Question 16:QVMAG Outcomes Relative To Investment

Question 16: Are you as aldermen completely satisfied that the QVMAG's metrics reflect the appropriate outcomes for such an institution in a 21st C context given the levels of public investment in it over an extended period? 

Response: Improving operation performance is an objective for the Museum as it is for all Council activities. 

MY RESPONSE: Again, the question was addressed to the Aldermen individually and collectively and not management. The response here is reflective of 'corporate management's' and the institution’s apparent acceptance of the institutions 'plateauing'. Indeed, the QVMAG attendances over a number of years and management's 'cost-centre-management-paradigm' exemplifies this. 

On the available evidence the Aldermen/Trustees seem to accept the metrics that show that the average cost per QVMAG visitation is something in the order of $45 – approx $30 of which is funded by ratepayers via their rate demands. What might the appropriate level be taking into  account the delivered social and cultural dividends?

Likewise, on the available evidence Aldermen/Trustees seem to accept this metric as being adequate, appropriate satisfactory, whatever and moreover equitable albeit that the metrics show that ratepayers are individually, and compulsorily, investing something like an annual $135 contribution via their rates. Thy might reasonably ask:

• For what dividend? 
• For what social and cultural outcome? 

Against this background, and the fact that as the institution’s governors/trustees the aldermen/trustees do not appear to appear to have established relevant KPIs to measure outcomes against expectations. Given this there is considerable reason to question the institution’s operational outcomes yet there appears to be no mechanism by which it can be measured.