October 2013

SWOT Analysis for Institutions Who Follow the Maker/Tinkering Experience Trend

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) Analysis for Institutions Who Follow the Maker/Tinkering Experience Trend

The analysis below was created by the 200+ audience and session instigators at the ASTC 2013 Conference Session, “Interactive, Touch Tables, Maker Spaces: Trends, Fads, What’s Next?” While we hope to put this on the CAISE website we are cross posting it here.

 

 

The session instigators were as follows:

  • Wayne LaBar – ALCHEMY studio (session leader)
  • Kirsten Ellenbogen – Great Lakes Science Center
  • Hooley McLaughlin – Ontario Science Center
  • Dana Schloss – TELUS Spark
  • Eric Siegel – New York Hall of Science

By way of background, here is a definition of “SWOT analysis” from Wikipedia:

SWOT analysis (alternatively SWOT Matrix) is a structured planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project or in a business venture. A SWOT analysis can be carried out for a product, place, industry or person. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or project and identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieving that objective. The technique is credited to Albert Humphrey, who led a convention at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) in the 1960s and 1970s using data from Fortune 500 companies. The degree to which the internal environment of the firm matches with the external environment is expressed by the concept of strategic fit.

Setting the objective should be done after the SWOT analysis has been performed. This would allow achievable goals or objectives to be set for the organization.

  • Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others
  • Weaknesses: characteristics that place the team at a disadvantage relative to others
  • Opportunities: elements the project could exploit to its advantage
  • Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project

The recent ASTC session drew a large crowd and sparked a lot of follow-up discussions. Since the SWOT analysis was done live via computer during the session, participants had immediate access, and many expressed the feeling that it would be great to share this more broadly with the science center community. Both participants and instigators felt that reflecting upon and analyzing our practice was useful and that science centers ought to do more of this type of thinking. A summary/review of the session can be found on the ASTC blog at http://www.astc.org/blog/2013/10/21/interactive-touch-tables-maker-spaces-trends-fads-whats-next/

 

One insight that comes out of the analysis is that, while there are certainly unique aspects to the Making/Tinkering movement, this exercise brought up some “universal” themes as well – good words of analytic wisdom applicable to any strong, impactful experience.

Of course, a possible conflating factor for any “conclusions” one might draw is the self-selection of the group for this particular conference session. We didn’t cross-correlate responses with participants’ museum affiliation, situational context, current programming, or prior experience with Maker/Tinkering spaces. Perhaps there will future opportunities to frame and explore the issues brought up during the discussion.

Without further ado… the SWOT analysis:

 

OPPORTUNITY

  • Funders love it
  • Get to partner with awesome people who are also known to the public
  • Bring in new audiences
  • Outcomes have personal connection
  • Leverage established festivals and event
  • NGSS are full of modeling – ISE is scared to death of this – but abstract representation etc. is strong in maker
  • Media love it
  • Unique opportunity to engage adults
  • It gets people to spend time thinking about something – move this to internal
  • Very easy to communicate
  • Lots of rhetoric around this – even Obama loves it – Silicon Valley believes it needs to create people who have the skills that maker spaces create
  • Opportunity to reuse materials
  • Really helps to build community – not just learning community but also gives people a brand to collect under – brings external communities together
  • Ties into the formal education sector
  • Opportunity to build on others ideas
  • People get it
  • Brings in outside expertise

 

THREATS

  • People may do it without learning how
  • It’s overblown in the media and diluted
  • If it doesn’t fit your mission it can unintentionally change what people think of you
  • Science Centers are not uniquely positioned to do this
  • I can do this at the children’s museum, why is at a science center?
  • A lot of people don’t get it
  • It can be very wasteful of resources
  • Can alienate existing maker communities
  • External funders love it but it may not align with your mission – takes money from other important directions – their vision of making may not be the same as yours
  • Are we increasing inequality because only some people can afford coming to the science center?
  • You have to buy 3D printers
  • Environmental waste
  • Time waste – move this to internal – museum visitor time is precious – we try to create thoughtful things that they may never get to if they are caught up in maker space
  • Because the maker movement feels so new we are still developing a shared understanding – end up being unfocused
  • People feel that they can’t do it
  • Liability
  • Expectation by longtime visitors does not match this new effort

 

