The Museum Innovation Model: A museum perspective on innovation

4/13/2016 The Museum Innovation Model: A museum perspective on innovation

http://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/themuseuminnovationmodelamuseumperspectivetoinnovation/ 1/16

The Museum Innovation Model: A museum perspectiveon innovation

Haitham Eid, Southern University at New Orleans, USA

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing efforts of the museum sector to build a museumperspective of innovation. More specifically, the paper presents a new framework for innovation inmuseums called the Museum Innovation Model (MIM). The model emerged as a result of Ph.D.research that included a number of museums in the United States and the United Kingdom. Thetheoretical framework of the model is based on three concepts—open innovation, social enterprise, andsocial innovation—each of which, the research observed, are growing trends in the museum sector. Theproposed paper offers an overview of each term, with special focus on museums. It also argues that theMIM could be used as 1) a planning tool to carry out innovation or 2) an evaluation tool to scrutinizeinnovation in museums. MIM is structured to make innovation in museums scalable, replicable, andfeasible to start and operate. Beyond the case studies mentioned in this paper, elements of the modelcan be found in museums of different sizes, management styles, geographical locations, and collections.This is informed by Nesta’s various projects and Chesbrough’s (2003) and (2014) work around openinnovation and open social innovation, as well as Janes’ (2010) discussion about the “mindful museum.”Finally, the paper concludes by underscoring that the principles of MIM (i.e., open innovation, socialenterprise, and social innovation) are interconnected and together can present a formula for innovationin museums. The formula might be expressed simply as: museums that adopt a social enterprisebusiness model and utilize open innovation strategies are capable of achieving social innovation.Keywords: Museum Innovation, Open Innovation, Social Enterprise

1. IntroductionIn recent years, innovation has become a topic of significant interest among museums and hasdominated the discussion in many museum conferences, workshops, and seminars. This is probablybecause innovation, if applied correctly, can help museums achieve their organizational mission moreeffectively and efficiently. In business, innovation is an important part in the process of creating valueproposition in any organization. To avoid variability of results and possible failures, adopting acomprehensive framework to carry out innovation is crucial. Therefore, this paper uses conceptualstructures from business and museology literatures, as well as three case studies at three museums inthe United States and United Kingdom, to introduce a model for innovation in museums, called theMuseum Innovation Model (MIM).

MIM recognizes museum innovation as the new or enhanced processes, products, or business models

http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/member/Haitham/



by which museums can effectively achieve their social and cultural mission. The conceptual structure ofthe MIM consists of three major concepts: open innovation, social enterprise, and social innovation.These concepts are interconnected and together can present a formula for innovation in museums. Theformula might be expressed simply as: museums that adopt a social enterprise business model andutilize open innovation strategies are capable of achieving social innovation. It may be helpful at theoutset of our attempt to introduce the model, to offer an overview of the definition of each term.

2. Open innovationOpen innovation refers to the framework that allows organizations to create channels by which outsideand inside ideas can be transmitted to and from the organization during the innovation process. HenryChesbrough (2003), the originator of the open innovation theory, defines it as “a paradigm that assumesthat businesses both can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal andexternal paths to market, when seeking to advance their technology.”

Figure 1: open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003)

As figure 1 shows, the boundary between the firm and its environment (represented in dotted lines) isporous. Hence, creating outbound and inbound paths for internal and external ideas/projects to moveout of and into the organization is an essential concept in the open innovation model. Some researcherssuch as Lindegaard (2010) refer to these paths as bridges.

3. Social enterpriseSocial enterprise is a hybrid business model that encourages social organizations to use businessstrategies and market tools to achieve their social, cultural, or environmental objectives (figure 2). In thatsense, social enterprises are expected to have double bottom lines: profit making (as a means) and thecreation of social value (as the ultimate goal). Social Enterprise Alliance (SEA), the membershiporganization for the social enterprise sector in North America, defines it as “businesses whose primarypurpose is the common good. They use the methods and disciplines of business and the power of themarketplace to advance their social, environmental, and human justice agendas” (Social EnterpriseAlliance, 2012).

Figure 2: the mix of business strategies and social missions in the social enterprise business model

4. Social innovationSocial innovation is about new or more effective solutions to pressing social problems. This researchpaper understands the term as an expression of both the outcome and the process by which thesolution is being created. The Center for Social Innovation (2013) at Stanford University defines it as “anovel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than currentsolutions. The value created accrues primarily to society rather than to private individuals.”



Figure 3: Nesta’s model of social nnovation

As illustrated in figure 3, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (Nesta) in theUnited Kingdom has presented a sixstage model for social innovation. The model describes how socialinnovation starts in its infancy as an idea and goes through a dynamic process, to the final stage, whichis the ultimate goal for the innovation where systematic change takes place (Murray et al., 2010).

Now, we will present three case studies that investigate how open innovation, social enterprise, andsocial innovation can be manifested in a museum context, with a special focus on digital.

