European Registrars Conference 2016 - Immunity from Seizure and Due Diligence: What Registrars need to know

Freda Matassa, Director, Matassa Toffolo Ltd., Art Collections Management, UK

For anyone not yet familiar with the oft-heard term due diligence, Freda Matassa provided the reassurance that as part and parcel of being a registrar, this was something you would be doing every day, following professional practices and rules.  It is a term widely used in the banking and commercial world, but is equally applicable to the role of the registrar.  The whole point of due diligence is that if something goes wrong you have documented evidence that you can go back to that demonstrates that your museum acted appropriately. 

Freda set out what due diligence means for a registrar in the context of loans and objects. 

The ICOMdefinition of due diligence is that all the required endeavors have been undertaken  “to establish the facts of a case before deciding a course of action, particularly in identifying the source and history of an item offered for acquisition or use before acquiring it.”  This therefore applies not only to acquisitions but to exhibitions, loans out, old loans and to deaccessions.  Obtaining provenance information is required when a museum is borrowing items from abroad and it is intended to use GIS and Immunity from Seizure, and equally when lending items to other institutions provenance details will be supplied.  For old loans, a museum should have a policy to research these to obtain more provenance information.  For the deaccessioning processes a museum must carry out due diligence to ensure that it is clear on what the conditions were for the acquisition of the item.   In the museum context, if something goes wrong, we can fall back on the fact that the proper processes were followed.   The key requirements are that we seek to know the history of an object and are seen to be acting in an ethical and transparent way.  This is not always easy but a museum has a duty to try and find out, and if unable to obtain full information, that the museum acts honestly and transparently and publishes details of items with doubtful provenance on its website.

Freda ran through the key laws and conventions that registrars need to be aware of, one of the most critical being UNESCO 1970 whereby after 1970 archaeology and ethnography items must have a valid record of export.  It is good practice for your museum to indicate compliance with these key laws and conventions on your website.  They include:

• UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property;

·         UNESCO  2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage

·         UNIDROIT 1995 Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (Rome, 1995)

·         CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

·         UK Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003

·         UK Treasure Act 1996

• ICOM Code of Ethics
• ICOM red list
• MA Codes of Ethics for Museums
• Washington Principles 1998
• Terezin Declaration 2009
• Combating Illicit Trade: Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on collecting and borrowing Cultural Material (DCMS, October 2005)
• Statement of Principles issued by the National Museum Directors Conference on “spoliation of works of art during the Holocaust and World War II period” in 1998

For international loan agreements a museum needs to provide a statement that it is an ethical organisation, provide assurances that the loan will be returned, that proof of provenance will be required from the lender, and indicate that it has a procedure to deal with any third party claims. 

Freda went on to consider Immunity from Seizure, defining it as a legal guarantee that an item borrowed from another state will be returned.  There were a number of reasons why an object might be seized:

·         non-payment of debt (as happened in the Noga case where Noga had a claim against the Russian government)

·         A descendant of a family whose private property had been Nationalised

·         Families/countries wishing to recover property looted during the war

·         Illegal excavation or export

·         Restitution of national cultural heritage – eg ethnography items

Countries with IFS include the US, France, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, the UK and most recently Russia.  However it was important to be aware that these do not necessarily provide the same coverage.  Some cover state property only, some have automatic cover, some an application process and some a mixture of the two. 

Freda highlighted the conditions of the UK IFS and these can be found at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/part/6

Freda considered the roles and responsibilities of a museum with approved status to offer IFS.  Responsibility starts at the top and needs to be embedded throughout the institution.  It has to be owned at Director-level, with curators responsible for researching works and registrars responsible for understanding the law and what IFS covers , being aware that some conventions/laws could override IFS, knowing when IFS is appropriate, controlling deadlines for carrying out due diligence and keeping records of investigations.  Training throughout the organisation is important and any contracts with freelance curators should clearly state who is responsible for due diligence.  The museum must have an ethical loans policy, making it clear that there is a process for undertaking due diligence for acquisitions and loans and that it will publish responses to claims. 