STRENGTHS

  • Allow you to bridge gap between education and exhibits
  • Comfortable space for strangers to interact
  • Most science centers bring in 7-14 year olds – a missing group
  • Build internal staff capacity – draw out the internal strengths that you may not have known about it
  • You can integrate hybrid maker into other exhibits and programs
  • Worth it just to give people a chance to slow down and try something in-depth using your hands
  • Gives people facility with tools
  • Super empowering for visitors
  • Shifts mindset of staff to do more prototyping
  • Problems are self-defined
  • Engages families together
  • NGSS talks about STEAM – brings in art
  • Creates meaningful and memorable experience
  • Instigates learning modality conversation
  • Gives laypeople control over production
  • Reinvigorate one’s floor
  • Opens up possibilities
  • I CAN do this
  • Encourages collaboration
  • Changes interpretive modality – for floor staff, not as much about explaining
  • Provides a space that’s not as static
  • Provides opportunity to learn from failure
  • Create a community of regulars – maker groupies
  • Makes your staff feel part of something bigger than your organization
  • IT IS FUN

 

 

WEAKNESSES

  • Staff capacity
  • Potentially lose the wow factor in the science center
  • People fail if there is not enough facilitation
  • Looks messy
  • It is expensive to staff
  • Has to be authentic – this is not for everybody
  • Institutional resistance to change
  • No science center has spare space for this
  • Materials management
  • Ability to engage visitors for repeat visits
  • It can look cheap
  • Should not distract us from doing “science” – potential to be just arts and crafts
  • Easy to become whatever you want making factory
  • It is such a good idea – just get on with it – weaknesses will scare the management
  • Difficult to measure this kind of learning
  • Narrow definitions of making can exclude diverse audiences
  • We are always weakest at the beginnings of these efforts – how to we catapult our learning in the field
  • Not all sciences lend themselves to Maker experiences
  • Requires lots of iteration
  • It is uniquely dependent on the quality of the facilitation – therefore you have a big quality control issue – the cost of making sure that facilitators can participate effectively
  • Because it is hard to measure and articulate the learning outcomes, it is hard to train your facilitators
  • If we use traditional assessments then we will not measure maker learning
  • Investment required means you prioritize this kind of learning over other community engagement
  • If it is really authentic maker experience, there is more opportunity for failure and may decrease motivation to participate
  • If you are doing the Maker space you are not out ahead of the next trend – do we lose innovation?
  • Maker is a tool that can be applied depending on how it fits the topic
  • Maker space is not the point – it is incorporating – we want to make Maker spots or nodes

Posted in: Experiences and Museums, News

Tags: , , ,

Leave a comment

Immersive Simplicity

In the design of exhibitions, there is often a desire to create immersive environments or experiences that allow visitors to lose themselves in the experience rather than be reminded that they are in a museum or exhibition.

An example of a simple approach through projection – but surely not an easy one to create – is Onion Skin by Olivier Ratsi, who is on the AntiVJ visual label.

 

 

 

This experience is an elegant and totally mesmerizing exploration of point-of-view, perspective and vanishing point. It relies on principle known as “anamorphosis” (your vocabulary word of the day). Onion Skin, as is, certainly has relevance to art and visual science content and would be at home at many museums/exhibitions.

As an approach for an immersive experience,it also points out how a simple setup, with creative programming, can become a powerful experience that transports visitors out of an exhibition.

It got us thinking about if and how this approach could be used for various subjects and how that might be achieved. What comes to mind for you?

A final wild thought would be translating this technique and blowing it up for use in a large-screen format. That would be a fun experiment, don’t you think? Share your ideas here.

 

 

Posted in: Experiences and Museums

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a comment

losing the ocean for the waves

Last month an interesting installation opened for only a few days in Osaka Japan: My Thread – New Dutch Design on Films curated Eizo Okada .

 

 

 

The interesting part of this exhibition was the work done by Hideyuki Nakayama, that created light and experience separation between the video screens displaying the work of several artists.

Hideyuki Nakayama adapted the metalized film used in emergency blankets to create a light, opaque, but air-porous layer between the screens and the floor below. Visitors are invited to walk beneath the layer and view the videos at designated spots between the layers.

 

 

What struck us was the almost eerie similarity of walking through or under a body of water.

 

 

 

 

Photos from the experience offer snapshots that reminded us a views “just under the surface,” to vistas across a calm body of water. How exciting it would be to encounter a series of experiences set into such a environment.

This made us ruminate on how often in experience design, museums lose sight of the power of such thinking.

Transforming the age-old adage about forest and trees to match our example above – too often we focus on the “waves” or individual experiences in an exhibition rather than the “ocean” that could be created. It is through experiencing the “ocean” that one can gain different and contextual insights into the nature of the “waves”.

In fact, other aspects of our popular culture – hit tv series, console games, and others – have moved toward creating the mega story with individual aspects that while standing alone create a larger, more powerful story.

