`

Co-production in practice: First

year findings of an independent
evaluation of The Peoples
Museum Project
Voluntary Sector and Volunteering
Research Conference 2014

Joni Browne, Institute for Volunteering Research

Introduction
Scope of the paper
The term co-production is generally agreed to mean working in partnership with
service users to design and deliver services; however, there is no universal agreement
across or even within sectors about exactly what this means or how this should look or
work in practice
1
. There has been growing interest in co-production across a number
of sectors in the UK (e.g. health and policing), which has been attributed to greater
recognition of the value of involving citizens
2
as well as the pressure organisations face
to cut costs. Consequently, public services, such as sports facilities, open spaces, art
galleries, libraries, and museums
3
are increasingly involving volunteers in their
management and delivery.
In light of increased interest in co-production, we at the Institute of Volunteering
Research (IVR) have been undertaking several research projects seeking to examine
volunteering in public service design and delivery and to understand its implications
for volunteers and organisations
4
. One of these projects is an evaluation of the
Peoples Museum project in Luton which is taking a co-production approach to the
design and delivery of Wardown Park Museum.
The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the emergent findings at the half-
way stage of the Peoples Museum project. As there are still much data to collect, this
paper does not systematically address all of the evaluation aims nor will it critically
engage with the concept of co-production at this stage. Instead this is a practice-based
paper focusing on Wardown Park Museum as a case study, and drawing out key issues
experienced by the museum, its staff and volunteers, which will be relevant to
organisations considering a co-production approach.
Structure of the paper
The paper will start by giving some context about the rationale for the Peoples
Museum project, and its past, current and future activities. Then there will be a
discussion of IVRs role in the project, and the aims and methodology we are using to
evaluate it. Following this will be a description of the key findings, predominantly from
the staff perspective. This will include our research results on staff awareness,
understanding and perceptions of the Peoples Museum project. The paper will then
1
Co-Production in Social Care: What it is and how to do it:
http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide51/files/guide51.pdf
2 Op.cit.
3 For example, The Happy Museum Project, www.happymuseumproject.org
4
For example, we have conducted research on asset transfer on behalf of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) where
volunteer-led groups have taken on responsibility for the management and running of a heritage-based facility or property.
We are also currently evaluating volunteering in care homes on behalf of the Department of Health:
http://www.ivr.org.uk/ivr-projects/ivr-current-projects/volunteering-in-care-homes
2

