Standards, guidelines and scheduling for local museum accreditation. The case study of the Marche Region

Transcription

1 Standards, guidelines and scheduling for local museum accreditation. The case study of the Marche Region Author: MARA CERQUETTI - mara.cerquetti@unimc.it University: UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI MACERATA Track: 31. Public Management General Track Co-author(s): Massimo Montella (University of Macerata/Department of Cultural Heritage) Access to this paper is restricted to registered delegates of the EURAM 2011 (European Academy of Management) Conference.

2 Standards, guidelines and scheduling for local museum accreditation. The case study of the Marche Region Mara Cerquetti and Massimo Montella Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Macerata, Italy 1

3 Abstract During the last decades research on cultural management has studied standards and indicators for museum accreditation (micro-perspective). However, these studies have not yet focused on processes and procedures to progressively accomplish the different steps for museum improvement and development. In addition, they have not concentrated on relationships between museums and other organizations, both private and public, which operate at different institutional levels and are involved in cultural heritage management. After analysing the Marche Region s local museum conditions, this paper presents a sustainable framework for museum accreditation at regional level (macro- and mesoperspectives), providing guidelines and scheduling to lead the application of museum standards. According to suggestions coming from new public management and public governance, standards are not only tools to measure, evaluate and improve museum performance, but are also useful to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of museum programmes and to assist in defining goals and planning strategies. Keywords Museum standards, accreditation system, new public management, public governance, public value approach, strategic management 2

4 Introduction As the international literature has already established (Hood 1991; Gruening, 1997; Kettl, 2000; Ferlie, Lynn and Pollitt, 2005; Borgonovi, 2005), New Public Management (NPM) is a branch of research focused on Public Administration innovation, using business management techniques and tools. The NPM paradigm aims at introducing and using in the public sector the following principles: results orientation, flexibility, autonomy, operational efficiency, accountability, output focus, service quality, performance measurement and management control. Since the end of the 1970s the literature on public administration and management has contributed to the modernization of public health, education and local authorities. However, in some cases NPM has introduced a managerial rhetoric without real effects in practice (Bonini Baraldi, 2007: 36) 1. In 1991, when Peter Ames analysed cultural heritage management, he drew attention to the fact that, excepting measurements focused on quantity such as annual attendance, budget size, and staff size, museums had almost no performance indicators existing in the for-profit sectors as well as in many fields of the nonprofit sectors (Ames, 1994: 22). Sharing these assumptions, this paper will analyse some recent value-centered approaches to museum management, focusing on the Italian perspective on museum performance measurement. After verifying how new public management has influenced Italian cultural heritage management, we will analyse the Marche Region s museum accreditation, shifting our attention from the single museum to relationships between different organizations involved in museum management, from minimum standards to priorities and steps for achieving standards. 1 Actually, scepticism about the value of strategic planning and pessimism about the future seem to be widespread among museum managers (Kawashima, 1998: 34). 3

5 Finally, we will illustrate a framework to lead museum accreditation, highlighting main activities as well as support processes for museum development. 1. Museum standards and accreditation: the new public management of cultural heritage 1.1 Value-focused approaches to museum management In the last fifteen years, according to a public value approach, literature on strategic management of nonprofit organizations has provided different tools for managers to measure the value creation in museums and other cultural institutions. Quoting Weinberg and Lewis: a public value approach to strategic management focuses leaders and managers on envisioning the value the organization can create, developing and implementing strategy, using performance measures and systems and leading strategic change. This framework explicitly recognizes and incorporates substantive and situational differences in its core. Thus, the public value approach represents a fundamental shift in the way museum and cultural institutions are governed and operated (Winberg and Lewis, 2009: 256). Without discussing the literature in detail, it is sufficient to remember some theoretical frameworks and tools that we can apply to museum strategic management. Since the mid-1990s, Mark Moore has contributed to the public value approach to management by developing a framework simultaneously focused on public value creation, operational capacity and political management in the authorizing environment (Moore, 1995, 2000; Moore and Moore, 2005). According to Moore s Strategic Triangle (fig. 1): (1) public value creation concerns public sector mission; (2) political management refers to the relationship between the organization and its political stakeholders, thereby ensuring that resources and authority will flow (Weinberg and Lewis, 2009: 258); and (3) operational 4

