New Models: The Search for an Improved
Approach to Science Centers and Museums
David E. Chesebrough
Background On The Issue
Events in recent years have shown the vulnerability of science centers and museums to the vagaries of user tastes and national and local economies. Centers have closed (Columbus Center's Hall of Exploration in Baltimore and the Pacific Northwest Museum of Natural History, Ashland, Oregon), significant downsizing has been forced upon centers (Orlando Science Center, COSI-Columbus and Buffalo Museum of Science to name just a few), and others have struggled with the economics of carrying debt left over from capital campaigns and construction (OMSI and Franklin Institute come to mind). The attention on the current woes within the science center field appears to be part of a larger inter national concern about the financial sustainability of current museum models across museum disciplines and continents (Bradburne, 2004).
The Association of Science-Technology Centers hosted a workshop at the 2003 conference entitled "Does Our Science Center Model Need An Overhaul?" that was well attended and prompted spirited discussion after points of view were presented by Goery Delacote, Per-Edvin Perrson, and John Falk. ASTC's Dimensions followed up with a special issue (May/June 2004) exploring the concept of different models of serving our communities in sustainable fashion. Follow-up conference sessions were conducted at the 2004 and 2005 ASTC annual conferences in San Jose and Richmond.
I've spent a great deal of time thinking, reading, and discussing the issue with colleagues and within the Buffalo Museum of Science, as well as watching as many institutions are both subtly and massively changing their business practices. I agree with those who challenged that we were being too simplistic at the first session implying in our title that there was "a model" that needed to be fixed. Nor is there "a model" that will provide a silver bullet to the issues facing us. However, I have started to see some factors that may offer a construct upon which we can analyze the current dynamics and possible solutions. I'll propose that the construct to follow may also be useful in looking uniquely at the particular circumstances facing each science center or museum. This construct also addresses the concerns raised by Tom Krakauer (an ASTC Fellow and President Emeritus of the North Carolina Museum of Life and Science) of too much focus on the How? over the What? and Why? in our current discussions (2004).
A Suggested Construct For Analyzing Our Models
Why (do we exist)?
We each need to look hard at why our organization exists. We may see variance
in the field, but most of us will work from ASTC's articulation of "furthering
public understanding of science through experiental learning..." (2004).
The individual translation of this needs to be stated in a way that can
create passion within the organization and serve as a base for decision
making. Research by Collins and Porras, as presented in Built to Last
(1994), provides examples of how major corporations have successfully
addressed this core purpose. I suggest that the determination of each
center's core purpose should be independent of emphasis on earned revenue
and economics and should be a lofty articulation of an important service
to society-remembering that we are non-profit as a contract with our community
for service.
What (is our role in meeting our
community's needs)?
Answering the question What do we do? is where we need to clearly
and uniquely identify each of our roles in meeting our community's specific
needs consistent with our mission statement of why we exist. I suggest
that this is where we run into the greatest confusion. It seems to me
we often mix up the answer to this question with the answer to how
we deliver our service. Before we dive into the details of how
we change exhibit experiences more readily, for example, we should be
giving careful thought to identifying (with community input) what
is the best means to fulfill our mission in serving each of our communities
(which may be best delivered without an exhibit focus!).
In reviewing ASTC's "Making the Case for Science Centers," the ASTC-led study of The Impact of Science Centers/Museums on their Surrounding Communities: Summary Report, (Garnett, 2002) as well as reflecting on the dynamics of various institutions, I suggest that there are 5 main facets which make up an institution's service profile (consciously or unconsciously) in delivering on the Why?. (Arguments can be made for more or fewer categories, particularly in looking at an individual organization, but the ones I'll propose may hold up across the breadth of science museums and centers.)
In each of these areas we also need to identify outcomes which will allow us to know that we are achieving our role. Measures of these outcomes can help guide the best use of our limited resources as well as make the case to the community and funders that we are delivering a needed service (Weil, 2003).
I propose that we consider what is the way in which we serve our community in meeting each of the following areas of community need:
Leisure Time Venue - Our role in providing social outlets for individuals, groups and family units looking to spend leisure time in a quality, customer service based environment. Attendance is often marketing- not relationship-driven, usually around changing exhibitions or special events. For many of us this has been a prime audience area, often placing us in competition with amusement parks, malls, festivals, sporting events and other typical choices for our society in spending ever more precious time and family/individual funds.