briefly explore where the project is in regards to its aims around co-production. The
next session will discuss what these findings mean and their implications, before
summarising our recommendations based on the research so far. Finally the report
will indicate the next steps in the project evaluation.
Background to the Peoples Museum
Wardown Park Museum is a local history museum in Luton which exhibits
information on the history and development of industries in the area, as well as
featuring changing displays of hats, lace and special exhibitions. It is part of Luton
Culture, a registered charity formed in 2008 which manages an art centre, two
museums, 10 libraries and 11 community centres in Luton.
Following an announcement of significant financial cuts from Luton Cultures main
funder, Luton Borough Council, the museum was tasked with creating a new, self-
financing model to ensure its long term future. Luton Culture received funding from
the Arts Council England (ACE) to deliver the Peoples Museum project over two
years. The overall aim of the project is to develop a sustainable future for the museum
which is embedded in the community and co-produced with its strategic partners,
volunteers, community champions, and individuals. It is hoped that developing and
implementing a model of co-production will lead to a better museum and one which
is able to self-finance. There are several key outcomes of this project around co-
production; volunteer management, and sharing knowledge and learning:
Co-production for the museum to have buy-in from, and be co-produced
by staff, volunteers, community champions, strategic partners and individuals;
Volunteer management to recruit more volunteers and support them by,
for example, implementing a Volunteer Development plan, undertaking the
Investors in Volunteers award, and assisting staff to engage with and support
volunteering;
Sharing knowledge and learning to share resources and knowledge widely
within and beyond the sector throughout the project and after its completion.
Outline of the Peoples Museums activities
Luton Culture has made strategic decisions to name the Peoples Museum project
Museum Makers. The term Museum Makers includes staff and volunteers, and is
used by the museum instead of volunteer as it suggests more active participation in-
line with the concept of co-production, has stronger connotations of being part of a
team, and because this newer term may attract a more diverse group of participants.
3
For the purpose of this paper, volunteer
5
is used as it includes people who gave their
time, unpaid, to the museum before and after the Peoples Museum project.
There were several activities of the Peoples Museum which took place in the first
year of the project. Firstly, Luton Culture ran a Museum Makers campaign to raise
awareness of the museum and volunteer recruitment. The campaign promoted the
idea that anyone could help to build the museum, regardless of their capacity, even if
they could only had time to micro-volunteer
6
. The Peoples Museum project team at
Luton Culture also evaluated their volunteering and participation structures and as a
result made some significant changes to their volunteering policies and guidelines. For
example, the registration process was simplified depending on the time commitment
of the volunteer, which eliminated what was seen to be unnecessary bureaucracy and
meant that transient volunteers, such as students, could participate straight away. In
the later part of the year, volunteers, supported by the staff team, became involved in
planning and delivering exhibitions and events. For example, there was the Wardown
Winterland Christmas event which volunteers helped to deliver by performing and
being elf stewards. Data collected by the museum suggests that these activities led to
an increase in the number of volunteers, from 51 to over 500 from the start of the
project to March 2014
7
.
As a result of the events, the number of visitors increased significantly compared to
similar events in previous years. For instance, the museum reported that previous
Christmas events had an attendance of 100-200 visitors but Wardown Winterland
received more than 1000. One of the most successful awareness-raising products of
Museum Makers is Luton Happy video
8
which went viral on YouTube, with more
than 100,000 views.
In the coming year, after receiving a confirmation of the Heritage Lottery Funding
first part of the grant, the aim is to encourage volunteers to participate in planning for
the further application for the museums redevelopment. Volunteers are also planning
to fundraise 60,000 for the museum re-development. For example, one volunteer is
producing merchandise with photos from the collection which will be launched in
August 2014 at the Guinness World Record breaking attempt for the largest
gathering of people wearing boater hats.
Volunteers can get involved in the project through a variety of tasks which are
advertised on the dedicated Museum Makers website
9
. These activities might be
5 The definition was are using of volunteers is of people who, out of free choice, give their time, unpaid, doing something
that aims to benefit the environment or someone (individuals or groups) other than, or in addition to, close
relatives.http://www.volunteering.org.uk/iwanttovolunteer/what-is-volunteering
6 Micro-volunteering is bite-size volunteering with no commitment to repeat and with minimum formality, involving short
and specific actions that are quick to start and complete: http://www.ivr.org.uk/component/ivr/new-ways-of-giving-
time-opportunities-and-challenges-in-micro-volunteering
7 At the time of publishing this paper in August 2014, there are around 1000 Museum Makers
8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKcU-iZFsRg#t=59
9 http://www.museummakers.co.uk/
4