5. Case study 1: Open innovation at the Department of Digital and Emerging Media at CooperHewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum (New York, United States)The Digital and Emerging Media department at Cooper Hewitt stands behind the exceptional success ofdigital at the museum, from interactive displays to the museum website and the collection managementsystem. The department describes itself as “a space for exploring what it means to be a museum in theInternet age” (Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, n.d.). Many members of the team at thedepartment are well known in the museum sector for their innovative work. The department is alsoreferred to as Cooper Hewitt Lab, where they operate and conduct meetings. At the time when this studywas conducted, Australianborn Seb Chan was the head of the Digital and Emerging Media department.The work conducted by Chan’s team is highly regarded in the museum sector and considered by manymuseum professionals as innovative.

The team has a high spirit of belonging and interconnectivity with the outside world in general and themuseum sector in particular, as evidenced by the way the team members envision their role. They askquestions like: “How can we make our services more informative, more explorable, and moreinterconnected with other museums?” (Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, n.d.) Thisconnectivity extends in two different directions: outbound (insideout), and inbound (outsidein), both ofwhich are important concepts in the open innovation theory. This research has identified several openinnovation paths at Cooper Hewitt Lab, and we will be able to examine one of these paths below (i.e.,open sourcing).

Inbound open innovation activities can be defined as the process by which museums can attract,acquire, and utilize knowledge that exists outside the museums to advance their internal innovation



processes, while outbound open innovation activities are the processes by which museums make theirinternal knowledge available to other museums and organizations to accelerate innovation.

Open sourcing: Making source codes available for developersThe Digital and Emerging Media department creates codes for the museum’s internal use, serving awide range of technical services from the museum website and the collections management software tothe interactive displays. This research reveals that Cooper Hewitt Lab makes some of its source codesavailable on GitHub for developers to add and improve. GitHub is a platform for sharing, building, andmanaging open source codes. Aaron Cope (2014), then head of Engineering (Internets and Computers)at Cooper Hewitt Lab, considers the open source movement a way of giving back to the community andthe sector: “The other big change, and this has been in almost all industries, has been open source.Advocating for and supporting [open source]; and suddenly it is a culture of giving back. We go out ofour way, as much as possible, to give source code back to the community.”

Generally, the open source movement has produced some innovative, wellknown programs andsoftware such as Linux (computer operating system), FireFox (internet browser), and OpenOffice (officesuite). Wallen (2013) notes that “[t]here are thousands upon thousands of open source projects thatbring about innovation. Some do so on a small scale, while others are thinking massive and global.”Moreover, Ebert Christof (2007) argues that open sourcing drives innovation and “[t]he free and opensource software movement has had phenomenal impact on the industry evolution.” Thus, open sourcehas the potential to advance museum innovation in the sector and improve innovation capabilities inindividual museums. Cooper Hewitt Lab is one of the most important contributors to the open sourcemovement in museums.

An example of its contribution is the code it used for Chromecast experimentation, where members ofChan’s team worked with Google engineers to find more costeffective digital signage alternatives formuseums. The lab advertises its contribution and solicit inputs from the wider community: “We have putall of this code up on our GitHub account and we encourage [you] to try it out and let us know where andwhen it does not work and to contribute your fixes” (Cooper Hewitt Lab, 2013). The strategy of sharingsource codes does not only help others to improve their operations by using the code (outbound), butalso improves the code itself (inbound). Skilled developers from around the world can contribute to thesource code, which leads to incremental improvements. There are many individuals with very highlevelskill sets in the world. Allowing them to contribute to the museum internal research and development canhelp museums increase their ability to innovate. Kris Arnold (2013), a Web developer at the DallasMuseum of Art and previously at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, explains:

A lot of the projects I worked on at the Indianapolis Museum of Art we open sourced. Anybody coulddownload them for free. Open sourcing code is not just writing it, throwing it up on GitHub, and you aredone. It is talking to people; helping them through setting it up, installing it; maintaining the product.Through that process other people are contributing back.



Arnold’s comments confirm our assumption mentioned above, which argues that open source canfacilitate a twoway path for innovation. The outbound path ultimately occurs when the source codes aremade available for others to use. On the other hand, the inbound path is represented in thecontributions made by the community of developers to the source code.

In conclusion, we were able to discuss a twoway open innovation path at Cooper Hewitt Lab. This pathrepresents inbound and outbound activities, which can be summarized as followed:

Figure 4: open sourcing as a path for open innovation

Museums differ in terms of the nature of their collections, sizes, missions, governing and managementstyles, and the communities they serve. Therefore, inbound and outbound open innovation activities can(and perhaps should) differ from one museum to another. If open innovation is a framework that canpossibly interest any museum, that museum may want to invest the time and efforts necessary to planits tailored open innovation strategies, which allow the museum to innovate and effectively achieve itsmission.

