News

Governance Resilience: an Interview with Henry Cleary, Chair of Maritime Heritage Trust

In the latest instalment of the Historic Environment Forum’s Sector Resilience Interviews series focussed on the theme of Governance, we hear from Henry Cleary, Chair of Maritime Heritage Trust.
Please tell us a bit about yourself and your role.

I am Chair of Maritime Heritage Trust, from 2020 after a long period as Deputy Chair and Board Member since the organisation was established (as Heritage Afloat) in 1994. MHT provides a “bottom up” voice for ship and boat preservationists, the only national membership body for floating maritime heritage. My relevant experience was as the owner and restorer of the steam puffer Vic 56.

Conveying the power and appeal of operating historic vessels and sustaining them is a challenge – they are particularly vulnerable to loss and decay. As an umbrella body it is our task to support, help and represent the sector while also highlighting new approaches which might help.  We do this through online talks for members and open presentations, member groups for special interests and, over the last two years, convening the national Heritage Harbours Group. We work closely with National Historic Ships UK, the Government funded advisory body for the sector.

What can you tell us about your work in relation to Governance? What does this work aim to achieve?

Like many similar organisations we face a serous demographic and engagement challenge and that is reflected in our own governance issues. This s a mix of changing public tastes and priorities, ageing volunteers, reduced rates of volunteering post Covid, cost of living pressures etc. The fanatical drive of 1960s/1970s preservationists (which saved many vessels) reflects its time and is not easily replicable. New forms of engagement and wider community appeal are needed if surviving heritage is to be cared for effectively.

The first challenge for MHT was to renew the Board and to be effective that needed to be in terms of age and diversity. After an external review in early 2022, honorary roles were established so that those who had given many years of service could continue to do so in an advisory role while a block of 4 vacant Trustee places created were the subject of a younger Trustee recruitment drive. The outcome was a new Board with 50% gender diversity and a much lower average age, working alongside a young part time staff member. This is not the end of the story; in a similar cycle, other Trustees with the longest  experience will soon need to consider moving on and replacements attracted.

What contribution will this make towards resilience in the heritage sector?

By having a younger board more in tune with how heritage is seen and experienced across a bigger demographic there is more confidence that approaches will be found which are effective in the changing conditions described above. Some of this will be of interest to others and can be shared across the sector.

What does success look like for your work?

Membership numbers reflect whether what we do helps the sector and some of our activities are on line or via social media.  Participation and awareness by the public in our members’ activities is also relevant.

Overall, what do you think is most crucial for ensuring a resilient heritage sector?

Offering a range of ways that all ages and talents can engage with heritage and a willingness to experiment to find new approaches that work.

This Sector Resilience interview was shared by Henry as part of our Heritage Sector Resilience Plan activities.

If you’d like to contribute an interview as part of the series, follow the link below to find out more:

Sector Resilience Interviews – Historic Environment Forum

Governance Resilience: an Interview with Liz Power, Director of Historic Buildings & Places

In the latest instalment of the Historic Environment Forum’s Sector Resilience Interviews series focussed on the theme of Governance, we hear from Liz Power, Director of Historic Buildings & Places.
Please tell us a bit about yourself and your role.

I’m Liz Power, Director of Historic Buildings & Places. We are one of the National Amenity Societies and we are an advice giving charity about planning and listed buildings. We are 100 years old and a few years ago we changed our name to Historic Buildings & Places from the Ancient Monuments Society. I have been in the role almost two years as director and one of the reasons for my recruitment was to work on the governance of the organisation.

What can you tell us about your work in relation to Governance? What does this work aim to achieve?

The work to update the governance of Historic Buildings & Places started at the trustee board before my appointment but has been something I have focused on over the last two years. The reason for this being such a focus is to update the charity and make it better equipped to work to protect heritage going forward.

One part has been moving the charity to be a CIO (charitably incorporated organisation) and this has been a long legal process, working with our members and legal advice to set up and new charity in the model of best practice as advised by the Charity Commission.

