foundation was established in 2002, on the initiative of the Province of Siena, with the task of strengthening and developing the previous museum system (one of the first in Italy and set up in the 1990s). The aim of the Sienese Museums Foundation is to support its constituent museums, and, through a participatory management model, foster their engagement with the cultural heritage of their local area whose distinctive character they manifest. During the period 2009-2011, a process of further revisions and updates to the Foundation’s establishing charter was undertaken. 10. The Ravenna Provincial Museum System. This system was set up in 1997, at the instigation of the Province of Ravenna, with the intent of enhancing a fragmented, diverse and widely-dispersed cultural heritage, as well as promoting awareness of that heritage and supporting museums in their growth. The system aims to attract more resources to the province (in addition to achieving economies of scale) with a view to boosting the hitherto scant investment earmarked for the museum sector.

11. Piceno Museums. This system was launched in 2003, following participation in a European call for proposals, with the intention of encouraging similar museums to work together in synergy with the cultural landscape of the Piceno area. The initiative is the brainchild of the company Progetto Zenone, previously responsible for trialing a cultural project involving a civic network in the city of Ripatransone, which would itself go on to become the founding Municipality of the system. 12. The Umbrian Museum System. The establishment of this system was provided for by Umbrian Regional Law no. 35 of 1990, considered the year of its coming into operation. The system has undergone a number of modifications pursuant to Regional Law no. 24 of 2003 entitled “The Regional Museum System - Preservation and enhancement of associated cultural assets”. 13. The Castelli Romani e Prenestini Mountain Community Museum System. This system was established in 2003 at the initiative of the 11th Mountain Community of the Lazio region with a view to increasing the prestige and visibility of its constituent museums. The core management of the system became operative with the formation of its Board of Administrators and Scientific and Technical Committee.

4. The forces driving the formation of museum systems The conditions under which museums operate appear more difficult than ever when viewed in light of the scarcity of resources available to manage Italy’s vast artistic heritage (Zan, 1999). The forging of collaborative relationships between museums can serve as an efficient way of responding to the operational challenges that particularly smaller museums are forced to contend with. As indicated by Bagdadli (2001), the motivating factors that lead to the establishment of museum networks and systems can be classified into three categories, in line with the three theoretical perspectives that explain the formation of any type of collaborative relationship. The first category of factors is economic efficiency (Williamson, 1985). This can be achieved by reducing costs or increasing revenues, thereby ensuring a greater chance of survival for museum operators and improved ways of carrying out their functions. The systems studied show signs of this type of driving force at play. In particular, interviewees pointed out that their own respective systems were predominantly established with a view to containing costs rather than facilitating higher revenues. The second group of determinants, on the other hand, relate to isomorphism processes (Oliver, 1990; Di Maggio and Powell, 1991), which see operators drawn to collaborate and grow more akin in order to obtain permits, comply with regulations, gain legitimacy and increase visibility and prestige. The museum systems analyzed in this study also revealed this kind of factor at work. More specifically, the need for individual museums to increase their visibility and acquire legitimacy emerged as playing a decisive role. The third motivation that drives operators to cooperate with each other is the complementary nature of the resources they possess (Chung et al., 2000). Indeed, in order to be able to acquire resources not readily available in the marketplace, museum operators may collaborate with a view to sharing complementary resources. Although this factor seemed less important than others in the

© Aspen Institute Italia | National Interest | Museum systems in Italy 8 literature (Bagdadli, 2001; Alberti et al., 2005), the museum system managers interviewed highlighted it as the main driver of collaboration, after the need for individual museums to increase their visibility.

Figure 4. Drivers of the formation of museum systems

Seeking efficiency gains through reduced costs Seeking efficiency gains through increased revenues Increasing the prestige of individual museums Increasing the visibility of individual museums Increasing the legitimacy of individual museums vis‐à‐vis institutions

Regulatory compliance

Sharing complementary resources

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

5. The purpose of collaboration between museums One possible purpose for collaboration between museums, and more generally between operators of any kind, relates to resources and activities. The former are inputs available to an operator, while the latter are those sets of actions through which inputs are transformed into a system of supply (Coda, 1984).

