вход по аккаунту


Benchmarking: How to Use Data as an Agent for Change 80 - iamfa

код для вставки
VOL. 12, NO. 2
How to Use Data
as an Agent
for Change
FALL 2011
80 Questions
to Assess the
Productivity of
Your Organization
Schedule for the IAMFA
Annual Conference in
Auckland, NZ
Air to Water
Heat Pump for
Domestic Hot-Water
Letter from the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Message from the President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Update—IAMFA Annual Conference in Auckland . . .
Benchmarking: How to Use Data as an Agent
for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fade-Testing of Museum Objects at the
National Museum of Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Looking at Art in a New Light—Part Three in
a Four-Part Series: Conservation to Conversation . . . 23
2011 IAMFA Conference Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Operations Review Reveals Hidden Maintenance
Improvement Resources—Part Three in a
Three-Part Series: How to Evaluate Your
Operations Review Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Family Ties to the Auckland Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Smithsonian Institution’s Arts and Industries
Building Phase-2 Renovation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
MOTAT’s Aviation Display Hall has More Action
on the “Wings” than the All Blacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Exploratorium Construction Update. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Air-to-Water Heat Pump for Domestic
Hot-Water Generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Torpedo Bay: New Home of the Royal
New Zealand Navy Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Meet Archie, the Four-Legged Pest Controller . . . . . 18
National Library of New Zealand Building
Redevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Harvard Art Museums Renovation and
Expansion Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Chapter News and Regional Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
IAMFA Members—Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Index of Papyrus Technical and Historical Articles . . . 50
Puzzle Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Cover photo: The silver fern—photographed at the Auckland Zoo—is widely used to represent New Zealand and New Zealanders. Photo: John Castle
John de Lucy
The British Library (Retired)
London, United Kingdom
Secretary and Papyrus Editor
Joseph E. May
Sustainability Engineer
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Atlanta, U.S.A. — Kevin Streiter,
High Museum of Art
V.P., Administration
Randy Murphy
Los Angeles County Museum
of Art
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Chairman — Conference 2011
Patricia Morgan
Auckland Art Gallery
Toi o Tamaki
Auckland, New Zealand
V.P., Regional Affairs
John Castle
Winterthur Museum,
Garden and Library
Winterthur, DE, USA
Alan Dirican
Baltimore Museum of Art
Baltimore, MD, USA
IAMFA/ Papyrus
Vol. 12, Number 2
Fall 2011
Joe May
Papyrus Correspondents
Auckland Conference Team
Joe Brennan
Sara Carroll
John Castle
John de Lucy
Maurice Evans
Membership Committee Chair
Guy Larocque
Canadian Museum of
Gatineau, QC, Canada
For additional contact information,
please visit our website at
Bruce Ford
Jennifer Fragomeni
Pam Harris
Joe May
Jim Moisson
Patricia Morgan
Mirjam Roos
Nicola Smith
Rob Stevens
Allan Tyrrell
Emrah Baki Ulas
Thomas Westerkamp
Stacey Wittig
David C. Wright
Past issues of Papyrus can be found on IAMFA's website:
Australia — Ray McMaster, Australian
National Maritime Museum
Bilbao, Spain — Rogelio Diez,
Guggenheim Museum
Chicago, USA — William Caddick,
Art Institute of Chicago
Los Angeles, USA — Randy Murphy,
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
New England, USA — John H.
Lannon, Boston Athenaeum
New York, USA — Mark Demairo,
Neue Galerie
New Zealand — Patricia Morgan,
Auckland Art Gallery
Design and Layout
Phredd Grafix
Artistic License
Printed in the U.S.A. by
Knight Printing
ISSN 1682-5241
Ottawa-Gatineau, Canada —
Marc Chretien, Canadian Museum
of Nature
Philadelphia, USA — John Castle,
Winterthur Museum & Garden
San Francisco, USA — Joe Brennan,
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
United Kingdom — Jack Plumb,
National Library of Scotland
Washington/Baltimore, USA —
Maurice Evans, Smithsonian
For more information on
becomming a member of the
International Association of
Museum Facility Administrators,
please visit
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
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.
Letter from the Editor
Joe May
Editor, Papyrus
Greetings from Los Angeles!
uring the time since the last
issue of Papyrus was published,
IAMFA’s Board of Directors
decided to open up its LinkedIn Group
to non-members, and the Group has
Please see the articles about the Royal
Navy Museum and the Museum of
Transport and Technology in this issue.
You’ll also find part-three of two
informative series of articles: “Seeing
Art in a New Light” by Emrah Ulas and
interests, to tap into the collective
knowledge of the Group. If you haven’t
yet joined the Group, I hope you will
consider doing so now. The more who
join, the more beneficial the Group
ment principle dates back to the 1800s,
and is attributed to Frederick Taylor,
who is considered the Father of
Scientific Management.
Papyrus that we have not translated
from 17 countries. The LinkedIn Group
bers, and others engaged in common
is to measure it. This basic manage-
You will notice in this issue of
accordingly grown to 160 members
is an effective way for IAMFA’s mem-
the first step in managing something
the Message from the President or
Everyone wants to have
a productive workforce,
and the first step in
managing something is
to measure it.
articles about the upcoming annual
conference. This is purely a cost-based
decision, related not only to translation
costs, but also the added publishing,
printing, and postage costs. We are
currently looking into possible ways
will become, and we believe that more
to translate an electronic version of
members in the Group who do not cur-
Papyrus into numerous languages
rently belong to IAMFA will see that
using translation software.
membership has many advantages.
This issue of Papyrus has a record
number of informative articles, thanks
to the willingness of so many IAMFA
members to share their recent experiences in operating their facilities.
In this issue, you’ll find an update
on IAMFA’s Annual Conference in
Auckland, New Zealand, and I hope
you will soon finalize your plans to
attend. In the past few issues of Papyrus,
the New Zealand Conference hosts have
written articles about their facilities.
Mirjam Roos from Steensen Varming
(Australia) Pty Ltd; and “Operations
Review Reveals Hidden Maintenance
Improvement Resources” by Tom
Westerkamp. The latter also includes
a multiple-choice questionnaire to
assess the productivity of your institution’s maintenance workforce. Please
take advantage of this opportunity; it
costs you nothing to complete this
questionnaire, and you can determine
your score by yourself. Everyone wants
to have a productive workforce, and
If you have not visited our website recently, you will find
that we now have an index of past technical articles and historical articles with
links to the appropriate issue of Papyrus.
I hope you will take advantage of this
resource to find how other IAMFA
members have dealt with issues you
face now.
Finally, thank you to everyone who
contributed material for this issue of
Papyrus, and to the advertisers who
support our organization.
Message from the President
John de Lucy
President, IAMFA
ll six of the Auckland cultural
institutions that are hosting us
for our November conference
will have been through major refurbishments, extensions or construction work
in the past few years, so there is plenty
to see and learn about for those of you
who join us. The directors of all six
organisations met with the IAMFA
Board on their sites at our mid-year
board meeting, and expressed their
delight that we were bringing our
conference to them. They are fully
supportive of this conference, and
looking forward to hosting you all.
All of this construction activity was
of course not for our conference, but
we are lucky that we will see the recently
finished product of major upgrades
at Auckland’s museums and galleries.
They are particularly proud of their
use of New Zealand’s ancient kauri
wood, which is a delight to look at.
You will see fantastic examples of this
usage in the ceilings at the Art Gallery
(shown on the cover of the last issue
of Papyrus), in the “cocoon” at the
Auckland Museum, and at the Museum
of Transport and Technology. It is lovely
to see this handsome wood used so
Facilities Managers often bemoan
their lack of involvement in the planning of a construction project. Similar
to what we saw in San Francisco last year,
however, those who will be running
the Auckland buildings when finished
have been fully involved in the process,
and they are keen to tell you about
their experiences. They have had to
take seismic activity into account in their
building works, which has led to many
challenges, and you will learn how innovative they have been in overcoming
these obstacles.
Those of you who know Pat Morgan
will not be surprised to learn that, not
only has she been fully engaged in completing a major new extension at the
Art Gallery and arranging to move
back in, but she has also put together
an excellent programme for us all. I
encourage all of our members to book
their hotel rooms and sign up for the
conference now, so that she can plan
her numbers.
In addition to seeing the physical
results of a great deal of construction
work, we’ll also be learning about the
fruits of successful collaboration. The
New Zealanders seem to have the right
model for public-sector construction
procurement, which creates an alignment of interest between those who
design and construct a cultural facility
and those who subsequently occupy and
manage it. Pat has plenty of examples
of how, by working together, they have
produced a fantastic new building that
works for everyone!
For those of you with similar stories,
I encourage you to write an article for
publication in Papyrus. It helps us all
to learn how others have managed to get
the message across that the occupation
of our buildings is a key component in
the whole-life cost of the project, and
can make a financial difference of millions over time. I know most of us are
agreed that designers and construction
companies must provide integrated
solutions that put an end to poor per formance of buildings after handover
to clients. Through our conferences,
we have seen many excellent examples
of how our members get it right.
This conference will give you a valuable opportunity to learn professionally
from our New Zealand members, and
also about their culture. The Europeans
and North Americans have a relatively
mature facilities management profession and industry, but there is a lot
to be learned from the New Zealanders,
who often approach issues in a different way. You are bound to pick up
ideas that are not common in your
country. Knowledge exchange of how
things are done elsewhere will help
you create improved environments,
and will help us all do our jobs better.
You, our members, are the lifeblood of IAMFA, and through your
membership I hope you obtain increasing value to your organisations and
professional standing. Make sure you
improve your networking and educational opportunities by attending
our conferences!
See you in Auckland, everyone!
John de Lucy
Head of Estates, British Library
Update—IAMFA Annual Conference
in Auckland
lease finalize your plans now to
attend this year’s exotic, actionpacked 21st IAMFA Conference in
Auckland, New Zealand. The agenda
is full of educational content, opportunities to network with your fellow
IAMFA members, and an opportunity
to see how museum facilities are managed in a part of the world that many
IAMFA members have never seen.
Please review the agenda for the
21st IAMFA Annual Conference in
the centerfold of this issue.
Many of us are challenged these
days with budget constraints, and
many more are deeply into major
redevelopment projects. This spring’s
(fall in the Northern Hemisphere)
conference will be an opportunity to
learn from your peers, who are going
through the same challenges that you
are. Please don’t overlook this tremendous opportunity to learn from your
fellow IAMFA members.
There are numerous venues participating in this year’s conference. Here
is a brief history of each of them.
extra workshop space for art classes.
Several artists maintained studio space
in the complex during the period just
after the Second World War; weaver
Ilse Von Randow utilized the clock
tower rooms and created the Art
Gallery Ceremonial curtains onsite,
executed as part of a modernization
in the 1950s.
From 1969 to 1971 the building
underwent remodeling, and a new wing
and sculpture garden were added. In
1971, the public library was moved
to the new Auckland Public Library
building, designed by Ewen Wainscott,
in nearby Lorne Street. There have
been a number of major and minor
building works since that time.
In 2003, Auckland Council confirmed its support for the seismic
strengthening, heritage protection
and reinstatement and extension of
this Category A heritage listed building, at a total cost of NZ$121 million.
The completed building will re-open
to the public on September 3, 2011,
three years from the date construction
commenced onsite.
Auckland Art Gallery
The main gallery building of the
Auckland Art Gallery was originally
designed by Melbourne architects
Grainger and Charles D’Ebro, to
house not only the Art Gallery but
also the City Council Offices, Lecture
Theatre, and Public Library. It was
constructed of brick and plaster in an
early French Renaissance style and was
completed in 1887, with an extension—
the East Gallery—built in 1916. It was
three storeys high, with an attic in the
steeply pitched roofs, and a six-storey
clock tower.
The new building eventually proved
too small to house all the Council
departments and, following completion of the Auckland Town Hall in
1911, all Council departments left the
Gallery building. This allowed expansion of the Gallery’s facilities, including
The Auckland Art Gallery, still under
construction in this photo, combines the
old with the new, and features beautiful
kauri wood in its new ceilings.
The expansion will increase exhibition space by 50%, resulting in over
4,200 square meters of gallery space,
which will be able to display up to
900 works of art, and will provide
dedicated education, child and family
spaces. As part of the upgrade, existing
parts of the structure have been renovated and restored, and what was in
effect an adaptive re-use building has
finally been transformed into a logical
and cohesive twenty-first-century
purpose-built art gallery building.
The Conference team led by
Patricia Morgan is excited that conference goers will have the opportunity
to see the amazing new Auckland Art
Gallery within weeks of its reopening.
Auckland Civic Theatre
The Auckland Civic Theatre is internationally significant as the largest
surviving atmospheric cinema in
Australasia (and also one of the only
seven of its style remaining in the
world), and as the first purpose-built
cinema of this type in New Zealand. It
is also known for its Indian-inspired
foyer, which includes seated Buddhas,
twisted columns and domed ceilings.
The main auditorium was designed
in a similar style, imitating a Moorish
garden with turrets, minarets, spires
and tiled roofs, as well as several
famous Abyssinian panther statues.
When it opened, it could hold 2,750
people, and even with its currently
reduced seating, it is still the largest
theatre in New Zealand.
The Auckland Civic Theatre was
the creation of Thomas O’Brien, who
built a movie empire in Auckland’s
inner suburbs in the 1920s. He first
brought the atmospheric cinema—a
theatre style which gives the impression
that audiences are seated in an outdoor venue, complete with twinkling
night sky—to New Zealand when he
opened Dunedin’s Moorish-style
Empire De Luxe Theatre in 1928. The
The Auckland Civic Theatre.
Civic opened amid great fanfare in
December 1929, but the onset of the
Great Depression contributed to disappointing attendance—as did O’Brien’s
stubborn insistence on showing British
rather than the more popular American
films—and O’Brien eventually went
bankrupt. After several modifications
during the ensuing decades, the Theatre
was eventually restored to very near its
original design in the late 1990s.
The Theatre also recently gained
some insider fame when it was used
for the scenes representing a periodstyle New York theater in Peter Jackson’s
King Kong remake.
We plan to hold our opening
reception in the foyer of the Auckland
Civic Theatre. It is a stunning venue,
and we promise you will be amazed!
Auckland Museum
The Auckland War Memorial Museum
(or simply the Auckland Museum) is
one of New Zealand’s most important
museums and war memorials. Its collections concentrate on New Zealand
history (and especially the history of
the Auckland Region), natural history,
and military history.
The Museum is also one of the most
iconic Auckland buildings, constructed
in the Neoclassical style, and sitting
on a grassed plinth (the remains of a
dormant volcano) in the Auckland
Domain: a large public park close to
the Auckland Central Business District.
The Auckland Museum traces its
lineage back to 1852, when it was established in a farm worker’s cottage on the
current site of Auckland University.
With an initial call for the donation of
wool specimens for display, it attracted
708 visitors in its first year.
One of the visitors during the 1890s
was the French artist Gauguin, who
sketched several Maori items, later
incorporating these into his Tahitianperiod paintings.
