Papyrus Spring 2004

1. Join us in Boston from September 19 to 22, 2004 for this year’s
annual IAMFA conference. Although the New England
Chapter is just getting organized, we’re looking forward to
bringing you a great conference experience. Boston offers
some of the country’s best museums and galleries, and is
steeped in the history of early America. From the Freedom
Trail to Fenway Park, and the Italian North End to Beacon
Hill, Boston has something for everyone.
Your hosts this year include facilities managers from
several area institutions: Jim Labeck of the Isabella Stuart
Gardner Museum, David Geldart of the Museum of Fine Arts,
Robert Monk of the Peabody Essex Museum, David Roth of
the Children’s Museum, David Grimard of the Currier Gallery
and John Lannon of the Boston Athenaeum. Since the decision
to host this year’s annual conference was made fairly recently,
the program is still evolving. As of this writing, however,
topics under consideration include lighting, security, green
buildings and fire safety. In addition to an informative and
enjoyable program of speakers and panelists, this year’s con-
ference will also feature a small-scale trade show introducing
participants to new facilities-related products and services.
We also plan to visit each of the IAMFA member facilities in
the area, and will certainly ensure that you sample as much
of Boston’s famous hospitality and cuisine as we can fit in.
As always, an active Guest Program will be part of this
year’s conference, with visits to some of the area’s most
popular attractions. There is a wide range of boat trips,
mansion tours, whale watching expeditions and more to
choose from. Free time will be programmed in as well, to
allow guests a chance to explore Boston and the surrounding
area on their own.
Our hotel accommodations will be at the Back Bay Hilton.
This hotel is located in Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood,
which features an actual continuum of nineteenth century
urban residential architecture. This is largely due to the
fact that the landfill operation, which created Back Bay,
took place over a number of decades—each of which
had specific architectural styles.
Most of our program destinations make it possible to use
Boston’s extensive subway and bus system. We are looking
into providing a weekly pass for all participants and guests.
For more distant venues, we will board special buses and
enjoy some of the sights along the way. We will be firming
up details of the conference over the next few months—look
PAPYRUSVOLUME 5 SPRING
NUMBER 1 2004
New England Calling—The 14th Annual IAMFA
Conference
I N T E R N A T I O N A L A S S O C I A T I O N O F M U S E U M F A C I L I T Y A D M I N I S T R A T O R S
continued on page 2
Boston Athenaeum—second floor reading room.
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
Letter from the President. . . . . . . . . 3
Regional Chapters Update. . . . . . . . 4
Wet Collections Facility Design . . . . 6
Electrical Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . 12
Benchmarking Review . . . . . . . . . . 13
Are you a Lifelong Learner?. . . . . . . 17
Treasurer’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
From the Editor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . 20

2. for an update on all conference activities
in the summer issue of Papyrus.
To enhance your conference exper-
ience this year, I would also like to
encourage all of you to participate in
the Benchmarking Survey conducted by
Ian Follett and Nancy Nauss of Facility
Management Services. Those who have
taken part in the survey in previous years
have always learned a great deal, coming
away with valuable comparative data
concerning museum facilities. For more
information, please contact Ian or Nancy
in Calgary, Canada at 403-259-5964 or
at fmsltd@fmsltd.com. Although this
activity is separate from the actual
conference, it has become a highly
enjoyable and intensive lead-in to
our three-day extravaganza.
We look forward to seeing you in
Boston this fall, for what we know will
be a fabulous time in New England—
just as our glorious autumn begins to
take hold throughout the region.
James Moisson
Chairperson, 2004 IAMFA Conference
IAMFA 2004 IN BOSTON
The New England Chapter welcomes you!
September 19–22, 2004
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUM FACILITY
ADMINISTRATORS
Ⅺ YES! Sign me up to attend the 2004 IAMFA Annual Conference in
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Name: ___________________________________________________________________________
Title: ____________________________________________________________________________
Institution:_______________________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________________________________
City: _________________________________________ Postal/Zip Code: _________________
State/Province/County: ______________________ Country: _________________________
Phone: ________________________________ Fax: ____________________________________
E-mail: ________________________________ @ ______________________________________
Special dietary requirements:____________________________________________________
ALL FEES ARE PAYABLE IN U.S. DOLLARS
Ⅺ Member conference fee: $375 (after Sept. 1, add $50)
Ⅺ Non-member conference fee: $425 (after Sept. 1, add $50)
Ⅺ Sign me up as a new member: $150
Ⅺ Guest program fee: $250 (after Sept. 1, add $50)
Ⅺ One-day attendance fee: $150 per day Ⅺ MON Ⅺ TUE Ⅺ WED
I require an invoice: Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
Please remit to: International Association of Museum Facility Administrators
(IAMFA)
P.O. Box 7518
Atlanta GA
30357-0518 USA
SUGGESTED ACCOMMODATION
We have reserved a limited number of hotel rooms at the Boston Back Bay Hilton
for the period of Saturday, September 18 through Wednesday, September 22.
The conference rate is $165 per night per room, single or double occupancy.
Early hotel registration is strongly recommended during this busy season in
Boston. To contact the Back Bay Hilton directly, call 617-236-1100. Ask for
Reservations and make sure to mention the IAMFA conference to get the
special rate. Or, you may call 1-800-HILTONS and ask for the Boston Back Bay
Hilton. If you do prefer to do business with a different hotel, or if the Hilton
is full, please bear in mind that we plan to make frequent use of the MBTA
subway system.
Please check the IAMFA website for updates at: www.iamfa.org
¡New England Calling—cont’d from page 1
Entrance to Museum of Fine Arts.
Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University.
©PRESIDENTANDFELLOWSOFHARVARDCOLLEGE
2