Figure 5. Resources and activities in museum systems

As illustrated in Figure 5, a museum raises resources from various sources (public and private); these resources enable it to acquire further resources and to conduct activities for the benefit of users. Given that the current outlook is one of less generous sources and increasingly more demanding users, joining a museum system represents one possible avenue for acquiring more resources with which to outsource certain activities to be offered both to users and the museum itself. But what resources and activities are being shared by museums participating in museum systems? The corporate literature on the subject classifies resources as: tangible (financial or material in nature), intangible (such as information) and human (Grant, 1995). In the case of museum systems, tangible resources can relate to artistic works or promotional/marketing material, with museum system managers reporting that it is especially the latter (often multimedia in nature) that is shared among participating museums. It is difficult to share museum staff, apart from persons tasked with managing the system. Financial resources, on the other hand, seem to be shared much more, and are often sourced precisely by virtue of joining a museum system.

Figure 6. The resources shared by museums participating in museum systems

Collections

Promotional/marketing material

Financial resources

Personnel

Information

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

As shown in Figure 7, the most shared activities in museum systems involve public relations and public fundraising, followed by planning and development and educational services. One can therefore conclude that museum systems currently enable collaborative efforts on both external and internal fronts.

Figure 7. The activities shared by museums participating in museum systems

Public relations

Private fundraising

Public fundraising

Exhibition activities

Acquisition of cataloging tools

Study and research

Conservation of collections

Educational services

Planning and development

Financial control and administration

Human resources management

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

In particular, with regards to public relations, networked museums develop catalogs and guides, websites, social network profiles and collective brands. The system set-up ensures visibility at international and especially national fairs for participating museums, as well as managing their relations with the press and with all stakeholders. In terms of educational activities, the museum systems develop joint initiatives both for adults and children, such as conducting face-to-face and virtual educational programs, experiential learning workshops and publications of various kinds. Other types of activities – such as private fundraising, exhibition activities, the acquisition of cataloging tools, research, the conservation of collections, financial administration and human resources management – are less shared, or rather, they are shared by more structured and virtuous museum systems. With regards to some of these activities, there is certainly scope for collaboration, as in the case of the development of temporary exhibitions and fundraising initiatives.

6. The structure of museum systems All the museum systems fall into one of essentially two different identifiable legal forms: agreement-based or foundation-based (Bonel and Moretti, 2004). In the first case, museums sign a (regional, interprovincial or provincial) affiliation agreement and entrust the management of the system to a lead institution. In the second case, however, a separate operating entity is established. Affiliation by way of regional agreement is open to museums in the region that consider they have an affinity or an interest in banding together as a system. For operational purposes, the system reports to the Region’s Department of Culture.

The most numerous cases, however, are those based on province-based affiliations. In this instance, the agreement between the various museums that form part of the system and the relevant Province is essentially stable in form, with the system rarely undergoing expansion through subsequent memberships. This may stem from the smaller size of the geographic unit in question, which leads a system to be created pursuant to an analysis of local-area conditions and to fulfill the specific needs identified, often at a preliminary stage. Not infrequently, in the case of province-based systems, it is possible to discern two tiers of interaction with the responsible administrative authority: firstly, a “strategy-setting” level involving the Scientific Committee (or analogous body) and the offices of the Province’s Department of Culture, and secondly, what could be termed “institutional” liaison between the Director (or analogous coordinator) of the system and the Province’s Culture Department. The foundation is a vehicle which provides a museum system with greater autonomy in terms of planning, independence from the cultural policy agenda of the responsible administrative authority, and, finally, management practice and relations with other public or private entities. In the case of foundations, the defining moments can be seen as the drafting of an establishing charter and the appointment of a governing council, or of a director who will be entrusted with such functions of management and direction as determined by the foundation’s governing council. In both instances, it is possible to note the combined features of managerial autonomy and periodic gatherings to discuss the system’s cultural remit as well as management matters. The establishment of Scientific Committees is a near constant in all systems, as are certain characteristic objectives such as local-area development, shared planning, and direct liaison between the system and the relevant local government department. It is also notable that foundations are able to more effectively integrate all aspects of relations with the private sector, both by virtue of their leaner institutional structure, and because they are viewed more favorably by private-sector operators as they are less weighed down by red tape. In addition, the management approach of foundations revolves around the setting of multiyear strategies and oversight by review committees based on budget estimates and final accounts. In general, the systems are set up so as to enable planning and review at both at a system-wide and local level. However, there are systems that hand over planning and control functions to the responsible administrative authority, chiefly the relevant local government department. With regards to management controls in a technical sense, the situation varies widely. Such measures can range from quite diversified and probing to those that are limited in variety and depth. Generally speaking, a scale can be postulated that runs from baseline controls, involving integrated monitoring of ticketing, through to the other end of spectrum, with fully-fledged computerized management of the system’s performance. It is also possible to note that, in the case of foundations, more attention is paid to management controls as these are vital for the setting of objectives and subsequent evaluation of their fulfillment. Just as in the case of dealings with private parties, fundraising is almost the unique preserve of the foundations, as the systems regulated by affiliation agreements base their activities solely on contributions from the responsible administrative authorities, in the form of expenditure items in the budget of the relevant local government department. In recent years, there has been an increase in participation in European calls for proposals, not just by the foundations, which have always been active on this front, but also by agreement-based systems. Such participation,

