Full transcript for the conversation with Pedro Gaspar and Sarah VanSnick.

From MediaWiki

Conversations with Change Makers, February 2025

Pedro Gaspar, PhD, FIIC: Head of Conservation at the Victoria and Albert Museum Sarah VanSnick, Head of Preservation and Conservation at Trinity College Dublin

Summary

In February 2025, Yadin LaRochette from the AIC Sustainability Committee discussed the detailed risk management system that is used successfully throughout the Victoria and Albert Museum’s several locations. Perceptions of risk according to department, flexibility of risk, and how risk affects daily decisions are all discussed in detail, followed by insightful questions from Yadin and viewers.

0:00 Opening Remarks 1:28 Introduction to the V&A 4:37 Risk management matrix and risk appetite 10:18 Risk management in action 16:47 Communicating risk 21:38 The language and perception of risk 32:18 Risk flexibility 41:25 Q&A 56:58 Closing Remarks


  • Please note that transcript has been edited for legibility *

(0:00 Opening Remarks)

Yadin Larochette: …uploaded to our wiki page as well. Alright, I would like to introduce today's speakers. Pedro Gaspar is head of conservation of the Victoria and Albert Museum, a seasoned senior manager with over two decades of experience in heritage and museums, specializing in collections care and management conservation and research. His career has been marked by a steadfast commitment to transformative leadership, innovation, and strategic change management, all within an international context. Sarah VanSnick has recently been appointed head of preservation and conservation at Trinity College Dublin Library. Previously she was head of preventive conservation at the Victoria and Albert Museum where she led a team delivering policy and process change and improvements in collections care across the family of museums. Along with other team members and departments within the museum, together they have developed a collections risk assessment model that has allowed it for increased collaborations across departments. They have been using this tool to help guide decisions and related communications around complex situations. We will be discussing how this transparent and pragmatic approach works and what has contributed to its overall success. So Pedro and Sarah thank you so much for being here, and we really look forward to hearing what you have to say.

(1:28 Introduction to the V&A)

Pedro Gaspar: Thank you, thank you very much. First of all thank you for the invitation, it's great to be here and speaking to colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic. So thank you, and it's great to talk about the V&A in this context. So both Sarah and I will do a few slides in terms of presentation, but of course it'll be very interesting to open up discussion, and I hope the majority of the time here it will be engaging with colleagues in the Q&As and we're very happy to share our experience. So if we move to the next slide… Just a few words about the V&A. For those who haven't visited please do come and visit. The V&A has a fantastic collection of 2.8 million objects and it tells a history of creativity spanning 5,000 years. It's a privilege to work with this collection, and very exciting to be part of the V&A in a critical moment where the V&A is pending to a family of sites. For those of you that already know the V&A most likely you've been in our main building in South Kensington, but we also have other sites. We already have the Young V&A, and you can see at the bottom center on the screen, which is the old Museum of Childhood in London, and it opened two years ago fully redesigned, co-curated and co-produced with our target audience, which are children from 0 to 14 year old, and it's a very, very vibrant place. We also have the V&A Wedgewood collection in Stoke-on-Trent in England. It's a very specific collection of ceramics with its own history and key to the history of ceramics within the UK and the global context as well. This year in the summer we are opening a storehouse also in London in the site of the old Olympic Park in Northeast London, and that will be a storage of around 300,000 objects, which will be open to the public. So it's an open storage with the public will be able to see what the usual kind of behind the scenes in museums, both storage, the working environment, also conservation studios as well. The public will have access to that. So it's a very important part of the V&A future access for collections. And finally, next year we'll also be opening V&A East Museum and you can see at the left bottom photograph and that will be a new museum very near the storehouse as well in the old Olympic Park, where you can access the collections and you can see some very exciting new programs as well. If we move to the next slide we can focus a bit more on what we are talking about today, about risk management and specifically in collections and conservation and care of collections as well.

