I have just arrived back in China for one of my regular trips in my role as Confucius Institute director for Heriot-Watt University. The sheer scale of heritage sites, cultural parks and the effect that scale has on heritage management practice never ceases to fascinate me particularly from the air as I arrive in Beijing. Sadly I didn’t have my camera to hand on this trip as the plane banked around the city from north to south to bring me in to the new Daxing airport, but the visibility was good enough to again identify stretches of the Great Wall to the north, and then a number of urban parks and cultural sites as we got closer to our landing point. Regardless of differences in management philosophies for heritage between the west and the east, one of the major factors that we sometimes fail to really appreciate is the sheer scale for heritage conservation which China faces in both the rural and urban landscape.
The Built Environment Forum Scotland (BEFS) recently ran a workshop to explore aspects of prioritisation within the heritage sector. This was related to a Historic Environment Scotland work stream arising from a pledge within the last SNP Manifesto to explore funding priorities for public monies within the historic built environment, in order to ensure the dwindling pot of available public monies go to where they are most needed / effective. The workshop also allied to a decade-old collaborative thought experiment which I have been undertaking in a slightly ad hoc way with Dr Simon Gilmour, Director of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. This has, over an extended period, sought to investigate scenario planning approaches and long-term horizon scanning (sometimes called futurology) for the sector. The use and applicability of such futures-oriented approaches are intimately linked through policy direction and strategic organisational intentions to funding streams and decision-making mechanisms. They also try to understand the how and why organisations behave in the way they do, responding to external drivers affecting their operational and policy environments. This in turn affects the way they interact with each other; and collectively across organisations, the way the sector as as whole focuses its attention on specific issues at certain points in time.
Details of the recent workshop and the resultant discussion are reported elsewhere via the usual BEFS communication channels, but in reflecting on the day, and via wider discussion within the workshop co-ordinating team, it is worth trying to step back and consider macro-challenges which will influence the prioritisation debate as it moves forward. Bringing together the sector to try and create a matrix of funding priorities sounds entirely reasonable as an effective tactical response within a wider strategic movement to prioritise what we do with an asset base which we cannot realistically look after in its entirety. Sector wide applicability of a single tool, or even agreement of a single approach to using a flexible toolkit in organisations with different aims and priorities, divergent stakeholder views, and widely varied interests in sub-sets of the heritage asset base may be too big a challenge to contemplate in practice though. But, if theoretically it is a good idea, what really stops us from doing it?
The reasons we can’t are complex and relate to organisational and stakeholder autonomy, and a set of behaviours, both individual and organisational, which can hardwire nervousness of the unacceptability of monolithic behaviour; instil worry about a democratic deficit in decision-making; exacerbate tensions to do with perceptions of exclusivity and inclusivity; and worry about the prospect of change with foreseen or unforeseen consequences that we don’t like the sound of, even before we know what it might be.
Individually and collectively within the sector we already recognise a wide set of macro level issues both as consideration or sometimes as threat: these include issues like climate change, stakeholder inclusion and emergent ideas like intergenerational equity. We are already thinking and discussing the ways in which they may affect the historic environment generally and how we can incorporate them or mitigate against them, and thus protect assets we want to save and/or pass to the next generation. We also already conceptualise and manage the micro issues, on a daily basis within our personal and organisational forms – as professionals and agents / having agency within a specific sector forming part of a bigger ecosystem of planning and managing the environment around us. The mid-range, however, that gap between the big concepts and the micro objects/actions – the realm of behavioural systems – is one that we still struggle with, and I would argue that in order to move things forward collective both better understanding of behaviours, and subtle behaviour change is perhaps the next strategic challenge to engage with.
What do I mean by ‘behaviour change’ as a strategic approach? Well, listening to the various stakeholders expressing their views in the prioritisation discussion, I was struck by the thoughtful and deeply analytical ways in which all of the individuals present engaged with the process of sifting ideas on the heritage asset base and its need, and by consequence where/how we might prioritise that need. Alternative views on issues were chewed over; viewpoints were balanced; and ultimately, consensus was reached collectively within the room, perhaps surprisingly, with many items flagged for higher or lower prioritisation. What we didn’t do however was fully articulate why we individually, organisationally, and ultimately collectively, took particular stances, and how those stances might have changed or might change in any period of time. We didn’t put ourselves in others’ shoes (professionally), as we perhaps assumed we understood the stance of an architect versus a planner, or an archaeologist versus an advocator implicitly. I would argue that assumed implicit understanding or tacit knowledge holds us back, as our professional and organisational identities still mask and influence what we say or are prepared to say to foreground motivations for our behaviour in the present. For example, why as an academic in the workshop did I de-prioritise the funding for academic study in the matrix? Why did nobody challenge me on this? What was I thinking? Was I betraying my own profession, or was I making a stance as part of a projected persona, trying to be some kind of enfant terrible of the afternoon, disrespecting something I should be defending to the hilt?
I am not saying we need to laboriously psychoanalyse the way we talk about and respond in our professional consideration of heritage in workshop situations, but I do think that we might explore our behaviour in order to better recognise and articulate our individual and corporate behaviours. In essence we need to be much clearer about the ‘mid range’ linkage between individual stakeholders and the big issues. We need to be much more open about the tacit knowledge we use, that which isn’t codified. We need to re-identify and flag the drivers which influence us individually and corporately, and how these have changed and will change again. Organisational and professional expectations (whether it is related to professional standards or institutional mission) affect subtly the way in which individuals collectively discuss, disagree and arrive at consensus. These influences change over time, and what was foremost in our individual or organisational mindsets at the time of writing Our Place in Time (for example), may not be the most pressing issues to address now. I don’t think we would have had a workshop outcome of consensus in the same way a couple of years ago, or longer – so what has caused us to behave in this way right now?
Discussion abounded in the room about what we did care about and what is of less interest. I think we need to be bolder and braver about admitting what and why things do and don’t concern us any more, and how the concerns change subtly but relatively quickly from one year to the next. A broader consideration of the way in which we frame our responses to consultations, and foregrounding the current drivers which affect the way in which we engage with heritage issues would, I think, help to bridge the micro and the macro – to build and articulate better the ‘mid range’ thinking which links the consideration of the day to day operational challenges against the grand challenges which the wider world faces, and where we try to deploy effective management of the historic environment in order to add value to the world we live in, and explain fully the decisions we make now for those that come after.
Additional note 24/1/19 – This blog post also appears on the Built Environment Forum Scotland website: https://www.befs.org.uk/latest/behaviour-change-as-strategy/
Journal summary: IJAM is a non-profit project, published by HEC Montréal’s Carmelle and Rémi Marcoux Chair in Arts Management. HEC Montréal is the oldest business school in Canada, and is affiliated with the University of Montreal.
The journal offers insight into management processes, and the ways in which arts organizations operate within the various disciplines of management, including marketing, human resources, finance, accounting, production and operation processes, and administration;
identifies and encourages the development of best practices in the management of culture and the arts, and promotes their use through the publication of case studies and analyses;
addresses current issues of key relevance to cultural and arts organizations in a rigorous and detailed fashion;
presents studies, measurements, and other empirical research in the field of arts and cultural management;
provides a forum for challenging and debating coherent theories and models, as well as their application in cultural and arts practice.
Publisher: HEC Montreal
Journal type: Academic peer-reviewed
Journal summary: Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites (CMAS) was launched in 1995 and focuses on both theoretical and practical issues in heritage site management and conservation. Peer-reviewed papers from around the world report on new thinking and best practice in site management and conservation. CMAS also publishes short comments, conference, book and website reviews, and lists relevant new publications.
Topics covered include:
- Cultural, social, ethical and theoretical issues in archaeological site management and conservation
- Site management
- Historical documentation and condition reporting
- Site deterioration and environmental monitoring
- Preventative conservation, including reburial and protective sheltering of sites
- Building materials analysis and treatment
- Restoration and reconstruction of buildings
- Visitor management and sustainable tourism
- Site interpretation
- National and international legislation and charters
Access: Subscription; some open-access articles
Journal type: Academic peer-reviewed
The latest edition of the IoD’s Director magazine for Dec15/Jan16, as usual, has got me thinking about the implicit and explicit role of heritage and the historic environment within the corporate world of business and management. Quite apart from my own identification with the idea of an ‘obsession statement‘ rather than a mission statement advocated by Lord Allen (pictured on the front cover of the magazine) – where I suppose mine would be, “heritage is fundamentally linked to management – through people, places and products” – many of the articles and ideas draw on inspiration, ideas and understandings that professionals in the heritage world associate with daily. A few examples from this month’s edition which cross the historic environment, civic realm and business boundaries include:
- The business of the Bard – recognising the boost for brand Shakespeare in 2016 as the 400th anniversary of his death approaches (the success of the Globe theatre; tourism in Stratford and the surrounding area; RSC events and international artistic reach)
- 2016 identified by Next Big Thing’s CEO, William Higham, as the year of tech/life balance – where authentic environments; the rise of the retro; traditionalist lifestyles and village life are seen as attractive touchpoints
- Review of Erin Meyer‘s ‘The Culture Map’, advocating better business via better intercultural management through understanding of anthropological contexts and local values
- American Express supporting independent businesses through the ‘Shop Small‘ campaign
- The resurgence of of Madrid, as businesses recognise not only the business opportunities, but the cultural and civic opportunities of the historic city
- The IoD’s own economic predictions for 2016 and beyond stating that ‘pretty cities prosper’ – noting that, ‘one of the most important [factors] is the existence of an amenable built environment… Physical environments matter and high-value-adding workers who can choose where they work will gravitate to aesthetically pleasing towns. That such towns will find they can support a greater range of cultural activities and amenities will only add to the positive spiral such a situation creates.’
Back in 2010, as part of a long-standing research collaboration with Dr Simon Gilmour (Director of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland), I hosted a workshop for the Built Environment Forum Scotland (BEFS) on scenario planning. The underlying issue, which has not gone away, is that many historic environment organisations don’t fully engage with the the philosophy and tools of management as a subject in its own right. I would argue that this is still the case (and gave a talk on this in our Heritage Futures Seminar Series at UCS last year): to some extent I am a bit of a broken record on this front, perhaps not surprising given my role as head of the University’s business school. However, in preparing a reflection on the future of the historic environment in Scotland for a fascinating project entitled “Visions, Irrespective“, being co-ordinated by Ann Packard and Deborah Mays within the RSA Fellows’ Media, Creative Industries and Cultural Heritage Special Interest Group (MCICH), I dug out the visions of the future which Simon and I authored at the turn of the last decade. It is interesting to consider what has already come to pass, what is in the offing, and what may yet be on the horizon. The scenarios are reproduced below, and can also be found within the BEFS Workshop Report. The “Visions, Irrespective” project of which more anon, is providing a useful discussion platform within the RSA on what the future of culture in Scotland might be, post referendum, ideas for development, and inter/intra-professional debate. Heritage and the historic environment, both tangible and intangible, are being touched on from a range of cultural angles, and in a world (Scotland) where there are seismic changes underway to the management and organisation of the sector, before the even more seismic changes that might occur to the country itself, it is proving fascinating to consider possibilities and opportunities. I will post the full vision/reflection at a future date, when the physical conversations have moved on a little, and we will work on some updated scenario stories to reflect the horizon scanning we continue to ponder over.
Scenarios for Scotland’s Historic Environment Sector 
Authors: Prof. Ian Baxter & Dr Simon Gilmour (Society of Antiquaries of Scotland)
[Extract from BEFS / GCU Workshop Report: Scotland’s Historic Environment – Visioning the Future. August 2010]
2025 is a year of expectation
Scottish Government expenditure finally reached 2009-10 levels after a period of unprecedented change in the public sector while the private sector crawled slowly from the double-dip recession of 2009-2011. The referendum on independence of 2012 didn’t quite reach the majority required, but stimulated much greater fiscal responsibility being passed from Westminster to the Scottish Government, and the overarching economic environment drove successive governments into similar strategies. In addition, population reduction in Scotland has increased wage bills and reduced tax income while also reducing unemployment and spare time! Renewable energy and food production for export has brought wind turbines into the arable land which has, in turn, through increasing temperatures, wetter weather and reduction of seasonality, increased production both year round and into upland areas. The problem of soil enrichment is fast becoming a major topic, with genetic manipulation in plant and enzyme development helping to maintain production. The competition between the timber plantation landscapes of the decade after 2010 and the new upland arable landscapes has intensified. The seas around the coasts of Scotland are populated by massive wind and wave production projects, which, when coupled with the introduction of the Marine Act has helped to produce a relatively vibrant inshore area, with artificial reefs and protected areas encouraging plants and animals and the density of development discouraging large-scale trawl fishing.
The new public sector, with increased emphasis on the end-user, or citizen, has benefited greatly from the technological developments of the last 10 years, with permanent high-speed online wireless access available anywhere in Scotland. The citizen can not only access their personal information and Socialbook environment, but the new iDevice can let them see their location on Head Up Displays in any time period they wish, with full access to all the online publications relating to that location, or proposed location, with immediate booking of the nearest available transport infrastructure or accommodation with the wave of a hand. Seamlessly overlaying the real world with data from past worlds has brought the citizen into immediate contact with the complexity of their history and has promoted as strong sense of identity which is providing encouragement for the upcoming new referendum on Scottish independence, with re-aligned borders.
Having this access to a historical virtual reality has helped to solidify the importance of the historic environment in the minds of citizens and politicians. The last minute Stage 3 introduction to the Historic Environment (Amendment)(Scotland) Bill in 2011 of the need for planning decisions to take account of historic environment expertise derived from information managed to place a solid foundation for the drastic changes forced onto the public sector, local authorities and voluntary organisations during the unprecedented public sector cuts of the 2010s. The sector landscape changed and new organisations were created, all to ensure the provision of heritage advice against strict financial pressure. The merging of Local Authorities was paralleled with the creation of a new Heritage Scotland. This body works closely with all public organisations and the general citizen, ensuring a consistent standard of advice and professionalism across Scotland and undertaking the provision of expert heritage advice to all through its regionally organised operations. Formed by the merger of parts of Historic Scotland, the RCAHMS and the inclusion of the services previously provided by multiple Local Authorities, the new quango represents the whole historic environment, treating all areas of the past, protected and unprotected, on land and under the water, equally, and applying national and regional criteria to any decision making process. Their recording teams assess entire landscapes and are about to complete the five year high-resolution mapping of the landscape and underseascape of Scotland in conjunction with the renewable energy companies.
Visit Scotland has completed the merger of Visit Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland and the properties formerly in the care of Scottish Ministers, to provide, in collaboration with advice from Heritage Scotland, a well-maintained cultural landscape that forms the centrepoint of the visitor experience. Close ties between the new national bodies has allowed the development of the data underpinning the new technology for the citizen and expert alike, and has facilitated an unprecedented degree of access to Scotland’s past by the rest of the world.
The voluntary sector worked hard to maintain some semblance of third party oversight to these changes in a period of declining voluntary time and public money, and increasing commercial desperation. Politicians and Government, seeing the necessity to stimulate the economy in any way possible, encouraged rapid development wherever it appeared possible; the third sector fought for the legislative addition to the Amendment Bill, then closely scrutinised the development of the new bodies to ensure the historic environment was not put in jeopardy during the changes. Increased community involvement however, despite the lack of formal volunteering time for experts, has stimulated a wave of projects, excited by the new technologies and working in close partnership with the newly created bodies, which are providing detailed records and greater understanding of the historic environment than would be possible by the national organisations alone.
The University sector, having reduced history, archaeology, conservation and similar themes to one-man bands clinging onto Scientific Schools are beginning to invest again in the culture of heritage, with a clear understanding of the needs of the citizen in terms of trained experts who can analyse, understand and convey importance of the past to them. In partnership with the commercial heritage companies who survived the double-dip through the planning conditions applied to developments by the new Heritage Scotland, and thriving in the period of increased sustainable development thereafter, the Universities train the new heritage managers of tomorrow in the twin skills of on-site recording and understanding, with the minutiae of value led management of the historic environment.
Having been through an extended period of unprecedented change, the face of the historic environment sector has changed completely, but the sector survived, and is looking forward to a new era of prosperity with more development and change inevitable, but a clear purpose to pass on the heritage of Scotland to our children, and their children’s children.
Alternative Scenario for 2025
While public finance has finally reached 2009-10 levels again, there has been a real cost to the historic environment in the intervening years. The pressure on the landscape and seascape placed by forestry and then sustainable energy has wiped much of the historic character from our countryside and the unfettered development required to dig the economy out of the double-dip recession has changed the face of our cities. Having access to a historical virtual reality through the development of technology has proven crucial given the destruction of the historic environment in the years around 2015, when no-one was able to defend the sense of place defined by the physical history around them. The landscape changed in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, with education replacing recording and protection of the historic environment. The informed management of change was simply impossible outside the strict legally protected areas, since the advice given in planning decisions was bereft of any expertise or conditions relating to the historic character of the development site and its setting. The spread of woodland and then arable agriculture reduced even the look of the rural landscape to a vague memory of what it used to be. Local accountability, while helping to manage change in areas where this historic past was already valued for its commercial attractiveness, wasn’t able to access the expert advice required to understand the historic environment and the changes about to be wrought, and the value placed on this asset was realised too late, once it had gone, only to be resurrected on a HUD. Central Edinburgh, once a World Heritage Site, now swapped historic place with commercial enterprise, high density, high-rise commercial property dominates the skylines, and many took advantage of the reduced price energy devices being touted by the massive sustainable energy sector to help power their homes and businesses.
In partnership with the two commercial heritage companies still in existence in Scotland, both of which are parts of wider European companies, and many of which disappeared as the planning conditions applied to developments dried up in the face of lack of planning decision expertise in such matters, the Universities train the new heritage managers of tomorrow in the presentation of what is left of the historic environment to the tourism market, hungry for yet more mythologizing about Scotland’s past based on an out-of-date record. The RCAHMS was long-ago subsumed into Historic Scotland to create Heritage Scotland, but the core enterprise of recording sites was soon lost in the rush to try and protect what we already had in the face of mounting pressure from developers and politicians trying desperately to stimulate the economy by whatever means possible. The only legal and practical recourse being those sites defined as Listed or Scheduled, and of these only the absolute best, or nationally important, were actively protected. Anything without a legal basis was fair game, and so the expert advice provided to planning applications, and the wider benefits of community involvement in the past which those experts engendered were lost; World Heritage Site status was lost for many of Scotland’s prize possessions, the Antonine Wall being first to go, followed by Edinburgh, and then New Lanark. The Heart of Neolithic Orkney was on an endangered list and St Kilda, while maintaining its status, simply wasn’t maintained at all, especially after the loss of the National Trust for Scotland as an independent entity in the face of economic and political pressure.
The development of Visit Scotland with the addition of the properties in care of Scottish Ministers and the reduced NTS property portfolio, focused attention on the high earning sites, easy to reach in an era of inflated fuel costs and necessarily requiring bigger and more ambitious gimmicks to “sell” themselves to the tourist, aggravated by a lack of real knowledge on their importance and historic value. The third sector was decimated by the public sector cuts, and the Government finances dried up to the extent that many disappeared, and those that survived did so as 1950‟s-60‟s style one-man-bands with as much voluntary input as the reduced and exhausted Scottish population could provide. Community projects necessarily had to combine, and those that did so early and looked for alternative sources of funding survived, just. The remains of the sector protested loudly at the loss of our historic environment, but it was drowned out by an unprecedented financial context and limited by the lack of expertise left in the sector!
And so the historic environment survives as a three dimensional image on a head-up-display, blogged by Social-books to the extent that the reality is lost to the factoids, the historic environment sector is changed forever.
The next UCS heritage presentation and discussion will be on Tuesday 14th January at 4.30pm. It will be led by Greg Luton, the Planning & Development Director for English Heritage in the East of England Region. He’ll be providing the background on the recent announcement of proposed changes to the Government’s management of the historic environment and national heritage collection, currently undertaken by English Heritage.
Consultation documents have been issued by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport available here. Seminar attendees are encouraged to familiarise themselves with the proposals, and come armed with questions and points for debate.
If you’d like to attend, please register with Julie Barber email: email@example.com / 01473 338181