Many lenders will automatically request IFS but it is sometimes not necessary and it is important for the registrar to consider whether the item is high risk or not.  Freda gave a useful analysis of what represented high and low risk categories.  High risk would include gaps in provenance during the 1933-45 period, archaeological objects found or exported after 1970, ICOM red list, items of ethnography and state-nationalized property.  Low risk would include objects that have always been in the same country, objects acquired directly from an archaeological site, newly-created objects and commissions, non-unique/low value objects.  Freda gave a brief overview of the type of information you needed for research, the research process and the materials that you need.   Sources of information included the museum acquisition record, an export license from the country of origin, publication in a reputable source prior to 1970, will/inventory, photographic evidence, family correspondence, auction catalogue entry and receipt of purchase.  She made it clear that there is a point at which it is not reasonable to go any further.  It is what is reasonable for the situation.  Freda also gave advice on how to deal with claims.  Have a policy, keep records, be open, report it and publish it.  Tell lender their identity may need to be revealed.

Freda finished with a quick round up of some legal cases concerning due diligence and Immunity from seizure:

Bloch Bauer Heirs v. the State of Austria (2004)

Government of Iran v. Barakat Galleries (2013

Moravian Gallery v. National Gallery of Czech Republic and Diag Human (2014)

Kurtha v. Marks (2008)

Rosalyn Clancey

Project Work Stream Leader: Art Collections Management

---

 [ES1]

European Registrars Conference 2016 - Cultural Heritage, the refugee crisis and building sustainable, peaceful communities

Jasper Visser, Senior partner at VISSCH+STAM Strategic Services, Museum of the Future, Netherlands 

The keynote speech by Jasper Visser was an unusual but brilliant choice by the conference organisers. Before getting stuck into detailed discussions around different elements of registrar work, delegates were taken out of the beautiful bubble of the Hofburg Great Hall and encouraged to focus instead on the wider world - specifically the migrant crisis facing all of us across Europe.

Visser spoke of a frustration with political rhetoric, and called for practical, meaningful action ‘on the ground’. He provided shocking statistics, such as the fact that one in every 23 migrants dies in the effort to get to Europe, that 10 million people worldwide are stateless and that the 700 or so conference delegates sitting in the Great Hall was comparable to the number of those one might find in the cramped, unseaworthy conditions of a migrant boat crossing the Mediterranean.

When describing the cycle of conflict and migration, Visser stated that museums and those who work in them were uniquely placed to support the peace-building phase that follows conflict resolution. He emphasized that as professionals who care deeply about history and society, we are uniquely skilled at telling stories using the rich heritage collections we care for. And, as registrars, we also have a unique overview of the ‘migration of objects’, which could perhaps lead to exploring new narratives within our collections with migrant communities. Used appropriately, these stories, collections, and the spaces we have access to, can be used to help foster mutual understanding across different community groups, bringing migrant communities closer to our more traditional audiences in order to create sustainable, peaceful societies.

Visser suggested three different models for museums to explore - aesthetic (migration depicted within objects), topical (the theme of migration explored through the display of objects) and people-centred (co-creating with migrant communities, talking with them rather than simply about them, and seeking opportunities to encourage cultural entrepreneurship). His advice when embarking on a people-centered approach was as follows:

-    Be yourself, you are a registrar not a social worker!

-    Be humble and listen

-    Give away control, do not expect to have all the answers

-    Be radically inclusive, embrace the opportunity to develop new relationships, audiences and approaches

The keynote was discussed by delegates throughout the remainder of the conference. Some discussed ways in which they are already engaging as individuals, others were considering how their museum could specifically target migrant communities, either through co-creating exhibitions or revisiting collections to uncover new narratives. Regardless of what form of engagement is ultimately undertaken, the most important message that delegates took away was that even the smallest actions can have a big impact – so to do whatever is within your power.

Bryony Benge-Abbott

Public Engagement Manager (Exhibitions)

The Francis Crick Institute 

The Ebb and Flow of Collecting at the Whitworth

 Gillian Smithson, Gallery and Museum Registrar at the University of Manchester, gave the first talk of the afternoon.

A programme of disposals was initiated in 2008 at the Whitworth, motivated by the forthcoming redevelopment. It’s a good opportunity to take stock of the process, following the completion of the redevelopment.

In the Whitworth’s 124 year history, over 58,700 objects have been accessioned into the collection. In the same period, just over 400 objects have been deaccessioned. Gillian questioned whether this ratio was sustainable going forward. She went on to explain that although it is difficult to say no to gifts, and there is also a sense of betrayal it is as the responsibility of the museum to care for objects. Many institutions have storerooms of objects that no one really knows what to do with, and having too much can be detrimental to the collection.