very short actions including online tasks, such as liking a Facebook page (minutes to
spare); a day long, such as being an event steward (donate a day), or more frequent
activities with greater commitment, such as helping at regular event (make it
regular).
Purpose and design of the evaluation
Aims of the evaluation
The Institute of Volunteering Research (IVR) was commissioned by Luton Culture to
undertake a two-year evaluation and impact assessment of the Peoples Museum
project starting from June 2013. The purpose of the evaluation was to examine the
successes, challenges, and potential of the co-production approach as a means to
deliver an effective and quality museum service. Specific objectives include an
exploration of:
1. Motivation, supply, demand and interest in participating among volunteers and
staff;
2. The impact of the programme on volunteers, including skills and knowledge;
3. The impact of the project on staff;
4. The impact of the project on the museum;
5. Successes, challenges and potential of co-production;
6. Lessons, recommendations and learning, including the development and
sustainability of the co-production model, and the implications for learning in
Luton Culture, the museum sector and beyond.
Methodology
A mixed-methodology is being used to undertake this evaluation, which is currently
half-way through; the final report is due in March 2015. The methodology we have
completed so far includes:
1. Background and context workshops
To understand the background, context and purpose of the Peoples Museum
project, and evaluation, we participated in workshops with stakeholders.
In June 2013 we attended two half-day workshops with our project partners to
understand the background, aims and objectives to the project.
5
In October 2013 we facilitated a workshop with the project staff and Luton
Culture to explore and situate the museums volunteering programme within
wider volunteering policies and volunteer management issues (e.g. job
substitution).
In November 2013 we facilitated a workshop with approximately 30 staff from
across Luton Culture to explore hopes, expectations and concerns about the
Peoples Museum project as well as the evaluation.
2. Staff survey
We conducted an online survey to be sent to all staff across Luton Culture. The
primary purpose of the survey was to quantify expectations, hopes, ambitions,
concerns and challenges as perceived by staff. The survey included 78 responses out
of approximately 200 staff. Half of the respondents (51%, n=40) worked fully or
partly for the museum, with the remaining respondents in roles which were not
related to the museum at all.
3. Focus group with existing volunteers
In February 2014 we held one focus group with five existing volunteers (i.e. those
who were already volunteering at the museum before the project began), to explore
the views of volunteering in the museum as well as their expectations, and views on
potential benefits and challenges of the Peoples Museum.
Between the time of writing and March 2015, we will be undertaking further
evaluation activities, which include analysis of monitoring data collected by museum
staff; running of IVRs cost-benefit tool, the Volunteer Investment and Value Audit
(VIVA); a volunteer survey; telephone interviews with new volunteers; further focus
groups with volunteers; repeating the staff survey; and workshops with staff.
Research Findings
Awareness and understanding of the Peoples
Museum project
Awareness and understanding of the Peoples Museum project was high among staff
in Luton Culture. The majority cited the aims of the project as improving the museum
and attracting more visitors with the ultimate goal being to save the museum from
closure. However, an important minority (16%, n=26) said that they knew very little
about the project, and one in five staff (19%, n=12) were not confident on where to
find the information about it. Some staff said they were unclear on the purpose of the
project as well as their roles and responsibilities in relation to it.
6
Perceptions of the Peoples Museum Project
There were mixed feelings about the project. Around half of those who responded to
the survey (48% n=22) felt positively. These staff tended to focus on the perceived
benefits, citing that the project would make the museum more relevant to the
community by involving them more; reenergise the museum by attracting fresh ideas
from volunteers; increase staff effectiveness as they would have more support from
volunteers. Staff expected that these benefits would lead to improvements and a
better offering at Wardown Park which would attract more visitors, consequently
increasing income and protecting the museum from closure.
One in five (18% n=14) staff felt negatively about project. These staff cited several
concerns particularly around job substitution i.e. replacing paid staff with volunteers.
One in five (17%, n=9) felt that their job was at risk, and almost half of respondents
(49%, n=26) felt that other staff would be made redundant as a result of the project.
A minority said that they felt redundancies were not only inevitable but actually a
planned goal of the project. Perceived lack of communication about the project
fuelled this belief further and increased uncertainty, fear and cynicism among some
staff. It is important to note that existing volunteers also raised job substitution as a
concern, including uncertainty about how much autonomy, responsibility and
accountability they have and would have under a co-production model.
Most staff (60%, n=20) agreed that the relationship between staff and volunteers was
positive; however, one in ten (12%, n=4) disagreed with this statement. Overall it was
felt that staff had good relationships with the volunteers with whom they had direct
contact, but not always strong relationships with other volunteers. Some staff felt that
fear of job substitution may lead to tensions in the staff-volunteer relationships and
affect staff buy-in. Staff buy-in was considered to be a challenge by most (69%, n=35)
survey respondents.
Another common concern was that recruiting more volunteers would increase the
workload for staff. Our workshop and survey participants emphasised the time and
resources needed for good volunteer management (recruitment, training and
supervision), as well as developing and implementing effective volunteer policies and
procedures. Some staff felt that recruiting and supporting their perceived ideal
volunteer for the project (i.e. one who is passionate about the museum and willing
and able to drive ideas forward) would be a time-consuming task.
Staff felt that it would be a potential challenge to recruit new volunteers without
alienating long-standing existing ones. Among some long-term volunteers there was
concern that newer volunteers particularly those taking part in micro-volunteering
activities might be less committed or dedicated to the museum. Among these
volunteers and many staff was a sense that it was important the volunteers do more
than just complete isolated tasks. Staff emphasised the importance of ensuring that
7
volunteer involvement is not just tokenistic but that the tasks and activities are
meaningful.
Related to concerns about tokenism, were questions over the definition of an active
volunteer in the context of the Peoples Museum (would it be based on time
commitment, types of activities completed or something else?) and how impact of
their involvement could be measured
10
. At the time of writing, project staff at Luton
Culture are working on solutions to address these issues.
Other issues highlighted by staff include concern that enthusiasm among volunteers
might be lost if it is not harnessed quickly, and lack of suitable tasks.
It is important to note that a significant proportion one in four respondents (24%,
n=13) felt neither positively nor negatively about the Peoples Museum project. The
main reason given for this was lack of awareness and understanding of the project,
what it entails and the impact of this.
Evidence of co-production
Delivering a co-produced museum is a key aim for the Peoples Museum project. The
vision for the project is to get buy-in, support and involvement from a range of
stakeholders including staff, volunteers and the community. This buy-in is expected to
produce some tangible results, for example, a larger and more diverse volunteer base
which reflects the local community, and the formation of more strategic partnerships.
At the year one stage, there was some evidence of buy-in among stakeholders. For
example, there were almost 600 new volunteers who had registered to the project.
However, in practice those we spoke to felt that there had been little change in terms
of moving towards a model of co-production. Although the long-standing volunteers
were committed to, and enthusiastic about the museum, and had new ideas and
suggestions which they felt would improve it, they felt that they needed more support
to implement any changes. This is likely to be because the project and related
volunteer management practices were still in their infancy and the concept of co-
production was not fully understood and embedded in the culture of the museum.
Discussion
Our research findings so far have shown that an important minority of staff did not
know much about the project and were not confident on where to access this
information. A perceived lack of information can be a barrier for projects wishing to
use a co-production model because it means that some staff do not know or
10 Demonstrating the impact of volunteering is a familiar challenge, particularly of very small, bite-sized actions and online
actions: http://www.ivr.org.uk/component/ivr/new-ways-of-giving-time-opportunities-and-challenges-in-micro-
volunteering.
8

