 to Susan. Susan, before you start, everyone, if you require any tech support, please communicate with me in the general chat window on the left of your screen. And Susan, whenever you're ready, go ahead. Okay. Hi, everyone. Thank you for rolling with the punches when we had to cancel the last time. And remember, if you have any questions, please put them in the general chat box, and I will make sure they get answered at the end. So this is a revised schedule. We're adding a session on May 1st. But otherwise, May 8th and June 5th are already scheduled. So just keep that in mind. And remember, you can listen to the webinars live, or you can listen to them as recording. You'll get a credit either way. If you need to reset your password, this is the email address. If you need to contact me, my email is right here. I've turned it off. It's right here. You can contact me there. If you have questions for about course content, you can post a query in the course discussion. Remember, if you're working for a credibly bad for this course, you need to listen to all the webinars, and you need to complete all the assignments. And right now, last night, we had 65 people who had completed everything. We had another 39 who had completed three of the four. So that's two webinars and two assignments. And remember, you don't have to look at the webinars. You can look at them either live or in person. If you want to keep informed about what's going on with Connecting to Collections Care, you can join our community. And you can find the instructions through doing that under the Discussions tab on our website. And you can join us on Facebook or Twitter. And next week, Mayday, we have a lot of stuff going on in our social media. I know some of you will be here, but there are prizes and tips for emergency preparation and response, so take a look at that. On May 9th, we have a free webinar on herbaria and taking care of herbaria specimens. And if you need help with your collections, you can call the National Heritage Responders if you're in the U.S. I'm sure other countries have them, too. So that's it for me. I'm going to turn this over to Simon. And so Simon, take it away. Hi, everyone. Welcome back. This is the third installment of the RISC Board course. And so I'm happy to welcome you today to Integrating Considerations for Value and Risk into Reorg Decision Making. I'm also from José Luis Téter Solis, who is the project manager in the collections unit of ECROM in Rome. And also, Naila Plain de Rufa, who is head of the Preventive Conservation Unit at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage in Brussels. And so I will follow without further ado. Move on to the next slide. So our course objectives overall for the four, sorry, for the six webinars is that by the end of webinar six, you will be able to develop a basic Reorg plan to improve collections access and care in one of your storage rooms, or in a storage room which you're familiar if you're not currently working in an institution. And so this, as I mentioned, is the third installment. And our objective for this specific session is going to be that you all, participants, will be able to recognize the importance and be able to apply the principles of relative value and risk assessment to inform decisions about your Reorg project. So looking at risk reduction, prioritization, optimization of value of the collections and storage. So this is what we'll be covering today. But I would like to remind you that all the materials that we're using in the context of this course are all available online for free on the eChrome website, and are available in English, in French, in Spanish, and Portuguese for the moment. The other languages will be our forthcoming. And Reorg Method was developed by eChrome with the support of UNESCO and has been adapted for distance learning and collaboration with the Canadian Conservation Institute. So the link where you can find all the materials, the workbooks, the worksheets, and the additional resources is right here below the images. Just a quick recap of what we did a few weeks ago. There's been a few weeks in between the two webinars. So I just want to do a quick review. So the first thing I'd like to mention is what we looked at in the second webinar was looking a bit closer at phase two, which is the condition report phase of Reorg. And I mentioned that there were two ways that you could approach the condition report. There's basically a live version or an easier version, a quicker version, using the self-evaluation questionnaire and the scores that you obtain. Or you can use the worksheets and the workbook if you want kind of a more in-depth look into specific areas or if you just prefer to kind of have a more thorough approach to your condition report. But ultimately, both of those approaches, both the light and the in-depth, will lead to you formulating a list of issues in your current storage situation and some proposed factions for improvement. Now, I see that there are 70 participants who have submitted their assignments for week two, and they look fantastic. I don't see... I see that everyone has their own way of doing their floor plans and of prioritizing or listing their issues. But all in all, I think everyone understood the basic idea. And so I'm really excited to look at... I've looked at about half of them, and I'm excited to look at the rest of them. But congratulations on all of those who completed that assignment. That'll be really useful going forward in the next webinar. So as we mentioned also, an important point were the floor plans. And we mentioned that there were four different types of floor plans that were going to be really useful in any reorg project. And that's the empty floor plan with just the walls. And then we have the number switch, which is the plan with the walls and also the fixtures, so all the kind of obstacles that you have in your room, pipes, plumbing, things like that, that might affect where you place different things in your storage area. And then number three is the plan with the walls and with the storage furniture. And then number four is the occupation plan, which includes all of the collections and non-collections that are currently on the floor and blocking access to your collection, so preventing you from accessing your collection. And this plan we mentioned was a very useful communication tool because sometimes pictures don't fully capture the extent of the disorganization in the storage area. So it's very useful, especially when you'll be after your project, when you'll have to do your after plan, you can really communicate well the improvement that you've been able to accomplish before and after looking at those two plans together. So it's a very, very key plan to have. And I'm not going to be going in great detail in space optimization, but one thing, I know there's a lot of calculations and it can get quite complex, but one thing, if you can remember just one thing, there are three ways, essentially, that you can optimize space in your current situation. The first one is by optimizing the space within units themselves, so by regrouping objects of similar size or adjusting the shelf height. And the second way is better using the room height, so sometimes the units don't use the full available vertical space in a room, so that's the second way that you can optimize space in the storage area. And the third way we talked about is the optimization of floor space usage. So that's getting as close to 50% rule that we mentioned where you have essentially 50% of the space is covered by units, so that's usually a good, you know, ballpark way of estimating whether or not you're using your floor space optimally. And finally, the last thing I'd like to look at in our recap is we did do some polls last time and we had 75% participate in our polls, and I asked people to give us their scores for the self-evaluation. And so I'm just dividing it here by color, so the top one being, you know, everything is fine and the red one being you need to worry. So everyone kind of, where the bars end is where the score is, where is how people scored. And so you can see that most people ended up scoring in the orange area, which is basically, you know, it's not dramatic, but you do need a reorganization project. So people who are in this course are doing a good thing by being in this course because they will be useful for you in this situation. So just a couple of points though, you can see that in building space people tend to score a little bit better, a little bit higher, so the kind of inclination of those bars is a bit less pronounced as in management, for example, where you