In terms of the history of the museum, the founders’ legacy allowed for lots of purchasing of objects in the early years, as well as accepting almost anything people offered. After World War I, finances were in dire straits, but people continued to gift works to the museum due to its reputation. The gallery became part of the University in 1958 and throughout the 60’s they really began investing. This coincided with the architectural changes to the museum; gallery spaces were now open plan. The acquisition strategy focussed on prints as it was easier to represent a range of European artists, rather than spending money on expensive oil paintings for example.

A new director in 2007 saw changes in terms of acquisitions; rationalising the collection, shared acquisitions and benefiting from the V&A’s purchase grant fund. The following year, areas of the collection were identified to focus on editing; furniture, ceramics, jewellery and multiple/duplicated items.

Advice was sought from the Museum Association in 2015 for guidance on curatorial-focussed disposals. When potential disposals were identified, a disposals form was completed and presented to an internal group which allowed for discussion by multiple people throughout the whole process. Disposals were advertised on the MA website, however Gillian felt the most successful responses were received when specialist groups were approached directly.

Gillian gave some examples of disposals that were completed after an open and transparent process, following the MA’s guidelines:

·         A group of ceramics were transferred to Manchester Metropolitan Museum to complement the existing collection.

·         90 pieces of Scandinavian jewellery that had been hidden since the 19^th century were identified. These have now been transferred to the British Museum and some are on display.

·         The Whitworth also had some objects that were donated by Elizabeth Gaskell’s daughters. These are now in the process of being transferred to the Gaskell Museum.

However transfer of items to other institutions are not always possible. A collection of ties that were previously part of the Whitworth’s collection, for example, were sent to a charity shop as the museum’s remit did not include focusing on the collection of three-dimensional fabrics.

Issues that have been raised have included items that had no, or very little, information on their catalogue cards. Staff have had to question how to work with such objects. There were also items in the collection where the museum could not prove that certain things belonged to them.

Legally, museums face the challenge of holding some items that they can't dispose of – for example a gift may have had certain conditions to it. A way to deal with these types of objects are to find other institutions whose collections would benefit from these objects and set up long loans.

Gillian concluded with a reflection on the present day. The museum is thinking differently about how they fill gallery spaces. The collection is becoming even more international and continues to grow, however it does this with a balanced view on acquisitions. Scrutinising the collection will continue as a subtle, diligent and logical process.

By Laura Murphy, Assistant Collection Registrar, Tate

#UKRGWhitworth: Panel discussion

The stimulating day in Manchester concluded with a panel discussion This provided attendees with the opportunity to grill the day’s speakers, plus Alistair Brown, Museums Association Policy Advisor, who had recently finished working on the MA’s new Code of Ethics and Janet Ulph, expert on Law and Collections Management and author of guidelines on Curatorially Motivated Disposal.

The discussion kicked off with a question on what the MA’s new Code of Ethics has to say about acquisitions and disposals. Alistair Brown gave us the welcome advice that there has been no radical change on these issues and that the MA’s position is that curatorially motivated disposal can and should be conducted and that, in certain circumstances, financially motivated disposal can even be conducted ethically. Janet Ulph added that, in addition to her rigorous guidelines on Curatorially Motivated Disposal, she will be producing a short guidance document on the additional obligations that the Government’s planned ratification of the Hague Convention will impose on museums and is also working on guidance for museums who face closure or the loss of a storage facility.

The discussion then turned to the question of what you should do if you receive an object in the post and you are in some way suspicious of its provenance. Janet Ulph emphasised that the act of someone posting it to you could be construe as an intent to make a gift; the receiving museum then has a choice whether or not to accept it. If it fits their collecting policy, they could then accession it; however, if they are suspicious, they should consult other museums. Either way, this is a good strategy: other institutions may have an expert who can give reassurance about the object’s provenance, and if they can’t, the recipient could at least make a fuller report to the National Crime Agency.

Following on from an issue that Gillian Smithson had raised earlier, the panel were then asked what a museum should do if they had transferred an object in the 1950s or 60s without proper paperwork or due diligence and the recipient then wanted to sell it. Alistair Brown stated that this is unlikely to cause a problem for the originator museum unless the scrutiny the sale draws will cause them reputational damage. Janet Ulph stated that, under the Sale of Goods Act, the recipient can sell any item he owns legitimately, so they would act legally. It was the UNESCO convention of 1970 that necessitated provenance checks – if the transfer happened before this was ratified, the originator museum had not done anything illegal. 

A member from the National Galleries of Scotland then asked the panel how their various institutions deal with the disposal of non-inventoried objects such as packing crates. The team from the Museum of London mentioned that they, too, have some material like this to dispose of. They follow a less onerous procedure than they would for collection items, but still ensure that the disposal of these objects is documented. They conduct due diligence checks to ensure that set dressing is not in fact accessioned and, when this cannot be established, they take a risk-managed judgement.

