concern
at the
core
Managing 
Smithsonian 
Collections
Executive 
Summary
April 2005

ii
Zahava D. Doering
Andrew Pekarik
David Karns
Whitney Watriss
Kathleen Ernst
Cynthia Kaufmann
Ioana Munteanu
Amy L. Marino
James F. Smith
Kerry DiGiacomo
Kerry Button
Annie Livingston
Abigail Sharbaugh
off ice of  pol icy  and analys i s  study team
Carole M. P. Neves, Director
De
sig
n:
 B
er
to
ld
i D
es
ig
n,
 L
LC
, W
al
lin
gf
or
d,
 C
T
ACRONYMS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT 
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
NATIONAL COLLECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 
USE AND ACCESS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 
COLLECTIONS CARE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Guidance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Decision Making  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A One-Time Realignment Effort  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
RESOURCES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Finances  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Human Resources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Storage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Information Technology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Strategic Guidance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Long-Term Planning by the Units  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Decision Making  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Organizational Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Professional Culture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Accountability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
RECOMMENDATIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
National Roles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 
Use and Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Collections Care  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Acquisition and Disposal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Resources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
APPENDICES
A. List of Organizations Contacted  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B. Bibliography  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
PHOTO CREDITS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
LIST OF TABLES 
1. Smithsonian Collecting Units 
Classified by Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
table of  contents
i i i & i v
AAA Archives of American Art (Smithsonian Institution)
AHHP Architectural History and Historic Preservation 
(Smithsonian Institution)
AM/CAAHC Anacostia Museum/Center for African American History 
and Culture (Smithsonian Institution)
CFCH Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage 
(Smithsonian Institution) 
C-HNDM Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum 
(Smithsonian Institution)
CIS Collections information system
FSG Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery 
FTE Full-time equivalent 
FY Fiscal year
HMSG Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden 
(Smithsonian Institution)
HSD Horticulture Services Division (Office of Facilities Engineering
and Operations, Smithsonian Institution)
HumRRO Human Resources Research Organization
NASM National Air and Space Museum (Smithsonian Institution)
NCP National Collections Program (Smithsonian Institution
Archives, Smithsonian Institution)
NMAfA National Museum of African Art (Smithsonian Institution)
NMAH National Museum of American History 
(Smithsonian Institution)
NMAI National Museum of the American Indian 
(Smithsonian Institution)
NMNH National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution)
NPG National Portrait Gallery (Smithsonian Institution)
NPM National Postal Museum (Smithsonian Institution)
NZP National Zoological Park (Smithsonian Institution)
OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer 
(Smithsonian Institution)
OP&A Office of Policy and Analysis (Office of the Secretary,
Smithsonian Institution)
SAAM Smithsonian American Art Museum (Smithsonian Institution)
SCMRE Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education
(Smithsonian Institution)
SD 600 Smithsonian Directive 600, Collections Management 
SIA Smithsonian Institution Archives 
SIL Smithsonian Institution Libraries 
acronyms
The following terms are used in the Executive Summary as defined
here. These definitions are generally consistent with those found in
Smithsonian Directive 600, Collections Management (SD 600). 
ACCESS ? the ability of the general public, scholars, and
Smithsonian staff to use Smithsonian collections and related
information. 
? Physical access denotes the ability to have direct
contact with collections. 
? Intellectual access means the ability to obtain
information about collection items, either onsite or
electronically.
ACCESSION COLLECTION ? a collection category that contains
items that a unit legally owns, has formally accessioned, and
intends to retain for an indefinite period of time.
ACCESSIONING ? the formal process for recording the addition
of an item or group of items to a unit?s accession collections. 
ACCOUNTABILITY ? formal responsibility for ensuring that
collections management is carried out consistent with Smithsonian
and professional policies, practices, and standards and that
performance objectives are accomplished. 
ACQUISITION ? (a) the act of gaining legal title to a collection
item or group of items that may subsequently be accessioned or
designated for non-accession status (such as educational, study, or
consumptive use); or (b) an item that a collecting unit has
obtained and added to its collections.
ARCHIVES ? (a) the noncurrent records of an organization or
person, preserved because of their continuing value; or (b) the
office responsible for acquiring, preserving, and providing access to
such records.
CATALOGUE ? a set of records that identifies, names, classifies,
numbers, and describes each item (or sometimes group of items,
such as a lot) in a unit?s collections. Catalogue records contain
enhanced (enriched) information (such as social, cultural, and
historical context, provenance, scientific characteristics, and
significance) that goes beyond the documentation in registrarial
records (see also Registration). 
CATALOGUING ? a methodical classification of collection items,
usually with descriptive detail, that systematically integrates
intrinsic physical and museum-generated transaction information
with cultural, historic, and scientific information. 
CIS ? see Collections information system. 
col lect ions management terms and definit ions
v & v i
COLLECTING PLAN ? a framework for guiding acquisition and
disposal decisions. Typically the plan addresses factors such as the
desired size and composition of collections relative to a collecting
unit?s mission, resources, and use priorities. 
COLLECTING UNIT ? an entity that acquires and manages
collections. Per SD 600: a Smithsonian museum, archive, library,
or research office that has been specifically delegated the authority
to acquire and manage collections. 
COLLECTION ? a group of items with a common base of
association (such as geography, theme, donor, or culture).
COLLECTIONS CARE ? activities intended to protect the long-
term integrity of collection holdings and their associated
documentation. Typical activities include identifying, recording,
and locating collection items; storing them in safe environments;
conserving or restoring them when necessary; ensuring safe and
responsible use; and routinely assessing their condition. See also
Conservation, Condition assessment, Inventory, Maintenance,
Preservation, and Profiling. 
COLLECTIONS CARE STAFF ? personnel responsible for
Collections care. Examples of collections care job titles are
archivist, librarian, conservator, registrar, museum registration
specialist, museum/library/archives specialist (conservation),
museum/library/archives technician (conservation), and museum
technician (general).
COLLECTIONS DOCUMENTATION ? see Collections
information. 
COLLECTIONS INFORMATION ? documentation of the
intellectual significance, physical characteristics, and legal status
of collection items and the collections management processes and
transactions they undergo. Documentation of collections is an
ongoing process, with information residing in a combination of
manual files, electronic information systems, and media formats.
In this report, the terms ?collections information? and ?collections
documentation? are used interchangeably, unlike in SD 600, which
gives them distinct definitions. 
There are two broad categories of collections information: 
? Registrarial, which encompasses administrative
information on both owned collection items and items
temporarily in a unit?s custody (see Registration).
? Catalogue, which encompasses information that goes
beyond registrarial documentation (see Catalogue). 
COLLECTIONS INFORMATION SYSTEM (CIS) ? a central,
computerized system (including hardware, software, and
databases) for maintaining organized information on the
collections of one or more collecting 
units for purposes of collections management. The system also
enables access to this information by Smithsonian staff, outside
scholars, and/or the public.
COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT ? the deliberate acquisition,
maintenance, preservation, documentation, provision of access,
and disposal of collections. Collections management includes the
universe of collections-specific functions, ranging from routine
physical care through development of high-level collections policy. 
COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT PLAN ? an operational
document that sets forth how a unit will carry out its collections
management policy and the collections-related elements of its
strategic plan. The plan covers the universe of collections-specific
functions and presents short- and long-term strategies, priorities,
initiatives, performance targets and measures, and timelines.
COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT POLICY ? a detailed written
statement that identifies the purpose, goals, and collecting scope of
a collecting unit, explains how these influence the unit?s
collections activities, and outlines standards of accountability for
care, access, and other functions.
COLLECTIONS RESEARCH ? a process through which items are
studied, identified, and organized according to discipline-specific
principles. The objectives of this process are to verify, augment, and
enrich (enhance) existing documentation for these items, as well
as to increase knowledge within a discipline more generally. See
also Cataloguing. 
COLLECTIONS RESEARCH STAFF ? personnel with primary
responsibility for documenting collections, as well as performing
some supervisory functions. Examples of collections research job
titles are archaeologist, museum curator, botanist, zoologist,
museum specialist (anthropology), museum technician
(anthropology), and museum specialist (general).
CONDITION ASSESSMENT ? a systematic, regular
determination of the physical state of collection items or groups of
items, including the nature and extent of damage, deterioration,
and risk conditions. 
CONSERVATION ? an examination of the condition of items,
assessment of treatment options, provision of physical and
chemical treatment, and complete documentation of such activities
(see also Collections care). 
OPPORTUNITY COST ? the implicit cost (opportunities or
benefits forgone) that result from a decision to pursue a particular
course of action rather than an alternative course of action. 
PLAN ? a formulated or organized method of accomplishing a
goal or completing a task. 
POLICY ? a principle or set of principles that establishes
directions, guides decisions, and provides a framework for plans
and related actions.
PORTAL ? a gateway or point of entry that provides access to
databases at multiple collecting units (see also Collections
information system). 
PRESERVATION ? protection and stabilization of collections and
associated information through a coordinated set of activities
aimed at minimizing chemical, physical, and biological
deterioration, and at preventing loss of intellectual, aesthetic, and
monetary value. 
PROFILING ? a systematic evaluation of a unit?s collections
using a set of variables such as condition, arrangement, and level
of documentation. Profiling yields quantifiable measures of the
status of collections care, documentation, and access.
PUBLIC TRUST ? a fiduciary relationship whereby a trustee
holds property that must be administered for the benefit of 
the public. In the case of collections at the Smithsonian, the
trustees are either the Smithsonian Institution or the individual
collecting units.
REGISTRATION ? (a) the process of developing and
maintaining an immediate and permanent means of identifying,
locating, and tracking the transactions and movements of an item
for which a collecting unit is responsible; or (b) the logical and
systematic organization of documentation and provision of access
to that information. Examples of registration information are
acquisition details, legal status, brief physical description sufficient
for identification, location, condition, and processes and
transactions undergone since acquisition. 
SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT ? determination of the relative
importance of collection items or groups of items to a unit?s
mission and/or programs. The assessment can be conducted
independently or as a variable in Profiling. 
COST RECOVERY ? a fee established by a service provider that is
intended to recoup all or part of the costs of providing a service,
without generating a profit. The costs in question can be direct (for
example, postage fees) or indirect (for example, labor costs).
DEACCESSIONING ? a process used to formally approve and
record the removal of a collection item or group of items from a
unit?s accession collections (see also Accession collection). 
DIGITAL RECORDS ? documentation stored on and retrievable
only through electronic media. Synonymous with electronic
records.
DIGITIZATION ? the process of capturing both text and image
information on collections in electronic form.
DISPOSAL ? the process of physically removing deaccessioned or
other non-accession collection items from a collecting unit, often
accompanied by transfer of title to another entity.
ELECTRONIC RECORDS ? see Digital records. 
INVENTORY ? (a) an itemized listing of a unit?s collection items,
groups, or lots and their current physical location; or (b) the
process of developing and maintaining such an itemized listing. An
inventory must provide sufficient information to permit a unit to
maintain physical control over its collections. Per SD 600, the
minimum inventory information that should be available for each
item or group of items is an identifier number, brief identifying
description, and current physical location. 
ITEM(s) ? any object, document, or other material acquired for
accession, non-accession, supplementary, or study collections.
(?Item? is also used as a unit of measure for some types of
archival collections.) 
LOAN ? the temporary physical transfer of an item(s) for an
agreed purpose and subject to specific conditions relating to care
and use, all of which are spelled out in a loan agreement.
MAINTENANCE ? the routine actions that support collection
preservation and access, such as monitoring storage and exhibition
conditions, organizing a collection in storage, and performing 
general housekeeping. 
OBJECT(s) ? three-dimensional items (such as biological
specimens, historical artifacts, and works of art) that are part of
accession and non-accession collections. 
v i i & v i i i
SPECIMEN ? a biological organism (or part of one) or naturally
occurring material. 