The second aspect has been about updating the board of trustees’ ways of working, bringing in trustees term limits, and running an active programme of trustee retirement and recruitment which will take several years to complete but has so far given us 7 new trustees including a new chair.

What contribution will this make towards resilience in the heritage sector?

The aim of updating the board of trustees’ ways of working is to bring on new thinking about the role our charity can play in the heritage sector going forward. All our new trustees are of working age, with five being under 35, our youngest being 23. They all have skills and experience in heritage or related fields which they want to give to the charity, and they have been welcomed by our existing board to ease the transition for the organisation going forward.

We know the importance of the work we do as an organisation in helping people look after listed buildings, and things are fast changing around planning and with the transition to net zero so it’s vital that our organisation and therefore our governance is reflective of today’s challenges.

What does success look like for your work?

As we go forward we will be on a constant recruitment cycle bringing in new trustees every year, we also looking to support all our trustees through training, buddy systems and making sure they have a full and comprehensive understanding of the organisation, and the role of a trustee.  

For us we are already seeing success with new voices and perspectives at the trustee table, which are challenging us as a staff team to think about the way we take the charity forward.

Image shows nine people standing in the line looking towards the camera as a formal pose.  They are indoors standing against a modern interior with light wooden floors and wall panels.  The people are a diverse group and all look happy to be there.
Some of the new board at HBAP’s last AGM (c) Historic Buildings & Places
How can sector colleagues get involved or find out more?

I think it’s really important that in the heritage sector we support each other, and already I have had lots of people approach me to talk about the governance journey we’re on and how they might do similar within their organisation. I’m always very happy to talk to people about our process and the fact that it’s worked and it’s OK, it seems scary to start with but it is well worth it.

Overall, what do you think is most crucial for ensuring a resilient heritage sector?

I think that governance is incredibly important for a resilient heritage sector and we need our heritage charities led by people who reflect the communities of our country, who are interested in what we do but with a broad horizon, and understand the challenges of running charities that deliver the work of the heritage sector.

This Sector Resilience interview was shared by Liz as part of our Heritage Sector Resilience Plan activities.

If you’d like to contribute an interview as part of the series, follow the link below to find out more:

Sector Resilience Interviews – Historic Environment Forum

England’s heritage sector response to Covid-19 challenges – paper published

‘Early responses to the impact of COVID-19 on the heritage sector in England’

This paper discusses the role of the Historic Environment Forum in facilitating sector collaboration during the crisis – including via the HEF Covid-19 Task Group, Heritage Recovery Plan and later Heritage Sector Resilience Plan.

Now available to read online at Archäologische Informationen 46.

Image is a screenshot of journal article excerpt which reads "Early responses to the impact of COVID-19 on the heritage sector in England Amanda Chadburn, Mike Heyworth, Francesca Benetti & Adrian Olivier Abstract – This paper sets out how the heritage/archaeological sector in England responded to the challenges thrust upon it by the Covid-19 global pandemic. It is based on a presentation given at the annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Budapest in 2022.1 The authors of this paper were heavily involved in authoring the early plans which set out ways of assisting the heritage sector in England during this crisis period. Key words – archaeology; COVID-19; recovery; England; cultural heritage"

Historic Environment Overview 2023-24 published

Included for decorative purposes, the cover of the report reads “Historic Environment Overview 2023-24. A report by the Historic Environment Forum – Heritage Counts”. Above the text is a photograph of a summer scene where people including family groups are sitting on grass enjoying entertainment displays in front of a large ochre-coloured historic building, set against blue skies with some light clouds.

Highlighting developments across England’s heritage sector in the last financial year, the Historic Environment Overview for 2023-24 was published in August 2024.

The report was produced by the Historic Environment Forum with support from Historic England.

It outlines significant achievements for the sector, showcasing collective efforts to preserve, celebrate, and adapt the historic environment for current and future generations.

Read the full report.

Governance Resilience: an Interview with Ari Volanakis, PhD researcher

In the first instalment of the Historic Environment Forum’s Sector Resilience Interviews series focussed on the theme of Governance, we hear from Ari Volanakis, PhD researcher.
Please tell us a bit about yourself and your role.