6. Case study 2: The role of digital in the social enterprise business model at the Imperial WarMuseums (IWM) (London, United Kingdom)IWM is a cluster of museums and historical sites consisting of five museums (including a historical ship):IWM London; IWM North in Trafford, Greater Manchester; IWM Duxford near Cambridge; the ChurchillWar Rooms in Whitehall, London; and the historic ship HMS Belfast, moored in the Pool of London onthe River Thames. The Imperial War Museums are among the pioneering and perhaps the earliestmuseums in the United Kingdom to use a social enterprise business model to build financial resilience.As early as 1999, IWM established its commercial division, IWM Trading Company Ltd., which isultimately responsible for running and managing the commercial activities of IWM. The museum stateson its website:

The majority of the funding for our core activities is raised by means of charitable giving, philanthropicsupport, sponsorship and donations, admission charges and IWM’s commercial activities. Thesecommercial activities are conducted through the IWM Trading Company Ltd., and include retail,corporate hospitality, public catering, air shows, private tours, pleasure flying, publishing, licensing of thecollections. (IWM, n.d., a)

According to the 2011 Museum Annual Report, IWM generated £4,000,000 revenues from retailactivities, and the overall profit was 18 percent higher than the previous year. Although IWM London wasclosed for more than seven months during 2014, the museum was able to make £2.8 million in net profit,according to its 2013–2014 annual report. This is partially because the museum was able to capitalizeon its digital assets: “Growing interest in the First World War is reflected by a high volume of image andfilm sales and significant licensing deals” (IWM, 2014). Additionally, the museum plans to increase itsprofit from commercial activities to £4 million by the next financial year. IWM hopes to achieve that goal



“through the development of commercial functions, to ensure that we operate a flexible and responsivecommercial operation and build our digital sales capability” (IWM, 2014). More specifically, the museumplans to enter new markets and increase its online inventory of digital assets for potential customers:

We have been developing a new Image Sales Licensing website which will launch in the summer. Thiswill see our commercial operation shift from a manual service to a digital service where our images willbe readily available to download. Commercial partnerships with organisations such as Getty Imageshave already seen our iconic images made widely available in new markets which until now we have hadlittle presence in. (IWM, 2014)

By definition, the IWM represents a functioning social enterprise. The museum uses business strategiesand market principles to generate revenues, and uses the profit to support its core social mission(double bottom line). Through this business model, IWM (2014) seeks to build financial resilience andcreate a sustainable business model. Generally, digital can contribute to the suitability of the socialenterprise business model at any museum through direct and indirect approaches. The direct approachis represented, as in our example here, in the museum’s strategy to license digital images and videoswhich directly generate earned income for the museum. The indirect approach is ultimately the roledigital plays to enhance the visitor experience, thereby attracting more people to pay admission,encouraging them to stay long enough to purchase products from the restaurant and the museum store,and getting them enthusiastic enough to possibly become museum members.

The contribution of digital to the social enterprise business model at IWM is not just limited to generatingrevenues for the museum. Digital is also essential in helping IWM to achieve its core mission toshowcase the stories of those individuals who participated in different wars. For example, IWM started aproject to centralize, and so to present to the public, all documents, stories, and information about thosewho participated in the First World War. These were dispersed in different museums, libraries, andorganizations. Reflecting an open innovation strategy, the Lives of the First World War project is awebsite on which each “individual whose contribution to the First World War is recorded in officialdocuments will have a personal Life Story page […]” (IWM, n.d., b) Members of the public can registeron the website and add personal stories on the Life Story page. By 2015, the website had amassed7,662,316 life stories, 119,427 individuals had been remembered, 602,777 facts had been added by thepublic, and 2,033 communities had been created. This incredible social impact would have been veryhard to achieve without a conscious digital strategy that recognizes its core values.

In conclusion, IWM runs a successful model of social enterprise, where a commercial division of theorganization, IWM Trading Company Ltd., manages the business activities of the museum. Through thismodel, IWM hopes to build financial resilience or, as some social enterprise advocates say, do well whiledoing good. Digital relies on the center of the model and has been one of the reasons IWM was able toincrease its profit in 2013. Also, digital has been used to expand the impact of IWM’s mission beyond themuseum’s wall and reach a far larger audience.