Looking to future exhibition, it would be magical if we as a field could move from the waves to create more ocean experiences. How do you think this approach could enhance the museum experience?

 

 

 

Posted in: Experiences and Museums

Tags: , , ,

1 Response

Design begins on the new installation of the David M. Robinson Collection of Greek and Roman Antiquities

 

 

After completing vision, impact, and direction-setting workshops over the Spring and Summer of 2013 with the staff and faculty of the University of Mississippi Museum in Oxford, Mississippi, ALCHEMY studio is underway with the design of a new installation/exhibition that focuses the David M Robinson collection.

The Museum desires to get more of the collection out in front of the public, since parts have never been seen. At the same time, driven by the work of the previous workshop lead by ALCHEMY studio, the exhibition strives for deeper engagement and to make stronger connections between this collection and contemporary society. The exhibition will be placed in the renovated galleries of the Mary Buie Museum,

 

 

which was built in 1939, expanded in 1977, and expanded again in 1998.

 

 

Updates will follow but look for this exhibition to open in the summer/fall of 2014.

Posted in: News

Leave a comment

tree as museum

Here is a beautiful concept that certainly could spark ideas and thoughts for botanical gardens, nature centers, and even natural history centers: Tree in the House.

 

 

 

 

Tree in the House is an idea by almasov aibek of a.masco desgn. The idea of walking outside and then creating a structure to focus solely on one tree is very interesting. There are messages and metaphors that surround this idea, and an interpretive structure would include both science and art. (Pictures from Almasov Albek)

There is something very special about being in a collection and zooming in to one example.

Meanwhile, another recent concept we’ve run across that brings structure to the outdoors is the “Invisible Garden House” by Simon Hjermind Jensen, principal of SHJworks.

 

 

 

 

 

These structures are heated by the sun and cooled by natural ventilation. What these might suggest are ways to create small, portable spaces for certain experiences out in a natural environment.

Both of these ideas offer playful and intriguing ways to interplay structure and the natural environment.

What similar examples have you seen? What new connections would you like to explore between nature and structure?

 

 

 

 

Posted in: Experiences and Museums

Tags: , , ,

Leave a comment

scale in the city

Over the past year, we have remarked about how the use of scale, done well, can make an experience special. This week we’ve run across three very inspiring and imaginative examples of large-scale experiences. Whether marketing campaigns, art installations, or just cultural documentation, these examples captured our imagination.

The first is the submarine that surfaced in the center of Milan

 

 

 

 

Talk about an experience! This was a marketing event by M&C saatchi Milano for the insurance group europ assistanve IT. Certainly, it suggests some interesting ideas for promoting a new exhibition or large-format film in the museum world, and it got us wondering about how one might stage this to bring a short term “content” experience into a city.

Here is a possible example. Speaking of large scale film, here is what might be “the largest film camera in the world.”

 

 

 

 

You might be able to see this in your local city/town. It is traveling around the country as part of the project ”Butterflies and Buffalo” by Dennis Manarchy. The project is to document and “preserve our nation’s (United States) dynamic cultural history”

The last example shows how an abandoned building was transformed into an imaginative setting. Here is the project “from the knees of my nose to the belly of my toes.”

 

 

 

This house, with a sliding front, can be found in Margate and was done by Alex Chinneck, a British artist.

These projects are clear examples of how scale and the context in which the scale experience occurs can heighten the impact of the experience.

Our belief is that museums need to consider breaking down their walls to bring more of their experiences directly into the world beyond the building.

What do you think? What might you pull off in the middle of the city?

Posted in: Experiences and Museums

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Dream Big Starts Filming

 

Dream Big will be a groundbreaking film experience. For the first time, IMAX and other large-screen formats will be used to examine the science and technology of large-scale engineering projects.

Working with MacGillivray Freeman Films, ALCHEMY studio is involved in the film and educational materials as a content and creative consultant. The other partner on the film is the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

Just as importantly, this film will celebrate as well as respect the drive to engineer solutions that solve problems or overcome challenges encountered by humans.

At the beginning of summer, the first filming occurred for Dream Big. The MacGillivray Freeman Films (MFF) production team was on hand to film the insertion of Big Bertha’s, the world’s largest tunnel boring machine cutter head, to begin digging a two-mile tunnel under downtown Seattle for a 4-lane highway.  The picture shown here was taken during that shoot and shows of the full scale of the cutter head – 57 feet in diameter and weighing 14 million pounds. Thanks to MacGillivray Freeman Films for the images.

Posted in: News

Tags: , ,

1 Response