The first round of ASK labels featured a questions with a large, blue ASK logo that was very visible in the galleries though the final version was smaller than the test version shown here.

Given our lofty engagement goals for ASK, we started to question this type of exchange. It felt too superficial and not at all what we were hoping for as far as engaging visitors with art. Additionally, Shelley and I began to worry about how these seeded questions were polluting our data. After all, one of the most important aspects of ASK is what we learn about what visitors want to know and providing questions doesn’t offer us that organic insight.

So as part of our Launch (with a capital “L”) we revisited the gallery labels, removed questions and instead focused on advertising the app with a variety of generic invitations to ask. While admittedly having any label at all would potential skew the data in favor of visitors asking about those objects, at least the questions would be original to the visitor. We noted in the dashboard which works had ASK labels so that we would know if “most-asked about” works were ones with labels or not.

The updated version of the ASK labels focused on generic invitations such as “ask us for more info,” and blended in with the label design.

During soft launch, 31 out of the top 100 most-asked about works had first round question labels. For Launch, only 5 of the top 100 works were ones with ASK labels. That’s a huge difference. One caveat that is important to note, is that the visibility of the labels themselves decreased because the design approach changed radically in the second version. In both cases, as we’d seen before, most questions were about works in the permanent collection. However we’re seeing a shift in that this exhibition season (more to come in a future post).

For special exhibitions we include ASK messaging with the introductory text as well as with individual objects. Early versions, such as this one from the Sneaker exhibition from summer 2015, did not include a directive to “download,” which we include now.

Special exhibitions provided great opportunities to test different versions of ASK labels and we went through several variations trying to find the right combination of visibility and prompting while keeping the invitation fairly generic. Interestingly, works with ASK labels in special exhibitions have also averaged about 30% of app traffic in those shows with the exception of the recent Beverly Buchanan exhibition, where we reinstated question labels. Those works represented 52% of user queries. However, unlike the first version of ASK question labels, rarely did users ask the question on the label.

I’ll be curious to see how this compares to the questions in the Marilyn Minter exhibition up now. As I hinted above, we’ve seen a lot more chats in special exhibitions recently and, anecdotally, people are using the ASK question labels in the Minter show, which doesn’t close until May, so I’ll have to wait and see.

What all this tells me is that although the provided questions may have skewed our data in terms of determining visitors’ organic curiosities and questions, they were also doing some heavy lifting in terms of getting people into and using the app. This also speaks to one of the issues raised in our recent evaluation about some visitors feeling pressure to ask a question or just not having one readily available. Looks like perhaps these prompted questions were helping those folks get into the app so you’ll see those begin to roll out again both in special exhibitions and in the permanent collection in the coming weeks.

We thought people would have trouble with downloading and enabling the sheer number of settings our app requires, but turns out this part was easy.

People have needed that face-time, but not so much for help with the download process per se, but in order to actually explain the app and encourage people to download it in the first place. This was quite surprising to us, considering we require users to turn on multiple services for the app to function properly (wifi, location-aware, bluetooth, notifications, and privacy settings for the camera).

As I mentioned in my previous post, we’ve had some challenges figuring out messaging around ASK. After much initial testing, we think we’ve landed on some ways in which to move forward. This process was heavily informed by the work of our Visitor Liaison team. These three individuals, each of whom has worked with us in the past, were brought on board (in a part-time, temporary capacity) specifically to help us determine the how to talk about the app—the “pitch” in both long and short form—and where visitors are most receptive to hearing it.

Visitor Liaisons are identified by cycling caps, which so far has worked pretty well. We my find as the lobby gets busier, they may need to wear t-shirts or something even more visible in addition. From left to right: Emily, Kadeem, and Steve.

Steve Burges is a PhD student in Art History at Boston University and former curatorial intern in our Egyptian, Classical, and Ancient Near Eastern Arts department. Kadeem Lundy is a former floor staff member at the Intrepid Air Sea and Space Museum and was a teen apprentice here for three years. Emily Brillon was one of the gallery hosts for our first pilot test and has recently completed her Bachelor’s in Art History, Museum, and Curatorial Studies at Empire State College.