The discussion concluded with a question about how we change the perception of disposals as being a negative thing to do. Janet Ulph explained that, to change this perception, museums must be very press-savvy and aware of how disposals can be reported (or mis-reported). Kevin Gosling suggested that the museum profession needs to change its ideas about collections stewardship and asked whether we could learn from nature conservation, where stewardship is a process of active management – you have to prune dead wood to allow saplings to grow. He also noted that disposal doesn’t have to mean destruction or sale and can mean that objects are used to greater public benefit. The team from the Museum of London shared a story about how one recipient was moved to tears at the generosity of their gift of what, from the point of view of their collection, was duplicate material and how a cooker once consigned to storage because it contained asbestos was rendered safe and transferred to the RAF Museum for use in public display.

This was a stimulating end to an enlightening day that left all attendees with a lot to think about the ethical and practical aspects of acquisitions and disposals.

By Susannah Darby, Collections Information Officer, Science Museum

Approaching a large-scale rationalisation project at the Museum of London, Lizzie Cooper & Naomi Russell

As a Collections Information Officer at the Science Museum I am responsible for handling the disposal of objects from our collections. From supporting our Curatorial Team in conducting due diligence through to advertising, transferral or disposal I get to be involved in the entire process and so I am highly aware of the ‘devilish nature of disposals’. With large projects looming, I gained valuable insight from colleagues at the Museum of London (MoL) on the challenges of a large-scale rationalisation project but would also like to join them in recognising the satisfaction that can come from transferring objects to new and excited owners.

So, how do Museums go about approaching such a large-scale rationalisation project? What are the key tasks to be completed before presented for disposal? How do we ensure consistency in approach? Well thanks to Lizzie and Naomi from the Museum of London we all have a better idea…..

As a result of a major review of its Social and Working History collections, the Museum of London has identified approximately 6,000 objects for disposal and is now facing the task of researching and presenting disposal cases for approval as well as the physical disposal. Not only do they need to prove the application of due diligence before approval, they then need to approach potential new homes while following ethical guidelines and challenging the negative perception of object disposal. So what steps have they taken to ensure consistency, effectiveness & most importantly public benefit?

Before focusing in on the collections and disposal candidates, the MoL needed to revisit their internal policies to ensure they were up to date and reflected the ethical guidelines outlined in the Museums Association’s Disposals Toolkit. It was also important to consider the Museum’s Collecting Policy as a guiding resource when looking at an object’s relevance to current collecting practices.

With these measures in place they could then begin the task of assessing their collections and identifying objects with suitable reasons for disposal, such as:

·         Duplicate material

·         Deterioration

·         Unknown provenance/context

·         Relevance

Using these as grounds for disposal the MoL was able to identify approximately 6,000 objects for disposal, which in turn led to the (sometimes tricky) task of proof of ownership and due diligence.

In a perfect world questions such as ‘what is this?’ and ‘where did this come from?’ would not be uttered in a Museum store, but, as we can most likely all attest to….it’s not a perfect world. Tackling the disposal of objects ‘not on inventory’ can be tricky, but as highlighted by MoL, not impossible. As well as applying due diligence to disposal candidates, MoL made use of their collections management system to track the progress of due diligence and further actions needed before approval by the Board of Governors. They also developed a range of questions to be asked of the object to demonstrate the research done:

 MoL Collections Management System

Once the objects presented to the Board were approved the Museum then set to work on finding the most appropriate homes for the objects for which, as we know, there is a strict hierarchy to follow:

Museum Association Disposal Toolkit

Although this can be a rather time consuming process it is also a very rewarding one, as highlighted by Lizzie and Naomi. I was particularly interested to hear more about ‘creative disposals’ and the potential interested parties which lie outside of the sector but for which there is also a strong argument for public benefit and keeping objects within the realms of the public domain. Of course these avenues would only be approached after advertising and offering to Accredited and Non-Accredited Museums, but still an interesting option to bear in mind when handling disposals.

Lizzie and Naomi gave an excellent insight into the challenges of a large-scale rationalisation project. At first glance a task of this size can seem daunting but they have demonstrated how a positive approach produces positive results and that disposals don’t always need to be seen as ‘devilish’……..