6 capacity relates to systems, processes and resources to push the organization to accomplish its goals. This framework reminds public managers that they have to consider each part of the triangle and that the solution to one problem has to fit with the solutions for the others. Meanwhile, Robert Kaplan and David Norton developed the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), taking tools used to create value for corporations and adopting them in the management of public and nonprofit organizations (Kaplan and Norton, 1996a, 1996b). The BSC augments traditional financial measures by adding benchmarks for performance in three non-financial areas: (1) a company s relationship with its customers; (2) its key internal business processes; and (3) its learning and growth. The merits of these models relate to: (1) the focus on a public organization s mission; (2) the attention to the relationship between internal processes (e.g. learning processes) and the environment; (3) the introduction of benchmarks and standards to measure public organizations performances. 1.2 Total quality management, performance measurement and accountability in museums Since the mid-1980s local and national funding bodies have been starting to reduce their funding and ask questions about value for money, including in the museum sector. Therefore museums have been recognized as non-profit service industries (Hudson, 1985; I.C.O.M., 1986), which have to satisfy explicit or implied needs of their customers (customer care and satisfaction) in the perspective of total quality management (availability, delivery, reliability, maintainability and cost effectiveness) (Fopp, 1997; Caldwell, 2002). According to the value-for-money (VFM) framework based on the 3Es (economy, efficiency and effectiveness), literature also focused on performance measurement and accountability through cost indicators, level of resourcing indicators, source of funds indicators, volume of service, productivity indicators (efficiency), availability of service 5

7 (equity), quality and outcome indicators (effectiveness) (Jackson, 1994; Carnagie and Wolnizer, 1996; Armstrong and Tomes, 1996). Although most of the Italian studies on cultural heritage management during the 1990s focused only on the legal aspects of Public Administration Reform and policies to enhance cultural heritage (Bonini Baraldi, 2007: 29), research carried out over the last decade has also examined museum accountability, performance measurement, management control and total quality management (Negri and Sani, 2001; Marcon 2004; Sibilio, 2004; Dainelli, 2006 and 2007; Cerquetti, 2008; Donato, 2008; Montella, 2008; Carlini, Bacchella and Zan, 2009; Negri, Niccolucci and Sani, 2009; Rispoli and Brunetti, 2009; Solima, 2009; Donato and Visser Travagli, 2010; Zorloni, 2010). 1.3 The Italian perspective on museum accreditation According to the abovementioned public value approach, we will verify how new public management has influenced Italian cultural heritage management. When analysing the Italian situation, firstly we have to consider the role of Regions in local cultural heritage enhancement 2 and the effects of the governmental reform 3 started in the late 1980s, which involved museums after the mid-1990s. In 1997 the Bassanini Reform named after the Minister who introduced it accelerated Public Administration innovation, enhancing the role of local authorities and introducing principles which involved museum management (Cammelli, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002; Barbati, Cammelli, Sciullo, 2003). First of all, the subsidiarity principle devolved political decisions to the lowest practical level, establishing: 2 The role of Regions in cultural heritage management (established since 1972) increased with the Constitutional Law 3/2001 (the Reform of Title V of the Constitution of the Italian Republic), which established the devolution of powers to the Regions. 3 As some authors have already noticed, in Italy the process of modernization in Public Administration has always been led as well as dragged out by legislation (Meneguzzo, Mele, 2008: 16) 6

