Peer Learning and Review Mary Rose and Vasa

Transcription

1 Peer Learning and Review Mary Rose and Vasa March 2015 The following documents have been devised to guide the peer learning and review agreement between the Mary Rose Museum and the Vasa museum. However it is also devised to assist other museums who may wish to set up a peer learning and review arrangement. Background to the two museums Mary Rose In 1509 Henry VIII comes to the throne Henry VIII inherited the nucleus of a royal fleet from his father Henry VII, including great ships like the Regent and the Sovereign. As he was faced with the ever-present threat of strong French and Scottish navies, Henry wasted no time in building up his navy, and Portsmouth became a hive of activity. He commissioned two ships to be built at this time one of which was the Mary Rose which first sails in By the 1520s Henry had established a permanent Navy Royal, the ancestor of today s Royal Navy. The Mary Rose then has a 34 year sailing career before disaster strikes in July On 19 th July 1545 the French are planning an audacious invasion of England with their plan being to first take Portsmouth, the Mary Rose sails from Portsmouth Harbour to engage the Fench galleys, she fires a broadside and with Henry watching from Southsea Castle sinks for reasons to this day unknown. Over 500 lives are lost with the ship. Despite efforts to raise her at the time she is lost under the seabed until she is discovered in What then occurs is the largest maritime archaeological project the world have ever seen as 19,000 tudor artefacts and the in 1982 the hull of the Mary Rose are brought to the surface. The ship is displayed to the public from 1983 and the a small museum is opened using a boathouse within Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, although the ship and her contents are separated by a distance of ¼ mile. The Mary Rose Trust has a vision to reconnect the ship and artefacts in a new museum and this dream is realised in 2013 with the opening of the new Mary Rose museum. Vasa In 1625 King Gustav II Adolf signs a contract with the master shipwright Henrik Hybertsson and his brother Arendt de Groot for the construction of four new ships, of which Vasa will be the first. Material for the ship is purchased. Construction begins in In 1628 Gustav Adolf visits Skeppsgården in January to inspect Vasa. On the 10th of August, Vasa commences her maiden voyage but heels over and sinks in the middle of Stockholm harbour after sailing barely 1300

2 meters. Captain Söfring Hansson is arrested but released. No one is officially blamed for the catastrophe. Attempts to raise the ship begin and continue into 1629 but without success. In 1663 most of Vasa s cannon are raised by Treileben s divers, working from a diving bell. In 1956 Anders Franzén and Per Edvin Fälting relocate Vasa off Beckholmen. In September, the first dives are made on the ship at a depth of 32 meters and the foremast is raised. Between 1957 and 1961 the ship is raised to the surface In November 1961 the first Vasa museum opens to the public, and in 1962 conservation begins with the Vasa being sprayed with PEG this work takes the next 17 years. In 1987 Construction of the new Vasa Museum begins and in 1988 the Vasa makes her last voyage, from the Wasa Shipyard into the new museum. The Vasa Museum at Galärvarvet is officially opened on 15 June by King Carl XVI Gustav. Partnership Working The Mary Rose Museum and the Vasa Museum have worked together for a number of years across a number of disciplines with museum operations and conservation. This collaboration has involved members of staff at all levels of both organisations. In the summer of 2014 it was agreed that in order to further cement the relationship between the two museums an agreed programme of peer review and learning visits should be set up. This will allow the two parties to share best practice and learn from each other with an agreed format. What is peer review? A peer review is where one organisation looks at and comments on another similar organisation to give it ideas for improvement. It often focuses on a certain element or elements. We are referring to the organisation under review as the Host and the review is undertaken by one or more Peer Reviewers. The Peer Reviewers usually come from a similar working environment as the Host. In this way two-way learning can be achieved as the Reviewer can reflect on the examples of best practice noted by the Host. They visit the Host and offer their skills and expertise to discuss any challenges the Host may be facing. Additionally a two-way learning process can be achieved as the Reviewer is able to reflect on the examples of best practice observed by the Host. There is generally an agreed structure, to keep the discussions focused. In this way, the Peer Reviewer acts as a critical friend in helping the Host to improve, offering constructive criticism and making suggestions. The process is not prescriptive; it s up to the host whether or not to action the advice. The findings remain confidential between the Host and their Reviewers, unless the Host chooses to make them available to a wider audience (e.g. to show a funder how their service has improved as a result of the peer review process). Why peer review? Peer review is well established in both the public and private sectors as a method of improving performance. As well as leading to improvements in areas such as HR, procurement, finance and governance, peer review has been used to improve all aspects of service delivery.