This team has been really key in helping us hone the messaging and in encouraging visitors to participate in ASK. From their efforts, we’ve learned what the key characteristics about the app experience that visitors respond to the most including that it’s a customized, personalized experience; that it’s about real people, or the idea of an expert on demand; and the immediacy, that it’s right away, or on-the-spot.

People are most receptive when they are in line.

We are also beginning to see patterns in where visitors are most receptive. We’ve been using the lines during busy weekends to our advantage, both for ticketing and the elevators—captive audiences help. But what has been most interesting to discover is that the Liaisons can most effectively get people downloading and using the app if they are the second point of contact.

At the ticketing desk visitors are asked if they are iphone users. If so, they get a special tag (right) which helps us differentiate them.

As Shelley introduced in her previous post, so far the most important point in our messaging is our ticketing process. A few weeks ago, our admissions staff began telling people about the app at the point of sale. The goal here is to identify iPhone users early (our potential audience) and to inform them about the app. iPhone users are given a branded tag so that Liaisons know who to approach. When this process is in play, the Liaisons’ job is that much easier because visitors know we have an app. Then the Liaison can focus on the hard part—explaining how it works.

A series of furniture designed by Situ that we could use in a modular and reconfigurable fashion. The design of the components helps differentiate function.

There were several parameters we knew going into the design process:

• We need to be able to clear the lobby and pavilion of furniture for programming or special events on a fairly regular basis, but have no good place to store the furniture elsewhere in the building.
• Security is a required part of the entry experience, but we wanted to somehow make it more inviting, more integrated.
• We have need for a separate information desk, particularly during busy times when admissions staff is focused on ticketing and don’t have as much time to devote to answering general queries.
• The furniture components themselves needed to help communicate that there are different services going on, i.e. the ticketing desks need to look different from the Audience Engagement team “hubs” to help underscore the different functions.

Seeing prototypes in the space has been incredibly helpful.

Throughout the design process, there was much back-and-forth as we hammered out the particulars. As we discussed traffic flow (more in a future post about this) and began to really delve into our needs for the space, we were able to narrow down the components and their functions.

However, finalization of the design only happened after we made the decision to place the ticketing bars in a row against the south wall. This placement was based on previous configurations of the lobby (pre-circular desk) and in consultation with the traffic folks. Turns out that modularity and flexibility only get you so far in planning. You have to put a stake in the ground for that flexible solution to anchor to or there’s no consistency. The ticketing bars themselves are still moveable, but as you’ll see in a future post, we’re centering messaging and traffic flow decisions around this location so while we could move them, we hope they work there.

The ASK team is working using a temporary setup, but we’ve found that being together as a team has been important. Often, they need to lean over and ask each other questions.

Unfortunately, what we are finding now is that in at least one instance, the furniture is suffering from the same agile fail that Shelley just wrote about. By necessity, furniture design had to progress ahead of staff hiring, which means the hubs as designed may not meet the needs we are now seeing. We envisioned the hubs as individual desks for ultimate flexibility in placement, which means the Audience Engagement team members work individually at their desks. But now that we have the team in place, what we’re seeing is that they work as just that—a team. They are currently at a table together and so far during our app testing sessions, they speak with each other and in some cases crowd-source the answer from among the team members. This will be difficult to do with the current hubs. What’s more, this team process is fascinating to watch. And since one of the main goals of placing the team in the lobby to begin with is drumming up interest in ASK, we can’t ignore the draw of the team’s working process.

The hub design, the place where the ASK team will be working in the lobby, had to be finalized prior staff hiring. The design is reflective of one person working on their own when the reality is they are working as a group.

All is not lost, however, and we are working with the traffic consultants to see how and if we can group the hubs together in a way that works. At the very least we can pair the hubs so team members are always partnered. And although the team works a certain way now, as we continue to test the app, see how visitors use it, and where they are interested in engaging with us around it (might not be in the lobby), the individual hubs may end up being exactly what we need.

Ed Bleiberg, curator of Egyptian Art, describing one of our signature objects, the Statuette of Queen Ankhnes-meyre II and her Son, Pepy II.