3. 3
Dear IAMFA Members,
I hope this spring issue of Papyrus finds
everyone well. On behalf of all the
attendees of the San Francisco Confer-
ence, I would like to again thank Joe
Brennan and the California Chapter of
IAMFA for hosting a truly memorable
conference. Joe and his support team
somehow arranged perfect weather
for our 13th Annual IAMFA gathering.
(Let’s hope the streak continues!)
A note of interest to all our members:
we have a change in our upcoming
2004 annual conference site. We had
originally planned for Pittsburgh as the
site of the 2004 conference. However,
Larry Armstrong had to withdraw, and
Boston has become our site for the
2004 conference. James Moisson of the
Harvard University Art Museums, along
with his colleagues in the New England
Chapter of IAMFA, have gracefully
accepted our request to host the 2004
conference. Information about the
conference and the guest program is
included in this issue of Papyrus, and
more detailed information will be avail-
able in the summer issue. The dates set
for this year’s conference are—mark
your calendars—September 19–22,
2004, and I’m sure we’ll all enjoy a
Tea Party of our own.
In other related news, I’m pleased
to announce that Larry Banister of the
Milwaukee Public Museum has accepted
the Board position of Secretary and
Papyrus Editor. Larry has already
attended the mid-year IAMFA Board
Meeting, which was held in Boston,
and is now well on his way with this,
his first issue of Papyrus. I would like
to welcome Larry and his support staff,
and thank them for their efforts and
willingness to join the IAMFA Board.
Once again, I would like to endorse
the Museum Benchmarking Survey
which Ian Follett from Facility Manage-
ment Services Ltd. will be conducting.
The results of this survey will again be
part of our program in Boston. If you
haven’t received a survey participation
application, you can contact Ian by
e-mail at fmsltd@fmsltd.com. This data
is worth every effort!! To learn more
about the benefits of benchmarking,
please see pages 13–16 in this issue
which includes information from the
San Francisco conference, as well as a
Survey Participation Agreement for the
2004 Benchmarking event in Boston
this September.
This year has brought the retirement
of some of our longest-serving members,
and they will be greatly missed. We
extend our best to all of them and wish
them well. These retirements leave
some vacancies in our organization,
however, and I urge each of you to
help recruit new members to fill the
void. As you know, growth is important
in any organization, so let’s all encourage
new members to join us, as others
move on.
As the President of IAMFA, many
e-mails are forwarded to me regarding
facilities issues, and I’m fortunate to
experience the dialogue that relates
to the core mission of our association.
Solving facility issues with the input of
others, and learning from others’ exper-
iences helps our members immeasurably
during difficult times. It’s very comforting
to realize that we stand united in sup-
porting each other. I commend our
members for their willingness to take
time to correspond when called upon.
As many of you may know, this
September we will have two Board
positions open, and we will need to
have a slate to present during our
annual business meeting. If any of you
are interested in running for a Board
position—or know of someone who
is—please contact any current board
member so that we can include all the
names before this year’s annual elections,
which will take place at our September
conference.
We look forward to seeing you in
September, and may Spring bring much
sunshine and fresh outlook towards
better things to come.
William Caddick
President, IAMFA
Letter from the President
IAMFA
President,
Bill Caddick
IAMFA Board of Directors
President
Bill Caddick
Art Institute of Chicago
Chicago, USA
wcaddick@artic.edu
V.P., Administration
Guy Larocque
Canadian Museum of Civilization and
Canadian War Museum
Gatineau, Canada
guy.larocque@civilization.ca
V.P., Regional Affairs
Toby Greenbaum
Library & Archives of Canada and the
National Museums
Gatineau, Canada
toby.greenbaum@pwgsc.gc.ca
Treasurer
Kevin Streiter
High Museum of Art
Atlanta, USA
kevin.streiter@woodruffcenter.org
Secretary and Papyrus Editor
Larry Bannister
Milwaukee Public Museum
Milwaukee, USA
bannister@mpm.edu
Chairman — Conference 2004
Jim Moission
Harvard University Art Museums
Cambridge, USA
james_moisson@harvard.edu
Chairman — Conference 2004
Rogelio Diez
Museo Guggenheim-Bilbao
Bilbao, Spain
For additional contact information,
please visit our website at
www.iamfa.org

4. 4
Well, it’s a new year and, as most of
you know, I am the new Vice-President
of Regional Affairs for IAMFA. Those
of you who were lucky enough to
participate in our last conference in
San Francisco will know that there are
plenty of challenges in front of us—
both collectively as a group, and as
Regional Chapters. We have several
ongoing chapters (it takes only five
member organizations in good standing
to form a Regional Chapter), and
several new chapters in the works.
We also have chapters that have been
highly active in the past, but which
now seem to have lost their vital signs
as original members retire or move on
to bigger and better things.
First, let’s talk about possible new
chapters. Several of our newer members
have taken on the challenge of organi-
zing new Regional Chapters. Joe May
(J. Paul Getty Trust) in Los Angeles,
California is working towards estab-
lishing a Southern California chapter.
IAMFA has also received interest from
an institution in Amsterdam. In addition,
Patricia Morgan from the Auckland Art
Gallery in Auckland, New Zealand is
organizing IAMFA’s first chapter in the
southern hemisphere. If any IAMFA
members have ideas on establishing
new chapters, or have names of institu-
tions and facilities managers who should
be contacted, please let me know.
I’d also like to share some of our
recent successes. We now have a new
regional chapter in the Northeastern
United States. The New England Chapter
of IAMFA not only discovered that they
had an instant chapter after their atten-
dance at our September conference
(yes—there were already five member
organizations in the area), but has also
volunteered to organize our next one!
Jim Labeck (Isabella Stewart Gardner
Museum) is the Regional Chair, while
Jim Moisson (Harvard University Art
Museums) is the Chair of the Conference
team. They clearly will have their hands
full over the next several months orga-
nizing another praiseworthy conference,
which—as those of your who have
organized a conference can attest—
always leads to an even stronger regional
chapter. They have already attracted two
new members: Bob Monk (Peabody
Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts),
and David Grimard (Currier Museum
of Art in Manchester, New Hampshire).
Furthermore, in November, the gang in
Boston attended a forum called “Alliance
for Response” held by the Heritage
Emergency National Task Force. This
is the second forum, sponsored by
the Heritage Emergency National Task
Force, related to cultural heritage and
disaster management (taskforce@
preservation.org). The goals of these
forums are to:
• provide education on local disaster
management issues and protocols;
• raise awareness of the need to
protect cultural and historical
resources;
• encourage disaster planning and
mitigation, and
• develop strong networks to facilitate
effective local response.
Jim Moisson reported back that the
workshop was more than worthwhile,
with good attendance by institutions
and service providers from throughout
New England.
I would like to welcome our New
England chapter into the IAMFA fold
and wish them good luck—and of
course any help we can provide—
in organizing the next conference.
News from the Northern California
Chapter has come to us via Joe Brennan.
The Chapter will be meeting quarterly
during 2004, with their first meeting
held this February at the Oakland
Museum of California. The Northern
California Chapter is actively seeking
new members both from museum
institutions, and from vendors and
consultants as contributing members.
Joe and his Chapter wanted to thank
everyone once again for making the
conference in September an informative
and enjoyable event. IAMFA members
would, in turn, like to thank Joe and
his crew for organizing a pleasant and
eventful conference for the edification
of us all.
Peter Fotheringham reports from
London that the U.K. Chapter met in
Edinburgh on December 5. Fifteen
institutions were represented from
Edinburgh, Liverpool and London.
They had a very informative day
organized by Robert Galbraith at the
National Galleries of Scotland, and
came away with much useful informa-
tion that will be worth following up.
The morning was spent with a series
of presentations on topics such as
energy conservation and advances
in lighting technology. The afternoon
was spent visiting Robert’s new purpose-
built storage unit, and walking through
his large construction project. He is
Toby Greenbaum,
Chairperson,
Regional Chapter,
Ottawa-Gatineau
Canada
Regional Chapters