© Aspen Institute Italia | National Interest | Museum systems in Italy 12 however, is to be pinpointed to those systems that are better organized and have more resources to deploy in putting together responses to such calls. To date, the integration of archaeological sites into museum networks, such as in the case of the Castelli Romani e Prenestini system, would appear to be an underexploited opportunity, as is that of rehabilitating certain sites/buildings in the urban landscape, for instance, the Mining Museums in the Province of Bolzano, or numerous places of ample archaeological and industrial interest accorded UNESCO recognition, as in the case of the Crespi d’Adda industrial village.

7. The results achieved through collaboration In line with Article 6 of Legislative Decree no. 42 of 2004, the enhancement of cultural heritage can be defined as the exercise of functions and the governance of activities aimed at promoting knowledge of cultural heritage and ensuring the best conditions for public use and enjoyment of the said heritage. Hence, in order to assess whether museum systems are effective in enhancing cultural heritage, it would be opportune to examine their capacity to contribute to the improved functioning of individual participating museums from a number of standpoints. There are a number of fronts on which the results achieved by a museum system may be examined. According to Sinatra et al. (2002), the performance of individual museums can be analyzed from four perspectives. The internal perspective places emphasis on the functioning of the museum, with particular regard to the adequacy of human resources and management tools, and the conservation and enhancement of artistic heritage. The user perspective relates to the interaction between the museum and its visitors (current and potential) and therefore focuses on the volume, diversity and satisfaction of users, as well as what is offered to them (in terms of exhibitions, events and services of various kinds). The legitimating-system or relational perspective on the other hand deals with the interaction between the museum and other stakeholders, particularly local government authorities. Lastly, the financial perspective looks at the costs and revenues which, if properly balanced, enable a museum to survive long-term and fulfill its mission (Bernardi, 1996). These perspectives, already used in the literature by Alberti et al. (2005a; 2005b), were supplemented with an external perspective, referring to the overall performance of a network in terms of impact on the development of its local area. This perspective essentially encompasses so- called induced economic impact (Sollima, 2004), that is, the multiplier effect on business activity and tourist flows in the relevant area.

Figure 8. The various perspectives for assessing improved performance of museums participating in museum systems

User perspective 5,0

4,0

3,0 External perspective Internal perspective 2,0

1,0

Financial Relational perspective perspective

For each of these five perspectives, Figure 8 shows the mean values of the responses given by museum system managers. From these indicators, the best results seem to have emerged from the user, relational and external perspectives, while more modest results were achieved from an internal and financial standpoint. Each perspective is analyzed in detail below. With regard to the internal perspective, those heading up museum systems did not report any particular positive effects on participating museums, apart from improved cataloging systems and quality of staff. In most cases, the effects were indirect, that is, linked to the need to interact as best as possible with other actors. Indeed, some museum system managers underlined that participating museums had, as a result of joining the system, developed a greater sense of responsibility at all levels of seniority, due mainly to having to deal with other actors.