STANDARD ? a measure agreed upon within the museum,
library, or archive profession to which collecting units are expected
to conform, and by which professional practice can be assessed.
STEWARDSHIP ? sound and responsible management of
collections entrusted to a collecting unit?s care. Collections
stewardship is carried out through the systematic development,
implementation, and review of policies, plans, procedures, and
practices to meet the goals and purposes of the collecting unit and
its collections.
THESAURUS ? a list of common subject headings, terms, words,
or descriptors that collecting units use in their electronic databases
to facilitate searches by users across multiple databases.
I N T R O D U C T I O N
The museums, archives, libraries, and research facilities of the
Smithsonian Institution hold one of the world?s largest collections of
artifacts, specimens, documents, and other materials.
1 & 2
According to Smithsonian National Collections Program (NCP) figures for fiscal year (FY) 2002,1 museum collections held over 143.5
million objects; archive collections included about 164 million items and almost 7 million feet of film; and library collections comprised almost
1.5 million volumes. Among the Smithsonian?s collections are treasures of inestimable value to science, culture, and the American people: unique
biological type specimens, the Hope diamond, original manuscripts by Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, works of art spanning modern West to
ancient East, the Apollo 11 command module, the 1814 Star-Spangled Banner flag, the Wright Flyer ? the list could go on and on. 
Stewardship of these collections is arguably the Smithsonian?s most fundamental responsibility. In the fall of 2000, Secretary Lawrence Small
asked the Office of Policy and Analysis (OP&A) to conduct a study of Smithsonian collections. The purpose was to gather information, reach
conclusions, and offer recommendations to support sound collections policy and management in several areas, including: 
? The role of collections at a ?national? institution such as the Smithsonian 
? Use and access 
? Collections care 
? Acquisition and disposal
? Resources. 
The study team also looked at other aspects of collections management such as planning and accountability. 
Following the research phase of this study, completed in the summer of 2003, the OP&A study team looked for common issues that appeared
across much of the Institution. The resulting conclusions and recommendations are necessarily broad and do not apply equally to every
collecting unit at the Smithsonian.2 However, they do offer ideas that all units, regardless of the current state of their collections, can use to assess
and improve their collections management policies, planning, and processes. 
1 Units designated as collecting units by NCP are the following: Anacostia Museum/Center for African American History and Culture (AM/CAAHC); Architectural History and Historic Preservation (AHHP);
Archives of American Art (AAA); Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage (CFCH), archives division; Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum (C-HNDM); Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler
Gallery (FSG); Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (HMSG); Horticulture Services Division (HSD); National Air and Space Museum (NASM); National Museum of African Art (NMAfA); National
Museum of American History (NMAH); National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI); National Museum of Natural History (NMNH); National Portrait Gallery (NPG); National Postal Museum
(NPM); National Zoological Park (NZP); Smithsonian American Art Museum (SAAM); Smithsonian Institution Archives (SIA); and Smithsonian Institution Libraries (SIL). Several other units hold collec-
tions ?unofficially.?
2 In addition, there have been developments since the completion of the research that are not reflected in this report.
N A T I O N A L  
C O L L E C T I O N S
For Smithsonian collecting units, identifying their core national
purpose can both provide a basis for assessing the
appropriateness of current collections, and guide future collecting. 
3 & 4
Yet there is surprisingly little clarity, either within the Smithsonian or the wider museum community, about what a ?national? role 
is or entails. 
In the course of the OP&A study team?s research, three dominant conceptions of a ?national museum? emerged, each associated with a different
concept of ?national collections? (based on Wilson 1984, 54-58): 
? Encyclopedic national museums are international in scope. They hold the great public collections that offer a sweeping view of humanity?s
cultural achievements and scientific knowledge. Examples of these museums include the British Museum, State Hermitage Museum, and
Louvre.
? National identity museums are explicitly national in scope. They hold collections that symbolically represent the history, culture, and values of
a particular nation. Examples include the Hungarian National Museum, National Museum of Helsinki, and National Museum of Ireland. 
? Subject specialist national museums serve an international audience, but have a narrower scope than encyclopedic museums. They hold
outstanding collections in specific areas of the arts, sciences, or culture. Examples are the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, National
Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, and Victoria and Albert Museum in London. An important function of such museums is to support high-level
scholarship. 
Awareness of how each Smithsonian collecting unit fits into such a schema can provide broad guidance for such tasks as developing collections,
understanding core audiences, and prioritizing uses. The OP&A study team?s suggestions for classifying Smithsonian collecting units are
presented in Table 1. In part, the classifications are based on the units? own mission statements and interviews with senior management at each
unit. 
The breadth and depth of Smithsonian collections in their entirety make the Institution as a whole one of the world?s great encyclopedic national
collecting units. However, each collecting unit must articulate its own core national purpose within the larger system. Some units do appear to
have an understanding of their national purpose, and manage their collections accordingly. But others follow a less clear path ? whether
because they are uncertain as to their primary role, or because they are under pressure by stakeholders to move in multiple directions.
Table 1. Smithsonian Collecting Units Classified by Type
Encyclopedic National identity Subject specialist
Smithsonian Institution AM/CAAHC AAA
NMNH NMAH C-HNDM
NZP NMAI FSG
SIL NPG HMSG
SAAM NASM
NMAfA
NPM
SIA
Source: OP&A study team analysis.
U S E  
A N D  A C C E S S
In general, collections are used in four principal ways: 
1. Display and exhibition 
2. Research and reference 
3. Education and interaction 
4. Symbolism
5 & 6
At the Smithsonian, the relative importance of these uses varies, depending on the collecting unit. In line with differences in the primary
uses of their collections, units have different user profiles. For example, SIL collections mainly serve internal staff; NMNH collections are oriented
toward the global scientific research community; and other units? collections are oriented to the visiting public.
Although collecting units have implicitly taken different positions with respect to the principal uses of their collections, most have not developed
explicit statements of priorities. The OP&A study team sees this as a matter for concern, because when priorities are not spelled out, scarce
resources may be misallocated, and there is no formal basis for resolving conflicts (such as the tradeoff between lending and preservation). Is it
appropriate, for example, for a collecting unit with a predominantly research mission to shift substantial resources from collections care and
research to public programs? 
The identification of priorities among uses also affects how units develop their collections. For example, in a reference collection, practically
anything that can be identified within the chosen subject area is a candidate for inclusion. By contrast, if exhibition or symbolism is the primary
use for a unit?s collections, acquisitions can be more selective, focusing on obtaining a few of the finest or most representative items.
Use and access are inextricably related: the primary uses of a collection determine the appropriate means of providing access. Providing access
can be very expensive ? particularly the space to display collections, the intellectual enhancement of collection records, and the provision of
effective electronic access. Thus, careful planning is essential, taking into account the units? missions and user profiles and the personnel,
storage, and digital resources available for 
the job. 
The digitization of collections and the creation of central electronic collections information systems (CISs) are critical steps toward wider, more
user-friendly access, as well as improved collections management, and merit particular attention. The following points should be noted in this
connection:
? The scale of potential digitization is vast, and the process of digitization is still in its early stages at many units. In some cases the units have
approached digitization unsystematically; they have not developed formal plans with clear goals and priorities, tied to users? needs. To digitize
without such plans 
risks squandering resources on tasks of limited relevance, while more important ones go unmet. Some Smithsonian units have made progress
in this direction ? such as NMNH, where management has assigned unambiguous priority to type collections.3 All units would benefit from
prioritization concerning which items to digitize, as well as practical guidelines on what information to include in digital records. 
? Electronic access to collections remains limited at the Institutional level and uneven across units. Overall, electronic records exist for less than
one fifth of the Institution?s collections, and less than one tenth are electronically accessible to the public. While some units ? particularly the
art museums ? have made great progress in digitizing their collections, others remain far from the goal of a full set of electronic records with
basic, up-to-date information on what is in their collections. Further, progress in the development of a comprehensive, well-functioning CIS
has been uneven across units. Indeed, at the time the research phase of this study was completed, digitization at one unit (NMAH) had
practically come to a halt, and the unit was contemplating shutting down its CIS because of fears the system was becoming corrupted in the
absence of adequate maintenance.
? Online users of collections information are ill-served by the lack of a single point of entry, or portal, through which to access information
across all Smithsonian collections. Electronic access via the Web has been complicated by the confusing welter of websites created by individual
units and offices.4
? Digitization and CIS development have had trouble competing for resources with other activities, such as exhibitions, education, and research.
If unit and central leadership do not make a clear commitment to pushing digitization and central CISs forward, resources will continue to go
to more visible, longer established, or better articulated priorities, and progress is likely to be slow. 
3 Type collections contain specimens originally used to define species.
4 Since completion of the research for this study, the Office of the Chief Information Officer issued an Institution-wide online strategy intended in part to address this matter.
? Although each unit must ultimately fashion its own digitization
plan, opportunities exist for collaboration and leveraging of
resources across units and with outside entities. The units have
generally not taken advantage of these opportunities. Because
digitization and electronic access can be very expensive, the
units may be forgoing large benefits.
An important first step is for the central administration to clarify,
through policy and the Smithsonian?s strategic and annual
performance plans, where digitization and CIS development fall on
the list of Institutional priorities. The central administration also
needs to provide guidance on the goals of digitization, including
what sort of online presence the Smithsonian should have. Not
only are the units more likely to develop and adhere to plans in
these areas if directed to do so and held accountable for results, but
the absence of clear guidance from the top may be interpreted as
suggesting that digitization and CIS development are low priorities.
Because of the importance of digitization and CIS development for
both access and general collections management, the OP&A study
team favors increasing the emphasis on them at this time, even if
doing so requires some units to shift resources from other
programs until they can demonstrate substantial progress in 
these areas.
The OP&A study team also believes that a single portal that
provides access to collections information across the Smithsonian
should be a priority, because it would significantly enhance access
by all types of users. Aside from the technological requirements,
implementing a single portal will require development and use by
all units of a common Institution-wide thesaurus to facilitate
database searches across all Smithsonian collections databases. 
7 & 8
C O L L E C T I O N S  
C A R E
Proper care of collections and associated documentation is
fundamentally important to their health, longevity, and usefulness.
9 & 1 0
However, collections care is also relatively invisible. Because of this invisibility, the OP&A study team saw evidence that a faulty
rationalization has taken hold in some units: it is acceptable to defer collections care activities in favor of activities with greater public visibility,
because it will always be possible to return to the deferred tasks later. This rationalization appears plausible because skipping routine inventories
or condition assessments, storing collections more densely, and generally cutting corners on collections care typically have no immediate negative
effects and do not result in public outcry. In reality, however, the opportunity to return to deferred tasks rarely arises, and eventually the deferred
work reaches a level that is overwhelming. Moreover, the longer collections care falls below optimal levels, the more difficult it is to know what
the effects are. For example, if a unit does not have a complete inventory or has not carried out a condition assessment for a decade, it has no
objective way of knowing what is happening to its collections.
At the Smithsonian, the state of collections care is mixed. Within the broad parameters of Smithsonian Directive 600 (SD 600) ? the principal
policy guiding collections management ? units are free to set their own standards and allocate resources. The SD 600 Implementation Manual,
in draft form at the time the research phase of this study was completed, is comprehensive and meticulous in its listing of issues to be considered,
but it, too, offers the units wide latitude in interpretation. Thus, the level of attention devoted to collections care largely comes down to the
priorities of unit directors.
The OP&A study team sees a need for NCP, working with representatives of the units, to clearly define minimum standards of care for compliance
with SD 600 for particular types of collections, and for NCP to monitor whether the units are maintaining those standards. Those standards would
usefully include parameters for inventories, profiling, and significance assessments.5 Further, if a unit cannot maintain a collection at the
minimum standard, the study team believes it is appropriate to ask whether that collection should be transferred to an organization better able to
care for it. 
