A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums

A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums
Jason George, 2005
Phone: (250) 704-8488
Email: me@jasonwgeorge.ca

Contents
Preface - About this Project iii
Abbreviations Used v
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
1 Terminology 3
1.1 Museum Accreditation Internationally 5
1.2 Museum Accreditation in Australia 7
1.3 Accreditation in Other Sectors 9
1.4 Summary 10
2 Role of Museums Australia 11
3 The Model 14
3.1 Characteristics 14
3.2 Aims and Outcomes 19
4 Draft Model Indicators 25
4.1 Scope of the Scheme 26
4.2 Kinds Or Categories Of Standards To Be Assessed 26
4.3 Level Of Standards To Be Assessed 27
Conclusion and Recommendations 29
Appendix A – Project Brief 32
Appendix B – Existing Models 36
Appendix C – Draft Model Indicators 41
Appendix D – Interview Questions 44
Bibliography 45
i

Preface - About this Project
The brief for this project was developed by Museums Australia. It specifies three
research questions to be investigated (MA Standing Committee on Research June
2002):
1. What is the role of the peak professional association in the
development and implementation of a national accreditation
system?
2. What is the most appropriate model for a national
accreditation system that can be applied at any level
throughout the sector?
3. What are the standards which should be applied across the
sector?
I was invited to undertake this research project in partial completion of the
requirements for my Master of Cultural Heritage program at Deakin University.
I would like to thank Carol Scott, President of the Museums Australia
National Council and Andrew Kenyon, Chair of the Research Standing Committee
for making this project possible. I would also like to thank my supervisor,
Margaret Birtley, for her guidance and everyone who participated in this project.
This research project was conducted in two parts.
The first part is a review of existing literature on and relating to
accreditation schemes world-wide. The focus is on institutional accreditation in
the museum sector, but accreditation and similar schemes in other sectors are also
reviewed.
The second part of this project investigates the questions posed in the brief
through interviews during 2003. Responses were obtained from twenty-three
individuals representing sixteen museums, state branches of Museums Australia,
or other museum and museum professional organisations.
These interviews were conducted under Ethics Committee clearance from
Deakin University. They were conducted in person, or by email or telephone.
Respondents named in this report gave permission for their names to be included.
Respondents who requested anonymity are identified by a code number, which
identifies only the respondent’s state or country and MA affiliation: this is to give
the reader some indication of any potential bias. In all cases, responses were
transcribed and the transcriptions returned to the interviewee for approval.
While the brief for this project provided a starting point for the interviews,
respondents were permitted to freely discuss accreditation and the possibility of a
national scheme for Australian museums.
iii

Finally, the characteristics, aims and outcomes, and standards of the scheme
will be considered with the literature and interviews, and a preliminary model for
an institutional accreditation scheme for the museum sector in Australia proposed.
iv

Abbreviations Used
AIM Achieving Improved Measurement
AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
AAM American Association of Museums
ATAA Australian Tourism Accreditation Association
AUQA Australian Universities Quality Agency
AVCC Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee
CCHSA Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation
CMC Cultural Ministers Council
DCITA Australian Government Department of Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts
HTSA History Trust of South Australia
ICR International Committee for Regional Museums, ICOM
ICOM International Council of Museums
ISO International Organisation for Standardization
IQA Institute of Quality Assurance
JCAHO Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organisations
MAGP Museums Accreditation and Grants Program, HTSA
MAP Museums Accreditation Program, MA(VIC)
MA Museums Australia
MA(VIC) Museums Australia (Victoria)
MLA Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
MGF NSW Museums and Galleries Foundation New South Wales
(MGF)
NEAP Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program
NGC National Guideline Clearinghouse
NSW New South Wales, Australia
NZ New Zealand
NT Northern Territory, Australia
ON Ontario, Canada
PSBS Public Sector Benchmarking Service
QLD Queensland, Australia
v

SA South Australia, Australia
SAI Standards Australia International Ltd.
SAMA Southern African Museums Association
TAS Tasmania, Australia
TIS Technical Information Service, AAM
TQM Total Quality Management
VIC Victoria, Australia
WA Western Australia, Australia
vi

A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums Jason George
Executive Summary
First and foremost, all museums must stay true to their rôle as stewards of our heritage
and continue to pursue the highest level of professional care for their collections.
This challenge has been successfully met by the establishment of accreditation or
standards schemes. In Australia, schemes exist and are effective, but are also fragmented.
There is clear interest in schemes in areas not currently served by one. And where
schemes are active, there are definite advantages to a unified, higher level approach:
more efficient sharing of resources and greater “clout” with stakeholders are a couple of
examples.
Museums Australia was the only body specifically identified in this report
for a major rôle in the scheme. While there are other possible candidates,
reservations were stated by several respondents against central institutions, large
museums, and government.
If MA takes responsibility for the scheme, it can proceed in several ways.
How it proceeds will determine what resources MA will need to dedicate to the
scheme. For example, MA could devolve responsibility for the scheme to its state
branches or other state organisations and institutions. This idea was mentioned by
several respondents. (Respondent 15.TAS) (Thomas Graham NSW) (Judy Kean,
QLD (MA)) (Kate Walsh, SA)
The model scheme proposed in this report closely resembles existing
schemes: one that is consultative in nature, voluntary, incentives led and as
inclusive as possible.
The majority of respondents wanted to start, at least, at a basic level of
standards. But there was interest in higher levels and exploring standards not
addressed by most, or any other schemes.
This report makes the following recommendations for proceeding:
1. That the draft model indicators of the scheme be negotiated with
all levels of museums, from regional to state and national; all
levels of government, the operators of relevant professional
development programs and other relevant sectors, such as
tourism.
2. That MA establish a working group to research implementing the
scheme. This group should be drawn from all possible
stakeholders in the scheme, including, but not limited to:
representatives from the museum sector and government at
regional, state and national levels.
1

Introduction
It is a good time to investigate a national accreditation system for museums in Australia.
The current environment is ripe with opportunities as there is growing interest within the
museum sector worldwide in ensuring that heritage collections are appropriately cared
for.
In Australia, the University Museums Review Committee recommended, in 1996,
that an accreditation scheme was a suitable strategy to pursue for university collections .
(University Museums Review Committee 1996)
The 2002 Key Needs study conducted by Deakin University specifically identified a
national accreditation system as the best tool to raise the standard of care for Australia’s
heritage collections. (Deakin University, Faculty of Arts, Cultural Heritage Centre for
Asia and the Pacific 2002)
Generally, there has also been growing interest in strategies to ensure that
collections are cared for and well managed. While not explicitly mentioning
accreditation, the scheme could support some of these strategies.
A 2003 update from the National Collections Advisory Forum noted that: “working
cooperatively may have the benefit of maximising available resources and attracting
greater government and private support for all”. (MAAugust 2003) An accreditation
scheme, as will be suggested in section 3.2 of this report, could encourage this kind of
cooperation.
The Distributed National Collections Program under the Australian Government
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) has
acknowledged the distributed nature of Australia’s heritage collections, which are “held
and stored by a vast range of organisations,” (DCITA I) and has also explored long term
strategies for the sector.
Also under DCITA, the Cultural Ministers Council (CMC) recommended “a new
national industry body to represent the shared interests of galleries, libraries archives and
museums” and to develop “long term strategies” for Australia’s collections. (DCITA II)
This has led to the establishment of the Collections Council of Australia (CCA) “to
represent the shared interests of galleries, libraries, archives and museums”. (DCITA III)
Most recently, the Museums and Galleries Foundation New South Wales (MGF)
(MGF NSW) completed a trial for a pilot accreditation scheme in that state. MGF NSW
concluded that as a “standards program” the pilot was an “effective tool”. Recognising
the difference between standards and accreditation schemes, MGF NSW suggests that
there is “potential and value” for an accreditation system above and beyond their pilot.
(MGF NSW June 2003. pp. 2-3)
Internationally, a new museum accreditation scheme has been introduced in New
Zealand (NZ) by the National Services Te Paerangi division of the Museum of New
Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. (Te Papa National Services)
Also, the International Council of Museums’ (ICOM) International Committee for
Regional Museums (ICR) recently explored museum quality and museum standards as a
theme through 1999 – 2002. (Manneby, Prasch and Hoffman 2002)
2

