By James B. Gardner and Elizabeth Merritt

This article was published in Museum News, July/August 2002.

Collecting is central to the mission of most museums. Museums devote significant resources to the acquisition and maintenance of collections. It is surprising then that collections planning is among the rarest of museum activities. It is surely one of the most critically needed.

As financial and other resources become scarce and competition for them grows more intense, exerting greater control over the content and size of a museum’s collection has become an issue for all institutions, large and small. All across the country, museums are discovering that they cannot afford to care for every object that they might acquire, even if it is directly related to institutional mission. As a result, some tough choices have to be made about what to collect, what not to collect, and what to remove from the collections. Even when financial resources are not a limiting factor, collecting decisions made by individuals, however knowledgeable, do not automatically result in a coherent, well-rounded collection that best serves the needs of the institution. What is needed is a carefully prepared collections plan—one that has earned the support of the director, the board, and the senior staff.

The lack of collections planning is not limited to small and mid-size museums. Even a large institution such as the Smithsonian faces the same challenges. One might assume that, as the nation’s history museum, the National Museum of American History (NMAH) would have a relatively clear collecting mandate—to preserve and interpret American history and culture. But in fact, its staff acquire objects without clearly articulated institutional parameters or vision. Though the curatorial units nominally have collecting plans, these mostly are, as one staff member described them, little more than “shelf inventories.” Self-directed curators build on their predecessors’ interests and work, adding depth and new topics, but often operating in isolation from other staff and other units. As a result, while the museum’s collections are exceptional in terms of their quality and depth, they are also rather idiosyncratic; the parts don’t add up to a whole. There is no substitute for a serious, institutionally coordinated attempt at collections planning.

NMAH is far from alone; museums around the country face the same problem, perhaps different in scale but similar in kind. Museums often believe their collections policies constitute collecting plans, but they rarely do. Collections policies list conditions that must be met for an object to be acquired—for example, good provenance, high quality, relevant to mission—and generally outline the scope of the collection. Such “Scope of the Collection” statements draw broad boundaries—for example, geographic origin, time period, subject matter—around what might be acquired and summarize what is already in the collection. However, these statements usually provide only the most basic guidance for determining what types of items might be acquired. And the description of the collection sometimes includes material that the museum owns but does not want to retain. Policies cannot replace a current, ongoing, institutionally supported planning process.

What many institutions need is better focused and more disciplined collections planning. Planning is an inclusive effort, one that brings together staff from across departmental boundaries and may also reach out to external stakeholders. The planning process may lead board and staff to reexamine basic assumptions about the museum’s mission and its role in the community. The process also may challenge assumptions about traditional staff roles and areas of authority. At NMAH, for example, a culture of autonomous curators working in relatively isolated collecting units presents a particularly daunting organizational challenge. Unless all those units buy in to a new collecting plan, it is doomed to fail. In other words, the human aspects of planning require at least as much care and thought as the physical, financial, and administrative aspects. It is one thing to write a plan; it is quite another to implement it. And the work doesn’t end with implementation. Collections planning must be an ongoing process, not fossilized in a document that sits on the shelf, overlooked by the curators.

Data from AAM’s Accreditation Program suggest that collections planning is a concern throughout the field. The Accreditation Program recognizes museums that are committed to the highest standards of operation and public service. Nationally about 750 museums are accredited, and about 25 more apply to the program each year. Each year about 100 museums are reviewed by the nine-member Accreditation Commission, either as first-time applicants for accreditation or as part of the process for subsequent accreditation. According to the Commission, a lack of collections planning is a major impediment to the success of many of the institutions that they review. These museums commit significant time and resources to achieving excellence while also submitting to a detailed, systematic review by peers. As such, they may serve as an early-warning system for issues in the field at large.

The Accreditation Commission has identified a pattern of recurring problems connected to collections stewardship and institutional planning: insufficient resources to support collections; collections unrelated to the institution’s mission; and a lack of integration between planning for collections, interpretation, and facilities. These issues interfere in concrete ways with the museum’s ability to succeed: the collections may suffer from poor care; limited resources may be spent on acquiring material that is unrelated to institutional mission; and the institution may perform ineffectively because its collections, exhibits, and educational activities are neither connected to each other nor supported by a financial plan. The Commission believes that these issues can be addressed through a collections-planning process that is strategic, audience-centered, visionary, tied to resource allocation, and encompasses all collections and all functional areas of the institution.