7. Case study 3: The Tech Awards: A social innovation program at the Tech Museum ofInnovation (United States)The Tech Museum of Innovation is located in the heart of Silicon Valley, the famous technology hub inthe southern San Francisco Bay Area. The museum devotes itself to educating the public about scienceand technology, and inspiring the innovator in everyone. For fifteen years, the Tech Museum has beenrunning The Tech Awards, “a premiere event and program that celebrates those who are usingtechnology to solve the world’s most pressing problems” (The Tech Museum, n.d.). As we recall, theCenter for Social Innovation at Stanford University recognizes social innovation as “a novel solution to asocial problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than current solutions. The valuecreated accrues primarily to society rather than to private individuals.” In 2015, the Tech Museumthrough a specialized judging committee named ten social innovators as the laureates of The TechAward and granted each winner an unrestricted cash prize of $50,000. The Tech Award consists of fivecategories: Intel Environment Award, Microsoft Education Award, Katherine M. Swanson YoungInnovator Award, Sobrato Organization Economic Development Award, and Sutter Health Award. Thesecategories encourage the technological innovation in areas around environment, education, health, andeconomic development. The Intel Environment Award, for example, indicates:

Although technological innovation has sometimes been at odds with sound environmental practices,technology can contribute to clean water, improved air quality and sustainable development. Thiscategory includes the challenges of balancing population growth with available resources, protectinganimal and plant life, as well as addressing the escalating demands for safe and efficient energy. (TheTech Museum, n.d.)

The Tech Museum established highlevel standards in order to be eligible for its prestigious award. Thecriteria indicates that “[t]he project must address a welldefined problem on a global scale” in one of thefive categories mentioned above (The Tech Museum, n.d.). Also, the museum asks that “[b]oth thetechnology and the application are groundbreaking and stand out from current solutions, [t]heinnovation is being used in the field and the impact is already measurable [and] [t]he annual budget isless than $50 million” (The Tech Museum, n.d.).

One of the two winners in the Intel Environment Award category is DayOne Response Inc. TriciaCompasMarkman, CEO of DayOne Response Inc. realized that the availability of clean drinking water isthe biggest challenge faced in many disaster zones around the world (e.g., earthquakes, floods,community displacements, etc.). CompasMarkman, who is a civil engineer by training and has morethan six years of experience working on water treatment technologies, recognizes that “each year morethan 255 million people are affected by natural disasters, and without access to clean water they facepotentially lifethreatening waterborne illnesses” (The Tech Museum, n.d.). She decided to address thisissue and created an innovative water purification system resembling a backpack. The lightweightsystem (or the water bag) is capable of purifying water in thirty minutes and meets the emergencydrinking water guidelines of the World Health Organization and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.



A close analysis of the water bag case, as well as the five categories of The Tech Awards, reflects themuseum’s vision that technology can be an important tool to create sustainable and efficient solutions tosome tough social problems (i.e., social innovation). In other words, the Tech Museum of Innovation wasable to identify and exemplify the intersection between social innovation, museums and digital (Eid,2015).

8. The Museum Innovation Model (MIM)The Museum Innovation Model benefits from the theoretical approaches mentioned above about openinnovation, social enterprise, and social innovation, as well as the case studies at Cooper Hewitt, theImperial War Museums, and the Tech Museum of Innovation. The following figure illustrates thestructure of the model.

Figure 5: the Museum Innovation Model

The model views open innovation, social enterprise, and social innovation as interconnected andtogether which can form a framework that can help museums to innovate. This vision of interconnectivityis supported by substantial evidence. For example, Chesbrough (as originator of open innovation) andMinin (2014) together tried to offer insight on how open innovation strategies can also help socialorganization to innovate. In doing so, they introduced the term Open Social Innovation (OSI) for the firsttime. They defined OSI as “the application of either inbound or outbound open innovation strategies,along with innovations in the associated business model of the organization, to social challenges”(Chesbrough & Minin, 2014).

This is significant as we witness an extraordinary phenomenon where the term is being mirrored in thesocial sector by the same person who coined it in the business context. Additionally, one of the casestudies Chesbrough and Minin (2014) used to introduce their OSI concept is Ashoka, a social enterpriseorganization based in the United States. Ashoka’s mission is “to support social entrepreneurs who areleading and collaborating with changemakers, in a team of teams model that addresses the fluidity of arapidly evolving society” (Ashoka, n.d.). In their article, Chesbrough and Minin argue that socialenterprises become more effective and capable of creating a larger social value if open innovationstrategies are applied. They explain the importance of Ashoka’s case:

Still, what makes the Ashoka’s case such an interesting example of OSI is that its success arrived laterwhen the organization truly opened up its original functioning model. Let us consider the details of suchtransition from a fellowcentered to a collaborativeentrepreneurship based model. (Chesbrough &Minin, 2014)

Chesbrough and Minin are not only mirroring the concept of open innovation in the social sector, but arealso linking it, more specifically, to the social enterprise business model. The use of open innovationstrategies by social enterprises can potentially help organizations to carry out innovation and reach theirmissions, as suggested by Chesbrough and Minin.