In the early years of the twentieth
century, the Museum and its collections
flourished under visionary curator
Thomas Cheeseman, who tried to
establish a sense of order, separating
the natural history, classical sculpture
and anthropological collections, which
had previously been displayed in a
rather unsystematic way. The need for
better display conditions and extra space
necessitated a move from the Princes
Street site, and eventually the project
for a purpose-built museum merged
with that of a war memorial to commemorate soldiers lost in the First
World War. The site was a hill in the
Government Domain, commanding an
impressive view of Waitemata Harbour.
The building is considered one of
the finest Greco-Roman buildings in
the Southern Hemisphere. It has an
“A” classification from the New Zealand
Historic Places Trust, designating it as
a building whose preservation is of the
utmost importance. Of particular interest is the interior plasterwork, which
incorporates Maori details in an amalgam of Neo-Greek and Art Deco styles.
Similarly, the exterior bas-reliefs depicting twentieth-century armed forces and
personnel are in a style which mixes
Neo-Greek with Art Deco. The bulk of
the building is English Portland Stone,
with detailing in New Zealand granite
from the Coromandel Peninsula.
Two additions were made to the
1929 building, the first in the late
1950s to commemorate the Second
World War, when an administration
annex with a large semi-circular courtyard was added to the southern rear.
This extension is of concrete block construction, rendered in cement stucco
to harmonize with the Portland Stone
of the earlier building. The second
addition was in 2006, when the inner
courtyard was enclosed in the grand
atrium at the southern entrance.
The quotation “The Whole Earth is
the Sepulchre of Famous Men” over
the front porch is attributed to the
Greek general, Pericles, in keeping with
Atrium at the Auckland Museum.
its commemorative status to affairs of
a martial nature.
Over the past two decades, the
Museum has been renovated and
extended in two stages. The first stage,
in the 1990s, saw the existing building restored, and the exhibits partly
replaced for NZ$43 million. The second
stage of this restoration involved the
construction of a great dome/atrium
within the central courtyard, increasing the building’s floor area by 60%
(an addition of 9,600 m2) for a price
of NZ$64.5 million. The second stage
was completed in 2007.
The copper and glass dome, as well
as the viewing platform/event centre
beneath it, quickly won the admiration
of critics and the public alike, being
noted for “its undulating lines, which
echo the volcanic landscape and hills
around Auckland.” Standing in the
event center underneath the top of the
dome was likened to being beneath the
“cream-coloured belly of a giant stingray . . . with its rippling wings hovering
over the distinctive city skyline.” In
June 2007, the Grand Atrium project
also received the Supreme Award of the
New Zealand Property Council, which
noted it as being “world-class” and a
successful exercise in combining complex design and heritage demands. The
Museum has also received the ACENZ
The Auckland Sky Tower.
Model of the Museum, showing the new
copper dome/atrium at the rear.
Innovate NZ Gold Award (Structural
Engineering) for the redevelopment.
Auckland Sky Tower
The Sky Tower is an observation and
telecommunications tower located on
the corner of Victoria and Federal Streets
in the Auckland Central Business
District. It is 328 meters (1,076 feet)
tall, as measured from ground level to
the top of the mast, making it the tallest
freestanding structure in the Southern
Hemisphere, and the 15th-tallest member of the World Federation of Great
Towers. Due to its shape and height,
especially when compared to the next
tallest structures, it has become an
iconic structure in Auckland’s skyline.
View of Auckland Harbour from the Sky Tower.
The tower is part of the SKYCITY
Auckland casino complex, having
been originally built for Harrah’s
Entertainment, Inc. The tower attracts
an average 1,450 visitors per day (over
500,000 per year).
The upper portion of the tower
contains two restaurants and a cafe,
including a revolving restaurant
located 190 meters from the ground,
turning 360 degrees once every hour.
Conference attendees will have lunch
in the revolving restaurant during the
Conference. The tower has three
observation decks at different heights,
each providing 360-degree views of
the city. The main observation level
at 186 meters has 38-mm-thick glass
sections of flooring, providing a view
straight through to the ground. The
topmost observation deck—the Skydeck
—sits just below the main antenna at
220 meters, and offers views of up to
82 kilometers in the distance.
The tower also features the
“SkyJump”: a 192-meter jump off
the observation deck, during which
a jumper can reach speeds of up to
85 km/h (53 mph). The jump is guidecable-controlled to prevent jumpers
from colliding with the tower in the
event of wind gusts. Climbs into the
antenna mast portion (300 m/980 ft
heights) are also possible for tour
groups, as is a walk around the exterior.
The tower is also used for telecommunications and broadcasting,
with the Auckland Peering Exchange
(APE) located on Level 48. The aerial
at the top of the tower hosts the
largest FM combiner in the world,
which combines with 58 wireless
microwave links located above the top
restaurant to provide a number of
services. These include television,
wireless Internet, radio transmitter,
and weather-measurement services.
with both native and exotic wildlife.
Auckland Zoo’s contributions to conservation also include a wide range of
research, in-situ and ex-situ wildlife
management, and education projects.
Te Wao Nui, the New Zealand
precinct, will open to the public in
September 2011. This is the biggest
development the Zoo has ever undertaken, and is dedicated entirely to showcasing New Zealand’s native flora, fauna,
and culture. The new exhibit encompasses six diverse habitats: The Coast,
The Islands, The Wetlands, The Night,
The Forest, and The High Country,
Auckland Zoo
Auckland Zoo opened in 1922, and by
1930 a sizeable collection of animals
had been assembled. After the Second
World War, the collection grew further,
and in 1973 the Zoo expanded further
into the adjacent Western Springs Park.
From the late 1980s to the present day,
many old exhibits have been phased
out and replaced by modern naturalistic enclosures, and Auckland Zoo is
now set in 17 hectares (42 acres) of
stunning park-like grounds.
Auckland Zoo is a truly modern zoo,
driven by a passion for wildlife and
conservation. Not only is Auckland
Zoo dedicated to making a difference
to wildlife and the environment, it
jumps at the chance to inspire others to
do the same. In today’s world, where
most people live in urban environments, zoos play a key role in offering
experiences for people to connect
The new Wetlands habitat in Te Wao Nui.
One of Auckland Zoo’s ambassador cheetahs during a behind-thescenes walking tour.
incorporating key conservation issues
and actions throughout. Te Wao Nui
will be home to more than 100 native
plant species and around 60 different
animal species—many new or never
before seen at the Zoo.
Auckland Zoo is a full institutional
member of the Zoo and Aquarium
Association (ZAA), and received ISO
14001 accreditation for its Environmental Management System in 2007.
Museum of Transport and
The Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) was established in
1960 by a number of groups including
the Old Time Transport Preservation
League, which was formed in 1957
and preserved trams and railway
locomotives. MOTAT was formally
opened in 1964.
Exhibits include trains, trams, vintage
traction engines, carriages, cars, buses,
trolleybuses and trucks, fire engines,
electrical equipment, Space flight
exhibits (including a Corporal rocket),
and general science exhibits. There is
also a “colonial village” of early shops
and houses, including a fencible cottage (a style built for retired military
personnel) and a blacksmith shop.
Known in the past as the Sir Keith
Park Memorial Airfield—named after
Keith Park, the Battle of Britain and
Battle of Malta hero—MOTAT’s aviation collection is on a separate site,
adjacent to Waitemata Harbour and
New hangar under construction at MOTAT.
Auckland Zoo. It contains memorials
to Fleet Air Arm and RAF Bomber
Command pilots, as well as radar and
other aviation related material, and
includes workshops for work on other
vehicles. The main feature, however, is
the collection of New Zealand civil aircraft, as well as some Royal New Zealand
Air Force aircraft.
There is also a military section, which
restores and demonstrates a selection
of Second World War military trucks,
light-tracked vehicles and tanks used by
Allied forces. The military section has
regular open days, when the Military
Reenactment Society displays and
demonstrates the vehicles and uniforms.
MOTAT 2 also has an operational
railway with a kilometer of track,
stations and a selection of former
New Zealand Government Railways,
light industrial locomotives, wagons
and carriages.
MOTAT 2 is undergoing a major
expansion project to increase its
covered display space. This involves
moving and restoring the existing
blister hangar and constructing a new
and larger building to extend the main
display hangar. The project is planned
for completion in late 2011 at an
estimated cost of NZ$16.6 million.
Royal Navy Museum at
Torpedo Bay
The Royal Navy Museum’s vision is
to enrich the lives of present and
future generations with an awareness
of New Zealand’s naval culture and
Exhibits at the Royal Navy Museum.
heritage, so that they honour the contribution New Zealand’s sea warriors
have made to peace, security and prosperity. The Museum’s mission is to
capture and preserve New Zealand’s
naval culture and heritage for current
and future generations through collection, preservation, presentation,
education, research and scholarship.
Torpedo Bay, on the shores of the
harbour at Devonport, is the new
home of the Navy Museum. The
move to Torpedo Bay has been both
an outstanding opportunity and an
incredible journey.
Torpedo Bay itself is a site of exceptional significance, having been a key
part of Auckland’s early defence system,
as well as having been continuously
occupied by New Zealand military
forces since 1880. Torpedo Bay is the
most substantial and intact surviving
nineteenth-century mining base in
New Zealand.
Relocating the Museum to Torpedo
Bay has added a new chapter to the
site’s extraordinary heritage, with
the original 1896 buildings being
redeveloped to accommodate the
new Museum.
Conference attendees will visit the
Royal Navy Museum on Tuesday afternoon, after enjoying a bird’s-eye view
of it during lunch in the Sky Tower.
Voyager New Zealand
Maritime Museum
The Voyager New Zealand Maritime
Museum is New Zealand’s premier
maritime museum. It is located on
Hobson Wharf Auckland, adjacent to
Viaduct Harbour. It houses exhibitions
spanning New Zealand’s maritime
history from the first Polynesian
explorers to modern-day triumphs in
the America’s Cup. Its Maori name is
“Te Huiteanaui-A-Tangaroa”: Holder
of the Treasures of Sea God Tangaroa.
A NZ$8-million extension to the
northern end of the Museum opened
in late 2009, and houses a permanent
exhibition about Sir Peter Blake, including the original NZL 32 (Black Magic).
The exhibition is called Blue Water,
Black Magic.
Mudbrick Vineyard
The Mudbrick Vineyard is one of
Waiheke’s best-known wineries, and
includes a Provence-style restaurant
made of mudbrick. The vineyard produces merlot, chardonnay, cabernet
sauvignon, and Syrah grapes.
Waiheke Island is an island in the
Hauraki Gulf of New Zealand, located
about 17.7 kilometers (11.0 miles)
from Auckland. The island is the
second largest in the Hauraki Gulf
after Great Barrier Island. It is also the
most populated, with nearly 8,000
permanent residents, plus another
estimated 3,400 who have second or
holiday homes on the island. It is
New Zealand’s most densely populated island, with 83.58 people/km2,
and the third most populated after
the North and South Island. It is the
most accessible offshore island in the
View of the extension centered around NZL32 Black
Magic: the boat on which Team New Zealand, led by Sir
Peter Blake, won the America’s Cup in 1995.
Langham Hotel
Dining room at the Mudbrick Vineyard,
overlooking the Bay on Waiheke Island.
Gulf, due to regular passenger and
car ferry services and some air links.
Waiheke translates as “the descending
waters” or “ebbing water”.
Members and guests will travel to
Waiheke Island by catamaran at the
end of the first day of the Conference
to enjoy the sunset with cocktails,
followed by an unforgettable dinner
and networking with IAMFA members
and guests.
The Langham Hotel is a five-star hotel
in Auckland, and occupies the historic
site of Partington’s Windmill, a local
landmark until its demolition in 1950.
The Langham Hotel is located near
numerous Auckland attractions and
landmarks, such as the Auckland
Domain, the Auckland Central Business District, and the Auckland War
Memorial Museum. It offers a complimentary city bus shuttle so that guests
can easily access various attractions.
Lobby at the Langham Hotel.
The hotel’s restaurant, Partington’s,
is named after the windmill founder,
and has won various awards, including
Restaurant of the Year in 2006.
Typical room at the Langham Hotel.
Delivering extraordinary
Coffey Projects is a leading project management company and
works in partnership with clients through the project lifecycle.
Some of our iconic cultural projects in New Zealand and
Australia include the Christchurch Art Gallery, Canterbury
Museum, National Gallery of Victoria and the Sydney Opera
House facility upgrades.
Our expertise includes:
• business case development
• project scope definition
• program management
• value management
• strategic risk management
• design management
• negotiations and approvals
• contract procurement
• project close-out
• post occupation studies
Benchmarking: How to Use
Data as an Agent for Change
By Stacey Wittig
enchmarking is more than just data collection. The
real value of the IAMFA Benchmarking Exercise
comes from the understanding of how your peers are
doing similar jobs for less cost. Indeed, IAMFA participants
have saved US$3.11 per GSF over the past five years by
implementing “pretested” practical solutions. But, you may
ask, how do you motivate others in your organization to
implement the best practices revealed through benchmarking? As others will tell you, use the benchmarking
data as an agent for change.
A key component to benchmarking success lies in communicating the findings to your organization. Benchmarking
expert Keith McClanahan recommends three different
strategies for communicating to the various groups within
your organization. Here are some quick tips:
When communicating to senior management, make a
presentation of key findings and action plans.
1) Compare your costs and user satisfaction with your
peers using key charts* included in the IAMFA report.
2) List the peers.
constraints based in part on how our building operation
costs compared to those of similar facilities.”
May included charts in his presentation to senior management that tracked cost per square foot with both the
“All Fine Arts Museums” and “All Participants” groups.
“The first year our costs were noticeably higher than both
of these average groups,” notes May.
“We began a best-practices effort to reduce our operating
costs and, as we added another year’s data to the charts,
we could see the gap between our costs and the averages
narrow, until—six years into the benchmarking exercise—
our costs were near or below the averages of other benchmarking participants. While inflation drove higher operating
costs for most facilities, we reduced our costs by a significant
percentage,” he adds.
To reach your FM organization:
1) Post key charts from the report in highly visible areas.
2) Use benchmarking results as a basis for goal-setting—
data shared by a collective of institutions helps create
acceptance for change.
3) If this is your first time benchmarking, emphasize that
benchmarking is a learning process, and encourage
them not to overreact to your first-year data findings.
3) The report will identify improved work processes—
recognize those involved.
4) Present action plans that you have identified from the
best practices listed in the report.
4) Communicate the benefits of benchmarking: for example,
when auditors see benchmarking results, they will often
turn away to focus on other departments.
“Benchmarking got a lot of attention with senior management,” says Joe May, Sustainability Engineer and former
Manager, Maintenance Planning and Support, for a large
Los Angeles museum. “It was an important factor in budget
allocations. Each year, I would list the most significant
improvements made to reduce each category of building
operation costs, and made a presentation with the results to
senior management and functional heads. In turn, senior
management overseeing Facilities would provide budget
*Key Charts included in the IAMFA Benchmarking Report:
• Space utilization: GSF/person
• Variable Costs
— Electrical usage per GSF
— Maintenance cost per GSF
— Custodial cost per area cleaned
— Total operating cost per GSF
• Fixed Costs
— Depreciation or
— Depreciation + Insurance + Taxes + Rent
Implementing handheld devices to dispatch maintenance job
orders improves worker efficiency between 5% and 10% and
improves response times and customer service.
