1. Evaluation in the UK lessons learnt OAKE Associates Sibiu 9th March 2012 Bill Fryer and Kevin Rice

2. Peer Review Evaluation June /July 2011 Museums; Sheffield Museums, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Woodend Studios, Scarborough, North Yorkshire UK advisers to the UK’s Arts, Heritage and Cultural Enterprises. Rotherham Open Arts Renaissance Cupola Gallery, Sheffield. Yorkshire Museums Trust, York, North Yorkshire Manchester Science and Technology Museum Ironbridge Gorge Museums Trust ( seven museums total ) A wide ranging set of responses from Public Private and Independent perspectives designed to maximise the potential scope of the Mu Communicator programme

3. Key Findings Peer Review (1)  Communication was seen to be essential to Museums in driving its ethos, goals and mission and differentiation in the types of communications required to fulfil certain roles is important  There is an expectation that Museums are outward facing working with schools and the wider community. However this is currently becoming more problematic as the expectation is these are "free" or at a significantly reduced entry fee. The expectation is make this up in either grant funding programmes and/or in "spend" on food/drinks/small purchases.  The role of Museum Communicator was well received especially with a transnational bias. Many museums are currently struggling to maintain budgets and staff so a focus on re-skilling and training people to build their confidence and skill base is valuable.  Learning needs to respond to new technologies, have a trans- national dimension and be work related practical “ on the job.”

4. Key Findings Peer Review (2)  There needs to be clarification as to how "far reaching" the post will be particularly for the more local museum/cultural provider.The full programme possibly has more relevance within the public sectors and or those in high tourist destinations or with collections that have wider relevance. Smaller Museums may be better served via a “ Modular “ approach to pick and choose topics to meet their particular requirements.  Marketing to smaller Museums needs to address relevance and focus to meet their needs. The main market seems to be with larger institutions.  The Professional standard of the “Museum Communicator” is seen as relevant to future needs. Respondents whilst endorsing the competence units and competence indicators are keen to see more detail.

5. 2012 Evaluation Module (II)  Elements and Tools for Social Research  Techniques for Planning Activites  Project Management  Techniques for Monitoring Activities  Strategies for Lobbying  Educational Methodologies and Tools

6. General Overview UK Respondents Respondents remain positive about the Aim and Objectives of the Museum Communicator programme It provides a formalised and accredited learning methodogy for those in Museums that currently does not exist There is a potential gap in the market However to make it more accessible UK respondents believe that we need to consider the following :-

7. Comments from Respondents 1 Need to improve clarity and think about – Translation issues Words versus Pictures and tables What is the role of this module - no explanation ? How is each section relevant and how do they fit with each other ? What is the bigger picture ? Use of terminology e.g social research/ market research How can the material and approach be customised to individual countries or How do we ensure international curricula is relevant and accepted across different EU countries

8. Comments from UK Respondents 11 Areas of curricula ( Is this in other Modules ? ) e.g. Use of Technology Thinking in an Innovative way Sales Areas of Marketing Overlapping Museum Communicator offer with other programmes Offer of modules with existing providers – is there a centralised certification planned ?

9. Conclusions and Recommendations The course needs to be adopted by recognised UK providers to have currency Modules need to be refined / reduced Explanation of how the whole course works in terms of content and how they relate to each other We need to be clear about assessment regime to gain certification Clarify professional grade / level of Mu Com course. Does it carry university credits or does it stand alone In the testing we need to enable participants to undertake single modules and / or elements Make sure learner support is present in testing phase All learners in testing phase need to have achievment recognised

10. Thank You Any questions ?