All of this recent activity points to a growing interest in improving standards in
museums and, specifically, in accreditation. Several reports have identified some kind of
accreditation scheme as desirable. A desire for more coordination is also expressed.
At the present time, in the UK, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
(MLA) is currently revising their Museum Registration Scheme for Museums and
Galleries in the United Kingdom. (The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) In
Ireland, An Chomhairle Oidhreachta or the Heritage Council is working on the first
accreditation scheme for that country’s museum sector. (Ryan 2000)
Back in Australia, the pilot scheme in NSW has already been mentioned. The
Museums Accreditation and Grants Program (MAGP) in South Australia (SA) has also
been recently revised. (HTSA 2003)
This minor epidemic of activity around museum standards schemes, combined with
the surge in interest in Australia in accreditation schemes and long term strategies for
collections make this an opportune time to review what has been done, what is being
done and coordinate future activity in this area.
1 Terminology
If a national accreditation scheme for Australian museums is to be developed, it is
important that it utilise a language readily understood by other sectors. Both the business
sector and government, in particular, are important sources of funding to museums in
Australia. So, I begin by defining some terminology.
This report will use the ICOM definition of a museum, referring both to individual
institutions and the sector as a whole:
A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its
development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates
and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people
and their environment. (...) (ICOM)
Within this broad definition, this report recognises that different cultural protocols
may apply to different types of collections. For example, an indigenous community may
exhibit its collection in a different way than the Powerhouse Museum because of certain
cultural protocols.
When the topic of accreditation, in this case of training, was raised at the 2003
Museums Australia (MA) National Conference in Perth, it was indicated that there could
be some confusion over the meaning of the term “accreditation”. The Macquarie Concise
Dictionary defines “accredit” as “to certify as meeting official requirements.” (Macquarie
Dictionary) In many countries, including Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA,
accreditation has historically been associated with the education and healthcare sectors.
The term “standards scheme” has been associated with museum accreditation in NZ
(Te Papa National Services) and New South Wales (NSW) (MGF NSW 2002).
Internationally and officially, the term “standards” is usually associated with the
International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) (ISO I); in Australia, with Standards
Australia International Ltd. (SAI) (SAI) This is how ISO defines a “standard”:
3

a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognised body, that provides,
for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their
results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.
(Technical Management Board)
A standards scheme does not inherently suggest regulation. Regardless, standards
must be developed to inform both a standards scheme as well as an accreditation scheme.
A glance through ISO’s catalogue shows that standards are associated with many
sectors. (ISO II)
The American Association of Museums (AAM) Museum Accreditation Program
uses the term “quality assurance”. (Hart 2003) A good definition for quality, in this sense,
comes from the Institute of Quality Assurance (IQA) in the UK:
Quality is not just about implementing a system or working towards a set standard. It is an
attitude, a way of working, which not only improves businesses but the way people work
and live. (IQA I)
This definition suggests that quality assurance is a method for establishing
confidence that this “way of working” is in place. It also suggests more of an ongoing
process.
Total Quality Management (TQM), a management approach, is considered to be
one “way of thinking” that helps to achieve quality. (IQA II) This association with
management approaches reflects the association of quality assurance with the business
sector.
This usage is also confirmed by the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee
(AVCC). In 1999, the AVCC was discussing auditing universities to confirm that internal
quality assurance measures were working. (AVCC 1 September 1999) This has led to the
establishment of Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) (AVCC) for this
purpose.
Quality assurance, therefore, suggests a more internal mechanism than either
accreditation or standards.
One final definition may be useful: an early draft of the proposal for this research
refers to “benchmark indicators”. (MA Standing Committee on Research) These are
associated with the process of benchmarking: improving practice by learning from other
institutions. (Public Sector Benchmarking Service)
Any scheme can facilitate this exchange by also serving as a “clearinghouse” for
best practice, such as the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) for the healthcare
sector in the USA. (NGC) The NGC is sponsored, in part, by the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ) which develops guidelines used by the Joint Commission
on Accreditation of Healthcare Organisations (JCAHO). Careful observation of the
scheme could be an opportunity to discover best practice within its sector.
Benchmarking is also associated with the business sector, as illustrated by the UK
example.
4

Within the museum sector, accreditation and standards are the most commonly used
terms. And of these two, accreditation is the one most frequently used and the basis of
schemes in Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA.
1.1 Museum Accreditation Internationally
1.1.1 USA
The first museum accreditation scheme was introduced in the USA in 1971 by the AAM.
(Mason 2002) In developing the scheme, they looked to other sectors, in particular the
education sector. (Respondent 11.USA)
The AAM is the peak professional organisation for museum professionals in the
USA. Similar to MA, it is a non-governmental body with both individual and institutional
membership. Its Museum Accreditation Program is open to almost any collecting and
exhibiting institution, even non-members. (AAM)
This accreditation scheme comprises three stages: self-assessment, peer review,
and on-going self-regulation. (AAM 1997) This basic model is followed by most of the
museum accreditation and standards schemes which follow. It is summarised, with the
other schemes, in Appendix B – Existing Models.
The first stage, self-assessment, begins when a museum decides to enter the
scheme. The museum has one year to complete this stage.
When a museum has completed the self-assessment stage to the AAM Accreditation
Committee’s satisfaction, an on-site review is scheduled. The members of the Visiting
Committee, which is formed for each review, are selected by the museum as well as the
AAM.
In the process of reviewing a museum, the Visiting Committee is not authorised to
offer advice. Their review is submitted, in writing, to the Accreditation Committee which
then decides on the museum’s status. A museum has two years, after entering the scheme,
to complete the entire process. Accreditation is granted on a pass or fail basis, but failure
does not prevent a museum from eventually achieving accredited status.
After a museum has been accredited, it is expected to maintain “accreditable
standards” (AAM 2000) through self-regulation. This is verified when a museum
undergoes re-accreditation, which revisits the entire process again, every ten years.
After over 30 years, the Museum Accreditation Program is now the most mature
institutional accreditation scheme specifically for museums. Its longevity could be
considered a measure of its success.
The AAM scheme does not operate alone, however. It is supplemented by the
Museum Assessment Program and Technical Information Service (TIS). The Assessment
Program is more consultative than the Accreditation Program, and seems to help
museums prepare for accreditation. TIS, on the other hand, acts as a clearinghouse for
current professional standards. (Igoe 1994)
1.1.2 Canada
5

In Canada, a national museums accreditation scheme has been discussed for many
years, (McAvity 1995) but the only schemes currently operating are regional. In Ontario
(ON), standards for community museums were introduced in 1981 and the scheme is
currently operated by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation within the
provincial government. (Ministry of Culture, Government of Ontario)
This scheme is focused on community museums and local governments; which
operate many of the museums in the scheme. (Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture
and Recreation October 1998) Most of these community museums depend on Community
Museum Operating Grants from the provincial government which are only allocated to
museums that meet the requirements.
Museums are assessed yearly, but only on 2 or 3 standards from the scheme,
making it somewhat modular. (Carter) Standards already in place are only reviewed.
Assessment is paper-based and does not involve site visits. Some of this paperwork is
available electronically. Nevertheless, administration of the scheme appears very
involved.
This scheme is also one of the few to examine research standards.
1.1.3 United Kingdom
The next scheme was introduced in 1988, in the UK, by the Museums and Galleries
Commission. Compared with the AAM scheme, it had a more difficult beginning.
(Respondent 5.VIC(MA)) The Registration scheme was introduced by the Museums and
Galleries Commission, which is now the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
(MLA). (Museums and Galleries Commission 1988) It is a government body and not a
professional organisation like MA. Participation in the scheme is free and appears to
focus on regional museums. (Museums and Galleries Commission 1991)
The scheme is now administered in cooperation with the Area Museum Councils.
(Resource 2002) This may suggest a model for MA and its state branches.
A recent review of Registration recommends that the scheme become more
aspirational, inclusive and broad; addressing aspects of museum practice such as visitor
experience. (Mason and Weeks 2002)
1.1.4 New Zealand
The most recent scheme has been introduced in NZ by the National Services Te
Paerangi division of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.
Participation in the scheme is free to museums, and it is open to museums, art
galleries, historic places, whare taonga and science, interpretive and exhibition centres.
(Te Papa National Services)
The standards informing this scheme represent “accepted standards of practice” and
are organised into five modules. Uniquely, only one of these modules: “Governance,
management and planning” is mandatory.
Once a museum selects what modules it wants to undertake, the scheme is similar
to those already reviewed, involving self-assessment with peer-review. Perhaps because
6

of its relative newness, all the documentation for the scheme is available in paper as well
as electronic form.
Unlike the other schemes, however, there is no pass or fail. This scheme is much
more consultative, with even the peer-review visit seen as an opportunity to discuss
museum practice with the reviewers. It is considered a “continuous quality improvement”
scheme. (Respondent 14.NZ)
1.1.5 Ireland
A new scheme is being developed in Ireland by An Chomhairle Oidhreachta/the
Heritage Council to address “grave problems” in the country’s regional museums. (Ryan
2000)
An Chomhairle Oidhreachta/the Heritage Council is a statutory body (An
Chomhairle Oidhreachta / The Heritage Council), but has recognised that an independent
body in the museum sector must eventually operate the scheme.
While the scheme resembles existing schemes, the definition of a museum used
includes institutions which may not have collections, but exhibit the collections of others.
It also breaks the three stages associated with existing schemes into five: initial
application to the scheme, preparation for accreditation, interim assessment, achievement
of accreditation, and post-accreditation. This arrangement, however, is not significantly
different from existing schemes.
1.1.6 Other international developments
At the international level, ICR has recently developed guidelines reflecting “good
museum work” internationally. (Manneby, Prasch and Hoffman 2002)
Museum accreditation schemes are also operating in South Africa (Barry 1983),
Latvia, the Netherlands and Spain. Schemes are also being developed in Austria, Croatia,
France, and Slovenia. (Manneby and Hadjinicolaou 1999)
1.2 Museum Accreditation in Australia
As in Canada, national accreditation has been discussed for a while in Australia. Although
national accreditation schemes currently operate in other sectors, for example: tourism
and ecotourism, museum accreditation schemes are restricted to a few states. (Australian
Tourism Accreditation Association) (Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program)
(Speirs 1996)
1.2.1 South Australia
The first museum accreditation scheme was introduced in 1982 by the History Trust
of South Australia (HTSA). MAGP is restricted to SA, and specifically to institutions
focused on the history of the state. (Speirs 1992) Participation in the scheme is fully
funded by the State.
Although roughly similar to other pass or fail schemes, once a museum enters this
scheme, it is not necessary to complete it. The first stage involves registration in the
7

