Forum Journal (Summer 2014): Innovation Lab Final Report

Innovation at
National Trust
Historic Sites
Enhanced Content: Takeaway
Innovation Lab Final Report

N A T I O N A L T R U S T H I S T O R I C S I T E S
I N N O V A T I O N L A B F O R M U S E U M S
Final Report - April 30, 2014
Dr. Estevan Rael-Gálvez, Senior Vice President of Historic Sites
National Trust for Historic Preservation
The measure of a museum’s success should not be its ability to represent a state, a nation or company,
or a particular history. It should be its capacity to reveal the humanity of individuals.
—Orhan Pamuk, The Innocence of Objects

National Trust Historic Sites Page 2
Innovation Lab Final Report-2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW PAGE 3
PROJECT NARRATIVE PAGE 4
CHALLENGES PAGE 5
OUTCOMES/ IMPACT PAGE 6
EVIDENCE OF NEW CAPACITY PAGE 7
ACCOMPLISHMENTS PAGE 8
ASSESSMENT PAGE 8
FUTURE PLANS PAGE 8
APPENDICES (FOLLOWING PAGE 9)
INNOVATION CHARTER
INTERPRETATION & EDUCATION FUND GRANT GUIDELINES (REVISED)
READINESS ASSESSMENT HANDOUT
READINESS ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT
PROTOTYPING FINAL REPORT
PROTOTYPING ACCOUNTING

Overview
As our formal partnership with EmcArts and the Innovation Lab concludes, it gives me great pleasure to
submit this final report. The very notion of juxtaposing innovation with preservation, both ostensibly
disparate, provided not only a challenge, but also a great opportunity for National Trust Historic Sites and
the organization as a whole. On the one hand, preservation is seen as static and unchanging, but in reality
its etymology also points to a more direct and active approach; the Latin roots, prae, ‘before,’ and servare,
‘to save,’ not simply to bear witness, but to watch and protect. Nevertheless, the contrast of preservation
with innovation reveals an even more expansive potential, as the word innovation comes from the Latin
innovare, ‘to renew and change.’ Therefore, the motivation behind our application to the Innovation Lab
was our belief that historic sites are capable of cultivating new forms of knowledge and consciousness and
fostering creative openings, where memory and culture are not simply vibrant and alive, but also allow for
transformation and renewal.
From the moment of applying, through to prototyping, and now looking to the future, the
Innovation Lab has been a tremendous journey. However, as with any project of this nature, the Lab
experience has been a “winding road” that led National Trust Historic Sites to some unexpected places.
At some points along the journey, assumptions were challenged, while others were confirmed and even
the bumps along the road became lessons for a new day. Throughout the project, the organization has
grown and embraced the language of innovation, and toward strengthening of what is core, we have
incorporated much of the “muscle-building” requirements around innovation into our daily work. This
work has also radiated out in at least two other distinct ways. First, as other departments and divisions of
the National Trust have witnessed the excitement and synergy around the work of the Lab, they have
adopted both the language and framework. Second, as we have held conversations with other historic
sites, house museums and historical organizations, a similar level of excitement has arisen, particularly in
offering new, replicable opportunities. For all of this, the National Trust is extremely grateful to
EmcArts. The financial support provided the catalyst for experimentation, and the collaborative
exchanges with peers led by our facilitator, Melissa Dibble, were extremely valuable and impactful.

Project Narrative
As Senior Vice President of Historic Sites at the National Trust, I submitted a grant request to EmcArts
in 2012 to fund “Re-Imagining Historic House Museums” by using our own nationwide portfolio of
historic sites as the “laboratories.” Encouraged by the grant, we applied the Innovation Lab because we
recognized and believed that change was not only necessary but also possible, and as such, I outlined both
the challenge as well as pointed to the opportunity:
Historic house museums constitute one of the largest and most vulnerable segments of
museums in the United States. The existing operating model for these institutions lacks
the ability to sustain itself, both culturally and financially. The existing operating model
for these institutions lacks the ability to sustain itself, both culturally and financially.
Across the country, historic house museums—including the majority of historic sites
owned, operated, or affiliated with the National Trust for Historic Preservation—find
themselves with declining attendance, shrinking budgets, and obligations for the care of
historic buildings and collections that they cannot meet. Yet, at the same time,
exceptional examples of historic house museums vividly demonstrate that they have the
potential to function as highly engaging educational institutions, dynamic community
touchstones, and uniquely authentic signifiers of the broad continuum of history.
At the time of the application, having been on staff at the National Trust for one year, I had
begun implementing an operating goal to move the portfolio of historic sites to higher levels of
programmatic quality, structural integrity, and financial sustainability. As part of an overall effort of
creating the conditions for that change—which would set the stage for realizing a more fruitful
implementation of the Innovation Lab—several major efforts were concurrently underway at the time of
the application. These initiatives were aimed at not only operating infrastructures, but also the requisite
need to shift culture generally at historic sites. Although many efforts were in process, three examples are
noteworthy. First, I had just led a major initiative to clarify governance—roles and responsibilities of
boards and Advisory Councils across all the sites—working with pro-bono consultants from Booz Allen
Hamilton, which would greatly assist in establishing stakeholder interest in and support of the work of the
Lab. Second, this consultation led to the creation of a strategic roadmap that identified five major areas
of focus, including planning/positioning, site management, financial sustainability, asset management, and
community engagement and outreach, again critical work that would enable even deeper discussions
around strategic programming for the Lab. Third, as part of an effort that would result in the hiring of
nine new executive directors, at the time of the application and up until August, 2013, I was recruiting and
hiring new leadership, expanding the breadth of skill sets and previous professional experiences and
above all, bringing leadership to our Historic Sites who were open to new possibilities.
Set within this broad context then, the overall strategic goal of the "Re-imagining Historic House
Museums" initiative for the Innovation Lab was to provide a platform—a launching pad of sorts—from
which National Trust Historic Sites could innovate the traditional house museum model, away from a
relatively stagnant standard toward a new model with experiences that focused on what is core—place
and story, both tied to what is fundamental to a museum (especially a history museum), all of the muses
of memory. “Re-imagining Historic House Museums" embodied a fundamental institutional shift for the
National Trust to abandon traditional house museum precepts (static objects, contrived period rooms,
guided tours), and instead, to create spaces that informed, illuminated, and inspired. The re-imagined historic
house museum would engage the senses beyond sight to include sound, smell, touch, taste, and even
sentiment. It would welcome user-generated content and foster new collaborations. It would utilize
architecture, collections, and landscapes to tell a broader range of stories that reflect the diversity of