The tour was amazing. We had the opportunity to look closely with Ed at ten key objects on display. One of these objects was, “Statuette of Queen Ankhnes-meyre II and her Son, Pepy II.” He described the significance of the iconography and its influence in the history of art and later religious iconography. The six year-old King is seated on his mother’s lap, an iconography we can see in later works depicting the Virgin and Christ child in Christian objects. By looking closely with Ed, and having the opportunity to ask questions, we left with insight into the symbolic significance of the statue, its material and where it may have come from, an understanding of kings in ancient Egypt, and stylistic choices in ancient Egyptian art—for example, we asked about the elongated toes and fingers. The answer provided us with the skills to look more closely at other objects in the collection—great attention to detail was often employed when rendering hands and toes in Egyptian art, in some works you can even see the details of the figure’s cuticles; this same attention to detail was not placed, for example on the figure’s facial features. While this may seem like a minor detail, it really does change with way that you look at other objects on your own.

The Audience Engagement team working in the Egyptian galleries to write wiki content.

Following our talk with Ed, each team member chose one of the ten objects that Ed shared with us to research more in depth, and write object wikis. The wikis, as Marina mentioned in an earlier post, will provide the team with necessary information when they are engaging with the public through ASK. Over the course of training, and during ASK’s soft launch, the team will continue to write wikis for objects throughout the collection. To be sure that the wikis are resources that will provide the information that we need when manning the dashboard we also practiced using the wikis in an ASK practice session.

Alisa Besher using the app to ask questions during a team training session.

Practicing with ASK with the team in the galleries for the first time, did feel a lot like playing, in the best possible way. The feeling of excitement, nerves, fun, and fear that I had when I played capture-the-flag, and ghost-in-the-graveyard when I was a kid, were the same feeling that I and the team felt when we tried had our first ASK practice session. Two people from the team manned the dashboard and answered questions about the objects for which they prepared wikis, and the rest of the team went through the galleries and asked about those and related objects.

Megan Mastrobattista (left) and Katie Apsey (right) taking the controls of the dashboard during audience engagement team training sessions.

As was the case in a real testing environment, when manning the dashboard we felt the pressure of responding instantly and comprehensively, in an engaging and friendly way. It gave us a sense of the type of pressure that we’ll be under when ASK is live, but, the experience also gave us a glimpse of how much fun it will be. Because the team was being posed with inquiries about objects that they had just studied, they had information and ways in which to provide immediate responses, and different ways to engage those asking about the objects. Those answering questions found it exciting to have to think—at lightning speed—about the best way to share information; and those asking the questions were excited to get responses and gain new understanding.

This isn’t to say that everything was perfect. Each of us on the ASK team feel a deep sense of responsibility to the objects, the curators, and scholarship around the collections. There were plenty of inquiries that we didn’t have responses to, and even those that we did, in the back of our heads was the nagging thought voiced during the session, “Everything I write makes me nervous, there is no room to give wrong information, everything must be absolutely correct.” Fortunately, we are only into week one of training. Over the next two months the team will be working together with each other, and colleagues across the Museum to learn and study.  Including asking all the questions we have to be sure that we get it right.

I delineate here the type of information that the ASK team will have because it is this type of information that makes this app more than just a “human Google.”  Anyone can Google a question, and look up information—what ASK is allowing our visitor to do is to connect with a person who has a nuanced understanding of the works of art, AND an understanding of the different ways in which people interact with art.

As part of training, our Audience Engagement team is walking through the galleries with each collection curator. Here they are getting a tour through American Art with Terry Carbone.

With all of this in mind, how do these six individual humans engage museum visitors with 5,000 years of art? How can the team prepare to be at-the-ready to answer questions and engage in dialogue thoughtfully about any object in the collection at any given moment? It is a daunting task indeed!

To best address this challenge, we have decided that each individual team member will have a “major” and “minor” collection area of focus, and of course, each will have an understanding the many different ways in which museum goers engage with art.

Nancy Rosoff, Andrew W. Mellon Curator of the Arts of the Americas, works with the team to take a closer look at our Life-Death Figure.