Formal Education Resource - Our role in the educational system as a fundamental resource. To date, we are still most often thought of by teachers as a site for field trips. A number of institutions, though, have defined their role more deeply, providing an array of programs for students and teachers, taking a leadership role in professional development of teachers in hands-on science, serving as a science education resource for schools, and entering into contracts with schools as an integral resource at one or more grade levels or within topic areas.
Lifelong Learning Center - Our role in serving the ongoing, regular, and frequent learning experiences for interested individuals across all age levels. Older natural history museums, prior to admission charges, often were seen as models of this type of service. It's also the model of the U.S. library system, is based on relationships, and is potentially a significant way to change lives.
Social/Community Asset - More emphasis, and debate, in recent years has been on the science center's or museum's role in leveling the educational opportunities within a community. As concerns are voiced over the changing demographics of our countries to include larger minority representations, and the underrepresentation of minorities and women in science related fields, our organizations have been looked to for help in addressing this issue. Teen programs for inner- city youth and reduced admission and scholarship programs for economically disadvantaged individuals, families and schools have been strategies that our organizations have often pursued to one degree or another. In other ways centers/ museums have created "community" areas within their building to become more of the social and identity anchor within their local neighborhood.
Economic Development Tool - Our role, depending on the situation and community expectations, in returning an economic value for the community investment in our organization. This can vary from helping to anchor development in a community project such as waterfront development, attracting tourists and/or visitors to a location or region, or helping stabilize a declining inner city neighborhood. Returns to the community can come from direct admissions revenue support for our institution (in lieu of or in addition to government support), tourist dollars expended throughout the community, increased property value or community investment in our proximity, and other indirect means.
Most science centers and museums have a service profile in each of our communities that is a composite of most, if not all, of the above characteristics of ways in which we meet our communities' needs. This is probably the greatest area of potential distinction between us, as well as the greatest source of disconnect between our way of operating and our economic support.
How (each of us answers the question of
what do we do to fulfill our service in a financially sustainable fashion)?
Answering the How? is where strategies of exhibition change, visitor
experiences, delivery methods and facilities are often the first area
of discussion. Space for exhibitions, program areas, gift shops, and rental
facilities are often areas of focus in how we delivery our service to
the community, and generate enough revenue to keep the doors open. Delivery
of programs through outreach, distance learning, and off-site locations
is looked to beyond what we provide at our science center/museum.
A number of leaders in the field have observed that
the "delivery model" that is prevalent in the field is too rigid in its
cost structure (often driven by recent building expansion at many centers),
too dependent on leisure time driven attendance income and too focused
on capital intensive change in appealing to "one time/casual" visitors.
Finances, Measurable Outcomes and Individual Service Profiles
Each service profile facet tends to align with certain funding sources. Although the construct is not hard or rigid, I'll suggest the following alignments with financial support and actually or potentially measurable outcomes:
Leisure Time Venue - Earned revenue driven by attendance fees at the gate or memberships (often sold as a means of saving on the expense of admission) as well as corporate funding when seen as a marketing partnership. Outcomes are often measured in attendance numbers and admission income.
Formal Education Resource - Typically earned revenue (generally discounted against cost) through school funds, foundation dollars, corporate dollars, and government funding (often through development grants from sources like NSF, state departments, etc.) for a wide variety of school services. Some organizations have been able to build up endowment dollars for support in this area as well, but that generally is not significant across the field. Outcomes should go beyond students served to ultimately include new measures such as numbers of teachers incorporating hands-on, inquiry-based teaching methods, students going on to higher levels of science and math courses, and students choosing science and math related careers. The latter measures clearly will require deeper, ongoing relationships and longitudinal studies to have any hope of measurable results.
Lifelong Learning Center - Earned revenue through "members" fees for membership, programs, and intensive learning opportunities. Our current membership model, though, provides reduced costs as the member uses our services more (e.g. visits more frequently on the same fixed membership fee). We try to compensate with revenues from gift shop, programs, and food services. Outcomes might be number of engagements an individual has with the museum over each year and their satisfaction level of fulfilling their personal interest, or length of time in years an individual stays involved with the institution following a personal path of inquiry and knowledge gaining. This may also be where we measure if an individual or family has increased their stewardship and conservation behavior. (The American Zoo and Aquarium Association is also trying to figure this out, given their intense attempts to brand zoos and aquariums as "conservation organizations.") Finally, institutions hope to move at least some members to annual fund donors and ultimately to significant philanthropic giving.
