Roberta Mann Innovation Award Program
Project: Roberta Mann Innovation Award Program
Name: Michele Nichols, Chief of Staff; Kaywin Feldman, Nivin and Duncan MacMillan Director and President
Division/Department: Director’s Office
Other Mia departments involved: All Mia Departments
Project date(s): 2011-2017
Audience/user: Mia staff
Project goals: The RMIA was a staff enrichment program whose intent was to invest in the curiosity of Mia’s employees and inspire innovation through grants for research, travel, creation, collaboration, and exploration. Its intent was to challenge staff to engage in out-of-the-box thinking and collaboration that was beyond not just the comfort zone of their day-to-day work routine, but the standard museum business model as well. The grants pursuit was to cultivate “next practices” at Mia and shift to a culture of innovation that was already taking root across the museum.
Project description:
The Roberta Mann Innovation Award, named for Dr. Roberta Mann Benson and inspired by her life-long love of travel and learning, was created as a strategy to move Mia forward quickly by developing the creative capacities, curiosity, and ambition of its staff. In order for Mia to cultivate its vision for inspiring wonder through the power of art, the institution had to also pursue new modes of responsiveness and innovation internally. The name also reflected Mia itself, as at the time the award started the museum was known as “the M.I.A.”
Studies show that among high performing companies, creativity was a key driver to success. “High performing organizations encouraged deep insight, originality, and the engagement of creativity across all employees….[T]hese companies invested disproportionately in recruiting and developing people” (Batey 2011). As a state-of-the-art cultural institution, Mia can be at the forefront of the shift to a knowledge economy and a society in which creativity is increasingly central. The RMIA was structurally based on the Employee Enrichment Grant Program that Director and President Kaywin Feldman established during her time at Memphis-Brooks.
The RMIA was administered by the Chief of Staff and run much like any other grant program with an application process, deadline, and cross-disciplinary review panel. All full-time and part-time employees (with the exception of the museum director and the chief of staff) were eligible, and the museum subsidized the program with staff release time. Grant amounts varied whether the applicant was proposing a domestic or international project and awarded three grants a year. The application encouraged employees to consider projects driven by questions rather than pre-determined solutions or prescribed outcomes. Expectations for grant activities allowed ample space for inventive interpretation: ask questions, create connections, generate new ideas, and develop strategies for exploring and implementing those ideas. A requisite of the program was that grantees give a short final presentation of their explorations during staff meetings and submit a final report. To supplement and aid the application process, Mia provided workshops introducing the grant program and on planning and framing proposals successfully.
The RMIA met a number of its desired outcomes. Providing institutional support for the shift to a culture of innovation that was already taking root in departments and divisions across Mia meant that a number of innovative and out-of-the-box ideas forwarded by staff got researched, explored, and sometimes even implemented. The summative surveys conducted after the conclusion of the RMIA program offers insight into the wide variety of ways in which grants were utilized:
“I…focused on ‘Globalization,’ connecting Mia with national/international partners, and identifying model pilot projects with investors that actively sought out new opportunities for revenue that were sustainable and consistent with the museum’s mission.”
“By deepening my knowledge and experience of new design strategies, I was better able to present their relevance within the context of the exhibition ‘Finland: Designed Environments’ in 2014, articulating design thinking in the larger global context of design…as well as their potential application in our own environment.”
“This RMIA was about 3D scanning and printing, and it has laid the groundwork for many of the projects I’ve taken up since then.”
“We got to reimagine the Providence Parlor using creative tools we gained on our RMIA.”
“The RMIA has already changed how I curate and conceive of projects.”
Evaluation tools: The main sources of the RMIA’s evaluation were summary reports given to the Chief of Staff after the completion of a grant, as well as a survey sent via email to all participants in the RMIA since the beginning of the program.
Resources used: Mia received funds from the Blythe Brendan-Mann Foundation (daughter of Roberta Mann) for first three years, and additional funds for the second three years. The award program easily stayed within budget because when we received the grant money each cycle, we then awarded the money accordingly and never borrowed from another cycle. Actually, it came in a little under budget, because a couple of applicants were awarded grants that they weren’t able to fulfill for one reason or another.