(4:37 Risk management matrix and risk appetite)

What you see is a standard risk matrix, so nothing new there, and this is very much part of the wider policy, organizational policy, about risk management across the whole institution. And what I want to focus on here in this slide, is the governance of policy and I think that's a very critical aspect in terms of the organization. All organizations will have a risk management that's part of the running of organizations, but including collections and the risks associated with collections as part of that policy, it's in my opinion critical for the safe running and management of collections. You can see the standard risk matrix is one to five on the left hand side, the different levels of impact from minor to catastrophic, and then of course at the bottom the likelihood scale from very unlikely to highly likely as well. So that's a standard approach to risk management and of course the next few slides and also with Sarah's input will be translating this in terms of how we took what's set out in institutional risk management policy and try to translate it to the day-to-day running operations in conservation. So our next slide will cover - so it's a snapshot of our policy institutional policy about risk, and as I said, well it covers all aspects of the institutions from finance, strategic operational, health and safety, etcetera but also collections in terms of damage and loss and how the organization, and that's within the structure, the governance of organization, how we look at what the categories of risks that have to do with with collections. This policy is of course developed by the executive board, it is approved by trustees, and of course it is cascaded across all departments of the organization, so it's a institution-wide policy and all departments that in one way or another engage with collections can refer to this policy and know exactly the vision and the comfort that the institution as a whole has towards risks when managing collections. It of course goes from very superficial damage which we can immediately repair/conserve in house, all the way to the permanent loss of collections in plural, not just one item, but also different categories of items and entire collections as well, so it covers a spread of risk scenarios and this is how we begin to link that in terms of the impact organization see when we are managing collections. The next slide will talk about the risk appetite, sorry no, actually this is talking about likelihood as well, so it's the other part of the risk matrix the previous slide talked about. The impact categories and of course the likelihood which is the very standard in terms of likelihood of occurrence of an event: from the very unlikely of course to the highly likely as well. And in further slides we'll try to translate these in terms of what we actually mean in conservation operations. The next slide we'll talk about the risk appetite, and that's a key part of the risk management policy with your organization. We all know there are different risks, different categories of risks, likely different impacts to do with risks, and also the likelihood of that event happening as well, but what's important to have in terms of- with the governance of the organization, and with a wider discussion across all departments within organization, is what is the appetite that the institution has towards risk? Are we completely averse to risk, and we avoid any exposure to any possible risks, or are we very hungry and actually we go out of our way to pursue risk? Because in many cases that takes innovation as well, very important as part of organizations and the development and success as well. This is very much down to each institution and what the discussion with the governance chain of the institution, what is our appetite, and in this particular context for our collections. Do you want the collections to be static, locked away for example, avoiding any possible risks and even in that case that would not be full avoidance of risks, or are we comfortable in displaying, in allowing traveling, in allowing other stakeholders to engage with collections? So it's an important discussion, of course conservation is very much part of the discussions as other colleagues in terms of, you know, curatorial but also other strategic departments as well. Within the V&A we have a minimal appetite for risk but we're not averse to risk, and I think it's important to make this distinction very clear. We have a safe approach, we avoid some risks, we want to manage those risks accordingly as well, but we are not averse to risk. We're not in a position where we want to avoid every single risk for collection. So in terms of what it means that is minimal and already within that matrix I think it's a very key part of how we comfortably expose the collection to a level of risk, which we can control. The next slide I believe Sarah will.. yes, so Sarah now will cover the next slides.

(10:18 Risk management in action)