An effective BMS (Building Management System) will identify
where energy is being utilized, as well as opportunities for savings.
Sharing of best practices is a key component of the IAMFA
benchmarking program.
5) Benchmarking is a two-way street: ask those in your
FM organization for suggestions for improvement.
Stacey Wittig is Marketing Director for Facility Issues, endorsed
by IAMFA to facilitate the benchmarking exercise. She may be
reached at or 928-255-4943. Learn
more about benchmarking at
“Each month I would meet with Facilities Supervisors
and Shop Technicians to log ideas for improvement, and
would update the log following each meeting to track our
progress in implementing their ideas,” says May. “By the sixth
year, we had implemented over two hundred ideas to reduce
operating costs.” Some of these ideas for improvement
were shared as best practices in IAMFA benchmark reports.
Communicate with your Customers/Users by sending a
short, written summary report:
1) Include where you stand, and what you are doing to
2) Point out improvements since the last report.
3) If you have done an occupancy report, respond by e-mail
or phone to each employee who provided contact information. Let them know if you are or are not implementing
their requests or suggestions.
“I think any structured program to reduce operating costs
must have certain steps that advance the process from an
idea stage through implementation of operating improvements,” says May, who used a Methods Improvement Control
System for twenty years with consulting clients prior to his
tenure at the museum. “It is very simple, and it works. If
you find anyone who would like to learn more about how
it works, I would be happy to provide more information
The IAMFA Benchmarking Practices and Learning
Workshop will take place on November 13, 2011 in Auckland,
New Zealand. The workshop is open to benchmarking
participants. Non-participants are welcome to register at as paid observers.
Smithsonian Institution - National History Museum
Clients Include:
For more information, visit
Museum of Art
Delaware Museum of
Natural History
Monticello Visitor Center
“Our museum clients, and the
architects they select, are
sophisticated and knowledgeable
about their objectives. We
pride ourselves on being
up to the challenge.”
Robert Marino,
Mueller Associates
National Gallery of Art
Smithsonian Natural
History Museum
U.S. Holocaust Museum
Virginia Museum
of Fine Arts
Walters Art Museum
Winterthur Museum
Fade-Testing of Museum Objects at the
National Museum of Australia
By Nicola Smith and Bruce Ford
ne of the fundamental dilemmas in museums is the
need to exhibit collections, which include objects
that are sensitive to light. Light not only fades some
colours, but these reactions are cumulative and irreversible.1
Every museum has its most important or most popular
objects that are in constant demand for display; however,
to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, museums risk destroying that
which they most love.
Exhibition lighting guidelines at many international
museums still refer to Thompson’s The Museum Environment
(1978) in which he recommends “50 lux for very sensitive
objects,” and 200 lux for less fugitive materials. More recent
exposure frameworks have also introduced the element of
time: e.g., the Victoria and Albert Museum lighting guidelines (1999) recommend 50 lux for a 20% exposure period
(often taken as two years of display over a ten-year period)
for all potentially light-sensitive materials corresponding to
equivalent International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) Blue Wool (BW) standards 1-4; and permanent display at 150 lux for more durable materials equivalent to
BW 5-8. The BW fading standards are standardised swatches
of fabric manufactured for the International Organization
for Standardization that fade at known rates under particular conditions, with BW 8 being the most stable, and
BW 1 the least. The use of ISO Blue Wool standards are
helpful where fading information exists for the specific
objects or materials. Where data does exist (often European
fine art), it is usually derived from accelerated aging studies
on surrogate samples that are likely to behave differently to
real objects with their unique histories of production, use
and exposure.
Many museums, however, including the National Museum
of Australia (NMA), are full of potentially light-sensitive
material for which there is little or no fading information
available. We know the amount of fading is dependent on
the specific dye, pigment and/or substrate, the intensity of
the light and the length of exposure. Because very little is
known about fade rates for specific objects, some conservators tend to recommend that organic materials are routinely
displayed at 50 lux and rotated off display every two years.
This generates a huge amount of work, however, and
becomes unsustainable in terms of staff time, budgets, and
object selection. Applying general rules means that the
resources involved in protecting sensitive items are not
targeted to the areas of identified need and, even worse,
the small percentage of highly light-sensitive material may
not be adequately protected.
It is also the case that 50 lux illumination is often inadequate for comfortable viewing, especially for older visitors
(taken as anyone over 40 years of age), or for objects with
fine details, objects that are dark in colour or large in size,
and objects with long viewing distances. The over-50 demographic comprises 60% of NMA visitors; but interestingly,
as with other museums worldwide, negative feedback on
exhibition lighting is not a common complaint in visitor
surveys. Low lighting is often taken as a sign of the importance of the artifacts, and an indication the museum is taking
good care of its collection. This needs to be reconsidered,
because there are times when exhibition lighting design
does not even reach the minimum lighting standards for
public circulation.
With the increasing use of risk management in museums,
the NMA has been questioning some of the underlying
assumptions of its previous lighting guidelines. We are
slowly moving from an “every object is equal” model to
a risk-management model, in which the significance of
objects or collections, and the specific risks to which they
are exposed, become the drivers for collection management decisions. To do this we are using a technique which
involves correlating individual colourants on an object with
the ISO standards.
In the late 1990s, Dr. Paul Whitmore, a scientist at the
Carnegie Mellon University Art Conservation Research
Center, invented a machine for just this purpose. The
OrielВ® Fading Test System is able to provide virtually nondestructive fade testing of each colour on a real object in
10-15 minutes. Each colour is exposed to a tiny spot of very
bright light (5,000,000 lux), and its response is recorded.
The test is virtually non-destructive, because the faded
area is about the size of the head of a pin and, because
Bruce Ford and Nicola Smith using the fading test machine on
Azaria Chamberlain’s christening gown.
can also affect the very structure of some materials; however,
for the purposes of this discussion the focus is on fading.
the extent of fading is carefully limited, it remains below
what is perceptible to the human eye (even if the size of
the area was larger).
Although the fading response of an object exposed to
typical museum lighting will not be exactly the same as that
which follows exposure to the very bright light of this accelerated aging machine, this method allows colourants to be
separated out across the light-sensitive Blue Wool 1-4 range.
In fact, it can reliably identify those colourants most at risk
of light damage—the “fast-faders”—from the medium and
more stable ranges.
In 2008, the NMA purchased the necessary equipment
and began testing many of the objects destined for the permanent exhibition areas illustrating Australian history and
society. A broad cross-section of the collection was tested
across acrylic paintings, natural and synthetic dyed objects
and textiles, photographs, inks on historical documents,
fur and resins, and even modern plastics. It was found that
exhibition duration recommendations were unchanged for
40% of the objects, and that restrictions had to be tightened for a relatively small group of fugitive objects, while
the rest were assessed as being safe for longer display than
previously recommended.
At a rough estimate, the average cost of a changeover at
the NMA is around A$1,000 (including mounting, fabrication, text panels, graphics and lighting). The Museum has
around 3,000 objects on display in its permanent galleries,
and each time an object can be extended on display from
two years to five or even ten years, this can save the Museum
a considerable amount of money. These figures are likely
Fade data for Azaria Chamberlain’s christening gown.
to be very different for different museums and galleries,
especially those that have most of their collection on permanent display, or those that regularly rotate exhibitions
for reasons other than limiting light damage. However, all
collections would benefit from the identification of objects
most at risk of fading, especially within the group considered
to be the most significant or popular, and thus in constant
demand for display.
The NMA has used this machine in conjunction with a
significance-based assessment to modify and inform our
lighting guidelines. This approach provides better protection for the most vulnerable and significant collection
items at a much lower cost, and recommended illumination levels have increased for all but the most light-fugitive
objects. The aim is for greater dialogue between lighting
designers, conservators and curators; improved access;
better-looking exhibitions in which the public can see the
detail of objects on display; and more targeted expenditure,
providing value for money.
The next challenge for conservators, lighting engineers
and facilities managers is how and when to introduce solidstate lamps. Performance, cost effectiveness and collection
safety will all be drivers in the decision-making process. Like
the issue of lighting-exposure guidelines, this will require
collaborative effort across the various disciplines involved
in protecting and displaying our common heritage.
Nicola Smith is Deputy Manager Conservation, and Bruce Ford is
Conservation Scientist, Art & Archival at the National Museum of
Australia in Canberra.
The effect of micro-fade testing results on exhibition duration, as
compared to previous recommendations.
Become a Member of IAMFA
For more information on becoming a member of the
International Association of Museum Facility Administrators, please visit
Family Ties to the Auckland Museum
t our recent Board meeting in
Auckland, IAMFA President
John de Lucy came face to face
with a stunning piece of family history.
One of the Museum’s exhibits is an
ornate silver bowl, presented to John’s
great-grandfather Edward Selby Little
nearly 100 years ago. Little was honoured for his work hosting and facilitating—at his Shanghai home—the
Chinese peace negotiations that brought
an end to the long rule of the Manchu
Dynasty and its Emperor, and marked
the beginning of the Republic of China
under Sun Yat-sen. The country’s centennial celebrations will begin next
year on February 12, 2012.
The Qing Dynasty, also known as the
Manchu Dynasty, was the last dynasty
of China, ruling from 1644 to 1912
(with a brief, abortive restoration in
1917). It was preceded by the Ming
Dynasty, and followed by the Republic
of China. The dynasty was founded by
the Manchu clan, Aisin Gioro, in modern northeastern China (also known
as Manchuria). Starting in 1644, it
expanded into China proper and its
surrounding territories, establishing the
Empire of the Great Qing (simplified
Sun Yat-sen (1866–1925) was a Han
Chinese doctor, revolutionary and political leader. As the foremost pioneer of
Nationalist China, Sun is frequently
referred to as the “Father of the Nation”
(國父), a view agreed upon by both the
People’s Republic of China and the
Republic of China. Sun played an
instrumental role in the overthrow of
the Qing Dynasty during the Xinhai
Revolution, and was the first provisional
president when the Republic of China
was founded in 1912. He later cofounded the Kuomintang (Chinese
National People’s Party) which he served
as its first leader. Sun was a uniting figure
in post-Imperial China, and remains
unique among twentieth-century
Chinese politicians for remaining
widely revered among people on
both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
IAMFA President John
de Lucy at the Auckland
Museum, holding the
beautiful silver bowl
presented to his greatgrandfather, Edward
Selby Little, for his part
in the Chinese Peace
negotiations that led to
the founding of the
Republic of China.
Signing of the Treaty
at Edward Selby Little’s
house, February 12,
1912. This photograph
was taken on the
verandah of 30 Gordon
Road, Shanghai, after
the signing of the peace
negotiations that led
to the founding of the
original Republic of
China. Back, left to
right: Tong Shao Yi,
Representative of the
Manchu Dynasty and
Edward Selby Little. Front,
left to right: Amelia
Gladys Little (John de
Lucy’s grandmother);
Wu Ting Fang, Representing Dr. Sun Yat-sen;
and Caroline Amelia Little
(John de Lucy’s greatgrandmother).
MOTAT’s Aviation Display Hall has
More Action on the “Wings” than
the All Blacks
Inside the new MOTAT Aviation Display Hall.
our volunteer team, have space to be
displayed properly in all their glory.
The previous hangar was becoming
cramped, and we even had to keep
many of our prized planes, such as the
Sunderland Flying Boat, outside.”
“The Display Hall,” adds Hubbard,
“will be a fantastic attraction for
both local and international visitors,
where they will be able to learn about
New Zealand’s aviation history and the
stories associated with our magnificent
aircraft collection, housed in a worldclass structure. We’re working towards
getting more and more activities up and
ew Zealand’s largest clear-span
wooden structure is steadily taking form at Auckland’s Museum
of Transport and Technology (MOTAT),
with the new NZ$15-million Aviation
Display Hall set for completion in time
for the anticipated influx of domestic
and international visitors in September.
The 2,750m2 custom-designed
Display Hall is more than double the
size of MOTAT’s existing Aviation
Hangar. The expanded facility will
house around 40 MOTAT aircraft,
including the newly loaned RNZAF
Skyhawk, Sunderland and Solent
flying boats, Lancaster Bomber, DC3,
Cessna and Tiger Moth.
The construction phase follows stage
one of the aviation project: the relocation and restoration of MOTAT’s
original World War II Blister Hangar.
The Blister Hangar is the workshop
used by volunteers who restore the
aircraft in the collection.
MOTAT Museum Director Jeremy
Hubbard says that the new structure
upgrade will provide enhanced housing for the collection, and will allow
for the exhibitions to be upgraded
to tell the stories of the aircraft, the
people who flew them, and their
contribution to the development of
New Zealand. “We are committed to
ensuring that these historic planes,
which have been lovingly restored by
running around it as well, including
tours hosted by some of our aviation
The new building is large enough
to allow aircraft to be moved within
the Hall as the exhibitions change,
while also providing a unique experience in a venue that can be hired
out for special events.
The northern façade is a translucent skin, which assists in providing
natural temperature regulation, including heating and cooling. The structure
contains 440,000 nails, all inserted by
hand, as well as 531 cubic metres of
poured concrete.
Mr. Hubbard notes that the Display
Hall has been created with the next generation in mind. “We have created something that will last well into the future,
and will keep generations of Kiwis
coming back to MOTAT to learn all
about New Zealand’s aviation history.”
Following completion of the
Aviation Display Hall, MOTAT will focus
on upgrading the existing Aviation
Hangar, building a new entrance to
the site, and adding washrooms.
Exterior view of the new MOTAT Aviation Display Hall.
Air-to-Water Heat Pump for Domestic
Hot-Water Generation
By Allan Tyrrell
he National Portrait Gallery
(NPG) in London recently
installed an air-source heatpump unit in one of its plant rooms,
to replace a domestic hot-water calorifier. This was undertaken as a trial to
test the efficiency claims of the manufacturers, and as part of an overall strategy to reduce the carbon footprint of
the building.
At the NPG, the boilers operate to
provide steam-injection for humidity
control, and steam-to-water calorifiers
to provide low-temperature hot water
for heating. Domestic hot water is
heated by localised electric calorifiers.
The steam infrastructure is extensive,
and the cost of removal and substitution with other forms of humidity
control would be high. The boilers
were replaced in 2006 with highefficiency units.
The steam plant and pipework have
an elevated surface temperature, and
there are heat losses to the local space,
even with good levels of insulation.
This, along with other plant functions,
has meant elevated temperatures in
plant rooms and, in some cases, heat
transfer to adjacent areas, which must
then be countered with cooling. Installation of the off-the-shelf air-source heat
pump offered us a chance to reduce
the ambient temperatures in the plant
room, and to use waste energy to
generate domestic hot water.