scheme. Registered museums are part of a network for sharing advice and working
towards improving standards. (Murdoch 1995)
After passing a peer review, a museum achieves accreditation in this scheme and
access to special funding which is only available to accredited museums in SA. (Speirs
1992) This is the only scheme which ties some sort of guaranteed funding to
accreditation.
The standards of this scheme are closely aligned with those of the National Tourism
Accreditation Program. Although, unlike the Museums Australia (Victoria) (MA(VIC))
scheme and the Victorian Tourism Operators Association (VTOA), membership in the
tourism scheme is not automatic.(HTSA 2003. Section 2)
This scheme has been reviewed recently, partly because HTSA is finding it lacks
the staff to adequately operate and monitor the scheme. (HTSA 1996)
1.2.2 Western Australia
In 1992, a museum accreditation scheme was explored for Western Australia (WA).
(Murphy March 1992) It was suggested that the scheme could expand on the Western
Australian Museum’s Recognition scheme, which Murphy found was unclear and unable
to keep abreast of current professional standards.
The report recognised that it is more desirable that an independent body operate
the scheme, partly because of the “big brother” image of the Western Australian Museum.
However, at the time the report was written MA did not exist, and Murphy judged the
predecessor of MA (the Museums Association of Australia) to be incapable of operating
the scheme either within the state or nationally. (Murphy. pp. 45-46)
The scheme suggested by Murphy resembles the AAM and Resource schemes. It
would be tightly integrated with training and support from the Western Australian
Museum’s Local Museums Programme. Museums that had already been recognised under
the previous scheme would be given priority to participate in the new scheme.
The author also recommends a system of re-accreditation, but one that is less
involved than the original accreditation process in order to reduce the administrative
workload associated with the scheme.
The scheme was never implemented, and the author concludes that a national
scheme would probably have more leverage.
Another report by Ian McShane in 2001 examined, in part, the feasibility of
professional (individual) accreditation in the museum sector in that state. This report
stressed the importance of “enhancing the professionalisation of museum workers” and
suggested that the ideal for the sector would involve “institutional accreditation along
with individual training”. (McShane October 2001. Recommendations 1 and 6)
Although its recommendations tend towards individual training, this report
highlights several issues of concern to the development of an accreditation system,
among them: a shortage of financial and human resources to implement an accreditation
system (institutional or individual) by MA and the potential for on-line provision of
training materials. (McShane. Recommendations 6, 11, 13 and 23) It also recommends
8

that professional accreditation is best pursued with national coordination. (McShane.
Recommendations 22)
1.2.3 Victoria
The next museum accreditation scheme in Australia was implemented in VIC in
1993. This scheme is now operated by MA(VIC). Compared with the HTSA scheme, it is
a more inclusive scheme open to any institutions meeting their definition of a museum.
For example, it is open to any museum, not just those that address state history.
(MA(VIC) 2000) Participation in the scheme is funded by the museum sector and state
government through Arts Victoria. (MA(VIC))
Of all the schemes reviewed, the Museums Accreditation Program (MAP) most
closely resembles the AAM scheme. It promotes “recognised’ standards. It differs from
the AAM scheme in that a review of an accredited museums status is scheduled every
three years after it is first accredited, although this does not necessarily involve
undergoing the complete process again. (MA(VIC) 2000)
MAP is unique among schemes in its close partnership with VTOA. Museums
achieving accreditation under this scheme also meet nationally accredited standards in the
tourism sector through the Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria. (Tourism
Accreditation Board of Victoria)
1.2.4 New South Wales
The latest development in museum accreditation in Australia is the scheme being
piloted in NSW by MGF NSW. MGF NSW is funded by the state government (MGF
NSW) and is the only suitable organisation in that state capable of implementing the
scheme.
Like the MA(VIC) scheme, it is highly inclusive. It is also open to public art
galleries as well as museums. (Scrivener 2003) The scheme is described as “essential
practice”. (Scrivener 2003)
In the 2003 pilot, the Regional Museums Officer of the Newcastle Regional
Museum has taken on a leadership role and is working with individual museums to raise
the level of professional practice in the region. (Scrivener 2003) It appears to be an
individual and consultative scheme.
1.3 Accreditation in Other Sectors
It may be helpful to examine accreditation in other sectors.
The Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP) in Australia, for
example, has a feature not seen in any museum accreditation scheme. It is a multi-tier
scheme, explicitly recognising three levels of accreditation, with the highest level
awarded to products that show particularly high standards or innovative practice. (Nature
and Ecotourism Accreditation Program)
In VIC, the Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria operates a scheme of particular
interest because of its close relationship with a museum accreditation scheme. Tourism
accreditation there is completely integrated into MAP, which is operated by MA(VIC).
9

Negotiations between VTOA and MA(VIC) have resulted in a museum accreditation
scheme which completely addresses the accreditable standards of another body in another
sector. So, Museums seeking tourism accreditation go through MAP. (Tourism
Accreditation Board of Victoria)
Another example comes from Canada’s healthcare sector. The Achieving Improved
Measurement (AIM) Accreditation Program is a model that is relevant to museums in
Australia because it is a national scheme that applies to large and small institutions which
may be significantly staffed by volunteers.
This scheme is operated by the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation
(CCHSA), an independent, not-for-profit organisation. (CCHSA) Accreditation in the
healthcare sector is very mature, having been introduced in the USA in 1917. AIM is a
descendant of that scheme. (CCHSA. History of CCHSA)
Fees apply to institutions participating in this scheme, similar to the AAM scheme
for museums. Unlike existing museum accreditation schemes, however, institutions are
permitted to develop their own indicators to measure how well they are meeting each
standard. Perhaps this is because of the nature of the sector, because the standards are
much less specific than “maintaining x degrees temperature in your storage facility.”
The scheme is supported by a custom software package which helps the institution
complete their self-assessment.
1.4 Summary
The characteristics of the eleven museum accreditation schemes reviewed are
summarised in Appendix B – Existing Models. Most of the schemes are either under
development or currently operating. Only three of the schemes are not active in some
way: the two WA schemes and the ICR scheme, which is more of a suggested model for
potential schemes.
The summary also illustrates commonalities between the schemes reviewed.
The majority (nine) of the schemes are, are to be or were consultative in character.
This means that there is significant dialogue between the accrediting body and museums
throughout the accreditation process. In contrast, museums are not expected to seek
advice through the AAM scheme.
Eight are operated by a body which represents the sector to some extent in the
given region or country. In most cases the body is independent from government,
although some are arms-length (HTSA) or funded by government (MGF NSW,
MA(VIC)). Only one scheme is directly operated by government. Only two are operated
by museums.
The majority of schemes (eight) are also voluntary; museums in the given region or
country are not required to participate in accreditation. Only the schemes in SA and ON,
Canada are mandatory, and then only in the context of funding. Museums in SA must
participate in the HTSA scheme in order to access special grants. Museums in ON must
participate in the scheme in order to receive funding from the provincial government.
10

Most (seven) of the schemes also follow the same operating format involving: self-
assessment, interim review, and peer review components with a site visit. Three of the
schemes generally follow this format but not completely, or there is insufficient data on
them. The scheme in ON, Canada is unusual in that it has been designed specifically so
that reviews can be conducted by government employees who are not necessarily
museum professionals, or peers.
The self-assessment stage of these schemes usually involves questionnaire(s) to be
completed by the museum. The interim review stage usually involves the submission of
the completed questionnaire(s) and supporting documentation to the accrediting body. At
this stage, museums are advised to review their application or proceed to the peer review
stage. Finally, the peer review stage is commonly accomplished by a site visit.
So, the kind of scheme that is most common in the museum sector, and would be
most familiar to museums is operated by an independent body within the sector,
consultative, voluntary and comprises self-assessment, interim review, and peer review
stages.
2 Role of Museums Australia
The scheme requires that some party develop and operate it. MA could take any of three
roles in an accreditation scheme, or all of them: developing, owning, or operating the
scheme. By commissioning this research project, MA has already had a role in
developing the scheme.
Once the scheme is developed, MA could own the scheme but leave operation to its
state branches or other suitable parties such as HTSA or MGF NSW. Alternatively, MA
could hand over the scheme to the Federal or state governments and operate the scheme
through its state branches, or not.
Finally, MA could retain control of the scheme and operate it wholly through its
state branches or the national council. Most of the museum accreditation schemes
reviewed above follow this model with the scheme owned and operated by the sector. The
exceptions would be:
• in ON, Canada, where the scheme is owned and operated by the provincial
government
• in SA, where the scheme is owned and operated by HTSA, a government
agency
• in Ireland, where the scheme is being developed by a statutory body,
although the intention is to hand over the scheme to the sector
Of the schemes owned and operated by the sector, the majority are operated by the
peak professional organisation for the sector in a country or state or an associated
institution, such as a national museum.
The brief for this project also stresses “the importance of developing a system that
is ‘owned’ by the sector”. (MA Standing Committee on Research) It also expresses the
preference that the scheme be operated by a professional body and not an associated
11