Sarah VanSnick: Yeah, thank you Pedro for that introduction. I'm going to quickly run through some examples of how we've been using this approach at the V&A. So our first example is actually aligning ourselves with the refreshed Bizot green protocol around mobility of collections. So we would call that loans out. And this is also supported by an additional internal policy, our courier policy, and so it very much follows the idea that you start with the assumption of working with no courier, and then actually running through the different options such as virtual courier, bookend courier, partner couriers, and then all the way up to and, as your last sort of option, being your actual in-person institutional courier. Can we have the next slide? So this is an example of one of the spreadsheets that we produce as part of a risk assessment. So these are actually going out to our stakeholders so our loans people, any of our colleagues in exhibitions, project management, etcetera. And as part of this we're not only identifying, you know, the risk, the impact of that risk, but we are also suggesting some solutions. So some mitigations as part of that and then we're actually reassessing the risk with those mitigations in place. So for this example this is an object that went out on loan where we decided that the mitigation options that we could provide didn't- we didn't actually need to send a courier. The courier was not actually going to reduce the risk any further beyond what was already considered an acceptable level for the organization. So you can sort of see that in the kind of middle row where the courier option drops the likelihood slightly, but the risk is already well within the green. Can we have the next slide? And this is an opposite example. This is again some objects going out that are high-value objects that we did have some really valid risk concerns around, and that the mitigation strategies that we could provide for them highlighted that, to be honest in this case, the only way we could properly address those risks was through sending an institutional courier, and in that particular case we did so. And that that as well would also reduce the risks to an acceptable level, so that one so that the object could travel, we could provide access to the object, but that in this case, it added real value to send a courier. Could we have the next slide? So this is an example of how we're using it around environmental parameters and I did want to point out that the V&A, especially the one in South Kensington but also our site at Young V&A, they're historic buildings and much of these have very little or no environmental control, so we- and actually in those places that we do have environmental control, the V&A operates to an ASHRAE class of C, and that we control the conditions tighter through passive means by casing of objects in exhibitions. And this has been the approach for the organization for the last 20 to 30 years so this isn't a new situation, but what we are particularly using this risk assessment approach for is quite often when we're asking people who are loaning objects in to consider widening their acceptable parameters for us to be able to display the object. And so we'll often have those conversations. Sometimes they involve the sort of full risk matrix as a communication tool and sometimes they don't, but they're usually taking place at sort of object level between the preventive conservator and colleagues in exhibition project management, or our loans registrars, but it actually can be a wider situation such as with our new Young V&A site which you can see here. I affectionately call it the Victorian Greenhouse because that is literally what it is, and it has conditions that are wider than Bizot. We've had to flag this risk at early stages discussion through management on exhibition topic choices for example, we've got one coming up on Egypt in this museum and that obviously flagged a number of concerns from our side about the appropriateness of the conditions that we could provide for the types of objects they might be considering in that exhibition. And this has actually resulted in our colleagues having to come up with their own different mitigation strategies to enable them to deliver the content they want, and that might include borrowing from non-traditional lenders, for example. So it might be private individuals, or it might actually be less frequently used collections. So it does have that sort of unintentional impact of broadening the collections that we might be engaging with. Could we get the next slide please?

(16:47 Communicating risk)

So we've really considered how we present risk to audiences because we don't always present the same information in the same format, and this is an example of a risk map that we're doing for gallery space that's about to go under refurbishment. This is something we're providing as part of a tender pack to architects and designers. They're very visual people, and this format allows us to visually highlight the risks that we have some concern about, and at this stage we're not actually quantifying the risks because we don't necessarily want them to put any judgements on things. We can have that discussion as the sort of designs develop, but it's been actually very effective to get the designers to just get on board, and it's resulted in some of the earlier designs really addressing these things in a much more positive way than they might have in the past. Can we get the next slide? So this is an example of the outcomes of a scientific study that we carried out around the risk of extreme heat events, so we class that as anything above 30 degrees celsius, and actually we made use of our over 20 years of environmental monitoring data to carry out this assessment. We did a fabulous report and it sat on the shelf for quite a while until we actually then wrote a paper about it. You can see the paper here- it's recently been published in the JAIC and actually what the head of sustainability took away from that was the table on the right, and that went up to exec team. So it's also about representing your information in a way that's more impactful. Could we have the next slide? 