Savings of up to 66% have been
proven in electricity consumption for
domestic hot-water (DHW) generation,
as compared to electric immersiontype heaters (typically 45kwh/week
from 135kwh/week). In addition, plant
room temperatures have dropped
with the supply of air as cool as 15ЛљC
from the heat pump, while mediumgrade heat from the condenser unit
has provided a supply of water at tem-
peratures of up to 50ЛљC. At present,
this unit is providing 2–3 cubic metres
of hot water a day. While this is only a
small amount, the unit has capacity for
future expansion, and it has proven
that DHW generation from this source
is feasible.
The risk of Legionella has been dealt
with through an automatic pasteurisation cycle that uses less expensive overnight electricity and an electric heater
to raise the water temperature beyond
the standard supply temperature.
High levels of insulation allow the
stored water temperature to be maintained in a storage vessel, and a heat
exchanger between refrigerant gases
and the primary water source removes
any risk of contamination to the water
supply. While this is still a new installation, it has so far proven reliable and
capable of supplying sufficient capacity.
Higher maintenance costs are a down
side when compared to the system
it replaced, but will still show over-
The new Altherma Air Source Heat Pump.
The National Portrait Gallery in London,
all savings achieved by the system’s
greater efficiency.
Recent replacement of the main
chillers with higher-efficiency units—
along with a chiller capacity more
closely matched to the cooling requirement of the building, using chillers with
different size capacities—has further
improved matters. LED lighting has
reduced the consumption of power
through higher efficiency and lower
heat output, reducing the cooling load
on the plant. Continual development
of the Building Management System
to control the environmental requirements of the building more efficiently,
and rationalization of specialised areas
have enabled us to reduce the main
ventilation plant speeds and running
times. The installation of voltage optimisation equipment has also played a
major role in the reduction of energy
use at the Gallery.
Discussion with other engineers
and Facility Managers through IAMFA
has often sparked ideas for development, along with the visits to other
institutions, while the information
gained through articles in Papyrus is
generally very useful.
Allan Tyrrell is Engineering Manager at the
National Portrait Gallery in London.
Torpedo Bay
New Home of the Royal New Zealand Navy Museum
By Commander David C. Wright
n October 2010, Torpedo Bay,
located on the picturesque shores of
Waitemata Harbour in Devonport,
Auckland, became Torpedo Bay: Te
Kainga O Te Waka Taonga O Te Taua
Moana (Torpedo Bay: “Home of the
canoe of treasures of the Sea Warriors”).
After 25 years in temporary accommodation, the Royal New Zealand Navy
Museum relocated from its site on
Spring Street, Devonport to this historic
waterfront site.
The move to Torpedo Bay has been
an incredible opportunity. Torpedo Bay
itself is of exceptional heritage significance: not only was it a key part of
Auckland’s early defence system, but it
has also been continuously occupied
by New Zealand military forces since
1880. Torpedo Bay is also the most substantial and intact nineteenth-century
mining base in New Zealand.
Relocating the Museum to Torpedo
Bay has allowed the Museum to leverage
the site’s extraordinary heritage value,
by adaptively re-using existing onsite
heritage buildings to accommodate the
new Museum. Inside, in addition to an
outstanding cafГ©, conference facility and
education space, completely new permanent exhibitions showcase the story of
the Navy’s contribution to the development of New Zealand’s identity through
Torpedo Bay.
Aerial view of the Royal Navy Museum at Torpedo Bay.
the lens of the Navy’s values: commitment, courage and comradeship.
As New Zealand’s only Navy Museum,
the Torpedo Bay facility strongly complements other icons of New Zealand’s
military, maritime and social heritage,
such as the Auckland War Memorial
Museum, the Voyager Maritime
Museum, North Head, Bastion Point
and the Auckland Art Gallery. Alongside Auckland’s other museums and
heritage sites, this creates an unmatched
clutch of valuable national historic
facilities spanning both sides of
Waitemata Harbour.
Since opening in October 2010,
the Museum has welcomed more
than 80,000 visitors, and is on track to
welcome over 100,000 people in its
first year of operation. The Museum
is quickly becoming an important
component of the cultural landscape
in the Auckland area.
Commander David C. Wright is Director at
the Navy Museum.
Gallery 6 at the Royal Navy Museum.
Meet Archie, the Four-Legged
Pest Controller
By Sara Carroll
odent infestations can be damaging to an organisation’s reputation, as well as to its bottom line.
And in Museum facilities they can also
threaten the collections. It usually falls
to the soft services team to manage
the pest control contract, in conjunction with cleaning. Needless to say,
catering areas tend to be vulnerable
to rodent infestation because of the
ready food supplies—despite vigilance
and strict hygiene and cleaning regimes.
Another area in which mice are often
seen is in the educational services
lunchroom. During the school year,
this is a very heavily used resource,
where large numbers of schoolchildren
enjoy their packed lunches, supplemented from the vending machines.
And you can imagine the mess and
rubbish they leave behind! The bin
areas in most facilities back onto an
external roadway, so it is relatively easy
for mice to enter the building.
Apparently, mice are developing
resistance to rodenticides, and are also
learning how to avoid conventional
traps. A novel solution is required to
fight this ongoing battle. And that’s
where Archie comes in. He is a cute
and lively springer spaniel—and is
also on the MITIE (our facilities
management outsourcing company)
payroll. He has been (expensively)
trained to sniff out active mouse infestations, and to indicate regularly used
“runs”. Often, these cannot be detected
by other means. As a result, effective
traps can be placed more accurately.
Archie visited the British Museum
in June. His handler took him to the
catering areas, and to the school services lunchroom. Happily, the hygiene
regime in the kitchens must be paying
off, because he showed little interest
during his thorough search. The lunchroom, however, was another matter.
He stood stock-still and pointed his
nose at several locations in this area,
thus identifying the routes used by
mice. After Archie has done his work,
the technicians can move in. They place
fewer traps and use less rodenticide,
because they can target their attentions
on specific areas.
Staff who watched Archie in action
were charmed. He never stops moving,
unless and until he senses current mice
activity. Only then does he calm down.
Otherwise, he wags his tail in perpetual
motion as he is guided around the
building by his handler.
Sara Carroll is Head of Building Services at
the British Museum in London.
Past issues of Papyrus
can be found on IAMFA's website
National Library of New Zealand
Building Redevelopment
By Rob Stevens and Pam Harris
he National Library of New Zealand (NLNZ) has
recently embarked on a significant modernisation
programme. The New Generation programme is
aimed at transforming the services the Library offers
to customers, both in response to the growing digital
environment and to focus on providing improved services.
In 2007, the Library published its 10-year strategic
priorities, “Strategic Directions to 2017”, following a
fundamental review of how its funding baseline was
prioritised, its productivity, and its capacity and capability
for change. In 2008, an integrated implementation programme was established, charged with “repositioning and
modernising the National Library.”
The scope and objectives of the change programme
are wide-ranging and touch on all areas of the Library’s
operations, but can be broadly categorised as follows:
• Delivering improved services: developing and delivering
new and improved services.
• Infrastructure: enhancing the National Library’s presence
and supporting infrastructure in Wellington and Auckland,
and creating a stronger digital platform.
• People: transforming staff capability and organisational
culture to sustain the new services, and realigning
business structures and funding to support the delivery
of the new services framework.
The successful delivery of redeveloped services is critically
dependent upon supportive infrastructure, so a key part of
the New Generation strategy is improving infrastructure,
both physical and digital. This includes the redevelopment
of the National Library’s Wellington headquarters building,
Concept for the ground floor exhibition area and gallery.
National Library of New Zealand in Wellington.
the new Auckland centre (completed in May 2010), as well
as developing online platforms to support the new services.
Wellington Facility Upgrade
The redevelopment of the Library’s Wellington building is
crucial to the modernisation programme. Designed in the
1970s in the “Brutalist” architectural style and built in the
1980s, the 2008 business case identified three key problems:
• The integrity and safety of the Library collections were at
risk if storage space and service issues were not improved.
• Aging plant and infrastructure were increasing the
risk of failure that could cause irreplaceable loss to the
heritage collections.
Concept for the service hubs in the Alexander Turnbull Library.
• The impact of New Zealand’s cultural, social and economic capital was under-realised because the Library’s
collections were not easily accessible.
The upgrade of the Wellington facility, which houses and
provides access to collections (including the internationally
recognised heritage collections of the Alexander Turnbull
Library) is due to be completed in late 2012. The scope of
the project includes full interior refurbishment, extensive
new shelving, replacement of the aging plant and a new roof
system. The building has six levels, and a total floor area of
23,400 m2. The redevelopment budget is NZ$65 million.
A critical factor in the success of the redevelopment was
solving the problem of collections storage space, which in
2008 was estimated to run out in two years. A number of
options were considered, including additions to the building, moving some collections offsite, and the chosen solution of increasing the efficiency of space utilisation in the
building. Improvements in the utilisation of space were
achieved by consolidating public-service points and staff work
areas, but most importantly by reorganising and intensifying
the Library collections storage, adding a further 20 years of
collections growth capacity within the facility.
As part of the reorganisation, storage conditions for
heritage collections will be improved from 55% to 100%
of collections housed in appropriate controlled-atmosphere
rooms. The environments range from 2 +/- 2В°C and 30
+/- 5%RH through 18 +/- 2В°C and 48 +/- 5%RH.
Relocation Project
Because the scope of the facility upgrade extended over
the entire main building, an early decision was made to
relocate Library operations for the duration of the construction. In 2010, the Library completed moving its staff
and operations to four temporary premises in Wellington.
This included the relocation of some higher-use and
researcher-requested collections; however, for practical
reasons, this amounted to less than 20% of the collections
held in the building. The bulk of collections (valued at
nearly US$1 billion) had to be closed and either moved
offsite, or managed onsite during construction.
An investigation into housing the closed collections offsite determined that all of the options were quite challenging. New Zealand is a seismically actively country (most
recently a series of earthquakes has caused extensive damage
in the city of Christchurch), and Wellington is not only built
on a major fault zone but is also coastal, with large areas at
risk from liquefaction and tsunamis. The analysis of opportunity and risks undertaken concluded that the collections
would need to be transported to Auckland, which is 700 km
by road from Wellington. The risk and costs involved in
such a move were assessed to be higher than managing the
collections onsite during construction, so a decision was
made to pack up and store the closed collections onsite.
Packing Up Collections
Collection protection: temporary plastic sheeting to contain dust
and volatile organic compounds.
The challenge of moving a large number of the unique
heritage collections—including manuscripts, rare books,
ephemera, cartography, photographic materials, drawings,
paintings and prints, oral and music recordings—required
extensive planning. Working with the library’s conservators
and curators, collections were carefully pre-packed to
ensure that they were safely protected for their physical
New film-negative store under construction.
Pre-pack and storage of newspapers.
relocation en masse, and temporary storage conditions.
Pre-pack projects included:
• Custom boxing of over 6,700 individual fragile, damaged
and rare books, sketchbooks, photo albums and manuscripts. This work took over a year to complete, the main
challenge being the high resource demand.
The ground floor former reading rooms and gallery
space have been fitted with pallet shelving for storage of
over 35,000 boxes of collections, larger format rolled items
and works of art. The existing floor coverings were removed,
and air conditioning isolated and adjusted to better suit
collections storage conditions. The packing of the collections and moving to the ground floor was carried out over
• Custom wrapping/boxing of approximately 7,000 bound
and groups of unbound newspapers. A standard box
solution was found for the stable newspapers, while the
most fragile ones were to be wrapped in a corflute (inert
corrugated plastic) then shrink-wrapped in plastic.
• Rehousing of the photographic glass negative and AV
cassette/CD collections. This improved storage for a
number of unique and vulnerable collections, while also
maximising space efficiency. This involved the time of
conservation and curatorial staff, due to the fragility/
vulnerability of a number of the collections, resulting
in the movement of collections item by item.
• Rationalisation of plan cabinets for the medium- and
large-format material (e.g., maps and architectural
drawings). Sheets of corflute the size of the drawers
were placed beneath and on top of the contents in
order to prevent the folders from shifting during the
move, and to protect the collections from dust or metal
particles in the drawers.
Collection protection: temporary external hoarding around the
building’s ground floor.
Some 15,000 hours were devoted to this work, over a
period of 18 months. Completion of this project has longterm benefits. In particular, custom boxing of the most
fragile/rare items and housing the newspapers in archival
boxes means that they now have extra permanent protection
in their storage environments.
Collections Protection
With a large proportion of the Library’s heritage collections
remaining in the building for the duration of construction,
storage, protection and security were key concerns. Collections have been consolidated and stored on two floors
(ground and basement levels).
Temporary wall to isolate and protect shelved collections from
construction area.
Pre-pack custom box for curios.
Collection bulk storage on the ground floor of the building.
an eight-month period, and all boxes have been bar-coded
to ensure that collections can be traced. The collections on
this floor have been closed to visitor access, and the area
locked for the duration of construction. Access has been
restricted to conservation staff carrying out site audits, and
to contractors carrying out only essential services checks.
Ensuring security of the floor is a key consideration and, in
addition to restricting access, potential for reputational
damage has been mitigated by constructing an external
hoarding over the exterior windows.
The basement was already a collections storage floor
(including several specialised controlled-atmosphere rooms),
and as such relatively limited upgrade work was planned.
Collections have been stored on open shelving for the
duration of construction, and plant operation has been
maintained to the controlled atmosphere rooms throughout the period. Collections in the basement are required to
remain accessible to library staff, and managing staff access
Relocatable temporary roof for weather protection during new
roof construction.
to collections, separate contactor access to work areas, and
security in general, has been challenging.
In order to undertake the construction work safely while
managing risks in and around collections, a unique Collections Protection Plan and Process was established. This
included both the Library and main contractor establishing
dedicated collection protection roles. Robust work procedures
(method statements) are agreed upon, ahead of construction
activity. The key responsibility of these roles is to develop and
agree upon method statements and work plans before work
can commence. The method statements identify and address
the mitigation of risks to the collections (including water,
dust, gases and vibration) from particular construction activities. All construction staff are required to work in accordance
with the relevant method statement, and must attend a collections protection induction before being permitted to
work onsite. To date, over 100 method statements have been
produced, ranging from drilling a hole in concrete for the
installation of pipes to replacement of roof membranes. The
building contractor understands that the working situation
is unique, and that different methods of work are required.
Independent quality-assurance audits of the Collections
Protection processes, outcomes and incidents are undertaken regularly by an internationally recognised conservator.
This independent oversight provides a high level reassurance
to stakeholders, politicians, staff and the public that the
every practical step is being taken to keep the collections
safe and secure during construction. The process has been
very effective so far, with only two minor incidents to date
and no damage to collections.
Rob Stevens is the Programme Director of the New Generation
Implementation Programme for the National Library of New
Zealand. Pam Harris is the Collections Site Liaison Officer
responsible for protecting the collections for the National
Library of New Zealand.
The Auckland Art Gallery development has been an inspiring and ground breaking
project for Hawkins, and we applaud the commitment and vision of Auckland Art
Gallery, and its wide network of supporters, in realising this ambitious project.
We expect that all users of this great facility will draw as much enjoyment from it
as we have building it.