By Jenni Fewery, Collections Information Officer, Science Museum

Blog post on ‘Clandon Park Fire: Managing a destroyed collection and considerations on the route to formal disposal’ by Rosamund West, Documentation Officer, Horniman Museum and Gardens

At the recent UKRG ‘Art of Acquisitions and the devilish nature of Disposals’ event Claire Nodder, House and Collections Manager/Assistant Conservation Lead, spoke to us about National Trust’s property Clandon Park in Surrey and the devastating fire of April 2015. This being anyone who works in collections worst nightmare, Claire explained how the fire has effected the property and its contents and how a policy of retention and disposal has been developed. The experience of Clandon Park and its staff presents a valuable lesson in how to plan for the worst.

Clandon Park is an accredited museum, and had 55,000 visitors a year. The Palladian mansion was built for Lord Onslow in the 1720s. The National Trust took over in 1956 and the house was refurbished when a collection of 18^th century furniture and the porcelain collection of collector Hannah Gubbay. The house had very few indigenous objects, the attraction being the building. Other users and stakeholders in Clandon Park were the Surrey Infantry Museum, housed in the basement, a restaurant separate to the Trust, and staff accommodation.

The fire and the damage caused

On the 29^th April 2015 a fire started in the basement, spreading throughout the building, eventually breaking through the roof. The fire brigade were on the site for eight days and helped many salvage objects, including cutting paintings out of frames. Once the Fire Brigade had left the property was handed back to the National Trust, who immediately shut the site down. As the fire had spread, rooms fell in on each other and damage to the structure was excessive. Before the property could be accessed, large burned timbers had to be lifted out using a crane to prevent further damage. Claire showed us before and after photographs of rooms which showed the total devastation caused by the fire.

The initial salvage after the blaze involved assembling rescued objects on the front lawn as objects were coming out of the building. Inventory control was initially difficult, and made more difficult, by the lack of light. Clandon Park had an agreement with a local school as part of their salvage plan to be able to use a school building to house and process salvaged objects. Fortunately Clandon Park’s Collections Management System (CMS) was online and so in theory could be accessed remotely. However, the connection at the school was slow and staff reverted back to using paper for their inventory. Inventory and condition checks were carried out by curators and conservators, assisted by staff from nearby National Trust houses. At the time of the fire Clandon Park was in the middle of re-numbering their objects with a new numbering system-however, not all of the objects had yet been re-numbered.

After the fire

Claire explained how lessons had been learned from Uppark, Windsor Castle and Glasgow School of Art, all heritage buildings that had suffered fire damage. Stabilising the building had to take precedent, so there was no access to the building until September 2015, when the archaeological salvage began.  The processing of objects began with the site being divided into quadrants, and as objects came out, they were assigned a quadrant code and a room code. Due to the floors collapsing in on each other, objects were found in unexpected places within the ruin of the building. The House team were invaluable, drawing up handwritten plans of where objects were in each room. This knowledge was crucial, as was Surrey Infantry Museum providing photographs of their displays.

Retention and Disposal policy

Staff decided, ‘if in doubt, retain’. There were two phases of retention and disposal: the first, initial salvage from the building; and the second, post-salvage, ‘taking stock’. In phase one ‘material trees’ for each different material type were given to the archaeological contractors. Claire showed examples of these for ceramic, plaster, and wood. These showed types of each material that could be salvaged, and what to do with each piece. For instance, the ceramics material tree was divided up into sanitary ware, decorative tiles, utility wares and decorative ceramics, each with their retention or disposal instructions for the salvage team.

The ownership of objects being salvaged had to be established, with many objects being loans in – a registrar’s nightmare! CMS records were consulted to establish this and owners were being kept informed. As the salvage operation progressed, and more material came out of the house, the retention and disposal policy evolved. In the grounds of the house, the archaeological salvagers had ‘keep, ‘needs decision’, and ‘dispose’ piles. These could then be looked at by staff.

Recording

Staff set up a ‘salvage village’ in the grounds to process objects under cover in poly-tunnels. As the lead roof had collapsed in, all objects coming out of the house were contaminated, so everything went in to quarantine before it could be cleaned. With is no on-site internet access staff recorded information on Excel spreadsheets, also recording a percentage of how complete each object is, with some inevitably being as low as 1%. This does not, however, indicate disposal candidates as it is hoped more pieces of objects may turn up at a later date.

Going forward

The fire and subsequent salvage operation has given the National Trust the opportunity to learn more about the structure of the house, for instance, a pistachio nut was found in a piece of the plaster. The process for Clandon Park will be long, but it has been made easier by having a good salvage plan in place. Clandon Park are now working towards the formal deaccessioning process, though there are still rooms in the building that cannot yet be reached.

