But say it was to take off… I worry that you are going to create a monopoly of ‘approved’ partner companies that actually leads to creativity and innovation being stifled. Competition, innovation, risk - isn’t that what drives us forward?

Yes some museums are paying far over the odds for web sites and hosting, but I’m not sure the answer is a digital agency. Knowing who to consult, some realistic costs, how to write a brief… up skilling people seems more important to me. And as digital work is becoming more integral to the work that museums do then we really should be ensuring that we have people with the necessary knowledge and skills.

I can’t help feeling that a digital agency will in a way cut museums off from the wider digital world - yet another silo!

Finally, working in a museum in a Local Authority I have to say I can’t see my LA buying into the idea of using a ‘museum’ digital agency!

These are really useful obsrvations, and many thanks for them. Some I agree with, others less so, but the main thing is that we need to understand and address these concerns as we go through the process.

There are a couple of points I’d like to address directly. The first being ‘if you’re commercial, you’re commercial’. I flat out disagree with this, I’m afraid, being an ardent champion of social enterprise. The Collections Trust, and the MDA before it, has operated on a quasi-commercial basis (or at least on a trading basis) for decades - and the proposed digital agency is very similar to the erstwhile MDA Services enterprise in the 90’s, which didn’t fundamentally undermine our role in the sector.

I also disagree that this does anything other than strengthen the SPECTRUM Partners Scheme - we are neither developing nor selling systems. Instead, we are doing something the Partners have asked of us for years - helping the sector to become better clients and more efficient purchasers of Collections Management systems. I am sure that some may regard this as competition, but once it is clearer what we are actually doing, I think people will understand this for what it is - which is essentially economically-sustainable brokerage.

The same is also true of the newly-launched Collections Trust Affiliates Scheme which brings together independents and freelancers with expertise and experience in specific sector disciplines. Again, this is a form both of brokerage and extension of our offer to museums.

You are correct in identifying the vital role that volunteer contributions play in our work - we are, after all, a very small outfit - but in my experience the majority of people understand the difference between the things we do for the sector and the things we do for money.

FInally, the straitened economic times affect all of us, and while Collections Trust continues to receive vital funding support from the MLA, we should not be complacent. Developing commercially-viable business models for some areas of our work enables us to sustain the rest - in this case the proposed agency will enable us to sustain and build on the Culture Grid. Remember that it is not that the Collections Trust is going commercial, but that we are building commercial activities to support the achievement of our core charitable aims.

I do not, as you know, treat the trust invested in the Collections Trust lightly, but I believe there is a legitimate model to be had here which builds on this trust, reinforces our role as brokers, but also enables us to support both the changing role and economics of the sector.

All best,

Nick

I’m going to be a dissenting voice on this one, I’m afraid.

If you’re commercial, you’re commercial, even if it’s all done via partners. Being commercial destroys your ability to act as a broker: you can’t be a player and be the referee at the same time. Essentially this holes the SPECTRUM Partners project below the waterline. Suppliers (apart from the chosen few) will see CT as competition, not a “partner”, because that is what you have chosen to be.

Being commercial also shifts your position and possibilities within the community. At present, many museum people contribute freely to the work of CT, on the basis that it is working for the common good. You may find that willingness evaporates if CT has a commercial arm.

I can understand your frustration with the poor or expensive services that museums can get, but surely the answer is to extend the approach you have already adopted for CMS, for example by starting a “CT Partners” scheme for website developers, web hosting companies, etc. Then you can encourage the adoption of best practice, provide some transparency over pricing, etc., and let museums choose the service they want to use, without compromising your own position. You would, in fact, be strengthening your existing “brand”.

Your description suggests that would be carrying across the “Collections Trust goodness” to the new commercial arm, making it better than other commercial operations. Unfortunately, financial realities will also be a factor, and you may find that the challenges of making this thing work impact adversely on the CT’s core operation. Even if you are using agencies to do the detailed work, you will still need to employ staff to monitor the whole scheme and deliver the consistent interface you describe above. And it’s not the easiest time to start a commercial enterprise, nor the easiest market to deliver it to.

Best wishes,

Richard

Many thanks for your message. Not UK-focussed at all! One of the main partners in getting things going is a leading-edge Digital agency in Australia. Our aim is to assemble a dream-team of skills worldwide, so if you’re up for it, drop me a line offline and we’ll talk it through!

All best,

Nick

Exactly! Much of the genesis of this proposal is in the fact that sector organisations are at very different places on their journey towards open publication of cultural data.

Some are way, way ahead of us and doing amazing things. Many, however, are less well-advanced. If the dream of the Culture Grid is to become a reality, then we need to back the Culture Grid up with real-world services and infrastructure.

Also, and this is more of a personal view - there are great suppliers, and there are not so great suppliers. I deal with too many museums that are paying £60k for a website and £10k for hosting, and it means people are reluctant to take risks and try things out. By backing the Grid up with a real offer, I think we can make a real difference.

As you say, we’re planning to do this thing 100% in plain sight, to get the views of the sector. This in itself is interesting - any other organisation can mobilise to do exactly the same thing. But we don’t think it’s the idea that’s the critical success factor, we think it’s the implementation.