Exhibition development process for Power of

Interviewees who were involved in the exhibition’s development process were asked how they would describe that process. As most of the exhibition was externally developed, the only internal professionals interviewed for this section were the museum director and project manager. Most people involved in the exhibition’s development process were external contractors who noted the

mostly iterative (rather than linear) approach that responded to ideas as they emerged. This

approach is not uncommon in their fields of digital interactive design and academia, but it was very different for MoAD. The museum director confirmed that MoAD ‘started at a point with a particular idea … a fairly conventional narrative, linear narrative, object-based approach [From Activism to Apathy]. It wasn’t going to deliver the sort of experience and ask the questions that we wanted to’ (M5). The project then moved to an iterative, participatory approach that was open and collaborative, and the desired outcomes were not known until late in the process and depended largely on the contributions of visitors. I can remember deliberately and consciously choosing this approach at the beginning of the project. I wanted to follow a different and experimental path than the highly structured, controlling and inflexible processes I perceived in the museum, and I wanted to accommodate the best and most creative ideas into the project for as long as possible to ‘set it free’. I became aware that the participatory exhibition was not the only output that would be new and experimental. The processes that were pursued were also radically different from conventional museum project management processes and were informed by ‘radical trust’ (Fichter 2006; McLean 2007; Lynch and Alberti 2010) to result in the Power of 1. External contractor M1 noted her

familiarity with the shift in approach:

M1: It started off as a linear response to a brief and then became quite iterative in response to frank and open collaboration and discussions. It was iteratively expanded well beyond the original scope. But from the, for the production studio side, all our processes are highly interactive and iterative because they have to be … so we have to be prepared to go in a completely different direction or to respond to changes to brief.

The open and iterative approach was challenging but satisfying for most of the external contractors. M3 described the process as ‘really remarkable’, even though he had not been involved in the development of large exhibitions before:

M3: It was clear that the museum and the people running the project were very open to possibilities. There wasn’t a very pre-defined, prescriptive idea of what the outcomes should be. And that was really interesting. I was really impressed at how long that conversation remained open. While there very clear roles, responsibilities, budgets, you know, everything, all the structures you’d expect to see in place, there was a very strong encouragement that people conversed and crossed those lines … there might be ideas there that are untenable, but we’d better … think big before you lock into small ideas. So that was really good. I imagine it was probably quite exhausting too for the people involved for the long haul. I was only involved for a short period. I mean, in an academic context it’s not uncommon … but what was really impressive in the context of the museum was it’s not an academic context, you know.

M2 said it was ‘actually a good thing’ that the process was ‘being developed as we went and … plans [were] reviewed and changed’. From the perspective of M6—whose role had clearer outputs and deadlines, including data analysis—the process was ‘a mixture’ of ‘iterative deliberation and consultation’ and ‘linear analysis’. However, the aspect that M6 appreciated the most was that ‘it was a very inclusive approach. We felt very much as if, you know, our views were taken into

account every step of the way. It was good to collaborate with people who were very open-minded and not fixed in their views, and I think that worked both ways’ (M6). These comments show that open development processes need to be respectful of participants and can have a variety of fixed and defined roles and outputs as required.

This approach to keeping ideas, collaboration and structure open to change for as long as possible was not without its frustrations. Having to remain open and responsive meant that some early elements were not incorporated into the end product. For M2, this was ‘frustrating’ and ‘wasteful … having locked-in various suppliers for various elements of the content before interactive design had been done, which is just, you know, it’s like locking yourself into a particular supplier for materials on a building before you start the architecture’. M4 noted the challenge of the sustained openness of the process, which did not include a defined brief, and ‘all of those parameters … remained quite open for quite a long time into the process’. M4 conceded that the uncertainty of the continual development of ideas and open collaboration was ‘difficult’, but acknowledged that ‘a more straightforward way’ would have involved ‘locked-down’ roles and outcomes: 

M4: It might have been possible to do something like, say, ‘Ok, well the generation room, that’s where the participation happens. MOD can design and do that. And then there’ll be this room which will be tangible data and that, and we’ll do that’. And that would have been way easier as a design process, but it would have been a much poorer outcome because there wouldn’t have been that integration of those elements. And so, you know, the whole thing for me feels incredibly coherent and well designed, and really unified. And so, I think carving up and, you know, specifying the outcomes in advance would have really harmed that.

It is noteworthy that the open and uncertain process helped to result in an integrated, creative and quality exhibition design. Structured development processes are typically defended in museums because they can provide these same outcomes, but in practice the inflexibility of these

conventional processes can result in locked-in ideas and approaches early in the process before the integration and cross-fertilisation of ideas, content and messages can be achieved.

