New Approaches in Carrying On and Monitoring Museum Performance

The Evolution Of Museums’ Functions

Over the years, the functions performed by museums have expanded, although the primary function of museums remains that of collecting works of art to consolidate the local identity and make cultural heritage available to all (Anico, 2008; Corsane et al., 2008; Alexander et al., 2017). However, the strictly cultural dimension of museums is evolving, as well as expanding in line with contemporary trends that see a more updated and interested public in all facets of art and the cultural world (Brown and Mairesse, 2018; Dekker, 2018). This includes initiatives aimed at the more or less direct involvement of visitors and users who can thus enjoy more interactive and satisfying visiting experiences (Marshall, 2018; Nubani et al., 2018). It is therefore evident how much the introduction of new technologies and the digitization of processes has contributed to the expansion of the functions of museums and cultural firms in general and certainly favoured the involvement of users (Lypak et al., 2019; Cori and Fraticelli, 2021). Digital and innovation become an ace in the hole, an important means through which to not only renew the exhibitions and their set-up but, in a broader sense, to expand the potential of the museum in conquering new visitor audiences. The evolution of the museum functions is also reflected in the presence of new categories of stakeholders and, in particular, new types of customers. For example, the implementation of new-technologies-based services implies the support of IT professionals (Damala and Stojanovic, 2012; Ang et al., 2013). In addition, cultural firms are even more involved in the local dynamics; this determines the introduction of professionals able to allow for interaction and cooperation among the cultural firms and the institutions (Dameri and Moggi, 2021). Similarly, new categories of customers are now being attracted – for example, youth and people more interested in digital technologies than in art – thanks to the opportunity to live new and different experiences. This makes the museum a local attraction that, in addition to maintaining its function of disseminating knowledge, can itself become the reason why a tourist chooses to visit that destination, representing a considerable advantage, where appropriate, for local communities (Srakar and Vecco, 2018). All this aspects highlight the role of the museum as organization, and, as consequence, the importance of monitoring and evaluating its performance.

The importance of the role of the actors was also found in practice. For example, the Network of European Museum Organisations (NEMO), a leader in the international sphere of science education and communication, focuses on collaborations with partners across Europe and the rest of the world, from museums to universities, from schools to research organizations. An important project in which it participates as a partner is the MonA-Museopedagogy and Augmented Reality, whose main objective is to ensure an online museum experience for people who cannot live it in person. According to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) (2012), the difficulties of performance reporting seem to not be strictly related to the geographical area, the cultural level and/or the use of the technology itself, but in particular to the offer of a product, the cultural one, in which both the artistic and the economic dimensions intrinsically converge. The two dimensions cannot be examined by adopting a single perspective, in particular because the variables involved are extremely heterogeneous. Just think of the different degrees of adoption of technologies and the different choices of use in data acquisition and the related purpose of analysis.