Additionally, to illustrate the usefulness of OSI for social enterprises, Chesbrough and Minin (2014) usedNesta’s social innovation model (figure 3) to explain what role open innovation can play at each stage ofthe model. They argued:

Open Social Innovation framework is particularly useful to accessing prototypes (stage 3), sustaininginnovative efforts (step 4) and scaleup activities (step 5) within either the current business model or apotentially novel business model to meet the needs of underserved target populations that puremarketmechanisms are not able to address. (Chesbrough & Minin, 2014)

We previously mentioned Nesta’s social innovation model (figure 3), but what is significant here is thelink made by Chesbrough and Minin, bringing together the three concepts of open innovation, socialenterprise, and social innovation. Essentially, what we are witnessing here is an amassing ofconnections among open innovation (a tool for implementing innovation), social enterprise (a businessmodel that potentially makes organizations more resilient and effective), and social innovation (whichrepresents the outcome or the bottom line for social organizations). These concepts might be seen towork together to provide an innovation model for those organizations that work in the social and culturalsector.

Some museum experts realized the potential that some of these concepts can bring to the sector. Forexample, David Fleming, director of National Museums Liverpool, confirms that Stephen Weil (scholaremeritus at the Smithsonian Institution’s Center for Education and Museum Studies and longtime deputydirector of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden) was a believer in the museum as socialenterprise, stressing the social value of museums. Fleming states, “In fact, Stephen was relentless inpursuing the notion of the Museum as Social Enterprise, and in stressing that without social value themuseum is nothing” (Fleming, 2006). Fleming continues to explain Weil’s vision,

In one essay he came up with at least seven phrases to describe what he wanted: he wanted “socialactivism”; he wanted “social enhancement”; he wanted “social advancement”; he wanted “socialservice”; he wanted “social development”; he wanted “social change”; he wanted a “social outcome.”(Fleming, 2006)

As mentioned earlier, social enterprise is a hybrid business model that combines the social activities ofnonprofits and the business strategies of companies in the private sector (figure 2). Weil’s focus on thesocial aspect of social enterprise—which is, no doubt, part of the concept—and the avoidance of theenterprising dimension can create unintentionally a confused image of the concept. Robert Janes (2013)shares Weil’s perspective and points to the new social entrepreneurship movement in museums. Janesargues that “[t]he intersection of the two—a desire for social change coupled with new and bettersolutions and initiatives—is now called social entrepreneurship, a concept that is slowly taking shape inthe museum world” (Janes, 2013). In another article, The Mindful Museum, Janes (2010) offersexamples of what he believed mindful museums are. His examples included museums and culturalorganizations seeking to positively impact issues related to poverty, starvation, and preservation of water



among other things. Actually, what Weil and Janes are attempting to describe is the museum as socialinnovator, a museum that is conscious of current social challenges and actively engaged in findingsolutions, as we saw in The Tech Awards program at the Tech Museum of Innovation.

Regarding open innovation, Janes (2015) thinks that the idea of allowing the museum to open up andtake the chances to collaborate with other organizations inside and outside the sector is very important.Moreover, he criticizes the traditional museum model, which is based on a preoccupation with internalaffairs. He states, “I think the museum community really suffers from insularity. They are so insular abouttalking to outsiders”; even about working together as museums” (Janes, 2015). Confirming his interest inthe open innovation concept, Janes (2015) refers to the finding of Leslie Crutchfield and HeatherMcLeod Grant, who argue that one of the most important factors that makes a successful socialorganization is “they focused very clearly on the outside world, on engaging all the sectors, and oninfluencing others to become advocates for their cause” (Crutchfield & Grant, 2012). The study is aproject of the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University’s Fuqua Schoolof Business and is published in a book titled Forces for Good. Notably, Crutchfield worked for Ashoka asa managing director for many years. Also, she studied at the Harvard Business School under the lateGregory Dees, who immensely contributed to the way we understand social enterprise today. Deesstarted his academic career at Harvard University and moved to Duke University, where hebecame Rubenstein Senior Fellow in Social Entrepreneurship with Duke’s Innovation andEntrepreneurship Initiative and the founding faculty director of the Center for the Advancement of SocialEntrepreneurship at Duke’s Fuqua School of Business.

Janes’ observation about the importance of museums to “open up” is crucial to the fact that it is comingfrom a legendary museum expert (i.e., Janes) who also wrote about social enterprise in museums. Addto this our discussion earlier, which uncovered the attempt of Chesbrough, who coined the openinnovation theory, and Minin to mirror open innovation theory to the social sector, and more specificallylink it to social enterprise business model, as shown by Ashoka. Moreover, organizations such as Nestain the United Kingdom are experimenting with the application of open innovation in the social sector,including museums. Nesta developed “The Open Innovation Programme,” which encouraged ten largeUK charities to “work in new ways, with new partners and test their innovative ideas” (Nesta, 2013).Nesta’s program on open innovation, excitingly, included National Trust, a national organization thatmanages hundreds of museums, historical houses, and monuments in the United Kingdom. The studyinvestigated how National Trust used open innovation strategies to create a program called “Big FamilyDay Out.” More specifically, National Trust, which was described by the report as an organization that is“confidently developing its own projects,” challenged some of its old practices by opening up its businessmodel, using external resources, and benefiting from new partnerships. In another study, Nesta reportsthat “[i]n the next few years, organisations will become more open and networked. Those unwilling orunable to make the change will be left behind” (Nesta, 2010). This is alarming to those organizationsthat still operate with a closed mindset. Within this context, the Museum Innovation Model views openinnovation as a crucial concept in understanding and applying the model.