For museum staff member M7, this iterative process felt ‘strange’ because it was so unlike the structured approaches that were used to manage the development of other museum exhibitions. M7 was responsible for managing procurement, monitoring milestones and contracts, and liaising with other museum staff. It was a complex and demanding role with reporting requirements and responsibilities that were not conducive to the open-ended approach of the project. I believe that the project would not have been achieved without the detailed project management of M7 who, while occasionally uncomfortable with the ‘quite intense’ unconventional approach, worked professionally and effectively to deliver the project. M7 explained that because ‘we were almost building the show as we went, as things happened and as new ideas came to the surface or as more information became available’, the open, collaborative and unconventional exhibition development

process presented significant challenges for MoAD, a national cultural institution in a protected heritage building with necessarily strict financial, legal and administrative requirements (as a government institution expending public funds):

M7: Oh God (laughs). It was such a strange process because it wasn’t a standard project team process that OPH [MoAD] would have used in the past because it didn’t really have a curatorial component. It didn’t have objects. So from a project team point of view,

generally [usually] the main players in each exhibition project team are curators and collection managers and they weren’t really a part of this. Most of the project management was very, erm, it was very focused on a couple of people—you and me—the finance people and the contractors. And so, you know, it was more about pulling people in when we needed them, rather than, sort of, the more project, standardised project team approach.

M7 advised that supporting the open process within government procedures and obligations was ‘extremely time-consuming’. In fact, M7 felt strongly that not enough time was allocated to accommodate ‘real thinking time that you would normally have early on in a project. And that’s because, you know, we had a very clear set of expectations from management as to what date that exhibition would go in, or at least that it would go in in 2014’.

This open-ended approach to exhibition development accommodated a more democratic,

collaborative co-production of multiple, and at times conflicting, perspectives and ideas. This type of approach was an attempt to produce participatory experiences and processes and create a cultural change within the museum to be more visitor-focused and inclusive of new ideas. The open-ended approach helped to ensure that the project team was not controlling the outcomes or process, and that visitors’ contributions, with a commitment to ‘radical trust’, genuinely shaped the content of the exhibition. However, such a significant change in process and culture was difficult to accommodate in a government context and should have been acknowledged by providing

additional time to the project to navigate governance requirements, communicate the

unconventional approach to participants early in the process and avoid waste, duplication and frustration. Training could also have been provided to staff and collaborators who were unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the open approach.

As the process was new to most of the project team, the interviewees were asked how the open and uncertain approach to developing and delivering the project made them feel. Some of the principles of participation, including open-endedness, giving agency and welcoming different and conflicting voices, had become part of the development process itself, and internal project manager M7 noted that the process felt ‘strange’ and ‘intense’. The external museum professionals were not completely familiar with the approach, and most felt that it was a positive but sometimes uncomfortable experience, supported by shared ambitions and open and respectful communication. M4 felt ‘inspired by the openness’ but was sometimes ‘concerned, you know, about not feeling the edges’.

significant risk’. She contrasted the Power of 1 with previous projects she had worked on, ‘there’s been a real inability to grasp the reality of the situation and people can put up barriers until they hit the wall, and we didn’t [on the Power of 1], you know, we had issues, we had problems, but we never actually hit any walls or had any huge disasters because we were flagging things as we went’ (M1). M2 also enjoyed the process, even though there was some tension, because it felt creative to collaborate and produce something that was so new:

M2: Of course there are moments when you don’t enjoy things, but what felt good to me was the ability to integrate different areas together … bringing together these threads from all different people and creating something new and exciting and engaging that hadn’t been done before. How it felt along the way, you know, yes, somewhat rushed, somewhat … a little bit disjointed sometimes, you know? There was some tension around the creative process but you felt creative.

The museum director felt the process was ‘exciting’:

M5: It was unclear exactly what the outcome would be when we started out, but there were extremely creative people who were open to exploring something different, and confident enough to take some risks, including, you know, the partnerships, the teams, etc., that allowed it to take off. Because it could have been far less successful in the hands of different people. It was the combination of your creativity, confidence in the participatory space, pulling the right team together, having Canberra University [IGPA] who were

open… and their willingness to, again, try something new. The thing for me about it was

the absolute collaborative nature of it, with key partners, that just took it beyond what I would consider to be the sort of museum experience we had done in the past at this museum.

Typically, museum exhibition development processes avoid conflict and discomfort, but this case study shows that as long as the project is managed with respect and trust, it is possible for project partners to disagree on some aspects or even feel uncomfortable, as explained by M6 from IGPA:

M6: I thought it was highly professional. It was one of the more professional encounters that I’ve had with a governmental organisation in my career, and I’ve had lots of them, hundreds of them, all around the world. Whereas this was a very different experience, you know? Clearly you guys made up your mind relatively quickly … but once you decided, right, these are the people you want to collaborate with, then there was strong trust on all sides and we moved forward very, very quickly. And that was a great feeling to be part of that, I have to say, you know because, you know, it’s not an easy thing to do.

The political science academic’s contention that trust was the key component that ensured the progress and success of the project reflects the arguments of museum studies scholars, such as McLean (2007), that the online library community’s advocacy of ‘radical trust’ (Fichter 2006) is needed to democratise museums. The trusting, respectful, open-ended and collaborative approach of the external parties redefined and extended the museum experience, even though it was a sometimes frustrating and uncomfortable experience. The discomfort that some participants felt supports Lynch and Alberti’s (2010, 15) call for museums to seek ‘dissensus’ (not consensus) to

accommodate ‘multiple and contested perspectives that invite participants and visitors into further dialogue’.