Figure 9. The impact of the formation of museum systems from an internal perspective

Standard of management tools

Standard of staff

Security

Cataloging

Conservation of collections

Comprehensiveness of collections

Importance of collections

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

The results from a user service perspective would seem to be more favorable. Following the establishment of the museum systems, participating museums were able, in particular, to develop various educational activities and cultural services (including on a multimedia level), thus increasing visitor satisfaction. Those in charge of museum systems also reported noticing an increase in the number and variety of visitors, due to an increased offering in terms of events and exhibitions organized. For instance, the number of visitors to Turin Museums member venues has more than tripled over the 10 years of the system’s existence. While this growth may undoubtedly be linked to other factors, the development of the network has equally played its part. It is also noted that the ability to share resources and activities has allowed participating museums to develop innovative initiatives, taking advantage of the opportunities presented by new information and communications technologies to improve the quality of services offered.

Figure 10. The impact of the formation of museum systems from a user perspective

Events

Exhibitions

Educational activities

Ancillary services (shop, caffeteria, bookings, parking) Cultural services (guides, information, multimedia tools) Accessibility of museums (length of opening hours)

Visitor satisfaction

Variety of visitors

Number of visitors

1,01,52,02,53,03,54,04,55,0

Even from a relational perspective, museum systems seem to have helped participating museums acquire improved standing within the legitimating system. In particular, an improvement was reported in relations with local government authorities (Regions, Provinces and Municipalities) that the systems liaise with to receive resources in exchange for creating public value.

Figure 11. The impact of the formation of museum systems from a relational perspective

Relations with voluntary associations

Relations with Municipalities

Relations with the Province

Relations with the Region

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

The financial impacts resulting from the establishment of museum systems are worthy of particular attention. Indeed, museum system managers reported that participating museums are not particularly able to contain personnel costs and outlays linked to the preservation of artistic heritage, but they can limit those connected with the exploitation of the same, namely, the costs of marketing, educational activities, development of events and service provision. The findings in respect of revenues were also singular: the formation of museum systems does not especially increase takings from ticket and other services, nor contributions from private parties, but it certainly increases the chances of obtaining more public funding.

Figure 12. The impact of the formation of museum systems from a financial perspective

Reduction in costs of preserving heritage (research, restoration, security measures)

Reduction in costs of exploiting heritage (marketing, education, events, services)

Reduction in personnel costs

Increase in public funding

Increase in private funding

Increase in other revenues (merchandising, etc.)

Increase in ticket takings

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5

Read together, the two results would therefore appear to indicate that increased user satisfaction, stemming from improved exploitation of artistic heritage, is being financed by public funds. In other words, it is not the user but the State that is paying a higher price for service improvements.

Figure 13. The impact of the formation of museum systems from an external perspective

Business activity in the local area

Tourist flows in the local area

1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Finally, from an external perspective, museum system managers emphasized that the creation of such systems has to some degree facilitated the development of their local area. Although it is difficult for them to measure the extent of this impact, there is a clear positive – albeit modest – effect on tourist flows in the areas where museum systems have sprung up.

Figure 14. The virtuous cycle triggered for the performance of museums by their participation in a museum system

The five perspectives are certainly not independent but linked, integrally, by a set of relationships such that joining a museum system can trigger a virtuous cycle. The improvement of external relations enables more resources to be obtained (with a positive impact from a financial perspective) and internal processes within individual museums to be enhanced. Internal improvements can be obtained at the expense of gains from a financial perspective (that is, by incurring costs), but they also contribute to increased user satisfaction, and hence, indirectly, to at least potentially improved performance in financial terms. A more satisfied user base can also generate benefits of an external nature, which are in turn capable of improving a museum’s relational capital. Finally, it is crucial to underline the critical importance, for individual museums as much as for museum systems, of developing strategic planning and control systems, capable of assisting management in setting challenging but achievable objectives, and monitoring performance against these via appropriate and meaningful indicators.

