INDEX 1. The Pathways of Innovation: Preliminary Remarks 4 Luca Dal Pozzolo 1.1 The Research Project 5 Luca Dal Pozzolo Research objectives 5 Definition of the research field and methodological indications 6 Operational structure of the research 10 1.2 Case Studies 12 Archäologischer Park Carnuntum Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H 13 Raymund Kastler Ars Aevi Project 17 Valeria Beolchini Castello di Rivoli. Museo d’Arte Contemporanea 20 Alessia Rossi Schönbrunn Castle 24 Monika Horny Royal Castle in Warsaw 29 Agata Wasowska Pawlik Croydon Museum 30 Judi Caton Deutsches Museum München 36 Raymund Kastler Dutch Digital Heritage Association (DEN) 44 Judi Caton Heritage Island 47 Giovanni Festa Bianchet Museo Nazionale della Scienza e della Tecnica Leonardo da Vinci 52 Giovanni Festa Bianchet Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya. Empúries 56 Valeria Beolchini MuSiS 60 Monika Horny 1 The Ragged School Museum 65 Judi Caton Sheffield Galleries & Museums Trust 71 Judi Caton Sistema Museale Umbro 77 Giovanni Festa Bianchet SKOZK (Spoleczny Komitet Odnowy Zabytków Krakowa) 82 Agata Wasowska Pawlik Wohl & Sein - Being and Wellbeing 83 Saskia Klassen Zeppelin-Museum Friedrichshafen GmbH. 85 Raymund Kastler 1.3 The Pathways of Innovation: Itineraries and Directions for Travellers 89 Luca Dal Pozzolo Itinerary 1: Crisis as an instrument of innovation 89 Itinerary 2: From the Object to the Subject 90 Itinerary 3: From Still Life to Live Performance 90 Itinerary 4: Conservation versus Use - Negotiating the Equilibrium 91 Itinerary 5: From Ivory Tower to Network 91 Remarks about the Five Itineraries 92 2. The Seminar 93 2.1 The Programme 94 2.2 Introductory Reports 98 Interaction, Cooperation, Partnership 99 Raymund Kastler Institutional engineering 105 Ugo Bacchella Policies towards the Public 109 Judi Caton Policies Towards Staff 113 Mark Hilton 2 2.3 Reports from the workshops 117 Interaction, Co-operation, Partnership 118 Danielle Cliche Institutional Engineering 122 Christopher Gordon Policies towards the Public 124 Lidia Varbanova Round Table: How can training institutions meet the news trends and challenges? 127 Isabelle Schwarz 3 The Pathways of Innovation: Preliminary Remarks Luca Dal Pozzolo This document represents the first stage of a process of research. It therefore does not mark the final destination of an itinerary, but instead opens up and introduces a series of issues which will be dealt with at the seminar to be held in Turin on November 4 - 6. Primary attention will be made to the collection of case studies presented and to the consequences which have been brought about by innovative forms of management in the field of cultural patrimony. Such consequences can be seen not only in the organisational structure of single institutions, but above all, in training programmes reflecting the professional skills and competencies necessary for the management of the cultural patrimony today. Thus, the presentation constitutes a platform for discussion and not a list of innovations in management in the sector of cultural patrimony in Europe. The objective limits of investigation in this field were already made clear in the draft of the original research project. Efforts were concentrated on gathering significant case studies in order to provide evidence for the various pathways being explored by management. There was never any intention to completely reconstruct the entire panorama of innovations: that would have been much too ambitious a goal for a pilot project. Now that the completed case studies have been compiled, it seems much more useful and interesting to attach a copy of the initial research project rather than to restate the objectives of the research and the predicted results. The attached project thus serves as evidence of the process of research as well as an introduction to the case studies, and seems to be the clearest means of describing the goal of the research as well as the means and perspective adopted. Readers can judge for themselves to what extent the initial goals of the research have been met and whether or not the descriptions of the museum and institutional activities offer insight into the difficult task of defining the meaning of innovation; they may also wish to reflect upon the extent to which the task itself forms a meaningful basis for discussion. The case studies are followed by a final chapter, which is organised according to a number of “pathways” of innovation. This is a reflection on the paths which seem to emerge from comparative analysis of the various experiences described, and intends to offer further material for discussion within the seminar. We have tried to identify connections between the general schemes, results and evidence, which lead to the definition of a number of possible itineraries on the basis of the material gathered. To what extent this is an indication of current or nascent trends is subject to debate and is not the outcome of research. 