Have you ever wondered what it would be like to do the same exhibition again? Do the opportunities for avoiding mistakes make it different or better? Well, that’s kind of the situation we ran into recently.

How it all began

Installation of the exhibit “The Collection: 1001 Artifacts to Listen To and Look At”
TECHNOSEUM, picture Klaus Luginsland

In 2010 the museum building needed to take clearing-up measures that ate up much of the budget. But, of course, our visitors still wanted to see something. No money, no staff, no time – was there a solution? Yes, there was. We still had our own collections! Minimum transportation costs, no courier fees, no insurance problems. If we used only storage racks as showcases and archival materials for presentation we didn’t need much exhibition design and could re-use the materials afterwards. The more we thought about it, the more we fell for the idea. As an extra, we could check a large amount of our collection, correct data base entries, maybe retrieve some of the “location unknown“ artifacts and resolve some “found in collections.” To make a long story short, in 2011 we opened “Die Sammlung: 1001 Objekt zum Hören und Sehen“ (The Collection: 1001 Artifacts to Listen To and Look At), a presentation of our collections of radios, TV sets, record players, film projectors, cameras, tape recorders, video recorders… Our visitors loved it!

So, as you can imagine, when it became clear we would repeat the exhibition using our collection of household appliances, we were all excited. And while team spirit during the preparation of the first collection’s exhibition was like manning an expedition ship and sailing into the Great Unknown, this time it was like a soccer match against our former selves: we wanted to make it bigger, better and more colorful than the first time.

Bigger, better and more colorful: The Collection 2.
Picture: Bernd Kießling

Spirit of improvement: Right or left – my position

We knew what worked well last time and so we had a map to follow. But instead of following it slavishly in the spirit of “we always did it that way,“ we followed it in the spirit of improvement.

Working on the testing rack in the storage area: 2 teams worked on different sides.

For example, the first time we had tested all layouts of the artifacts on the shelves beforehand. We had a rack similar to those in the exhibition set up in the storage area, so we could arrange the artifacts until they looked best. Investing in the time to do this during preparation reduces stress during the final installation process. In addition, it’s not important who does the final installation. The positions on the racks are clear, so anybody with experience in artifact handling can do it without taking time thinking about the perfect layout.

After the artifacts were arranged we gave them position numbers on the shelf. The first time we went with directions, so our packing lists looked like this:

Inventory number, object name, rack number, shelf number, left

While this had worked pretty well, we made some observations:

• Positioning with terms like left and right might seem clear on paper, but if you have team members who sometimes confuse left and right (like myself), mistakes in positioning are likely to happen.
• Left, middle and right work well if you only have three radios on the shelf. You can work with more artifacts by inventing terms like “outer left“ and “middle left.” This sounds charming, but impractical.

So we switched to using position numbers from 1 on up, numbering from left to right. Now our packing lists looked like this:

Inventory number, object name, rack number, shelf number, Pos. (for position number) 3

Example: packing list with picture

For the same reason we decided to take an additional step in preparation. The first time we had noted the positions on the shelf only in our data base. This time we took a picture of every shelf layout and wrote the position numbers on it. We attached the picture to every packing list. Now, whoever was positioning the artifacts during installation could use the picture as a reference.

This was only one example of the many things we improved during preparation.

A second loop of improvement

We all worked in “improvement mode“ during preparation and continued that way during installation. We ran into several things we could do better next time.

For example, after we attached the exhibit labels, we took down the inventory cards and collected them. The first time we had collected them all in a box and sorted them by inventory number so that they could be found pretty quickly once one had the inventory number.
Suddenly our student assistant said, “Wait a minute, wouldn’t it be better to collect and store them by rack and shelf number?“

The “Pakenis Maneuver”

We briefly discussed the idea, approved it, and in his honor named it “The Pakenis Maneuver.” From this moment on we collected the inventory cards in zip-lock bags, one for each shelf, with the rack number and shelf number written on them. When we take down the exhibition everybody can grab the bags of the rack she or he has to pack up and is equipped with the appropriate inventory cards.

Another example is the layout pictures. I described how we prepared them and it sounded pretty good to you, didn’t it? Yep, thought so. We were pretty proud of the idea. However, during preparation we realized that it was a good idea, but not the best.