institution. (MA Standing Committee on Research)
Interviews with individuals within the sector reinforce these preferences. Smaller
institutions and institutions in rural areas could consider the scheme domineering if
implemented by an associated institution, particularly a national or larger museum. (Mark
Whitmore, ACT (MA) Such institutions are usually located in a national or state capital,
and some parts of Australia have expressed a sensitivity to being told what to do by the
national or a state capital. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) These feelings could also be
exacerbated if the controlling institutions did not participate in the scheme themselves.
(Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))
Nor did any interviews suggest that government should operate the scheme. One
respondent explicitly stated that government should not operate the scheme. (Anna
Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) Another respondent indicated concerns, similar to those above,
over control of the sector (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) and it was also noted, by another
respondent, that governments can be subject to policy vagaries that may not suit the
sector. (Respondent 11.USA)
If the government were to operate the scheme, the new CCA body is the most likely
candidate because one its terms of reference is to “promote benchmarks and standards for
the care and management of collections” Although, because it is responsible for libraries
and archives only it may be limited from addressing the entire museum sector. While it is
described as an independent body, at least over the short term the government will be
operating it at arms-length. (DCITA III)
On the other hand, there was a suggestion that the scheme at least needs some
government support to have the capacity to survive. (Respondent 1.WA(MA)) It was also
advised that if it were backed up with legislation then it would be more effective,
sustainable and credible. (Respondent 9.CAN) At least, endorsement by a government
body would be important. (Respondent 13.NSW(MA))
Elaborating on capacity issues, whomever operates the scheme will need to be able
to bear the financial and other costs associated with it. The scheme will require the
development of documentation, even allowing for existing resources. (Respondent
14.NZ) More so, depending on how inclusive the scheme is. HTSA’s experience has
shown that it is difficult to provide documentation and paperwork that is appropriate to
all the kinds of collecting institutions in SA’s heritage sector. (Kate Walsh, SA) This
concern was repeated in NSW. (Thomas Graham, NSW)
This capacity needs to be in place beforehand, so the scheme can easily manage a
rush of initial subscriptions. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) It also needs the capacity to grow,
and if necessary, change over time. (Respondent 16.VIC)
As the scheme progresses, the burden is not likely to decrease. Experience from two
schemes indicate huge ongoing financial, resource and personnel demands. (Respondent
11.USA) (Respondent 1.WA(MA) In one instance, the scheme is subsidised by other
programs. (Respondent 11.USA) In another, the scheme still required tremendous
resources despite a relatively small subscription. (Respondent 1.WA(MA))
Furthermore, if the body responsible for the scheme is significantly supported by
12

government – as is likely to be the case in Australia – one respondent points out that
capacity will fluctuate with different policies and governments. (Respondent 9.CAN)
While the demands associated with the scheme could be substantially carried by
museums (by fees to the scheme (AAM 1997)), the sector , or government, they will need
to be carefully assessed: the scheme preceding Registration in the UK failed, in part,
because the costs were unable to be met . (Thompson 1982) To get an idea of the possible
price of the scheme we can look to the scheme under development in Ireland: this scheme
is estimated to cost €91,000, which includes publications and printing, orientation
programmes and advisory consultations. This figure is based on an initial take-up of 30-
40 museums in the first year. (An Chomhairle Oidhreachta / The Heritage Council 2002)
Having sufficient capacity in place will also likely result in a more sustainable
scheme.
Thomas Graham, NSW, also advises that whoever operates the scheme, as well as
the scheme itself, must command the respect and trust of the sector. (Thomas Graham,
NSW) The importance of trust was echoed by three other respondents. (Respondent
11.USA) (Respondent 16.VIC) (Respondent 2.NSW) They must be prepared to support
the scheme long enough and the scheme must be sufficiently sustainable to allow time for
trust to develop. Experience with one scheme suggests that this could take 30 years.
(Respondent 11.USA)
There is also a danger, experienced in the United States, that inexperienced
personnel may apply the standards of the scheme unevenly, thereby damaging the
credibility of the scheme. (Norman 1982) For this reason, the body must be able to
provide qualified assessors (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)), with broad experience and
authority. (Respondent 2.NSW)
Finally, the scheme will require significant, further coordination with stakeholders
in individual states. For this reason, the body that implements it must have national scope
and authority.
It was pointed out that: each state and territory will have different requirements for
the scheme (Respondent 2.NSW) and its own subtleties to be addressed by it. (Thomas
Graham, NSW) Varied stakeholders will be involved. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) Concern
was also expressed that existing schemes in individual states will complicate a national
scheme. (Susan Reynolds, VIC)
While it was advised that a national scheme should simply supersede all existing
schemes and schemes in development (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)), at the least, whoever
develops the scheme will need the authority to negotiate and achieve resolutions to these
issues at a national level.
MA is the only independent body representing the sector at the national level. It
represents both individuals and institutions, and works with other professional
organisations and government at all levels. It also has branches in every state and territory
and mechanisms to negotiate the development of the scheme, for example: Standing
Committees or Special Interest Groups.
Interviews with individuals within the sector indicate a preference that a body
similar to MA and in some instances, specifically MA, take full responsibility for the
13

scheme. Although, on a cautionary note, Anna Malgorzewicz, Northern Territory (NT)
(MA) recalled recent crises in certain self-regulated sectors, citing the collapse of Enron
in the United States. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))
If MA accepts full responsibility for the scheme, there are a couple of questions that
need to be answered:
• does MA have the capacity to develop, implement and operate the scheme
over the long term, and
• does it have the respect of the sector?
The extent to which the sector trusts MA may be difficult to quantify, although
Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA), cautions that if MA is not, ultimately, responsible for this
scheme, then MA’s credibility could be damaged. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) On the
other hand, MA’s capacity to commit to the scheme may be more easily quantified. Not
only will MA need to assess its capacity at its national office, but also, in each state and
territory.
3 The Model
In developing this model, I have divided the investigation into two parts:
1. a general consideration of what kind of scheme it could be (this chapter),
including characteristics and aims and outcomes, and
2. the specific standards or draft model indicators that could be addressed by the
scheme (section 4).
3.1 Characteristics
The brief for this project specifies several requirements for the scheme; it must:
1. be flexible enough so that it can be applied at any level throughout the sector,
2. emphasise opportunity for institutional and professional development and not
competitive grading,
3. not be “too onerous in its implementation”, especially for museums staffed by
volunteers, and
4. be “incentives led rather than penalties driven.”
(MA Standing Committee on Research)
Additionally, the following issues were mentioned by respondents:
5. transparency,
6. alienation of smaller or regional museums, and
7. inclusivity.
14

3.1.1 Be flexible enough so that it can be applied at any level throughout the sector
An important issue for the scheme will be settling on a level of standards that can be
applied at any level throughout the sector, with or without modification.
On the one hand, one respondent suggests that all museums should be able to meet
the standards of the scheme from the outset. (Respondent 9.CAN) On the other hand, one
respondent commented that some museums may never be able to meet the standards of
the scheme. (Respondent 11.USA) Another respondent suggested that museums that
could not participate might be reserved for special attention at a later date. (Respondent
16.VIC)
The preference indicated in the interviews, however, seems to be that the scheme
should not sacrifice a certain level of standards. Thomas Graham, NSW recommended
that the level of standards of the scheme should be consistent. (Thomas Graham, NSW)
Another respondent suggested that less might be expected of certain institutions, but the
level of standards should not change.(Respondent 4.VIC(MA))
Flexibility might be achieved in other ways. A multi-tiered scheme could endorse
either several levels of standards, for example: from minimal to highest; or have a
modular format. An example of the former is the NEAP scheme. An example of the latter
is the NZ scheme: institutions are required to take a core module, but all other modules
are optional. One respondent specifically favoured this approach. (Respondent 2.NSW)
A multi-tiered scheme could even use “star” ratings similar to that used in the
hospitality industry. One respondent suggested that such an approach might borrow some
of the respect and credibility of the star ratings used for hotels. (Thomas Graham, NSW)
Or, at least, it could grade accreditation.(Susan Reynolds, VIC) Another respondent
clearly did not want to go as far as a star rating for individual museums. (Anna
Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))
Many respondents favoured some kind of multi-tiered format. One respondent
suggested getting institutions into the scheme at a basic level and then providing multiple
levels of standards. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) Two respondents recommended targeting
certain institutions with an achievable level of standards, and later expanding to a level of
standards addressing institutions with greater resources. (Respondent 2.NSW) (Thomas
Graham, NSW)
One respondent specifically suggested that institutions should be allowed to pick
and choose “policies” that suit that institution and their community. That respondent still
agreed that there should be required standards. (Respondent 1.WA(MA))
The scheme would not need to begin with all modules in place. It could become
more flexible over time. One currently active scheme started with “achievable” standards
and is now looking at introducing additional levels of accreditation.(Respondent 14.NZ)
Several respondents suggested that the scheme might take a similar approach, either
starting at essential standards (Thomas Graham, NSW), or with a key module.(Mark
Whitmore, ACT (MA))
If a multi-tiered approach is taken, one respondent advised that the different levels
be formalised so that institutions have goals to aim for. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))
15

Alternatively, the scheme could promote a certain level of standards but remain
sufficiently flexible to apply to any institution in the sector. One respondent suggested
that it address overarching principles and not be a straitjacket for institutions. (Mark
Whitmore, ACT (MA)) Obviously, a more general scheme would be more flexible than a
more specific one.
3.1.2 Emphasise opportunity for institutional and professional development and not
competitive grading
There are two distinct kinds of schemes currently operating in the museum sector.
The first type of scheme, of which the Museum Accreditation Program in the
U.S.A. is an example, could be described as a pass/fail scheme. Museums are expected to
substantially meet the standards of the scheme when they enter the program. It is not
intended to be a consultative program; this function is filled by the Museum Assessment
Program.
The second type, which includes most other schemes, is more consultative.
Museums entering the program may not meet set standards, but are expected to do so
when they complete the program. For example: the quality assurance system for
Australian universities proposed by the AVCC stresses helping institutions meet their
stated aims and objectives, not rating institutions. (AVCC 1999) Another scheme, this one
in the museum sector outside Australia, is similar and described as a “continuous quality
improvement” scheme. (Respondent 14.NZ)
One respondent suggested that a strictly pass/fail scheme could be seen as
insurmountable by some museums and block them from participating. (Respondent
14.NZ)
There was also an assumption that the scheme should be more consultative. For
example, it was suggested that museums that do not or cannot participate in the scheme
should not be excluded from any development opportunities offered by it, for example:
training. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) Expanding on this, it was also recommended that
there should not be any stigma attached to museums using the scheme in this way.
(Respondent 16.VIC) Museums could be working towards the standards advanced by the
scheme without formally participating in it.
3.1.3 Not be “too onerous in its implementation”, especially for museums staffed by
volunteers
One of the factors that will affect the burden associated with the scheme will be the level
of standards that institutions are required to aspire to. It has already been suggested, in
section 3.2.1, that the scheme should abide by a certain level of standards regardless of
the potential difficulty, on the part of some institutions, in meeting those standards.
Other factors will include: the amount of paperwork and reporting required by the
scheme and financial costs. There are a couple of solutions to an excessive workload.
First, as has already been suggested, the scheme could be modular. This would have
16