have more of a spread with people doing, you know, lower and higher as well, so you have more of an even spread. But in building space, you have people that scored a little bit better and also in furniture and small equipment, so people tended to score higher in the furniture and small equipment section. And finally, we asked people about the 10 criteria for good storage, functional storage, and we also had 75 answers for that question. And so the ones that people seem to do better with are the fact that one qualified member of staff is in charge, so that's very good. And then number three separate spaces are dedicated to support functions, so rooms that need to work with the collection. And the other ones, number nine, the building and storage rooms offer adequate protection for the collection. So 77% of you said that that was met, which is excellent because if the building is in poor condition then all the rest is meaningless. So important to have a good first line of defense for your collection, so that's very good. And in terms of the ones that tended to score lower, we have the storage rooms contain only collection items, collection objects, which is a common issue that we find in a lot of cases. Another one is every object designates location and storage and can be located within three minutes. It's not surprising that this scored lower as well. I think if you're in this course it's because you probably have access to issues with your collection, so hopefully by the end of this course and after you implement your project, that will be improved. And also number six, every object can be accessed without moving more than two others. So that's also related to access, so it's not uncommon for five and six to be sort of similar. And number 10, every object is free from active deterioration and is ready to be used in a museum's activity. So as you work through your project, these are issues that you'll be able to address as well after you've possibly done a physical reorganization of the space, you'll be able to identify which objects are actively deteriorating and isolate those for actually later on. So this is the end of my recap. And without further ado, I'd like to pass the microphone over to José Luis from ICROM. Hello, everyone. Good evening from Rome. I hope you all hear me well. And it's a great pleasure to participate in this course with all of you. Today we'll talk about integrating considerations of our value and risk into a RE-ORG project. I will co-present this webinar with Marjor Line, who you already know from the first one. So the idea is that I will focus more on the conceptual aspects and Marjor Line will illustrate them through examples from RE-ORG projects she has been involved with. So first of all, let's put a face to the name. Let me at the office here at ICROM a few weeks ago. And for your information, if you hear Marjor Line or Simone referring to José Luis or Luis or even Zé, that will be me as well. So people call me different names and nicknames. And for more information about ICROM and what we do, including RE-ORG, please visit our website at www.icrom.org. So if you don't mind, before we get started, I would like to learn a little bit more about you. So could you please bring in poll number one, and if you are kind of willing to answer it about your job or occupation, so we can get an idea about diversity in the group. Although we are not too many in this edition of the webinar. So I see one collection manager, two conservators. Okay, more conservators, restores coming in. A museum educator. Okay, so I think that's the population to the collection manager, conservator, restorer, and museum education. So great diversity and lots of experience in the room. Thanks a lot. So let's get started. So when carrying out a RE-ORG project, it's important to look at the collection through different lenses. This allows not only to optimize the use of space, the accessibility, and the value of the museum storage, but also to systematically reduce risk to the collection in storage. The first lens concerns the physical dimensions and weight of the objects, which determine their handling, storage space, and furniture requirements. Remember in the last webinar, you saw the 12 categories of objects based on their dimensions and weight, which are proposed to help the reorganization of the process. The second lens concerns the relative value or the relative importance of the objects in the collection. This is essential to prioritize their protection while optimizing their accessibility in storage. Assessing the relative value of collection items is also critical to deal with the growing issue of typically high-cost storage areas that are overcrowded with undisplayed objects. If the museum decides to de-accession and dispose of collection items, their relative value becomes the main decision criteria. The third lens refers to the vulnerability and exposure of the objects to different agents of deterioration, for instance, to pests, to light, to water, to excessive relative humidity, fluctuations, etc. This is crucial to reduce risk to the collection in storage by avoiding or blocking the exposure of collection items, especially those of high relative value. Two agents of deterioration, they are vulnerable to. For instance, avoid the exposure of water soluble materials to water, of sensitive colors to light and UV, of delicate surfaces to dust, of easily breakable objects to physical force, and so forth. In order to do that, we have to know the vulnerability of the objects and the possible ways they could be exposed to the agents of deterioration in storage. This webinar will focus on the last two lenses you see there, the relative value and the vulnerability and exposure. Let's first have a look at the relative value of objects in the collection. By relative value, I mean how much more or less important the objects are in relation to each other. Think about the collection or a collection you work with. If you don't work with any collection in particular, think about a collection you know well. Are you thinking about it now? So please, let's answer the second poll which you can see on the screen. Do objects of your collection have the same importance or the same relative value? Give it a little bit of time for everyone to reply. Okay, so over 60% of you, two-thirds said no, so all objects do not have equal value. And some of you consider that in your case all objects are equally important. So as you can see, most of you share the opinion that not all objects in a museum collection have equal importance. This is also the case in all museums I have been to and I ask this question. I understand that as heritage professionals it can be tough to admit that some collection items are more important than others. But this is the reality in most, if not all, institutions and we have to deal with that. Now let's still consider the same collection. Please have a look at the next poll. Why are some objects of your collection more important than the others? So to answer this question, I'll select only two or three of the best answers that apply to your situation. So concerning this collection, why are some objects more or less important than others? Okay, so we saw here, okay, there's another criteria coming in. So the majority of you said because they are essential testimony of the past, some of you are saying they are indispensable for scientific research, also because they have high monetary value and or because they are in excellent condition. So different types of values or characteristics of the objects have emerged as the main reason to explain the difference in relative value among the objects of the collection. So why is that? One explanation could be that we as individuals appreciate and value heritage items differently. For instance, I like more art and history or I'm a very religious person and therefore those features are more important to be. Another explanation would be that you are thinking about the mission of the museum when answering this question. Okay, we can move on to remove the poll, please. Knowing and referring to the museum's mission is essential to assess the relative value of collection items. The mission is at the core of the relative importance of objects in that particular context. So let's please have a look at the next poll and let's be sincere now. So do you know the mission statement of your mission by heart? Okay, one colleague does. Two, one does not work in a museum. Okay, okay. That varies, right? But it's important. When we consider relative assessment, it's important to take the mission of the museum as the core because the institutional mission