So after working on risk assessment and talking about risk across the museum for about two and a half years it was working really really well outside of conservation, but actually not very well within conservation. We had lots of frustration and need for repeat training of conservation colleagues who were doing the risk assessment so I actually thought I had to go and apply the same principles that I was applying outwardly back inwardly, and so it was taking that definition that was circled in red earlier on Pedro's slides and reinterpreting that into very specific conservation language. And so for us that deals with on one side object damage, and on the second loss of value as impacts from risks. So we actually put those into the number of conservation hours because that's a really simple language that almost any of our bench conservators are going to be familiar with. We've also recently introduced a bit of value assessment into some of our policies so we do have an established value process that we're working on getting in more places. I won't go into this too much because it's a whole other topic, but you can see that that provides some outline and this is something that's only been in place for a little while, so we haven't got an awful lot of feedback on it yet but this has sort of been the next step, and it's initial responses though were quite positive. So I just wanted to, next slide please, provide some quick acknowledgements because I have shared work of former colleagues and so please, you know, this is definitely a team effort everybody, thanks very much guys, yeah.

(21:38 The language and perception of risk)

Yadin: Thank you so much, both of you, Pedro and Sarah. I find it really exciting for a variety of reasons, because it's really bringing together interests that are shared across the board that may have had different language that you’re now kind of articulating into a cohesive communication tool, which I find incredibly powerful. So one of the first things that struck me learning about this model for the first time is this idea of risk appetite because as conservators I think that we are pretty- we have zero appetite for any sort of risk and so how does that- I mean I'm speaking for myself, but I think that as a community we tend to be very risk averse. So how does that play out in softening the edge for a better word of aversion?

Pedro: I think the- sorry, Sarah can I...? I'll start.

Sarah: Please, yeah, please start.

Pedro: I would say as I was mentioning, the use of language and how we represent that language I think is quite critical there. I mean, we do say we are averse to damage, to loss, but you know, we do accept exhibitions and there's a movement of objects. There's touring etcetera, so it's already inherently there that we in one way or another, we are operating in an environment where there is risk and we are comfortable with that. I think it is when we use the language then we say, “oh actually you know maybe I'm not comfortable with that”, but when we reflect we can see that's actually how we are already operating. Sarah made a very good point I think in terms of language, and from our perspective as a department kind of communicating outwards that's been a new type of language, and incredibly well received because suddenly we were talking a language which a part of, you know, organizational management, governance, project etcetera, so there was nothing new there. I think also there was- when we look inside, say actually how do we translate this into a language that we are comfortable and we are fluent in, within the department itself? That was surprisingly a challenge, and it took some reflection for us to say actually, you know, we do accept some damage because it's part of our day-to-day work, otherwise everything will be, you know, stored away, no oxygen, no light, and conservators would not be needed in an extreme case. But say, actually, that as part of our day-to-day work we are already dealing with damage, we are… in the work that we do, the choice of consolidant for example, we are already doing some risk management as part of the day-to-day of the work. So the challenge- and also it became quite exciting as well to have that language develop within a department is exactly that: how do we translate what we already do and in many case we write in full reports into a different type of format, so it was less about learning a whole language from scratch, but actually how do we refine the way we communicate? But Sarah I have to say, was at the forefront of that and she was the one doing all the training and repeatedly reflecting and how we can improve that as well.

Sarah: Yeah I would have to say, you know, working in conservation we often talk about, you know, it being our role to minimize risk, and actually I think we should think about it more that we are managing risk because I think that fundamentally if we want to change the way we're providing access to our collections or, you know, what we're going to need to protect the planet we're really going to have to leave the minimizing risk in the dust and it really becomes risk management.

Yadin: Yeah, I completely agree with you there. Did you find that different departments had completely different perceptions on the risk of certain artifacts or certain collections? Or was there a general understanding across departments?

Sarah: I think every, you know, every department has their favorites. And definitely, you know, I think that's something that we need to manage as well, but also they did have very little understanding about what actual- were actual risks to their collection, and so being able to communicate that in a way that was fairly consistent was really useful to getting us at the table and staying there.

