find a contractorcentre listbig-chat e-listevents
about bigmembers' loginjoin bignewsletter |
||
|
||
|
knowledgebasefind a contractorcentre listbig-chat e-listevents |
|
|
||
|
||
|
about bigmembers' loginjoin bignewsletter |
|
|
||
 |
| | ||||
|
|
|
|
Up at the sharp endA Review of Explainer Management in Interactive Centres with BIG membership In the last five years we have seen both the continued development and establishment of many new interactive centres and galleries (Places where visitors, especially children, are encouraged to interact with the exhibits in order to learn through discovery) throughout the UK. With no central source of information concerning the management of the special staff employed within our centres this article describes a survey, which has begun to address the issue. Taking the information from members of the British Interactive Group it was hoped that a UK wide survey would provide a starting point for the gathering together of such information. Emphasising its value as a source for centres (potential or established) seeking advice (Love-Rodgers, 1999). The increasing shift in focus from teaching to learning means the interactives industry as a whole is relatively new. Staff roles and structures remain undefined. Without the years of previous experience traditionally necessary to characterise them it is imperative that we begin to share ideas. To improve existing structures for 'Explainer Management' within established centres, encourage uniformity across the board, and through this recognition of the position of 'explainer' within the museum community. "Explainer" was used a generic term for front of house staff in centres and is not meant to have any particular significance as far as the duties or status of these staff are concerned. A questionnaire was sent to 64 centres from the BIG membership list (21 returned). The conclusions drawn are not so valid as with a larger data set (number of questionnaires returned), but as a promotional tool to demonstrate the necessity of a wider bank of information it is felt to be sufficient. This article will focus on what we felt to be four major areas that need improvement; pay, training, staff retention, and recognition. Firstly, the similarity in salary levels throughout all of the participants suggest that they are set by looking at pay levels in other centres rather than local rates of pay and costs of living. This has resulted in scales of pay that are universally low across the country and show no regional variation to account for the cost of living or labour market. Full time staff tended to be quoted an annual salary and part time staff an hourly rate. Nearly three quarters of annual salaries for explainers fell into the £10-11,000 bracket with roughly equal numbers being paid slightly more and slightly less. Of the hourly rates quoted half were in the £4-5 bracket, which translates into approximately £8529-10660. We suggest that those setting salaries should look at other comparable jobs locally, such as teacher, play leader etc., and set their salaries accordingly. Employment is a competitive market and one should aim to get the best staff possible. Personal experience has shown that low salary levels can cause committed staff to leave the industry. Very few centres recruited nationally, again missing the opportunity to recruit the best staff from a larger pool. Explainers are also denied the chance to build a career and gain wider experience. A relatively inexpensive method of advertising nationally would be to use existing IT networks (organisation's own website, recruitment sites, etc.). One of the provisions that usually defines whether an employer takes a position seriously, is training. The sample showed on the job training, the provision of written material, job shadowing and a one-day orientation to be the most popular forms of training. NVQ training was mentioned as only a possibility by one organisation, and only one other specified training according to individual needs. A distinction was generally made between permanent and temporary staff with the latter receiving considerably less training again. Good investment in training can be attractive to potential staff, lead to staff retention and ensure a better service for visitors. Part time staff should receive the same level of training if not more to cultivate their sense of belonging. Three quarters of institutions that replied had appraisal systems, not all were linked to pay. Appraising staff and discussing their success or otherwise with them would seem to be central to maintaining standards. The creation of an appraisal system can also help focus ideas of roles and standards. Treating explaining as part of a career, will attract recruits with more skills and experience, and encourage them to stay. A quarter of institutions had explainers stay in post for over 3 years. Some centres used more than one category as their full time staff and volunteers tend to stay longer than their part time staff. The fact that nearly three quarters of employers kept their staff for an average of less than 3 years paints a picture of a transient workforce. Many centres are not keeping records of where their staff go. Keeping such records should become standard practice. If replacing staff is costing money, which it inevitably does then managers should find out why people are leaving. Front of house work still seems to be struggling to be universally recognised as a specialist role. Of the centres who answered the questionnaire only 71% had specialist management to supervise explainers and 19% included these staff in departments which were not related to education or visitor services. The best use is not being made of explainers and the skills and experience they gain. Only about half are involved in the evaluation and development of exhibits. Notably over 20% of all centres had all their explainers leaving to follow unrelated careers in other institutions or businesses. An alternative to the rapid turn over and loss of commitment pattern that we often see would be to recognise this specialist role and look for chances to use the skills and experience involved. This is best done by looking for internal promotion opportunities for explainers in staff management and exhibit development. Where this is not possible ways should be sought to involve them as much as possible in these roles, making their present jobs more interesting and preparing them for related posts in other institutions. The message would seem to be simple. If you want explainers to behave like professionals you have to treat them like professionals. People are not going to have long term commitment if they cannot see that the work that they are doing now will benefit their careers in the long term. Working as an explainer does help develop useful transferable skills and experience. Some science centres and related institutions already recognise this and do all they can to develop their front of house staff, but there is not yet a clearly developed career path for people to follow. It is not enough to expect the good people to get on in spite of the system when they should be getting on because of it. There are some easy steps towards this development out-lined in this article, which some institutions have already taken. There are also some national developments in the form of the work done by the British Interactive Group and the Wellcome funded scheme for nationally recognised training modules. However there still remains the question of pay levels which though they are not the only motivational factor are still low enough to put people off staying in the field.
Newsletter Autumn 2001 Contents From the Chair
|
|
|
|
| | ||||