8 a sort of Copernican revolution in the distribution of powers between different levels, according to which the local governments regions, provinces, municipalities are in charge of service delivery, policy making and administrative functions by default, while the law states the functions that ought to be kept at the central level, such as the relations with the European Union, National policy objectives (agriculture and industry, labour market services, education, public housing and public works), and the definition of common standards for services delivery to the citizens and to the businesses (Meneguzzo and Mele, 2008: 19). According to the Article 150 of Italian Legislative Decree 112/1998, this process foresees the devolution of museum management from the State to the regions, provinces and municipalities. Therefore, Italian Ministerial Decree of 10 May 2001 ( Guiding Act on technical-scientific criteria and standards for museum functioning and development ) 4 provided guidelines to lead the devolution, setting minimum standards for user services, facilities, collection management, etc. that local governments had to respect to manage devolved museums 5. The Ministerial Decree defined criteria and standards for eight different management areas: (1) legal status; (2) financial status; (3) museum structures; (4) museum staff; (5) museum security; (6) the management and care of individual collections; (7) relationships with the public and visitor services; (8) relationships with the territory. Then, Regions were required to define the technical processes needed to accomplish the devolution, setting regional evaluation and accreditation systems. As already analysed (Maresca Compagna, 2005), some Regions have started processes to lead museum recognition and census and standards introduction 6, following the example of other international experiences e.g. MLA s accreditation scheme in the United Kingdom (Maresca Compagna, Sani, 2008). 4 D.M. 10 maggio 2001 Atto di indirizzo sui criteri tecno-scientifici e sugli standard di funzionamento e sviluppo dei musei. 5 According to M.D. of 10 May 2001 museums especially small ones could obtain minimum standards in network. 6 See especially: Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte, Toscana, Umbria, Veneto, 7

9 First developed to support museum management devolution, the Guiding Act has become a benchmark in the cultural sector, promoting the improvement and development of all Italian museums national, local and private. In Italy it could be considered the first act which applied business tools to museum management, through indicators to measure museum performance and service quality. Moreover, during the last decades some Italian museums have arranged annual reports to measure their performances. Some examples are provided by GAM (Modern Art Gallery) in Turin, City Museums in Verona and the Museum, Library and Archive of Bassano del Grappa. However, the Italian cultural heritage system lacks common quality minimum standards for enhancement activities as requested by the Article 114 of Italian Legislative Decree 42/2004 ( Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code ) 7. In 2006 a Ministerial Commission put forward some proposals based on national criteria and on a technical organization representative of different institutional levels and technical-scientific needs, charged with the continuous updating of standards and guidelines, the monitoring of museum accreditation and the setting up of a national museum data base (Montella, Dragoni, 2010) 8, but the adjournment of the legislature did not allow these proposals to be incorporated in formal acts. Furthermore, the Guiding Act does not yet provide a set of consecutive steps for dealing with museum issues. Here we will analyse the Marche Region s museum accreditation, focusing on procedures to be followed and highlighting methods and criteria to recognize priorities and steps for museum development. 7 D.Lgs 42/2004 Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio. According to article 114, museum standards are fixed and updated periodically by the Ministry, by the Regions and by other public institutions as well as with the collaboration of universities. 8 In addition, the Commission suggested introducing in museum management principles already established in 1994 for public services (Direttiva del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri 27 gennaio 1994 Principi sull erogazione dei servizi pubblici ) (Montella, Dragoni, 2010: 181). 8