Pedro: And Sarah is touching on also a very important part which is, in a way, the emotional response. And I know you know a matrix on an Excel spreadsheet is, you know, can be very dry [laughs] even without all the colors, it's a very dry way, but it has also become quite helpful for us to think about, you know, the process and making sure that we are in a way, managing that emotional side and forcing us to kind of go back actually is this really likely to happen? Or actually, based on our own data and experience the chances are it's very unlikely to happen as well. Or it might have occurred once for example in someone's careers actually the risk is there, there's a likelihood is that, you know, emotionally we tend to jump into the, you know, this high risk, will happen no doubt, but as when we start, you know, where is the data? Let's look back in our experience actually, putting these mitigations, we're very comfortable the risk is lower to a quite unlikely likelihood grade. And I mea,n in some cases we kind of automatically already know the answer and actually this is a situation in the case for example that Sarah was saying in terms of, you know, not sending your courier for example, it's actually no we're quite happy with that. It's still helpful in our context to demonstrate to other departments, other stakeholders, why we're thinking that on that occasion, on this occasion, based on this thinking, these mitigations, we are very comfortable with risk, and it's aligned with the organization’s risk appetite. But also then in other occasions, where actually we want to make a case this is important that we are there throughout the process, then it also provides the argument say, no we are thinking along the same framework, we applying our experience, our data, referring to the policy and risk appetite, but still our conclusion is this is a level of risk which is beyond what institutionally we have agreed we're comfortable with.

Yadin: Yeah I find that really effective, it's almost as a map of thought process in a way, too.

Pedro: Exactly.

Yadin: …So that you can actually represent in a cohesive way, where- why you came to that decision in a very, you know, very distinct and clear, very clear way. This- I imagine that it was not easy to begin to be consistent. I mean, I imagine that that was a learning process on how to be consistent across the assignation of risk. Can you speak a little bit to that, as to how you developed your consistent model?

Pedro: I would say it needs to start from a leadership position. Both institutional and departmental as well. Institutionally it needs to be part of the policy across the organization so we're not talking in a corner, and not connecting to any already approved documents in a way that, you know, fully affirmed within a governance organization, so we are responding to that. And then I would say in terms of department, in terms of leadership, you know, and I think it's all of us in terms of heads of department say actually, this is an important language for us to have it in the department, for us to use it as the means to communicate outwards across the department, and with other organizations as well. And at the same time in terms of, you know, heads of department realizing, you know, we do need to provide their training and the opportunity and the time for us to be comfortable and engage with that. I know Sarah has in some articles published that went into a bit more detail in terms of the, not very long, but the journey that we took in terms of bringing experts to run workshops in the department, begin to introduce the language, of course then within the management of the department making sure that we have, you know, those now called the agents of change, and of course Sarah, very much a key agent as well. But also kind of, you know, just a note to Vanessa Applebaum is in the audience as well, also very much engaged with that. And I think it's critical that, you know, in a way, it follows that hierarchy of the organization, you know, that this is an important language and why it's important as well. And, you know, with patience, gradually introducing the language, and reflecting, you know, when I receive a risk register if I some question, sit down with colleagues and ask but, you know, why did you reach this conclusion, let's go back to the policy, and you know, like learning any language it takes time.

Yadin: [nodding] Yeah I think that looking at it as learning a new language is really important, and does require a tremendous amount of patience and perseverance, so…

Sarah: And I think, and I was just going to say as well, that I think the fact that we took quite an iterative approach to this ended up working quite well in our favor in that we did decide to try a few things out. We did a few things that didn't necessarily work and we didn't have everything sorted out before we tried, and I think that really helped it be taken up by the team.

(32:18 Risk flexibility)

Yadin: [nodding] Right, yeah. We have this tendency to want to have everything perfectly mapped out, and roads aligned, and that’s not how life works. And especially if you're trying to collaborate across departments, so being open to that I think that's part of the flexibility right? That you start with kind of an openness to fail too.