the added benefit of making the scheme more flexible, without sacrificing standards.
Thomas Graham, NSW suggested that museums could start with an essential module
addressing collections care and then pick-up additional modules as they can.
Second, as in the AIM scheme in Canada, some form of software reporting could be
used. Going further, reporting could be done solely over the web. With more and more
people using computers and the Internet, this could almost be expected; at least within a
few years.
There will also be costs associated with operating and participation in the scheme.
The AAM scheme, for example, requires that a museum have at least one paid, full-time
museum professional on staff, an annual operating budget of at least US$ 25,000, and
have accessioned at least 80% of its collection. (AAM 1999 I) These criteria would
probably exclude a majority of museums in Australia.
The Victoria (VIC) and American schemes are funded, at least in part, by
administration fees charged to participating museums. The AVCC quality assurance
scheme is funded by a combination of annual subscriptions (based on institution size) and
a fee for conducting each audit. (AVCC 1999) One respondent suggested that some small
institutions could not afford any fee.(Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA))
Several respondents, however, indicated that many museums probably could pay
some administration fee: especially if there were real benefits to participants. (Mark
Whitmore, ACT (MA)) One respondent suggested that fees would make institutions more
accountable.(Thomas Graham, NSW ) Another respondent recommended that fees must
be scaled to the capacity of the institution.(Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))
Even if financial requirements or administration fees are not specified in the
scheme, there are likely to be costs involved in meeting standards, for example upgrading
facilities.
One respondent suggested that while larger institutions may be able to pay into the
scheme, local governments will likely need to subsidise participation for smaller
institutions. They will need to be sold on the possible benefits of better collecting
institutions, for example: increased tourism.(Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) Several
respondents agreed that funding would be required from some level of government.
(Respondent 1.WA(MA)) (Respondent 4.VIC(MA)) (Thomas Graham, NSW) (Anna
Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) One respondent mentioned the possibility that funding could be
provided through state and local tourism agencies.(Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA))
3.1.4 Be “incentives led rather than penalties driven”
There are no examples of penalty driven schemes in the museum sector although the
closest thing was tried in Victoria: a mandatory scheme. It was unable to find sufficient
support and now, the Tourism Accreditation Board of Victoria has moved to an incentives
led scheme, offering training and marketing benefits to participants in the scheme.
(Tourism Victoria June 2003) Interview responses indicate a clear preference for an
incentives led scheme for Australian museums. Only one respondent suggested a need for
both “carrots” and “sticks”.(Respondent 1.WA(MA))
17

An incentive would be to tie funding to the scheme. For example, HTSA provides
additional funding to institutions that participate in its scheme. While in ON, institutions
are required to participate in its scheme in order to receive any funding from the
provincial government.
On the one hand, one respondent pointed out that access to funding is a “powerful
incentive”. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) On the other hand, several respondents were
less certain about using funding as an incentive. One respondent commented that it may
be considered draconian.(Thomas Graham, NSW ) Two respondents plainly did not want
funding tied to the scheme seeing potential for increased tension and conflict between
institutions. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA))
Another option for providing an incentive was suggested by a respondent who
recommended that funding be available to participants strictly for projects addressing
accreditation, for example: upgrading facilities.(Judy Kean, QLD (MA)
Perhaps the best incentive will be clearly communicating the benefits of
participation in the scheme. These will first need to be identified, but as an example:
accredited institutions might receive preferential treatment from donors and funding
bodies and increased visitation. So, funding could still provide an incentive, but not
directly through the scheme.
3.1.5 Transparency
One veteran of a well-established scheme advised that it is important that the scheme be
transparent. (Respondent 11.USA) If so, some form of reporting to the sector and
perhaps, to the public, would be useful. The quality assurance system proposed for
Australian universities considered active reporting of audit results to the public and media
essential. (AVCC 1999)
3.1.6 Alienation of smaller or regional museums
Of distinct concern to several respondents was the risk that the scheme would alienate
smaller or regional museums. In WA, it was suggested that accreditation would isolate
institutions in that state, separating participating institutions from those without the
capacity or desire to participate in the scheme. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) One
respondent commented that accreditation could be a “scary notion” to some institutions.
(Judy Kean, QLD (MA))
Several respondents cited a sensitivity among regional institutions to being told
what to do by a central authority. In Queensland (QLD), the central authority would be
both Brisbane and Canberra. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) Another respondent suggested that
accreditation was perceived as being imposed by larger, possibly national institutions.
(Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) Accreditation is seen as a
“big stick”. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)
So, there is clearly a need to sort out preconceived ideas about accreditation.
(Respondent 5.VIC(MA))
18

One respondent recommended that smaller and regional museums might be assured
if the larger institutions also participated in the scheme.(Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))
They could be role models. (Respondent 1.WA(MA)) Another respondent suggested that
this “paranoia” might be combated merely by ensuring all levels of institutions are
represented in the genesis of the scheme. (Thomas Graham, NSW)
An alternative suggested by one respondent is to make the scheme flexible enough
so that institutions and states could exercise some degree of control over it. (Judy Kean,
QLD (MA))
3.1.7 Inclusivity
A final recommendation made by several respondents was that the scheme be highly
inclusive of the types of institutions that it addresses. This is significant because other
schemes operating in the sector are generally more restrictive. (Kate Walsh, SA)
No respondents indicated that the scheme should exclude any particular type of
collecting institution, although Judy Kean, QLD suggested that heritage sites are already
well protected by legislation and the Burra Charter.
3.2 Aims and Outcomes
The brief for this project identifies several desired aims and outcomes; the scheme
should:
1. provide a mechanism to reflect the diversity of the sector,
2. provide statistics for lobbying and advocacy on behalf of the sector,
3. provide value to external agencies,
4. facilitate linkage with other schemes,
5. identify “basic standards at which all museums must function in order to be
effective and efficient”,
6. continually improve standards through regular review,
7. measure the performance of the sector and identify problem issues,
8. provide a starting point for professional development programs, and
9. build networks within the sector.
(MA Standing Committee on Research)
Respondents also suggested:
10. national aims and outcomes that may not be possible with regional
schemes
It should be noted that many of the recommendations in this section are “wishful
thinking”. While some of the respondents have experience with schemes and are able to
identify definite outcomes from their schemes, respondents without this experience can
19

only be expected to identify desired aims and outcomes.
3.2.1 Provide a mechanism to reflect the diversity of the sector
Respondents were most interested in how the scheme could reflect the sector rather than
specific institutions. A significant number of respondents cited recognition of the sector
as an important outcome, using words such as: legitimise (Respondent 6.VIC), visibility
(Kate Walsh, SA), respect (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)), and understanding.
(Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) It was twice commented that recognition was important for
MA as well as the sector. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA))
Encouraging people to recognise museum work as important, in private sector
business (Respondent 6.VIC) and within the museum sector (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT
(MA)), was also cited as a concern.
One respondent, working with an existing scheme, stated that the scheme had made
the sector in their region self-promoting. (Respondent 11.USA)
Experience with accreditation in Universities in Australia has suggested that the
credibility of the scheme and consequently, how favourably it reflects the sector, depends
on the participation of the majority of institutions in the sector. (AVCC 1999)
3.2.2 Provide statistics for lobbying and advocacy on behalf of the sector
One respondent identified this outcome indirectly: noting that their participation in an
existing scheme has significantly helped their bargaining position with stakeholders.
They suggested that participation in the scheme facilitated communication with
stakeholders and other sectors who were already accustomed to accreditation, and what
accredited status indicated, for example: private sector business and government.
(Respondent 6.VIC)
Another respondent recognised that different stakeholders have different
expectations of the museum sector, and the scheme could provide an opportunity to
negotiate these with them. (Respondent 1.WA(MA))
While not mentioning data collection specifically, one respondent suggested that the
scheme could help to establish credentials that would be recognised outside the sector.
(Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))
3.2.3 Provide value to external agencies
Collecting institutions and the sector in general work with many different kinds of
external agencies. These agencies may be public or private. They could include donors,
funding bodies, or departments of different levels of government. According to
respondents, the scheme could have value to all of these agencies.
Every external agency the sector works with has its own needs. The scheme could
provide a guarantee to donors that their donations will be properly cared for. It could
provide statistics to funding bodies to assure them that funds were being used
20