Hawkins Auckland
Level 2 - Hawkins House, 70 Stanley St, Parnell, Auckland
Private Bag 93214 Parnell, Auckland 1151
Phone | 09 918 8100
Reserve this space to
advertise in a future
issue of Papyrus
Please contact
the Editor of Papyrus
for details
Looking at Art in a New Light
Part Three in a Four-Part Series:
Conservation to Conversation
By Mirjam Roos and Emrah Baki Ulas
useums and galleries are spaces in which collections are made available, and where old and new
information, heritage values, cumulative knowledge and the experiences of individuals and communities
can be shared and cultivated in order to advance society,
while contributing to people’s lives. At the same time, these
are the very institutions that preserve and protect cultural
heritage, keeping it safe for the benefit and enjoyment of
the future generations. As simple as this seems, these two
key objectives often conflict with one another, because placing objects on display may cause aging and have a detrimental
impact on the exhibition materials. An institution’s decision
to exhibit an object may thus mean that its future usable
life is compromised to some degree. It is therefore crucial
to understand the effect of environmental parameters on
objects in exhibition (and storage) areas, to ensure that
they are displayed in a manner that minimises the impact
on the objects, while also providing adequate conditions
to maximise the visitor experience. This generally requires
that design of the spaces, selection of material, and setting
of environmental parameters work hand in hand.
Lighting is important to the appearance of displays, and
is a fundamental element in shaping the visitor experience
of an exhibition. On the other hand, lighting, as an environmental parameter, is unquestionably one of the key
issues in conservation. It needs to be used mindfully, and
often sparsely, in order to minimise damage to the objects.
It has been known for centuries that light may damage
exhibited materials by fading pigments, and may degrade
objects in other ways over time. Photodegradation is the
scientific term for the fading of materials from exposure to
light, and can be defined as the decomposition of molecules
caused by the absorption of energy in the form of photons—
particularly from the ultraviolet and visible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. As a result of photodegradation, the
material’s composition breaks up and becomes irreversibly
transformed. When photodegradation takes place on molecules carrying pigmentation, the chemical composition of
the pigments can break down, and colour quality may shift
or weaken. Photodegradation is an irreversible process, and
it is sometimes virtually impossible to create or repair the
lost information in an exhibition object.
On this basis, the best way to prevent light damage on
an exhibition material would be to keep it in darkness.
This is obviously not practical for display purposes, since
we have yet to invent the means of viewing artifacts in the
absence of light. The exhibition of a light-sensitive object
thus requires well-balanced lighting that optimises the quality
of the visual display quality, balancing it carefully with the
risk of fading.
There are some fundamental issues in today’s lighting
and preventive conservation practice, due in part to the
fact that many approaches to lighting conservation are
based on outdated data. For example, a key document
used in many current lighting conservation guidelines is
Garry Thompson’s The Museum Environment, written in
1978. Although this book and other similar key sources
were milestones when published, and have proven useful
for decades, it is time to approach certain conservation
issues with a new perspective. One important reason for
this is technological advances, both in measurement techniques and the precision and accuracy of the devices.
Another important consideration is more fundamental: this
is a time in which exhibition display lighting is undergoing
perhaps its most significant change in many decades, due to
the phasing out of incandescent lighting and replacement
of these sources with new lighting technologies.
Current lighting guidelines related to conservation
are primarily on the nature of the light that is emitted by
incandescent light sources. It is important to note that the
composition of the light from an incandescent source is very
different from that of a metal halide discharge lamp or a
fluorescent tube—or, more importantly, LED sources, which
are likely to become the primary source of exhibition display
lighting in the near future.
Two of the most common misconceptions affecting
preventive conservation strategies related to lighting are
The Berlin Function. Source: PLDC 2011 Conference Proceedings,
Light for Art’s Sake by Cit Cuttle—2009 via Verlag.
that certain levels of light should not be exceeded, and
that 50 lux is the minimum level required in lighting an
exhibition. We will look at each of these in turn.
Misconception 1:
Certain Illuminance (Lux) Levels Should
not Be Exceeded
There are certain illuminance (lux) levels that are widely
regarded as the acceptable limits of illumination for certain types of exhibition objects. These levels typically follow
a hierarchy, based on the classification of the exhibited
material in terms of light sensitivity: acceptable levels of
light are lower for highly light-sensitive materials, and
higher for materials that are less sensitive.
This approach has proven useful; however, it is important
to look at the basis on which these illuminance levels were
determined. The question of the amount of light damage
on an exhibition object is a multidimensional issue with
many parameters. These parameters can be summarised
as follows:
• the composition of the energy contained in the light
(both luminous and non-luminous);
• the exhibition material and the light-related properties
of its surface; and
• how long the object will be exposed to exhibition
Light damage follows the law of reciprocity in general.
(It has been proven via further research, however, that this
relationship is nonlinear and can be very complex.) Each
of the above parameters have complex sub-parameters of
their own, and play a role in the extent of fading; all of these
parameters should be considered in order to determine an
acceptable level of lighting for display. The light levels that
are often noted in loan agreements and industry guidelines
are thus meaningful only when they are supported with
further information on the other factors.
For example, 200-lux illumination provided by an incandescent source may have a very different photodegradation
potential compared to 200-lux illumination provided by a
LED source. This is due to the difference in the spectralenergy distribution of these two sources. The extent of
damage will of course also be dependent on the duration of
exposure, and may even be more dependent on the object’s
surface characteristics, such as absorption and reflectivity
responses to the different parts of the incoming light energy.
What all this means is that, by simply managing the duration of the exhibition display and tailoring the composition
of incoming light affecting certain surfaces, the acceptable
lux levels may be increased or decreased.
Misconception 2:
50 Lux is the Minimum Level for Viewing
This is an issue related to the quality of display lighting, rather
than a conservation issue. It is important to understand the
background of this issue, however, as it may help to create
new strategies for conservation—particularly for highly
sensitive materials.
Similar to the first misconception, while a 50-lux level is
a good general rule of thumb, it lacks accompanying information related to the type of object (e.g., size, colour, contrast), the environment (e.g., background/foreground colour
and contrast), and audience (e.g., age of visitor and visual
acuity). This is thus an issue in which a range of parameters
play an important role in determining the acceptable level
of illumination for satisfactory viewing of artworks. These
parameters include:
• the composition of the luminous energy contained in
the light;
• the material and the light-related properties of the
surface being viewed;
• the size/detail/contrast and colour diversity of the
surface being viewed;
Spectral Power Distribution—
White LED
Tungsten Incandescent
Relative Spectral Power
Relative Power
Wavelength (nm)
500 550 600 650
Wavelength (nm)
Spectral power distribution diagrams for tungsten incandescent and white LED sources. Source: PLDC 2011 Conference Proceedings, Light
for Art’s Sake by Cit Cuttle—2009 via Verlag.
• the position and distribution of the light source and
the observer; and
• the state of adaptation and visual skills of the observer.
When determining acceptable lighting conditions in an
object-specific manner, you may find that the required level
of illumination can be much lower or much higher than
50 lux—which can then inform the conservation strategy.
In summary, lighting in exhibition spaces should respond
primarily to two key parameters: the exhibition experience
for today’s visitors, and how long it will be practical and
possible to keep the exhibition material for the benefit of
future generations. One way of achieving both goals would
be to carefully reconsider the acceptable level and type of
illumination for the satisfactory viewing of an exhibition. At
the same time, a decision needs to be made on the desired
usable life of the exhibition material. These two parameters
can then be used in making the programmatic—including
spatial and operational—arrangements. This can open up
new opportunities for different conservation methodologies
and help create a bridge between the two fundamental
aspects in exhibition display lighting: the longevity of the
exhibit for tomorrow’s visitors, and the communication
and connection of today’s visitors with the exhibit. In other
words, a bridge from conservation to conversation.
Mirjam Roos (MA, Dipl.Ing., Assoc PLDA) and Emrah Baki Ulas
(MA, BSc, PLDA) are Senior Lighting Designers at Steensen
Varming Australia.
When traveling, keep photocopies of your passport and all your other travel
documents as backup. While it’s not likely that these would be valuable to
anyone else, they will be very helpful if you lose the originals.
Do not carry all of your credit cards and cash in your wallet. That way, if
you would lose your wallet, or become the target of a pickpocket, you will
not be left without money. Use your hotel room safe or the hotel’s safety deposit
box for any larger sums of money or valuables when you are away from your room.
2011 IAMFA Con
8:30 am
Benchmarking workshop
Art Gallery—Art Lounge
NOTE: This is a separate workshop for benchmarking participants only, and not part of the IAMFA Conference.
3:00 pm
Conference registration and bag pick-up
Langham Hotel
6:30 pm
Opening reception
Civic Theatre—Verandah Bar
Auckland Museum
8:15 am
Bus to Auckland Museum
To Auckland Museum
9:00 am
Maori cultural group performance
Maori Hall, Auckland Museum
10:00 am
Auckland Museum's balancing act:
(1) Building conservation and construction
(2) Systems vs. visitors (visitor-centric)
Auditorium, Auckland Museum
11:30 am
Museum site visits—chillers, conference floor, roof
Auckland Museum
12:45 pm
Bus to lunch at Waterfront CafГ©, Viaduct Harbour
To Voyager, NZ Maritime Museum
1:45 pm
IAMFA planning session
Functions room—Voyager
3:00 pm
(1) Construction in a marine environment;
(2) Challenges for NZ Green Buildings
Functions room—Voyager
4:10 pm
Visit exhibitions in Voyager
Voyager NZ Maritime Museum
5:15 pm
Ferry to Waiheke Island for vineyard dinner
To Mudbrick Vineyard
Return to hotel by ferry and bus
To Langham Hotel
10:15 pm
Structural steel roof modules,
February 2010
Voyager NZ Maritime Museum
7:45 am
Walk to Auckland Art Gallery
To Auckland Art Gallery
8.00 am
(1) The Dialectic Relation of Art and Architecture—
Lead Architect Richard Francis-Jones
(2) The New Auckland Art Gallery: An Art Museum
for the 21st Century—Director Chris Saines
Auditorium—Art Gallery
10:00 am
Seismic strengthening for a heritage building
Auditorium—Art Gallery
10:45 am
Gallery site tours to conservation labs, chillers/plant;
exhibitions; Maori dimension
Back-of-house, Gallery
12:00 pm
Lunch at Sky Tower
Sky Tower restaurant
1:30 pm
Benchmarking and best practices report
Auditorium—Art Gallery
2:15 pm
Casting New Light on Your Collection
New spatial typologies, conservation approaches and
sustainability perspectives for museum and gallery
exhibition lighting
Auditorium—Art Gallery
3:00 pm
Bus to Navy Museum and tour
Navy Museum, Devonport
5:30 pm
Bus to hotel or Devonport; free evening for
delegates in Devonport or Auckland
6:00 pm
IAMFA Board meeting
Langham Hotel
Navy Museum Torpedo Bay
Museum of Transport and
8:00 am
IAMFA Annual General Meeting
Langham Hotel
9:15 am
Bus to Auckland Zoo, morning tea
To Auckland Zoo
10:00 am
Te Wao Nui: A Modern Zoo—
Director Jonathon Wilken
Auckland Zoo
11:00 am
Site visits, introductions to Te Wao Nui, Zoo Doo
and NZ Centre for Conservation Medicine
Auckland Zoo
1:00 pm
Lunch in the Old Elephant House
Auckland Zoo
2:00 pm
Walk/tram ride to Museum of Transport and Technology
2:15 pm
(1) Aviation Display Hall—development and challenges
(2) The Pumphouse—Auckland waterworks history
Museum of Transport and Technology
4:30 pm
Bus to hotel, dress for Gala dinner
To Langham Hotel
6:30 pm
Bus to Gallery, group photo, gala dinner
Atrium, Auckland Art Gallery
Bus back to hotel
To Langham Hotel
10:15 pm
ference Schedule
13 NOVEMBER 2011
3:00 pm
Conference registration and bag pick-up
Langham Hotel
6:30 pm
Opening reception
Civic Theatre—Verandah Bar
14 NOVEMBER 2011
8:15 am
Bus to Auckland Museum
To Auckland Museum
9:00 am
Maori cultural group performance
Maori Hall, Auckland Museum
10:00 am
Visit museum exhibitions and shop
Auckland Museum
10:45 am
Bus to Viaduct Harbour
To Viaduct Harbour
11:00 am
Look, Cook & Eat—seafood cooking class and lunch
Viaduct Harbour
2:00 pm
Walk/bus to Voyager NZ Maritime Museum
To Voyager, NZ Maritime Museum
2:15 pm
Sailing trip on historic scow—the Ted Ashby
Waitemata Harbour
3:20 pm
Visit exhibitions at Voyager/downtown shopping
Downtown Auckland
5:15 pm
Ferry to Waiheke Island for vineyard dinner
To Mudbrick Vineyard
Return to hotel by ferry and bus
To Langham hotel
10:15 pm
Viaduct Harbor
15 NOVEMBER 2011
8:30 am
Pilates by the pool (optional)
9:00 am
Free time
10:00 am
Langham Hotel
Bus pick-up for day trip
From Langham Hotel
Experience NZ's flora and fauna, rain forests and beaches,
with an award-winning boutique tourism operator
Waitakere Ranges and West Coast
Picnic lunch, brewery lunch or winery lunch (again!)
Out West!
Auckland's Sky Tower
Auckland Zoo
5:00 pm
Return to hotel
5:30 pm
Free evening
16 NOVEMBER 2011
9:15 am
Bus pick-up
9:30 am
Parnell shops and rose garden; heritage walk through
Parnell or One Tree Hil; sculpture in Auckland Domain
Parnell/One Tree Hill
10:45 am
Bus to Zoo
To Auckland Zoo
11:00 am
Visit Zoo exhibits
Auckland Zoo
Auckland Zoo
1:00 pm
Lunch in the Old Elephant House
2:00 pm
Zoo; Museum of Transport and Technology; back to hotel
for spa time (own arrangements)
2:15 pm
Stroll and shop at Zoo and/or MOTAT
Langham Hotel
Auckland Zoo/Museum of Transport
and Technology
4:30 pm
Bus to hotel, dress for Gala dinner
To Langham Hotel
6:30 pm
Bus to Gallery, group photo, gala dinner
Atrium, Auckland Art Gallery
Bus back to hotel
To Langham Hotel
10:15 pm
Langham Hotel
Mudbrick Vineyard
Operations Review Reveals
Hidden Maintenance
Improvement Resources
Part Three in a Three-Part Series: How to
Evaluate Your Operations Review Results
By Thomas Westerkamp
(Parts 1 and 2 of this series can be found in the
previous two issues of Papyrus)
ach application of the operations review audit will result
in more insight into your maintenance department
dynamics, and continued improvement in department
effectiveness. You can summarize your review results using
the Maintenance Productivity Polygraph shown in Figure 1.
Cost Control
Potential Productivity
Current Productivity
Potential Savings: $2,850,000.00
Figure 1. The Maintenance Productivity Polygraph for performing a
structured assessment of your maintenance department.
There are 80 questions included in this review method,
with a maximum of 10 points per question. This allows for
a total possible score of 800 points, distributed among the
eight survey areas, as seen below. The first three areas are
related to the people in your organization, and represent a
total of 230 points (29%) in the survey. The people score
is weighted heavily because skilled, well-motivated people
can overcome many system shortcomings. No matter how
dazzling the system, however, people who are poorly organized, trained or motivated will not get the best out of it.