To begin our work together we’ve started learning about the full collection in tandem with experimenting with the app. Although everyone will have two collection areas on which they are focusing, it is important that everyone has a broad understanding and familiarity with the full collection so that we can make connections across collection areas (and if we’re overloaded with a high volume of inquiries, we’ll be prepared to respond to some queries that are outside our focus areas). Over the course of training and our soft launch the full team will meet with all of the curators, write one comprehensive wiki for each collection area, write 7-9 object wikis in their respective “major” collection areas of focus, and practice manning ASK’s dashboard as much as possible.

Our Audience Engagement team from left to right: Stephanie Cunningham, Alisa Besher, Megan Mastrobattista, Sara Garzon, Jessica Murphy, Katie Apsey

Katie Apsey is returning to the Brooklyn Museum after completing coursework for a Ph.D. Katie’s previous positions in the Museum included working as a Curatorial Assistant in the Arts of Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, and the Islamic World, and as an Intern Educator in the Education Division.

Alisa Besher is returning to the Brooklyn Museum after years of working as an educator, visual and performing arts programmer, and administrator, at the Museum of the Moving Image, CEC ArtsLink, The Center for the Humanities at the CUNY Graduate Center; and worked 3 Operas by Robert Ashley at the Whitney Biennial as a performer, and Fundraising and Event Coordinator.  Alisa’s prior position at the Brooklyn Museum was an Intern Educator in the Education Division.

Stephanie Cunningham is returning to the Brooklyn Museum after completing her M.A. in Art History and years of experience as an adjunct professor, and working as an educator and intern within education departments at museums including the New-York Historical Society, the Studio Museum in Harlem, and the Weeksville Heritage Center.  Stephanie’s previous positions here at the Museum included working as intern in the Education Division, and as a curatorial intern in Asian Art.

Sara Garzon comes to us having recently completed a full-time curatorial internship in the Modern and Contemporary Art Department at the Metropolitan Museum of Art where she worked with curatorial staff, and taught the Museum’s public.  Sara is currently completing her M.A. in Art History, and will be pursuing doctoral studies in the fall.

Megan Mastrobattista comes to us with experience working as an intern and administrator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in their Education and Asian Art Departments, and at the David Zwirner Gallery. Megan comes with experience teaching in Encyclopedic collections.

Jessica Murphy comes to us with a Ph.D. in Art History and years of experience as a Research Associate and contractual Educator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art working in the American Wing and the Department of Modern and Contemporary Art, and as a Curatorial Assistant at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

One of the great things about working with a team of people is the collective knowledge, energy, and support that everyone brings together. Obviously we are excited about the individual strengths that everyone is bringing, but we’re also excited by the collaborative nature of the team, and everyone’s true commitment to working together, and taking this project on as a challenge that we will work to collectively address throughout training, and once we launch in June.

Luckily, there are some additional differences between the traditional museum education experience and the ASK app. For one thing, the person answering a visitor’s question is not in direct view. So while a gallery lecturer thumbing through notes might be a bit distracting, our audience engagement team members will be free to look things up. In addition, the medium of text message has a built-in expectation of moderate response delay (asynchronous communication). Thus, our team members will have a few minutes to find the answer to an unfamiliar or tricky question. Knowing these basic challenges, benefits, and constraints, it was always clear to Shelley and Sara that in addition to the dashboard, which connects our audience engagement team to incoming visitor questions, they also needed a tool that would allow the team to access in-depth and reliable information about objects in the collection very quickly—they needed a wiki! My job, as Curatorial Liaison, is to help give this ASK wiki form in consultation with curators and Monica Marino, our Audience Engagement Team Lead.

