Nine years ago this week, I started writing about how organizations can change to become user-centered. The focus has sharpened — to museums specifically and to include non-users more broadly — but the underlying question hasn’t. How can institutions prioritize the progress of the communities they aim to support? How can museums shift from being a default state (warehouses that delight the experts who make them possible) to becoming community resources that provide unique value to diverse groups?
Three conditions to work with
In a recent planning session, my colleague John Falk named three conditions necessary for institutions to realize this change:
The day-to-day champion. Someone who is there every day making sure the work happens when the director isn’t in the room.
Explicit director buy-in that doesn’t fade. Not just initial blessing, but continuous commitment. The CEO has to stay engaged and demonstrate support — not hand it off to staff and move on.
Sufficient time. Several museums in Canada have been at this work for the better part of a decade. Transformation doesn’t happen in a grant cycle.
Most efforts stall because one or more of these conditions are missing. The director blesses the work but drifts to other priorities. The champion burns out without peer support. The institution expects results in 18 months, whereas the real timeline is 5 years (or forever because it’s possible that isomorphic pressures will always pull museums back to a default state of serving the interests and mental models of the few — i.e., staff and people like them).
But if you view these conditions as prerequisites, you may be inadvertently assuming a passive role that undermines from the outset. Instead, try thinking of them as hypothesis-generating frames. For example, “Our director won’t support this” is a belief, not a fact. It could be tested: Framing community-centered outcomes in terms my director cares about — such as financial results — will earn their explicit support. A missing condition can either end the conversation before it begins or start an experiment. You get to decide which to choose.
If you’re working toward this change at your institution, you can probably map your own situation against these conditions. What we’re building in 2026 is organized around supporting each of them.
For the people doing the daily work: learning from others who’ve tried it (Condition #1)
We’re building Outcomes Lab — a peer group for managers and departmental leaders who are working to unite teams around more meaningful metrics.
The people trying to shift how their institutions operate are often isolated (it’s not just you). They’re working against institutional inertia, sometimes without much internal support. And because changing a museum from an output-focused institution to an outcome-focused one resists project management — you can’t schedule culture change — it’s hard to show progress in ways that earn institutional patience (condition #3).
But it may respond to something else: peers who are wrestling with the same thing. Validation that you’re not crazy. Practical knowledge from people who’ve tried it. The resilience to keep going when internal resistance is high, and progress is invisible.
This isn’t theoretical. Through our assessment work, we see patterns across institutions — who’s wrestling with what, who’s already figured something out. I’ve been making introductions between members who have completed our outcomes assessment to see how peer connections might help those to whom we provide insights act on those insights, and I’m finding evidence that some of those connections have stuck. And some of those people are acting on insights because of those conversations. So, Outcomes Lab asks: What can we do to encourage continuity beyond introductions?
Outcomes Lab also provides a natural extension for our Value Realization Collaborative participants. The first VRC cohort wraps up in February. VRC participants — five institutions that have spent the past year understanding how newcomers to their regions actually use museums to build social connections — have been doing exactly this kind of isolated, long-horizon work. We’ve learned from working alongside them that peer support is easier to promise than to deliver. What actually helps, and what doesn’t, is something we’re still figuring out together.
So Outcomes Lab won’t be designed and then offered. It will be shaped by the people who need it — VRC participants and Baseline Assessment participants in MaP who are doing this work. Our role is to convene and support, not to prescribe. We’ll be sharing what VRC participants found in the coming months, but we’re equally interested in what they learned about what we could do better.
For directors: translating outcomes into impact (Condition #2)
If you’re an executive director, you’re probably thinking, “Outcomes sound interesting, but I need to be communicating impact.” True — you’re not going to be out there collecting visitor data or translating how Membership and Visitor Experience can coordinate around specific participant outcomes.
But without your vocal support, none of this will happen. And the outcomes your teams are working on are vital when you’re articulating the value of your institution to funders and stakeholders.
We’re betting that directors who practice translating research into stakeholder-ready language — and test it under real conditions — will be more effective in those conversations than those who default to familiar metrics.
Last fall, we put that bet to work when Cultural Leadership Lab took on a new form: The Value Articulation Intensive. Over two months, participants audited their current messaging, mapped stakeholder motivations, and crafted value propositions grounded in John’s research on museum community impact. Then they tested those messages with their boards, funders, and government officials — not as a theoretical exercise, but under actual consequences.
John and I will lead the next cohort in March. The first cohort surfaced challenges we hadn’t fully anticipated — distinct stakeholder types call for different approaches, and internal skeptics matter as much as external funders. We’re building those insights into what comes next.
We’re also working on a sector report that synthesizes insights from the first cohort — what worked, what didn’t, and the patterns that emerged across very different institutions. If you’d like to receive it when it’s ready, or if you’re interested in the March cohort, reply to this email.
Finding peers by challenge, not by title
The peer introductions I mentioned showed that connections don’t have to be based on similar roles or institution types. What mattered was whether people were working on similar challenges.
So we’re building infrastructure to make challenge-based matching easier. The member directory now lets you filter by challenges, not just by role or location. As more of you update your profiles, you’ll be able to find others who are working to turn plans into coordinated action or communicate the impact and value of their institutions.
The catch: this only works if profiles are current. If you’re a member, now is a good time to update your profile. Take two minutes and answer the questions about what you’re working on. Pick the challenge that feels most alive for you right now. You don’t need to pick perfectly — you can change it anytime. But picking something means we can start matching you with others who share your goals.
If you’re not yet a member and would like to join, reply to this email. We’ve paused new member enrollment for now, but readers can still request an invite.
On time (Condition #3)
There’s no program for condition #3. But time is also a belief.
“We don’t have enough time” is often a proxy for “we don’t know what progress looks like” or “we aren’t yet able to measure change”. The institution doesn’t literally run out of calendar days — it loses patience because the work feels stuck. That’s testable: Visible progress — peer validation, small wins, stakeholder language that actually lands — will earn institutional patience.
That’s our bet. Peer support prevents champion burnout, which collapses timelines. Director fluency prevents premature defunding. Challenge-matching surfaces evidence of progress that wouldn’t otherwise be visible. These are interventions on time — indirect ones, but real.
Which of the conditions are you focused on — or is there another I’m missing? Let me know in a reply to today’s email.