In general, improving the state of collections care needs to start with full knowledge of what is in the collections ? a complete inventory ? and
a system of triage whereby a unit can focus resources on areas of greatest urgency or importance. The Smithsonian is currently participating in
the first Heritage Health Index survey, sponsored by Heritage Preservation and the Institute for Museum and Library Services. Intended to gather
baseline data on the state of museum, library, archive, and historical society collections nationwide, the survey promises to provide useful
information about the condition and preservation needs of Smithsonian collections, relative to similar collections at other organizations. 
5 ?Profiling? refers to the systematic evaluation of a unit?s collections using a set of variables such as condition, arrangement, level of documentation, and state of processing. It yields quantifiable
measures of collections care needs, documentation status, and accessibility, on the basis of which resource allocation priorities may be set. A significance assessment ? a determination of the relative
importance of collection items or groups of items to a unit?s mission and/or programs ? may be incorporated into a profiling effort.
Profiling is a valuable tool that some Smithsonian units have used
to assess the state of their collections and identify which objects are
most in need of resources. Even where resources are too tight to
permit profiling all of a unit?s collections, it may be possible to
focus initially on the "hot spots" ? the collections where problems
are most numerous or severe. NMNH has been a leader in
developing practical methods of profiling, and its system is now
considered best practice. The NMNH profiling system, which it
initiated 20 years ago with the entomology collections, aims to
obtain a measure that allows objective comparison of care needs
across collections, so that collections care resources can be
efficiently allocated. The principle areas of measurement are: 
? Conservation (whether the physical state of items is unstable;
degraded but stable; stable and not degraded; or optimal). 
? Processing (whether items are unprocessed; sorted but not
accessioned and/or labeled; or fully processed with accurate and
complete archival labels). 
? Storage (whether a building/room or storage equipment is
substandard or museum-quality). 
? Arrangement (whether items are not arranged; arranged but
needing improvement; or fully arranged).
? Identification (whether items are not identified; identified to
the gross level; identified to a useful level; identified to an
accepted standard; 
or identified by an expert).
? Inventory (whether items are not inventoried; inventoried at
the collection level; or completely inventoried).
1 1 & 1 2
The Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education
(SCMRE) has also experimented with a profiling system, the
Preservation Priority Data Base. SIA has refined SCMRE?s system to
include seven physical parameters, together with significance and
use. SIA has become the leader for profiling within the Institution?s
archives community. 
The OP&A study team believes it is unacceptable for the
Smithsonian to allow collections care at any of its units to
deteriorate to the point where collections are in jeopardy. However,
the study team found that some collecting units face acute and
sometimes longstanding problems in two principal areas of
collections care: information (a lack of complete and accurate
information on the content and condition of collections) and
storage (including space shortages and poor quality space,
equipment, and supplies). Among Smithsonian museums, the
most troubling case is NMAH. The study team is concerned that 
the problems at NMAH have reached a magnitude that transcends
patchwork solutions and requires serious attention in the 
near term.
A C Q U I S I T I O N  
A N D  D I S P O S A L
The purpose of collections development is to shape collections
that support a unit?s mission, goals, and programs. The traditional
tools of collections development are acquisition and disposal. 
1 3 & 1 4
The size of collections at some units presently exceeds the capacity of the unit to provide adequate care and access. Continued expansion of
collections, even at a low rate, will exacerbate the problem unless resources for collections are substantially increased, which is not likely in the
foreseeable future. Further, collections at a number of units are not well-configured to support these units? other programs or goals. 
The Smithsonian culture that underpins collections development has compounded these problems. Two elements of this culture are worth noting.
First, there is a strongly held perception at many units that disposal is to be avoided. Second, academic insularity is evident in many Smithsonian
departments and divisions. The latter has created a tendency to collect based on individual, departmental, and divisional agendas, inhibited the
integration of collections with other programs, and hindered both cross-disciplinary collections development and collaboration on collecting with
other departments, units, and external organizations. 
The OP&A study team identified two main areas where changes might serve to strengthen collections development as a management tool:
guidance and decision making. In addition, the study team believes that a number of units would likely benefit from a realignment of their
collections relative to current missions, goals, programs, and resources. 
The collecting plan detailed in the draft SD 600 Implementation
Manual contains many of the elements that the OP&A study team
regards as essential to effective collections development planning,
such as elaborating how collections should be integrated with other
programs, reviewing opportunities for collaboration with internal
and external collecting organizations, and calling for regular
reviews and updates of plans. Other key elements of a unit-level
collecting plan include:
? Clarifying a unit?s predominant museum type and the role of its
collections, to provide context for decision making;
? Identifying a viable size and composition of collections, relative 
to resources; 
? Identifying the collections that are core to a unit?s mission and 
goals, as well as those that are less relevant or suitable, and
might be divested; 
? Reviewing the holdings of other Smithsonian and external
collecting units to avoid duplication and identify opportunities
for collaboration;
? Considering greater use of alternatives to traditional collecting,
such as long-term loans and shared ownership; and
? Setting priorities and targets for acquisitions and disposals, and 
creating performance measures to gauge progress. 
Unit-level collections development policies and planning are
inadequate for guiding acquisition decisions in a resource-
constrained environment. They tend to be either narrowly focused
on detailed operational procedures or impractically broad brush.
(In fairness, collections development policies and plans have
traditionally not been intended to provide anything more than a
general framework.)
guidance
Additional central Smithsonian guidance on collecting would be useful in some areas. For example, there appears to be an urgent global need to
collect natural history specimens extensively in the face of the destruction of biodiversity. This issue might argue for a temporary shift of resources
within NMNH ? or an infusion of resources from the central administration ? to allow the museum to collect more aggressively. The OP&A
study team also believes the mandate that the Smithsonian serve as the repository for federal natural history collections merits discussion and
updated policy guidance. Given the scarcity of resources, if the Congress wants the Smithsonian to be the steward of federal collections, it needs to
provide more explicit guidance on natural history collecting by federal agencies, and to ensure a level of funding commensurate with the role it
wants the Smithsonian to play. Such policy guidance is more urgent in the current environment, in which natural history collections may have a
direct relationship to national interests such as security and the economy. 
However, there is room for further improvement. Decision making
benefits from a detailed unit collecting plan that addresses the
shaping of a unit?s collections through both acquisitions and
disposals. Key considerations in a unit collecting plan are:
? The results of a complete inventory of collections, which is the
necessary foundation for good decisions. A strong case can be
made for suspending most collections development activities
until such an inventory is complete. 
? Collections uses, particularly research and exhibitions.
? Clear, unit-specific criteria with which to assess the relative
significance of existing holdings and potential acquisitions. 
? Alternative and nontraditional means of accomplishing an end.
In an environment of scarce resources, arrangements other than
outright ownership may often prove attractive.
? Assessment of whether particular items should be part of
accession collections, held in non-accession collections, or
divested, based in part on such factors as the items? significance,
use, and life-cycle resource requirements. 
Decision making on collections development would also benefit
from an opportunity cost approach,6 which accounts for the 
full life-cycle costs of acquiring and maintaining new objects, as
well as holding inappropriate objects, and on alternative uses of
the funds.
Smithsonian collecting units have made noteworthy efforts 
to establish more rigorous processes for decision making on
collections development.
6 ?Opportunity cost,? a concept drawn from economic theory, refers to the value of available alternatives that are sacrificed by the decision to commit resources to a particular course
of action. Thinking in terms of opportunity costs means taking all the costs of a choice into account when calculating its net effects, including implicit, indirect, and foreseeable future costs.
decis ion making
1 5 & 1 6
The decline in the rate of acquisitions at many units ? which
reflects an increasingly rigorous approach to acquisitions ? is a
positive trend. 
Nevertheless, there will always be a need for deaccessioning and
disposal. The OP&A study team believes disposal is a positive tool
for collections development and that the approach of ongoing
collections refinement used at many art museums has merit.
Not surprisingly, given decades of collecting and changes in
collecting philosophies over time, some Smithsonian units have
holdings that are not well-suited to their current missions and
programs. In some cases, these holdings may be substantial ? a
case in point being the 7.3 million revenue stamps the National
Postal Museum is processing for disposal. The opportunity costs of
maintaining unsuitable materials can be large, and may include
restricting the acquisition of more desirable items and hampering
care of core collections by consuming space and other resources. 
The OP&A study team believes the time is right for units to
carefully review their holdings with an eye to identifying materials
that are less significant or less relevant to their missions, programs,
and patterns of collections use. In light of available resources for
collections care and access, some units may find they would benefit
from a one-time divestiture that brings collections into closer
alignment with current needs and circumstances. In addition, the
transfer of holdings to organizations around the country that can
provide better care and access is surely preferable, if the alternative
is maintaining these holdings in unacceptable conditions or
inaccessible storage at the Smithsonian. 
The study team recognizes that realigning collections with current
missions, priorities, programs, and resource realities will be a
costly, long-term undertaking for some units. Where units find that
a major realignment would be advantageous from the perspectives
of access and responsible collections management, the
Smithsonian may need to request a block of special funds for this
task, to be available over a number of years ? similar to what is
currently being provided for facilities maintenance. If sufficient
congressional appropriations and private donations are not
forthcoming, units might consider a temporary reallocation of
resources from other activities or the transfer of secondary
collections to less expensive, long-term offsite storage. 
Such a realignment and divestiture will generate controversy.
Opponents might argue that it amounts to an abrogation of the
public trust and would tarnish the Smithsonian?s reputation
a one-t ime real ignment effort
among donors. However, evidence from both the Smithsonian and
other museums ? notably The Henry Ford in Michigan and
Glenbow in Canada ? suggests that the public, donors, and other
stakeholders are willing to accept major disposals when the process
is grounded in a legitimate rationale, carefully explained to
stakeholders, conducted openly and in accordance with
professional standards, and, where appropriate, used to transfer
collections to other organizations that offer public access. One
reason for this acceptance of disposals is a general recognition that
museums must manage scarce resources wisely to ensure future
viability and continued service to the public.
It can be further argued that public accountability not only allows,
but requires such a realignment and divestiture. In the judgment
of the OP&A study team, holding collections that are irrelevant to a
unit?s mission, priorities, and programs, that cannot be properly
cared for or made accessible, or that drain resources from core
collections and programs ? especially when other public trust
organizations might have an interest in holding these collections
? may also be an abrogation of the public trust.
A one-time realignment involving a significant number of
collection holdings will require a strong and long-term
commitment from central and unit leadership ? particularly 
if the initiative requires major reallocations of resources or
generates controversy. 
1 7 & 1 8
R E S O U R C E S
Professional standards for collections care rise over time, 
in part as a result of advances in knowledge and technology 
and of shifts in the uses of collections.
1 9 & 2 0
This constant change in standards, combined with the continuing growth of collections, means that the level of resources ? funds, human
capital, storage facilities, information technology, and supplies and equipment ? required for sound collections management is always a
moving target. However, it is possible to identify areas where a lack of resources is having detrimental effects on Smithsonian collections and 
their management.
Although the Smithsonian spends more on collections care than on
other programmatic activities except research, funds at many units
fall short of what is needed to maintain collections adequately. 
It is unlikely that the Congress will provide all the funds required to
bring ongoing collections management up to desired levels. Indeed,
the Congress may not even provide sufficient funds for priority
projects such as the completion of basic inventories and collections
profiles, development of unit central CISs, and review and
realignment of collections. 