10 Sharing public governance principles we will shift our attention from the single museum perspective (micro-perspective) to the capacity of managing and steering systems and networks of public and private actors and ( ) the development of regulatory capacities (Cepiku, 2008: 106) (meso-and macro-perspective), as well as from a static approach focused on the list of standards to a dynamic approach focused on the way to museum accreditation 9. According to Meneguzzo s definition of public governance (Meneguzzo, 1995), we will focus on: (1) interaction among organizations at different levels museums, provinces, regions, etc.; (2) steering and coordination of complex networks and systems; (3) results orientation. Furthermore, we will consider the relationship between: (1) politicians and administrators (including programming and scheduling); (2) public organizations and private stakeholders (e.g. charitable foundations of banking institutions); (3) cultural managers and staff. 2. The Marche museum system: an example of diffused museum 2.1 The enhancement of Marche s cultural heritage through regional rules and actions The most distinctive feature of Italian local museums is the deep relationship with the local context: squares, monuments, and goods preserved not only in museums, but also beyond museum doors in churches, convents, monasteries, and other historical buildings. Italian cultural heritage s competitive advantage is not only contained in a few masterpieces preserved in the most important and biggest Italian museums, like the Uffizi Gallery in Florence or the Academia Galleries in Venice. In actuality, it is primarily in the continuity of cultural heritage, in the all-encompassing, pervasive material evidence of humanity and its 9 For a discussion of the differences between new public management and public governance see: Kooiman and van Vliet 1993; Meneguzzo, 1995; Kickert, 1997; Minogue, Polidano, Hulme, 1998; Peters and Pierre, 1998; Bovaird and Loffler, 2001; Jones et al., 2004; Hinna,

11 environment (Toscano, 1998). For this reason Chastel (1980) called Italy a threefold natural museum, where the collection, the historical building where it is preserved and the town in which it is located are mutually linked in an exemplary manner as three different aspects of the same museum. The characteristics of Italian cultural heritage could be synthesized in 3 Cs: capillary, contextual and complementary (Golinelli, 2008). Consequently, the abovementioned Ministerial Decree of 10 May 2001 encompasses a section about the relationships between the museum and its context. Indeed, according to Italian law, museums are required to broaden their mission to include the heritage preserved in a local context, having impacts and effects on town planning (Urbani, 2000; Montella, 2009b). As far as the Marche Region is concerned, its museum-fragmented system provides a good example of the distinctive features as well as the weaknesses of Italian cultural heritage profiled in this paper. In the Marche Region actions to enhance local cultural heritage turned a corner in 1998, when all movable and immovable heritage property, both public and private, of archaeological, naturalistic or cultural interest, was equated with local museums, to functionally organize a diffused museum system (article 1, paragraph 4, Regional Law n. 6 New rules on preservation and enhancement of Marche s cultural heritage and organization of the diffused museum in a system ) 10. R.L. 6/98 began a process of gathering information, enhancement and promotion of cultural institutes, including for tourism. European Community fund, available through the Docup Marche , in conjunction with the law, accelerated the creation of network experiences, aimed at obtaining funding for the structural restoration and functional 10 L.R. 6/98 Nuove norme in material di salvaguardia e valorizzazione del patrimonio culturale delle Marche e di organizzazione in sistema del museo diffuso. The Diffused Museum System (Sistema Museo Diffuso) includes museums, collections, warehouses and laboratories, houses-museums and eco-museums, archaeological parks and areas, monument complexes and diffused cultural heritage, organized to guarantee public use. 11 The Docup (Documento Unico di Programmazione) Marche is a planning document through which the Marche Region used European Funding for the regional economic development between 2000 and

12 adjustment of local cultural heritage, to promote the enhancement of the diffused museum s areas. However, the Cultural Annual Report of the Marche Region (Righettini, 2006) and the research developed by the University of Macerata through the analysis of some local museums (2007), which examined the broad and detailed programme of activities to preserve cultural heritage, described the lack of management in cultural institutes and the need for enhancement and certification of levels of museum services: during the 1990s Community and Region interventions supported the improvement of museum facilities, and also promoted a network building capability, solely for the reduction of installation costs (for infrastructure projects), not to decrease normal management costs and obtain economies of scale. Considering these limitations, the Por Fesr Marche , approved by the European Commission with the decision C(2007) 3986 (17 August 2007), shifted the focus of cultural actions from conservation to enhancement, from single institutions to territories (Priority 5). Although we must wait until 2013 to obtain a complete report regarding the new European cohesion policy, it seems that the programme pays more attention to the productive vision of the cultural system, its enhancement for social development and integrated cultural actions (Dattilo, 2007; Minuti, 2009). Finally, in 2010, with Regional Law n. 4 ( Rules on cultural goods and activities ) 13, the Marche Region decided to organize unified and integrated services to support cultural institutions and areas, and to promote territorial or thematic networks and systems, in order to guarantee sustainable management and development of cultural institutes (article 16). 2.2 The regional museum information system As already noticed by the United Nations Public Administration Network information is vital to good management ( ), particularly for governance and public administration. ( ) 12 The Por Fesr (Programma Operativo Regionale Fondo Europeo di Sviluppo Regionale) Marche is the Marche s programme to use European Funding. 13 L.R. 4/2010 Norme in materia di beni e attività culturali. 11