Social/Community Asset - By the very nature of this service, funding is generally through foundation grants, donations by corporations and individuals, and when possible endowment and/or public funding for specific services or target audiences. These measures may require longer timeframes to allow us to get beyond outcomes of simple involvement (which in many cases are admirable first steps in providing service). The Science Career Ladder at New York Hall of Science has been able to show that their program, which has been in place over 15 years, does yield a statistically significant increase in the numbers of participants moving on to science and educationally related college studies and careers
Economic Development Tool - Typically seen as earned revenue related, but I'll argue should be seen also as qualifying for community support on an ongoing basis through government, foundation and corporate support. Outcomes can be measured in economic impact from visitors, dollars invested in the area around the center, and/or increase in property values in the immediate neighborhood.
Each science center/museum needs to thoughtfully
imagine a desired service profile consistent with its own mission and
opportunities and then test that profile against the existing financial
support. If the desired service profile does not match up with the likely
revenue sources, then the key question is to whether the desired profile
can be achieved over time through strategies such as building endowment
or whether the service profile needs to be adjusted to the "sustainable"
service profile.
Profiles Analyzed
It might be helpful to look at some typical profiles and the difficulties that we've encountered with them. While no specific organization is used, each profile melds composites of institutions I'm fairly familiar with in one way or another.
The Economic Development Model - A number of science centers grew out of successful smaller institutions that had strong relationships with their audiences and neighborhood. The multi-million dollar expansions into larger facilities were funded in part as a community resource to help anchor development (e.g., waterfront) and/or encourage tourists to a region. Often signature buildings were built as a statement of community pride, with the facility also tied into other development at the site. The educational role of the institution was also generally touted and used to raise capital funds.
With the general political climate limiting ongoing government funding, the new center was sold as being primarily an earned revenue model. Often, multiple revenue producing streams were built into the structure (OMNIMAX theater, simulators, gift shop, etc.) with the promise that the general visitor and tourist would help pay the operational costs of the larger facility and operation, freeing up the need for local government funding for the educational role of the institution. This generally worked through the first few years thanks to the "novelty" attendance, but started to erode as attendance declined and stabilized at lower levels after several years of operation. (Of course, many centers have supplemented their financial support with project-specific funding from foundation, corporate, and/or national sources to round out the income profile since no science center/museum can realistically pursue a 100% earned revenue model.)
Given the large operating costs and demands of the facility, the emphasis continued on the casual, leisure time visitor (including bargain hunting members) to sustain high percentages of earned revenues. Competing in the leisure time market required refreshing of the experience frequently, most commonly through traveling exhibits or expensive capital reinvestment in major exhibit experiences. School audiences also have been swept into the phenomena, reacting favorably or not each year to the appeal of the traveling exhibit of the moment or the newly opened exhibit space.
Converting from a Government Supported Model - Another version of this model is the older established organization that was originally heavily subsidized by funding from the local or national government. As government funding was cut back more and more, the older institutions have been forced to convert increasingly to an earned revenue emphasis, tearing out old, static halls to create space for traveling exhibits, or adding on new wings to accommodate more exhibit spaces as well as earned revenue options typical of the newer facilities. Often these museums are caught between two worlds, trying to serve an older, often collections- based model and its constituency, while adopting more modern, science center- like models of traveling exhibits, childrens' activity areas, and such.
Models with Service Based on Deep Relationships - Within most organizations the deeper educational efforts are primarily grant funded from foundations, corporations, or sometimes government (with national sources if they have larger appeal for the field). The same dynamics generally hold for meeting the social needs of the community. However, when funding sources dry up the efforts are downscaled or suspended as generally there are few sources from within the general operating budget to sustain the initiatives on any substantial level. Also, lifelong learning generally is not a major focus as the revenues from a small segment of the audience prove to be too insubstantial to focus on. Downsizing cuts typically hit hardest in these service areas as well, as they are more flexible compared to fixed operational costs. Hence, unless there are substantial endowment funds behind this model, deep relationship-based organizations potentially suffer from cycles of full and limited resources that threaten the ability to sustain the foundational relationships.
The sample profiles above too typically spell
out the dynamics that have led to the challenging situation that many
science centers and museums currently find themselves in. We need to look
at new possible profiles and dynamics if we are going to be able to break
out of the current cycles and dilemmas.