A wiki will have a number of essential benefits for our team:

• Searchability: As a digital resource, a wiki is easily accessible and searchable. This is important because, when responding to questions on the dashboard, our team won’t have time to thumb through books or read entire essays to find the answers to object specific questions.
• Content integration: We are sourcing content from a variety of vetted sources—including collection and exhibition catalogues, museum education training materials, and scholarly articles—to create a single trusted reference tool.
• Multiple kinds of content:  We can gather and store comparative images, x-rays, videos and the like—dynamic content which we can then quickly and easily share with visitors via text as our conversations progress.
• Consistent organization of information: We are creating detailed object page templates with sections devoted to things like materials, iconography, cultural context, related historical events, style, artist information, and provenance. Thus, our team with know immediately where in a page to look for particular kinds of information.
• Multiple authors: The daunting task of creating and updating content (which we hope will eventually encompass every object on view) can be spread between the entire team. Monica and I will also maintain administrative roles, vetting content either by approving edits or reverting to previous versions of pages. Curatorial staff will also have administrative accounts so that they can easily review content in their collection areas.

In choosing a specific wiki platform, Monica and I quickly realized that our most important criteria was usability. On Thursday, February 5, we participated in our first round of user testing and the experience was eye-opening. Chief Curator Kevin Stayon, Monica, and I manning the dashboard while a few dozen visitors explored the American Identities galleries.The rate at which questions came in could be so high that responding to questions in anything resembling a timely manner was extremely challenging. This was especially the case with unfamiliar questions that required some “googling” and the inevitable selection of trustworthy sources. A clean, intuitive interface, free of any extraneous text, branding or links was thus absolutely key, as was a clear automatically generated table of contents. We also knew we needed the ability to easily embed, reposition, and caption images; to upload PDFs and other files; and to automatically insert content from other parts of the wiki so that oft-repeated information (like artist biographies or religious practices) only needed to be updated once.

A wiki will supplement the dashboard to help answer visitor questions. A clean, intuitive platform was needed that we can later fully integrate into the ASK dashboard.

We looked at and tested several different platforms that we found through an online tool called WikiMatrix. Our first selection was Wikispaces, a beautifully designed wiki hosting service largely geared for classroom and higher education use. When we brought our choice to the technology team, however, we learned that they had some additional criteria we hadn’t originally anticipated. Initially, we had all understood the wiki’s function as an internal reference tool for the audience engagement team and thus largely distinct from the dashboard. Yet the user testing that had lead Monica and I to focus more on usability had also sparked discussion about possible additional applications for the ASK wiki in the future. For example, wouldn’t it be great if, one day, the wiki could be linked to the dashboard directly? That is, if an object detail in the dashboard (whose information is imported directly from the collection online) could also automatically show existing ASK wiki content on that object, or even a link to it, that would be much faster than having to search for an object in the wiki by copying and pasting an object ID. This type of functionality would require a good API (application programming interface) in order to link the two pieces of software by tagging pages with object IDs. Wikispaces, we learned, does not have a comprehensive API for this purpose and that would limit what we could bring into the dashboard at a later date. So it was back to the virtual drawing board. After testing two more wiki platforms suggested by David Huerta, our Lead Developer, we settled on Confluence, a team collaboration software mainly used in corporate environments. As a comprehensive project management application designed for purposes rather different from ours, it has numerous features beyond our immediate needs. We will resist temptation and ignore (and, where possible, deactivate) these additional tools, using only their wiki functionality.

Digitizing object based information about the museum’s collection has a lot of potential for future use across our institution. Our current objective is thus to keep the wiki-building process simple by using an existing wiki platform but also flexible by meeting certain technical requirements that will ensure integration at a later date.

Learning to use the dashboard prior to user testing.

One of my first experiences in the position was to participate in a round of user testing—the largest thus far.  It was intense, to say the least.  We had thirty-five individuals (from a range of backgrounds) over the course of three hours in our American Identities exhibition asking questions, and sharing their thoughts on objects.  Our Chief Curator, Kevin Stayton, was there to answer questions, and Marina Kliger (our new Curatorial Liaison for the project), and I were there to run the dashboard—typing Kevin’s responses to the users, and providing reinforcement by responding to some of the user’s inquiries, and on-the-fly research when necessary.  At the end of the three hours our collective heart-rates must have been alarming.

Earlier rounds of user testing used this prompt which felt too automated to users and proved a barrier to their participation.