understand the impact it might have on them, their roles and responsibilities. This has
the potential to fuel concerns about job substitution which could jeopardise the staff-
volunteer relationship and affect buy-in. A perceived lack of information may feed
cynicism among some that involving volunteers is a tokenistic gesture which will have
little impact on the service or future of the project.
It is important for organisations that are considering co-production to think about
what this might look like in practice, and communicate this to staff and volunteers.
This can be difficult to do in detail at the outset as ideas might change during the
lifecourse of a project, because it might rely on some factors which might not be
predictable, and because co-production is still a relatively new concept.
While there is potential for volunteers to support the work of staff, many volunteers
will also require support themselves. Recruitment, training and management come
with resource implications (time, money, skills, capacity). It is important to have in
place an infrastructure to support an increase of volunteers who are likely to come to
the project with different needs, motivations, expectations and availability, and who
might participate in a number of ways in potentially a very wide range of tasks. Robust,
clear volunteering policies and procedures will make it more likely that volunteers and
staff have a good experience of the project, and help with volunteer retention.
Recommendations and wider learning
This paper has outlined some of the emergent findings of our evaluation of the
Peoples Museum, largely focusing on the staff perspective. While these
recommendations have been made for the Peoples Museum project, they are likely
to be applicable to other museums and organisations considering a co-production
model:
1. Widely communicate the aims, strategy and timetable of the project. It
was clear that communication and keeping staff, volunteers and the public
updated on the progress of the project will help to raise awareness and
understanding of, and confidence in the project. It is necessary to make this
information readily available and accessible (e.g. through materials in the
museum for visitors).
2. Address staff and volunteer concerns about job substitution. We identified
concern among volunteers and staff that co-production equates to job
substitution.
a. Clear, transparent communications may help to alleviate concerns and
uncertainty among staff concerned about job substitution, and
consequently may improve their buy-in and support of the project. Our
understanding of the project is that there are no plans to replace paid
9
roles with volunteer positions, in which case this needs to be more fully
communicated with staff, volunteers and supporters of the museum. If
staff redundancies are possible, it is important to communicate whether
any job losses are connected to the Peoples Museum project.
b. Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of staff and volunteers will help
volunteers to understand the level of autonomy and support they can
expect, and how much involvement they will have in decision-making
about the design and delivery of the museum. It will also help staff and
volunteers to understand how their responsibilities differ and
consequently will help to relieve concerns regarding the potential for
job substitution.
3. Build staff capacity and skills in volunteer management. The museum has a
long history of involving volunteers and a great deal of experience in this area.
The Peoples Museum project, however, marks a shift in the scale and type of
involvement and there is a need to look at the resources (time, skills and
money) needed to manage a growing body of volunteers. This could include
recruiting additional staff, training up volunteers to manage or coordinate
other volunteers, or training staff on good practice in volunteer recruitment,
support and management. Good volunteer management will ensure that
volunteers are given appropriate, meaningful tasks which suit their interests
and expectations; harness and maximise their interest and involvement in the
project, and will increase the likelihood of retention.
4. Consider the challenges of micro-volunteering and how to address
them
11
. Managing bite-sized and one-off volunteering opportunities come
with challenges, such as how to build and maintain relationships with
participants as well as how to measure the impact of very small actions. It is also
important to note that building and maintaining relationships with micro-
volunteers can be more difficult than with long-term, regular volunteers. The
Peoples Museum will need to find a solution to recognising and appreciating
micro-volunteers while ensuring that long-standing volunteers are not
alienated. Ensuring that new volunteers are given meaningful tasks will help
ease concerns of tokenism.
5. Continue to develop and build the concept of co-production. Although
some staff had concerns about the Peoples Museum project, many felt
positive, and most were able to cite potential benefits. Increasing staff and
volunteer buy-in will is required to embed co-production in the culture of the
museum. Volunteer numbers have increased since the project started and we
11 NCVO has developed guidance for organisations which are thinking about developing micro-volunteering, to help
them think through some of the potential challenges: http://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/kristen-
stephenson/ncvo_guidance_giving_a_little_time_micro-volunteering.pdf
10