13 Information resources management is a significant aspect which enables information systems development to succeed. (1998: ). Therefore, public administration should rationally organize data gathering, information utilization, and information management systems. As regarding the information resources management, in 2007 the Marche Region set up the Regional Museum Information System as a permanent and dynamic tool to plan and monitor museums conditions (R.L. 4/2010, article 20). By means of a special self-evaluation form 14 the data base gathers information about museum conditions relating to the eight areas of the abovementioned M.D. of 10 May The first on-line self-evaluation campaign was carried out in 2008, in cooperation with the Centre of Excellence for museum standards application (University of Macerata), by people who obtained the necessary skills through a specific course financed by the Region. This first process registered 260 museums (Osservatorio Cultura Marche, 2008). Considering that many museum organizations have not yet participated in the project, there could be more than 300 museums in the Marche region. Regarding the museum features, the first campaign reported that 68% of the 260 registered institutions are local (municipal), 2% belong to other public institutions (provinces, universities, etc.) and 30% are private (15% of these are church-owned). As regarding the types of collections in the museums, the campaign found the following: - 44% art - 14% specialized material (e.g. wine labels) - 13% archaeology - 12% ethnography 14 The architecture of the information system and the structure of the self-evaluation form have been defined through the study of other experiences carried out by the Marche Region and already set up by other Regions (Lombardia, Emilia Romagna, Toscana, etc.), referring to the application form designed by Umbria Region and planning specific software to manage the system. Furthermore, the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities is studying the possibility to modify its central information system, in order to set up a central data base and define a form in line with the other regions systems. 12

14 - 6% natural history and science - 4% history - 4% territory - 3% technology and science 60% of these institutions have no mission statement, 77% have no regulations whatsoever, and 87% have no independent balance sheet. As far as staff is concerned, only 38% have actual employees, 65% do not have any directors and 71% do not employ any custodial staff. Moreover, 85% do not utilize evening security service, and 48% possess cultural objects that have not yet been inventoried. Concerning weekly operating hours, only 32% are open for more than 24 hours a week and 24% between 6 and 24 hours; 27% of the registered museums have no fixed opening time. In addition to confirming the distinctive and critical features of the regional museum system highlighted by the University of Macerata in 2007, these data are an exemplary illustration of the fragmented and heterogeneous museum situation in the centre of Italy, where there are many public, local and small museums, in many cases almost unknown, which mainly own historical or artistic collections, have scant financial and human resources and a blurred identity 15. Facilities and supplies are not the only weaknesses; museum performances e.g. conservation and visitor services management must be considered as well. 3. A framework for regional museum accreditation: a view to public governance 3.1 Minimum standards and actions 15 It is important to mention here the indistinct names of many museums (civic museum, picture gallery, etc.), which fails to provide potential visitors with a clear idea of what they can find inside the museum. 13