appropriately. As a major source of funding for many museums, the scheme could
provide a similar function for government.
One respondent suggested that carefully selected benchmarks, that are recognised
and understood by government, could indicate that the sector is working for the public
good. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) Two respondents specifically identified government as
possibly benefiting from the scheme. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) (Respondent 14.NZ)
The Commonwealth government has, in fact, expressed a need for a mechanism to assess
practice within the museum sector. (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment,
Tourism and Territories 1990) The scheme could provide this mechanism.
One respondent suggested that the scheme could have value to the public and
donors (Respondent 6.VIC), another specifically identified funding bodies (Respondent
2.NSW), while two other respondents identified other sectors in general. (Respondent
16.VIC ) (Thomas Graham, NSW) Special value to both external agencies and the sector
might be provided through statistics and benchmarks that help government, other sectors,
and stakeholders perceive the value in collecting institutions. (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA))
3.2.4 Facilitate linkage with other schemes
This aspiration suggests that institutions participating in a museum accreditation scheme
would meet standards in another scheme and several respondents indicated that this
would be desirable. All of the schemes currently operating in Australia are working with
similar schemes in the tourism sector in some way.
Although other schemes address things important to collecting institutions, none
completely address the areas important to museums such as preventative conservation.
(Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) But, there is an opportunity for other schemes to fill certain
gaps. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))
There is an opportunity here to conserve resources between schemes which share
commonalities, for example: marketing is similar in both the museum and tourism
sectors. (Respondent 7.VIC(MA)) (Respondent 8.VIC(MA)) (Respondent 9.CAN)) One
respondent has identified significant overlap in training and materials between schemes in
different sectors in Australia.(Respondent 5.VIC(MA)) In such a case, schemes might
share components.
One respondent cautioned that a single sector not be given undue influence over the
scheme. As this respondent pointed out, tourists are not the only visitors to museums.
Alternatively, Judy Kean, QLD suggested that due to the importance of tourism in her
state, closely aligning the scheme with that sector could be particularly helpful. Mark
Whitmore, ACT also found that participating in tourism sector initiatives has been
beneficial to institutions in his state. Two other respondents also expressed value in the
tourism sector. (Respondent 2.NSW) (Respondent 13.NSW(MA))
The scheme could also incorporate wholesale other schemes such those addressing
occupational health and safety. Mark Whitmore, ACT stated that some institutions in his
state have benefited from participation in the management training scheme for
Commonwealth institutions offered by the Commonwealth, for example. (Mark
Whitmore, ACT (MA))
21

The scheme will also likely need to address other local, regional and government
legislation or schemes. (O’Donnell 1996)
Several respondents commented that, at least, the scheme could learn from sectors
more experienced with accreditation. (Respondent 16.VIC) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))
(Respondent 15.Tasmania (TAS)) (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) Thomas Graham,
NSW suggested that some sectors may ignore the museum sector because it is not
currently regulating standards at the national level. (Thomas Graham, NSW)
A couple of respondents indicated that other sectors may be interested in borrowing
the scheme once it is established. One respondent suggested that state governments might
be interested in using the scheme to learn about the sector, (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)
while another respondent remarked that their scheme was already being used by
government to evaluate institutions. (Respondent 14.NZ)
3.2.5 Identify “basic standards at which all museums must function in order to be
effective and efficient”
While the scheme in ON, Canada was developed in a vacuum (Respondent 9.CAN),this
is not the case in Australia where standards and guidelines for museums already exist.
Nevertheless, many respondents see the scheme as an opportunity to formalise standards
in the sector. (Respondent 15.TAS) (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))
One respondent suggests that a basic level of best practice needs to be negotiated
with all stakeholders in the sector, including collecting institutions and government.(Judy
Kean, QLD (MA))
Two respondents cited a need for “clear” national standards. (Respondent 2.NSW)
One of these respondents cited the importance of providing user-friendly documentation
defining minimum or basic best practice.(Respondent 14.NZ)
3.2.6 Continually improve standards through regular review
Most respondents indicated a desire for more than a static level of accreditation
standards. The preference is for a system of continuous improvement.(Respondent
3.VIC(MA)) (Elizabeth Hof, WA (MA)) (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) (Judy Kean,
QLD (MA)) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) In other words, an aspirational scheme.One
respondent suggested that most institutions would want to go beyond a basic level of
standards in any case.(Respondent 9.CAN)
Most schemes review accredited institutions at set intervals, and the schemes
themselves are reviewed regularly and standards frequently revised. An example would
be the UK scheme which was identified as a good model to follow by one respondent.
(Respondent 5.VIC(MA)) The American scheme has also steadily raised standards
through a process of regular review.(Respondent 11.USA) Another scheme in the
museum sector is described as a process of “continuous quality improvement”.
22

(Respondent 14.NZ) One respondent suggested that this review process would be
“fundamental” to the scheme. (Respondent 15.TAS)
Other respondents emphasised the importance of a long term commitment to the
scheme.(Thomas Graham, NSW) One respondent suggested that the scheme should
encourage a cultural shift towards sustainable best practice. (Respondent 16.VIC)
Several respondents were more cautionary; one suggested that the scheme not keep
“moving the goal posts”. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) Another respondent stated that while
raising standards was important, the aim should not be to equalise institutions. (Susan
Reynolds, VIC) It was suggested that a multi-tier scheme would provide the opportunity
for some institutions to achieve a comfortable level of standards and others to continually
raise standards. (Respondent 14.NZ)
3.2.7 Measure the performance of the sector and identify problem issues
Several respondents see the scheme as a tool for learning more about the sector. One way
this could be accomplished is by learning about and tracking institutions participating in
it.
One respondent would like to better understand why professionals move around so
much.(Susan Reynolds, VIC) Two respondents mentioned using data gathered through
the scheme to facilitate comparisons between different institutions.(Respondent
13.NSW(MA)) (Respondent 15.TAS) Note that this does not suggest a formal
competitive grading of institutions. Instead, I believe most respondents would like to
learn more about the sector in order to be more proactive.
For example: four respondents would like the scheme to help identify either
common objectives within the sector or issues facing the sector, such as: where
collections are most at risk. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA))
(Susan Reynolds, VIC) (Respondent 16.VIC)
One respondent stated that the scheme in which they have participated has been
useful to them in just this way; providing direction for their institution.(Respondent
3.VIC(MA))
Three respondents envision the scheme as a more general tool to focus on specific
themes within the sector, for example: interpretation. (Respondent 2.NSW) (Kate Walsh,
SA) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) This aim could effectively be accomplished with a modular
format: the scheme could emphasise a particular module for a period of time in order to
address a theme.
3.2.8 Provide a starting point for professional development programs
While the standards promoted by an institutional scheme will, by nature, focus more on
institutions than individuals, they could also address professional development programs.
At the basic level, the scheme could define the standards which these programs train
individuals to aspire to in their practice.
23

One active scheme initially focused on professionalising practice in this manner.
(Respondent 11.USA) Three respondents recommended that the scheme inform
(Respondent 15.TAS) (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) or formally endorse (Respondent
2.NSW) individual training programs, workshops, and TAFE courses. One respondent
suggested that the scheme could address the quality of existing training.(Thomas
Graham, NSW)
A few respondents suggested that the scheme could act as a sort of clearing house
for best practice: gathering, identifying, and disseminating best practice throughout the
sector. (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) (Respondent 11.USA) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))
(Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) More respondents suggested that the scheme could
encourage institutions to learn from one another.(Respondent 9.VIC(MA)) (Anna
Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) (Respondent 16.VIC) (Respondent 14.NZ)
More specifically, one respondent suggested that the scheme could encourage
institutions to improve their practice by learning from one another. (Thomas Graham,
NSW) Two respondents suggested that it could draw professionals to institutions that are
in need of them.(Thomas Graham, NSW) (Respondent 7.VIC(MA))
Two respondent see the scheme providing more active mechanisms for professional
development, specifically: resources and support to help institutions improve. (Kate
Walsh, SA) (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))
More common is the view that the scheme build on existing mechanisms for
professional development. One common suggestion was to link to resources both within
the sector (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) (Respondent 5.VIC(MA)) and in other sectors.
(Respondent 16.VIC) Another suggestion is to formalise access to existing mechanisms
(Thomas Graham, NSW) (Respondent 5.VIC(MA)) and build a “structured development
program” around them.(Respondent 1.WA(MA)
One respondent commented that many of the resources that could support the
scheme are already active in Australia. (Respondent 5.VIC(MA))
3.2.9 Build networks within the sector
A desirable outcome oft mentioned by respondents but not specified in the brief is that
the scheme encourage museums to work together and generally unify the sector. Several
respondents talked of building the museum community; with institutions, professionals,
and volunteers.(Respondent 16.VIC) (Respondent 14.NZ) (Kate Walsh, SA) (Respondent
13.NSW(MA))
One respondent discussed opening pathways between museums. (Anna
Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) And another recommended that the scheme would be a “good
way’ to get a variety of institutions to work together.(Susan Reynolds, VIC)
Mark Whitmore, ACT stated that some institutions, particularly regional ones, can
still feel isolated and the kind of networking opportunities that could be offered by a
national scheme would be valuable.(Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)
The experience of the SA and pilot NSW schemes suggest that the scheme could
indeed be an opportunity to encourage cooperation between museums. (National Museum
24

of Australia 1996) The VIC scheme shows that there is also an opportunity to connect
with other sectors, such as tourism.
3.2.10 National aims and outcomes that may not be possible with regional schemes
Most respondents, when interviewed about a national accreditation scheme for Australian
museums, were receptive to the possibility. About half cited several reasons for this
position.
One respondent hopes that the scheme could facilitate communication within the
sector by providing a common language in the form of a nationally agreed-upon set of
standards. (Respondent 7.VIC(MA)) This would, conceivably, work on several levels:
loans between institutions might be assisted if both institutions were assured that the loan
would be properly cared for. Also, professionals moving from one institution to another in
a different state would know what to expect.
Three respondents suggested that a national scheme would help all institutions see
their value to the nation.(Respondent 1.WA(MA)) Two of these respondents mentioned
the distributed national collection. (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) (Mark Whitmore, ACT
(MA))
One respondent felt that it was important that the sector reflect a more unified
image to other sectors and that a national scheme would be a good way to accomplish
this. (Respondent 13.NSW(MA))
Another respondent suggested that a national scheme would be more appealing to
larger institutions than a state or regional scheme. (Respondent 12.VIC(MA))
This leads into several statements that a national scheme would simply be an
improvement over any number of schemes at a lower level. Three respondents suggested
that a national scheme would be better recognised by other sectors (Respondent
4.VIC(MA)) (Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) and internationally.(Respondent 3.VIC(MA)) Of
these respondents, one saw more benefit in general coming from a national scheme.
Considering the place of a national scheme in the midst of at least two active
schemes, one respondent recommended two alternatives: first, that the national scheme
replace all existing schemes; and second, that a national scheme could be adopted just by
those states without a scheme. (Respondent 13.NSW(MA)) Another option could see
active schemes gradually superseded by a national scheme.
4 Draft Model Indicators
In developing the draft model indicators for the scheme, three aspects can be considered:
1. scope of the scheme itself; what types of institutions will it address?
2. kinds or categories of standards to be assessed
3. level of standards to be assessed
Before examining the standards to be assessed in detail, it is important to remember
25