hope that in the second year of the project we will have data on whether and
how those volunteers have been involved in the museum, and how far this
signals a shift towards co-production. Developing and defining what co-
production is expected to look like in practice for staff, volunteers and the
museum will be important for the evaluation, and for Luton Culture and its
stakeholders in order to improve understanding of the extent to which the
Peoples Museum project has met its aims around co-production.
Next steps in the evaluation
The evaluation of the Peoples Museum project is in progress, with still much left to
explore. In the second phase of the project, we will be conducting a number of
activities:
1. Analysis of monitoring data collected by museum staff;
2. Running of the Volunteer Investment and Value Audit (VIVA) to calculate the
outputs of volunteering (the value of volunteers time) in relation to the inputs
(the resources used to support the volunteers);
12

3. Volunteer survey to explore motivations and expectations of volunteers;
4. Telephone interviews with new volunteers i.e. those who signed up to volunteer
after the Peoples Museum project began;
5. We will also repeat the staff workshop, staff survey and existing volunteer focus
group towards the end of 2014 in order to understand whether there have been
any changes in views, perceptions and experiences since the first year of the
project;
6. At the end of the project we will run a learning workshop with stakeholders to
collaboratively draw out implications and recommendations.
We look forward to seeing how the second year of the project develops, and sharing
this learning with the sector.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the staff and volunteers who took part in this research, and
without whom this paper would not have been possible.

12 VIVA, http://www.ivr.org.uk/component/ivr/viva--the-volunteer-investment-and-value-audit-a-self-help-
guide&qh=YToxOntpOjA7czo0OiJ2aXZhIjt9
11