15 Considering the fragmentation and diversity of the regional museum system, in order to increase the level of museum facilities and services, the Marche Region should provide common and effective procedures to be followed. First, the Region must study indicators and apply them to immediately highlight priorities for conservation and enhancement intervention. For example, as far as security is concerned, data referring to the cultural, artistic and commercial value of museum pieces and to the importance of collections must be crossed with the risk index (vulnerability, safety hazards and theft) and with passive and active security. In this way, a regional museum accreditation system could be put into practice which supports the planning and implementation of different actions to continuously improve museum facilities, supplies and performance. Each museum should have a specific mode of accreditation, based on its needs and priorities, which measures and monitors the intervention effects. Therefore, we should study different minimum technical standards and guiding principles for collections, small museums, and big museums. In this perspective, standards would not be considered requirements for public financing, but objectives guiding planning and scheduling choices. The Regional Committee Resolution n. 809 of 18 May 2009 already provided different minimum standards for museums and collections 16, which could be updated, also paying attention to the achievement of goals and standards. As stated by Regional Law n. 4/2010 (article 18), the Regional Committee should set qualitative and quantitative standards, self-evaluation procedures, a mode for periodical controls and criteria for achieving standards. 16 According to the Regional Committee Resolution museums should have: a permanent collection, statutes or rules, a director and a curator (also for a museum network), a security system and a fire system, 50% of catalogued artifacts and 80% of inventoried artifacts, and an opening time of more than 18 hours per week. Collections should have: a permanent collection and statutes or rules. For collections, for example, it could be useful to provide minimum standard about inventory, cataloguing and security system, studying criteria for their development. 14

16 According to Massimo Montella (2008), regional planning should proceed on the basis of museum self-evaluation, implementing a differentiated and integrated strategy based on three lines of action: (1) Horizontal actions. They apply to all museums and collections of public interest, in order to address their urgent needs and obtain, in a short amount of time, the minimum standards of security, preservation and service supply. As far as security is concerned, it could be useful to provide for the attainment of heritage knowledge (catalogue and inventory). Then, it would be important to concentrate on conservation, first identifying the priority actions, starting with strengthening passive security (structures) and active security (systems and ordinary maintenance), in order to proceed stepby-step and case-by-case, according to the type of collection and conservation conditions. It could be useful to establish network cooperation, to efficiently guarantee employment of people for inspections and maintenance. The following or parallel actions should be applied to displays and exhibits, to museum communication and opening time. (2) Punctual actions. These actions focus only on a few museums or museum networks, outstanding for the quality of their collections or their organization, in order to achieve an excellent level of performance. Indeed, these institutions could become the showcase of regional museum policy; an exemplary goal to achieve. Punctual actions aim to develop a small number of museums, focusing on: a) physical accessibility (i.e. the attention to physical comfort and the improvement of museum facilities, displays and exhibits); b) intellectual and cultural accessibility (i.e. the innovation of communication services contents and tools). 15

17 Museums need to ensure that their services are appropriate for visitors, in order to enable an enjoyable and educational museum experience. According to a visitor-oriented approach museums should maintain their core audience, build a broader audience base, attract diverse audiences and build relationships with the community. This means museums need to develop strategies to create interest in their subjects and services, enable recreation and social interaction (Reussner, 2003). (3) Cross-actions. Cross actions aim at enhancing the diffused museum, through the planning and implementation of cultural tours both museum-to-museum and through cultural heritage beyond museum doors. These tours should be provided with paper and digital information tools, focusing on the wide range of local cultural value. In order to create a surplus value from cultural investments and actions, the referential conceptual model should change from the promotion of the most important monuments to the enhancement of the local complex system of goods and services, widened to all potentially interested economic and social components. According to a systemic, anthropological and dynamic approach, itinerary planning should pay attention to the shape of the landscape, to the historical road layouts and to the transformation of settlements and production places up to this time. In reality, styles and periods of history diachronically interweave and cultural objects are not distinguished according to disciplinary criteria (by typology or historical periods) as in museums. During cultural tours communication services should follow and assist visitors, providing them with useful tools for decoding and comprehending the cultural value of the tangible historical evidence (Montella, 1993). Finally, these tours could become regional integrated projects, based on the enhancement of the cultural, environmental and tourist supply chain, and supported by private funding. 16