that the scheme will not be starting with a “clean slate”. In Australia, there are already
two active accreditation schemes in the museum sector with another under development
and, as the brief for this project states, a new scheme must recognise work that already
meets targets. In addition, it must “work in an integrated way” with these existing
schemes. (MA Standing Committee on Research)
It was also pointed out in an interview that museums in each state will be affected
by different legislation and special situations that will affect practice and, by association,
standards. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))
So, clearly, the scheme will need to be flexible to adapt to the unique situation in
each state. It was advised that it avoid “nitpicking” and only assess broad principles of
practice. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) Adopting this attitude would hopefully provide
room to accommodate the situation in each state.
In Australia, there is already a wealth of material to inform the scheme. There are
currently nationally agreed-upon standards in the areas of collections management,
conservation and preservation. These were developed in response to the 1998 Heritage
Collections Council report. (Heritage Collections Council 1998) Some revision may be
needed to reflect current practice and the requirements of the scheme.
If the scheme were to use some or all of these materials, their continued availability
needs to be assured. Most respondents commented on the value of these materials but one
expressed concern about the ongoing availability of some. (Thomas Graham, NSW)
4.1 Scope Of The Scheme
One of the characteristics of the AAM scheme is that it is inclusive of different kinds of
collecting institutions. This has also been one of its criticisms. (Nicholson 1981) Some
recent and upcoming schemes, as noted above, are even more inclusive, but such a highly
inclusive scheme requires additional documentation and expertise to address the variety
of collecting institutions. (Glickberg 1981)
The administrative workload associated with schemes has been noted with concern
in the UK (Museums and Galleries Commission 1991), and a more inclusive scheme
implies an even heavier burden for the body operating it.
On the one hand, one respondent specifically recommended that the scheme not
spread itself too thinly given limited resources. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA)) Two
respondents recommended setting strict boundaries for the scheme from the start.
(Respondent 16.VIC) (Respondent 2.NSW)
On the other hand, the brief for this project requests a model “applicable across the
sector”.
One way to set boundaries for the scheme, yet still address the entire sector would
be to start at a level of standards common to all kinds of collecting institutions and then
grow through time, possibly in a modular format, to eventually address the unique needs
of all collecting institutions.
26

Another suggestion from one respondent is to develop the scheme around museums,
but assist other types of collecting institutions with specific needs to develop their own
schemes. (Respondent 11.USA)
4.2 Kinds Or Categories Of Standards To Be Assessed
As noted above, the scheme will need to work with existing ones in Australia. There are
three existing schemes in Australia and they are summarised in Appendix B – Existing
Models.
The standards common to the three existing schemes fall into the following
categories: management and governance, conservation, collections management, public
programs, and visitor services.
The standards of the HTSA scheme are described in a handbook and are perhaps the
most wide-ranging. (HTSA 2003. Section 2) In addition to standards in the above areas,
this scheme also has staff, marketing, community relations, research and site components.
The MA(VIC) scheme also has marketing and site components, while the MGF
NSW scheme shares only public programs and visitor services standards with the other
two schemes.
The obvious way to ensure that the schemes work together is to limit the standards
assessed by the new scheme to those common to all three existing schemes. Of course,
standards in other areas could be introduced at a later date.
Where interviews have suggested standards not common to the existing schemes,
individual schemes can be examined for suggestions. Schemes from outside Australia can
also be reviewed for relevant standards.
In addition to the draft model indicators provided in this report, there may be value
in negotiating a tourism component with the Australian Tourism Accreditation
Association (ATAA), similar to what MA(VIC) has done with MAP. This would address
some of the aims and outcomes expected from the scheme.
See Appendix C – Draft Model Indicators for the indicators recommended by this
report.
4.3 Level Of Standards To Be Assessed
The level of standards that museums are examined against is very important and
could be critical for the success of the scheme. Support for the scheme and early adoption
could depend on setting the bar at an appropriate level. (Respondent 12.VIC(MA)) In
other words, the level of standards should encourage participation while still addressing
good practice. (Anna Malgorzewicz, NT (MA))
Considering the existing schemes in Australia, the common level of standards can
be described as minimum.
Only the MA(VIC) scheme describes its level of standards as “professional”. For
one respondent, however, “professional” and “best”, were both levels that were
27

considered out of reach for some museums and that might discourage participation in the
scheme. (Kate Walsh, SA) Another respondent stressed the importance of setting a level
of standards that are within reach of most museums. (Mark Whitmore, ACT (MA))
Besides “minimum”, the MGF NSW scheme also describes itself with “essential”
standards. This may be a better choice; one respondent noted that minimum could be
considered a negative term. (Respondent 11.USA) “Essential” also suggests standards
which are not only basic, but necessary and was identified by another respondent as a
good term for the scheme. (Respondent 5.VIC(MA))
One favoured more progressive terminology, such as: “higher standards”
(Respondent 11.USA) The interviews (section 3.1.1) suggest that higher levels of
standards could be presented over time, perhaps in a multi-tiered scheme.
Whatever the terminology, it is evident from the interviews (section 3.1.1) that the
scheme should be clear about the level of standards expected from institutions.
28

Conclusion and Recommendations
While conducting the interviews for this project, a national accreditation scheme
for Australian museums was presented only as a possibility. This possibility was
met with support from respondents across the board. One respondent was
strongly in favour of the a scheme, at least for her state. (Anna Malgorzewicz,
NT (MA))
Assuming the scheme was a possibility, this project then set out to answer
three questions:
1. What is the role of the peak professional association in the
development and implementation of a national accreditation system?
2. What is the most appropriate model for a national accreditation
system that can be applied at any level throughout the sector?
3. What are the standards which should be applied across the sector?
For the first question, while MA was assumed to be the peak professional
association in Australia, the interviews were conducted in a way to allow
respondents to suggest any organisation or institution to develop and/or
implement the scheme. In the interviews, respondents were asked only about the
kind of organisation for this role and MA was not specifically mentioned.
With this in mind, MA was the only body specifically identified to have a
major rôle in the scheme. While there are other possible candidates, reservations
were stated by several respondents against central institutions, large museums,
and government.
Of the twenty respondents in Australia, six specifically targeted MA for a
major part in the scheme. Two other respondents suggested a national, non-
government organisation representing the sector. Still, these figures should be
taken with a grain of salt given that thirteen of the respondents represent the state
branches of MA.
If MA takes responsibility for the scheme, it can proceed in several ways.
How it will proceeds will determine what resources MA will need to dedicate to
the scheme. For example, MA could devolve responsibility for the scheme to its
state branches or other state organisations and institutions. This idea was
mentioned by several respondents. (Respondent 15.TAS) (Thomas Graham
NSW) (Judy Kean, QLD (MA)) (Kate Walsh, SA)
Two respondents suggested that if MA proceeds with the scheme, it should
invite all stakeholders (including those representing existing schemes) to
participate in a working group that would negotiate further developments. (Kate
Walsh, SA) (Thomas Graham, NSW)
The second question, exploring the model, was investigated by asking
respondents about how the scheme might operate, its aims and expected
outcomes. The result is a model that closely resembles existing schemes: one
that is consultative in nature, voluntary, incentives led and as inclusive as
possible.
29

The basic format common to most other schemes, involving some form of
self-assessment, interim review of documentation and peer review through a site
visit was discussed in the interviews. But no significant deviation from this
format was suggested. Several respondents, however, suggested that the scheme
be modular or multi-tiered. Currently, only the schemes in ON, Canada and NZ
are modular and could provide models for the scheme.
For the third question, because there is already documentation describing
standards for museums in Australia such as Caring for Our Culture: National
guidelines for museums, galleries and keeping places, interviews focused on
what material could inform the standards, how they could be assessed and at
what level.
A national scheme could likely rely on existing material to inform its
standards. All of the respondents were familiar with Caring for Our Culture, as
well as other guides such as significance. It is worth noting that both HTSA and
MGF NSW relied on existing materials to develop their schemes. (HTSA 2003.
Section) (MGF NSW June 2003. Appendices. p. 1)
The majority of respondents wanted to start, at least, at a basic level of
standards. But there was interest in higher levels and exploring standards not
addressed by most, or any other schemes.
As one respondent noted, the selection of individuals reviewing
applications to the scheme will be critical. (Respondent 2.NSW) They will need
to be impartial, but familiar with each museum’s situation and regional and state
regulations. One respondent was particularly concerned that each museum be
assessed with consideration to its the local community and culture. (Anna
Malgorzewicz, NT (MA)) Good assessors will be able to consistently uphold
defined standards while still remaining flexible.
Finally, the scheme will also need to consider the standards assessed by the existing
schemes if it is to work with them in an integrated way. One possibility is to begin with
standards common to all three existing schemes.
In conclusion, this report makes the following recommendations for
proceeding:
1. That the draft model indicators of the scheme be negotiated with
all levels of museums, from regional to state and national; all
levels of government, the operators of relevant professional
development programs and other relevant sectors, such as
tourism.
2. That MA establish a working group to research implementing the
scheme. This group should be drawn from all possible
stakeholders in the scheme, including, but not limited to:
representatives from the museum sector and government at
regional, state and national levels.
And the following, general recommendations for the scheme:
1. That the scheme consider a modular or multi-tiered format.
30