Additional funds must therefore come from fundraising in the private
sector, and from cost recovery measures ? that is, user fees that
cover some part of the costs of providing access to collections. The
OP&A study team believes that there is significant potential for
private sector fundraising for specific collections management
projects, despite a widely-held myth to the contrary. However, neither
the central administration nor the individual collecting units have
engaged in major efforts to solicit philanthropic funds for collections
management, other than for acquisitions. 
The extent to which cost recovery might generate an income stream
for collecting units has not been well-studied. While lending is a
seemingly logical area in which to recover costs, collecting units
typically are reluctant to charge fees other than those required to
cover direct expenses, because they benefit from a quid pro quo when
they borrow. Fees for services such as photographing artifacts or
copying documents are more common, but the potential for
generating revenue through such fees is not clear. A related issue at
the Smithsonian is that the fees for similar services vary significantly
across units, leading to confusion and perceptions of arbitrariness
and inequity. A question is whether the Smithsonian should have an
Institution-wide policy on collections-related fees.
f inances
The OP&A study team?s greatest concern in the area of
collections resources is the number of collections 
management personnel. 
If units carry out the one-time realignment of collections discussed
above, some may have items of sufficient value to justify disposal
by sale. The Smithsonian?s policy is that both the principal
generated by sales of collection items, and any interest accruing
from that principal, must be used exclusively for acquisitions ?
that is, they may not be used for other collections management
activities such as care.7 Some non-Smithsonian museums, however,
do use the interest (but not the principal) from such sales for
collections care. The OP&A study team sees merit in reviewing
Smithsonian policy on the use of such interest revenue for
collections care.
In recent years some units have experienced a steep decline in the
number of those personnel, especially for collections care, despite
steady or growing workloads. Collections care personnel in lower
grades account for most of the decline. The cutbacks have forced
remaining staff to scramble to stay on top of their primary work,
while taking on new responsibilities from departing staff. In some
cases, the result has been that staff have not been able to undertake
important activities ? such as processing outgoing loans,
providing onsite access to collections for visiting researchers, and
addressing backlogs in collections processing and documentation
? in timely fashion, if at all. 
The OP&A study team believes day-to-day workloads, let alone
accumulated work that has remained undone for many years, may
be reaching unsustainable levels for many personnel. There are
only two broad options for addressing this problem in the long run:
increasing staff resources (employees, contract staff, and
volunteers); or reducing workloads (with implications for paring
collections, providing fewer services to users, or accepting lower
standards of collections care). Given the importance of the
Smithsonian?s collections to the nation and its obligation to protect
them and make them accessible, the former course is clearly
preferable.
The OP&A study team estimates that Smithsonian collecting units
have an immediate need for approximately 100 additional full-
time equivalent (FTE) collections care staff (both employees and
contract staff, as needed), at an annual cost of approximately $4.0
million,8 to bring collections up to an appropriate standard of care.
By FY2010, the units will need approximately 65 additional FTEs,
at an annual cost of approximately $2.6 million (2003 dollars).
Some of the priority collections management projects discussed
8 The cost estimate is based on the assumption that the average new FTE will have a salary of $29,894 with 30 percent benefits, and will use $800 worth of equipment and supplies per year. The salary
calculation assumes that 60 percent of new employees will be grades GS 5-7, 30 percent will be GS 8-10, and 10 percent will be GS 11-13. Source: Smithsonian Institution, Committee on
Compensation and Human Resources, The Smithsonian Workforce: Challenges for the 21st Century, n.d.
7 Units may use proceeds to cover the costs of deaccessions and disposals where they relate to future acquisitions.
human resources
2 1 & 2 2
above may require additional research and information technology
staff as well ? although in some cases, existing staff can be
reassigned to these tasks. Some increases in information
technology staff for CIS improvements have already 
been planned.
Maintaining collections care staff at appropriate levels will require
a reduction in the rate at which collections care personnel are
choosing to leave their jobs, which can only be achieved by
improving the professional status of collections care workers.
Currently, there is limited potential for promotion and
advancement within the collections care area, in comparison with
the collections research area. The OP&A study team believes that
the federal personnel grading system contributes to this situation,
and that the growing professionalization of the collections care
field requires changes to this system. Options such as
?broadbanding? and creating new job classifications might be
considered, even if they would mean major changes in the
Smithsonian personnel system. It would be worthwhile to consider
requesting from the Office of Personnel Management the authority
to develop and apply job classifications and series for federal
employees specific to Smithsonian collections management
functions. Such categories could then be applied to trust employees
as well. 
Not only do several units need more collections management
personnel, but the required skill sets have changed as technology
has changed. The Smithsonian has generally not offered formal
training in database management and other skills that are rapidly
becoming part of the collections management profession. Formal
training ? rather than the informal training that currently
predominates ? would better assist staff in coping with the
blurring of work roles now characteristic of collections
management jobs. This is especially so in light of the impending
loss of institutional memory that will occur as a large cohort of
senior personnel begins to retire in the next few years.9
Loans from Smithsonian collections are currently a priority of the
central administration, and staff shortages have slowed the units?
9 In May 2004, Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO), located in Alexandria, Virginia, completed a study entitled ?Smithsonian-Specific Strategic Human Capital and Workforce Re-struc-
turing Plan (SHCWRP): Project Roadmap.? The objective of the effort was to develop a guide for strategic human capital and workforce structuring. Although the study did not single out collections
staff per se, it discussed the need to conduct workforce and gap analyses of mission-critical functions. It also recommended the development of a compensation system better aligned with the
Smithsonian?s strategies and needs, and elaborated on the necessity of strengthening training policies and programs. These and other recommendations are closely related to issues addressed in 
this study.
ability to process requests. Loans to affiliates raise special issues
because of the additional time, effort, and resources they typically
require. The OP&A study team questions whether the units can
accomplish the goal of getting more of the Smithsonian?s objects
out into America?s museums and communities without additional
personnel. It must also question whether this goal, however worthy
in its own right, should at this time have higher priority than
pressing tasks such as developing CISs, inventorying and profiling
collections, and bringing collections care up to a higher standard. 
OP&A data from FY2000 revealed, troublingly, that Smithsonian
units overall judged approximately one third of their storage space
to be below acceptable quality. 
The extent of the problem, however, varied significantly among the
units, and for some, the situation had improved by the time of the
follow-up OP&A FY2003 survey. In addition, the Smithsonian was
working on several near-term options at the time the research phase
of this study was completed, such as the Pod 5 facility10 at Suitland,
to accommodate recognized storage needs. 
One option that was not under formal consideration ? but which
the OP&A study team considers worthy of serious attention ? is the
development of a state-of-the-art federal interagency natural history
research and collections facility on the Beltsville, Maryland property
of the Agricultural Research Service of the US Department of
Agriculture. Such a facility, which has been under discussion for
decades within the federal natural history collecting community,
would provide consolidated storage for NMNH collections (as well as
the collections of other federal agencies), integrated with laboratories
and work space. The quality and quantity of scientific space in this
proposed facility would far exceed what is possible in the
Smithsonian?s Natural History Building and Suitland facilities, even
with the proposed extensive renovations to the former and the
addition of Pod 5 to the latter. (In particular, the configuration and
national landmark status of the Natural History Building preclude,
or render prohibitively expensive, some highly desirable upgrades of
the collections and research space there.) A side benefit of an
interagency facility would be to free up quality storage space at
Suitland that could be used to serve the needs of other Smithsonian
units. Moreover, such a project fits well with the emphasis the
executive and legislative branches are now placing on greater
collaboration among federal agencies. The OP&A study team
recognizes that such a project would involve lengthy and complex
negotiations among federal agencies, and would demand flexibility,
analytical support, and educational efforts aimed at policy makers,
potential users, and the public.
In general, long-term storage needs can be met in three ways: 
? Continued improvements in the efficiency with which existing
space is used (such as compact shelving);
? Acquisition of additional space (either new construction, purchase
of existing space, or leasing); and/or 
? Management of acquisitions and disposals so that 
the space requirements of collections grow at a manageable rate.
All three of these strategies will surely figure in any long-term plan
for collections storage. However, it should be stressed that the OP&A
10 ?Pod? is a term used with reference to certain buildings at the Smithsonian?s Suitland, Maryland complex. Pod 5 is specifically designed to house NMNH collections that are stored in alcohol.
storage
2 3 & 2 4
study team does not consider leasing to be a desirable long-term
solution. Unfortunately, when leasing is used as a short-term fix
? which often happens, owing to budgetary realities ? the leases
tend to stretch into the longer term. Not only does evidence suggest
that leased facilities are typically the most costly option when
considered over a 30-year life cycle, but leased space is almost
always of lower quality than Smithsonian-owned space, even after
costly upgrades. The Smithsonian needs to make a business case to
the Congress and donors for the cost-effectiveness of constructing
new storage facilities or purchasing suitable existing facilities.
In the course of this study, the OP&A study team noted that the
Smithsonian often deferred decisions about storage space until a
foreseeable need had become a crisis, a strategy that greatly
narrows options and raises costs. There is a need for more long-
term, proactive Institution-wide planning of storage space that
allows priorities to be set, common interests to be identified,
multiple options to be considered, and timely, cost-effective
solutions to be found. 
Establishment of the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
and preparation of the Smithsonian Information Technology 
Plan (SITP) for FY2002?FY2007 have led to major advances in
rationalizing investment in information technology at 
the Smithsonian.
Smithsonian collecting units have recognized the importance of
information technology to collections management and access,
and many have made progress in developing a central electronic
CIS with at least basic records. Others, however, have been
struggling to implement a central CIS. As noted, the OP&A study
team considers the development of such a system at all units to be
a high priority.
information technology
O V E R A L L  
C O N C L U S I O N S
Two of the principal questions this study seeks to answer are 
how well the Smithsonian has done with its collections obligations,
and what the answer means for collections management 
in the future. 
2 5 & 2 6
The study team?s findings suggest a range of answers. 
? Access presents a mixed picture. As noted, some units with smaller collections have virtually complete electronic catalogues, often with
enriched documentation. Others have not yet developed an accessible central electronic catalogue or even a complete inventory of their
holdings.
? With respect to care of collections, some units have performed admirably ? most notably the art museums. However, others have performed
less well, even taking into account differences in scale and current efforts to resolve difficulties.
? In the case of collections development, most units could be doing more to ensure the relevance of collections to their mission and
programs. Too often, the rationale for holding particular collections is unclear or unpersuasive, and linkages between collections and other
programs are not always obvious. Some units appear to have holdings that are not suitable, given current standards, missions, programs, and
resources. Further, units have not adequately explored alternatives to the norms of independent collecting and sole ownership. 
? At many units, resources (most notably staff) are not adequate to meet day-to-day collections management responsibilities or to address
accumulated problems in areas such as cataloguing, conservation, and access. 
Collections must continue to be a core priority for the Smithsonian. But other important priorities exist, too, especially research and exhibitions.
Nevertheless, the OP&A study team believes that Smithsonian management has an obligation not to permit conditions to reach a
point where collections are placed in jeopardy. Some units may already be in that situation, or soon will find themselves there. Although
Smithsonian management is moving on many fronts to address the problems, it will need to do more. 
Many of the current problems with Smithsonian collections cannot be laid at the doorstep of current management. The problems have been
building for decades. Current management is, however, responsible for their redress, and its request for this study was a critical, necessary first
step. The results can serve as a guide for further steps toward management excellence in the collections arena. Some problems will require
considerable resources to address; others can be tackled through better management of resources.
Inadequate guidance lies at the heart of many collections
problems. The OP&A study team identified three key areas of
collections management that would benefit from clearer guidance
from central Smithsonian leadership.
First, there is confusion over the meaning and therefore the
nature of national collections at the Smithsonian overall
and, to varying degrees, at the individual collecting units.