I am Ari Volanakis, PhD researcher at the Institute for Sustainable Heritage at UCL, and an experienced cultural heritage management professional.  The Institute for Sustainable heritage delivers ‘…sustainable solutions to real-world cultural heritage problems through ground-breaking, cross-disciplinary research and innovative teaching for future heritage leaders’ https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/heritage/.

I have worked as Operations manager for the National Trust, as Heritage Area Manager for Lincolnshire County Council, Heritage Development manager at Rutland County Council, project manager for Heritage Fund funded projects and provided consultancy for the ‘concerned about closure’ Museums Development programme. I have been a volunteer, trustee, and have previous commercial management experience. My work is driven by my passion and experience, combining a heritage heart and a business brain.

My doctoral research develops a knowledge management design for the cultural heritage sector https://www.avculturalheritage.org/. Perhaps you have experienced the difficulties of finding the most relevant and up-to-date information when you must perform a cultural heritage operation such as reviewing your policies or governance documents, setting up digital ticketing or 3d virtual reality tours, applying for grants or managing a project, evaluating economic impact, developing self-generating income streams, plan people’s professional development, updating quinquennial reports or the collections’ online system? How stressful has it been, how long have you wasted looking?

It seems the problem now is an information overload, especially when the operational needs, visitor expectations, working patterns, financing, historic and wider environment, and technology all change at such a rapid rate. One cannot know which knowledge resource is more recent or valid. The problem becomes more difficult as cultural heritage organisations need knowledge to deliver double the operations compared to commercial businesses: to grow organisational sustainability as a business, and to provide a participatory curating service. Cultural heritage organisations are professionally curating (creating, collecting, storing, conserving, and communicating) not only heritage assets and cultural values, but also knowledge about cultural heritage. Paradoxically though, whilst cultural heritage organisations curate knowledge for the public, thousands of them do not have the organisational knowledge they require to manage their rapidly changeable and demanding operations.

And the problem does not apply to one type of organisation only; a whole range of organisations face similar difficulties, shown in the image below:

16 common operations categories (rectangles in the image below) are observed across the full spectrum of the above cultural heritage organisations. These are placed within the four common objectives (in the circles) as found in cultural heritage governance documents and annual reports.

(To read a summary description for each operation follow  the link within https://www.avculturalheritage.org/useful-information)

This framework provides a starting point to study what knowledge is present for each of the 16 operations, how it is created or sourced, and whether it is up-to-date. And, what is provided by sector support organisations, what isn’t, how it is accessed, and whether it is used and beneficial.

The pilot study finds only 3% of present and updated knowledge across the 16 operations in cultural heritage organisations. This mere 3% however is associated with a 10.2% higher performance across the four objectives. If we could find a design to grow that 3% of knowledge in cultural heritage organisations, to say 30%, or 60%, the improvement in performance would be extraordinary. And the reduction of stress and wasted time would also be significant.

Such a design requires understanding of the complicated nature of cultural heritage work by staff and volunteers. It also requires trust across teams, organisations, and the sector. Knowledge exists in often overly elaborate or boring manuals in printed and digital formats (explicit knowledge), and within people with extensive experience (tacit knowledge). Using Nonaka’s knowledge model and Cooperrider’s Appreciative theory, the design aims to bring together explicit and tacit knowledge and to appreciate what we do well; to make recorded knowledge present and accessible so we can learn and grow, and we then enrich the recorded knowledge with our experience in a continuous cycle so we can grow more. This is after all what cultural heritage is all about.

We might also find synergy opportunities, for example libraries might have documentation management processes that theatres do not have, but theatres might have more developed ticketing systems. And both can be beneficial to museums, which can share conservation and interpretation knowledge, for example. The result would be a more efficacious, less expensive, and less stressful way to improve performance across the sector. Furthermore, recorded knowledge is ineffective without networking, communication, and mentoring.