determines what are the relevant criteria to use when comparing objects. For instance, if I'm a museum of art, artistic value becomes a major criteria. On the other hand, if I'm a National History Museum, historic and symbolic value predominate and so on. So let's move on. We can remove the poll. Yes, the criteria was still evolving. Let's see a concrete example. Remember the Colchester Historic? Simon showed in the first webinar to illustrate reorg in practice. Let's take a minute to read through its mission statement, which I got from their website. According to this mission statement, provenance and historical significance seem to be the main criteria to determine the relative value of the artifacts and documents of the collection. Symbolic value, that is, how much items are emblematic, representative or otherwise characteristic of the county, might be the next most important criteria. Taken separately from the county's context and history, artistic, scientific and spiritual values are not predominant. However, they would probably be important tie-breakers when comparing among artifacts of proven provenance and significance for the history of the county. Object condition and monetary value could also be considered in some of these cases. Now, back to the general consideration. Sometimes the mission of the museum is not very clear or well-focused. In more extreme situations, it might be not clear at all, granting permission to a museum of everything. I mean, everything fits the mission statement. In those cases, assessing the relative value of objects gets complicated. It will be useful to review the museum's mission before proceeding. If this is your case, embarking on a RE-ORG project can offer a great opportunity to make this reflection at the institutional level. The mission should clear state the raison d'etre of the museum. Relative value assessments can be made both in a qualitative or quantitative way, depending on the objectives of the organization. Describing the methodologies to do so is beyond the scope of today's webinar. Irrespective of the method chosen, the museum should be able to establish categories of objects based on their relative value, which in turn should be meaningful to inform management decisions. Let's see a few examples. In this slide, I'll walk you through a simple example of how to approach the establishment of relative value categories for a collection. Let's start easy by assuming that all objects of the collection have more or less the same relative importance. So each object is of average value to the collection. Does this make sense in your collection? If so, you can move on with the RE-ORG project without worrying about differences in relative value among the objects in storage. If not, perhaps this is because there are some objects whose relative value taken into account the mission of the museum is significantly above average. Let's say one order of magnitude or about 10 times higher than average. This means that the collection has at least two relative value categories, average value, and then the high value object. Does this reflect better your collection? Perhaps it has also few very special objects whose relative value is even higher. Let's say at least two orders of magnitude or about 100 times above average. These treasures would make up a third relative value category. Now comes the painful part for many of us. There might be objects in the collection that do not serve the mission of the museum at all. I mean objects that have no value in that particular collection or museum. What should be done with them? Could the museum make better use of the available resources by deaccessioning and disposing of these items? In order to address these important questions, it is first necessary to check if such items exist in the collection through a relative value assessment. Please keep in mind that for RE-ORG, it's also necessary to identify non-collection items that might have ended up in the storage space together with collection items. So in this example, we have identified different categories of objects and approximately quantified their relative importance by orders of magnitude. As I said before, this kind of assessment can be purely qualitative or fully quantitative depending on the goal of the assessment. Let's now see some concrete case of relative value assessment in heritage collection. According to a recent article in the New York Times, the Indianapolis Museum of Art has recently carried out a relative value assessment by ranking each of the 54,000 items in its collection with latter grades from A to D to determine which one may be a drain on resources. 20% of the items received A-D for making them, quote, ripe to be sold or given to another institution, unquote. Being an art museum, the main criterion to assess the relative value of the collection items must have been their artistic value, also taking into account their current condition, authorship, and maybe other relevant criteria. The article goes on to say that the museum was so jammed with undisplayed artwork that it was about to spend 14 million US dollars to double its storage space until the direction abruptly canceled the plan. According to the museum director, quote, this is the inevitable march where you have to build more storage, more storage, more storage. I don't think this is sustainable, unquote. This example reminded me of the Delta Plan, the Dutch national preservation management strategy for cultural heritage launched in 1991. A nationwide relative value assessment was carried out including 21 state museums, 12 state archives, among other national heritage collections. Here the collections were also classified into four relative value categories, ranking from A to D. Category A objects were irreplaceable and indispensable in the context of the museum goals and the country's cultural heritage. Objects in Category B were significant and often displayed in temporary exhibitions. In Category C, the object does not meet the criteria for A or B above, but still fits into the museum's mission. Even in Category D, the object is of little or no cultural value or does not fit the museum's mission. For Category D objects, the text says that, quote, the collection should be purified of this object through the accession or destruction or they should be considered for exchange, loan, or as a final option, the accession. So let's recapitulate why is it useful to look at the collection through the lens of relative value when doing our reorg project. This puts us in a better position to prioritize for exchange, loan, the accessioning, disposing, and to check in between collection and non-collection items, to highlight the value of the collection in storage by showcasing special items and to prioritize for protection through evacuation planning and risk reduction. Now we'll see some practical examples of this approach or this lens in the reorg project that Marjorline has been involved with. Please note that risk reduction examples will be shown later on after we discuss the lens of vulnerability and exposure. Over to you, Marjorline. Hey, everybody. It's the second time since the first webinar I have the pleasure to share some personal reorg experience with you. This is me at the office here at Fikirpa in Brussels a few days ago, and by now you all know me as Marjor, but my real name is Marjorline. Anyway, I'm going to show you some practical examples of using the relative value concept in some reorg project I've been involved with the last years. Let's have a look at some situations where you use somehow relative value while defining what is collection and non-collection in your storage, whether it is for getting rid of the non-collection because it's garbage or not belonging in a storage like exhibition and packing material, display cases, classification, or whether the non-collection in your storage can be exchanged, deaccessioned and disposed of. During the phase two of your reorg project, which is the condition report phase, one of the most important and exciting steps to undertake is to walk through the entire collection and put sticky notes to identify what is collection and non-collection. I showed you this slide already because it's the collection non-collection moment during the workshop in the folk art storage in Brussels, which I showed in detail during the first webinar, and as the curator could not always be around, we provided blue notes to stick on those items, which we were not sure of if they fitted the museum's mission. And here you see the non-collection items with red sticky notes on top of the cabinets, the items in the cabinets and the small drawers will