Recently AAM and NMAH issued a call for sample collecting plans from museums of all types, sizes, and geographic locations. These plans vary greatly in style and content, but they do have certain similarities. Although there is no field-wide “template” for a collecting plan, many museums have discovered independently that certain components are useful and necessary. After a preliminary examination, it is clear that most collecting plans:

1) Identify the museum’s audience(s) and how their needs will be served by the collections. Selecting the “right stuff” can be done only in the context of the intended use of the collections. A collection intended to support in-depth, scholarly research will be very different from one meant to provide the public with a general survey of a topic. This “needs assessment” also may encompass the museum’s plans for exhibits and educational programs—in what ways does the collection need to grow to support those activities? In other words, an effective collecting plan must be tied to the institution’s strategic planning.

2) Review the strengths and weaknesses of the existing collections. All curators have an understanding of their collections, but rarely put this information down on paper or share it with their colleagues throughout the museum. In an institution as large as NMAH, for example, things sometimes fall between the cracks without notice or discussion—from the little-used collections that sit unnoticed in large curatorial units to the collecting opportunities that remain unaddressed simply because they fall outside existing specializations or interests.

3) Include a “gap analysis” contrasting the real and the ideal collection. NMAH has taken the first step by developing a central theme—“What has it meant to be an American?”—as well as sub-themes that provide the context for assessing the existing collection and envisioning “the ideal.”

4) Set priorities for acquisition and deaccessioning based on the needs assessment and gap analysis. This is the key to the planning process, since setting priorities can drive change and focus efforts. Prioritizing acquisitions is a way to show donors that the material you seek is key to your success. Deaccessioning is sometimes a controversial activity that museums often avoid due to concerns about bad publicity. A good collections-planning process can explain to the public that the museum is making responsible and appropriate choices about deaccessioning that will best serve its audience(s).

5) Identify “complementary collections” held by other museums or organizations that may affect the museum’s collections choices.  In a world of rapidly constricting resources, museums are turning to partnerships and cooperative agreements with other institutions. Many museums consciously choose not to collect in areas that are strongly represented in other museums, particularly if those museums serve the same audience. Some institutions have begun to cooperate by building mutually supportive, complementary collections that can be used as joint resources. Others proactively identify other museums that may be suitable recipients for donations they wish to route away from their own organizations.

6) Take into account existing or needed resources. A powerful collecting plan is one that ties its objectives to a concrete analysis of the financial, human, and physical resources needed to support the collection. Building a compelling vision of the future can help leverage funds and support. On the other hand, failing to plan for the necessary resources for new acquisitions can render the museum unable to fulfill its collections stewardship responsibilities.

To build on these preliminary observations about the characteristics of effective collections planning, NMAH and AAM will sponsor a two-day colloquium in Washington, D.C., in the fall of 2002. Participants will be invited to share ideas on the need for collections planning, techniques for the planning process, and characteristics of an effective plan. NMAH will use the outcomes to inform its own planning process, and AAM will summarize the results and disseminate them to the field. (For more information on the dates and location of the colloquium, please visit the AAM Website at www.aam-us.org.)

Admittedly, NMAH’s goal in partnering with AAM in this initiative is a self-serving one—the museum expects to gain not only a useful understanding of best practices but also a new collecting plan, a clearly articulated vision of how its collections should be shaped and developed. The museum takes pride in the collections that it has built, but it also recognizes that it cannot assume that its current collecting approach will meet its future responsibilities. Its staff must continue to make tough choices about what to collect. But those choices have to be better informed and made within the context of NMAH’s larger role as the nation’s history museum.

But there is a bonus to taking this project on: the opportunity to help AAM lead the larger museum community in a critically needed discussion about collections planning. We hope that ultimately other museums of all sizes and type, in all regions across the country, will be able to benefit from what we learn. After all, this is planning that gets at the heart of what so many of us are all about—collecting and collections.

James B. Gardner is associate director for curatorial affairs, National Museum of American History, Behring Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Elizabeth Merritt is director, Museum Advancement & Excellence, American Association of Museums.