Pedro: Absolutely, absolutely. That is critical, and I was also, you know, we need to understand the context of the organization as well. As part of this journey in terms of, you know, getting more accustomed with this use, of course we invited colleagues from other organizations to come and present their work. It's very- and also you've put in the chats quite a lot of references as well- either way I would say it's more successful if you think within a concept organization what can actually work within your organization. We look at different models, we invited colleagues as I said, to come and speak to us, you know, how does it work in the organization, and then it's an iterative process as Sarah was saying, you know, actually what makes sense within the context of the V&A. And I'm sure each organization will have its own context. And of course listening to the team, I mean we were surprised as well that it was easy to speak outwards than actually within the department as well. And the final Excel spreadsheet that Sarah mentioned as well, let's translate this into conservation into ours because something very much is part of our operations, into the value as well, that we've started talking within the organization and essentially what makes sense within our context. And I would expect each organization to have to fine-tune the principles to make sure, actually it- otherwise this becomes yet another tool that we have to do on a day-to-day basis and it loses its value.

Yadin: Exactly, yeah. Did you have any issues on that front when you were asking lenders to expand their requirements? Was that an area that you could apply?

Pedro: I would say there's a wider means- we need to acknowledge there's a wider program within the organization in terms of sustainability and it's already very much ingrained within the strategy of organization. The, you know, our public approach of Net Zero in 2035 and as part of that there's some work in terms of quantifying also the carbon impact of all the different activities and how we transport, etcetera, etcetera. So within the discussion that Sarah was presenting I mean that was very, you know, crucial as well, saying: this is what we can provide, what mitigations are there, but at the same time and, you know, acknowledging the work of the departments as well. The use of carbon accountancy as well and saying, you know, look, you know, if we send things by plane this is the carbon cost but, you know, other alternatives with colleagues, without colleagues etcetera. So that again, using data, and I think that's a very critical part of the discussion as well; talking about the approach, the strategy but using data as well so we can make a stronger case.

Yadin: Yeah, yeah- and I'm curious if you're using- imagine you're using the same model with this new building and open storage and if I understood correctly or it's also open conservation studios and through…

Pedro: They will be visible, the conservation studio, so I will not reveal too much, but you know next time you're in London from Summer ‘25 come and have a look. There will be visibility, not just collections but from conservation students as well in terms of our work. And the whole principle of the storehouse is about access. In all its way, in all its forms, so yeah. Very exciting for us to be able to communicate what conservation does and what it's about to the wider public. And then as part of that, yes, we will also have some other means of communicating saying, you know, not just this is what conservation is about, you know, look what we're doing there but at the same time some of the themes about- and risk is one of those- you know, how… what is risk, what our collections, what's our work and how we manage those risks as well. Yeah. 

Yadin: Yeah well I was actually, that's a really good point, but I was thinking on the conservation end of things, the risk of being in an open visible work area, and what that- how that will change because that changes the dynamic of the work that you're doing. So, whether not if you're using that model and assessing how you're going to plan out work in that lab.

Pedro: [hesitates] I-

Sarah: We're not quite there yet.

Yadin: Okay, fair enough.

Pedro: [laughs] I don't want to talk too much yet, you know, leave it tasted, but within the context of the building itself I think that once you're there you actually can see what we're trying to do. But we're almost there, so wait a few months and we'll be very happy to join you again and talk about our kind of storehouse and what exciting work we’ll be doing there.

Yadin: Fair enough yeah I'm excited about that. And well, related to this though is also the idea which I think you've already addressed, but maybe you can give a specific example of how you use the model when expanding the environmental parameters, or you already had existing parameters that you wanted to kind of determine what would be safe to display in those areas. Can you speak a little bit to that process or just give a case study example?