Reflection
What worked? From start to finish, there was great appreciation and enthusiasm from the staff that the museum was willing to invest in them like this, whether they participated or not. We didn’t require a real return on investment (none of the awards were audited and there was no expectation of completion of tasks). All that was expected were basic requirements such as staying in budget, writing a report upon completion, and presenting their experience to staff. We made a point of investing trust in a willingness to “fail.” Participants didn’t have to come back with something tangible to prove their experience was worth it. The program absolutely had the desired effect of challenging and encouraging staff to think outside their day-to-day approach to their jobs, as evidenced by the summary reports and surveys we conducted.
What were the challenges? Sometimes participants encountered scheduling conflicts in terms of successfully meeting with the people or organizations they wanted to learn from, but most were creative about finding replacement and/or back-up opportunities. Another unexpected hurdle we often found ourselves encountering was the difficulty some applicants had in crafting a proposal that was both outside their normal job expectations and relevant to the work they did. What seemed like a no-brainer idea when we started it (people will love this!) ended up being a taller order than we anticipated. Sometimes proposals were simply too similar to the work that individual did. It was a surprisingly tough needle for proposers to thread. Similarly, “innovation” is an amorphous term that doesn’t meld with some of the job types at the museum. If you work accounting, facilities, janitorial, your job is to not risk failure; you don’t necessarily spend your time thinking about innovation in your position. Likewise, the knowledge workers on staff whose work tends to be methodological, subscribed, and research-based sometimes found difficulty in proposing an “innovative” project that might run counter-intuitive to their scholarly instincts. Nonetheless, we actively encouraged any and all Mia employees to apply for grants and worked with them to try to help craft a successful application.
Relevance
At Mia: Employees who were awarded an RMIA still to this day are motivated by what they learned, and we hope it has enhanced their appreciation of the institution’s commitment to innovation and risk. We are currently working toward obtaining the funds necessary to re-introduce an innovation award at Mia.
In the museum field: We absolutely want to stress that institutionally, it is worth it to take these out-of-the-box “risks” for the benefit of your staff. Innovation doesn’t require a big budget; the largest resources needed are trust and a tolerance for risk. Award programs like this can be scaled to almost any organization. Although we had an investor, there are ways to build it into your operating budget and benefits to doing so. We have observed a variety of positive long-term outcomes, including a healthier work culture at Mia, enhanced modes of connecting with our community, and new national and international connections and partnerships.
Public: While a visitor might not necessarily know they’re benefitting from the outcomes of this program, the benefits are nonetheless there and improving upon their visitor experience. Many of these innovative ideas have improved upon our ability to give the visitor having the most impactful, powerful experience they can have – all for free. A couple of examples of museum practices that were born of RMIA awards: Our 100 year birthday celebration activity wherein once a week for a year leading up to the 100 year mark, we introduced a new “surprise” that was totally community engagement-centered. Also, inspired by the bee colony that Mia has on its rooftop, an RMIA participant went to Germany and studied bee colonies to learn how we might innovate on our own, and from that was born the production and sale of Mia’s very own honey.
Photos
Jennifer Komar Olivarez presents with “Team Garden City” as part of her participation in a Creative Sustainability course at Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland.
Kim Huskinson traveled to SXSW to meet with an award-winning video team and to attend SXSW Interactive, one of the world’s premier digital marketing conferences. Kim’s learnings and networking inspired Mia’s series of brand campaign videos “Art is Essential.”
Kurt Nordwall traveled to Holland to study 17th century frame carving techniques, eventually building a crank-driven machine of his own that replicated Dutch frame styles.
Kris Thayer and Diane Richard (pictured with Suzanne Andrade and Paul Barritt) traveled to London to visit 1927, an independent performance company to study how applying digital technologies to traditional art forms can amplify content to engage new audiences.