3 Peer review principles The host and reviewer should agree the focus of the peer review Hosts enter into the process voluntarily It is conducted in a transparent and supportive manner Clear, agreed and achievable outcomes are identified at the outset The criteria which the Reviewers will use to assess the Host organisation are determined by the Host, and are not linked to funding or inspection regimes, unless the Host wants them to be The host organisation retains ownership of the findings of the review, and manages the implementation of any suggested changes The host and reviewer should agree the context within which the review is to be undertaken, determining the following aspects of the process: The issue requiring attention The criteria against which performance is to be measured How to involve their peers in the review What documentary evidence to provide to their peers Whether and how to involve service users, beneficiaries and stakeholders Which recommendations from the Peer Reviewer s report they implement Whether they make any third party aware that their service has been reviewed, or of the findings of the report Using peer review The following two stages help ensure the peer review is effective. Preparing for the peer review The Host and the Reviewer will work together in preparing for the peer review, with the Host taking the initial lead. They need to identify the issue under review, determine the criteria against which it will be assessed, and collate information for Peer Reviewers to work from. Conducting the peer review The Host and Lead Reviewer should work together to ensure the programme isfollowed, and that all aspects of the specified area are addressed adequately. Inparticular, the Lead Reviewer ensures that the Peer Reviewers explore in as much detail as possible the outcomes of the service under review. Results of the peer review process The Peer Reviewers provide the Host with initial feedback at the end of the visit, andsubmit comments and recommendations in a written report. The Facilitator/Lead Reviewer compiles the report in a format agreed with the Host, using input from their fellow Peer Reviewers, which is given to the Host within an agreed timescale, ideally within two weeks of the visit. The following sections expand on the practicalities of hosting a peer review. The appendices contain materials designed to assist the process and also make note of any learning that the reviewer has reflected upon.

4 It is for the Host to determine how they respond to their peer review report, andwhether they implement any of the Peer Reviewers recommendations. However,it is recommended that they provide their Peer Reviewers with an update on their actions within an agreed timescale, usually no longer than three months. Host preparation To make the most of your peer review, start by deciding which element(s) of your organisation you want to review, and then consider how you are doingin that area; re-assess why you do what you do; and reflect on what you consider to be your strengths and weaknesses. This section will help you prepare relevant materials to explain your work to your Peer Reviewers. The questions are to be used as prompts; you can modify them as appropriate, or invent new ones, but ensure they remain focused on the area being reviewed. Planning for the peer review visit The Host must make sure that they are absolutely clear about what it is they areasking the Peer Reviewers to do for them, and that all necessary preparations havebeen made to make it as easy as possible for them to achieve this goal when they visit. It can be useful to prepare an introductory talk so that everyone knows what is expected of them. Some areas you might like to cover include: Objectives for the visit Hopes, expectations or worries about the visit What you expect to go well What you expect problem areas to be (either about the visit or about your organisation) Aspects of your service you would like your peers to pay particular attention to How the peer review will be communicated through your organisation (including trustees / management committee members, staff and service users / clients) How the organisation will prepare for and respond to criticism both verbally during the visit, and written in the final report

5 Template for a peer review: Section One Contact Details Host Details Organisation Name Contact Person Address Phone Peer Reviewer Detail Organisation Name Contact Person Address Phone Section 2 Expectations 2(a) Details of visit Summary of purpose of review (Host to provide) 2 (B) What do you want to achieve from review (Host to provide) 2c - What do you expect to achieve as a result of the result of review (Peer Reviewer to Complete)

6 Section 3 3 (a) Summary of the Visit 3 (b) Key Staff Involved in Review Name Role

7 Section 4 Report and Recommendations List Key areas for Review For each of the above please provide a description of the organisations performance in these areas identify examples noted during review Identify actions recommended Other comments about the hosts operations, systems and procedures