In summary, one can see how open innovation, social enterprise, and social innovation areinterconnected and, together, present a formula for innovation in museums. The formula might beexpressed simply as: museums that adopt a social enterprise business model and utilize openinnovation strategies are capable of achieving social innovation.

Applications of the MIMThis discussion has demonstrated the potential universality of the concepts (i.e., open innovation, socialenterprise, and social innovation) on which MIM is based. This leads me now to project how the modelmight be flexible enough to be applied in museums with different sizes, management structures,geographical locations, and collections in custody. At this stage, there are no studies that can show howthe application of the model in art museums, for example, can differ from history or science museums.Similarly, there are no studies that make a connection, if any, between the application of the MIM andthe size of the museum. However, numerous examples in the museum sector suggest that MIM can beequally valuable for different types of museums.

The Museum of East Anglian Life (MEAL), for example, is located in Suffolk County in the East Angliaregion in the United Kingdom. For almost half a century, the museum has been telling the story of therural and early industrial history of the region, which has been reliant on farming as a major economicactivity. Clearly, MEAL is different in size, collection, and management style than the museumspresented in the case studies in this paper. However, the museum identifies itself as a social enterprise.The museum website states, “The Museum of East Anglian Life is a social enterprise sharing thecompelling story of East Anglian lives through historic buildings, collections and landscape” (Museum ofEast Anglian Life, n.d.). When Tony Butler was appointed to be the director of MEAL, he felt that themuseum had much more potential beyond being just a traditional visitor attraction. Butler states, “Welooked at how we could use all these physical assets for public good. We thought there were lots ofopportunities for training and skills development. We felt there were lots of opportunities to bring peopletogether” (Butler, 2014).

To achieve Butler’s vision, MEAL developed an agricultural project. Nonetheless, the business model ofthe project was unlike the typical agricultural projects we normally see in the private sector. Butler triedto achieve the highest social impact possible. To illustrate this point, Butler (2014) explains, the museum“started training people with learning difficulties and mental health service users in horticulture.” Morespecifically, in an open innovation strategy, the museum collaborated with West Suffolk College andthree special schools—Priory, Hillside, and Riverwalk—in west Suffolk to provide opportunities forstudents with a wide variety of difficulties and disabilities to experience vocational and life skills in arange of different settings. The project targeted fourteen to sixteenyearold audiences, aiming to helpthe students develop an understanding of specific skills related to the Suffolk region, construct a criticalunderstanding of the past, and maintain effective social and cultural skills. In ten weekend sessions ledby museum staff and volunteers, students were able to participate in handson activities and learnspecific skills such as bodging, making traditional Suffolk rusks and butter, making butterflies from willow,



and traditional hurdle making and printing using historic printing presses. Students also grew “plants andflowers using the traditional seeds and varieties, using traditional implements of the collection, and thenselling them to the public” (Butler, 2014).

Figure 6: students with learning difficulties and mental health services learning skills at MEAL

Additionally, starting in 2007, MEAL worked with HM Prison Hollesley Bay, a local prison in Suffolk. Butlerexplains his project:

We would take people from a local prison who would work with us as part of their setting programs,spend six month with us, on day release, gaining these skills in construction, land management, [and]work with animals that they then use when they are released. (Butler, 2014)

However, this approach has disturbed some members in the community. It seems that having convictedfelons work in the local museum can make some people worried about their safety and the wellbeing oftheir families. Butler had to lead a campaign to address the concerns of the community and highlight thebenefits of the project. He affirmed to the East Anglian Daily Times, the local newspaper, that “[w]e arereally aware this is an important public space and do not want to compromise the safety of our visitors”(Howard, 2007). Butler set up strict criteria to fulfill his promise to the community and make sure hissocial enterprise/innovation project would not cause any undesirable outcomes. The museum decidednot to accept any sex offenders, violent criminals, or arsonists. More specifically, the program will targetthose who are firsttime offenders, usually for fraud and minor offences. Butler continued to explain thelogic behind his social enterprise venture:

It will be good for everyone and help the socially disadvantaged. It will help us provide additionalservices for the public, nice gardens, flowers, hanging baskets, and we will be very, very strict about whowe take on from the prisons. (Howard, 2007)

It appears that Butler’s campaign convinced the community of the project’s merits. Local prisonersstarted contributing to improving the museum and producing products while learning new skills. WhenButler accepted the responsibility of directing MEAL, the museum was near bankruptcy. Within his tenyear tenure at MEAL, he was able to transform the museum into a thriving institution with £4 millioncapital development.