5. 5
certainly very busy and will have an
excellent new facility at the National
Gallery once work is completed this
summer. Many thanks to Robert for
hosting the day!
The U.K. Chapter agreed that its next
meeting will be held at the Science
Museum’s new Dana Centre in London
on March 12, 2004. The Dana Centre is
adjacent to the main Science Museum,
and is also very close to the Natural
History Museum’s Spirit Building, which
will provide attendees with an oppor-
tunity to see the Spirit Building and
the Science Museum’s Welcome Wing.
The meeting will be jointly hosted by
the Science Museum and the Natural
History Museum. The meeting has been
timed to allow Graham Pellow of the
Natural History Museum to chair the
meeting prior to his retirement. Many
of you will remember Graham from
his visits to annual conferences, and
the Chapter hopes to give him a good
send-off on that day.
The Ottawa Chapter held its first
meeting of this session in February at
the Canadian Museum of Science and
Technology, with a presentation of the
Long-Term Development Plan for the
Canada Aviation Museum presented
by Bob Chartrand, Executive Director,
Major Capital Projects. Future topics and
meeting times have yet to be established,
but will be reported upon in the next
issue of Papyrus.
The New York Chapter needs to be
recharged, as its Chair, Lloyd Headly
has moved on to a new job within
the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, and
most of the remaining membership
has retired. IAMFA will be lobbying the
new facilities managers in our member
institutions to try to resuscitate the
New York chapters.
Straight from the Smithsonian,
Fletcher Johnston reports that IAMFA
has gone underground. The Smithsonian
has been undergoing a very slow
reorganization to a single facilities
management organization for all the
museums in the Smithsonian family.
This centralized organization is now
in place, and the hope is that, rather
than spending a lot of time reacting to
the changing priorities of an organiza-
tional influx, more time will be available
in the Spring to jump-start IAMFA
activities. Meanwhile, internal training
on benchmarking and other pertinent
facilities subjects have been taking
place, so the Washington IAMFA gang
has been keeping in touch.
We hope you are all taking advantage
of any opportunity to lobby on behalf
of IAMFA with your museum colleagues.
Please let me know if I can be of any
help in recruiting or in establishing new
chapters, or in helping in the ongoing
business of your existing chapters.
Thank you to the chairpersons
who have kindly provided me with
the updates that I have shared with
you on these pages (and please forgive
me for the liberties I took with the
information you sent me!). I am looking
forward to hearing more about the
regional chapters in the near future!
Toby Greenbaum
Vice-President
Regional Affairs, IAMFA
Chairpersons
of Regional Chapters
Ottawa-Gatineau Chapter, Canada
Terresa McIntosh
Portrait Gallery of Canada
Northern California Chapter, USA
Joe Brennan
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
New England Chapter, USA
James Labeck
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
Jim Moisson
2004 IAMFA Conference Chair
Harvard University Art Museums
New York Chapter, USA
Looking for a new Chairperson
United Kingdom Chapter
Peter Fotheringham
National Gallery, London
Washington/Baltimore Chapter, USA
Fletcher Johnston
Hirshorn Museum & Sculpture Garden
Future Chapters
Southern California Chapter, USA
Joe May
J. Paul Getty Trust
New Zealand Chapter
Patricia Morgan
Auckland Art Gallery — Toi O Tamaki
Atlanta Chapter, USA
Kevin Streiter
High Museum of Art
Bilboa Chapter, Spain
Rogelio Diez
Museo Guggenheim-Bilbao
Chicago, USA
William Caddick
Art Institute of Chicago

6. 6
By current codes and standards, the
safety of a Hipopta agavis specimen is
treated in the same way as the Palos
Verde Blue: a different kind of butterfly
caterpillar you might find in a museum.
This would not be so troubling, except
that the Hipopta agavis specimen being
referred to here is the “worm” in tequila
(actually it’s in mescal), and the location
is a distillery, not a museum collection
storage facility. But the specimens in
your wet collections are significantly
more valuable, and it is just this issue
that begins to separate and inform how
difficult it is to properly plan and design
a wet collection facility.
The Smithsonian Institution’s (SI)
National Museum of Natural History
(NMNH) wet collections are among the
largest in the world, and contain over
18 million wet collection specimens
primarily from vertebrate and inverte-
brate zoology, herpetology, and fish
collections. Containers range from
several hundred-gallon stainless steel
tanks with sharks, to 100-year-old
five-gallon (18.9 liter) brittle glass con-
tainers to two-ounce (59.1 ml) vials.
The collections are primarily stored in
75% ethyl alcohol, which is the key
hazard commodity. Facilities and equip-
ment currently used by CM and research
staff range from Second World War
surplus to modern research tools such
as a scanning electron microscope.
The key factor driving the SI decision
to build this facility is the safety of the
public, staff, and collections, followed
by preservation of these collections,
and the desire to open up space at the
NMNH building on the National Mall.
In the pre-planning process, a deci-
sion was made to move these collections
with staff to a new facility at the Museum
Support Center (MSC) in suburban
Maryland. The case statement developed
in 2002 defined a project scope of
150,000 square feet (13,800 m2), with
roughly 110,000 square feet (10,120 m2)
for collections storage, 30,000 square
feet (2,787 m2) for collections manage-
ment (CM) and research, and 10,000
square feet (929 m2) for support and
corridor space. After an appropriation
from Congress in mid-2003, the project
proceeded into programming and design
in the Fall of 2003. The Smithsonian
assembled an in-house client team that
included SI staff (collections manage-
ment, researchers, architects, engineers,
and safety and health professionals),
MSC staff, Office of Facilities Engineering
and Operations (OFEO) staff including
architects and engineers, the SI Office of
Safety and Environmental Management
(OSEM) including safety and health pro-
fessionals, and EwingCole as design
architects and engineers. The schedule
mandated completion of project design
in early Summer 2004, in order to
bid and award the contract by Fall
of 2004 to fulfill the requirements of
the appropriation.
This article highlights issues that
influenced the final design and, while
not a template or checklist, it serves as
a case study of the complexity and
elevated costs associated with a wet
collection storage facility. Some issues
are “local” to the project; others are
more universal to wet collections. For
the most part, the issues around the CM
and research lab wing are similar to
those encountered at any wet lab, and
will not be the focus here.
Process
With an extremely tight timeframe for
a project of this scope, the EwingCole
design team elected to start the process
in September 2003, with a three-day
charrette (workshop) that was attended
by 25 users from the NMNH and MSC,
the cognizant safety and health author-
ities, and designers, in order to set the
tone for a collaborative process sensi-
tizing the different project partners
to each others’ concerns. The process
Beyond Hipopta agavis—
Wet Collections Facility Design
by Walter L. Crimm and Bryan L. Stemen
Smithsonian Museum Support Center (existing Pod 3)—Wet Collection Specimen shelving
and storage. Photo: Mickel Yantz, Smithsonian Institution.

7. 7
proved invaluable in setting the stage
for project scope as well as “building
a team view” of the project. For the
purposes of this article, all issues were
divided into eight categories which
influenced the design:
1. User Programmatic Space Needs
2. User and Facility Operational
Protocols
3. Site Issues
4. Local Jurisdictional Input
5. Safety and Risk/Hazard Assessment
6. Building Core and Shell Design
7. Building Systems Selection and
Design
8. Schedule and Budget
Remarkably, by the end of the three-
day charrette, most of the issues were
identified, criteria for decision-making
were established, and a work plan and
milestone schedule for SI and EwingCole
activity was developed and approved.
The charrette reinforced that each
of these issues was linked, setting the
stage for a process that was iterative,
demanding that team members balance
each issue in light of its impact on the
other issues. Through a process lasting
three months, the team met regularly
to discuss these issues and find solutions
which would best meet the criteria set
for the project. What was discovered
was that, unlike most collections faci-
lities, the process was not linear and
was driven by very complex issues that
did not lend themselves to “off-the-shelf”
solutions. In brief, these issues include:
1. User Programmatic Space Needs
• Storage Pod—The amount of floor
space needed was determined by
face area of shelving, assuming
shelves were 12 inches (300 mm)
or 18 inches (450 mm) deep, and
no higher than seven feet to the
top of the highest shelf. The face
area approach allowed the design
team to measure what was currently
used and apply factors for height
of shelves and density of bottles
on shelving, in direct comparison to
current space. The users set criteria
that the Pod should accommodate
20 years of growth—based on the
past five years of growth, which
have been fueled by orphaned or
de-accessioned collections, as well as
the arrival of new field specimens.
• Collections Management and
Research Space—Space programming
began with independent space for
each collections’ team, customized
to fit different work styles, as well as
the frequency of collection movement
for loans to other researchers around
the world. A shared bulk alcohol,
glass jar, and shipping material
storage area was developed to pro-
vide general storage space, which
was severely lacking in past facility
design. The collections management
group also needed significant space
for processing incoming collections,
for relabeling, and for moving speci-
mens from one fluid medium to
another.
2. User and Facility Operational
Protocols
Currently, some activities take place
within the wet collection storage areas
that do not satisfy the health and safety
criteria set by the SI. New protocols
Smithsonian Museum Support Center (existing Pod 3)—Wet Collection shelving and tank storage array.
continued on page 8