remain as collection. They receive yellow notes. The light blue sticky notes meant that the curator still has to come and assess the relative importance of the collection in those two gray cabinets. I suppose you all remember that the collection non-collection exercise has to be drawn on the plan four, which is the floor occupation plan. And here you see a picture of participants working on their plan four being physically in the room. On your right, you see the curator Linda who helps analyzing the collection, but at the same time uses her knowledge on the relative value of her collection items to help us decide what should stay and what should be removed from the storage. In many cases, it's an easy-going and intuitive decision whether to get rid of garbage like the wooden plank on the carpet. I'm going to try to find the arrow like this one here, especially when you work in your own collection. But like Zeilouis explained, relative value or importance has many criteria. And Linda decided to keep the carpet, which you see on the floor. She decided to keep it in storage, even being of an average value, whereas this more valuable chair became non-collection and was given to another internal curator responsible for another collection of the museum. Here you see a picture of what an outside room with non-collection looks like after physically separating collection from non-collection. And these mannequins, they are non-collection for the folk art storage in Brussels. But if I remember well, the Colchester Historium in Canada, with their prop storage, would probably not have thrown them away. So all depends on what is important or valuable for a museum and why it is so. During another workshop, I took a picture of a participant who is not really sure about whether he should listen to the museum's director and throw away this very uncomplete object, which was impossible to save. It was of a non-relevant value category for this museum and the storage was filled with dozen of other chandeliers of a much higher value. Nevertheless, most of the time, non-collection is really crappy packing material, just filling up space in your storage as you see here. After all those years while helping museum professionals to get a grip on their collections in storage, I feel a lot of respect for those who truly dare to reflect in depth on the relative importance of what they have in storage. It's not frequent, but some of them also dare to take decisions and to take the responsibility of evacuating items which really don't fit their museum's mission. Like these tables here, they became non-collection and some were to be exchanged, some to be deaccessioned and some to be thrown away. I suppose some of you are in shock, but those are tables that the municipality dropped off in the storage over the years when emptying and changing the interior of the municipal executives. And I'm sure most of you managing a collection in storage has to fight against people bringing in stuff which is completely irrelevant to your collection or with a bit of luck of an average value to your museum. This is the floor occupation plan of a storage in China on which I drew the collection in green and the non-collection in red as you see here. And as you see on the plan, there wasn't any furniture to house the collection and there was almost no way to circulate between the items. It was quite an unvaluable storage room amongst other more valuable ones. And here almost all non-relevant collection items of the museum were stored, or better, as you see on the slide, thrown in. I show you this situation and this picture because everything proves that these objects were of no real value for the museum in general. But I can assure you, it never took me so much time during your workshop to complete the collection, non-collection exercise than here. Even to me, even if to me many of those dirty and broken objects seemed of no relative value, I also acknowledge fully that asking a curator to build relative value categories is a difficult and sometimes unpleasant assignment to do. In this particular case in China, a lack of time but mainly responsibility issues made it impossible to work on the value issue. For me, a REOC project is trying to see things in perspective and when you can hardly enter an overcrowded storage with almost no light fixtures and over-full cabinets, I think individual object conservation is of a secondary concern. Also, a huge lack of space should push us, together with the curator or director, to at least try to go through a relative value assessment. Now let me show you some examples of highlighting the value of your collection in storage. I hope you still remember the final plan of the Brussels storage, where 12,000 objects were stored in 120 cabinets and the collection was dispersed over 11 connecting sectors, which are all these ones. The 3,000 square feet storage enabled us to create a long exhibition corridor. Here in Green, with on top of each sector, sector stories, ceramics, paintings, and on top of each sector, cabinets are housing representative objects of each type of collection. I show you here on the right a view of the long corridor after the REOC project with the closed cabinets between the sectors and here you see two open cabinets used as a kind of showroom, and the curator, she chose to show a mix of visual, attractive, but less valuable objects and some highly valuable objects. Now, this puppet exhibition cabinet consists of highly valuable and visually attractive small puppets, but still the fixation system prevents them to get stolen easily by visitors. Let me take you to another REOC project in a centralized storage for the collections of five city museums of Lisbon in Portugal. This is a painting storage before REOC, and the two red circles help you to orientate yourself. They are all unusable HVIC systems. You are looking into the storage from the entrance door, so we are standing at the entrance door, and in the middle we see paintings on the floor and on improvised low shelves, which are used as storage furniture. On the right wall, multiplex more poor quality grids are covered with small paintings. This is the plan three of this storage with the furniture drawn to scale here, and on the left side, you have the same multiplex grids as on the right side, but with less space in between each grid. Now, I want you to keep in mind that we kind of virtually cut the room in two, which brings us to the final layout plan five. Going to the final layout plan, and due to budget reasons, the museum decided to invest in sliding grids on the left side of the room, as in the middle. The right side of the storage, this part here, will have to wait for the next purchase of good quality furniture. So when you enter the storage now, you see these space-saving sliding grids, and this storage is meant to be open for the public and special guests once a while. On the right, I'm going to the next slide. So here on the right, you still see the multiplex non-sliding grids, and in the near future, this will be replaced by sliding grids, too. But while physically reorganizing this storage, we regroup the collection by theme, as you see here, like portraits, religious scenes, and landscape, and with the help of the curator, we decided to hang the most valuable paintings, which were scattered all over the collection, on the new sliding grids. We hung the big paintings on the lower parts, and the smaller paintings, we hang them most of the time above, to reduce the risk of eventual theft by visitors. But I want to explain that the curator was constantly deciding, painting by painting, whether it was a treasure, or of high value, or of the average value to the collection. And trying to make the storage attractive for the public too, we hung the treasures on the front side of the sliding grids, so they were more visible when entering the room, or they are more visible now when entering the room. Almost one-third of this painting collection was of an average value, and we decided to store those paintings on the multiplex grids, and on the improvised furniture you see here. So you see we reused this uncomfortable and not very good furniture, but those paintings don't have the best physical storage conditions yet, but they are not directly on the floor anymore. So let's go one floor below. One floor below the painting storage we reorganized this furniture storage, which is also open for the public, and this is a picture taken from above, before Ryawg, and here you have a picture after Ryawg, and the blue tape on the floor, which you see here, helps future visitors to follow a path. Alongside these corridors, the curator can now show her most valuable and attractive objects, as you see them here in detail. Go to the next. So on the left you have a view into the storage when entering it before Ryawg, and on the right you have a view when entering it today. I'm not going into the detail in the plan, this is the plan before the reorganization, and this is the final plan 5, where you have the entrance and all along the industrial shelves for storing chairs, we created corridors for guided groups of visitors. Gael de Gichin and his team transformed like an unappealing view you had when entering the storage into a mise en scène where the huge painted portraits kind of welcome you. Here you have some views of the pathways, and the painting curator gave some of her treasures on an internal loan to make the furniture storage and her paintings more attractive for public. In this editorial you see the director with the curator of the furniture storage, and it's a long article explaining the benefits of reorganizing storage, but I want to explain that the link below shows lots of attractive pictures of different storage, reorganized storage rooms in this Lisbon central storage, like this ceramic storage before we walk, and after. And here again, the ceramic curator divided the collection in relative value categories, and what you see in open shelves here, like here and here in detail and on the walls, is a mix of treasures and highly valuable objects taking into account their vulnerability and exposure to some of the agents of deterioration, and here Luis is now going to talk about that. Thank you, Majoline. I'd like first just to do a quick recap for those of you who joined later. I understand there's been some issue with the connection. So quickly in this webinar we are addressing the different ways to look at the collection. So we started with the physical dimensions and the weights as a way to optimize storage space. And you remember the 12 categories of objects you saw in the previous webinar. In this particular one, we are focusing on the next two aspects of national. One is the relative value or the relative importance of the objects in relation to each other as a way to prioritize for protection. And as Majoline was illustrating here to showcase the most valuable, most important objects to add value to the collection by highlighting these treasures. We also quickly spoke about the existence of value categories in the collection and their importance to help guide the reorganization process. So in the first half I spoke a little bit about the conceptual aspects of that. And up to this point, Majoline was illustrating how this way to look at the collection through the relative value of the objects can be used in the Reorg project. Now we'll move on to the last part which is the third way to look at that we should look at the collection when doing the Reorg. And that is by considering the vulnerability and exposure of the objects to the different agents that can cause deterioration and loss of value. As said before, this is essential to identify and reduce risk to the collection in storage. So let's look at the collection now through the length of vulnerability and exposure to agents of deterioration. For the sake of comprehensiveness and simplicity it's useful to group these agents of deterioration into 10 categories, as you can see here on the slide. So there are the physical forces that account for different kinds of mechanical damage to objects such as abrasion, deformation, breakage, et cetera due to, for instance, inadequate handling, inadequate storage, accidents, earthquakes, all types of mechanical actions. There are criminals among them, thieves and vandals. There's fire, there's water that can come from the rain, infiltration from pipes, from nearby rivers, from storm surge, tsunami, different sorts of water. There are the pests, for instance, rodents, insects and other types depending on the local fauna. Different types of pollutants such as dust, gaspings, paints, et cetera. There's light and ultraviolet radiation, incorrect temperature and relative humidity, for instance, either too high or too low or with excessive fluctuations. And the 10th agent is called the association. This one might require a little bit more explanation. The association refers to being unable to find or retrieve an object of the collection that has been misplaced or lost its identification code, for instance, or refers to losing or being unable to access existing data and information about objects of the collection. The classical case is a virus in the computer where the single copy of the event is kept and then the information is lost. So it refers to the association between single objects in the collection, the association among objects that make up an ensemble and or between the information and data and the objects in the collection. So we grouped all these hazards into the 10 agents of deterioration. When doing a reorg project, it's important to keep in mind which objects of the collection in storage are vulnerable to which agents of deterioration and whether or not they will or could be exposed to these agents during or after the reorganization. In this schematic diagram you see here, let the gray rectangle represent your collection in storage. Let's suppose that a part of this collection highlighted here in blue represents the objects that are vulnerable to a certain agent of deterioration. Now, let this red rectangle here represent the part of the collection in storage that is exposed or would be exposed to this agent. When we look at this diagram, the objects that will be affected or are at risk of being affected by the agent of deterioration are those that fulfill both criteria. That is, those objects that are vulnerable and exposed to the agent of deterioration. This is where we should focus, right? This is a situation we should try to avoid or minimize when doing reorg, particularly for those objects of high relative value. Let's now look at one example to discuss vulnerability, and I would like to call in our next poll. The question here by looking at these objects is to which agents of deterioration do you think the objects in this picture are most vulnerable to? So please, just out of the list, can we bring in the poll? Yes, thank you. So out of the 10 agents you see there, please pick up the two or three to which these objects in the picture are most vulnerable to. Let's give it a minute. Okay, I see physical force trending very strong, which is, you know, it's obvious, right? And also dissociation is being shown as a significant one and criminal. Okay, on the other hand, fire, water, pests, nothing, little bit pollutants, little bit light and so on. So you've been assessing the vulnerability of these objects and in this case physical force for sure is a major threat or agent of deterioration because these materials are breakable, they are prone to abrasion, right? Dissociation is also big because they can be easily misplaced or maybe they are not properly identified. Pest is also an issue, especially for the smaller ones, right? Fire could be something in terms of they're not being able to stand too much heat, but you did a great job in assessing the vulnerability of these objects. How about these ones now? Let's move to the next one, please. So it's the same question but now a different set of objects as you can see in the picture. What are these objects most vulnerable to? Please pick two or three e-agents you think they're most vulnerable to. So now we see pest trending, associations always some physical forces to more light and UV, fire, okay, completely different profile, right? In the previous case, pest was not an issue at all and here because these materials are protein and plant-based, they are highly vulnerable to pest infestation because they are organic colors, they are mostly natural colors. They might be vulnerable to light and UV. They are organic, so they burn more easily. If they are valuable, they have market value. They can also be prone to pests. They can be prone to mold growth and so on. So completely different profile of vulnerability in relation to the previous example, right? So the message here is that it's important that we have a good understanding of the vulnerabilities of these objects so that we make well-informed decisions when carrying out our RE-ORG project. And take the poll out. Thank you for that. So moving on, what are the key factors that determine the vulnerability of collection items to the different ages of deterioration to which we should pay attention? So here are some aspects to consider. The material compositions of the objects, if they are breakables, they are combustible, if they are nutrients for pests, if they are light-sensitive materials, if they are water soluble and so on. Their structure or shape, for instance, objects that have layered structures with difference in expansion and contraction in response to relative humidity fluctuations that can be an issue or large reactive sheets that are restrained at the periphery, such as in drums, for instance. So these, because of their shape and geometry, they are more vulnerable in this example to relative humidity fluctuations. The size of the objects, right, in case they are easy to hide or to carry away or more difficult to find if misplaced, so smaller objects tend to be more vulnerable in this situation. If they have high market value, right, they can be more or less attractive to theft. An object of high market value started together with other objects of low market value without any special protection can be considered more vulnerable to theft. The way they are labeled or identified, we can think here of how easy it is to lose labels or the fate of inks in these labels if they are more prone to dissociation due to the inability to identify them later on and so forth, so the type of labeling is also an issue to influence vulnerability and the way they are documented in the museum registration system. For instance, if they are documented with or without good photographs, with backup copies, etc. This may increase or decrease the vulnerability to dissociation and then also to theft and recovery of stolen items. So understanding the vulnerability is necessary, but it's not sufficient to mitigate risks to the collection and storage. We also have to know the level or the likelihood of exposure of vulnerable collection items to the agents of deterioration they are vulnerable to. Are these agents or are their sources present in the storage area? Otherwise, where could they come from and how could they reach the collection in storage? Only then, that means by understanding the vulnerability and also the extent or the likelihood of exposure to the agents, only then we will be able to make well-informed decisions in terms of avoiding or blocking the exposure of vulnerable items to the corresponding agents of deterioration. A useful approach to think about this is to consider a different layer of enclosure around the object in storage. Starting from their support or packing materials, the storage furniture, the storage room, the museum building, the surroundings of the building and the broader geographic region where the museum is located. In each of these layers it is possible to find sources of the agents of deterioration or paths, pathways through which they could reach the objects of the collection through a window, through leakage, through doors, etc. Opening the way the collection items move in and also there are different possible paths. We can also check for the existence or not of effective barriers to block the agents from reaching the collection in each one of the layers. For instance, barriers to block light from entering and shining on objects, barriers to block water, to block paths, to block thieves, and even to block fire. So that's an important thing to keep in mind. Sometimes we tend to focus only inside the storage area or inside the museum building, but it's not uncommon that major houses exist outside these areas and even outside the museum. I would like to share this example of an important museum in Brazil in a purpose-built building where the collection storage areas are equipped with the best climate control, the best storage furniture, as far as suppression with clean gas and security system also there, but they are located in the basement of the building here where the arrow is pointing now and on the other side of the street there's a major river lake system whose flood in 1941 caused a major damage to the city. So a flood of this magnitude, repeating, has been assessed as having a return period between 300 and 2,000 years. So within every 300 to 2,000 years, such a flood is expected in the city according to different models. But this could be tomorrow. So how well has this storage actually been planned? Right? So the message here is that we should look for this possible source of danger or agents of deterioration at the different layers of enclosure around the collection. If you wish to read more about the agents of, 10 agents of deterioration, about their source, effect on vulnerable objects and possible ways to deal with them, please go and visit CCI's web page on the 10 agents of deterioration. The URL is highlighted in red and for an introduction to risk management and the methodology that we have developed to do so in partnership also with CCI, you can download this publication for free at the EECOM website. Now let's recap why is it useful to look at the collection through the lens of vulnerability and exposure when doing your Reorg project? It puts us in a better position to identify objects at risk in storage, to reduce risk to vulnerable objects by avoiding their exposure to agents of deterioration, their vulnerable tool, and also to reduce risk to such objects by blocking their exposure. So we can avoid exposure by placing them in a different location, for instance. But if not feasible, we can think of ways to implement barriers, physical barriers, to block their exposure to different agents of deterioration. And this is what Marjo Line will illustrate now with some practical examples of Reorg projects she's been working with. So over to you, Marjo. Okay, thanks, Léloïs. So this is a collection of tobacco samples. It's owned by a small Belgian tobacco museum, and it's a very special type of collection with hundreds of tobacco leaf samples in cotton bags, like you see here. Samples were kind of alive, and so they are attractive to pests with the danger of contamination of other collection items. And as they were stored at that time, like you see them here, they were also very dirty. They were uneasy to manipulate, so vulnerable to physical forces. They were very vulnerable to fire and a real headache for the collection owner, and the biggest risks to this tobacco sample collection as you see them here are pests and physical forces. So due to the Reorg project, not only space was saved, the plastic bags and boxes are now avoiding and blocking insects and rodents to enter and damage these tobacco leaves, and these layers of enclosure, which Léloïs just talked about, are also mitigating damage through malicious handling. The same museum owns also a pyrogene collection. I'm not sure that I say it right, but these are objects producing fire, like lighters, cigarette and match boxes. And as you see them stored here in cardboard boxes, this collection is highly vulnerable to the risk of fire and dissociation. You see on this picture, no one can really identify what is inside the cardboard boxes. So to avoid the risk of dissociation, you have to avoid losing meaningful and valuable documentation about each item, and this museum responded to this risk by labeling each pyrogene item, inventorizing it, and giving it a unique spot in the storage and the drawers as you see on this slide. And before the reorganization, this collection was stored in the attic of the museum. The way you see them stored here in drawers and in a secured new storage, the risk of fire is reduced extremely. On this slide, I'm going to show you with the arrow also, on your left here, you can see that metal objects are piled up and overcrowded in open shelves. They are covered with Nalimex polyester foam, which protects them here from eventual water leaks and dust. But at the same time, this film also attracts and holds the dust to create static characteristics. And some of these metal objects in direct contact with each other, dusty and nearby an old water leak, showed galvanic corrosion. And as you see them stored here in the cabinets, the risk of pollutants as dust and airborne pollutants is reduced by the inert materials in the cabinets and the possibility to close off the doors of the cabinets. Another example is to show you these tiny wooden and metal objects. They used to be piled up in the back and they were very vulnerable to theft, but storing them in small drawers, like you see here, in small drawer cabinets, avoids potential thieves to steal them in less than no time. This is again the painting storage in Lisbon. I did not mention this before, but in the far left corner, you see it's here and here on the plan. In the far left corner of the room, there is a space in the ceiling where the risk of water leaks is still recurring because it's not fixed for 100% yet. And as you see on the picture, we decided not to install the sliding racks for the paintings too close to the risky place. So this is an example of taking into account the possible risks to your collection when you are considering your final reorganization plan. The next two slides show interesting information related to the risk of water to your collection by a flood. In 2009, this Belgian museum had a flood where 220 artworks were damaged, as well as one folder with posters. And 26 from the 220 artworks were totally lost, all the posters in the folder. After the reorg project in 2016, unfortunately they had another flood in 2017, but now only three artworks were damaged and one folder with posters from which all the posters were saved. So when considering risk reduction and vulnerability, I suppose you are all convinced that the storage quality criterion of no objects on the floor is quite a headliner. As we almost come to the end of this presentation, I show you here a slide which can inspire you for one of your upcoming assignments. I mapped the sources of agents of deterioration inside the Brussels folk art storage and the possible paths through which agents could reach the collection. I used the plan 2 as a basis. It's here on the slide. And it's the plan with fixtures and a situation before reorg, of course. I mapped the five highest and most obvious risks, and you see them here. I'm going to explain you. First of all, you have water pipes alongside the entire upper north wall who create a risk of possible water leakage on the collection, which at that moment was stored nearby. And then the server, which used to be here, and I don't know if you remember me talking about it, it's inside the storage at that moment and it induces a risk of theft of collection items by people who are not supposed to work within the collection like external technicians. So in this plan, you see that inside there is still the server. Alongside that same upper wall here, we detected old mold and fault stains and the proofs of previous problems with higher relative humidity or damp and rising humidity from the ground. Now on the south side, you have three doors and five windows which are leading to immediately to three internal small courtyards and all these paths or these entrances or doors through which insects and rodents can easily enter the storage. But there are also agents like light, UV, and high humidity have to be taken into account when you are looking at this wall with doors and windows. So just some solutions. What did we do to reduce all those risks with low cost solutions? The risk of theft from unmotorized people coming into the collection has been avoided by installing a second door and creating a study room hosting only non-collection items. So you see that now the server is here and this room is hosting only non-collection items. To avoid the water damage to the collection coming from the old water pipes and rising damp alongside the upper north wall we avoided it by not placing vulnerable objects or cabinets close to these walls anymore. So you see picture before and after. Some real grids however are installed nearby the wall but they are being used for objects of an average value which are vulnerable to this type of risk. We decided not to store for the next dangerous situations we decided not to store collection items alongside the fourth wall of the corridor anymore. So high light and UV levels coming from the courtyard doors and windows cannot immediately reach vulnerable collection items anymore and the risk of moisture condense and high relative humidity levels coming in via the same path is now completely blocked but the impact will be less by storing collections further away from this wall. These are small interventions but with quite a huge impact. In the near future they will work on the layer of the room and the building itself if you remember the slide by Zé-Louise with different layers where you have to work on and it will create effective barriers to block the agents from reaching the collection. Now for the second assignment we would like you to use the Occupation Plan 4 on which you indicate collection and non-collection items like here and as an example again I'm using the Fork Art Storage Plans. We would like you to consider three possible relative value categories for your collections like the treasures, the high valuable collection items and those of an average value. I mapped the spatial distribution of such objects in the Fork Art Storage and as you see on this plan the collection in green consists so the green one consists of high to average value items and together with the Curator we mapped the treasures which you see here in gold. You see that before the reorganization two of the treasures were stored on risky places alongside the upper north and the lower south walls. One door house here and the four sons of Imon, those ones here the puppets which are big size puppets they are standing close to a big window of the courtyard. The hanging puppets in white bags and the big door house are the other treasures of the collection. One of the last slides, the Rio Project provided a safer place for this treasure especially vulnerable to light, UV and physical forces. This object is taken away from the doors and it's stored inside the exhibition corridor so its extreme value is today also more recognizable for visitors of the storage. Then while taking into account their vulnerability to light and manipulation but in the same time wanting to reveal the value of these treasures the curator foresees now to uncover with the rotation system the top treasure puppets during each visit. Due to the Rio Project and the complimentary value assessment this door house was at last recognized as a treasure and is now on permanent display in the exhibition rooms. And last but not least the second door house which is also a treasure was removed from its risky place under the water pipes to a safer and more visually attractive location. So his place in the exhibition corridor now refers to the collection of door house accessories which are stored in the cabinets behind. That's it for me for today. I think we go over to Ze Luis now. Thank you Marjoline. So to conclude I think the core message of today's webinar is that for successful and sustainable Rio Project we should look at the collection where the three lands simultaneously. I mean we should take into account the dimensions and the weight and the spatial needs of the objects but also their relative value and their vulnerability and degree of exposure to the different agents of deterioration. So by combining that we'll be able to optimize the use of space optimize and highlight the value of collection in storage and minimize loss of value of the collection in storage over time. So with that I think we conclude today's webinar. So thank you very much. I'll just walk you through again the assignments just to remind you and put them together because Marjoline spoke about them throughout her last bit of presentation for May the 1st. So there are three parts. So in the first part we kindly ask you to review the mission statement of your museum or museum you work with and then based on that we kindly ask you to list in descending order the types of value or other characteristics of the objects that are most important for the museum to fulfill that mission. For instance if I'm working in an art museum artistic value might be the most important aspect or authorship comes next and so on. So I would like you to list these types of values or criteria that are key for the object in order for the museum to fulfill its mission statement. The second part is to consider three possible relative value categories in your collection. So the treasure, the high value object and the object of average value of the collection. And then we would like you to inform how many of these objects in each category do you have in storage, right? If the exact numbers are not known please provide us with your best estimate. Say in storage we have approximately so many treasures so many high value objects and so many objects of average value. And then in addition to that as part of the exercise we would like you to map as Marjorline illustrated in one of her examples the spatial distribution of these objects in the storage room, right? Using the occupation plan four. You can also use a transparent sheet like an acetate sheet to make this map which will allow you to overlay information. I mean overlay the spatial distribution of collection items with the spatial distribution of collection value in storage. So we'll have two layers of information. But please know that for this