Looking Forward
Possible Reworked Models
With fewer institutions successfully implementing new service profiles,
I can only project some ideas that others in the field have offered that
will need to be tested through discussion and actual application (including
at my own institution).
In general, there is a sentiment among some leaders that we should find ways to deepen: our relationships with the lifelong learner (Falk, 2003), the science we present (Delacote, 2003), the way we work with the formal school system (Jolly, 2004), our relationships and expand our networks with community agencies and individual schools (DeSena, 2004), and/or our role in serving the social needs of the community in a way that opens more access for underserved audiences to be involved in science and technology fields.
Some institutions will be more rigidly locked into their current models and will find more challenges in transforming their organizations. An institution built as an anchor for waterfront development can neither pick up and move from its location nor divest itself of the community expectations of it as an economic tool. However, some organizations, as implemented at MOSI in Tampa and the Rochester Museum and Science Center, can reduce the footprint of their operations and turn over parts of their facility to others to cover the costs (and in some cases provide a new revenue stream). Others, like the Buffalo Museum of Science have reduced their hours to more closely follow attendance patterns and also provide focused time with important audience segments.
Each organization will need to examine its profile of service, the typical funding related to that profile, and then test that service and funding profile against funding realities and future potential. We will need to do this incrementally as we all experiment with providing sustainable, and measurable, service in new ways.
Funding Changes Related To New Service Profiles
If we follow the suggestions of deeper relationships with our audiences
(the lifelong learner, the schools, the neighborhood), we'll need to put
as much time into our unearned income side as we have in the past in our
earned income endeavors. Stronger arguments will need to be made for foundation,
corporate, individual and government funding, and, importantly, endowment
funding. If our service is truly integral to the needs of the community,
why should we be different than, say, libraries?
This modified funding appeal can't be done in a vacuum, though, as we will need to display a commitment to a different and/or improved service. We will also need to have a much more partnership- based relationship with our community, weaving ourselves more tightly into the fabric of the community. Transitional funds to develop the new models will be important and should take precedent over capital expansions to prop up a failing, older model.
Operational Changes Related to Revised Service
Profiles (The New How?)
Depending on the profile each of us develops, efficiencies and improved
experiences will be critical. For those still with a heavy leisure time
emphasis, less expensive ways of refreshing the experience will be of
great importance. Wichita's Exploration Place has been one of the first
models to embrace this approach with the Science Center of Iowa's new
center designing that expectation into its model as well.
An ongoing or deeper economic development role will need to have the community recognize and validate that role through more government funding. If indeed the institution is there to drive indirect benefit to the community, then more funding will need to come to support that model from sources such as a hotel bed tax. Cincinnati's Museum Center was recently successful in making the appeal to its community that its role in preserving the Union Station needed more community support. Both St. Louis and Denver have regional sales tax increments dedicated to their cultural institutions.
For those with deeper relationship profiles with the formal education system, new ways of creating intensive experiences critical to students and teachers will need to be developed and backed by funding sources, school contracts, and potentially endowment.
Deeper social and community roles will require strong partnerships with organizations representing the target audiences and a strong institutional commitment. The New York Hall of Science, with its successful Career Ladder model, has shown that with a proven approach to serving underserved audiences that has measurable outcomes, funders will back a service seen as critical to meeting societal needs. Work with underserved youth can also be seen as endowable as evidenced by the early success at the St. Louis Science Center. Exploration Place has explored deeper relationships with early childhood/community agencies which are opening up the potential for more tax-based revenue sources for services provided (DeSena, 2004).
Greater emphasis on the lifelong learner (particularly considering our aging demographics) will require new approaches to membership and providing a continuum of experiences across all ages-directly in opposition to the perception that many of the public have that their local science center is "just for kids." Open ended, individually driven experiences in comfortable and social settings will have to be accommodated, more in line with libraries (Bradburne, 2004), or bookstores such as Barnes and Noble (Falk, 2004). Membership will need to be restructured to provide income commensurate with use (Falk, 2004). Maybe membership cards will need to transform to debit cards that can provide a discounted means of paying for ongoing services (Shafer, 2004).
A relationship-based model with our audiences can lead to more individual driven fundraising that mirrors the same relationship based approach with those who resonate with our mission. There has been growth in this model as applied to other types of non-profits (Axelrod, 2004).
