Congratulations to:

• Kathy Amoroso, Director of Digital Projects
  Maine Historical Society
• Dr. Tatyana Bogomazova, Chief of the IT Department
  Russian Academy of Sciences
• Tiah Edmundson-Morton, Reference, Instruction, and Outreach Archivist
  Oregon State University Archives
• Alyssa Glass, Web Producer
  Adobe Systems
  and museum studies graduate student at JFK University
• David Lockwood, Museums Manager
  Dumfries and Galloway Museum Service
  (Scotland)
• Emily Pfotenhauer, Outreach Specialist
  Wisconsin Heritage Online
• Sivia Sadofsky, Technology Program Manager
  Museum of Anthropology at
  the University of British Columbia
• Andrea Thomer, Lead Excavator
  George C. Page Museum at the La Brea Tar Pits

The Museum Computer Network conference is November 11-14 in Portland,
Oregon. For more information visit http://www.mcn.edu.

I’ve been trying to figure out the best way to describe my experience at my first MCN conference.  I could say that the description in the conference program for the session on Semantic Web started out with “What is the Semantic Web and why should you care?” and that I can now answer both of those questions.  I could write about how much I learned about Digital Asset Management systems and why outsourcing isn’t currently a viable option, but might be someday as a result of conversations held in a basement room of the Grand Hyatt.  But to be honest, I think the most important thing I took away from the conference (other than this great Grand Hyatt ball point pen) has a lot less to do with computers and a lot more to do with people. 

Any time you have museum people talking about their collections, the word “control” comes up a lot.  It came up in one of the sessions as we discussed the loss of control of items placed on the web, it came up during the conversation on outsourcing, and it of course came up in the session on data standardization.  Why is it that museums haven’t yet reached the high level of standardization of libraries?  Control.  Tell a curator that has been at an institution for 25 years that she now has to describe all of the works in the collection according to someone else’s system, and see how far you get.  “Letting go” isn’t something museum people seem to be very good at doing. 

But there are very good reasons to sometimes let something go; to relinquish some control.  In the session on DAMS outsourcing, Ari Davidow really struck a chord with me when he was discussing the need for outsourcing.  There are IT experts out there; why should museum staff try to replicate that?  If you’re a curator, curate.  If you are a smaller museum, focus on what it is you set out to do – programming, exhibitions, outreach, whatever it is – and leave IT to the experts.  And to do that, you have to change your perception of a loss of control to a gain of insight. 

I think that’s one of the biggest challenges for people like me – collections managers, database administrators, registrars – whatever the title, the task is the same.  You have to find a way to take what you know about current technology, what you know about collections, and what you know about the people using those collections and merge them together with what other people on staff may have to contribute.  The presenters for the Data Standardization Projects session illustrated this as they discussed their methods for getting museum curators to go along with extensive standardization projects.  By working closely with the curators and letting them be part of the planning phase of the project, they were able to successfully standardize huge portions of their data.  The process was explained to the curators and they were able to see the need for the project; instead of feeling forced into a system they didn’t want, they were able to make it their own system, balancing out the need for standardization as well as the ability to retain some control over their own work. 

This example shows that a technology initiative has to be cooperative to be successful, and museum staff have to be able to trust the expertise of their colleagues.  With our tight budgets, small work forces, and ambitious drives to do increasingly impressive projects, we need to be able to make the most of the skills we have, and be honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge that sometimes there’s a better solution, even if it’s not our own. 

Thanks for the opportunity to join the MCN conference – and hope to see you next year.

- Amber Morgan, Associate Registrar
Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburg, PA

The MCN Conference: A Newbie’s Perspective

I was one of five lucky scholarship recipients to attend the MCN annual conference in Washington, DC. As a first time attendee to the conference I was nervous that the information would be way over my head. What struck me first about the conference was the range of professions represented by attendees. I expected to meet mostly IT, IS or other technology only experts but I was pleasantly surprised to see registrars and collections managers along with other museum professionals. I often have felt alone tackling and integrating emerging technologies into my museum’s daily functions but I now know others who share my fascination and excitement about the role for computer technology in museums.
The morning showcases were invaluable in learning how other organizations are using technology to network cultural information, broaden the presence of small organizations and promote collections activities. I now have innovative ideas to share with the staff and faculty at my institution. I see new ways dissimilar organizations can pair together using technology to achieve common goals.
I was grateful to hear about the ambitious projects completed by MCN members. Among them were community partnerships, university outreach and student designed projects. As a university employee, I am inspired by these projects and hope to discover new ways my museum can work with students and the community via technology to enhance our role as a resource in our area.
As a first time attendee of the conference I was excited to explore new ideas for my museum and to meet others who share my goals, problems and desire for creative and technological resolutions. I would like to thank the MCN board and membership for supporting scholarships for the conference. Without the scholarship I could not benefit from the fabulous resources I encountered in DC.

–Kyle Bryner, Museum Registrar and Collections Manager
Museum of Anthropology at Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, NC

Donald Urquhart
Director of Collections Management
Portland Art Museum

Last week, I attended my first MCN conference. On the first day, I became keenly aware that everyone around me had already drunk the techno Kool-Aid. The presenters and the participants all seemed convinced that technology is essential to the fulfillment of our respective missions. It was strangely comforting to commiserate about legacy systems and non-standard data. And it was encouraging to hear colleagues extolling the virtues of DAMs, Dashboards, and UPDIG, but I surprised myself by sometimes missing that other voice – the voice that defines actual reality in museums by the very personal interaction between the visitor and the object, unaffected by outside influence or distraction.

This feeling culminated on the last day of the conference, during the presentation of the Horizon Report. There, Susan Chun led an excellent dialogue about the future of technology in museums. Audience participation was great as the group discussed ways that emerging technologies will impact museum professionals in every aspect of our work. Topics ranged from open content to geolocation, but the subject that received the most attention was Alternative Interaction Devices. It was then that I longed for the traditional curatorial perspective.

In actual reality, there’s much we can do to enhance a visitor’s experience. We might begin by choosing a sympathetic wall color and investing in full-spectrum lighting. We almost certainly will add a label with basic tombstone information, and perhaps a didactic panel to convey an idea. It’s common now to further enhance the experience by adding an audio guide or podcast. Is there room, then for more devices? What happens if we add interactive iPhones, tangible object interfaces, and multi-touch environments? With these add-ons, I wonder if we run the risk of passing the point of diminishing returns – of deluding the experience instead of enhancing it.

Happily, some Alternative Interactions Devices exist which promise to strip away the add-ons. RFIDs and specialized sensors that track a movement, gaze, or gesture could enhance that moment in the gallery by personalizing the experience with minimal intervention. In the future, a painting could recognize me, then customize the information it conveys. It might sense my native language, education level, and art historical preferences. It might relate itself to the last work I visited, and then suggest the next. Or, if I preferred, it could say nothing. It could let me do all the work, without a label or didactic panel; without a download, or a kiosk, or a touch screen.

The beauty of such innovations is that they allow museums to meet a visitor on his or her terms. They leverage technology in ways that appeal to purists and technophiles, all in the fulfillment of the mission. This future may be a long way off, but it excites me, and I look forward to being a part of it.

David Farrell, Collections Co-ordinator
Peel Heritage Complex
Brampton, ON  

Unlike the other recipients of the 2008 MCN scholarship, I am not new to the museum and technology field. In fact, as for the museum part anyhow, I am defiantly long in the tooth, having been involved with museums for more than a quarter of a century. The technology part came later when in the early to mid 1990’s I became self-taught in Access 2 in order to build a collections management system for a community museum in British Columbia.

I do, however, work in a small community museum/art gallery/archives in a suburb of Toronto and the scholarship allowed me to attend an MCN conference after an absence of two years. As with MCN Boston in 2005, the last conference that I attended, I moderated a session concerned with technology in small museums, very appropriate for the chair of MCN’s Small Museum SIG. This year the session was Technologies in Small Museums: Common Problems/Innovative Solutions and the two presenters who were able to attend were Melissa Kinkley from the Smart Museum of Art at the University of Chicago, and Aurelie Henry from the National Postal Museum, a Smithsonian Museum. They both detailed projects at their respective institutions which illustrated strategies for introducing new technologies in small or medium museums. Melissa also gave the presentation on distributing content using affordable technologies prepared by Chris Alexander of the San Jose Museum of Art. Chris’ position was cut to part-time just before the conference and was therefore unable to come to the conference in person.

I also took part in Wednesday’s DAM workshop, attended all the Case Study Showcases and other session and chaired the Small Museum SIG meeting. My primary objective, as is usual when I attend a MCN conference, was to search for as much information as possible that would be applicable to my own institution. Also typical, I found that as the conference progressed, an unintended theme seemed to develop from everything I heard and saw; new technologies may be impressive in and of themselves, but if adopting them doesn’t spring from your Strategic Plan and if they don’t support your institution’s mission, then it won’t be worthwhile and your museum won’t be any further ahead. This came up even in the discussion that ensued after the Small Museum Session that I moderated.
It was also great to touch base with colleagues I had not seen in a couple of years and to meet some for the first time. A surprising number of them were fellow Canadians since CHIN was once again well represented. Hopefully I will be able to attend another MCN conference in the near future.

Erin Noseworthy, Manager of Multimedia Interpretive Programs
Hunter Museum of American Art
Chattanooga, TN

Emerging Leaders in Small Museums 

There were many good sessions at MCN this year about everything from imaging to the semantic web. Although I found each of the sessions I attended interesting, much of the information seemed out of the grasp of my “mid-size” institution. However, a session entitled Technologies in Small Museums: Common Problems/Innovative Solutions helped put things in perspective with an edge of empowerment. Not only were the presenting institutions facing nearly identical issues, but the presenters were emerging professional in the fields of technology and education, like myself. 

The two presenters, Melissa Holbert of the Smart Museum of Art and Aurelie Henry of the National Postal Museum, did not focus on the technologies used within their institutions or their projects per say, but rather on the processes and collaboration necessitated by technology initiatives in small museums. Even in small museums, interdepartmental communication can be a challenge. However, simple initiatives such as a technology committee, described by Holbert, can open new lines of communication and streamline work flow. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that the museum’s staff is its richest resource; technology committees and project meetings help keep your staff in the loop and allow for a more diverse exchange of ideas and approaches. Henry’s iterative approach to the kiosk development at the National Postal Museum as well as her foresight to use the expertise of the museum’s staff as well as other resources at her disposal has empowered me to come at my institution’s current technology challenges and projects from a new angle and with a different perspective.

As a result of this session and one’s such as Exploiting the Web: Explore Museum’s Across Collections, I have added several additional lines to my “to do” list. I plan to repurpose and expand the focus of the Hunter’s current digitization committee to include the use of technology across the board. The new tech committee will be a venue for staff to discuss and explore the use of various technologies throughout the museum – on the floor, online, and in the office – as well as stay up-to-date on ongoing and new technology based projects. I intend to open the tech committee meeting up to all staff. From this larger committee more focused groups will be established, with the appropriate personnel, to address specific technology issues. One such group will focus on digitization, an initiative whose importance should only be made more obvious through the tech committee’s discussions. As one of my primary goals I returned to the museum’s digitization initiative, after MCN, with a new more critical eye, focused not only on simply getting the data out there, but also on the viability of that data.