8. The factors which facilitate and impede the functioning of museum systems Scheff and Kotler (1996) point out that whether a collaborative cultural venture prospers depends on meeting certain critical success factors, or rather, a number of elements which can facilitate or hinder the design and deployment of an inter-organizational network. These elements are: the identification of the system’s basic objectives, that is, the establishment of a shared vision among the participants; the building of consensus around joint initiatives; the building of trust, in turn based on mutual understanding among the participants; communication between the participants, through all kinds of formal and informal mechanisms; the definition of leadership structures and levels of involvement of participants, based on the resources and expertise at the disposal of each; and commitment to procuring adequate financial resources to enable the system to function. To these may be added a further three factors that have a bearing on those above: the availability of skilled human resources; the quality of relationships between the participants; and political sponsorship. It was asked which of these factors, in the experience of the museum systems studied, have functioned as barriers to or drivers of the establishment and success of the given network. It would seem that all these elements have acted as engines of success for the museum systems examined, testament to the fact that the cases under study represent virtuous examples of Italian museum networks. Worth highlighting in particular is a great faculty, on the part of the systems’ structures, for managing internal communication processes. Careful management of communications helps ensure that museums which vary widely from each other in terms of their thematic areas, size, resources and goals work together within the same system. In contrast, the factor in relation to which most difficulties seemed to arise was that of obtaining adequate financial resources. Deep concerns emerged from conversations with the heads of museum systems regarding the situation in the most recent years and the future outlook. The economic crisis that has gripped Italy, both in the public and private sectors, is heavily wearing down the capacity of individual museums and the systems to which they belong.

Municipalities and Provinces have less and less expendable resources and increasingly scaled- down roles; spending on culture is in decline; several major financial institutions, capable as a rule of supporting cultural development projects, are in difficulty; and private fundraising activities have not been fruitful. In this economic climate, museums are struggling to acquire further resources, such as human resources, which are increasingly stretched, to the point of jeopardizing museums’ capacity to participate adequately within their given system.

Figure 15. Critical success factors for a museum system “Barrier” “Driver” Setting objectives

Building consensus

Building trust

Communication

Establishing leadership structures and participant involvement levels

Commitment to procuring adequate financial resources

Skilled human resources

Quality relationships between museum heads

Political sponsorship

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

9. Conclusions In light of this analysis, it is important to note that many museum system managers pointed to the results attained through collaboration, especially in the case of small museums, as an outcome which would never have been achievable by acting alone in the current art and culture market. In other words, membership of a museum system seems to emerge as a necessary prerequisite for the survival of smaller museums. In the view of many museum system managers, the structures they head up are the real engine of local culture-based development, as they represent the only bridge between the artistic heritage preserved by museums and the local area from which that heritage springs. It is of course necessary, however, that museums systems be well-structured (and in this regard, the foundation structure would seem to be preferable to agreement-based systems), as well as equipped with well-developed organizational systems. Interestingly, having undertaken an analysis of some of the principal museums systems in Italy, one of the chief aspects that emerges is the more or less indirect impact that such agreement-based groupings have on the various members. Indeed, the mere fact of participating in a system forces all members to rethink how they use their resources, as well as to rescale these resources in correspondence with system conditions. This also applies to knowledge capital, the potential of