In the case of the Museum of East Anglian Life, it is not hard to identify the elements of the MuseumInnovation Model (i.e., open innovation, social enterprise, and social innovation). MEAL uses openinnovation strategies by partnering with local schools, colleges, private companies, and even prison toimprove the wellbeing of its community and actively engage in finding solutions to social problems. Thisconscious objective to achieve sustainable social innovation is combined with the desire to build thefinancial resilience of the museum through commercial projects.

The work of Tony Butler at MEAL (and now at Derby Museums) shows that the concepts of open



innovation, social enterprise, and social innovation can prove valuable to museums of different sizes andcollections. Janes (2015) goes as far as observing that the culture of openness is found more in smallmuseums. He argues, “The boundaries have to be as open as possible. And there are some museumslike that, but they are small. The big ones still have a big problem. And I do not know what is going tocause them to change” (Janes, 2015). Additionally, he thinks that much of the social innovation work inthe museum sector is done by smaller museums. He gives the example of Fort Calgary Historic Park inCalgary, Alberta, Canada. Janes (2015) explains their social innovation approach: “They have a lot ofland along a fertile river bottom that was just sitting there. They have now developed this land intovegetable gardens to feed the homeless and provide food to other social agencies in the city.” The factthat small museums do not have the complex management structure, perhaps, makes them moreflexible to work with other organizations and more agile to respond to social needs in the community.

What is noteworthy from the previous examples and the comments by Butler (2014) and Janes (2015) isthat we now can realize the possibility of identifying the concepts of open innovation, social enterprise,and social innovation in different types of museums, regardless of the museum’s size and the nature ofthe collection. Additionally, the previous examples give us a clue that the MIM is not just for digital andcan have a wide range of applications.

In practical terms, the Museum Innovation Model has the potential to be used as a planning tool to carryout innovation in museums. Consider a new exhibition as an example. The model can assist organizersto ask helpful questions related to open innovation, social enterprise, and social innovation, which maylead to transforming the project from a traditional exhibition to an innovative one (figure 7).

Figure 7: implementation of the MIM

For example, when open innovation is being considered, one can ask: What skills and expertise doesthe museum maintain internally that can help carry out the project? What skills and expertise does themuseum not have that can be externally acquired? What organizations can the museum approach tohelp with what is needed? What type of relationships (longterm, shortterm, partnerships, sponsorship,etc.) is the museum seeking with these organizations?

When social enterprise is considered, one can ask questions such as: How can the project help themuseum generate earned income? Can the project help the museum market other products orservices? What types of customers are being targeted? Can the project indirectly help the museumimprove its enterprise? How will the earned revenues be used to create social value?

When social innovation is considered, we may ask questions like: What social value is being createdthrough the project? What social issues is the project trying to address? How can the project make thesocial value sustainable? How will the social impact be evaluated?

Ultimately, each museum project is unique, and all these questions may not necessarily be relevant or



the goals achievable; however, being conscious of these dimensions can help museum teams generateinnovative projects. Also, if the process is reversed, the model can be used as an evaluation tool toscrutinize innovation in museums through the prism of open innovation, social enterprise, and socialinnovation.

9. ConclusionThe Museum Innovation Model is a framework that can help museums of different sizes, collections,management styles, and geographical locations to execute and/or evaluate innovation. The modelutilizes the concepts of open innovation, social enterprise, and social innovation to make innovation inmuseums scalable, replicable, and feasible to start and operate. It is evident that these concepts areintersected and should be viewed as a whole. Therefore, the following formula expresses theconnections between the three concepts of interest: museums that adopt a social enterprise businessmodel and utilize open innovation strategies are capable of achieving social innovation.

ReferencesArnold, Kris. (2013). Web developer at Dallas Museum of Art. Interview with H. Eid.

Ashoka. (n.d.). Vision and Mission. Retrieved June 2015. Availabalehttps://www.ashoka.org/visionmission

Butler, Tony. (2014). Director of the Museum of East Anglian Life, UK. Interview with H. Eid.

Center for Social Innovation. (2013). Center for Social Innovation. Stanford Graduate School ofBusiness. Retrieved March 11, 2013. Available http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/socialinnovation

Chan, S. (2013). Interview: Seb Chan, Director of Digital & Emerging Media, Smithsonian, CooperHewitt. Museum iD. Retrieved April 3, 2013. Available http://www.museumid.com/ideadetail.asp?id=313

Chan, S. (2014). Director of Digital and Emerging Media department at Cooper Hewitt, SmithsonianDesign Museum. Interview with H. Eid.

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting fromTechnology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Chesbrough, H., & A.D. Minin. (2014). Social Open Innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, &J. West (eds.). New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Publications. 169–188.

Christof, E. (2007). “Open Source Drives Innovation.” IEEE Software 24(23), 105–109.