The research objective therefore is to develop an organisational knowledge design for cultural heritage; a synergic design (curating organisations and sector support working together) and methodical application (across the sector’s common operations) of manuals, toolkits, and associated software, that empower individuals and teams, and improve organisational performance (delivery of cultural, social, economic, and environmental objectives).

 

What can you tell us about your work in relation to Governance? What does this work aim to achieve?

Governance in this research sits within the Economic Development objective and particularly within the Organisational Health operational drum in the previous image, being consistent with the Arts Council’s accreditation scheme. It also sits within the Staff and Volunteer development operational drum, recognising the  need to appreciate, look after, support and develop the people who represent our organisations. The Historic Environment Forum’s  Resilience plan on Governance aims to support business plans and governance models ‘through greater sharing of experience and best practice’ (p7) (I also use the alternative term for best practice of ‘successfully demonstrated’ practice (O’Dell, Grayson and Essaides, 1998, p. 13)). Sharing tacit knowledge (experience) and explicit knowledge (recorded best practice) are core outputs of the knowledge management design being developed by this research. The proposed design will enable easier creation, sourcing, sharing, and updating of recorded knowledge across the sector, and works towards building trust, networking, and open sharing culture in a more unified cultural heritage sector. In the recently published paper on the long-term impact of COVID-19 on heritage, I highlight ‘the significance of the sector coming together during the pandemic to share knowledge and provide support through its networks….also…how important it is for such unity not to be lost but to be harnessed to support ongoing organisational sustainability and better preparedness for future crises’ (https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/7/6/152, pp. 3240-1).

What contribution will this make towards resilience in the heritage sector?

The Historic Environment Forum’s Resilience plan defines resilience through four characteristics: (1) having the right knowledge and expertise, (2) being appreciated and appropriately-resourced, (3) actively serving the community, and (4) being well-connected and collaborative. The first characteristic is perfectly matched with my research content of having accessible and up-to-date knowledge to deliver our operations. For the second characteristic, the organisational knowledge across the Promotion and Stakeholders operational drums enables being appreciated through marketing and networking. The third characteristic of actively serving the community is supported by all four objectives of my design, involving cultural and social participation operations, economic development, and environmental preservation. The final characteristic of being connected and collaborative is supported by a number of the social operational drums (community, supporters, stakeholders), and from the Organisational Health drum and its Governance aspects. Furthermore, the entire design is underpinned by building trust, and benefiting from collaborative curation (creating, collecting, storing, conserving, and communicating) of organisational knowledge within our sites and across our organisations.

What does success look like for your work?

The research data will be analysed during winter 2024-2025 and the proposed design will be published during 2025. Discussions with leading heritage organisations will be taking place to enable piloting and fully launching the design to benefit small and large organisations within the cultural heritage sector.

How can sector colleagues get involved or find out more?

You can take part in the research by completing the online questionnaire by 26th July 2024, on https://www.avculturalheritage.org/complete-the-questionnaire. It takes about 15 minutes, and your contribution will inform the beneficial design.

After 26th July, you can still get in contact directly and share views, on ucbqnav@ucl.ac.uk or arivolanakis.heritage@gmail.com.

Overall, what do you think is most crucial for ensuring a resilient heritage sector?

The knowledge design in my research supports the resilience plan, and particularly in relation to ‘better preparedness for future crises’ as mentioned in a previous question. But within the same sentence I also discuss ongoing organisational sustainability. Resilience is essential for riding the waves, and from that initial firm point we can aim for longer term organisational sustainability (see https://www.avculturalheritage.org/useful-information for a definition). Having a live knowledge bank, associated networking and knowledge management design will enable the sector to not only be reactive to crises, but also to plan proactively, wisely. The first big step of having resilience fuelled by a sector-wide knowledge design will lead to the ability to proactively manage change and be organisationally sustainable for the long term.

This Sector Resilience interview was shared by Ari as part of our Heritage Sector Resilience Plan activities.

If you’d like to contribute an interview as part of the series, follow the link below to find out more:

Sector Resilience Interviews – Historic Environment Forum

HEF News Archive