American history. It would serve as a living laboratory for conservation, creativity, and scholarship. It
would seek to address tensions and difficult issues based in the realities of its past.
Our initial meetings led to a charter (see Appendix) with a very clear challenge, vision, objective
and principles, all of which defined the work that we would do on the assessment and prototypes that
would follow. While the initial vision of our effort toward reimagining was broad and deep—affecting
organizational and management practices as much as programming and finance, in the end, the reach
exceeded our eventual grasp. As is true of managing any large portfolio, balancing capacity and creating
equilibrium is critical; while this was certainly true in the Historic Sites headquarters’ Department, it is a
truth that resonates also at each and every historic site in the portfolio. Therefore, the process of going
through the Lab eventually led us to a highly conscious phasing and thoughtful prioritization, enabling
greater focus, and eventually slowing down enough to spark the creative potential at these places of
memory.
Challenges and/or unanticipated events and outcomes
As Richard and I acknowledged during our pre-award phone call, a grant to the National Trust for
Historic Preservation from EmcArts would be an experiment for both entities. The National Trust had
never before participated in a funding opportunity structured quite like the Lab, which is precisely what
most interested me. From EmcArts’ perspective, the National Trust posed a challenge as an applicant
and an awardee at many levels. EmcArts had not previously granted Lab funds to multiple (and multiple-
sited) museums such as those of the National Trust, which while generally clustered, is in fact a portfolio
located from coast to coast. The portfolio itself posed a challenge because the operating, governance and
ownership models vary across three categories (Stewardship Sites, Co-Stewardship Sites, and Affiliate
Sites) with the reality being that there are at least 27 unique museum models, with their own communities,
infrastructures, and challenges. Finally, while the Historic Sites’ Department, which includes headquarters
staff and a portfolio of 27 sites, represent the largest component of the National Trust (assets, staffing,
budget, and endowment) the major focus of the organization as a whole was on preservation advocacy—
saving historic places. Thus, at the very outset, the challenges, while not small, provided in many ways the
perfect laboratory for experimentation. Both organizations inevitably learned a great deal, stretching our
“adaptive muscles” in ways big and small.
Capacity was perhaps one of the greatest challenges for realizing and implementing the various
components of the Lab. From a sheer logistical standpoint, given the relatively small number of staff at
headquarters, most of whom have very specific roles in their support of the sites (i.e. chief architect for
sites, collections manager), we struggled to maintain an extraordinarily heavy day-to-day workload and at
the same time, take full advantage of all that the Lab offered. Yet, in spite of this, from a bigger picture
perspective, while I inherited an incredibly challenging organizational structure and culture in the
department and organization as a whole, the work done to reorganize the headquarters department at the
end of 2011 actually led to a number of efficiencies. The goal was not only to “raise all boats” and greatly
strengthen the network, but also to shift away from a command and control model to a model of support and
synergy. Cultural change in any organization, however, is never easy or quick and always subject to unique
personalities and the inevitable political undercurrents in play, and the National Trust was no exception to
these challenges.
In terms of the actual implementation of the project, our initial plan to establish a network/virtual
portal for improved communications and to develop a more robust sites’ website encountered a variety of
obstacles. Some of these obstacles related to capacity of headquarters’ staff, given the push and pull
expectations, mandates, and unexpected urgencies. Some other obstacles encountered from the

Marketing Division related to the National Trust’s highly regulated and structured website, resulting in a
challenge that while not insurmountable, would have taken more time than available. As a result,
however, not only because of the difficulties encountered, but also because of continual engagement and
communication with the sites, this process allowed for a more nimble and flexible approach. In the end,
we adjusted, course-corrected, and set our sights instead on assessment and prototyping, which though
unanticipated, resulted positively. In terms of this level of implementation, while some sites met
resistance from some stakeholders in areas around assessment and even the very definition of innovation,
and other sites received criticism from the public during their prototyping efforts, most efforts at the sites
were receptively met with great expectation and encouragement. Nevertheless, all of the challenges
became learning experiences that the sites have absorbed and are using as they move forward in their
ongoing work to create and innovate.
Evidence of Outcomes/Impact
Perhaps the most overt evidence of National Trust Historic Sites growing “innovation muscles” can be
seen in the prototyping projects planned or implemented across the portfolio and supported by nearly
$29,000 in Innovation Lab grant funds. As reported to EmcArts last winter, the Sites Department spent
time during our 2013 Santa Fe Site Directors meeting developing ideas for prototyping at our sites that
would be experimental, that could increase the capacity of our sites to implement changes that were
discontinuous with previous practices, and that would test assumptions. To follow on with that work, we
issued a call for proposals, envisioning that the sites could use the funds as either seed money for 'day-
dream' projects or for innovative projects that were already underway and that needed additional support.
We encouraged the Site Directors to consider a host of ideas for projects ranging from $1,000-$7,500,
including staff exchanges for professional development or fostering new networks and synergies;
consultancies for assisting with new projects that would be discontinuous from previous practice; or
experimental cultural programming for new cultural or educational programming that was engaging
and reflected a commitment to building a sense of community, raising consciousness, or inspiring
creativity.
The sites responded enthusiastically and immediately, planning or implementing their projects,
with many presenting their assessments of the completed projects during a Q & A session at our
Indianapolis meeting. Not surprisingly, the prototyping revealed ingenuity, initiative, and creativity,
pushing the boundaries of past practices. Per our very “lightly-held” nominal guidelines framework, the
projects were small and manageable, and integrated the innovation philosophy we all had been exploring
for the past year. There were many examples, but three show the range of projects, which included:
underwriting an architect-in-residence at the Glass House, who actually lived in a mobile unit (combining
a van, a scissor lift, and an inflatable, translucent room) in order to truly integrate himself into the site’s
campus life; supporting travel for the Executive Director of Farnsworth to explore the Rural Studio in
central Alabama, an avant-garde architectural studio sponsored by Auburn University that focuses on
efficient, economical and sustainable building techniques and is located in one of the poorest counties in
the United States – for potential partnerships or patternings for his own rurally-located site; and a digital
web interactive for Lyndhurst, which is a three-phase project, including 360° filming for a virtual tour for
viewers to navigate “through” the interior of Lyndhurst during the holidays, further filming and
upgrading technical aspects of the website to support the “tour,” and lastly connecting the site to Glass
House, again virtually through portals that will allow visitors to hone in on a piece of art at Lyndhurst and
end up focused on a different piece of art at the Glass House. For this last project, the goal is to connect
all the sites virtually in this unique way, and connecting the Glass House and Lyndhurst is a small and
incremental effort toward that end.

Evidence of New/Enhanced Innovation Capacity
From an organizational point of view, the fact that President Stephanie Meeks declared 2013-2014 the
‘Year of Innovation’ for the National Trust is remarkable evidence of how pervasive the Innovation Lab
became. In her winter presentation to the Board of Directors and at an ensuing All Staff Meeting, Ms.
Meeks delved into the importance of innovation, and stated unequivocally that the Trust must dedicate
itself to highlighting and celebrating innovation to further transform its work. She specifically noted that,
“as the leaders of the preservation movement, we are looked to for advances in preservation action and
leadership thinking.” As such, the Trust established the “Insights in Innovation” Speaker Series for all
staff that supported innovation education in a dynamic back and forth setting with various leaders of
national import.
Using the language utilized in the Sites’ Innovation Lab, the Trust also leveraged the concepts
behind innovation to stimulate innovative work by offering grants for internal and external recipients that
would encourage creativity and considered risk-taking through funding new projects that were fresh,
cutting-edge, and that demonstrated new and better ways to do things. Drawing from a small funding
source of $25,000, grants ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 were framed around criteria including the impact
of the project, the ability to complete the project, and the financial feasibility of the project. These small
but impactful projects, revealing how the idea behind the Innovation Lab radiated outward, included the
following: a Preservation Green Lab animated video, Preservation Legal Defense Network tools and
services to assist attorneys and others leverage laws early in a preservation conflict, Drayton Hall’s 3D
visualization project, an Employee Recognition and Incentive Program for both supervisor and peer-to-
peer acknowledgement, and #RaiseAGlass, a Historic Bars Content Series that will highlight local bars
and other entertainment venues across multiple media platforms.
For the sites staff and the headquarters staff, we all continue to work to strengthen core
innovation muscles. Adopting the language and a framework, which is notably being used by many
historic sites staff, each one of us thinks constantly about how to engage differently, proactively, and
incrementally, celebrating even the smallest of accomplishments. Even greater evidence can be seen in
more systematic policy changes. Specifically, we amended our Interpretation and Education (I/E) Fund
grant guidelines, incorporating our Innovation Lab principles into the language and increasing the amount
of mini-grants to $5,000 and standard grants to $30,000 to test the assumption that more funds in both
categories would lead to more innovative projects. Further, the guidelines (see Appendix) now encourage
sites to apply jointly to foster more collaboration, and also ask sites to describe how their project meets
one or more of the principles from the Innovation Charter. The fact that a principle source of funding
for our sites that is made available on a competitive basis annually now incorporates the language of the
charter - actively encouraging innovation - is a major accomplishment and tangible evidence of the impact
of the Lab.
This spring, we announced three recipients for these grants awarded under the new guidelines:
$30,000 to The Lower East Side Tenement Museum to support a digital exhibit and series of public
programs to interpret the history of its recently acquired late 19th century tenement building that will
relate the experiences of immigrant families who settled there after World War II, thereby expanding the
scope of the Museum’s programming to better represent the experiences of current immigrant residents
in the community; $30,000 to the Glass House to enhance its accessibility to visitors, scholars, and
international audiences through the development of an innovative website and educational media
platform, utilizing a variety of informative media including commissioned essays, video content, and
digitized collections and archives; and $11,100 to the Montpelier Foundation to support the creation of an
interpretive representation of an early 19th century slave quarter at Montpelier through ghosted timbers.
To be constructed during a week-long, fee-based public workshop that will give participants hands-on

experience in carpentry for hewing and notching logs and at the same time provide background on
historic research and interpreting slave quarters that are no longer present on the landscape.
Accomplishments/Activities Completed
Throughout the project, the organization has grown and embraced the language of innovation; but
moreover, the entire National Trust, not just its historic sites, has incorporated much of the “muscle-
building” requirements around innovation into its daily work, and those innovations are exciting to
behold.
For the portfolio of historic sites, we dedicated three full Site Directors meetings (Spokane, Santa
Fe, and Indianapolis) to the Lab, exploring in a variety of sessions what it means to innovate and how our
sites specifically could begin to adapt, at least incrementally. We developed a charter and began
incorporating the principles of that charter into every aspect of our work. Both headquarters staff and
sites staff developed and implemented an innovation readiness assessment and conducted those
assessments at four selected sites – Cliveden in Philadelphia, PA, Lyndhurst in Tarrytown, NY, Villa
Finale in San Antonio, TX, and Gaylord, in Lockport IL (see Appendix). From that, we pivoted to
developing criteria to support prototyping at the sites and reviewed the successes and challenges of those
prototypes together (see Appendix). Further, three members of the Innovation Core Team had the
opportunity to attend the Innovation Lab Summit held in Denver in October. Later, in collaboration
with the Preservation Services Department, we sponsored an Interpretation & Education conference that
brought sites staff from around the country to Washington to explore potential innovative work in the
field. The two day convening included staff from across the organization, and was organized around field
sessions, workshops, and brainstorming. Finally, we have shared our Innovation Lab work both inside and
outside the Trust – via conference calls with Eastern and Western field staff all of whom were anxious to
learn more; through written articles and essays for an upcoming issue of the Trust’s Forum Journal; with
“students” at the annual Seminar for Historic Administration; and as conveners and presenters at national
conferences, including the American Alliance of Museums, the American Association of State and Local
History, and the American Historical Association.
Assessment of project to date with any changes in the original plan
As noted previously in this report, our original intent was to utilize grant funds to build an Innovation
Network that would include a virtual portal to enhance communication between sites and hiring a
consultant to develop “wireframes” for a more robust website. However, this goal was not realized for
several reasons, including extremely limited capacity of headquarters’ staff and other challenges
encountered with the Marketing Division related to the National Trust’s highly regulated and structured
website. As with so many things in life, the resulting changes were for the best, as we course-corrected,
and focused instead on assessment and prototyping, which resulted in an energized staff diving into
diverse projects.
Future plans/next steps in innovation process
National Trust Historic Sites believe that history holds tremendous power and potential to illuminate,
inform, inspire, and influence. We believe that when combined with the power of place, the opportunity
to deepen the understanding and appreciation for the past exists in a critical, layered, and sensory
experience. As practitioners of history, we know from the lessons of the past that sometime, good ideas

are like wine and need time to develop and the right time and place to open and savor. And other times
all that innovation requires is taking a step back, re-focusing and trying something in a different way.
Because of our Innovation Lab experience, staff is eager to continue experimenting, taking risks and
realizing that change is also dependent upon incremental changes that work toward tipping points.
During this prototyping process, I often heard site staff comment upon that fact that they had never
witnessed the National Trust investing in innovation and encouraging risk taking. The framework and
language and frankly, a changed culture, have given the staff permission to take risks, make mistakes,
adjust, and if necessary, repeat, until momentum is steadily built. This changed culture has resulted in
thinking differently, moving past assumptions about stakeholders, audiences, programming, revenue, and
infrastructure, and finding ways to leverage all of these toward a common goal. The National Trust will
continue to draw upon the momentum of the Lab by investing, even in small ways, in operational and
programmatic innovations.

The Innovation Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
Catalyzing Creativity, Consciousness and Community at Historic Sites
Innovation Lab Core Team, National Trust for Historic Preservation 2012
Challenge: Thousands of historic house museums are among the most vulnerable
historic sites and museums in the United States because their existing
operating models lack the ability to sustain these sites both culturally and
financially. The imperative is as much operational as it is methodological and
cultural.
Vision: The Sites of National Trust for Historic Preservation will engage the past,
shape the present, and inspire the future.
Principles: Aligned with the mission, preservation ethic and core values of the National
Trust, we resolve to innovate and evolve historic sites so that they adhere to
the following principles:
• Historic sites listen to and respond to their communities.
• Historic sites are dynamic, relevant and evolving.
• Historic sites are managed adaptively to be financially sustainable.
• Historic sites foster an understanding and appreciation of history and
culture that is critical, layered, and sensory.
• Historic sites serve as spaces for reflection, conversation and as a nexus
for storytelling.
• Historic sites are inclusive and reveal the full breadth, depth and often
marginalized scope of American history.
Objective: The National Trust for Historic Preservation will foster catalytic changes at
historic sites to promote powerful connections between sites, communities,
and their histories; protect the integrity of structures, collections, and
landscapes; and achieve long-term financial sustainability.
Type and
Trajectory: While aligned with the NTHP mission, preservation ethic and stewardship
responsibilities, the changes required for innovation must be about
empowering sites and their governing bodies, and these changes may include
engagement with strategic public and private partnerships. We acknowledge
that the work to innovate National Trust Historic Sites is in different stages
of evolution across the Trust’s portfolio of properties. In this context, the
following types of adaptive change will be encouraged and supported, and
sites and lessons learned can and should move between these categories.
• Radical—implement a major change that may include returning the site to
an original, non-museum use or implement new uses.
• Transformative—implement a major change that will include new uses that

are sensitive to the history of the site and responsive to its community.
• Experimental—implement substantive changes that are discontinuous with
previous practices and test new assumptions.
Strategies: As the National Trust works to imagine and realize both the present and the
future in which it is more visible, relevant and financially successful, the
Innovation Lab will implement the following strategies:
• Assess and build capacity for discontinuous/innovative change;
• Incubate Innovations across the portfolio of sites (including prototype
implementation & evaluation);
• Create an Innovation Network for Trust Sites to share their
prototypes/experiments, learning, frustrations across the portfolio;
• Capture and disseminate innovations to build deeper and further
understanding/learning and implementation both inside and outside
portfolio;
• Build Financial Innovation Plan, including an Innovation/Risk Capital
Fund for Sites, leveraging partners.

Interpretation and Education Fund Standard Grants:
Guidelines and Eligibility
The purpose of the Historic Sites Interpretation and Education Fund (IE Fund) is to support humanities-based
planning and programming at National Trust Historic Sites. Eligible projects must include outside humanities scholars
and/or interpretive specialists and educators in research, planning, staff training, and program evaluation at individual
sites or at two or more sites working together.
The Interpretation and Education Fund will award grants to National Trust Historic Sites to support projects that are
based in and convey significant humanities themes to the public and use innovative formats and programs to engage
audiences. Projects should appeal to general audiences and grow out of sound scholarship used to develop new or
enhanced programs and strengthen on-site humanities programming.
Eligibility
National Trust Historic Sites that are open to the public may apply for grants if they have:
• Met the terms and conditions of their agreements with the National Trust
• Satisfactorily completed projects previously funded by the IE Fund
• Satisfactorily submitted annual reports for current projects funded by the IE Fund
• No more than one current project supported by the IE Fund at the time of application, including standard grants
and mini-grants
Receiving funding from other National Trust grant programs does not preclude a site from receiving funding from the
IE Fund.
Eligible Programs
• Convene an interdisciplinary team to develop or evaluate humanities-based programming, interpretation, goals,
strategies, etc.
• Retain scholars/consultants for projects such as developing interpretive themes, implementing new programming
or exhibitions, or revising guide training materials
• Create an internship, for example to hire a graduate student to undertake a specific research project
• Enhance the site's digital humanities offerings
• Explore and pilot ways to make the site's research materials more accessible
• Develop a lecture series or online exhibit
• Provide stipends to local teachers, for example if they are advising on the development of student programs
• Conduct a humanities-based teacher workshop
• Develop a self-guided cell phone tour or a site-related app with humanities-based content

Ineligible Programs or Expenses
• Staff salaries
• Visitor admission or registration fees to the site
• General operations (e.g., overhead, maintenance, utilities, insurance)
• Endowment
• Capital improvements
• Renovation, restoration, rehabilitation, or construction
• Acquisition of historic artifacts for collections
• Preserving or cataloging collections
• Purchasing more than $1,000 in equipment or purchasing equipment that that can be used in other non-
educational projects (e.g., computers, software, cameras, chairs)
• Fulfilling degree requirements
• Research not directly related to improving education and interpretation at the site
• Projects that have been completed
Types of Grants
Standard Grants: Proposals may range from $5,000 to $30,000. These grant applications are reviewed and
approved by a scholarly committee and up to five awards are anticipated. Sites are encouraged to partner with other
National Trust Historic Sites for larger projects.
Mini Grants: Proposals may range from $1,000-$4,999. Eligible activities include those described above as well as
support of staff development related to interpretation and dissemination of innovative interpretive practices. Travel
expenses and conference registration are eligible expenses. These grant applications are reviewed and approved on
a first-come first-served basis by National Trust staff..
Application Deadlines and Key Dates
The application deadline for Standard Grants is November 27, 2013, with awards made in January 2014.
For Standard Grants, there is one annual deadline. Mini-grants up to $4,999 will be awarded on a rolling basis using
an abbreviated application; the pool of mini-grant funds is replenished annually at the start of the fiscal year (July 1).
All applications will be submitted online using the National Trust’s grant website at
https://www.grantinterface.com/Common/LogOn.aspx?eqs=wG-r-jJPukY75JuqUo9tQA2 If you have any questions
about the website, please contact Katherine Malone-France at kmalone-france@savingplaces.org.
Each site may submit up to two standard applications per grant round, but it is not recommended. If submitting more
than one application, clearly indicate which application is the highest priority. A separate application with appropriate
attachments must be submitted for each distinct project. Different projects cannot be combined into one application.

Project Start and End Dates
For Standard Grants, projects must start no earlier than 60 days from the application deadline date (i.e., no earlier
than January 27 for the November 27 deadline). Grants cannot support a completed project, either in whole or in part.
Grants may support projects already in process, however, they must be separated into clear and distinct phases or
components. Funding can only be applied for future and uninitiated phases or components. Any previous phases
must be completed before applying for subsequent phases.
For standard grants, projects must be completed no later than two years from the date of the award. Mini-grants
must be completed within one year of the date of the award.
Criteria
The applications are reviewed according to the following criteria:
• Intellectual Content: Does the project enhance significant humanities themes? Is the intellectual approach broadly
conceived, based on sound scholarship, and appropriately analytical?
• Reimagining Historic Sites: Does the project reflect one or more of the principles for innovating historic sites
developed during the Innovation Lab:
• Historic sites foster an understanding and appreciation of history and culture that is critical, layered, and
sensory.
• Historic sites serve as spaces for reflection, conversation and as a nexus for storytelling.
• Historic sites are inclusive and reveal the full breadth, depth and often marginalized scope of American
history.
• Build or Support the Preservation Movement: Will the project engage new audiences with the preservation
movement or support existing preservation constituencies?
• Audience Interest and Reach: Does the project meet the needs and interests of the intended audience and would
it expand the public's understanding of the site? Will the project draw in and engage audiences effectively? Will the
project make the site more intellectually accessible to visitors?
• Format: Are the program formats appropriate to the ideas, themes, and audience?
• Resources: Have the appropriate materials and resources been clearly identified? Are they the right ones for the
project and are they available?
• Project Team: Does the team have the necessary expertise, interpretive experience, and technical skills? Has a
team of humanities scholars been effectively involved?
• Workplan: Is the plan of work realistic and efficient? Can the project be completed in a timely manner?
• Budget: Are the project’s costs realistic, appropriate, and reasonable?
• Strategy: Does the project fulfill long-range or strategic plans?
• Track Record: Has the Site completed previous grants successfully?

Conditions if Awarded
Acknowledgment: Recognition should be comparable to gifts received from other similar donors. All products
created with grant funds should include the following language: “This project is supported by the Interpretation and
Education Fund of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, an endowed fund made possible by a challenge grant
from the National Endowment for the Humanities.”
Publicity and Copyright: The National Trust reserves a royalty-free nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce,
publish, or use a work produced with IE Funds, and to authorize others to do so for educational and informational
purposes.
Reporting: Progress or final reports must be submitted with any requests for reimbursement or payment.
Disbursement of Funds: Grant funds are paid on a reimbursement basis only and generally should be requested at
the conclusion of the project with the submission of the final report. For larger grants, an interim payment can be
requested as part of a progress report.

03-20-2013
The Innovation Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
Catalyzing Creativity, Consciousness and Community at Historic Sites
Created by the Trust’s Innovation Lab for Museums Core Team, November 2012
Challenge: Thousands of historic house museums are among the most vulnerable
historic sites and museums in the United States because their existing
operating models lack the ability to sustain these sites both culturally and
financially. The imperative is as much operational as it is methodological and
cultural.
Vision: The Sites of National Trust for Historic Preservation will engage the past,
shape the present, and inspire the future.
Principles: Aligned with the mission, preservation ethic and core values of the National
Trust, we resolve to innovate and evolve historic sites so that they adhere to
the following principles:
• Historic sites foster an understanding and appreciation of history and
culture that is critical, layered, and sensory.
• Historic sites serve as spaces for reflection, conversation and as a nexus
for storytelling.
• Historic sites are inclusive and reveal the full breadth, depth and often
marginalized scope of American history.
Objective: The National Trust for Historic Preservation will foster catalytic changes at
historic sites to promote powerful connections between sites, communities,
and their histories; protect the integrity of structures, collections, and
landscapes; and achieve long-term financial sustainability.
(over)

For more on innovation and adaptive change work, visit ArtsFwd.org
Terms and Quotes to anchor our Innovation and Adaptive Change work
Organizational Innovations are instances of organizational change that:
o result from a shift in underlying organizational assumptions
o are discontinuous from previous practice, and
o provide new pathways to creating public value
According to Edgar Schein, Professor Emeritus, MIT Sloan School of Management:
“Assumptions evolve as repeated successful solutions to problems. What was once a questionable hypothesis
about how to proceed becomes a reality that is taken for granted. In order to innovate, organizations have to
resurrect, examine, and then break the frame created by old assumptions.”
Technical Challenges are ones that can be solved by improving an organization’s current practices.
Solutions already exist in the world and experts can be used to align the organization’s strategy with
established “best practices.”
Adaptive Challenges are those that have no set procedures, no recognized experts, and no evident
responses available to meet the challenge or solve the problem. They are more difficult to identify
and easy to deny.
According to Ronald Heifetz, Senior Lecturer in Public Leadership and Co-Founder of the Center
for Public Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University:
“If you throw all the technical fixes you can at the problem and the problem persists, it’s a pretty clear signal
that an underlying adaptive challenge still needs to be met. Adaptive challenges are often hard to pin down,
less clearly visible than technical ones, and certainly tougher to work on.”
Innovation Lab for Museums Framework
Phase 1: (July – October 2012)
Form an Innovation Team, Research + Focus
Phase 2: (November 2012)
Project Accelerator – decide on prototype(s), plan for “re-entry”
Phase 3: (December 2012 – June 2013)
First Assessing-Prototyping Phase – Enroll others, try out the innovation, evaluate, refine &
repeat/shape next prototypes
Phase 4: (likely July 2013 – December 2013)
Second Prototyping Phase + Build Capacity + Share Learning

National Trust Historic Sites
Innovation Lab for Museums - Assessment Workshop Summary
September 8, 2013
Cindi Malinick, Louise B. Potter Senior Director of Sites Stewardship
As the “Captain” of the Training/Assessment Team, I worked with Melissa Dibble to develop an
assessment tool and implementation plan for the assessment, a recommended outcome develoed by the
Trust’s Innovation Lab Team for our historic sites portfolio from the Airlie Intensive. Melissa in turn
recommended we bring in a respected assessment consultant, Jamie Gamble (bio:
http://www.imprintinc.ca/Jamie.html), to assist us. The National Trust is grateful to EmcArts for the
$3000 "content expert" funds to pay for Mr. Gamble’s services.
We met in January at EmcArts offices, along with Team members Hunter Palmer and Jason Allen, to
discuss the assessment, design tools and processes, and generally, how best to proceed. It was a very
productive day, resulting in the development of an excellent framework around which to move forward.
At the conclusion of our day, we also reached consensus that we also wanted to model assessment
techniques for the site directors in addition to our assessing the sites’ capacities to innovate. We created a
general timeline for the assessments (to conclude before our April 10 Santa Fe Site Directors Meeting)
and decided that Melissa Dibble would serve as my trainer and as a disinterested 3rd party at our sites in
leading the readiness workshops.
Prior to each site visit, I asked the Site Directors to distribute to the participants some brief materials that
laid out the Core Principles developed at Airlie and that defined innovation (attached). Below is a brief
summary of the workshops and outcomes.
Assessment Workshops Purpose Concept and Implementation:
• To better understand how the Historic Sites Department could support our sites in experimental
innovation, whereby the sites build increased capacity to implement substantive changes that are
discontinuous with previous practices and test new assumptions, a two or three-member team
conducted one-day site visits — Innovation Assessment Workshops — to clarify the site’s level
of willingness, embedded challenges, and promising opportunities
• Four sites were chosen to participate in this prototyping experiment, March-May 2013 (in order of
visit): Cliveden, Philadelphia, PA; Lyndhurst, Tarrytown, NW; Villa Finale, San Antonio, TX; and
Gaylord Building, Lockport, IL
• Cindi Malinick, Senior Director of Sites Stewardship and Melissa Dibble, Managing Director of
EmcArts, led the first three workshops; the Senior Vice President, Historic Sites, Estevan Rael-
Gálvez, PhD, participated in the fourth/final workshop at Gaylord Building
• Participants at the sites included staff, volunteers, and other key stakeholders, such as Advisory
Council/Board members, neighbors, and colleagues
o Workshops consisted of participants sharing existing practices and strategies that illustrate
innovative responses to the identified key principles, and identifying conditions and processes
that support innovation, as well as any existing barriers and challenges
Results/What we Learned:
As a pilot project to provide insight into our sites’ capacity for innovation, the Workshops:
• Provided a platform for stakeholders to express support or concern for innovative practices
• Modeled the kind of inquiry - with a “3rd
party moderator” - that sites could use to support their
transition to a more innovative culture
• Confirmed baseline innovation readiness already/continuously assessed by Historic Sites

Department staff
• Led a “fishbowl” discussion with all the Site Directors at our Santa Fe meeting around the
Readiness Workshops, with each of the participating Site Directors sharing their thoughts and
experiences around the workshops, answering questions from the other directors, and enlisting
everyone’s insights going forward.

National Trust Historic Sites
Innovation Lab for Museums – Prototype Projects Summary
December 9, 2013
Cindi Malinick, Louise B. Potter Senior Director of Sites Stewardship
During our Site Directors meeting in Santa Fe in April, we spent some time working toward
developing ideas for prototyping at sites that would: experiment in innovation; increase the
capacity of our historic sites to implement substantive changes that are discontinuous with
previous practices; and test assumptions. To support the sites in this prototyping, we made the
remaining funds from Phase 3 of the Innovation Lab - approximately $29,000 - available to the sites.
Exceeding our expectations, the sites submitted numerous proposals that showed initiative and
innovation, created new synergies, offered professional development, and pushed the boundaries of
past practices. Per our very “lightly-held” framework, the prototyping projects were small and
manageable, both in cost and scope, required a nominal application, focused on the innovation
philosophy around testing assumptions, experimentation, and change, and offered a commitment to
building a sense of community, raising consciousness and inspiring creativity. I have included an
accounting of the funded projects, which ranged from $1000-$5000, and the following is but a
sampling of the interesting work our sites undertook this Fall.
Staff/Information
Exchange between Villa
Finale (San Antonio, TX)
and Filoli (Woodside, CA)
The staff exchange
consisted of sending the
Building & Grounds
Manager from Villa Finale
(Orlando Cortinas) to Filoli
to work with the
Horticulture Manager (Jim
Halyards) and other
members of that site’s
staff. While at Filoli,
Orlando had the opportunity to observe large-scale landscaping and gardening techniques. He also
interacted with education managers to learn what types of programs were offered to the public at
Filoli, and toured other garden centers with extensive landscapes in the area. Expecting to be
overwhelmed by the volume of horticulture challenges at a site the size of Filoli, Orlando was
pleasantly surprised to be able to offer them tips on organic gardening and vermicomposting
practices used at Villa Finale. Both sites benefitted from the interaction and sharing of ideas and
knowledge, and while this particular funding paid for a Villa Finale staff to travel to Filoli, the
California based site is already planning for its staff visiting Villa Finale in the future. Orlando also
offered these thoughts:

My visit to Filoli was not only very enjoyable and informative, but inspirational.
Inspirational to me because I was able to connect to other Trust coworkers half way
across the US and finally put a face to names I only see in email exchanges. We get
caught up in our own little worlds and day-to-day tasks at our own respective sites
that we sometimes forget we belong to a much larger organization and diverse group
of people that we can connect to. Connect to exchange ideas or to ask for help with
problems that perhaps another site has already dealt with and overcome. We have
many resources within our own organization, creating a personal connection between
sites will open up those resources and allow us to help each other in many different
way.
Meeting the horticultural staff was awesome, seeing all the hard work they put into
their gardens was amazing. Let me tell you the pride they take in their jobs and love of
what they do shows at the site. Learning their day to day practices, seeing how they
manage such a large and detailed site and learning how self sufficient they are was
truly amazing and motivated me come back to our considerably smaller site and really
take a look at what we can do here to improve our gardens. Receiving an abundance of
general information from the staff was great; it allows me to pick and choose what is
relevant to our site and how I can apply what I learned to Villa Finale.
I also thought meeting with the various different departments (Education,
Programming, Maintenance, Visitor Services, Volunteer Special Events Chairs) was
very insightful. Seeing how a different site works behind the scenes was great. It also
opened up another resource I could bring back to Villa Finale and pass along to my
coworkers for future collaborations and assistance. Filoli’s educational programming
was very extensive and successful seeing that and being able to pull from their
successes and failures is very helpful for Villa Finale especially since we are relatively
new and still developing our programming. Seeing how much of a strong volunteer
base they have was motivating, hearing about how they manage volunteers and make
them work efficiently was great information for us to consider as we continue to
develop and grow our volunteer base. I think it was good that although the focus was
on the gardens, composting and the buildings & grounds side of Filoli, I was able to
meet and gain valuable information from all the different departments. This allowed
me to pass along contacts, ideas and information to my coworkers here at Villa Finale.
Being the first Trust employee to participate in the employee exchange program was
an honor and an awesome experience. I hope this program does continue. I think other
Trust employees will greatly benefit from connecting to other sites and distant
coworkers.
Experimental Cultural Programming: Glass House and Alex Schweder: Rehearsal Space
Over the course of two weeks, New York-based artist Alex Schweder participated in the cultural life
of the Glass House campus while occupying a mobile living unit (combining a van, a scissor lift, and
an inflatable room) temporarily situated alongside the Brick House. While in residence, Schweder
attended Glass House public programs, engaged with visitors and site guides, and worked on a book
manuscript about “performance architecture” in Philip Johnson’s library. We anticipated that these
activities would reaffirm and enrich the Glass House’s commitment to contemporary culture by
leveraging the site’s unique resources to facilitate creative research and development.

We consider Schweder’s project to be a
successful pilot residency. Our guides
frequently reported that visitors
responded positively to Schweder’s
presence and reconsidered the role that
contemporary art could play on site. In an
interview, Schweder stated that the time
at the site was invaluable as well as
“conducive to thought and imagination.”
Furthermore, the themes of the Glass
House enhanced his thinking about
performance and architecture. Schweder
provided valuable feedback about the
resources and facilities that would
enhance an artist’s experience during
future residencies; overall, he confirmed
our assumption that a flexible residency
model best serves artists. We hope to
explore further the infrastructure for our
proposed residency program during the
2014 season.
Selected press: “Mobile Living Unit” set
the stage for artist-in-residence at the Glass House
http://www.ctpost.com/entertainment/article/A-mobile-living-unit-sets-the-stage-for-
4846486.php; Van Parks, Bubble Emerges, Man Inside http://gizmodo.com/van-parks-bubble-
emerges-man-inside-1443687057
Other Selected images:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0d1n0pp916ojbsl/LQ1CMipkn-/XN9A9245.jpg?m
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0d1n0pp916ojbsl/K32UfV-6bk/XN9A9003.jpg?m

Consultancies: President Lincoln’s Cottage/ Graphics Facilitation:
President Lincoln’s Cottage utilized prototyping grant funds to begin re-imagining how the site tell
the story of its work, starting with the orientation theater experience, which sets the tone for the
entire site experience for visitors, but also serves as a “summary” for any donor or prospect we
want to introduce to the site. The site hired a well-known graphics facilitator firm, Crowley & Co.,
to lead them in initial exercises.
While the site
didn’t come away
with a definitive
new format for
visitor orientation,
they did have a
great
brainstorming
session resulting
in many ideas to
start testing. The
Cottage, though
eager for an
outcome in that
regard, also
recognized that
Crowley & Co.
might not be the best consultant to finalize a new visitor orientation —they might not have the
expertise for whatever format is determined to best for the site’s needs.
One surprise outcome of the the project came during a “History Timeline” activity led by the
consultant, Deirdre Crowley. She asked various questions and plotted staff responses on a timeline
that started 18 months earlier. At the end of the exercise, the staff saw a visual representation of
their work over the past year and a half. The sheer volume of notable milestones and other events
was staggering. The site learned how important it is to have some time to reflect after such a
prolific period, and further, that if the staff was not aware it had just passed through such a busy
period, supporters and other key stakeholders probably did not fully appreciate it either. This
realization led to a new next step - to create a timeline, as well as visual representations, of the new
phase President Lincoln’s Cottage is about to enter.
New Research: Oatlands and Garden Shed Signatures/ Belle Grove and Attic Rediscovery
In an effort to preserve and understand more about the lives associated with Belle Grove and
Oatlands, our historic sites located in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and Leesburg, VA
respectively, the staffs oversaw the professional photographing and researching of signatures in
either “hidden” or unexpected spaces.

At Belle Grove, signatures on the walls
in the attic – a “magical and mysterious”
space only accessible up a tightly
winding staircase, intrigued the staff,
which believes that this tradition of
“graffiti” began with Union soldiers who
occupied the house during the Civil War
– and the signing of the walls continued into the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As an
innovative project, Belle Grove documented this
graffiti through photography and videography –
something that had never been done before. The
documentation also created additional new
opportunities for Belle Grove, including
engaging more deeply with the local
population—many of whom have family stories
about their relatives and neighbors that signed
their name on the attic walls and who have
wished they could “sneak up into the attic” and
confirm if the stories they had heard were true.
At Oatlands, a similar project, inspired by Belle Grove’s work, is underway, as that site documents
signatures found on the walls of its Garden Shed. The site now has high-resolution images of each
of the signatures, as well as several days worth of research on some of the earliest signatures. The
eventual product, both images and stories, will be included on the Oatlands’ website, as a beginning
of public dissemination.
One signature though, of Carla Johnston,
has already resulted in an important
story. Carla was the Head Gardener
from May 1, 2006 to April 22, 2011, and
her motto was, “Sustain-Grow-Thrive.”
By her signature block, one can discern
how important it was to her to build a
team of employees and volunteers who
lovingly cared for the garden to ensure
its health for the future, since she also
recognized Richard Moore, Barbara
Edwards, Armando Villatoro, Nelson,
Villatoro, and Lorenzo Villatoro.
Carla felt it was important to bring back certain things from the Carter Family time period (1798-
1897), such as a vegetable garden to reflect the garden’s primary function during that time. Her
vision also reached beyond the physical garden to the records that document the garden’s history.
She and her team sorted through boxes of photographs and papers and organized them into an
indexed filing system. Carla viewed the garden as a spiritual place - that it was a living and

breathing entity - to be nurtured. She hopes the garden will continue to breathe and give life to
everyone who enters, offering a place for solace and rest.
As the Oatlands project manager recently wrote about the prototyping project:
This project has been inspirational in several ways. First, it has enlightened us to new
ways of interpreting our buildings. Traditionally the mansion is where we interpret
the people associated with Oatlands. The outbuildings, especially one that is as
utilitarian as the Garden Shed, are interpreted for their function, architecture, or not
interpreted at all. This project has sparked the idea of using this building to honor the
people who nurtured the garden, the place where so many memories have been made
for owners and visitors. It has made us think about interpreting our buildings for the
people associated with them and not just based on the building's function.
Second, the project moved us forward with our African American research and gave us
a jumpstart for our expanded programming and interpretation in 2014. Third, and
perhaps most important, it has given us the idea of using the room to interpret a slave
house. Some of our oral history points to the Garden Dependency room(s) as having
housed slaves but the stories are third-hand and don't specify which room. The size of
the Garden Shed and its location certainly could have housed 4-5 people.
Digital Imagery: Lyndhurst Interactivity on the Web
Lyndhurst hired Andy Romer, a professional art photographer, to begin documenting the
architecture of the site, beginning with the inside of the mansion. Mr. Romer has extensive
experience in the field, particularly in documenting art and exhibitions in a variety of different
spaces. He produced his thesis project as an imaginary tour from the Glass House (another National
Trust Historic Site) bathroom to the pond pavilion, which inspired Lyndhurst to reach out to him –
ultimately with the thought of actually connecting Lyndhurst to the Glass House digitally.
Below is a link to Mr. Romer’s documentation of some of the rooms inside Lyndhurst – they are
outstanding creating these 360 –degree interactive digital environments, and just the beginning of
what we all anticipate will be an exhilarating virtual experience.
http://planaview.com/pv_clientcontent/NTHP/Lyndhurst/LyndhurstChristmas360.html

Innovation Lab / EmcArts Grant Awards FY 2014 J25U010
Site Project
Date of
Request
Requested
Amount
$ awarded
Date of
Notification
Report Received
Amount
Spent
Balance Notes
Glass House Artist Residency at the Glass House 9/24/2013 3,000 3,000 9/25/2013 3,158 (158)
Schweder honorarium
& exp + Amanda
Kirkpatrick
Villa Finale Horticultural Exchange (with Filoli) 9/24/2013 2,065 2,065 9/24/2013 2,213 (148) Orlando travel + Filoli
PLC New graphic orientation video 9/27/2013 3,000 3,000 3,000 -
Crowley & Co
consultants
Gaylord Student Essay Contest 10/16/2013 2,500 2,500 11/14/2013 2,500
Belle Grove Attic Rediscovery Project 10/4/2013 1,975 1,975 10/4/2013 2,483 (508)
Farnsworth Rural Studio Visit 10/18/2013 1,500 1,500 10/18/2013 1,416 84 Site visit to Alabama
Chesterwood Pop-up holiday shop in Stockbridge 10/17/2013 3,000 3,000 10/23/2013 3,049 (49)
Zurofsky + equip
purchase + hourlies +
WJ Blueprint + Kwik
Print + Ben Hillman +
Shoppers Guide
Oatlands
Green House "grafitti"
photography/research/web
9/25/2013 3,000 3,000 11/14/2013 3,000 0
Drayton Hall Shop re-imagined 3,000 3,000 11/5/2013 3,000 -
Retail Development
Associates
Lyndhurst digital web interactive/images of site 5,600 5,600 7,310 (1,710)
Andy Romer
Photography +
Design/Diseno New
York for interactive
website
$28,640 28,640 28,629.27 10.73
56 67
TOTAL AWARDS
Balance of Funds Remaining

Forum Journal (Summer 2014): Innovation Lab Final Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Forum Journal (Summer 2014): Innovation Lab Final Report

Similar to Forum Journal (Summer 2014): Innovation Lab Final Report (20)

More from National Trust for Historic Preservation

More from National Trust for Historic Preservation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Forum Journal (Summer 2014): Innovation Lab Final Report