To follow Clandon Park’s future:
www.nationaltrust.org.uk/clandon-park
www.facebook.com/ClandonParkNationalTrust
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40ClandonParkNT&src=typd

By Rosamund West, Documentation Officer, Horniman Museum and Gardens

#ukrgNG: Roz Vallejo discovers what project management skills are involved in 'Coordinating Large Scale Collection Moves: Planning and Delivery at National Museums Scotland' - A presentation by Chanté St Clair Inglis, Collection Care Manager. Friday 26 February at National Gallery London

Working at National Museums Scotland (NMS) as Assistant Registrar for the last three months, I've become aware of the buzzing hive of activity on NMS’ Master Plan Project - Stage Three (aka MP3 project). I know that there are ten new galleries currently being redeveloped to make way for thousands of objects from the collection, that would have otherwise been hidden in storage for exclusive eyes only, to go on display during the summer of 2016 for the continued enjoyment of visitors in the museum. I also know that there are many people working across NMS sites in assisting with the thousands of object moves of all shapes and sizes, for example, the Hamilton Palace fireplace wall, of oak panelling and marble, measuring 5 metres high by 6.7 metres wide, that had to be installed in advance with the final fit-out of the gallery built around it. But what is the MP3 project and what are the key project management skills involved in managing a gallery redevelopment and collection move? What goes into planning and running a large-scale gallery redevelopment project?

Attending the UKRG third CPD event last Friday at National Gallery was a great opportunity to gain a better sense and understanding of this. My colleague Chanté St Clair Inglis, Collection Care Manager, presented a breakdown of the planning and work involved.

The goal is to move collection items from the museum at Chamber Street to the Collections Centre at Granton (20 minute journey time) and vice-versa, also to identify what kind of activity is required before movement, such as conservation, photography and the production of bespoke mounts (non-obtrusive structural support for museum objects, typically made from perspex, brass or other materials). Back in June-October of 2014, an estimated 4300 objects were moved out of the galleries prior to building construction and refurbishment. The museum now finds itself almost two years later moving over 3000 objects into the new galleries for unveiling at the start of July 2016.

The MP3 project is the third stage of a six phased project plan:

Phase 1 -       Data Gathering: Key project info

· What is the overall goal of the project?

· What objects need to go on display or in storage?

· What are the key project deadlines - timescale, dependencies, to move in phases?

· Key information: quantity; size; type condition; documentation status; hazard status; current location; activity occur before movement?

Phase 2 -       Move mapping: What is the current location and where will the end location be?

·  Move sequence: What sequence/order should the collection be in when it is moved from storage to its interim location, and interim location to final location?

·  Interim location: conservation; photography; mount making; object consolidation etc.?

·  Standardise methods: movement sequence; collection assessment; packing; materials; procedures; documentation; location tracking.

Phase 3 -       Resources and space required to deliver the move?

·  Assess and analyse the data gathered from above.

·  Explore your resources: people; materials; equipment.

·  What space is needed? - dedicated space designed for objects and movement/workflow.

Phase 4 -       ‘Enabling’ Period: Get it ready to move to new location?

·  Document the activities

·  Object treatment (conservation and hazards)

·  Photography of 2000+ objects

·  Mount making where necessary

·  Object consolidation: sort objects into groups and gallery categories

·  Explore space available: ‘Departure Lounge’ at NMCC, Granton and ‘Install depot’ at NMS, Chamber Street

·  Space planning of ‘Departure lounge’ and ‘Install depot’

·  Consider work flows

·  Design packing: ‘light touch’ methods i.e. not too complicated

Phase 5 -       Move Delivery: Move, track and report it!

Phase 6 -       Sign off

·  Final location updates

·  Return equipment/material

·  Project meeting, conclusion and evaluation

What I've taken away, and also witnessed at NMS, was a great sense of importance with engaging everyone involved in conversations throughout the processes mentioned above, especially with those who understand and have proficiency in the collection. Also, the importance of an accessible, visible and adaptable workflow breaking down all the components of the process and mapping out every valuable step, space, physical activity involved, whilst keeping an open bird’s eye approach.

It is an exciting time for the museum and the project, and I look forward to seeing and celebrating the final results of all their hard work and enthusiasm.

I would be interested to hear an update on NMS’ achievements and experiences at a future UKRG event.

Roz Vallejo, Assistant Registrar, National Museums Scotland.