The first hour was especially stressful.  In the first fifteen minutes we received around one question every 30 – 60 seconds.  It started with users sending snapshots or titles to artworks in response to the app’s initial prompt, “What work of art are you looking at right now?” The intent of this prompt was to immediately engage the user with the Museum’s collection (and the app)  and for us (Kevin, Marina, and I) to follow with a question or information about the object to instigate close looking, or further inquiry about the object on behalf of the user.

As mentioned throughout the blog, the development of this app is being executed through an iterative process.  The team had learned during previous evaluations that users found this prompt to be automated, and felt that they needed to craft a smart question, which limited the amount of engagement on behalf of the users.  Considering that the prompt created a barrier for the users, we wanted to present the user with an initial prompt that would invite immediate participation.  As one of the intended outcomes of this project is to foster dialogue about the Museum’s collection, we decided to begin with the collection.

Shifting to this prompt in the latest round immediately engaged users and gives us flexibility in how we respond.

Changing the prompt proved effective in getting the users to use the app immediately.  We had twenty individuals registered for the first hour (6-7pm) of testing, and everyone showed up right on time.  As we hoped, the prompt instigated immediate engagement with the app once the users entered the galleries.  We hadn’t anticipated, however, the stressful situation of receiving a deluge of inquiries at once.  Fortunately, we were able to temper the deluge by staggering entry into the galleries for the next two rounds of registrants.  We know that we won’t have control of how many visitors will be using the app once it’s live, so we will have to continue to refine the prompt over the coming months to encourage participation, but in a way that’s manageable on the backend.

Our second intent for the new prompt was to encourage further inquiry on behalf of the user by sharing information that could hopefully spark curiosity about the objects and collection.  We found this to be true in some of our conversations.  For example, the first snapshots that we received was of “Winter Scene in Brooklyn.”  We received it and asked each other, “What can we say about this that will get them (the visitor) curious, or have them look more closely?”  The object is rich with details—the groups of men in conversation, the man carrying the bundle of wood,  the various storefronts—each provide us with a glimpse into the daily life and labor force of early 19th century Brooklyn.

Francis Guy (American, 1760-1820). Winter Scene in Brooklyn, ca. 1819-1820. Oil on canvas, 58 3/8 x 74 9/16 in. (148.2 x 189.4 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Transferred from the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences to the Brooklyn Museum, 97.13

We had to decide—in a flash—how we were going to engage the visitor with the painting.  As we were deciding on the response,  a flood of other snapshots and object titles inundated the dashboard—we had to get our first response out so we could attend to other visitor’s who were already waiting.  As time was a constraint, we responded first with a general background, “The picture is one of the richest one’s for content and stories,” hoping that this would serve as a teaser for the visitor to look for some of the stories, and content and follow with questions.  Which they did (!), their next question was,  “I’m curious which portion of Downtown Brooklyn depicts.” Kevin knew the answer immediately, and we responded to the visitor, “This is the area near the Fulton Ferry, low on the horizon, rather than on the hills of the Heights,” and then a few moments later we added, “but none of the buildings in this picture survive.”  The visitor again responded with a “thanks,” and “That’s development for you.”

This snippet of one our first conversations from our night of user testing reflects what we’re hoping the Audience Engagement Team Members will be able to accomplish: provide accurate information at a rapid fire pace, framed in a way that instigates closer looking, in a manner that is conversational and hopefully opens further dialogue.

A tester during our last testing session. Engagement through the app encourages closer looking.

We are now in the process of hiring the six individuals who will make up that team.  Having the user testing just before the hiring process has provided us with a great insight into what we’re looking for in the Team Members.  As I mentioned above, they will need to provide information on the fly, which means that we are looking for individuals with a breadth of art historical knowledge, as well as the ability to do background research under the pressure of time constraints (within minutes!).  The level of pressure that we felt with such an incredibly tight time constraint was not something I had anticipated before the user testing—which is great to know when hiring.  The ability to stay calm, and personable in a stressful situation will be essential for individuals on the team.  In addition to having grace under pressure, and a breadth of knowledge and curiosity to learn more, we’re looking for individuals who are also curious about people, and engaging them with art objects through thoughtful conversation, and the sharing of information.