They will not understand how to use the system, or won’t
have the will to make it work.
You can look at your scores for individual questions to
identify specific items in your system that will help you
improve. For example, assume that under “Planning” you
scored low when you answered the question “What percentage of hours worked is covered by work orders?”. Using the
guidelines of 85–90% planned and scheduled work, you can
apply techniques—such as Finite Capacity Planning based
on daily scheduling—to improve the use of your work order
system. The more work hours you cover on work orders,
the better your scheduling will be and the more complete
your equipment records will be. That improvement activity
will have a major impact on your program’s success, because
it will immediately give you greater control of labor and
material resources, and increase the amount of work done
by the same workforce.
Using all the data you have gathered, answer the multiplechoice questions on the following pages to complete your
operations review.
Past issues of Papyrus
can be found on IAMFA's website
Maintenance Assessment Questions
Circle the point value for the answer that most closely fits your situation. Total your points and divide
by possible total points to find your percentage score in each area. List potential improvements in the
righthand column. You will use these notes in your improvement plan and implementation. Put an
asterisk beside anything on which you want to follow up and check facts.
1. Is the organization structure effective, and is the
organization chart current and complete?
a. Effective, current and complete
b. Not reviewed in the past year or incomplete
c. Not current and incomplete
d. Not effective, current or complete
2. Do all supervisors have their own and their crew’s
job descriptions?
a. Yes, all
b. More than 90%
c. 80–90%
d. 70–79%
e. 50–69%
f. Less than 50 percent
3. What is the ratio of hourly workers to supervision?
a. 15:1
b. 8:1 to 14:1
c. 16:1 to 20:1
d. Less than 8:1 or over 20:1
4. Are support functions—maintenance engineer, plant
engineer, planner, material coordinator, training,
a. Yes, all
b. 4 or 5, including planner
c. 4 or 5, no planner
d. 1 to 3
e. None of these is available
5. Does the department use a written management
control policy and management goals weekly?
a. Yes, covering over 85% of costs
b. Yes, covering 75–85% of costs
c. Have, but not used weekly
d. Do not have or do not use
Area 1: Organization—Subtotal
Become a Member of IAMFA
For more information on becoming a member of the
International Association of Museum Facility Administrators, please visit
1. Does a master training plan exist, covering higher
management supervision, support and crafts?
a. Yes, all of these areas
b. Two of these
c. One of these
d. None of these
2. Is productivity training included?
a. Yes, in all of the above areas
b. Two areas
c. One area
d. None of these areas
3. Is there formal and on-the-job management training?
a. Yes, both
b. On-the-job only
c. No management training
4. Who performs training?
a. Staff specialists
b. Line management and staff specialists
c. Line management and other workers
d. No one
5. Is there formal and on-the-job training for planners?
a. Yes, both
b. On-the-job only
c. No training for planners
6. Does the planner training program include work order
planning, methods, scheduling, productivity, methods
improvement, material planning, project planning, field
checking, engineered time standards, standard practices,
multi-craft planning, preventive maintenance and
equipment history, and computer use?
a. Yes, all of these areas
b. 75% of these
c. 50% of these
d. 25% of these
e. None of these
7. Is there formal and on-the-job craft training?
a. Yes, both
b. On-the-job only
c. No craft training
8. Who performs craft training?
a. Staff only
b. Staff plus line management
c. Other hourly workers
d. No one
AREA 2: TRAINING (cont’d)
9. What percentage of crafts are included?
a. 100%
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
10. Are there minimum job skill requirements for each
craft job title?
a. Yes, for all
b. For 75%
c. For 50%
d. For 25%
e. For none
Area 2: Training—Subtotal
1. What is the overall management-labor climate?
a. Cooperative
b. Neutral
c. Adversarial
2. Randomly select ten examples of substandard job
performance. What percentage is caused by bad
attitude, as opposed to lack of skill?
a. 100%
b. 80–89%
c. 60–79%
d. 40–59%
e. 20–39%
f. 0–19%
3. Has a work climate survey been conducted recently?
a. Yes
b. More than two years ago
c. Never
4. What is the annual turnover due to voluntary
and involuntary departures?
a. Less than 2%
b. 3–5%
c. 6–10%
d. More than 10%
5. What percentage of productive hours are lost due
to late arrivals and early departures?
a. Less than 2%
b. 3–5%
c. 6–10%
d. More than 10%
AREA 3: PERSONNEL (cont’d)
6. Was there a strike before settling, or during, this
a. Yes
b. No
7. How many grievances have there been in the past six
months, as a percentage of total maintenance workers?
a. Less than 2%
b. 3–5%
c. 6–10%
d. More than 10%
8. How many grievances were settled at the first stage,
as a percentage of total grievances?
a. 100%
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
Area 3: Personnel—Subtotal
1. Do you use shop floor work measurement, budgets
and actual historical costs to control your program?
a. Yes, all three
b. Budgets and costs only
c. Costs only
2. Which control indices and trends—percentage of
downtime, performance, coverage, delays, cost per
standard hour, productivity, backlog, level of service,
overtime—are used?
a. All
b. 7 or 8
c. 5 or 6
d. 2 to 4
e. Less than 2
3. What is the time lag between the end of a period
and receipt of control reports?
a. A day or less
b. 2 to 4 days
c. More than 5 days
4. How often are performance reports prepared?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. Less frequently
5. How are job time and work reported?
a. By individual and job
b. By day
c. By week
d. By month or clock-in/clock-out only
6. How is report information summarized?
a. By responsible foremen
b. By department or work center
c. Total only
7. How are reports distributed?
a. To responsible foremen, plus
summaries to management
b. To foremen only
c. Not distributed to line organization,
or not prepared
Area 4: Cost Control—Subtotal
1. What percentage of labor hours worked is on a
written work order?
a. More than 90%
b. 80–90%
c. 70–79%
d. 69% or less
e. None
2. What percentage of work orders relate to specific
job content, as opposed to blanket content?
a. More than 90%
b. 80–90%
c. 70–79%
d. 69% or less
e. None
3. What percentage of work orders have enough lead
time for planning (2–4 weeks)?
a. More than 90%
b. 80–90%
c. 70–79%
d. 69% or less
e. None
4. What percentage of work orders have all of the
following preplanned: work content by craft,
materials, special tools and equipment, multi-craft
sequencing, engineered job time standards, job-site
access, scheduled date?
a. More than 90%
b. 75–90%
c. 60–74%
d. 40–59%
e. Less than 40%
f. None
AREA 5: PLANNING (cont’d)
5. Is all shutdown work preplanned and scheduled?
a. Yes
b. Major jobs only
c. None
6. Does foreman check quality and completeness?
a. Yes
b. Most jobs
c. Half of all jobs
d. Less than half of all jobs
7. What percent of major equipment has a record of
repair history?
a. 100%
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
8. How many history records are reviewed at least
once a year?
a. All
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
9. What percentage of plant equipment is covered
by preventive maintenance routines?
a. 100%
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
10. What equipment is covered by all of the following
reports: downtime trends, PM compliance with
schedule, written PM instructions, total PM time,
high repair-item time?
a. All
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
11. How frequently are the reports prepared?
a. Weekly
b. Monthly
c. Less frequently
d. No reports prepared
Area 5: Planning—Subtotal
1. Do you have an up-to-date stores catalog?
a. Yes, for all items, except
b. For major items
c. For some items
d. No up-to-date stores catalog
2. Do you have a perpetual inventory system for major
items and spares?
a. Yes, for all items
b. For 75%
c. For 50%
d. For 25%
e. No perpetual inventory system
3. Do you have a two-bin system for high-volume,
low-cost pre-expended items?
a. Yes, for all items
b. For 75%
c. For 50%
d. For 25%
e. No two-bin system
4. Are all except pre-expended item withdrawals
controlled by use of a withdrawal procedure?
a. Yes, all
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
5. Is there a tool control procedure used for all company
a. Yes, for all
b. For 75%
c. For 50%
d. For 25%
e. No tool control procedure
6. Are there standard lists of tools provided to individuals
by the company and provided by the individual?
a. Yes
b. Company only
c. Individual only
d. Neither
7. How many tools are out of service for repair?
a. Less than 5%
b. 5–9%
c. 10–20%
d. More than 20%
AREA 6: MATERIAL (cont’d)
8. Are economical order quantities calculated?
a. Yes, for all items
b. For most items
c. For some items
d. For none
9. Are minimum/maximum levels set and maintained?
a. Yes, for all items
b. For most items
c. For some items
d. For none
10. Does purchasing maintain a vendor rating system?
a. Yes, for all vendors
b. For most
c. For some
d. For none
11. What percentage of material orders are delivered
on time?
a. 100%
b. 90–99%
c. 80–89%
d. 70–79%
e. 60–69%
f. 59% or less
Area 6: Material—Subtotal
1. On what percentage of your equipment is reliability
engineering used to control downtime?
a. 100%
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
2. What percentage of equipment histories are analyzed
to statistically determine current mean time between
failures (MTBF) and mean time to repair (MTTR)?
a. 100%
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
3. What percent of major repair and construction projects
have an engineer assigned?
a. 100%
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
4. On what percentage of your equipment are diagnostic
routines—vibration, heat, erosion, corrosion, electrical
gauging gas analysis, etc.—carried out on a regular,
scheduled basis?
a. Over 95%
b. 80–95%
c. 60–79%
d. 40–59%
e. Up to 39%
f. None
5. How are maintenance time standards set?
a. Predetermined times, time study and
standard data
b. Direct measurement, predetermined times
and time
c. Work sampling
d. Estimates
e. No set standards
6. What application system is used?
a. Slotting and work content comparison
b. Direct measurement
c. No application system
7. What percentage of actual hours worked is covered
by time standards?
a. More than 85%
b. 70–85%
c. Less than 70%
d. None
8. Are job times on the work order for the foreman
and hourly worker to see?
a. Yes, both
b. Given to foreman only
c. Neither
9. What percentage of maintenance hourly workers
are paid a wage incentive plan tied to output?
a. Over 95%
b. 80–95%
c. 60–79%
d. 40–59%
e. Less than 40%
10. What type of incentive plan are you using?
a. Standard hour 1-for-1 individual or small group
b. Multi-factor or large group
c. None
11. Which information categories are available in your
computer system—payroll, time reporting, work order,
job planning, daily scheduling, for routine work, longrange scheduling for projects, management control
reports, downtime, equipment history, preventive
maintenance, material stores control, statistical
analysis, cost justification?
a. All
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
12. Is your system online?
a. Yes
b. Batch
c. No
13. Does your system match capabilities with individual
a. Yes, always
b. Most of the time
c. Sometimes
d. Never
14. Are computer reports timely?
a. Yes, weekly or more frequently
b. Monthly
c. Less often
15. Is the information complete and reliable?
a. Yes, always
b. Most of the time
c. Sometimes
d. Never
16. Does your security system control who has access
to what level?
a. Yes, it controls both
b. Controls one of these
c. Inadequate control
d. Controls neither
17. How often is the system backed up?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Less often
18. Are memory and disk storage properly sized to
support users?
a. Yes, both
b. One
c. Neither is large enough
Area 7: Engineering—Subtotal
1. Do you have a current plant floorplan?
a. Updated within the past year
b. 2 to 4 years old
c. Older, or none
2. How are maintenance shop locations and layouts?
a. Ideal
b. Good
c. Fair
d. Poor
3. How is housekeeping?
a. Superior
b. Excellent
c. Good
d. Fair
e. Poor
4. Are safety equipment and signs always used?
a. Yes, in all areas
b. In most areas
c. In some areas
d. None
5. How do you rate availability of equipment and tools,
considering the crafts needed and workload?
a. Better than average
b. Average
c. Below average
6. What is the average square footage of office space
for supervisors and staff?
a. More than 75 square feet per person
b. About 75 square feet per person
c. Less than 75 square feet per person
d. None
7. How good is task lighting?
a. Better than average
b. Average
c. Below average
d. Poor
8. Are the following services—electric, air, water,
gas, steam, sewer, refuse removal—scheduled for
maintenance at proper intervals annually?
a. 100%
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
9. What percentage of custodial employees are on preplanned daily routes and tasks, and engineered
a. Over 95%
b. 86–95%
c. 66–85%
d. 1–65%
e. None
10. Are all cranes, trucks, hoists, and lifting equipment
on a PM plan?
a. 100%
b. 75%
c. 50%
d. 25%
e. None
Area 8: Facilities—Subtotal
How to Calculate the Potential Savings
from Productivity Improvement
Improving your maintenance program means real dollar
savings to your organization. You can calculate the savings
resulting from improving your program. The key indicator
is your productivity percentage, based on the point total
your program scored in the survey, compared to the
maximum shown in Figure 2 below.
The following example shows how the calculation is
done. A typical score for a program with little or no formal
planning and no engineered standards is 320 to 400
points. This point total is equivalent to 40% to 50%
productivity. Using 360 points, we have:
% Productivity = 360 x 100%
= 45%
Cost Control
Figure 2: Survey areas, maximum points and percent of total points.
The potential for a maintenance program with engineered standards, and a formal planning and scheduling
function with written work orders covering 90% of the
work, is at least 80%. If there are 120 hourly employees
in the maintenance department, and the average wages
and fringe costs are $50,000 per year, the improvement
potential is:
120 x
= 68 hourly workers needed at 80%
80 =
120 – 68 = 52 workers available for other assignments
52 x $50,000 = $2,600,000 cost-avoidance or savings
But which is it: cost-avoidance or savings? Why does it
matter? It is cost-avoidance if the productivity improvement
is used entirely for getting more work done, providing there
is enough work to justify the workforce. It is savings if you
use attrition to reduce the payroll, providing you can still
get all the work done. Or it can be a combination: get more
work done, and get some payroll savings too. It matters
because optimal staffing and high productivity are interdependent. Management can make the right staffing decisions
if they have accurate workload information, by skill—work
orders with specific work content and engineered standards
applied—sufficient to justify the workforce.
Regular auditing of your program, as described in this
series of articles, will give you new insight into greater
potential and provide a catalyst for continuous improvement
of your maintenance organization, planning, scheduling
and control. With the right control system in place, you
can track savings versus cost, and plot the breakeven point,
as shown in the breakeven chart in Figure 3.
Use the worksheet below to summarize the results of
your assessment.
Cumulative Savings vs. Cost
Savings Calculation Worksheet
Total Points
Cost Control
% Productivity =
Dollars (,000)
x 100 =
Your Productivity
Hourly available (
Hourly needed
@ 80% Potential
Potential Productivity (80%)
Current Hourly (
= $
Total Points Possible (800)
Break Even
Your Total Points (
) – Hourly needed @80% (
) = available (
) x Annual wages & benefits (
Cumulative Savings
Cumulative Cost
Figure 3: Breakeven chart—cumulative savings versus cost and
breakeven point.
Summary of Improvement Ideas
Scan the answers to the questions above to see where your
system-improvement opportunities have been revealed.