2. That the scheme be consultative in character.
3. That funding for the scheme be sought from all levels of
government and other sectors.
4. That the benefits of the scheme be clearly identified and
communicated as incentives to encourage museums to
participate.
5. That the scheme strive to be transparent.
6. That larger and state museums be encouraged to participate in
the scheme.
7. That the scheme be as inclusive as possible of different kinds of
collecting institutions but focus initially on museums.
8. That the scheme be actively used in advertising and
communication with other sectors.
9. That the scheme encourage museums to continually improve
practice; that it be asiprational in character.
10. That the scheme retain records and data with an aim to learning
more about the sector.
11. That the scheme act to find, identify, and disseminate best
practice.
12. That the scheme focus more on existing mechanisms for
professional development than developing new ones.
13. That the scheme act to facilitate communication between
participating museums.
31

Appendix A – Project Brief
A NATIONALACCREDITATION SCHEME FOR AUSTRALIAN MUSEUMS
JUNE 2002 (amended 21 Jan 2003)
MUSEUMS AUSTRALIA STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
1.0 BACKGROUND
Museum accreditation schemes are not new to Australia. In different forms, systems have
operated in South Australia (through HTSA), through the MAP scheme (Museums
Australia, Victoria), and in Queensland (Museums Australia, Queensland). Plans are also
underway to implement a system to be offered through MGF NSW.
Through discussions with the Regional Outreach Officers (ROOS), MGF NSW and
the History Trust of South Australia (HTSA), a consensus has been reached to develop a
national approach to museum accreditation brokered through Museums Australia in
collaboration with the key stakeholders. Three teleconferences have informed the
development of this draft brief. It is proposed that the study will be undertaken as a
project of the Museums Australia Research Standing Committee in association with a
Steering Committee including MGF NSW, HTSA and ROOS.
1.1 Value of accreditation systems
The existing accreditation schemes have highlighted many positive outcomes as well as
identifying some of the challenging issues associated with them.
Among the many positive outcomes of accreditation are:
• an opportunity for the sector to be proactive in identifying basic standards at
which all museums must function in order to be effective and efficient and which
provide a shared perspective on the care of material cultural heritage;
• opportunities for linkage and partnership with local government and tourism
accreditation schemes;
• a basis on which professional development programs can be built;
• a mechanism by which the diversity of the sector can be reflected;
• as a diagnostic tool enabling the sector to measure its performance and identify
problem issues;
• providing a database of museum statistics for lobbying and advocacy to
government and other funding bodies.
1.2 Issues
These same schemes also illustrate a range of important issues which need to be kept in
mind:
• the ways in which external agencies can use accreditation systems;
• related to this first point, is the importance of developing a system that
accentuates accreditation as an opportunity for institutional development and
32

professionalism rather than competitive grading.
• the need for accreditation to be conducted by an objective, bona fide professional
body rather than by an associated institution;
• the need to ensure that any system adopted is not too onerous in its
implementation for any museum but especially volunteer museums;
• the importance of developing a system that is “owned” by the sector;
• the usefulness of a system which is continuously improving standards through
regular review (the UK model).
2.0 THE STUDY
First and foremost, this study is about developing a national model for institutional
accreditation that can be applied at any level throughout the sector.
Research questions:
2.1 What is the role of the peak professional association in the development and
implementation of a national accreditation system?
2.2 What is the most appropriate model for a national accreditation system that can be
applied at any level throughout the sector?
2.3 What are the standards which should be applied across the sector?
3.0 THE STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY
A two stage process for the study is recommended:
• Stage 1 – (a) literature review; Review existing literature in the field including
recent publications such as Museum Methods (edition 2), Caring for our Culture,
Significance, recollections, Tourism with Integrity, Service Efforts and
Accomplishments NSW, Keeping Culture.
• Stage 2 – (b) develop a model for implementation based on an examination of
existing Australian models including those of the History Trust of South Australia,
Museums Australia in Victoria and Queensland and the proposed system in
development through the Museums and Galleries Foundation of New South
Wales; as well as existing international models including those based in the United
Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and the USA; Interview key personnel including
Kate Walsh (HTSA), Helen Rayment and Maggie Solly (MAVIC), Judy Kean
(MAQ), Elizabeth Hof (MAWA), Peter Scrivener (MGFNSW). (b) develop a set
of model indicators based on the outcomes of the literature search and interviews
with key personnel.
4.0 PROPOSED METHODOLOGY and TIMEFRAME
33

Stage 1 Stage 2
March 2003 Literature review
April 2003
Stakeholder interviews
Review existing models
May 2003
Develop model
Develop draft indicators
June 2003
Prepare draft report for submission
to Steering Committee
July 2003 Final report to Council
5.0 OUTCOMES
A national model for accreditation will:
• Involve consultation with key stakeholders;
• Work in an integrated way with existing accreditation schemes;
• Recognise work that already meets accreditation targets;
• Be incentives led rather than penalties driven;
• Be applicable across the sector with relevance for both the volunteer and the
professional staffed sector; and
• Provide standards within which participating museums and galleries are
encouraged to improve their practice.
6.0 ETHICS
Museums Australia recognises that research undertaken with human subjects requires the
permission of university Ethics Committees and that the researcher will adhere to the
guidelines for ethical research in the institution where the research is located.
7.0 HONORARIA
Museums Australia will provide a small honorarium of $500 to the researcher to defray
any expenses incurred in the process of undertaking the research.
8.0 STEERING COMMITTEE
The study will be overseen by a Steering Committee whose membership will comprise
the Chair of the Research Standing Committee, the Chair of the Regional, Local and
Specialist Standing Committee, the Chair of the Regional Outreach Officers Forum, the
Regional Officer/Museums and Galleries Foundation of New South Wales and the
President, Museums Australia. The Steering Committee will meet at three key points in
34

the study:
• to brief the researcher on the project;
• to review the outcomes of the literature review and stakeholder interviews with
the researcher; and
• to comment on the draft report proposing the model and key indicators.
35

Appendix B – Existing Models
In this section I have summarised the schemes discussed in this paper. Please note that any omissions here do not necessarily indicate
that the scheme is lacking.
Table 1 – Summary of Schemes
Name of Program
Country
Authority
Status
Administering body
Type of body
Accreditation
U.S.A.
National
Active
American Association of
Museums
Independent
Standards for Community
Museums
Canada
Regional (ON.)
Active
Ministry of Citizenship,
Culture and Recreation
Government
Registration
U.K.
National
Active
MLA
Independent
Standards Scheme
New Zealand
National
Active
Te Papa National Services
National museum
I.C.O.M. I.C.R.
Guidelines
International
International
Proposal
I.C.O.M. I.C.R.
Professional organisation
Standards and
Accreditation
Ireland
National
In Development
Ultimately, to be formed
Ultimately, independent
Museums Accreditation
and Grants
Australia
Regional (S.A.)
Active
History Trust of S.A.
Independent
Recognised Museums
Australia
Regional (W.A.)
Discontinued
W.A. Museum
State museum
Accreditation Scheme
Australia
Regional (W.A.)
Proposal
Ultimately, to be formed
Ultimately, independent
Museum Accreditation
Program
Australia
Regional (VIC.)
Active
M.A. (VIC.)
Independent
Recognising Essential
Practice
Australia
Regional (N.S.W.)
In Development
M.G.F.N.S.W.
Independent
36

Table 2 – Summary of Schemes: Characteristics
Name of Program
Country
Participation
Application fee?
Membership fee?
Self-assessment
component?
Interim review
component?
Peer review component?
Site visit?
Consultative?
Accreditation
U.S.A.
Voluntary
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Museums
Canada
Mandatory
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Registration
U.K.
Voluntary
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Standards Scheme
New Zealand
Voluntary
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
I.C.O.M. I.C.R.
Guidelines
International
Voluntary
Unspecified
Unspecified
Yes
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Standards and
Accreditation
Ireland
Voluntary
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Museums Accreditation
and Grants
Australia
Voluntary
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recognised Museums
Australia
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Australia
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Program
Australia
Voluntary
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Practice
Australia
Voluntary
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
37

Table 3 – Summary of Schemes: Stated Aims and Outcomes
Name of Program
Country
Stated aims:
State outcomes and
benefits:
Accreditation
U.S.A.
Set standardsA
Raise standardsB
SustainabilityC
Financial toolD
GuidanceE
SustainabilityF
StatusG
FundingH
SupportI
AccountabilityJ
Museums
Canada
Meet recognised standards
Raise standardsK
Funding
Registration
U.K.
Funding
Standards Scheme
New Zealand
Raise standards
Sustainability
Promote bi-culturalism
Guidance
Sustainability
I.C.O.M. I.C.R. Guidelines
International
Improve museum qualityL
Standards and Accreditation
Ireland
Raise standards
Guidance
Support
Museums Accreditation and
Grants
Australia
Set standards
Financial tool
Networking
Status
Funding
Recognised Museums
Australia
Sustainability
Status
Australia
Raise standards
Raise standards
Sustainability
Support
Program
Australia
Improve museum quality
Sustainability
Raise standards
Sustainability
Status
Practice
Australia
Guidance
Status
38

A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums

A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (8)

Similar a A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums

Similar a A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums (20)

A National Accreditation Scheme for Australian Museums