Cooper Hewitt Lab. (2013). “C” is for Chromecast: hacking digital signage. December 9. RetrievedFebruary 15, 2015. Available http://labs.cooperhewitt.org/2013/cisforchromecasthackingdigitalsignage/

https://www.ashoka.org/visionmission

http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/social-innovation

http://www.museum-id.com/idea-detail.asp?id=313

http://labs.cooperhewitt.org/2013/c-is-for-chromecast-hacking-digital-signage/



Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum. (n.d.). Department Descriptions. Retrieved February 16,2015. Available https://www.cooperhewitt.org/departmentdescriptions/

Cope, Aaron Straup. (2014). Head of Engineering (Internets and Computers), Digital and EmergingMedia Department at Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum. Interview with H. Eid.

Crutchfield, L., & H.M. Grant. (2012). Forces for Good: The Six Practices of HighImpactNonprofits (second edition). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Eid, H. (2015). The Intersection Between Social Innovation, Museums and Digital. Museum ComputerNetwork. November. Retrieved January 2016. Available http://mcn.edu/theintersectionbetweensocialinnovationmuseumsanddigital/

Fleming, D. (2006). INTERCOM: International Committee on Management. Retrieved December 2012.Available www.intercom.museum

Howard, J. (2007). “Museum boss’s pledge on prisoners.” East Anglian Daily Times. May. RetrievedMarch 2015. Available http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/museum_boss_s_pledge_on_prisoners_1_120731

IWM. (2014). Annual Report and Account 20132014. IWM. Retrieved April 2015. Availablehttp://www.iwm.org.uk/sites/default/files/publicdocument/IWM_Annual_Report_201314.pdf

IWM. (n.d., a). About IWM. Retrieved April 2015.Available http://www.iwm.org.uk/corporate/procurement

IWM. (n.d., b). Lives of The First World War. Retrieved April 2015. Availablehttps://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/

Janes, R. (2010). “The Mindful Museum.” Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(3): 325–338.

Janes, R. (2013). Museums and the Paradox of Change. New York: Routledge.

Janes, R. (2015). Editorinchief, Museum Management and Curatorship. Interview with H. Eid.

Lindegaard, S. (2010). Open Innovation Revolution: Essentials, Roadblocks, and LeadershipSkills. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Murray, R., J. CaulierGrice, & G. Mulgan. (2010). The Open Book Of Social Innovation. Nesta. March2013. Retrieved March 12, 2013. Availablehttp://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/Social_Innovator_020310.pdf

Museum of East Anglian Life. (n.d.). Our Values. Retrieved July 2015. Availablehttp://www.eastanglianlife.org.uk/aboutus/ourvalues.html

https://www.cooperhewitt.org/department-descriptions/

http://mcn.edu/the-intersection-between-social-innovation-museums-and-digital/

http://www.intercom.museum/

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/museum_boss_s_pledge_on_prisoners_1_120731

http://www.iwm.org.uk/sites/default/files/public-document/IWM_Annual_Report_2013-14.pdf

http://www.iwm.org.uk/corporate/procurement

https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/

http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/Social_Innovator_020310.pdf

http://www.eastanglianlife.org.uk/about-us/our-values.html



Nesta. (2010). Open innovation From marginal to mainstream. April. Retrieved October 2013. Availablehttp://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/open_innovation.pdf

Nesta. (2013). The Open Innovation Program. Retrieved October 2013. Availablehttps://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_open_innovation_blog_series.pdf

Shannon, K. (2013). The Value Proposition: Sionna’s Common Sense Path to InvestmentSuccess. Toronto: Sionna Investment Managers.

Social Enterprise Alliance. (2012). The Case for Social Enterprise Alliance. Retrieved December 2012.Accessed at https://www.sealliance.org/why [broken link]

The Tech Museum. (n.d.). The Tech Awards. Retrieved January 2016. Availablehttp://www.thetech.org/techawardspresentedappliedmaterials

Wallen, J. (2013). “10 open source projects that are leading innovation.” Tech Republic. June 27.Retrieved March 1, 2015. Available http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/10opensourceprojectsthatareleadinginnovation/

Walter, Micah. (2014). Digital and Emerging Media department at Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian DesignMuseum. Interview with H. Eid.

Weil, S. (2002). Making museums matter. Smithsonian Institution. Curator: The Museum Journal, 44(3):314–318.

Cite as:Eid, Haitham. "The Museum Innovation Model: A museum perspective on innovation." MW2016:Museums and the Web 2016. Published January 14, 2016. Consulted April 13, 2016. http://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/themuseuminnovationmodelamuseumperspectivetoinnovation/

http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/open_innovation.pdf

https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_open_innovation_blog_series.pdf

https://www.se-alliance.org/why

http://www.thetech.org/tech-awards-presented-applied-materials

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/10-open-source-projects-that-are-leading-innovation/

Documents

The Museum Innovation Model: A museum perspective on innovation