Sarah: Yeah so we do have… I could talk a little bit about our Glass Gallery and this is a gallery that is not controlled beyond comfort heating so it's got some heaters in it. You know, they're attached to quite an old heating system so it tends to vary, it gets quite cold in the winters and ridiculously hot in the summers because it's on the south elevation of the building, you know, lots of things have changed in the time and basically the ventilation system that was originally designed as part of the building in the Victorian era is all blocked up and doesn't function. So in terms of a space to display collections it's challenging. And actually we do have some very high-risk objects in that space. We have- it's a glass gallery so generally not a problem but we do have a very… let's call it a sizeable collection of glass that is ‘sick’ glass or ‘weeping’ glass, and the sort of swings in temperature that we get result in swings in RH and both of those are not particularly good for that, and so we essentially get, you know, some some very high risk collection objects in that. So we did do a risk assessment for this gallery along those lines; it highlighted things that actually we really need to prioritize, you know, better control for the cases that are showcasing those objects, and so that's something that you know that we're currently working on, or were when I left anyway. [laughs] You know, so we do use it in that sort of perspective. I guess more or less kind of in the opposite direction that you're talking about because we're already working in quite wide parameters and so what we tend to do is actually work in the opposite way, so on an object basis look at what the risks are, and actually look at the mitigations we need to provide to those objects and that might be well, you know, it can't be displayed if it's not in a case. You know, something, you know, something along those lines. It could be for example, another risk issue that was in that gallery is that gallery was done about 30 years ago. The high heat has caused some issues with repairs to those glass chandeliers that hang in it and so actually the risk assessment that we did as part of that got us some funding to take those down because they were becoming a risk not only to the object itself obviously, but to the people below them.

(41:25 Q&A)

Yadin: Right, well I have- I mean I could go on for a few hours with you here but I want to make sure to get other people's questions in, and I think there are a couple, Kate is that- am I right? And I should also introduce Kate Fugett who is also co-chair, she's ill today so she can't be on screen, but she's helping manage the chat and Q&A.

Kate Fugett: Hi everyone, yes I am, I'm not feeling my best unfortunately. We do have two really wonderful questions in the Q&A and I hope for folks who have more are tempted to ask they will also pop them in. The first question is from Vanessa Applebaum, whose name has been mentioned in this presentation: “Moving forward can we factor in the impact on collections accessibility when determining the overall risk score, and potentially use that to revise our risk appetite categories?” And she mentions thinking specifically about the assessments that are written when we consider loans and touring exhibitions.

Pedro: Thank you Vanessa, that's an excellent question. and actually maybe it's just kind of revealing here, that what we are- we've shown here in terms of policy etcetera, in a way is already out of date. We just finished another exercise of updating our risk policy and I kind of aligned again with the organizational strategy and vision for collections as well. And the new updated policy already also includes, in terms of risk appetite for access as well, and that's becoming very much part, it’s not just the the risk appetite for the safety of the collections and, you know, and for example for theft, for example that actually we avoid that of course. But we also have risk appetites in terms of displaying collections but access in all its forms as well, so it's not necessarily just, you know, the access to an exhibition for example, so we are already including that in our updated policy. Perhaps a theme for a future updated talk as well on how we bring that. And I mean Sarah did mention as part of our thinking we already beginning the discussion of value, and that's the other element as well in terms of how we are approaching going forward our kind of risk policy as well, is also managing the value that we add to collections as well. So those are definitely futures friends and yeah be an interesting dialogue with the other stakeholders. Also you know, for us to question ourselves what we mean by access and what's an increased risk for, you know, appetite for access, what does it mean in terms of the risk as well, and how we balance that as well. So that's exactly where we are now. Beginning the discussion in organization.

Sarah: I was just going to answer to Vanessa as well. I mean certainly in this model you could do that. Specifically those wonderful spreadsheets we developed Vanessa. You know, actually looking at mitigations because you can certainly do a mitigation which is keep it in a box. On a shelf. Nobody ever sees it. Yeah that risk is going to be low, but as obviously as you increase that access and do different things with that object, the risk is going to change, so you could totally use this model to illustrate that. And think about how that impacts the risk on the organization or on the object.

Yadin: I think it's really interesting too because it opens up the whole idea of value and what, you know, within the context of: is it people centered? Is it connected to… I mean what's the point of having an object if it's not connected to people, right? So that's a whole other conversation to have.

Sarah: Yes. That's a great discussion but perhaps outside of the scope today.