mapping submission of this assignment is optional because you might have some sensitive information there. You don't want to make it public where the treasures are so this is optional. We'll have to inform how many of each type but the mapping for the value category is optional as the assignment. And then in the last part, third bit of the assignment we'll have to map the source of agent of deterioration inside the storage room you worked with in your last assignment. And then also the possible path through which agents of deterioration coming from outside that storage room could reach the collection in storage. So in order to do that, we suggest that you use the fixtures plan 2 as a base to create this map. In this case you can also use the transparent sheet to make this mapping which will allow you to overlay information. And then we'll have now three layers of information the spatial distribution of collection items on top of it the spatial distribution of collection value and then as the third and last layer the spatial distribution of hazards in storage. So that's the equivalent to have to look at the collection in storage with the three lengths simultaneously as we metaphorically illustrate in the exercise. So I hope that's clear and I think we can move to questions and comments. I don't know if somebody will mediate that. I can do that. I just want to point out that you should collect all of your assignment on one page and submit it as a Word document. And then that's the best way to submit your assignment. So we have a few questions. One is Jen's Edo from Utah says, transporting objects on a cart and going through elevators are the most dangerous. This is in talking about agents of deterioration in collections that are crowded. And then that was just a comment. Stephanie Landier said, any suggestions if you can't put a lock on the storage door? It's a historic house museum. Marjorie, do you like to answer that? I'm reflecting on it, sorry. I think the internal transport, I think we all can agree that it's a huge risk when it's not well considered and especially during a reorg or moving or a big reorg project when many people are working inside storage with you, that's a serious risk to take into account and to prepare very well that you can lower it. But I think Simone will explain a little bit later in the webinar which is not coming but the one day afterwards how you can plan and how not to forget risky situations and how to not have them. And the other one, yes, please. Sorry, go ahead. No, I just want to say that again, moving objects is risky but then think of the vulnerability. So always consider are they more vulnerable to breakage, to deformation, to bending, or just the vibration. So always think into account of the vulnerability and then that's the kind of physical force so you can dump them or plan ahead if the route is clear so there are ways to avoid or to minimize not to block the physical force when you move that. But that's the spirit. Identify the vulnerability, identify the risk or the hazard and then find ways to avoid or block. Now moving to the second one on the lock, of course in many cases it's not doable, that will be a strategy to block notives at the room level. But maybe you can block something at the object level by using a vote of some kind of strength and showcase. So that's the strategy of the layers. If it doesn't work at the room level maybe it works its feasible at the object level. So don't block the room, you block the object by putting it into a reinforced showcase or you can avoid that by moving it somewhere else. So that's systematically the strategies of avoid, block, and think of the layers. And then for header on the Achaeology Museum I can imagine a million fragments or something like that. So maybe just the things that are above average that you know for sure for the mapping if they are grouped together. So try to figure out and to map their spatial distribution. If you have like really order of magnitude that's the least more important item. Just to have a feeling for the value distribution in storage, okay? Magel, you're saying something? No, I think you said it and also with time being almost over there is another interesting question. Sorry, Susan, that I go fast. But there is Tuki who says as a collection assistant with minimal curatorial input it will be difficult to assess values other to the occasionally available monetary value. I hope it was clear that every time that I said I and me and the curator assessing these values it's true that as an assistant it's not easy but it's true that you need input from people who know the collection. So that's what I want to say perhaps. Zellou, do you want to add something? Yeah, I mean that's why we refer to the mission, right? And the value assessment of course is the consultation process. Not only inside the museum if you have the opportunity to consult with community with all the stakeholders, right? So to understand where is the value of this collection often because people have different opinions so it's subjective. We use as reference the mission of the museum which is the reason for that collection to exist. So only by referring to the mission you can already have a feeling for that but of course it requires consultation with people who actually know and use the collection. So hopefully you have opportunity to discuss that and as I said before it's also an opportunity even to review the mission of the museum and to see how the museum is operating towards that mission. So it's also an opportunity to clarify that. But yeah, it's a consultation process. It requires some knowledge of the collection and ideally by the different stakeholders. Okay. We have one more question and then we're going to go. I will post the recording as soon as I can and I'll send out an email to you all to let you know that it's been posted and I'm very sorry about the mess up in the beginning. It was my fault and it's been taken care of. It won't happen again. So Sister Jean-Marie says they have choir books that weigh 20 to 45 pounds each and they have a great value but it's not a big value in dollars. So how would you handle those? Yes, please. When we talk about value or the relative importance it's the significance of the item in view of the mission of the museum, right? Which encompasses, depending on the mission, artistic value, historic value, symbolic value, religious or spiritual value. So in general when we talk about value it's not only monetary. Often it's not the main criteria in museum collections. So when the meaning of value is cultural significance and also in relation to the museum mission. So that's what we are considering here when we talk about value is this significance or the importance of the object. And then for the decision making we want to compare the relative importance among the object in the collection. Monetary value can be a component. That's the decision by the museum. In some situations the institution say it doesn't matter if it has or doesn't have monetary value. What matters for us is its artistic value or historic value, etc. depending on the function of the collection. I hope that's clear. Throughout the webinar and also in the future when we refer to value we are referring to the importance or the significance of the item. And not exclusively to its monetary value. Yeah, that's right. I've seen museums that want to value everything that's of high monetary value when their most important stuff is probably very mundane in terms of monetary value. So that's a good point. And one last comment since you've shown Marie said maybe in the historic house you could block the door with an alarm so only those with the key can get in without the alarm. Yeah, that's more like a psychological block. If it's suitable also cameras that can be not this encouraging for whoever wants to enter there. So it would be like a psychological barrier. In some cases it has been shown that cameras do not really protect but there's some degree of effect there. So it could also be a combination of factors to be discussed. But the idea is to approach this decision systematically by thinking of the layers, what can be done at each layer and also combining alternatives what's feasible or not so that we can try to optimize what can be done. Okay, I think that's it for the day. So I'll post the recording as soon as I can. And please remember to keep up with your assignments. You can listen to either the recording or the live webinar and you'll still get credit. And we'll see you next week. So thanks a lot. And again, I'm sorry about what happened earlier. And thank you Simon and Marjorie and Jose Luis.