If you see a problem, but not a solution, write down the
problem. You can document the problem as a place holder
on your continuous improvement project schedule, do
further research to pinpoint alternative solutions, and then
select the best one to implement.
Like mountain climbing, the higher up you get, the farther
out you can see. So it is with productivity improvement—
only there is no top. The opportunities are limited only by
your team’s creativity. Creativity is knowing how to see. As
you progress along the path of improved sustainability and
savings, your viewpoint and vision will improve, and you
will see new opportunities for sustainability and savings.
Thomas A. Westerkamp is author of the Maintenance Manager’s
Standard Manual and AWARE.MPS, Maintenance Productivity
Suite, and founder of Productivity Network Innovations, LLC (PNI).
He has written over 200 journal articles, and has presented several
maintenance management webcasts. He works with clients in
manufacturing, service industries and government around the
world, installing integrated performance-management/CMMS
and shop-floor control programs. He can be reached at
Other Resources
• The Maintenance Productivity Polygraph is available as
an automated application: Aware.MNT, Maintenance
Audit Software,
• Hundreds of actionable solutions you can use right
away are found in Maintenance Manager’s Standard
Manual, by Thomas A. Westerkamp, BNi Publications,
• Additional case studies of maintenance operation
reviews and elements of computerized maintenance
management systems are found in Maynard’s Industrial
Engineering Handbook, 5th edition, edited by Kjell B.
Zandin, McGraw-Hill, Inc. (2001), and in Thomas A.
Westerkamp, Chapter 16.1, Computer-Aided Maintenance Planning, Scheduling, and Control; Chapter 16.2,
Benefits of Auditing the Maintenance Department;
and G.1, Glossary.
The Smithsonian Institution’s
Arts and Industries Building
Phase-2 Renovation Project
By Maurice Evans
he Smithsonian Institution’s Arts
and Industries Building, also
known as AIB, was designed by
Adolf Cuss and Paul Schulze. AIB is the
Smithsonian’s second-oldest building,
but was its first museum. Built in the
High Victorian style, AIB is famous for
its polychrome brick exterior, octagonal
rotunda and Victorian ornaments.
Construction began in 1879, and the
building opened in 1881 as the U.S.
National Museum; it was renamed the
Arts and Industries Building in 1916.
AIB was designated a Washington,
D.C. landmark in 1964, and in 1971
was named a National Historic Landmark and put on the National Register
of Historic Places. It was noted at the
time that it was the best-preserved
example of nineteenth-century “world’s
fair” or “exposition” architecture in
the country.
Those fortunate enough to experience the tour of AIB Phase 1: “Interior
demolition and hazmat removal”, during the 2009 IAMFA Conference got a
chance to see the shell of this magnificent building. Hopefully you were able
to get an idea of how the building was
partially lit using natural sunlight,
skylights, clerestory windows and
the rotunda.
All Phase I work has been completed
and documented towards achieving
LEED Gold Certification for new
construction. The work associated
with Phase 2, and all other associated
phases, will also be documented and
completed in accordance with LEED
criteria, as we continue the process of
pursuing LEED Gold Certification for
new construction.
Contracts for Phase 2 of the AIB
renovation were awarded September 30,
2010 at the end of fiscal year 10.
Overview looking north at the Arts and Industry Building, prior to
its preservation for construction.
Independence Avenue view of construction.
Scaffolding erected in the South Hall.
Work platform/temporary roof inside Rotunda.
A total of 900 calendar days has been
scheduled for Phase 2 construction.
This phase of the project is intended to
preserve the historic building, stabilize
and revitalize the building envelope,
and prepare the building for future
phases of full building revitalization.
Phase 2 work includes replacement of
the roofs; replacement and repair of
the iron roof structure; and installation
of new steel, masonry and concrete
structural elements to improve seismic,
wind blast and snow-load performance.
The project will also involve replacement of the windows; restoration of
masonry and ornamental metals; and
the installation of lightning arrest
equipment and systems.
Prior to removal of the building
roofs, extreme caution was taken to
protect previously identified interior
and exterior materials and finishes
from damage and deterioration for
the duration of the construction process. Several of the historical building
elements had to be removed in order
to accomplish this.
Items were salvaged, inventoried
and properly stored so that refurbish-
Removal of roof of SE Court Monitor.
ing could take place prior to their
Photographs are by Derek C.
Ross, Jr., Dennis Clark, Christopher
Lethbridge and Richard Strauss.
Follow the project’s progress at:
Interior view of AIB from the west wall.
Maurice Evans is Facilities Zone Manager
at the Smithsonian Institution in
Washington, D.C.
Original AIB windows.
Roof ornaments removed and ready for restoration.
Exploratorium Construction Update
By Jennifer Fragomeni
n October 19, 2010, a groundbreaking ceremony was held
on San Francisco’s waterfront
at Pier 15, to mark the beginning of
construction at the future home of the
Exploratorium. Many of you heard
about the groundbreaking at the 2010
IAMFA Conference, where a presentation was given about the zero-energy
goals of the project. In the months
that have passed since then, hundreds
of workers have been diligently working both above and below the deck of
Pier 15 (and on Pier 17, located next
door). The project is nearly at its halfway point, and I’d like to share with
you some of the highlights of the
progress that has been made so far.
Moving a Tugboat Company
Baydelta Maritime was a tenant at
Pier 15, now the site of the new
Exploratorium. It had been agreed
that they would be relocated to Pier
17, in order for the Exploratorium
project to move forward. Before Baydelta could be relocated, dredging
to the north of Pier 17 had to take
place, as the bay was too shallow for
the Baydelta tugboats to dock there. In
addition to the dredging, the Explora-
Facing the cityscape.
View from the Embarcadero.
torium was required to build new offices
for Baydelta. Finally, the Exploratorium
had to repair the north apron of Pier 17,
which was in an unsafe condition. These
were some of the first major milestones
of the project, and were completed on
time and on budget in May 2011.
Seismic Retrofit of Pier 15
While construction was going on at
Pier 17, other crews were hard at work
in and under Pier 15. Before construction began, engineers had discovered
that the piles that were holding up
Pier 15 had deteriorated significantly,
and were no longer strong enough to
withstand the forces of a major earthquake. To ensure the current and future
stability of Pier 15, a seismic retrofit was
required. The plan for the retrofit had
two components: repairing hundreds of
existing wood and concrete piles, and
adding 64 new steel and concrete piles.
Pile preparation under the deck of the pier.
The piles under Pier 15 were made
by driving 140-foot-long (43-meterlong) Douglas fir timbers into the bay
mud. Above the mud line to the bottom
of the pier—a length of about 20 feet
(6 meters)—the timbers were encased
in protective concrete sleeves, for a
diameter of about 24 inches (61 cm).
Over the years, the concrete on many
of these piles had been subject to “sulfate attack” from the sea water, which
had softened the concrete and weakened the structure. These piles were
repaired by removing the old concrete,
surrounding the piles with fiberglass
sleeves measuring 30 inches (76 cm)
in diameter, and pumping new sulfateresistant concrete into the annulus.
Some of this seismic retrofit work is
being done under the water by teams of
divers, and some is being done above
water by workers on rafts. The work on
rafts has to be scheduled during low
tide, so that workers can fit safely under
the pier with their equipment. As the
tides rise, workers go from standing, to
kneeling, to lying on their backs, often
operating jackhammers held overhead.
New steel piles, 6 feet (1.8 meters)
in diameter and 160 feet (43 meters)
in length, are also being added at each
of the pier’s four corners. They are
driven into the bay mud with a “vibrating hammer”. The piles are then filled
with concrete from the mud line up,
and connected with massive concrete
pier caps (8 x 8-foot concrete beams)
at the top. This work was completed
at the eastern end of the project in
March 2011.
Building the Observatory
The Observatory is the only new building being built on the Exploratorium
project site. It is situated on the eastern
end of the site, looking out over the
bay. After the steel piles were driven,
and the concrete pier caps poured at
the eastern end in March 2011, the
steel frame of the Observatory was
quickly erected.
Rehabilitation of the Shed
The historical building on Pier 15 is a
steel-trussed, wood-roofed, 1930s warehouse. This massive warehouse structure is technically referred to as “the
Shed” by our architects and engineers.
Although it is made of steel and wood,
the construction of the Shed does not
provide the lateral stability needed for
present-day seismic codes. In order for
this building to house the new Exploratorium, it must first be rehabilitated
and retrofitted. Our structural engineers have built steel-brace frames in
both the north-south and east-west
directions, while some of the older,
existing columns have been reinforced.
Steel frames for the mezzanines, recently
put in place, will also act as brace frames.
Additionally, plywood has been added
to the roof to add the strength needed
to support photovoltaic panels.
While a significant amount of work
has already been done, construction
of the new Exploratorium at Pier 15
is still more than a year away from
completion. To keep up on the latest
developments in the construction of
our new home, please visit our website:
Building the mezzanines; note that ducts
and pipes have already been installed.
Observatory skeleton, top right; concrete pier cap and 6-foot pile,
bottom right.
Jennifer Fragomeni is Facilities Director
at the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
Roof reinforcement in progress.
Harvard Art Museums Renovation and
Expansion Project
he Harvard Art Museums renovation and expansion project,
scheduled for completion in 2013,
is now underway at 32 Quincy Street
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Designed
by architect Renzo Piano, the project
will unite the Harvard Art Museums’
three constituent museums—Fogg,
Busch-Reisinger, and Arthur M. Sackler
—in a single, state-of-the-art facility.
The design seamlessly combines the
original 1927 building with a striking
new addition on its east side, along
Prescott Street. The Calderwood Courtyard, preserved in place in the center
of the original building, was the site of
the closing banquet at the 2004 IAMFA
Conference. For more information
about the project, please visit
Aerial view of Harvard Art Museums Renovation and Expansion Project.
Chapter News and Regional Updates
Washington, D.C.-Baltimore Chapter
Northern California Chapter
By Maurice Evans
By Joe Brennan
The Chapter’s quarterly meeting was held on May 17,
hosted by the Library of Congress (LOC). Lucy Suddreth,
the Library’s Chief of The Office of Support Operations,
welcomed members and discussed a little of how the LOC
operates. The meeting was held in the Thomas Jefferson
Building, with over 35 individuals in attendance, representing six different cultural institutions in the area. Members
had a chance to network with each other prior to the start
of the meeting and during the lunch period. It was a great
opportunity to discuss current challenges and share new
ideas on how to approach those challenges.
The presentation for the day was on the “Thomas Jefferson
Building Floor Wear Study”, given by Greg Simmons and
James Zeeck. They presented an overview of the study’s findings, which included ways on how to reduce wear and tear
on the floors and steps in the Thomas Jefferson Building.
Some of the recommendations from the study were discussed,
as were those which have already been implemented by the
Library. There were several recommendations from the study
that could be implemented in other buildings, possibly
increasing the longevity of the floors in your own institution. The presentation captured everyone’s attention and
sparked several questions afterwards. Look for an article
recapping this study in the next issue of Papyrus.
During the meeting, we discussed the possibility of the
Washington, D.C.-Baltimore Chapter being represented at
the IAMFA Conference in Auckland. The benefits of attending the Conference, as well as participating in the benchmarking workshop were discussed, and we are expecting
Chapter members to attend both the Conference and the
benchmarking workshop this November.
The Chapter’s next meeting is scheduled at the National
Archives in September.
Presentation by James Zeeck and Greg Simmons of the Architect of
the Capital.
The Chapter’s most recent quarterly meeting was held on
May 4 at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, home of
the Oakland Athletics.
The Coliseum has all the facilities challenges we face—
but with huge surges of visitors, along with the many needs
demanded by the team’s the-game-must-go-on season
schedule. Think of your facility with daily visitation in
the tens of thousands.
This facility is designed to function flawlessly behind the
scenes from zero to sixty and back to zero again, day in and
day out. Our tour provided a look at the infrastructure supporting the game, as well as the excellent visitor service
guaranteed by the Oakland A’s organization.
Our meeting began with a facility overview by David Rinetti,
Director of Stadium Operations, and his crew. They talked
to us about stadium issues of interest to our group: security,
emergency plans, medical issues and infrastructure that must
accommodate 40,000 people onsite at any given time. We
followed this with a walking tour of the facility itself, and
ended with a visit to batting practice on the field. It was a
highly enjoyable meeting, providing lots of food for thought
on what it takes to manage a popular athletic facility.
At the reception at London’s Royal Exchange celebrating
his son William’s April 30 marriage to his Greek wife
Andrea, John de Lucy started off the dancing with the
bride’s father: a Greek tradition!
IAMFA Members — Organizations
Australian Centre for the
Moving Image
National Gallery of Canada
Camfil Limited
Architrve PC Architects
Ottawa, Ontario
Haslingden, Lancashire
Washington, DC
Nova Scotia Museum
Creative Consulting
Partnership LLP
Arkansas Art Center
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Melbourne, VIC
Museum Old and New
Berriedale, Tasmania
Museum Victoria
Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
National Gallery of Australia
Canberra, ACT
National Library of Australia
Peterborough Museum &
Richmond, Surrey
Physical Resource Bureau
National Galleries of Scotland
Ottawa, Ontario
Edinburgh, Scotland
Royal British Columbia
National Gallery, London
Victoria, British Columbia
Canberra, ACT
Questacon, The National
Science and Technology
Canberra, ACT
Steensen Varming
Sydney, NSW
BibliothГЁque nationale
de France
Canada Science and
Technology Museum
Ottawa, Ontario
Canadian Museum for Human
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canadian Museum of
Gatineau, Quebec
Canadian Museum of Nature
International Council
of Museums
Auckland Art Gallery —
Toi o TВЇamaki
Auckland Museum
Christchurch Art Gallery
Christchurch, Canterbury
Internal Affairs
National Library of
New Zealand
Royal New Zealand Navy
Devonport, Auckland
Montreal, Quebec
Facility Management
Services LTD
Calgary, Alberta
Groupe Smi-Enerpro
Longueuil, Quebec
Lundholm Associates
Toronto, Ontario
National Museum of Science
and Industry
London, England
Liverpool, England
National Portrait Gallery
Museo Guggenheim — Bilbao
Bilbao, Viz Caya
British Library
Arts and Industries Building
Washington, DC
Atlanta History Center
Atlanta , GA
Baltimore Museum of Art
Baltimore, MD
Beyer Blinder Belle
New York, NY
Boston Athenaeum
Boston, MA
Brooklyn Museum of Art
Brooklyn, NY
San Francisco, CA
London, England
Royal Academy
Ware, Hertfordshire
Camfil Farr (USA) Inc.
Newark, DE
Carnegie Museums of
London, England
Pittsburgh, PA
University of Greenwich
CB Richard Ellis
London, England
Doral, FL
Victoria & Albert Museum
Chicago Children’s Museum
London, England
Chicago, IL
The Wellcome Trust
Cleveland Museum of Art
London, England
Cleveland, OH
Cooper-Hewitt National
Design Museum
New York, NY
AFS Chemical Filtration Group
Cypress Security, LLC
San Francisco, CA
Alaska State Museum
Juneau, AK
Delaware Art Museum
Wilmington, DE
Allentown Art Museum
Elliot Lewis Corporation
Philadelphia, PA
Anacostia Community
Energy Maintenance Services
Washington, DC
Houston, TX
Aquarium of the Bay
Ewing Cole
San Francisco, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Architect of the Capitol
London, England
Washington , DC
Chicago, IL
Natural History Museum
London, England
British Museum
Art Institute of Chicago
California Academy of
Allentown, PA
Little Rock, AR
London, England
Burlington, MA
Ottawa, Ontario
Cofely Services Inc.