8. 8
were thus established at the outset;
these protocols were felt to be realistic
and achievable, since better support
space would be adjacent to the
storage pod.
• Storage Pod—Since the specimen
bottles and tanks within the Pod
allow evaporation and their sheer
quantity does not make replacement
feasible, it was agreed that the Pod
would be safer if minimal ongoing
collections maintenance and research
activity occurred within the area.
The design of the Pod as a limited
occupancy space allowed the design
team to simplify building systems.
Since large tanks are difficult to
transport—and allow tremendous
evaporation due to their surface areas
when lids are removed—an exami-
nation lab was designed to fit within
the Pod as independent spaces to
provide a safe working environment.
• Emergency Response—A protocol
was developed for response to dif-
fering events, advising staff when
to respond themselves, when to
call building security/safety staff,
and when to call the local fire
department. Space was provided
to accommodate any necessary
emergency equipment.
• Collections Management and
Research—Most facility research
labs are wet, but use minimal
equipment and solvents to perform
their work. Maximum amounts of
alcohol per space were established
to limit fire risk. Labs were designed
to be modular in order to allow flex-
ibility, except for fixed infrastructure
equipment such as fume hoods,
exhaust snorkels, and sinks. Within
the research labs, glassed-in office
space was developed to provide a
safe separate working environment
from wet areas.
3. Site Issues
• Zoning—The Museum Support
Center is a complex previously
developed by the SI. Since the SI
is a Federal Government entity,
public review was minimal.
• Geotechnical reports showed that
differential settlement of the very
heavy building (concrete, filled with
liquids) would be likely without
substantial strip footings. This proved
to be an expensive budgetary cost.
• Utility capacity investigation indicated
deficiencies in two areas:
— Electrical power in the area grid
has proven unreliable and of
poor quality, forcing the use of
two incoming services to provide
redundancy in the case of inter-
ruption from one substation.
— The fire protection water supply
was limited to a single 10-inch
main looping around the MSC,
and was being supplied from
a single tap at the street. Given
the severe fire water demand
requirements for the commodity
class being protected, the
maximum size of each storage
compartment within the Pod
was limited to approximately
4,800 square feet (441.6 m2),
forcing the building to be
divided into 18 compartments
which had an adverse impact
on the efficiency of compactor
shelving. Additionally, it added
a series of two-hour fire-rated
barriers around each of the
interior compartments, which
resulted in more zones for the
building systems such as HVAC,
along with the attendant costs.
• Site Footprint—The footprint was
limited by setbacks from the road,
distances to existing facilities, and
parking, thus forcing the building
to be three stories in height. This
increased the size of footings and
their associated costs
• Setbacks—Due to the hazards of
the building, the site previously
selected had to be modified to keep
proper distances from local roads,
forcing removal of some existing
parking, as well as relocation of
Overhead view of existing Wet Collections storage at the Smithsonian Museum Support
Center (existing Pod 3).
Beyond Hipopta agavis—continued from page 7

9. 9
the building fire lane and the fire
service main and fire hydrants.
• Building Height—While free from
local restrictions, the height of the
building was taller than the existing
facility by approximately 12 feet
(3.64 meters), and the deviation
was beyond what was originally
envisioned in master planning
established for the complex. The
deviation had to be reviewed and
approved by the National Capital
Planning Commission (NCPC) for
final approval.
4. Local Jurisdictional Issues
Never underestimate the importance
of this part of the design process.
As a Federal Government entity, the
Smithsonian was in a position to set the
fire protection, health and safety criteria
for inhabitants and collections. This is
fortunate, given the complexity of the
project and the lack of clear governing
codes (prescriptive codes) to deal with
the issues previously described. The
design process started by working
with prescriptive codes—including the
International Building Code and the
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) criteria, among others—and
supplemented performance-based
design in certain areas to reach an
adequate level of safety as determined
by the SI’s Safety and Health profes-
sionals. While the requirements in a
local jurisdiction might be less stringent,
the process of reaching consensus
might be much more difficult, given the
complexity of the project and the gen-
eral lack of knowledge on the subject
of fluid-based collections and the
hazards with which they are asso-
ciated. Working closely with the users
and EwingCole design team, these
issues were discussed in the first
three-day workshop, and continued
throughout the design process.
5. Safety and Risk/Hazard
Assessment
Properly defining the potential hazards
and preliminary storage configurations
which could adversely affect the safety
of people, collections and the facility
was the first step in determining an
acceptable level of fire safety within
Pod 5. Following hazard identification,
the exercise involved postulating a
series of potential scenarios or events
with anticipated consequences (Failure
Mode vs. Consequences), as well as
determining the likelihood of the event
occurring. From this process, a reason-
able baseline was established, in order
to develop an umbrella of protective
features aimed at limiting the severity of
possible events to an acceptable level.
Predicated upon this concept, Pod 5’s
basis of design incorporates multiple
protective features to reduce or mitigate
the consequences of potential events
to the lowest achievable levels. The
protection scheme does not rely upon
one system or protective feature, but
builds in layers of protection that strive
for a higher level of safety beyond
basic code minimums.
The basic guidelines for the assess-
ment of risk, and defining an acceptable
level of safety within Pod 5, can be
broken down into three priorities
and a simple equation. Priority One
is protection of people, Priority Two is
protection of collections, and Priority
Three is protection of property (the
facility). An oversimplified equation
may be as follows:
Acceptable (PEOPLE) Loss = 0
+
Acceptable (Collections) Loss or Damage
= As close to zero as reasonably achievable
based on postulated scenarios.
+
Acceptable (Property – Building) Loss or
Damage
= As close to zero as reasonably achievable
based on postulated scenarios.
= An Acceptable Level of Fire Safety within
Pod 5
Defining an acceptable level of risk
and/or fire safety within such a complex
facility can be extremely challenging. It
should be understood from the begin-
ning that wet collection hazards are truly
unique, and that much of the prescriptive
code criteria does not always answer
the issues that arise. It is certainly not a
one-to-one correlation in many cases.
Thus, performance-based design, infor-
med by prescriptive codes, may need to
be developed to properly address such
issues and provide a suitable level of
protection for people, the collections,
and the facility.
Smithsonian Museum Support Center (existing Pod 3)—Wet Collection Specimen shelving
and storage. Photo: Mickel Yantz, Smithsonian Institution.
continued on page 10