18 Therefore we should proceed through the mapping and analysis of the tourist and cultural possibilities on offer, gathering data about cultural heritage, cultural planning, organization and management systems, cultural institutions and relationships, cultural demand and supply chain services. 3.2 Guidelines to support museum accreditation Regional cultural planning should be a joint action between the Region and Provinces (Montella, Cerquetti, 2008). Moreover, regional policies should be widely shared, through meetings involving all the private and public actors museum owners and managers 17. This multifaceted communication aims at sharing not only motivations, strategies, methods and procedures for standard accreditation, but also links courses of actions, their planning and scheduling. It means that knowledge management should be a continuous process involving all public and private organizations participating in cultural heritage management. According to these assumptions, in 2004 the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code stipulated that fostering the value of cultural heritage consists in carrying out duties and regulating activities aimed at promoting the awareness of cultural heritage and ensuring the best possible conditions of public use and fruition of the heritage itself (article 6). It also established that activities of enhancing this value consist in the establishment and steady organization of resources, facilities or networks, that is, making technical expertise or financial or operative available (article 111) and that private actors can participate in such activities. After defining actions to be financed, the Region and Provinces should set up efficient margins regarding the different steps of the implementation process and the required 17 For a discussion of network approaches to public governance see: Klijn, Koppenjan, 2000; Agranoff, McGuire, 2003; Longo, 2005; Panozzo,

19 professional skills. In summary, they should formulate: (1) planning and scheduling actions 18 ; (2) expenditure allocation based on conservation and enhancement priorities; (3) financial resources; (4) beneficiary commitments, through agreements between the Region, Provinces and public and private museums (on co-funding, networks, staff training and employment). According to the European Community, co-responsibility should be the guiding principle of European law and action, based on the cooperation of different social and political actors to promote and develop inter-sector policies and programming. Negotiated programming is not only a procedure, but also a culture, a method for regional government, which prefers dialogue and meetings between institutional responsibilities, according to subsidiarity and partnership. Instead, decision autonomy, unsupported by co-responsibility commitments, would entail different and incompatible decisions, resource fragmentation, goal instability and negligible control of time, costs and methods (Petraroia, 2006: 170). Through this tool charitable foundations of banking institutions created in 1998 as a means of development in the globalization era could also contribute to local development (Montella, 2008). Consequently, regional planning should be organized by cross-sector partnerships and interrelated projects, rather than fragmented in distinctive projects and sectors. Furthermore, the Region and Provinces should work together on shared goals, assigning funding for museum development according to a rewarding approach. People working in public offices and in museum management should be trained through workshops to increase awareness of ethical, legal, economic and technical rules to follow, in order to receive public funding. In this framework, profiles and professional skills as well as training and qualification renewal courses should be consistent with the intervention priorities, involving Provinces, local organizations and Universities, in light of the Curricula 18 The planning should refer to a specific legislative session and carry periodical controls. 18

20 Guidelines for Museum Professional Development by ICOM and the guidelines formulated in Italy, principally from initiatives by the Regions. Finally, geometry variable networks (Cerquetti, 2008) could help in overcoming local museum weaknesses through economies of scale, scope and learning. The dimensions of museum networks should be suitable to the efficient margin of different material and service supplies (each museum could participate to a museum network for some supplies and to a wider network for other supplies). In summary, regional planning should be based on information and knowledge management and supported by negotiated programming, cross-sector planning, staff training and networks (fig. 2). 4. Conclusions Museum accreditation could be a tool to adopt public governance principles in museum management. The theoretical framework presented in this paper (fig. 2) could provide a way for local museum accreditation at a regional level, focusing not only on museum features, needs and priorities, but also on progressive and different actions which museums, public and private actors should accomplish as well as on support processes. Finally, sharing Massimo Montella s value-centred approach to museum management (2009a), this dynamic and integrated framework could allow museums to enhance the broad spectrum of value of cultural heritage According to Massimo Montella there are 3P s of cultural heritage value: valore-presentazione (valuepresentation), valore-paesaggio (value-landscape) and valore-produzione (value-production). 19