National Library of Scotland
National Museums Liverpool
London, England
Edinburgh, Scotland
National Museum of Australia
National Portrait Gallery of
The National Archives
Peterborough, Ontario
Canberra, ACT
Canberra, ACT
London, England
San Francisco, CA
Facility Issues
M. Goodwin Associates, Inc.
Flagstaff, AZ
Pasadena, CA
Fine Arts Museum of San
Mariner’s Museum
San Francisco, CA
Folger Shakespeare Library
Washington, DC
Freer Gallery of Art and
Arthur M. Sackler Gallery
Washington, DC
Friends of Iolani Palace
Newport News, VA
McGuire Engineers
Chicago, IL
Metropolitan Museum of Art
New York, NY
Milwaukee Public Museum
Milwaukee, WI
National Museum of the
United States Army
Smithsonian American Art
Fort Belvoir, VA
Washington, DC
National Portrait Gallery
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
National Postal Museum
Smithsonian Institution
Building, The Castle
Washington, DC
National Zoological Park
Washington, DC
Neue Galerie
New York, NY
Honolulu, HI
Morikami Museum and
Japanese Gardens
Glide Foundation
Delray Beach, FL
Corona, NY
Mueller Associates
Norton Museum of Art
Baltimore, MD
West Palm Beach, FL
Hammer Museum
Museum of Fine Arts —
Oakland Museum of
Los Angeles, CA
Boston, MA
Oakland, California
Harley-Davidson Museum
Museum of Fine Arts —
Office of Facilities
Engineering & Operations
Houston, TX
Washington, DC
National Air and Space
Philadelphia Museum of Art
San Francisco, CA
Hagley Museum & Library
Wilmington, DE
Milwaukee, WI
Harvard Art Museum
Cambridge, MA
High Museum of Art
Atlanta, GA
Hirshhorn Museum and
Sculpture Garden
Washington, DC
J. Paul Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA
Washington, DC
National Air and Space
Museum — Udvar-Hazy
New York Hall of Science
Philadelphia, PA
Pinkerton Consulting and
Sunnyvale, CA
Chantilly, VA
Questions and Solutions
Engineering, Inc.
National Museum of African
American History and Culture
Chaska, MN
The Jewish Museum
Washington, DC
Renwick Gallery
New York, NY
National Museum of African
Salvador Dali Museum
Landmark Facilities Group, Inc.
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
St Petersburg, FL
National Museum of
American History
San Francisco Art Institute
Richmond, VA
Washington, DC
Library of Congress
Washington, DC
National Museum of Marine
San Francisco Maritime
National Historical Park
Library of Congress (Packard
Campus for Audio Visual
National Museum of Natural
Norwalk, CT
Lee Construction Consultants
Triangle, VA
San Francisco, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Francisco Museum of
Modern Art
San Francisco, CA
Culpeper, VA
Washington, DC
Santa Barbara Museum of Art
Lighting Services Inc.
National Museum of the
American Indian
Santa Barbara, CA
Washington, DC
San Francisco, CA
Stony Point, NY
Los Angeles County Museum
of Art
Los Angeles, CA
National Museum of the
American Indian — George
Gustav Heye Center
Securitas Security Services
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
San Francisco, CA
Washington, DC
Smithsonian National Air and
Space Museum
Suitland, MD
Waltham, MA
Canyon Country, CA
Solomon R. Guggenheim
New York, NY
Stanford University Libraries,
Green Library
Stanford, CA
U.S. Holocaust Museum
Washington, DC
The Whiting-Turner
Contracting Company
Baltimore, MD
Winterthur Museum, Garden
and Library
Winterthur, DE
Yale University Art Gallery
New Haven, CT
This list reflects
dues paid as of
August 23, 2011
Although we do our best
to ensure that our
Directory information is
as up-to-date as possible,
errors and omissions can
always occur. If you
would like to make any
changes to your
listing, please contact
Alan Dirican at
New York, NY
Index of Papyrus Technical and Historical Articles
2009 Engineering Excellence Awards—Recovering the Lost Stream
at Winterthur
Pennoni Associates
Winter 2009
2010 Benchmarking Practices and Learning Workshop Revealed
Stacey Wittig
Winter 2010
The A.A. Bakhrushin State Central Theatre Museum
Dmitry V. Rodionov
Spring 2009
A New High for Atlanta
Kevin Streiter
Summer 2003
Air Quality Standards for Preservation Environments
Chris Muller
Winter 2010
Air Tightness Strategies—The British Library Additional Storage Program
Construction Project
John de Lucy and Julian Taylor
Summer 2006
Apprenticing in Facilities Management
Kate Hickman
Summer 2006
The Art Institute of Chicago’s Unique Fan Wall System
William Caddick, William Strangeland, and Michael Murphy
Winter 2007
Development Update
Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki—Building
Patricia Morgan
Summer 2010
Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki—The
Kauri Ceilings
Patricia Morgan
Winter 2010
Opens its Doors to Virtual Visitors
The Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki
Catherine Lomas, David Reeves and Patricia Morgan
Summer 2003
Be Seen in the Right Light: The Value of a Tight Lighting Specification
Mark Rowling
Summer 2003
Benchmarking: A Comparison over Time
Stacey Wittig
Summer 2010
Benchmarking Participants Save Their Institutions an Average of $1.79 M
Stacey Wittig
Spring 2011
Best Practices
Daniel D. Davies
Summer 2002
Best Practices in Recycling
San Francisco Department of the Environment
Winter 2010
Beyond Hipopta agavis—Wet Collections Facility Design
Walter L. Crimm and Bryan L. Stemen
Spring 2004
Black & McDonald, CMM, and Museums
Richard E. Harding and Edmond Richard
Summer 2002
Boiler Replacement at the Natural History Museum in London
Glynnan Barham
Fall 2008
British Library: An Energy-Saving Case Study
Patrick Dixon
Spring 2011
British Library Additional Storage Program
John de Lucy
Summer 2007
The British Library Centre for Conservation
John deLucy and Harry Wanless
Winter 2007
The Canadian War Museum—River Water for Sanitary Use:
Trials and Tribulations
Richard Harding
Summer 2006
Carbon Saving at the Natural History Museum London CIBSE—
100 Days of Carbon Saving
Glynnan Barham
Spring 2008
Cool Efficiency at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry—Careful
Planning and Analysis Leads to Successful Installation of New Central Plant
Elizabeth Miller, Anthony B. McGuire,
David M. Brooks and Michael J. Murphy
Winter 2009
The Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture Opens in
Washington, D.C.
Daniel Davies and the Reynolds Center Public Affairs Staff
Summer 2006
Electrical Maintenance: An Opportunity Often Missed
Arthur Miller
Spring 2004
Energy Management Improvements at the Canadian Museum of Civilization
Guy Larocque and Todd Keeley
Winter 2002
Energy Star Roofs are Cool
Richard Stomber
Spring 2008
Existing Building Commissioning
Rebecca T. Ellis
Spring 2008
Experiences of a Facility Manager during the Evolution of Building Automation
Vincent Magorrian
Spring 2010
Facility Managers Lead the Move to Green with Improvements
in Energy Efficiency
Thomas A. Westerkamp
Summer 2010
Fire Protection and the British Library Repository
John de Lucy
Spring 2006
Getty Center Becomes First Facility in the U.S. to be Rated “Green”
through LEED-EB Certification
Joe May
Spring 2005
Grand Prix Winner for Architecture in Scottish Design Awards 2002—Engineering
the Sustainable Museum Environment at the Museum of Scottish Country Life
Alastair Cunningham and Chris Mclaren
Summer 2002
The Harley-Davidson Museum—The First Museum to Gain GREENGUARD
Tim Dotson
Winter 2009
Heritage Preservation Publishes First Comprehensive Study of Loss to Nation’s
Cultural Heritage as a Result of 9/11
Heritage Preservation
Winter 2003
History, Legacy in the New Canadian War Museum
Raymond Moriyama
Spring 2003
IAMFA . . . The First Twenty Years
IAMFA Members
Summer 2010
The Importance of Evacuation Plans
Peter Fotheringham and Peter J. Gyere
Spring 2002
Improving and Adding Value for Benchmarking Participants—A Year in Review
Stacey Wittig
Spring 2009
In the Light of Day—Daylight in Exhibition Spaces
Mirjam Roos and Emrah Baki Ulas
Spring 2011
The Installations of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao: A Dialogue Between
Engineering and Architecture
Rogelio Diez and Luis Pablo Elvira
Summer 2002
Is Outsourcing Right for Your Organization?
Guy Larocque
Fall 2006
It Began Just Like any Ordinary Day—A Museum Facility Manager’s View of
September 11
Lloyd O. Headley
Summer 2002
Lean Green Means Museum Restroom Sustainability and Savings
Thomas A. Westerkamp
Summer 2009
LED Use in the Museum Environment
Ken Kane
Winter 2010
The Library of Parliament—Ready for a New Generation
Mary F. Soper
Spring 2005
Light Culture and Light Typology
Mirjam Roos and Emrah Baki Ulas
Winter 2010
Lighting: Control and Innovation
Mark Rowling, ERCO Lighting Ltd
Winter 2003
Long-Term Preservation at the Library of Congress
Nancy Lev-Alexander
Spring 2010
Major Renovation Project at the National Gallery of Scotland
Robert Galbraith
Summer 2003
Making Light Work: How to Fit a Drum into a Rectangle—The full story behind
the lighting of the Great Court in the British Museum, London
Mark Rowling, ERCO Lighting, Ltd.
Spring 2003
Management of Energy Consumption—A Best Practice?
Marion F. Mecklenburg, Charles S. Tumosa,
and David Erhardt
Winter 2004
Members Reveal Five Practical Applications of Benchmarking
Stacey Wittig
Spring 2010
Members Share Benchmarking Success—How to Use Benchmarking Results
Stacey Wittig
Summer 2009
Microclimate Control in Museums
Jerry Shiner
Summer 2005
More than Just a Pretty Façade: Exterior Cleaning
Richard P. Kadlubowski and Coleman H. Bynum
Winter 2002
Museum and Gallery Air Conditioning Control Systems
Howard Hall
Fall 2006
Museum and Gallery Maintenance Outsourcing—A Journey
Richard Harding
Summer 2003
The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Reopens its Huntington Avenue Entrance
David Geldart
Summer 2009
The National Air and Space Museum Goes to Dulles with its Second Facility
Lin Ezell
Spring 2002
The National Gallery—Casting New Light on Old Masters
Steve Vandyke
Summer 2010
National Museums Liverpool
Ian Williams
Fall 2008
The National Portrait Gallery: A Plant Replacement Strategy
Allan Tyrrell and John Crane
Fall 2008
The National Portrait Gallery in Canberra, Australia
Chris Arkins
Summer 2009
Networking and Sharing of Information: Our True Purpose
Vincent Magorrian
Spring 2009
New Building for the National Library of Greece
John de Lucy
Spring 2010
New Environmental Guidelines at the Smithsonian Institution
Marion F. Mecklenburg, Charles S. Tumosa,
and David Erhardt
Winter 2004
Old Buildings, Old Systems and Older Books: Fighting Mold and Decay in the
Twenty-First Century
Michael Dixon
Summer 2003
Operations Review Reveals Hidden Maintenance Improvement Resources—Part One
Thomas Westerkamp
Winter 2010
Operations Review Reveals Hidden Maintenance Improvement Resources—Part Two
Thomas Westerkamp
Spring 2011
Optimise Air Filtration and Minimise Energy Costs
Chris Ecob
Spring 2009
Overview: Application of Molecular Filtration for Artefact Preservation
Chris Ecob
Spring 2008
Pandas Up-Close and Personal: A Tour of the Smithsonian National Zoo’s
New Asia Trail
Alana Housholder
Fall 2006
Periodic Electrical Inspection and Testing—A Different Approach
Jack Plumb
Winter 2010
Preservation Of A National Treasure: The Australian War Memorial
Mark Dawes and Risden Knightley
Spring 2002
Proposals for the Labelling of Buildings
Jack Plumb
Summer 2007
Proposals for the Labelling of Buildings
Jack Plumb
Spring 2008
Recent Activities in Indoor Air Quality and Climate in Cultural and
Heritage Institutions
William A. Esposito
Winter 2002
Record Attendance at Best Practices Workshop—Benchmarking
Continues to be an Indispensable Tool
Stacey Wittig
Winter 2009
Reflections on Papyrus
Pierre Lepage
Summer 2010
Renaissance at the Royal Ontario Museum—Daniel Libeskind’s Crystal Design
Royal Ontario Museum
Winter 2003
Restoring a Landmark: Conservation Projects at Tudor Place
Alana Housholder and Jana Shafagoj
Fall 2006
Te Wao Nui at Auckland Zoo
Natalie Hansby
Winter 2010
The Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne
Kim Reason
Winter 2004
Safeguarding Cultural Heritage: Partnerships and Resources
Jane S. Long
Spring 2003
The Security Challenge Keeping Museums and Similar Facilities Secure
in Challenging Times
Bill McQuirter
Spring 2002
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Fernando Pascal
Fall 2006
The Smithsonian’s Approach To Condition Assessment—Deferred Maintenance
Parametric Estimating
Larry Grauberger
Summer 2008
Tales from the British Library—A Year of Energy Opportunities
Paddy Hastings
Spring 2010
Transformation at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Donald Battjes
Summer 2008
Transforming a Globally Unique Cultural Institution
Shaun Woodhouse
Winter 2009
United States Library of Congress—Archival Storage Facility, Fort Meade
Protecting the Past, Present and Future
Jon W. Netherton and Neal Graham
Spring 2008
The United States Library of Congress Archival Storage Facility—Protecting the Past,
Present and Future
Jon Netherton
Winter 2009
Urban Bird Control: A Green Alternative
Stacey Wittig
Fall 2008
Using Thermal Imaging to Diagnose Water Penetration and Condensation of the
Walls at the Hirshhorn Museum
Marion F. Mecklenburg and Alan Pride
Summer 2005
The Visitor Experience Project at the British Museum
Sara Carroll
Spring 2009
Work Management Center Communication
John L. Standish, Sr.
Fall 2006
Puzzle Page
Solve these Sudoku puzzles by filling each blank space with the numbers 1 to 9. Every row must contain all nine digits, as
must every column and every 3x3 square. Each Sudoku—popularized by the Japanese puzzle company Nikola in 1986—
has a unique solution.
Very Difficult
McGuire Engineers has been a
proud subscribing member of
IAMFA since 2001.
Auckland, New Zealand
13–16 November 2011
Без категории
Размер файла
5 520 Кб
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа