Making a Difference: The Mission Comes First (White Paper)
Barry A. Van Deman, President, Museum of Life and Science
Peter F. Drucker, one of the most respected management thinkers of our time, observes that “nonprofit institutions are central to American society and are indeed its most distinguishing feature.” The nonprofit sector includes many types of organizations, but they all have something in common: they do something very different from for-profit businesses or government. Their product is neither goods nor services nor government regulation. The nonprofit’s product is a changed human being. “The non-profit organization exists to bring about a change in individuals and in society,” says Drucker, and “…the first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.” [1]
As the new president of the Museum of Life and Science, I see defining the mission as paramount to the Museum of Life and Science’s future success—in adding value to the community, in attracting financial resources, and in operating as a business. Francis Hesselbein, former national executive director of the Girl Scouts, has said: “Mission is the star we steer by. Everything begins with mission, everything flows from mission.” [2]
The Museum of Life and Science’s mission has served it well for many years. Indeed, the Museum is beloved in the community and a model for other science museums. So, why reexamine the mission? Here are several reasons: 1) Science museums across the nation face an uncertain future; 2) The environment in which we exist today has changed dramatically; and 3) We must look outside at opportunities and needs to really make a difference. We need to heed the warning signs at other science museums. A growing number of science museum CEOs, board members, and stakeholders worry about the future. They have reached a conclusion that if their museums are to survive and remain relevant in the new century, they must undergo change—perhaps dramatic change. This sense of urgency is heightened by recent events. Within the past several months, two science museums, one in Georgia and one in Arkansas, permanently closed their doors due to lack of financial resources. Visitation across the nation’s science museums is cause for much of their concern. In many science museums, visitation has slowed, remained flat, or declined. While drop off in visitor attendance can be tied to changes in the nation’s economy (cyclical change), the problem continues despite upturns in economic conditions and despite marketing efforts to turn the tide.
What is happening at other science museums?
Since most science museums rely on admissions and expenditures in their stores and restaurants and from fee-based programs for most of their operating revenue, fluctuations in visitor attendance greatly impact the bottom line. Some leaders have arrived at the conclusion that structural change is needed, that the traditional science museum mission and model are no longer relevant. The traditional model of science museums is built around clusters of hands-on and artifact based exhibits about science and scientific principles. The exhibits and related educational programs are designed to arouse curiosity and explain principles and phenomena—intended as visitor self discovery provoked by interaction and guided by labels. This traditional science museum model is a post-World War II invention in America, spurred on by the space race, and pushed further by the reports of scientifically illiterate citizens and the impact on America’s ability to compete in the world economy.[3] One could argue that there have been many advances in the way museums think about exhibits and programs, but in general, they are still part of this traditional model. So, is the model still relevant? The dawn of the 21st century looks very different from the world in which modern science museums were born. Today, society faces new challenges which require more than an understanding of science and technology as presented in science museums. Just think about what has changed in science and technology over the past 20 years. Will a child growing up today be prepared for the world 20 years from now? Is the adult today able sort through complicated issues, such as, genetically modified organisms, nanotechnology, and sustainable resources to assess the impact on his or her life? These are important questions for science museum leaders to ponder.
Of course, the business environment for science museums has changed in other ways. Competition for leisure time is intense. At home, people can surf through hundreds of television channels, hop onto the web, or play video games. Outside of the home, people have shopping malls, festivals, play spaces, and an increasing number of entertainment venues. Programs once offered almost exclusively by museums as sources of revenue, such as birthday parties and science summer camps, are now offered by many competing entities.
The nature of philanthropy in America has changed as well. The proliferation of nonprofits competing for the donors’ attention means that the science museum’s request for support must stand out from the rest and align with the goals of donors in ways never required before.
Where might a science museum, and in particular, the Museum of Life and Science, find future opportunities to make a difference and attract the customers and contributors it needs to operate? Consider just two examples of opportunity.
As a parent, I share a worry with other parents about our children’s future. How will my little boy and girl get the education they will need to prepare them for life? If I rely on schooling to teach them all they need to know and do in science, is it enough? Can a school be expected to teach everything in any subject that my children will need for their future? Of course, the answer is: I will need to supplement what they learn in school with experiences outside of school. Schools are burdened by overstuffed curricula, constrained by resources, and hampered by too few teachers with expertise in the sciences. What if parents viewed the Museum as a necessary part of their child’s well-rounded education in science and technology, and the Museum provided age-appropriate experiences and environments for children to learn and grow? What if the Museum’s website supported and extended learning beyond the Museum’s physical spaces? Where an exhibit or program might spark interest, the website could provide pathways to learning in more depth. Membership could have true value beyond discounted admission; it could provide a means for learning all year long. Personal web pages for every member could customize learning experiences that tied each museum visit to personal interests. By deepening the relationship with families, we create value and find opportunity.
We create value and find opportunity, too, by expanding our audience. The scientific research and technological innovation emanating from the Triangle’s universities and corporations impact the lives of people around the world. Yet, the communication gap between the researchers and the people of the region is wide—very wide. Of course, this gap exists elsewhere, so the National Science Foundation is requiring researchers who receive support to do public outreach. The intent is well meaning, but researchers are most often confused about what to do. They are trained to do research, not public education. The Museum’s expertise is communicating to the public. What if the Museum becomes a bridge from the Triangle’s universities and the Research Triangle Park to the public in communicating current research and technological innovation? What if adults find a place to meet, to learn, and to discuss issues affecting their lives and their communities? What if the Museum produces webcasts that connect researchers with people throughout the region and beyond?
Where do we go from here?
When we think deeply about opportunities and threats to the future success of the Museum, we begin to think about change—change in our mission and change in how we fulfill the mission. In a study commissioned by the Durham Arts Council, Louise Stevens concluded: “A willingness for fundamental organizational change must be a given…Organizations need to consider how to affect change in the way people participate, changing their patterns of affiliation, association, interests, and involvement.” [4] We invite you to participate in this conversation about our future. Please look for the next installment in this series of white papers soon. I hope you will feel free to contact me with your thoughts at (919) 220-5429 x309 or send me an e-mail at barry.vandeman@ncmls.org.
References:
[1] Peter F. Drucker. Managing the Non-profit Organization: Principles
and Practices. HarperCollins Publishers. 1990.
[2] Francis
Hesselbein. Excellence in Nonprofit Leadership, video program.
Jossey-Bass. 1998.
[3] J. Bradburne. “Dinosaurs and white elephants:
the science center in the twenty-first century,” Public Understanding of
Science. Sci. 7 (1998) 237-253.
[4] Louise Stevens. “Today’s Arts
Market: The Big Picture.” Durham Arts Council Audience Development
Initiative.
Originally Released 2/2/04