10. 10
A summary of risk lessons:
• Identify the potential hazards early
in the design and continue to further
define and refine the hazards list
as the design process develops.
• Stay focused on human safety as a
primary concern through the selection
of building components and systems,
and ensure that thorough protection
meshes with these elements.
• Attempt to define what is an accept-
able level of loss for collections and
property, with the intent to keep
this loss as low as achievable.
• Don’t base your protection scheme
design on one system or protective
feature, but incorporate layers of
protection from multiple features to
ensure a balanced design.
6. Building Core and Shell Design
• Structure—To accommodate the
weight of the contents—as well as to
minimize pockets in the structure,
floor-to-floor heights, and the ability
to provide a four-hour fire-rated wall
around the Pod—concrete was selec-
ted for the building structure. The
location of the project adjacent to
other collections storage facilities
made vibration during construction a
concern, forcing the building to be
moved farther away, and resulting in
relocation of some current surface
parking.
• Building Shell—Following the prece-
dents on the site, as well as to achieve
a four-hour fire rating to separate the
building from adjacent collections
storage buildings, precast concrete
was selected. The roof material was
selected for its compatibility with
fumes being exhausted onto the roof.
• Compartments within the Pod—As
previously discussed, within the Pod,
two-hour fire-rated multi-zoning
compartments were developed to
limit the spread of an event. This
also forced multi-zoning of building
systems, providing fire-rated corridors,
and numerous other expenses. A
fire within one compartment would
only have an impact on a small
percentage of the collection.
• Compact Shelving—Despite its high
cost, compact shelving is ultimately
less expensive than building addi-
tional floor space for a structure
in which only a limited number of
users would be present. However,
compactors could not achieve their
full efficiency since six-inch stops had
to be utilized to ensure that shelving
units were spaced far enough apart
to allow fire sprinklers to achieve
the desired coverage on the lower
shelves and below the compactors.
Manual compactors were felt to be
safer, keeping the source of potential
ignition out of the Pod, in addition
to the fact that no manufacturer
could be identified which made an
electrical compactor approved for
use in the hazardous environment.
However, units were grounded to
minimize static charge build-ups
should they occur. Few manufac-
turers are capable of producing
compactors for this loading capacity.
The tracks for the compact-shelving
units were set flush to the floor.
The gaps between rails and con-
crete flooring were increased and
grated to develop a reservoir with
the capacity to contain the amount
of fluid that could be spilled in any
event. Since the local water/sewer
authority would not permit intro-
duction of certain concentrations of
alcohol, the reservoir was enlarged,
and drains were set up two inches,
so that fire protection discharge
would dilute any alcohol prior to
its discharge down the drain.
• The CM and research wing was more
straightforward within the parameters
of what would be expected for a
research facility. The most critical
aspects were providing individual
controls for HVAC systems, dimmable
lighting, and efficiency in designing
the building systems to grid these
areas without compromising flexibility
now or in the future. Alcohol-resistant
floor, wall and ceiling finishes were
specified.
7. Building Systems Selection and
Design
Building systems are interrelated to
the protocols and uses in the storage
Pod and CM research areas. Wherever
possible, devices and systems were kept
out of the storage areas to minimize the
need for service within the Pod, and to
reduce the chance of fire or explosion.
• Fire Protection for the Pod does not
rely solely on one system type but
on a variety of systems to provide
layered protection. The protection
scheme is truly a balanced design,
and incorporates innovative auto-
matic sprinkler protection using
a high density of .6 gpm/sq. ft.
(24.41 l/m/m2) over a maximum
area of approximately 4,200 sq. ft.
(386.4 m2), coordinated with heat
baffles and floor spread control trench
drains, hydrocarbon gas detection,
a complete fire detection and alarm
Smithsonian Museum Support Center
(Existing Pod 3) Specimen Shelving Array
and Wet Collections Storage. Photo: Julie
Hoskin, Smithsonian Institution.
Beyond Hipopta agavis—continued from page 9

11. 11
system, Hazardous Location Electrical
Fixtures (Class 1, Division 2 per
NFPA 70—The National Electrical
Code), standpipe and hose station
connections, and a combination of
passive features with both two-hour
fire barriers around each compart-
ment, and four-hour fire-rated walls
forming a protective cocoon around
the entire collection Pod. The fire
water supply limitation and antici-
pated sprinkler operation area
essentially shaped the compartmental
configuration.
• HVAC Systems—The evaporation rate
for ethyl alcohol is significantly less
at 65°F (18°C) than at 70°F (21°C);
thus, the building was designed to be
maintained at a consistent tempera-
ture of 65°F (18°C). For reasons of
budget, package units were selected
to be placed on the roof, with shafts
supplying and returning air in
two compartments on three floors
each from each unit. Ductwork was
minimized to decrease floor-to-floor
heights, and was supplied with a
single run horizontally high across
the front, and low across the rear.
Since stationary shelving was used
along these perimeter walls, capacity
loss was minimal. Due to low emer-
gency power availability, redundancy
was kept to a minimum. Interlocks
for HVAC units were coordinated
into alcohol detection sensors
mounted at 18 inches (450 mm)
above the floor along the perimeter
to increase outside air to 100% if
concentrations reach levels that are
25% of the lower explosive limit
(LEL) for ethyl alcohol. Unfortunately,
sustainable design principles were
not budgeted, and while desirable,
could not become a part of the pro-
ject design. This is regrettable, since
the potential air changes were higher
than in a typical collections storage
facility, due to the evaporation from
older bottles with leaky seals.
• Electrical Systems—Wherever pos-
sible, devices such as light switches
and all convenience power outlets
were kept outside the Pod to mini-
mize potential ignition sources and
thus chance of explosion. Within
the Pod, Class 1 Division 2 lighting
and self-illuminated exit signs were
specified. However, other wet col-
lections facilities have elected to
connect lighting to alcohol detection
sensors, allowing significantly less
expensive fixtures to be specified.
This issue was researched exten-
sively, but the requirements of The
National Electrical Code (NFPA 70)
made it clear that it would be better
to use protected electrical fixtures,
given the configuration of the storage
Pod. The team did not feel that a
suitable degree of reliability could
not be developed for integrating
the electrical system into the gas
detection and building fire alarm
system. This criteria, coupled with the
need for UV filtering, limited fixture
choice and proved to be costly.
• Plumbing Systems—Plumbing system
criteria and design solutions were
fairly straightforward. The most critical
element was to provide a design
solution for containment and drainage
within the storage Pod, allowing
containment as well as diluted fluid
drainage within the criteria of the
local water authority. Since these
systems are expected to be rarely
used, moving the traps to locations
where a trap primer can be used
without concern for sparking was the
only complicating factor. The desire of
collections managers and researchers
for a piped alcohol system for the
labs was ultimately rejected, due
to the lack of a pre-designed and
fully labeled system acceptable to
the SI, and the costs involved in
developing such a system.
8. Schedule and Budget
The pace of design proved to be a real
challenge, given the interactive process
of design and the large numbers of
staff and design professionals involved
in decision-making. However, the costs
are significantly larger for wet collections
facilities than for dry collections. The
building’s architectural design is straight-
forward, and under no circumstances
should you expect to lessen the safety
of the building to meet budget criteria.
Conclusions
Should you be planning a wet collec-
tions facility, consider the following
recommendations:
1. Spend planning money upfront
prior to going to your Board or
funding agencies for an allocation.
2. Based on our list of the eight
categories above, develop a list
of knowns and unknowns under
each item and work to define this
scope as clearly as possible prior
to budgeting.
3. Bring in the local authority having
jurisdiction at the beginning of dis-
cussions, and frequently thereafter
throughout the design process.
4. Create a task force of users and
others to make sure they can live
with the decisions operationally.
5. Hire consultants who understand
the complexity of these kinds of
buildings.
Since the project is defined by the
influences of safety and operations on
a series of decisions about a building
and its systems, it fits the dictionary
definition of a POD—“A protective
container or housing”—to preserve
the NMNH collections for the future.
So, why is Hipopta agavis in the
bottom of the bottle? According to the
Ask Jeeves search engine, “as proof of
alcohol content and apparently alters
taste, color and smell of the liquor.”
Walter L. Crimm, AIA, is Vice-President
of Cultural Practice at EwingCole,
based in Philadelphia. He can be
reached at 1-215-923-2020 or at
wcrimm@ewingcole.com.
Bryan L. Stemen, CSP, CFPS, is a
Fire Protection Engineer with the
Smithsonian Institution’s Office
of Safety and Management in
Washington, D.C. He can be
reached at 1-202-275-0732 or
at stemenb@si.edu.

12. 12
There are opportunities in maintenance,
as there are in life which, if not taken
in a timely fashion, disappear. One
such critical opportunity in the life
of electrical equipment that handles
relatively large amounts of power, is
preventive maintenance.
In the museum world, there is often
not enough funding to do everything
we should do or would like to do.
Although it’s a relative bargain, electrical
maintenance is often neglected for
too long.
Recently, we assisted a client in
recovering from a catastrophic sub-
station failure that was primarily due
to a lack of preventive maintenance.
When the substation failed, it literally
burned down several sections of the
substation and badly contaminated the
remaining sections of the substation
with vaporized metal and carbon.
The cost of replacement of that sub-
station—including labor, materials and
temporary provisions to feed-affected
loads—exceeded a half-million dollars.
That does not include the cost of lost
business. The temporary provisions took
more than two full days to install; and
the ordering and installation of a new
substation took more than three months.
The substation was double-ended
with primary equipment maintained a
few times during the life of the system.
The secondary 480VAC sections of the
substation had not been maintained
at all for many years. The burn-down
occurred in the secondary 480VAC
sections. Damage was severe enough to
make the double-ended feature useless.
Had the 480VAC sections been properly
maintained, it is more than reasonable
to presume that the failure might not
have occurred at all.
Minimal maintenance of electrical
equipment that handles reasonably
large amounts of power should include
an annual visual and infrared inspection
of insulating surfaces and all connec-
tions. Every five years, maintenance
should also include the cleaning of
all insulating surfaces and bus work,
testing of proper breaker operation,
measuring insulating values and mea-
suring conductance values. The cost
of this type of maintenance would be
in the range of $800 U.S. for visual
and infrared inspection each year, and
$6,800 U.S. for more comprehensive
testing every five years.
In short then, an investment in main-
tenance of $10,000 U.S. every five years
would have better preserved and pre-
vented the premature replacement
of a half-million dollars plus capital
investment. A pretty good return on
investment.
Arthur Miller, P.E. is a consulting
engineer with over thirty-five years
of experience, whose practice spans
the U.S. from coast to coast. He
can be reached at miller@miller-
engineering.com or toll-free at
1-866-347-1877.
Electrical Maintenance:
An Opportunity Often Missed
by Arthur Miller
Circuit breaker lugs. Circuit breaker interior.Molded case circuit-
breaker in distribution
panel board.
Switchgear bus.
Substation damage.

13. 13
Museum Benchmarks 2003, Survey of
Facility Management Practices
This was the third annual benchmarking survey. It focused,
for the first time, on a comprehensive listing of good and
best practices used in the facility management of museums
and art institutions. Key performance measurements were also
repeated, allowing for a three-year history of trends. Also
for the first time, a Customized Survey Report was prepared
for those participating institutions that requested it. This cus-
tomized survey report compared side-by-side, on the same
page, the performance measurements of the participating
institution to industry average performance measurements,
and showed additional analysis by type of museum.
Eighty museums and art institutions have participated in
the Museum Benchmarks Surveys of 2001, 2002 and 2003.
An Annual Exercise
Participants at last year’s Benchmarking and Best Practices
Workshop in San Francisco voted once again to continue
the benchmarking survey as an annual exercise.
Some Highlights of Museum Benchmarks 2003,
Survey Report
• Area Cleaned Per Custodial Worker
2003 2002 2001
21,600 ft2 25,800 ft2 23,900 ft2
2,100 m2 2,400 m2 2,200 m2
• Cost of Custodial Services Totally or Mostly Outsourced
($US)
$1.28 per sq. ft. $13.78 per sq. m.
• Cost of Custodial Services Totally or Mostly In-House ($US)
$2.22 per sq. ft. $23.90 per sq. m.
• Area Per Building Maintenance Worker
2003 2002 2001
31,200 ft2 36,400 ft2 33,500 ft2
2,900 m2 3,400 m2 3,100 m2
• Cost of Building Maintenance ($US)
$4.27 per sq. ft. $45.98 per sq. m.
• Area Per Security Worker By Facility Type
Fine Art: 6,000 ft2 600 m2
History: 14,000 ft2 1,300 m2
Archives: 42,600 ft2 4,000 m2
• Outsourcing Services Provided by Contractor
(totally or in combination with employees)
Custodial services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Equip. maintenance (elevators, etc.). . . . 87%
Grounds maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
Exterior building maintenance . . . . . . . . 71%
Benchmarking Review
by Ian Follett
Left to right: Ed Richard of the National Gallery of Canada, Christian Pagé and Pierre LePage of the Canadian
Museum of Civilization, and Richard Harding of Black and McDonald.
continued on page 14

14. 14
Benchmarking and Best
Practices Workshop 2003
This one day Workshop, always part
of the benchmarking exercise, was
held in San Francisco immediately
prior to the IAMFA Conference. The
following institutions were represented
at this Workshop:
Art Institute of Chicago
Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki
Canadian Museum of Civilization
Canadian Museum of Nature
Harvard University Art Museums
Library and Archives Canada
National Gallery (London)
National Gallery of Art (Washington)
National Gallery of Canada
Smithsonian National Air & Space
Museum
Smithsonian National Museum
of Natural History
The Arts Center (Spartanburg)
The British Library
The Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh
The Getty Center
Workshop Highlights
• Survey Results
Presentation and discussion of
Museum Benchmarks 2003 results
and trends
• Identification of Good and Best
Practices
Participating institutions were asked
in the survey questionnaire if each
practice (of 13 pages of listed
practices) was a good/best practice
that should be utilized by all facility
managers—or not.
• Best Practice Presentations
— Facilities Methods Improvement
Control System
Joe May, The Getty Center
— Service Call Centre
Lucie Lanctôt, Canadian Museum
of Nature
— Computerized Maintenance
Planning and Work Management
Joe May, The Getty Center
— Funding Models for Life Cycle
Replacement of Aging Building
Components
Guy Larocque, Canadian
Museum of Civilization
• Focus Groups
Four separate groups discussed the
following topics:
— How to Motivate and Reward
Employees and Contractors
— How to Practice Environmental/
Green Building Management
— How to Be Proactive vs.
Reactive
— How to Improve the Museum
Benchmarks Report
Peter Fotheringham of London’s National Gallery, James Moisson of the Harvard University
Art Galleries, and John DeLucy of the British Library.
Purchase of Museum
Benchmarks 2003
Survey Report
The Report can be purchased for
$1,000 U.S. Please contact Ian Follett,
Facility Management Services Ltd, at
fmsltd@fmsltd.com, 1-403-259-5964
or fax at 1-403-255-7116.
The Report, the result of a
30-page questionnaire, includes a
four-page Executive Summary of
Results, a five-page listing of facility
management-related operational
definitions, and 22 pages of Data
Analysis. Data was gathered and
analyzed on the following topics:
description of facilities, space util-
ization, temperature and relative
humidity, custodial services, utilities,
building maintenance, exterior
grounds maintenance, building
security, cost of building operations,
outsourcing, good/best practices (a
seven-page listing) and important
issues facing facility managers.
The best practices of participating
institutions, as listed and briefly
described by each institution, are
also included in the Survey Report.
Benchmarking Review—continued from page 13