© Aspen Institute Italia | National Interest | Museum systems in Italy 19 which multiplies once shared across a network, not just from the point of view of its intrinsic value, but also in terms of its interaction with knowledge of a similar type, thereby increasing its range. On the other hand, this study also brought to light certain problems which in Italy have by now taken on familiar traits, namely: a reluctance to pool knowledge or resources (especially of an artistic and cultural nature), and difficulties in making management structures that differ in size and in institutional and historical background communicate with each other. The current scenario, marked by a digital multimedia environment, on the one hand clearly facilitates direct integration within networks, but on the other also creates increasing isolation for all those that cannot position themselves virtuously within a network. Yet, to give just a single example, one of the typical inherent shortcomings of Italian museums, and Italian cultural institutions in general, is the frequent lack of well-developed websites and additional services for integrated use (or augmented reality, if you will) with the assets and collections held. This has a negative impact in terms of the service offering to the public, as well as not fully tapping the potential of the country’s cultural heritage as a whole. The concept of a “museum system“ is generally readily understood and enjoys an excellent reputation at almost all the administrative levels investigated, including among those who have put into place policies aimed at establishing museum systems, those who say they hope such steps will be taken as soon as possible by their own administration, and those who – though not having embarked upon such a process yet – take as read its many advantages. This can be seen across the board at almost every institutional level, from the smallest Municipalities to the Regions, and within almost all museums, from those of international renown to the numerous lower-profile establishments that characterize the Italian museum sector. In respect of an ever more pressing and, regrettably, increasingly typical problem affecting Italy, it is especially interesting to note that museum systems are perceived as a means of lightening the bureaucratic load, even irrespective of any concrete verification of this positive effect. This became particularly apparent when the concise responses on the subject requested of those working in the sector were examined in closer detail during the course of this study. It can therefore said that the reduction of red tape is at any rate perceived as a priority, regardless of the means used to achieve this. The practical ramifications of establishing and operationalizing museum systems which emerge from the study are: firstly, the opportunity to participate more competitively in European calls for proposals; secondly, the ability to present with greater credibility in dealings with private-sector parties, and with a higher level of appeal from a cultural marketing perspective; and thirdly, the establishment of the necessary conditions for creating a whole series of initiatives, ranging from organizing system-wide events and the pooling of the communications and management potential, to virtuously supporting smaller museums. Most of the time, the push towards establishing museum systems which benefit from a prerequisite of alignment between member organizations keeps at bay the risk of different sets of procedures failing to interact or intersect, although it must be said that in those cases where such risks eventuate, it is the system as a whole which suffers the consequences, often in the form of a progressive loss of standing.

A further type of problem can be observed in those instances where there is no clear recognition within a system of the roles or “hierarchies“ applicable to its members. This can occur either as a result of over-assertion of a member’s role vis-à-vis other members, or due to a deficiency or absence of leadership within the network. In the case where a member’s role is overreached, the museum in question will find itself in a position of not having its leadership recognized, thus giving rise to obvious problems within the system itself. If, however, there is a failure to step up to a role, a member unanimously recognized as a main player will be unable or unwilling to deliver on its logical leadership role, thus giving rise to a series of setbacks, misapprehensions and defaults. Lastly, one albeit indirect problem which should be highlighted is the fact that, at least at this stage, a museum system’s very existence depends entirely on allocations from the responsible administrative authority (with the virtuous exception of some foundations), which ties down any system initiative to specific line items in the budgets of local authorities, thereby creating considerable difficulties for museum systems wishing to map out medium- to long-term cultural strategies. In light of the data observed, the networks that function the best emerge as those whose structure allows for greater degrees of “suppleness” and more focus on scientific and professional specialization. This increased flexibility to change shape and structure according to projects enables them to potentially benefit from funding and experiments capable of responding to local cultural or marketing needs in a manner that involves large and small museums. In addition, it triggers mechanisms that allow the diverse needs of members to be met, ensure the system’s continued existence, and enable joint planning. In future, this formula could be opened up to include other cultural establishments, both on the management and planning fronts. From an “external perspective“ approach, if the local-area impacts creatable by the potential synergies generated by networks are viewed as a prime consideration, then it may prove particularly appropriate to instigate all manner of virtuous collaborative partnerships between museum networks and other entities such as archives, libraries, galleries, research centers and universities, so as to foster not just a mutual exchange of skills, but also to give a boost to the entire sector in the broadest sense. In this regard, more concerted efforts at lobbying the Italian National Commission for UNESCO could, given the prestige of the World Heritage List, serve as a further facilitating factor for all such virtuous interactions. A further difficulty to be taken into account stems from the inability, at an institutional level, to train museum professionals committed to becoming “career specialists”. This situation is exacerbated by new regulations that do not permit government authorities to outsource roles to external consultants in return for providing quality services on an ongoing basis. The result is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to hire scientific advisors that accept the responsibility of being engaged on a sporadic and not a fully-fledged or fully-invested basis. This works to the detriment of cultural programming as well as management and communication processes: fundamental motivations for the formation of museum systems. It is to be hoped that, in Italy, collaborative initiatives will come to be more and more supported from a legal and financial perspective. Indeed, in many European contexts, one encounters more structured forms of organization, more multilayered legislation, a greater degree of integration between the public and private spheres, together with a greater ability to develop tourist and