4 The Research Project Luca Dal Pozzolo Research objectives The research within the MIMEH project is a preparatory and preliminary activity for the seminar devoted to training issues and the new professional profiles required by the management of the European artistic and cultural heritage. As a consequence, the search for innovative management models is useful to “launch” the fundamental topics of the seminar as well as to create the framework, which will be assessed and discussed during the seminar. In other words, this means gathering an adequate number of case studies, which describe the main innovative trends of the management applied to the European artistic and cultural heritage. At the same time, it means identifying the specific features and the common traits with regard to the tools used, the professional competencies involved and the training needs. The main objective of the research is to highlight the specific differences of each case as well as to find the comparability criteria and the basic elements, which are common to the various experiences. The reason for the twofold objective is to be found in the dissemination of the final results both of the research and of the seminar. Firstly, there is the need to inform, to disseminate specific experiences that may be assessed and considered by operators working in different field and in various countries. Having different examples and case studies is a resource in itself and may enable the application and use of innovative tools or procedures in other geographical and thematic contexts. The difference is a requisite for a “cross-fertilization” of the managerial approaches. Secondly, we should identify the requirements of the management of the European artistic and cultural heritage in terms of professional competencies, training needs and, more in general, with regard to the basic conditions necessary to develop and implement innovative management models. Due to the attention focused on training issues, the analysis moves from the specific case to the inter-specific comparability. In fact, it is not just a question of identifying one or two extremely qualified professional profiles that can be used in a specific institution. It means understanding whether there are the essential requisites necessary for the development of a new management, so that the new professionals can carry out different tasks, included the hyper- specialized functions. 5 Definition of the research field and methodological indications The time constraints and the economic restrictions of the research, as well as the European dimension of the project, imply a clear definition of the research field. This presumes a series of “a priori” choices that must be explicit. The following criteria, agreed by the project partners have to be used in an integrated way, in order to define the research field. 1) Innovative models and innovation: a possible definition of the meaning One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome is the identification of all what is included in the idea of “innovation” and “innovative model”. We will try here to identify at least an “area of possible meanings”, to be used as a reference, knowing, however, that the borders of this area are extremely difficult to identify, in fact they are quite vague. Nevertheless, from an empirical and pragmatic point of view, it seems to be important to share at least the main concepts, postponing the definition of the border areas to a debate on each single case. Our proposal is to consider innovation and innovative model in managerial terms, as “a certain kind of answer” given by an institution, a system or an individual, to a “pressure” urging to change. This pressure may come from the outside or from within the institution itself, or it could be due to the interaction between the outside and the inside. “A certain kind of answer” means that: ♦ The “pressure”, be it internal or external, is analysed and considered as a problem that has to be tackled from the operational viewpoint as well as from the perspective of the concept. ♦ The tools and the logic used to face such a pressure are the result of a project-based effort, which has an impact on the normal activity of the institution or the individual. With a simplistic definition, innovation could be considered as a set of elements, such as the tools, the procedures and the logic, that can be used to escape a “cul-de-sac”-like situation. ♦ By means of a change of the paradigm, i.e. by changing the definition of the problem, thus turning the constraints into resources. ♦ By means of new resources, new functions, new professional competencies. ♦ By means of the adoption of new tools. There must be a certain interaction between these elements, if we want to talk about innovation or innovative model. The new elements must somehow send a feedback to the structure of the system and must not simply become additional elements. Opening a marketing office within a museum, an office that would organise a mailing list and a series of promotional initiatives, may not be an innovation in itself, unless it tackles the question of the relations between the museum and the various types of visitors and the possible types of communication.