What are the collecting roles of the Smithsonian?s national
museums, archives, and libraries? Are they the primary custodians
of the nation?s cultural and natural heritage, or should they see
themselves as part of a network of organizations that collectively
ensure the preservation of that heritage? What should the
Smithsonian acquire? One particular concern of the OP&A study
team is the continued ability of the Smithsonian to serve as the
repository for federal natural history collections in the absence of
adequate congressional funds or internal resources to manage
them. Given the rate at which species are disappearing, what is the
Smithsonian?s role in ensuring adequate collecting to preserve
evidence of vanishing species? Similarly, what is its responsibility
for collections orphaned by other US collecting units?
strategic  guidance
The OP&A study team believes each unit should formulate a
comprehensive collections management plan that covers the
universe of collections-specific functions such as collections
development, care, documentation, provision of access, staffing,
and development of policy. Other more detailed plans specific to
particular functions, such as digitization, cyclical inventories, and
preservation, should flow from and support the comprehensive unit
collections management plan. 
The following are necessary elements in an effective collections
management plan:
? Overarching conceptual directions that frame and integrate all
programs within individual units. 
? Definition of the role and priority of collections relative to a
unit?s mission and other programs. 
? Resolution of longstanding collections management deficiencies
? such as inventory and cataloguing backlogs, items awaiting
disposal, and inadequate storage ? and creating procedures for
preventing their recurrence.
? Formulation of long-term responses to resource shortfalls ? or,
to put it another way, developing collections management plans
that are consistent with resources. 
? Delineation of specific, prioritized performance objectives;
practical unit performance measures to gauge progress; and a
realistic timetable for achieving milestones, particularly the
resolution of identified problems.
Every Smithsonian collecting unit has collections policies and
plans, but they generally do not provide practical guidance, such as
clear priorities. In some cases, they have not been updated for
many years. The latest revision of SD 600 requires long-term
collections management planning, and implementation of this
requirement is a top priority. 
Third, in an environment of constrained resources ? a situation
that the OP&A study team does not expect to change in the
foreseeable future ? it is no longer possible to continue
conducting business as usual. The Smithsonian will need to
pursue less traditional approaches, such as sharing
collecting and stewardship responsibilities with other
organizations. Guidance on how best to leverage opportunities
for sharing collections management responsibilities is necessary. 
long-term planning by the units
Second, the importance of collections at the Smithsonian
relative to other programs and activities is not clear. Units
will likely be reluctant to focus on deficiencies in collections
management without a clear indication that this is a high
Institutional priority.
2 7 & 2 8
The OP&A study team believes some characteristics of decision
making on collections management at the Smithsonian have
contributed significantly to the problems. 
? Difficult and perhaps unpopular decisions needed to
accommodate resource realities often have not been made in a
timely manner, if at all. Although collections responsibilities
have clearly exceeded the resources available to support them for
many years, new programs have routinely been initiated that
exacerbate the situation. As part of planning, collecting units
should realistically assess their collections management
priorities and ensure that the resources required to carry them
out are available, even if this means putting other activities on
hold so that resources can be shifted. 
? A lack of the information essential for sound decision making
has been commonplace. Most critically, some units have not
developed full inventories of their holdings, or conducted
condition assessments to inform them about the content and
conservation needs of their collections.
? Stove-piped decision making has tended to further the interests
of individual curatorial/scientific departments and staff, rather
than the collecting unit or the Smithsonian as a whole.
? A focus on immediate needs and issues without due
consideration for long-term implications has contributed to the
imbalance between collections management responsibilities and
resources. An example is the leasing of storage space as a
solution to pressing storage needs, which typically results in
lower quality, higher cost space. Collections management
involves long-term obligations that require a long-term
perspective. 
decis ion making
In particular, insularity has resulted in missed opportunities to
leverage resources through joint activities, both within the
Smithsonian and with external organizations. The major exception
is the Smithsonian?s science museums and research centers, whose
internal and external collaboration offers a model for units in
other fields.
At the same time, the OP&A study team believes the structure of
pan-Institutional collections management support can be
strengthened, because issues do arise that merit deliberation at
both the central and unit levels. One example is shared storage
space, particularly with regard to specialized facilities such as 
cold storage. 
NCP occupies a key pan-Institutional position that bears
enhancing in three areas. Its information-sharing role can
usefully be reinforced to include a comprehensive central repository
of information on collections management practices and resources,
pulled from both Smithsonian and external sources. Its internal
advocacy role for collections can be augmented to enable it to
better identify Institution-wide concerns and coordinate initiatives
to address them. And its limited monitoring role can be
expanded to include formal reviews of unit collections
management policy and plans, verification of information from
the units, collection of additional information, and oversight of the
remediation of problems. Given the diversity of the units in terms
of missions, collections, programs, and collections management
needs, NCP would need to work closely in the above roles with the
Under Secretaries and the units. Changes in the roles of NCP could
usefully be included in SD 600 and the accompanying
Implementation Manual.
Finally, collections management across the Smithsonian would
benefit from the establishment of a Smithsonian Collections
Advisory Committee to formalize coordination and communication
among the units and to address pan-Institutional issues. Optimally,
the committee would be composed of senior unit representatives,
such as the associate directors for collections, and would be chaired
and administered by the NCP coordinator. Such a committee is set
forth in the draft SD 600 Implementation Manual, and the OP&A
study team believes it is worth establishing. 
The OP&A study team does not believe most collections
management problems are the result of the existing organizational
structure, so much as how that structure is managed.
organizat ional  structure
2 9 & 3 0
This culture places a far higher priority on scholarship and
research than on care and access. Further, there is an insistence
upon autonomy that allows departments to operate with minimal
attention to one another, the unit or the Smithsonian as a whole,
and the wider collecting community. 
Further, the professional culture at the Smithsonian embraces two
prominent myths that strongly contribute to resistance to change:
?the public and donors will not tolerate disposals? and ?no one
will give money for collections management.? To the contrary, the
findings of this study indicate that stakeholders are receptive to
well-reasoned and transparent disposals that support sound unit
management overall, and that donors will support collections
management when an effective case is made.
Many of the Smithsonian?s collections management weaknesses
stem from a professional culture ill-suited to present realities.
Accountability for collections management is weak at the
Smithsonian, in part because no single entity at the central level
oversees this area. 
NCP is currently limited to informal advising and reporting. While
the Under Secretaries have greater authority, collections
management has not been a high priority at this level. Ideally,
accountability would entail central review of unit collections-
related plans, as well as the performance of senior management.
Performance could also be bolstered by creating incentives for
senior managers to meet or exceed targets. 
profess ional  culture
accountabi l i ty
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
3 1 & 3 2
? In accordance with SD 600,11 each unit director, using the unit?s
collections management policy and collecting plan, shall have
responsibility for defining the unit?s national collection role,
within the Institution?s national collecting roles. As situations
require, Smithsonian senior management (Deputy Secretary,
Under Secretaries, and directors of collecting units) will interpret
SD 600 for additional guidance, consistent with accreditation
and professional standards. The following questions may apply:
? The meaning of ?national? with respect to the unit?s
collections. For example, what is the unit?s 
national collecting role? What cultural, artistic,
natural, and other evidence should it protect for future
generations? What is its responsibility for collecting
rapidly vanishing species and for collections orphaned
by other US collecting units? What is its context 
with relation to other similar or complementary
collecting entities?
? The relative priority of collections and their
management with respect to other unit major
programs and activities.
For Smithsonian collecting units, identifying their core national
purpose can both provide a basis for assessing the appropriateness
of current collections, and guide future collecting. Yet there is
surprisingly little clarity, either within the Smithsonian or the wider
museum community, about what a ?national? role is or entails. 
? Smithsonian senior management (Deputy Secretary, Under
Secretaries, and directors of collecting units) shall:
? Establish a Smithsonian-wide policy for electronic
access to collections information consistent with 
SD 600. 
? Assign responsibility to OCIO to develop a central
portal for access to collections information across
Smithsonian collecting units.
? Develop related goals, objectives, and performance
measures, and incorporate them into the Smithsonian
strategic and annual performance plans. 
11 The term ?SD 600? is used to include Smithsonian Directive 600 and its companion SD 600 Implementation Manual.
national  roles
use and access
? The Smithsonian shall implement minimum standards for
inventories, profiling, and significance assessments in SD 600, to
serve as a framework for the development of unit- specific
standards. 
? To ensure preservation of its collections, each unit shall, in
accordance with the minimum Smithsonian standards
established for each task: 
? Establish and implement an inventory process and
written cyclical inventory plan appropriate to the
character and size of the unit?s collections.
? Profile its collections, and prepare an action plan to
address deficiencies and to prevent their recurrence.
? Conduct a significance assessment of its collections
and categorize collections by level of significance with
respect to appropriate parameters, such as the unit's
purpose, mission and programs, its users, and the
ability of collections to support its interpretative goals. 
? Each collecting unit shall establish, within the framework of
central policy on digitization and electronic access, a unit
collections digitization plan, based on uses and users. The plan
shall include priorities, guidance on the information content
appropriate to different users, goals and objectives for electronic
access, targets for digitization, and a timeline for
implementation. The plan shall be consistent with the unit
strategic plan and with SD 600. 
? The Smithsonian shall foster collaboration on electronic access,
internally and externally. Specific priorities include: 
? Creation of a single Smithsonian portal to facilitate
searches across all Smithsonian collections databases. 
? Participation in cooperative arrangements with
consortia and interagency forums such as biodiversity
networks. 
? Linkages with external databases and participation 
in portals that connect the Smithsonian and 
external organizations. 
col lect ions care 
3 3 & 3 4
? Each unit shall develop a long-term collecting plan that provides
a framework for making acquisition and disposal decisions. 
The collecting plan shall: 
? Flow from the unit?s mission and strategic plan. 
? Be practical, operational, and aligned with resources. 
? Be based on comprehensive collections information,
including inventory, profiling, and significance
assessment information.
? Clarify the priorities for collection uses. 
? Identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in existing
collections to guide acquisition and disposal decisions. 
? Identify specific implementation strategies (including
linkages with the unit?s other programs, opportunities
for collaboration, and alternatives to traditional
collecting), with target end dates, milestones, existing
and required resources, and performance measures. 
Finances
? The Office of External Affairs and unit development offices shall
raise funds in the private sector for collections management. 
? OP&A shall conduct a study of collections management-related
cost recovery to include consideration of a central cost reco
very policy. 
Human Resources 
? As part of the response of the Office of Human Resources to the
HumRRO report, a critical skills analysis for collections
management (to include identification of critical functions,
required core competencies, and staffing requirements) shall be
conducted in conjunction with the units.
? The Smithsonian shall increase the human resources devoted to
the management of collections as soon as possible. 
? Training for collections management staff shall be aligned with
the requirements of unit strategic plans, technology, professional
standards, job descriptions, and assigned tasks. 
acquis i t ion and disposal
resources
Long-Term Planning
? Each unit shall address collections in its strategic plan,
including:
? Role(s) of collections.
? Priority of collections management relative to the
unit?s other programs and functions.
? Linkages and role of collections with the unit?s other
programs and functions.
? Ties with other Smithsonian and external
organizations, including partnerships and
collaborative arrangements.
? Performance measures for collections management.
Organization
? The Secretary shall strengthen pan-Institutional support for
collections management by: 
? Expanding NCP?s role as advisor to senior
management on collections management matters, as
well as information sharing, internal advocacy, and
monitoring of compliance with SD 600. NCP?s
monitoring role shall include assessment of unit self-
evaluation reports to established goals and
performance indicators, and follow-up through senior
management to address identified deficiencies in
collections management.
? Establishing the Smithsonian Collections Advisory
Committee, to be led by the National Collections
Coordinator, to assist senior management in
establishing a framework for setting Institutional
priorities and meeting collections stewardship
responsibilities. 
management
3 5 & 3 6
Accountability 
? Consistent with the unit strategic plan, unit directors shall
actively manage the development, care, and accessibility of their
collections, to include short- and long-term strategies, priorities,
and initiatives, and set performance measures, targets, timelines,
and end dates. Priority objectives shall include: (1) aligning
collections management with resources; (2) achieving
compliance with SD 600, as revised to reflect minimum
compliance standards; (3) addressing legacy and current
problems; and (4) achieving performance goals. 
? Each unit shall adhere to minimum Institution-wide standards
of collections management required for compliance with SD 600
(including a current collections management policy, collecting
plan, inventory plan, and digitization plan) and develop related
performance measures. 
? The Secretary shall ensure that collections management at all
units meets professional standards and complies with SD 600 by
incorporating collections-specific measurement standards into
the Smithsonian strategic and annual performance plans and
into the performance plans of senior management (Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries, and directors of collecting units). 
The OP&A study team conducted in-person or telephone interviews
with staff of these museums and organizations. 
Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture 
(Beltsville, Maryland)*
American Museum of Natural History (New York, New York)*
Anacostia Museum/Center for African American History and 
Culture (Smithsonian Institution)*
Archives of American Art (Smithsonian Institution)*
Association of Art Museum Directors (New York, New York)
British Museum (London, Great Britain)* 
Canadian Conservation Institute (Ottawa, Ontario)* 
Canadian Heritage Information Network (Gatineau, Quebec)
Canadian Museum of Civilization (Gatineau, Quebec)*
Canadian Museum of Nature (Ottawa, Ontario)*
Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage 
(Smithsonian Institution)*
Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum 
(Smithsonian Institution)*
Experience Music Project (Seattle, Washington)*
Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery 
(Smithsonian Institution)*
Glenbow Museum (Calgary, Alberta, Canada)
Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village (Dearborn, Michigan)*
Henry R. Luce Foundation (New York, New York)
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden 
(Smithsonian Institution)*
Historical Society of Washington, D.C. and 
City Museum of Washington, DC*
Horticulture Services Division (Smithsonian Institution)*
International Art Museum Division (Smithsonian Institution)*
Library of Congress (Washington, DC)*
Los Angeles Zoo (Los Angeles, California)*
Mingei International Museum (San Diego, California)
Monterey Bay Aquarium (Monterey, California)*
Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia 
(Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada)
Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego (San Diego, California)*
Museum of Flying (Santa Monica, California)*
Museum of Jurassic Technology (Los Angeles, California)*
Museum Program, US Department of the Interior 
(Washington, DC)*
APPENDIX A.
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
* The study team also visited these organizations.
3 7 & 3 8
National Air and Space Museum (Smithsonian Institution)*
National Archives and Records Administration (Washington, DC)*
National Collections Program (Smithsonian Institution)*
National Gallery of Art (Washington, DC)*
National Museum of African Art (Smithsonian Institution)*
National Museum of American History (Smithsonian Institution)*
National Museum of Australia (Canberra, Australia)*
National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution)*
National Museum of the American Indian 
(Smithsonian Institution)*
National Museum of Women in the Arts (Washington, DC)*
National Museums of Scotland (Edinburgh, Scotland)*
National Park Service Biological Resource Management Division, 
US Department of the Interior (Beltsville, Maryland)*
National Portrait Gallery (Smithsonian Institution)*
National Postal Museum (Smithsonian Institution)*
National Zoological Park (Smithsonian Institution)*
Natural History Museum (London, Great Britain)*
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 
(Los Angeles, California)*
Office of Affiliations (Smithsonian Institution)*
Office of Facilities Engineering Operations
Office of Physical Plant, Facilities Services 
(Smithsonian Institution)*
Office of the General Counsel (Smithsonian Institution)* 
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, US Geological Survey, 
US Department of the Interior (Beltsville, Maryland)*
Powerhouse Museum (Sydney, Australia) *
Re:Source ? The Council for Museums, Archives, and 
Libraries (London, Great Britain)
Royal British Columbia Museum 
(Victoria, British Columbia, Canada)*
Royal Museum, Museum of Scotland, and Granton Centre 
(Edinburgh, Scotland)
Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)*
Ruben H. Fleet Science Center (San Diego, California)*
Samdok (Stockholm, Sweden)
San Diego Museum of Man (San Diego, California)*
San Diego Zoo (San Diego, California)*
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (San Francisco, California)*
Seattle Art Museum (Seattle, Washington)*
Smithsonian American Art Museum (Smithsonian Institution)*
Smithsonian Business Ventures (Smithsonian Institution)*
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education 
(Smithsonian Institution)*
Smithsonian Institution Archives (Smithsonian Institution)*
Smithsonian Institution Libraries (Smithsonian Institution)*
Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Services 
(Smithsonian Institution)*
Space Telescope Science Institute (Baltimore, Maryland)*
Te Papa, National Museum of New Zealand 
(Wellington, New Zealand)*
Texas Memorial Museum (Austin, Texas)
Visitor Information and Associates? Reception Center 
(Smithsonian Institution)*
Wing Luke Asian Museum (Seattle, Washington)*
APPENDIX B.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ainslie, Patricia. 1997. The deaccessioning strategy at Glenbow,
1992-97. In A deaccession reader, 125-42. ed. Stephen Weil.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
???. 1999. Deaccessioning as a collections management tool.
In Museums and the future of collecting. ed. Simon Knell.
Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co.
American Association of Museums. 2000. Collections. In Code of
ethics for museums 2000. Washington, DC: American Association
of Museums.
???. 2001a. The accreditation commission?s expectations
regarding collections stewardship. http://www.aam-us.org.
???. 2001b. American Association of Museums guidelines
concerning the unlawful appropriation of objects during the Nazi
era. Washington, DC. Issued November 1999 and amended April
2001. 
???. 2003a. AAM launches online collections exchange
center. Press release. Washington, DC. October 23.
???. 2003b. Collections planning: Strategies for planning &
implementation. Information Center fact sheet (American
Association of Museums-National Museum of American History
Collections Planning Colloquium, November 15-16, 2002).
Washington, DC.
???. 2003c. Considerations for AAM accredited museums
facing retrenchment or downsizing. AAM Accreditation
Commission. Washington, DC. August 28.
???. 2003d. Creating an intellectual framework for
collections planning. Information Center fact sheet (American
Association of Museums-National Museum of American History
Collections Planning Colloquium, November 15-16, 2002). 
Washington, DC.
???. 2003e. Outline for a collections plan. Information
Center fact sheet (American Association of Museums-National
Museum of American History Collections Planning Colloquium,
November 15-16, 2002). Washington, DC.
???. 2003f. University natural history museums and
collections. AAM position statement. Washington, DC. November.
3 9 & 4 0
Art museums appoint renowned conservator. 2001. 
Harvard University Gazette (January 24).
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/12-
conservator.html.
Association of Art Museum Directors. 2001a. Professional practices
in art museums. New York.
???. 2001b. Salary survey. New York: AAMD.
Babbidge, Adrian. 2000. UK museums: Safe and sound? Cultural
trends (London, Policy Studies Institute) 10:37. 
Baca, Murtha, Tony Gill, and Anne Gilliland-Swetland. 2000.
Introduction to metadata: Pathways to digital information. Getty
Research Institute.
http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/intro
metadata/index.html.
Bank, Gretchen G. 1988. Determining the cost: Architect George
Hartman?s formula. Museum News (May/June):74.
Barnard, Matt. 2002. The fire escape. News analysis. Museums
Journal (July):14-15.
Barr, David W. 1997. Legacies and heresies: Some alternatives in
disposing of museum collections. In A deaccession reader, 99-106.
ed. Stephen Weil. Washington, DC: American Association of
Museums.
Behind the scenes access, photography, or filming of museum
objects. Museum of Anthropology, University of British Columbia.
n.d. www.moa.ubc.ca/pdf/Behind_the_scenes.pdf.
Behind the scenes at the museum. 2000/2001. Science and
Technology. The Economist 357 (8202)(23 December 2000-5
January 2001):115-16. 
Bell, Steven J. 2003. Is more always better? American Libraries 34
(1)(January):44-46. 
Bensard, ?va. n.d. France moves towards the devolution of cultural
heritage. TheArtNewspaper.com. (Accessed January 20, 2004.)
Bergevoet, Frank. n.d. Guide to the deaccessioning of museum
objects in the Netherlands. Netherlands Institute for Cultural
Heritage.Amsterdam. (Photocopy.)
Besterman, Tristram. 1991. The ethics of emasculation. Museums
Journal (September):25-28.
???. Disposals from museum collections. Ethics and
practicalities. Museum Management and Curatorship 11:29-44.
Bj?rklund, Anders, and ?va Silv?n-Garnert, eds. 1996. Adressat
ok?nd. Framtidens museif?remil [Addressee Unknown.
Tomorrow?s Museum Artefacts]. Stockholm: Carlsson. 
Blumenstyk, Goldie. 1999. Matchmaker to the art world. Chronicle
of Higher Education. May 21. 
Borg, Alan. 1991. Confronting disposal. Museums Journal
(September):29-31. 
British Library. n.d. Adopt a book.
http://www.bl.uk/about/cooperation/adopt.html.
Butts, David. n.d. Fellowships in museum practice. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution.
http://museumstudies.si.edu/Fellowships/DavidButts.htm.
Cameron, Fiona. The next generation ? ?knowledge
environments? and digital collections. Museums and the Web 2003.
Papers. University of Sydney, Australia.
http://www.archimuse.com/mw2003/papers/cameron/cameron.ht
ml.
Canadian Museums Association. 1999. CMA ethical guidelines
1999.
http://www.museums.ca/cma1/about/cma/ethics/ethicstoc.htm. 
???. 2001. Wired collections: The next generation. 
Museum Management and Curatorship 19 (3):309-15.
Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution. 1995. 
E pluribus unum: This divine paradox. Washington, DC: 
Smithsonian Institution.
Conforti, Michael. 1997. Deaccessioning in American museums: II
? some thoughts for England. In A deaccession reader. ed.
Stephen Weil. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Cunliffe, Danielle, et al. 2001. Tell me what you want, what you
really, really want. Usability evaluation for museum websites. 
Museum Management and Curatorship 19 (3):229-52. 
Dunkin, Zach. 2003. Museum boom resounds in city. 
Indianapolis Star. December 14.
Dunn, Richard. 1999. The future of collecting: Lessons from the
past. In Museums and the future of collecting. ed. Simon Knell. 
Brookfield VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Fenton, Alexander. 1995. Collections research: Local, national and
international perspectives. In Collections management (Leicester
Readers in Museum Studies). ed. Anne Fahy. New York: Routledge. 
Financial Accounting Standards Board. 1993a. Statement of
financial accounting standards no. 116: Accounting for
contributions received and contributions made. Financial
Accounting Series (June). 
???. 1993b. Statement of financial accounting standards no.
117: Financial statements of not-for-profit organizations.
Financial Accounting Series (June).
Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board. 2003. Heritage
assets and stewardship land: Reclassification from required
supplementary stewardship information, proposed statement of
federal financial accounting standards. (Exposure draft.) 
August 20.
Fleming, David. Changing the disposals culture. Museums
Journal (UK) (September):36-37.
Gardner, James B., and Elizabeth Merritt. 2002. Collections
planning: Pinning down a strategy. Museum News (July/August):
31-33, 60, 61.
Garfield, Donald. 1990. Unusual obstacles: Natural history
museums and keepers of living collections face deaccessioning
dilemmas distinct from those of other institutions. Museum News
(March/April):52-54. 
Gilboe, Roberta Frey. 1997. Report to the Deaccessioning Task
Force of the Registrars Committee of AAM. In A deaccession
reader, 205-44. ed. Stephen Weil. Washington, DC: American
Association of Museums.
Greenaway, Frank. 1983. National museums. Museums Journal
82 (4) (March):7-12. 
Greene, Mark. 2000. ?The surest proof?: A utilitarian approach to
appraisal. American archival studies: Readings in theory and
practice, 301-42. ed. Randall C. Jimerson. Chicago: The Society of
American Archivists. 
Greene, Mark A., and Todd J. Daniels-Howell. 1997. Documentation
with an attitude: A pragmatist?s guide to the selection and
acquisition of modern business records. The records of American
business, 161-229. ed. James M. O?Toole. Chicago: The Society of
American Archivists. 
Hallett, Martin. 2003. The objects of science and technology ?
working with ?things.? Proceedings of the ?Recovering Science?
Conference. http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern, and Mattern, Inc. 1997. Smithsonian
Institution History and Art Center: Facility prospectus and back-up
documentation. November.
Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village. 1999. Collections 21
Task Force report. Dearborn, MI.
???. 2001. Henry Ford & Greenfield Village policy and
procedure memorandum no. 10c. Collections policy. 
Dearborn, MI. January. 
???. 2002a. Henry Ford, quoted in the New York Times
Magazine. April 5, 1931. As quoted in History principles for Henry
Ford Museum & Greenfield Village. October 16. 
???. 2002b. Themes for rural life after World War II. 
Dearborn, MI. (Draft.)
Heritage Collections Council (Australia). 1998. Managing
collections. reCollections: Caring for collections across Australia.
Canberra: Heritage Collections Council. 
???. 2001. (significance) A guide to assessing the
significance of cultural heritage objects and collections. 
Canberra: Heritage Collections Council.
Heritage Preservation. 2003. Heritage health index.
http://www.heritagepreservation.org/PROGRAMS/HHIhome.HTM.
Higgins, Charlotte. 2003. Behind the scenes at the museum. 
The Guardian. November 27. 
4 1 & 4 2
Hilberry, John D. 2002. Behind the scenes: Strategies for visible
storage. Museum News (July/August):34-40.
History of museums. 2002. Encyclopedia britannica.
http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=127668. 
Holo, Selma Reuben. 1999. Beyond the Prado: Museums and
identity in democratic Spain. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean, ed. 1995. Museum, media, message. 
New York: Routledge. 
Hull, C. Bryson. 2002. Enron ethics manual to be enshrined at
Smithsonian. Yahoo!Finance, February 26. http://biz.yahoo.com/. 
Institute of Museum and Library Services. 2002. Status of
technology and digitization in the nation?s museums and libraries
2002 report. May.
http://www.imls.gov/reports/techreports/intro02.htm.
International Council of Museums. 2001. ICOM code of ethics for
museums. http://icom.museum/ethics.html. 
Janes, Robert R. 1995. Museums and the paradox of change: A
case study in urgent adaptation. Alberta, Calgary, Canada:
Glenbow Museum.
Jha, Alok. 2003. Welcome to the real Natural History Museum. 
The Guardian. October 9, 2003. 
Kavanagh, Gaynor. 1999. Collecting from the era of memory, myth
and delusion. In Museums and the future of collecting, 79-87.
ed. Simon Knell. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Keene, Suzanne. 1994. Less is more. Museums Journal
(November):34-37.
???. 2002. Museums, collections, and people. Managing
conservation in museums, chapter 2. 2d ed. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Kelly, Lynda. 1999. Developing access to collections through
assessing user needs. Paper presented at Museums Australia
Conference, Albury, Australia, May.
Kennard, Desmond. 2002. Contemporary collecting. Newsbrief
(Museums and Galleries Foundation of New South Wales) 4
(4)(September):2.
Kinzer, Stephen. 2002. Museum?s goal: Save the world?s wild places. 
New York Times. November 5.
Knell, Simon J., ed. 1999a. Museums and the future of collecting. 
Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
??? . 1999b. What future collecting? In Museums and the
future of collecting, 3-35. ed. Simon Knell. Brookfield, VT: 
Ashgate Publishing Company.
LeBlanc, F. 2003. Field trip report. The Getty Conservation Institute.
http://www.icomos.org/~fleblanc/projects/p_gci_ftr_2003chile-
argentina.pdf.
Levin, Miriam R. 2002. Museums and the democratic order. Wilson
Quarterly 26 (1) (Winter). http://web18.epnet.com/citation.
Lord, Barry, Gail Dexter Lord, and John Nicks. 1989. The cost of
collecting. London: Her Majesty?s Stationery Office.
Lubar, Steven, and Kathleen M. Kendrick. 2001. Legacies:
Collecting America?s history at the Smithsonian. Washington DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Madden, Mary. 2003. America?s online pursuits: The changing
picture of who?s online and what they do. Pew Internet & American
Life Project. December 22. http://www.pewinternet.org/index.asp.
Malaro, Marie C. 1997. Deaccessioning ? the American
perspective. In A deaccession reader, 39-49. ed. Stephen Weil.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
???. 1998. A legal primer on managing museum
collections. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Mangerie, Tony A. 2003. Digital asset management presentation to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer and others. 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. September 22.
Mayo, Edith. 1981. In Twentieth-century popular culture in
museums and libraries. ed. Fred E. H. Schroeder. 
Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press. 
Miller, Steven H. 1997. Selling items from museum collections. In
A deaccession reader, 51-61. ed. Stephen Weil. Washington, DC:
American Association of Museums.
M?ller, Klaus. 2002. Going global: Reaching out for the online
visitor. Museum News (September/October):46-53.
Munday, Val. 2002. Guidelines for establishing, managing, and
using handling collections and hands on exhibits in museums,
galleries and children?s centres.
http://www.mla.gov.uk/action/stewardship/00stew.asp.
Muse. 1990. Issue on the great deaccessioning debate. 8
(2)(August.) 
Museums Journal (UK). 1991. Issue on disposal. (September.) 
???. 1996. Issue with several articles on disposal. (July.)
Museum News. 1990. Issue on the debate over deaccessioning.
(March/April.) 
Nairne, Sandy. 2002. Collaboration and rationalisation. Submitted
to Re:Source, June 10, 2001. London. www.mla.gov.uk.
NASA seeks advice about displaying pieces of Columbia. 2003.
DallasNews.com from Associated Press. August 26.
National Academy of Public Administration. 2001. Study of the
Smithsonian Institution?s Repair, Restoration, and Alteration of
Facilities Program. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public
Administration.
National Museum Directors? Conference (NMDC). 2002.
International dimensions. London: National Museum Directors?
Conference. 
???. 2003. Too much stuff? Disposal from museums. 
London: National Museum Directors? Conference. 
National Museum of Australia. 1996. Collections development
framework. Canberra, September. (Photocopy.)
Natural Science Collections Alliance. 2003. Alliance Gazette
(Spring):2-4.
Neal, Arminta. 1980. Collecting for history museums:
Reassembling our splintered existence. Museum News
(May/June):24-27, 29.
Niemeyer, Alex, Minsok H. Pak, and Sanjay E. Ramaswamy. 2003. 
Smart tags for your supply chain. The McKinsey Quarterly (4).
Pearce, M. Susan. 1992. Museums, objects, and collections: A
cultural study. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 
Perry, Richard L. 1988. Dipping into the current: Collecting
artifacts of the recent past. In my opinion. History News 43 (1)
(January/February):31, 33-34. 
Pes, Javier. 2002. Open storage special: Reserve judgement. 
Museum Practice 19 (7):50-55.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. 2003. Internet use by
region in the United States. August 27.
http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/.
Price, Laura, and Abby Smith. 2000. Managing cultural assets
from a business perspective. Washington, DC: Council on Library
and Information Resources.
Re: Source [formerly Museums and Galleries Commission, and as
of 2004 The Museums, Libraries, and Archives Council,
www.mla.gov.uk]. 1995. Registration scheme for museums and
galleries in the United Kingdom. Registration guidelines. 
1.2: Use of the title ?national? museum. London.
??? . 2003a. The designation scheme for museums, archives
and libraries. Draft for consultation. London. 
??? . 2003b. Registration scheme for museums and galleries:
Registration standard. Draft for consultation. London. March. 
Rewald, John. 1997. Should Hoving be deaccessioned? In A
deaccession reader. ed. Stephen Weil. Washington, DC: American
Association of Museums.
Rubenstein, Harry. 1985. Collecting for tomorrow: Sweden?s
contemporary documentation program. Museum News (August).
Ruiz, Cristina. 2003. Profile of Andrew Lloyd-Webber, as his
collection goes on show. News section.
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/.
4 3 & 4 4
Saffo, Paul. 1994. It?s the context, stupid. Wired 2.03 (March).
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/context.html.
Scoble, Malcolm J. 1997. Natural history museums and the
biodiversity crisis: The case for a global taxonomic facility. 
Museum International 49 (4).
Shelton, Sally. 2000. Report of FY2000 collections profiling project.
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.
Washington DC.
Silv?n, ?va. 1998. Samdok. Contemporary research in Swedish
museums. Samdok. Stockholm. April 1. 
Silv?n-Garnert, ?va. 1995. Objects in the world and objects in
museums. Nordisk Museologi 2:123-30.
http://www.umu.se/nordic.museology/NM/952/ESGarnert.html.
Simmons, John. 1993. Natural history collections management in
North America. Journal of Biological Curation 1 (N3/4, 1991-
92):1-17.
Smithsonian Institution. 1947. Proceedings of the annual
meeting of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution,
17 January, 1947. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
??? . 1977a. CPM report. Vol. 1 Findings and
recommendations. Report on a collections policy and management
study. Washington, DC. August 31. 
??? . 1977b. CPM report. Vol. 2 Background information.
Report on a collections policy and management study. Washington,
DC. August 31. 
???. 1977c. A report on the management of collections in the
museums of the Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC.
September 26. 
???. 2001. Smithsonian Directive 600 collections
management. Washington, DC.: October 26. 
???. 2003a. Building a Smithsonian for the future.
Smithsonian Institution strategic plan 2004-2008. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution, March.
???. 2003b. Smithsonian Institution performance plan fiscal
year 2005. Washington, DC. September. (Draft.)
Smithsonian Institution. Authorized collecting units. Various
dates. Collections management policies. 
Smithsonian Institution. Committee on Compensation and Human
Resources. n.d. The Smithsonian workforce: Challenges for the 21st
century. Washington, DC.
Smithsonian Institution. Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum.
2001. Strategic plan for collections 2001-2005. New York.
November 29.
Smithsonian Institution. National Museum of American History.
2003. Collections analysis ? phase I draft of June 12, 2003.
Washington, DC. (Photocopy.)
Smithsonian Institution. National Museum of Natural History.
1984. Collections management policy. Washington, DC. 
February 15.
Smithsonian Institution. Office of the Chief Information Officer.
2003. Smithsonian information technology plan FY2003-FY2008.
Washington, DC. April. http://prism.si.edu/ocio/sitp.htm.
Smithsonian Institution. Office of Equal Employment and Minority
Affairs. Various years. Equal employment reports. Washington,
DC.
Smithsonian Institution. Office of Facilities Engineering and
Operations. Office of Facilities Services. 2000. Smithsonian space
use by category and building. Washington, DC. September. 
Smithsonian Institution. Office of Policy and Analysis. 2002. 21st
century roles of national museums: A conversation in progress. 
Washington, DC: OP&A.
Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Center for Materials
Research and Education. 2002. RELACT reference materials.
http://www.si.edu/scmre/relact/relact2.htm.
Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution Archives.
National Collections Program. 2003a. Collections management
assessment report. Washington, DC: National Collections
Program. May. 
???. 2003b. Smithsonian Directive (SD) 600 Collections
management. Implementation manual. Washington, DC. 
October 22. (Draft.) 
???. 2003c. 2002 collections statistics. Washington, DC:
National Collections Program. 
Smithsonian Institution Council. 1997. 1996 Smithsonian
Institution Council report. Smithsonian Institution Archives,
Washington, DC. January 28. (Photocopy.)
???. 2003. Office of Policy and Analysis staff notes from
Smithsonian Institution Council meeting of October 30-31, 2003.
Washington, DC.
Sola, Tomislav. 1999. Redefining collecting. In Museums and the
future of collecting, 187-96. ed. Simon Knell. 
Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Statutes at large of the United States of America, 1789-1873. 17
vols. Vol. 9, 102-06. An act to establish the ?Smithsonian
Institution,? for increase and diffusion of knowledge among
men. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Stone, Ann. 2002. Treasures in the basement? An analysis of
collection utilization in art museums. Diss. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Graduate School.
Suarez, Andrew V., and Neil D. Tsutsui. The value of museum
collections for research and society. BioScience 54 (1)(January).
Suchanic, Angela C. 1993. Smithsonian Institution initial needs
assessment: Collections management. Prepared for the Office of
Planning and Budget. December 29. (Photocopy.)
Tait, Simon. 2003. Maritime museum floats the idea of tactical
dispersal. Times (London), August 25. 
http://80-Web.lexis-nexis.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/universe/printdoc. 
Talley, M. Kirby, Jr. 1999. The delta plan: A nationwide rescue
operation. Museum International (1) (January-March):11-15. 
Taylor, Lonn W., ed. 1987. A common agenda for history
museums. Conference proceedings. February 19-20. American
Association for State and Local History and the Smithsonian
Institution. Nashville, TN: American Association for State and 
Local History. 
Thomson, Keith S. 2001. Collections and research. Submitted to
Re:Source May 15, 2001.
http://www.resource.gov.uk/information/policy/collectionrsch.asp.
Today for tomorrow. Museum documentation of contemporary
society in Sweden by acquisition of objects. 1980. Samdok.
Stockholm: Nordiska Museet. 
United Kingdom. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 1999.
Collection storage excellence study. Efficiency and effectiveness of
government-sponsored museums and galleries. Measurement and
improvement. London: DCMS. September. 
United Kingdom Maritime Collections Strategy (UKMCS). 2002.
UKMCS Working Group Minutes.
http://www.ukmcs.org.uk/directors/16.01.2002_ukmcs_working_g
roup_minutes.htm.
United States. Department of the Interior. 2003. FY 2002
Performance and accountability report.
http://www.doi.gov/pfm/par2002.
???. 2004. FY 2003 performance and accountability
report. http://www.doi.gov/pfm/par2003.
United States Congress. House of Representatives. 2004. H.R. 2691.
An act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004
and for other purposes. 108th Congress, 1st sess. 
University of Nebraska State Museum. n.d. Mission statement.
www.museum.unl.edu/mission/html.
van der Weiden, Wim. 2003. Opinion. Museum Practice
(Summer):11.
Villano, Matt. 2003. Dewey goes digital. Digital Libraries (June
2003). http://www.universitybusiness.com.
Vogel, Carol. 2002. Museums team up to foot the bill and find the
space. New York Times. October 17. http://www.nytimes.com/.
Wadum, J?rgen. 2003. Conservation at the crossroads. Focus (2).
Washburn, Wilcomb. 1968. Are museums necessary? Opinion. 
Museum News (October):9-10. 
Weil, Stephen E. 1990. Rethinking the museum. Museum News
(March/April):57-61.
4 5 & 4 6
??? . 1995. Introduction. In A cabinet of curiosities:
Inquiries into museums and their prospects, xiii-xxii.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 
??? . 1997a. Deaccessioning in American museums: I. In A
deaccession reader, 63-70. ed. Stephen E. Weil. Washington, DC:
American Association of Museums.
???. 1997b. The deaccession cookie jar. In A deaccession
reader, 87-91. ed. Stephen E. Weil. Washington, DC: American
Association of Museums.
???. ed. 1997c. A deaccession reader. Washington, DC:
American Association of Museums.
Wheeler, Quentin D., Peter H. Raven, and Edward O. Wilson. 2004.
Taxonomy: Impediment or expedient? Science 303 (January 16). 
Whiting, Rick. 2002. Museums exhibit sharing tendencies. 
Information Week. March 11.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020307S0010.
Wilson, David M. 1984. National museums. In Manual of
curatorship: A guide to museum practice. London: Butterworths.
Wright, David. 2002. On the right track. Museum Practice 19 
(March):52-55.
Wright, Thomas. 1996. Collections and attractions: Whence
collections in the age of the ?experience.? In Clio in museum
garb: The National Museum of American History, the Science
Museum and the History of Technology. Science museum 
papers in the history of technology No. 4. Session given at 
SHOT ?96. London. 
PHOTO CREDITS
? Cover: Key Marco Cat, Southwestern Florida, AD 1450, National
Museum of Natural History, photo by Victor Krantz, 1977. ? p. v:
George Washington ?Lansdowne Portrait? by Gilbert Stuart, oil
on canvas, 1796, National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian
Institution, acquired as a gift to the nation through the generosity
of the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation. ? p. viii: Abhimanyu
Hunting in a Forest, from a Mahabharata, South Asian, ca. 1885,
opaque watercolor on paper, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, purchase,
S1990.73.  ? p. 1: Thomas Alva Edison light bulb, National
Museum of American History. ? p. 2: Dinosaur skull
(Dunkleosteous), National Museum of Natural History, photo by
Chip Clark, 1986. ? p. 3: George Washington?s uniform, National
Museum of American History, photo by Jeff Tinsley, 2000. p. 5:
Malachite (from Shaba, Democratic Republic of Congo), National
Museum of Natural History, photo by Laurie Minor-Penland, 1995.
? p. 7: Calendarium, Joannes Regiomontanus (1463-76),
woodcuts of lunar eclipses, Incunabula Collection, Smithsonian
Institution Libraries. ? p. 8: L'art de la co?ffure des dames
fran?oises [The art of coiffure for French ladies], Sieur Legros,
nouvelle edition, Paris: Chez Anotoine Boudet, 1768, Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum, TT956.L519 1768, CHMRB. ? p. 9:
Magnolia, Mark Catesby (1682-1749), The Natural History of
Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands, London: for the
author, 1731-43 [1729-48], 2 vols., Smithsonian Institution
Libraries, gift of Marcia Brady Tucker. ? p. 10: Singer sewing
machine, 1890-1910 Egyptian design, National Museum of
American History, photo by Richard Strauss, 2003. ? pp. 11-12:
Sheep and Goat (detail), Zhao Mengfu (1254-1322), Chinese, ca.
1300, handscroll, ink on paper, Freer Gallery of Art, purchase,
F1931.4. ? p. 13: Antique cash register, National Museum of
American History, photo by Laurie Minor-Penland, 1989. ? p. 14:
Hunkpapa Lakota eagle-feather headdress, North Dakota, worn by
Chief Rain in the Face, 1884-85, National Museum of the
American Indian, photo by Walter Larrimore, 20/1419. ? p. 15:
Red Group (3 vessels), Dante Marioni, blown glass, 1995, Renwick
Gallery of the Smithsonian American Art Museum, gift of the James
Renwick Alliance. ? p. 16: Owls in the Castle tower, 1977,
Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 371, Box 2, folder
June 1977, #96-929. ? p. 17: Waves at Matsushima, Towaraya
Sotatsu, fl. ca.1600-43, Japanese, Edo period, 17th century, screen,
ink color, gold, and silver on paper, Freer Gallery of Art, gift of
Charles Lang Freer, F1906.231. ? p. 18: Flamingo, National
Zoological Park, photo by Jessie Cohen. ? p. 19: Man with
Overcoat and Cane, 1933, Conrado Massaguer, graphite and ink,
Abril Lamarque papers, Archives of American Art. ? p. 20: Iris
Louise McPhetridge Thaden, Louise McPhetridge Thaden
Collection, National Air and Space Museum (SI 89-22007). ?
p. 21: Head (wankenge), Lega peoples, Democratic Republic of
Congo, early-mid-20th century, ivory, resin, cowrie shells, National
Museum of African Art, bequest of Eliot Elisofon, 73-7-315, photo
by Franko Khoury ? p. 22: Raven Steals the Sun, blown glass,
Preston Singletary, Tlingit, Seattle, Washington, 2003, National
Museum of the American Indian, photo by Ernest Amoroso,
26/3273. ? p. 23: Ryan NYP ?Spirit of St. Louis,? National Air and
Space Museum, photo by Dane A. Penland, 1979. ? p. 24: Top hat
of Abraham Lincoln, National Museum of American History, photo
by Richard Strauss, 1995. ? p. 25: Space shuttle Enterprise,
National Air and Space Museum, photo by Eric F. Long (SI 2000-
9349). ? p. 27: Asafo flag (frankaa), Kweku Kakanu, born ca.
1910, Fante peoples, Ghana, ca. 1935, commercial cotton cloth,
National Museum of African Art, museum purchase, 88-10-1,
photo by Franko Khoury. ? p. 28: Sketch, Romare Bearden, c.
1976, pen and ink, Romare Bearden papers, Archives of American
Art. ? p. 29: Bulbophyllum robustum ?Castle,? Orchid
Collection, Horticulture Services Division, photo by Karen Miles. ?
p. 30 (top): Marine shell (Spondylus regius, Japan), National
Museum of Natural History, photo by Carl C. Hansen, 1995. ?
p. 30 (bottom): Rainbow People, Lloyd G. McNeill, Anacostia
Museum and Center for African American History and Culture,
photo by Steven M. Cummings. ? p. 31: 1948-C (1948), Clyfford
Still, American, 1904-80, oil on canvas, Hirshhorn Museum and
Sculpture Garden, Joseph H. Hirshhorn Purchase Fund, 1992
(92.8). ? p. 32 (top): Historia naturalis, beginning of Book 1,
Pliny the Elder, Incunabula Collection, Smithsonian Institution
Libraries. ? p. 32 (bottom): Sumatran tiger cub, National
Zoological Park, photo by Jessie Cohen. ? p. 33 (top): Black neck
swan and gosling, National Zoological Park, photo by Jessie Cohen.
? p. 33 (bottom): 34-cent Langston Hughes stamp, Smithsonian
National Postal Museum. ? p. 34 (top): Ka?apor man?s feathered
headdress, Rio Gurupi, Canind?, Brazil, c. 1960, National Museum
of the American Indian, photo by Ernest Amoroso, 23/3283. ?
p. 34 (bottom): Violin/banjo/fiddle beetle (Mormolyce phyllodes:
Carabidae, SE Asia), National Museum of Natural History, photo by
Carl C. Hansen, 1995. ? p. 35: Kandula, born November 25, 2001,
and mother, Asian elephants, National Zoological Park, photo by
Jessie Cohen. ? p. 36: Woman, a baby and a young girl,
Katsukawa Shunsho (1726-92), Japanese, Edo Period, hanging
scroll, ink, color and gold on silk, Japan, Freer Gallery of Art, gift of
Charles Lang Freer, F1898.104. ? p. 37: Lightning Strikes, blown
glass, by Tony Jojola (Isleta Pueblo), New Mexico, ca. 1990,
National Museum of the American Indian, photo by Ernest
Amoroso, 25/4780. ? p. 38: Point of Tranquility (1959-60), Morris
Louis (1912-62), American, magna on canvas, Hirshhorn Museum
and Sculpture Garden, gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966 (66.3111).
? p. 39: One-dollar colonial rush lamp and candle holder stamp,
with brown candleholder inverted, 1986, Smithsonian National
Postal Museum. 

OFFICE OF POLICY AND ANALYSIS
WASHINGTON, DC 20560-0405