I envision working with the team as a cohort of individuals who are learning and experimenting together to finding the best ways engage our Museum visitors to the collection using the ASK app. If you know anyone who would like to join the team, send them our way!

And because people are at the heart of ASK, we knew it was essential for us to find the right ones to help us make our project a success. Shelley and I are basically focused on the proverbial forest that is this initiative and we needed to add team members to tend the trees. We needed two (we eventually determined) staff members who would focus on the day-to-day operations of building and executing the experience—hire and train the team of people to answer visitor questions, get the database of content going, help us figure out what the visitor/staff interaction should be like, etc.

Monica Marino, left, and Marina K, right, running the dashboard during a recent user testing session. Our Chief Curator, Kevin Stayton, helps answer questions.

The first position we hired for is the Audience Engagement Team Lead, whose main role is to hire, train, and manage the team of people who answer incoming visitor queries. For this position, we needed an experienced museum professional with a strong art history background who was comfortable working with our encyclopedic collection, had experience training others, and had both passion and experience facilitating visitor engagement around works of art. In addition to hiring, training, and managing the team, the Team Lead will be the eyes and ears on the floor as we roll out the project, helping to determine what our visitors need to make this program a success and how we might meet those needs including reporting on the success of the ASK app user experience and make recommendations for potential updates after launch. We were extremely lucky to have Monica Marino, former Senior Museum Educator and Intern Coordinator here, return to us from the Met where she was Assistant Museum Educator, Internships and Academic Programs for past four years. We are currently in the midst of the hiring process for her team (apply here) and she will share her approach to selecting that team in a future post.

The second position we hired is the Curatorial Liaison, whose main role is to act as a bridge between curatorial and the Audience Engagement Team. We needed one person to spearhead the monumental effort to gather all the knowledge in the building from curators, educators, and other staff and synthesize and share it in a format that the rest of the team can access. The Liaison will also be responsible for staff training and support related to the dashboard (the internal tool used to answer visitor questions that come in via the ASK app) and will help to determine what staff need to make this program a success and how we might meet those needs. Since the bulk of the work for this position is pre-launch and just after, we made this role temporary so that we are able to assess the needs once the app has been on the floor for about 6 months. The position may stay as-is, morph, or we may find we no longer need it. Happily, this temporality suits Marina Kliger. Marina is a PhD candidate at the Institute of Fine Arts focusing on early 19th-century French art and a former research associate at the Art Institute of Chicago. She and Monica are currently working feverishly to gather knowledge and determine the best platform for hosting it. Marina will post later about their selection.

Shelley and I also talked a bit about what department these new staff members should join. Should they be with Shelley in Tech or with me in Audience Engagement/Interpretive Materials? It’s an interesting question because really it could be either. They way we work here, tech and interpretation often go hand-in-hand and Shelley and I work together a lot. However, two major aspects of the project helped us decide to put the team with me, one: the fact that the project emphasizes people as opposed to tech (audience engagement as opposed to digital engagement, splitting hairs a little bit, but there it is) and two: the information we learn from ASK about what visitors want to know can greatly inform our interpretive efforts throughout the Museum. This is one of the aspects of this initiatives that excites me the most. We’ll be gathering metrics on what areas and works are the most talked about. Trends in that data can help us spot areas that might need more interpretive attention, for example. We’ll be able to learn more information about how visitors use (or not) our existing interpretation and what kinds of information they want than ever before.

So, how do you hire for a project that’s running on an iterative process? Perhaps not surprisingly, using a kind of iterative process. We ended up posting the positions several times with description updates as we determined the desired skill set and were better able to define the positions. The tight timeline of this project means we needed self-starters who can get the big picture quickly and help us dive into the details. And, as is the nature of an iterative project, there are still a lot of questions and we needed people who want to help us find answers. Ultimately, we built the job descriptions around the (mostly immediate) needs as we understood them and included a lot of flexibility. We also tried to be very clear about what we didn’t know and where we were hoping the selected candidate would help flesh out his or her own role. Thankfully both Monica and Marina were game.