15. 15
• Thank You
All best practice presenters
— Joe Brennan, San Francisco
Museum of Modern Art, for great
hospitality and arrangements for
the workshop room, equipment
and catered luncheon
— All those who helped in the
development of the survey
questionnaire
— Bill Caddick and IAMFA
members for their endorsement
and support of this annual
benchmarking survey
Some Uses of Survey Data
• To identify strengths and weaknesses
• To establish goals and action plans
(strategic planning)
• To justify costs and practices
• To support business cases for change
• To identify institutions with best
practices
• To learn from these institutions
Key Benchmarking
Requirements and
Objectives
Essence of Benchmarking: Learning
from Others
• Humility: others can do some
things better
• Learning from others is faster (and
therefore smarter) than starting
from scratch
• Learning must be a continuous
process
• It’s not about getting a good report
card
• “What” (the benchmark) without
“how” (the process) is an empty
statement
• Measurements are overemphasized,
processes (practices) are overlooked
• A key tool for
— Staying competitive
— Supporting customers
— Effectiveness
— Strategic planning
Joe May of the Getty Center and Ian Follett of Facililty Management Services Ltd.
Ian Follett, BAA, CFM, is the President
of Facility Management Services Ltd.,
based in Calgary, Canada. He has
over 30 years’ experience as a facility
manager and management consultant
specializing in facility management.
He can be reached at fmsltd@fmsltd.com.
Richard Kowalczyk of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum and Guy Larocque
of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

16. 16
The undersigned institution wishes to
participate in Museum Benchmarks 2004,
Survey of Facility Management Practices,
and agrees to:
• Provide complete and accurate data in a
timely manner.
• Maintain the confidentiality of the survey
questionnaire and survey data.
• Use the survey data for internal
organizational purposes only.
• Not provide the survey questionnaire or
survey data to any other organizations
or individuals.
• Pay FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD
$1,875 in U.S. currency to benchmark one
facility.
PAYMENT IN FULL IS DUE UPON REGISTRATION
Ⅺ If you require an invoice, please check.
Fee
• $1,875 U.S. which includes a Customized Survey Report
[see below]
• Due upon registration.
The fee includes:
• Survey Questionnaire Development
Approximately 25-40% of the survey will gather data on
new subjects
• Customized Survey Report that includes:
– Survey data
Charts of all data from all participating institutions
listed under each institution’s name
– Survey Results (individualized)
Charts and graphs of industry averages, ratios and
trends that compare the performance measurements
of each participating institution to industry average
performance measurements
– Executive Summary
A summary that provides comments and
recommendations on key performance measurements
and practices in facility management
• Full day workshop, including best practices and networking
Key Dates
• February–May, 2004: Receipt of Survey Participation
Agreement
• March–June, 2004: Distribution of Survey Questionnaire
• July 1, 2004: Return of Completed Survey Questionnaire
• August 31, 2004: Survey Report mailed to Participating
Organizations
• September 19, 2004: Benchmarking and Best Practices
Workshop in Boston
Excuses for Not Benchmarking
• We’re too busy doing projects (i.e., we’re too busy
working hard to learn how to work smart).
• We participated in a benchmarking survey previously
and we’re right in the middle of the pack (i.e., we’re
happy to be average; continuous learning is not
important).
How Do I Sign On or Get More Information?
Complete and return the Survey Participation Agreement,
or contact Ian Follett at:
Tel.: 1 (403) 259-5964
Fax: 1 (403) 255-7116
E-mail: fmsltd@fmsltd.com
Website: www.fmsltd.com
This Year’s Survey: Museum Benchmarks 2004, Survey of Facility Management Practices
NOTE: Thanks to the Smithsonian Institution’s sponsorship, this year’s fee remains the same as last year.
SURVEY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
Institution Date
Signing Authority (please print) Title
Signature Telephone No.
Mailing Address
Mailing Address
Fax E-Mail Address
Please fax the completed agreement to:
Ian Follett
President
FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD
Tel: 1-403-259-5964
Fax: 1-403-255-7116
E-mail: fmsltd@fmsltd.com

17. 17
1) Learning doesn’t just happen; it
must be a conscious activity
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
2) In general, people learn when
they need to or have to
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
3) My learning didn’t end when I
graduated from school
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
4) All jobs, no matter how routine,
offer learning opportunities
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
5) People learn better from success
than mistakes
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
6) It is my responsibility to create
learning opportunities, not my
company’s
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
7) I can recall a valuable lesson
learned at work in the past week.
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
8) There are opportunities for me to
share learning and hear about the
learning experiences of others.
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
9) I keep learning logs to document
lessons learned.
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
10) I place a high premium on
learning.
Ⅺ Yes Ⅺ No
How do you rate?
Give yourself 2 points for each
“Yes” answer and 1 point for each
“No” answer.
18–20 points: You get an “A” for
attitude! By recognizing that effective
learning is conscious, committed to
memory and communicated, you are
likely maximizing learning oppor-
tunities. By embracing continuous
learning, you are probably enjoying
high levels of achievement.
14–17 points: Don’t leave learning
to chance! You might appreciate the
benefits of learning, but may need to
make a more conscious effort to retain
lessons learned. Try to make one change
to enhance learning, such as keeping a
learning log or sharing lessons learned
with colleagues.
10–13 points: Don’t let learning lag!
Continuous learning isn’t something
that will go away if you ignore it long
enough. Don’t wait for someone else
to provide learning opportunities –
they’re all around you.
Credit: PRIORITY MANAGEMENT
Member
Michael Downs — Hagley Museum and Library
Barry Fuchs — Children’s Museum of Richmond
Thomas Goller — Japanese American National Museum
Elfyn Hughes — Museum of Welsh Life
C.R.M.C. Keeman — Rijksmuseum
Ian MacLean — Canada Science and Technology Museum Corporation
Robert Monk — Peabody Essex Museum
Paul Svirbel — Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Robert Webb — Powerhouse Museum
Associate
Gordon Bailey — Asian Art Museum
Lezlee Kryszewski — Milwaukee Public Museum
Ken Moffett — Japanese American National Museum
Rick Peterson — San Francisco Museum of Art
Spence Stehno — Milwaukee Public Museum.
Subscribing
Igor Bienstock — Cosentini Associates
Bruce Causey — Corporate Care
Vince DiPiero — Allied Security
Ed Katz — Steed Marketing
Mike McCaughin — The Edward Pike Company/
ProPM, Inc.
Anthony McGuire — McGuire Engineers
Kristin Rennett — Barton Protective Services
Affiliate
Mark Malekskshi — Cosentitni Associates
New IAMFA Members
The International Association of Museum Facility Administrators is pleased to welcome the following new members:
Are You A Lifelong Learner?
by Ian Follett
Rate your learning style by answering “Yes” or “No” to indicate whether
you agree or disagree with the following statements.

18. Kevin Streiter
Treasurer, IAMFA
18
Greetings from your 2004 IAMFA
Treasurer. It was wonderful seeing all of
you at the conference in San Francisco
this past September. As always, the
success of our organization hinges
upon the interest and participation of
our dedicated members. The confer-
ence was attended by over 80 IAMFA
members and guests, as well as a half-
dozen non-members. Joe Brennan and
the Northern California chapter really
did a bang-up job and they deserve
all of our thanks.
We can’t say enough about the
generosity of the conference sponsors.
Their support was crucial to the success
of our gathering. The Board would like
to recognize the following conference
sponsors and thank them on behalf of
the IAMFA membership:
Guardsmark
ABM Industries
LSI Lighting
Thyssencorp
Rutherford & Chikene
Energy Team
IAMFA would like to additionally
thank all the providers of venues and
transportation, and the vendors who
participated in the conference.
Other Business
As we enter into a new season, I thought
it would be an excellent time to update
everyone on our membership and
the general state of our finances: our
invoiced membership is currently at
91 Regular members, 27 Associates,
21 Subscribing members, and 5 Affiliate
members. Thanks to all of you who
have already sent in your checks. Your
annual certificates of membership will
be arriving shortly. The Board is also
in the process of contacting lapsed
members from the past few years to
invite them back into the IAMFA fold.
Our expenditures and income are
all in good order and tracking normally.
I look forward to working with James
Moisson and the New England Chapter
on the finances for the upcoming 2004
conference.
Some of you have asked about
paying dues and conference fees by
credit card. Currently we can only
A Word from Your Treasurer
Isabella Stuart Gardner Museum Courtyard in Boston.
accept checks. Please excuse any
inconvenience this may cause. If
this changes, you will be alerted via
e-mail, or in the pages of the next
issue of Papyrus.
Have a productive new session,
everyone. As always, don’t hesitate
to contact me with any questions or
comments on IAMFA membership
or any other IAMFA issues. I look
forward to seeing you all in Boston
this Fall!
Kevin Streiter
Treasurer, IAMFA

19. 19
On behalf of the membership and Board, we invite you to
join with other museums and cultural organizations through-
out the world in becoming a member of the only organization
exclusively devoted to museum and cultural facility admin-
istrators: the International Association of Museum Facility
Administrators (IAMFA). As a member, you will join a growing
list of museum and cultural facility administrators in their
efforts to provide a standard of excellence and quality in
planning, development and design, construction, operation
and maintenance of cultural facilities of all sizes and varieties
of programming.
The Association currently has representation in several
countries on three continents. Our goal is to increase
membership in institutions throughout the world.
Your involvement in the IAMFA will continue the growth
of the organization and provide you with excellent educational
and networking opportunities. As your colleagues, we look
forward to welcoming you to membership in the IAMFA.
Cordially yours,
The Board of the International Association
of Museum Facility Administrators
Membership Opportunities
Join the IAMFA at any of the following levels and enjoy full
benefits of membership:
Regular Member — $150 annually. A regular member
holds the position of principal administration in direct
charge of the management of facilities, and represents their
institution(s) as a member of the association.
Associate Member — $50 annually. An associate member
is a full-time facilities management employee (professional,
administrative or supervisor), below the level of the facility
administrator of the member association.
Affiliate Member — $50 annually. An affiliate member is
any full-time employee of a member institution who is not
directly involved in the facilities management department.
Subscribing Member — $300 annually. A subscribing
member is an individual, organization, manufacturer of
supplier of goods services to the institutions who ascribes
to the policies and programmes of the Aassociation, and
wishes to support the activities of the Association.
Become a Member of the IAMFA
and Get a Friend to Join
YES! I would like to join the IAMFA as a:
Ⅺ Regular Member $150 Ⅺ Associate Member $ 50
Ⅺ Affiliate Member $ 50 Ⅺ Subscribing Member $300
Institution: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Title: ________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________
State/Province: _______________________ Zip/Postal Code: _______________________ Country:_____________________________
Phone: _____________________________________ Fax: ____________________________________ E-mail: ______________________________
ALL FEES ARE PAYABLE IN U.S. DOLLARS
Ⅺ I enclose a check in the amount of $ ____________________
Ⅺ Please invoice me
¡
Send in your membership dues by using the convenient form below.
Don’t forget to make a copy to give to a colleague.
Please remit to:
International Association of Museum Facility Administrators
c/o Kevin Streiter, High Museum of Art
1280 Peachtree Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 U.S.A.
Website: www.iamfa.org
Ⅺ I am interested in joining.
Please have a member
contact me.

20. 20
Dear Colleagues,
This is my first issue as IAMFA Secretary
and Editor of Papyrus. The design of
Papyrus will stay the same, thanks
to the insightfulness brought to our
newsletter by my predecessor Pierre
Lepage, and we will continue to strive
for balance in providing articles that
you will find both interesting and
informative.
The strength of Papyrus is in the
feedback and participation of IAMFA
members. It is also a catalyst in helping
to jumpstart thought and even debate
on facilities issues which affect us
all. In these pages, we hope that you
continue to find valuable information
that helps you with your own facilities
management challenges. We also hope
to provide a forum in which to encour-
age better industry-wide practices in
operating museums and caring for our
priceless collections. As a new member
of IAMFA—thrust into the position of
Secretary and Editor with great delight—
I appreciate the unlimited background
and experiences of my colleagues,
and look forward to benefiting from
your insight.
My own diverse background covers
electrical system design, construction
and commissioning, with later emphasis
on facility management and business
administration. I welcome any contri-
butions you or your associates may
wish to make to the range and depth
of articles we can provide here in
Papyrus. I know that it can sometimes
be difficult to find the time to write an
account of your own thoughts and
experiences in facilities management. I
would like to encourage you, however,
to consider what you may be able to
share with your colleagues. After all,
who better to advise others than those
who have already been in the trenches?
At present, we here at the Milwaukee
Public Museum are facing our own
logistical challenges as we prepare to
welcome a new traveling exhibition.
We are honored to be hosting The
Quest for Immortality from Egypt,
which is now touring a limited number
of venues throughout the United States.
For a museum of our size, you can
imagine the number of hours and ded-
icated people that such a production
entails. But I’ll save the behind-the-
scenes details for a later date—when
I submit my own article on project
management! In the meantime, what
kinds of challenges are you currently
facing?
Your commitment to IAMFA is
a valuable asset, enhancing facility
management around the world. With
your membership fees and your active
participation in the business of the
Association, you help us all strengthen
our practices and procedures in the
essential field of facilities
management.
I look forward to hearing from all
of you during my appointment as
Editor, and I look forward to seeing
you all at this September’s annual
conference in Boston.
Larry N. Bannister
Secretary, IAFMA
From the Editor’s Desk
Larry Bannister,
Editor, Papyrus
IAMFA/Papyrus
SPRING 2004
Editor
Larry Bannister
Papyrus Correspondents
Bill Caddick
Art Institute of Chicago
William L. Crimm
EwingCole
Ian Follett
Facilities Management Services, Ltd.
Toby Greenbaum
Library & Archives of Canada & the
National Museums
Arthur Miller
Miller Engineering
Kevin Streiter
High Museum of Art
Bryan L. Stemen
Smithsonian Institution’s Office of Safety
and Management
Production Coordination
Lezlee Kryszewski
Milwaukee Public Museum
Design and Layout
Phredd Grafix
Editing
Artistic License
Printed in the United States by
Graphicolor, Inc.
ISSN 1682-5241
Statements of fact and opinion are made
on the responsibility of authors alone
and do not imply an opinion on the part
of the editors, officers, or members of
IAMFA. The editors of IAMFA Papyrus
reserve the right to accept or to reject
any Article or advertisement submitted
for publication.
While we have made every attempt to ensure
that reproduction rights have been acquired
for the illustrations used in this newsletter,
please let us know if we have inadvertently
overlooked your copyright, and we will rectify
the matter in a future issue.