© Aspen Institute Italia | National Interest | Museum systems in Italy 21 cultural supply systems (Lazzaretti, 2006). Unfortunately, despite possessing an outstanding artistic heritage, Italy still exhibits an untapped potential in this respect as well. From a public awareness standpoint, it would in any case be desirable for museums in Italy to be increasingly perceived as places devoted not just to the preservation but also to the production of culture. Finally, it is further hoped that those particularistic and parochial tendencies that could represent forces of inertia in the development of collaborative ventures will be set aside.

Bibliographical references Alberti, F.G., Bernardi, C. and Moro, D. (2005a). I musei fanno sistema. Esperienze in Lombardia. Milan, Guerini e Associati. Alberti, F.G., Bernardi, C. and Moro, D. (2005b). La gestione delle organizzazioni museali. Una prospettiva sistemica. Milan, Guerini e Associati. Bagdadli, S. (2001). Le reti di musei. L’organizzazione a rete per i beni culturali in Italia e all’estero. Milan, Egea. Bailey, K.D. (1982). Methods of social research. New York, Free Press. Bernardi, B. (1996). Economicità e gestione del museo. In Roncaccioli, A. (ed.), “L’azienda museo”. Padua, Cedam. Bonel, E. and Moretti, A. (2004). Il coordinamento interorganizzativo nella valorizzazione dei beni culturali: specificità settoriali e opzioni di progettazione. In Sibilio Parri B. (ed.), “Creare e valorizzare i distretti museali”. Milan, Franco Angeli, pp. 131-152. Centro Studi TCI (2000, ed.). Sistemi museali in Italia. Analisi di alcune esperienze: le prime tappe di un lungo cammino. Dossier. Coda, V. (1984). La valutazione della formula imprenditoriale. “Sviluppo e Organizzazione”, 82, pp. 7-21. Chung, S.A., Singh, H. and Lee, K. (2000). Complementarity, Status, Similarity and Social Capital as Drivers of Alliance Formation. “Strategic Management Journal”, 21, pp. 1-22. Di Maggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991, ed.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Dubini, P. (1999). Economia delle aziende culturali. Milan, Etas. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. “Academy of Management Review”, 14. Grant, R. (1995). Contemporary strategy analysis. Concepts, techniques, applications. Oxford, Blackwood. Lazzaretti, L. (2006, ed.). I sistemi museali in Toscana. Primi risultati di una ricerca sul campo. Florence, Firenze University Press. Morgan, D.L. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of Interorganizational Relationship: Integration and Future Directions. “Academy of Management Review”, 15 (2). Pencarelli, T. and Splendiani, S. (2011). Le reti museali come sistemi capaci di generare valore: verso un approccio manageriale e di marketing. “Il Capitale culturale” Vol. 2: 227-252. Rispoli, M. and Brunetti, G. (2009, ed.). Economia e management delle aziende di produzione culturale. Bologna, Il Mulino. Santagata, W. (2000). Distretti culturali, diritti di proprietà e crescita economica sostenibile. “Rassegna Economica”, Vol. LXIV, no. 1, January-June. Scheff, J. and Kotler, P. (1996). How the arts can prosper through strategic collaborations. Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 52-62. Sibilio Parri, B. (2004 ed.). Creare e valorizzare i distretti museali. Milan, Franco Angeli. Sinatra, A., Bernardi, C., Gilodi, C., Moro, D. and Tomberg, L. (2002, ed.). Modelli innovativi di gestione del patrimonio museale in Lombardia. Prima Fase. IReR-CERMEC Research Report, Milan. Sollima, L. (2004). L’impresa culturale. Processi e strumenti di gestione. Rome, Carocci. Valentino, P.A. (2003). Le trame del territorio. Politiche di sviluppo dei sistemi territoriali e distretti culturali. Milan, Sperling & Kupfer. Williamson, O.E. (1985). The Economics Institutions of Capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting. The Free Press, New York. Zan, L. (1999, ed.). Conservazione e innovazione nei musei italiani. Etas, Milan.