What's Next?
The next steps will be hard for many institutions, but will be undertaken proactively or thrust upon many of us by circumstances (if this hasn't happened already).
Discussion in the field should advance new models and profiles that can be tested, observed and shared. There is no one model, nor any silver bullet. As a field we may actually do better to diversify more to better fit our individual community niches and funding sources. For many, emphasis should shift to providing unique services through financially sustainable means. This probably means becoming less building-centric and more program- and service-focused for many of us. Outreach, web, distance learning, and community partnerships should all probably play more important future roles over building expansions.
Each institution will probably do well to define a core of desirable service (and the levels of that service) that it is committed to through good times and bad. Strategies for funding that core should be put into place, probably with increased emphasis on unearned sources such as foundation, individual, corporate, and endowment funding.
Strategies for varying the service level should be developed that can more readily be expanded or contracted dependent on the economic climate and variable funding sources. Making these variable services non-building focused will provide the best means of reacting readily and most easily to changing situations.
It is probably critical to most science centers and museums to control, and if possible, reduce core costs of operations. Deconstructing the old model will be hard and transition funds will be needed to invest in the new model for each of our particular organizations. This will not happen, though, if we reduce staff and services to just keeping the doors open- a strategy many of us have been forced into as a reaction to quickly declining earned revenue and traditional support. A compelling service profile, with demonstrable pilots, will be needed in the critical first stage of transition. Building our new audiences to match the altered profiles will require partnerships and focus on relationships which can be aligned with new, relationship based funding approaches.
There are many unanswered questions at this point.
- Will there be more downsizing of current facilities to share the space and costs with other organizations? Will some of us be forced to abandon our previous service profiles, buildings, and or audiences?
- Will some of us find new or enhanced sources of revenue that can replace the former highly productive IMAX model? Will there be more examples of for-profit enterprises within our organizations that return revenues to support the social service side of our profiles?
- How deep can we make relationships and partnerships in providing services to other organizations and can we make these work financially?
- What's the balance and relationship between outreach away from a core facility which extends a science museum's influence and the need to use that core facility for its special abilities and experiences?
- Are there more regional, national or international networks among us to support this transition as we've seen with exhibit collaboratives (like the Grassroots Collaborative in North Carolina in support of education).
- Can we build more national and possibly international partnerships to develop, test, and implement new approaches (such as technology approaches to support relationships and experience engagements with lifelong learners?)
- Only time and our efforts will answer these questions and the others that arise as we sort our way through the current challenges. But it behooves us in the field to continue our dialogue, test and modify these ideas and others, and continue to share among ourselves.
References
ASTC.
Global positioning: Revisiting the science center model.
May/June 2004.ASTC.
"Making the Case for Science Centers,"
http://www.astc.org/resource/case/index.htm 2005.Axelrod, Terry.
Raising More Money: Sustainable Funding For Your Mission.
Seattle, Washington: Raising More Money Publications. 2004Bradburne, James M.
"The Museum Time Bomb: Overbuilt, Overtraded, Overdrawn."
The Informal Learning Review. 65:1. 2004.Collins, James C. and Porras, Jerry I.
Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies.
New York: Harper Business. 1994.Delacorte, Goery.
Presentation at ASTC annual conference session, "Does Our Science Center Model Need an Overhaul?"
November 9, 2003.DeSena, Al.
Personal communication, July 21, 2004.Falk, John.
Presentation at ASTC annual conference session, "Does Our Science Center Model Need an Overhaul?"
November 9, 2003.Garnett, Robin. The Impact of Science Centers/Museums on Their Surrounding Communities: A Summary Report.
Available from ASTC. http://www.astc.org/resource/case/index. htm#economic 2002.
Jolly, Eric.
Personal communication.
April 21, 2004.Krakauer, Thomas.
"Who's Driving the Engine? Finding Your Model for the Sustainable Future."
ASTC Dimensions. May/June. 2004.Shafer, Roy.
Personal communication. May 20, 2004.Weil, Stephen.
"Beyond Big and Awesome: Outcome-Based Evaluation."
Museum News, Vol 82, No 6. 2003.Weil, Stephen.
Making museums matter.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 2002.
Dr. David Chesebrough is President and CEO of the Buffalo Museum of Science. He can be reached at dchesebrough@sciencebuff.org.