We had a picture attached to every packing list, which wasn’t necessary. Most of the time we simply took the picture from the first box, put it on the shelf and used this picture as a reference. So, in the future we can skip the effort of printing out the picture and attaching it to the packing list. We will print all the pictures immediately before preparation and place them on the corresponding shelves. This will save some paper and ink, too.

Having the position numbers written on the pictures was of help but you had to skip between the picture and the packing list, because you had the inventory number on the artifact and the packing list, but not on the picture. This also led to confusion with similar-looking artifacts on the same shelf. Next time we will also write the inventory numbers on the picture.

Looking at a puppet kitchen…

The art of making mistakes

One thing we realized during preparation and installation was that we ran into mistakes we had already made the first time. Not wanting to admit mistakes is human. Making the same mistake twice is dumb. The main mistake we made last time was not making notes of what didn’t work. So we only improved the things we remembered, while we were forced to repeat the mistakes we forgot.

Being in “improvement mode“ we decided to do it better this time. Every time we realized something that could have been improved upon, someone said, “Stop. Make a note!“ And we did. It didn’t matter if we were standing on ladders, cleaning acrylic glass or attaching labels; someone always took a quick note of what we had realized.

Shortly after the exhibit opening we sat down, collected all our notes and discussed other things we remembered. We will collect them all in one paper, including the things that worked well and that we will definitely do again. This might serve as a reference for upcoming collections exhibitions and even if many of our suggestions are very specific, some might be helpful for other projects, too.

…just a moment, is this a registrar’s kitchen?

Our Score

On February 19 we opened “The Collection 2: The Electrical Household.”

If you have 3D glasses (red-cyan) you can follow our 3D virtual tour. If you haven’t, you may visit our picture gallery.

You may take a look at those two videos from German TV:

http://www.rnf.de/mediathek/kategorie/themenserien/technoseum-mannheim/#.UwoZBYUnYyM

http://www.swr.de/swr4/bw/nachrichten/rhein-neckar/technoseum-in-mannheim-ausstellung-der-ungewoehnlichen-haushaltsgeraete/-/id=258328/did=12909124/nid=258328/m1pgqm/index.html

Installation of the exhibition “The Collection 2: The Electrical Household”
Picture: Bernd Kießling

I said we were like a soccer team playing against our former selves. So, what was the score?

• We showed more artifacts than the first time (1750 against 1639, but the first figure included about 300 archival items, while this exhibition was composed almost entirely of artifacts).
• We had a closer collaboration with our marketing department, resulting in more blog entries, a Christmas tree decorated with household appliances and a Tweetup (#Sammlung2).
• We looked into a greater number of artifact groups and therefore were able to set more data base entries straight.
• Both times, we were done with the basic installation a few days before opening, allowing us to improve some more things immediately.
• Let’s see if we can improve on the number of visitors to the first exhibition, which was 14,400 higher than expected.

But there’s no reason to stop here. When it comes to doing things better, there is no finish line. Next time our rallying cry will be again:

Go, get us!

P.S. During preparation we learned many things (such as: why check shelves before screwing acrylic glass to the front) so there is material for a few more stories on Registrar Trek. Stay tuned!

Like always brought from German English into correct English by Molly Hope.

Working with databases is one of the core responsibilities of a registrar. Often enough, one becomes upset with insufficiencies of the used system. You can imagine my excitement when I learned about the project of Michael Hesemann. He took the effort to develop a web database for his own field of interest, the foraminifera. Voluntarily, only out of enthusiasm for his field and collection. It provides quick access to all relevant information for scientists and collectors around the world. Now, even well-known institutions like the Smithonian and the Geological Survey Austria provide information about their collections of forams there. Read more about the development of this project.
Cheers!
Angela

written by Michael Hesemann, Foraminifera.eu Project, Hamburg

Project Development

In December 2007, I became interested in Foraminifera (aka forams)—not widely known single-cell organisms that have been building delicate internal shells for 540 million years. I was surprised to learn that up to 1/3 of the composition of the cliffs of Dover, Egyptian pyramids, and other examples of stone can be forams. Perhaps just as surprising is the fact that all living forams make up 1% of the earth’s biomass and are therefore more substantial than all mammals.

This is likely the first time you’re hearing about this, which suggests that basic information does not come to light without detailed study, review of the literature, and intense research. Fortunately, I met two foram enthusiasts in Hamburg, who, like Ernst Häkel was back in 1900, had long been interested in the beauty of forams and their rich variety of forms. We decided to photograph our collections and post them on the internet at www.foraminifera.eu.

Getting our images online, arduously taken through a microscope, went really well at first. But within a few weeks, Fabrizio contacted us, an Italian scientist offering to contribute 100 SEM (scanning electron microscope) images. Suddenly there were 250 images, which meant we had to sort them somehow and make them easily accessible. We realized we would need to develop a concept that could also accommodate 2500 images.

Or Own Database Concept Was Inevitable!

The concept of databases used by large museums, scientific institutions, and online databases like EOL or WoRMS turned out to be uni-dimensionally tailored to taxonomy and numbering. Don’t foraminifera have more information to offer? And what did we want from the collection as users? Considerable inconsistencies among datasets, a lack of illustrations, and clumsy interfaces seemed less than satisfactory.

Our Multidimensional Database Concept with Consistent Categories

Our philosophy is that a collection should make its objects easily accessible to everyone, from the absolute layman to the most highly specialized scientist. Every kind of object—in our case, foram shells—carries with it a variety of information. In a database, we’re limited to categories of information that apply to nearly any other object or can be researched with a reasonable amount of effort. For analysis, a high level of data consistency is essential.

With forams, consistent categories are taxonomy, morphology, locality, era (geologic), reference citations, dataset relevance, and collector information. Whether the habitat (ecological niche) can be consistently provided is debatable.

User-oriented Access

The user should be able to easily and reliably retrieve all available information by means of an easy-to-use interface. This necessitates the following:

• Each object must be represented by realistic illustrations (drawings, photos, 3D objects), and each of the defined fields must be populated (metadata)
• The interface must allow the user to conduct searches in every field
• The user must receive a list of search results that includes thumbnail images and essential information from which the user can drill down to more detailed information, including references

Technical and Financial Resources

Because this is not a commercial project, there are no financial resources. Contributions result from enthusiasm for the topic. All contributors cover the cost of their own contributions. All contributors are individually named and receive their own websites and the opportunity for evaluation of their contributions.

Regarding technical issues, only the most simple programs and systems are used: Excel, PHP, SQL, HTML, and a grassroots website hosted by a mass-provider.

A comprehensive collection of literature on forams, journal subscriptions, and good contacts with relevant scientists is available. Collection of sediments and forams are conducted, and detailed how-to’s and tools on processing samples are also available. No-cost access to a scanning electron microscope (SEM) is also available.

Milestones

Not necessarily planned this way, but looking back, this is how it happened:

2008
Development and promotion of the website; receipt of samples from amateur fossil collectors

2009
Further temporal and geographic coverage through 1200 images; creation of a support community of amateurs and junior scientists

2010
Introduction of the project to 400 scientists at the FORAMS2010 conference in Bonn; support from scientists; aid offered to amateurs and young scientists, particularly those in less-developed countries

2011
Expansion of database criteria to 20; conversion from pure HTML to PHP-SQL; support from senior scientists secured; presentations at international conferences; expansion to 4000 images

2012
Top ranking by Google (SEO; expansion of database criteria to 30; networking; receipt of image rights from publishers and institutions; expansion to 5500 images

2013
Permission to use c. 30,000 foram images (including those of numerous type specimens) from the Smithsonian Institute, the Austrian Federal Geological Agency, and the Brzybowski Foundation; permission from senior scientists to use their life’s works; expansion of the image database to 7700 images; cultivation of the support community; collaboration with WoRMS

2014
Project presentation at the FORAMS2014 conference in Chile; continued collaboration with WoRMS; image rights secured for remaining images; expansion of database to 10,000 images; cultivation of the support community

*)
EOL = Encyclopedia of Life, www.eol.org
WoRMS = World Register of Marine Species, www.marinespecies.org

Translated from German into English by Cindy Opitz.

This article is also available in Italian, translated by Marzia Loddo.