Yadin: Yes, outside of the scope of today absolutely. Actually we will be having a panel. Plug! There's going to be a panel discussion on this topic at the next AIC meeting, a lunch and panel, so keep your eyes out for that. It's going to be on Saturday the lunch time, May 31st. Okay. Kate I think there's another question in the Q&A too?

Kate: There is, there's one other question and this is about how do you communicate with the new group of private lenders about the risks their objects are being exposed to when they lend to the Young V&A and other sites that exhibit a wider range of temperature and RH fluctuations?

Pedro: I …well, I think this is part of the wider work that the preventive team and Sarah of course started that. We did an in-depth exercise of mapping out the performance of each gallery, and that's kind of, you know, we do have an environmental monitoring system like all organizations. We're quite lucky we have over 20 years of data that we keep, and then with some data science we'll be able to do quite a lot of modeling in terms of performance, and, you know, extremes etcetera, so for us it started there. To actually understand exactly the actual performance of each gallery. Moving away from, you know, just providing standard saying, “yes, this is what we do,” when in reality it can be a bit more challenging as well. So we did that exercise across all our galleries and that's shared with the organization, so it's information we gave to registrars in exhibition measure, saying, “let's understand how each gallery performs and what we can offer to lenders”. What other the mitigations also then based on that, so we start with data, with the actual data, and then mapping out the different mitigations feasible within those galleries, and take the dialogue then from that. So instead of just immediately accepting, you know, we have these parameters and we'll try to achieve that, we start from a position where we've had a transparent open dialogue with relevant organizations saying this is what we can provide, and the costs of mitigations as well. And that begins the par,t we are usually not in direct contact with lenders, that tends to be the departments, exhibitions, loans, registrars, etcetera. So it's been very much having that conversation with colleagues so they are better informed and they can start those negotiations as well. Then of course if particularly saying actually, we do want specific criteria and that's, you know, relevant within the, you know, relevant stakeholders that we want to engage with then we start with a position then how do we provide those? And of course that will be done in closing environments, which is also very helpful to have that already at hand as exhibitions develop, as an increasing appetite and I'm sure it's the cause museums for open displays as well, which of course has maintenance issues as we all know, but having that clear idea of how each gallery performs throughout the year as well- it's the opening of that discussion. And then if specific parameters are required then by contract we need to provide those and we will provide, but then we can also start you know exploring those mitigations and the cost of those mitigations.

Sarah: Yeah, certainly we work quite closely with our colleagues in loans and exhibitions as part of those discussions. We usually do try to illustrate in some sort of sense what they might be signing up to, let's say, and what that means, because of course again talking about language most of these people don't understand if I say, well you know the the temperature can go between 16 to 30 degrees and 30 to 70% RH, they have very little understanding of what that might mean to their objects. So, for example, I could talk about, you know, some objects that we do have in the Young V&A. We've got a lovely set of mycelium lamps. So these are contemporary objects designed by a designer that are made of sort of bits of wood and on that wood they've grown mycelium. Fabulous objects. Great. But- in terms of, you know, a risk in these kinds of environments, you know, we had to be really quite open with them about, you know, what putting their stuff in this museum was going to mean because obviously from a risk point of view we went out and looked at their studio where our conservator found a live infestation of furniture beetles. So we had to then have them heat-treated before they could be displayed and so, you know, we had to go through those rather in-depth personal relationship discussions with this lender about, you know, do you really want to put this stuff on display here because this is what's going to need to happen to it. And to be honest, for them having something on display in the V&A is a big boon to their business and so for them it's not, you know… if they're destroyed in five years, they don't mind because for them it's about having that exhibition. And so people's motivations are very different.

Pedro: I think how would that is again it goes to the risk appetite and of course the lender has a different risk appetite and as long as that's well communicated from the beginning it's fine, and of course that needs to be then reflected in the contracts that we have with the lender as well. But, and perhaps it's another topic for a different discussion in terms of life cycle of collections, and is one of the areas that we also stimulating that discussion, you know, how long do we want collections for, you know, as part of the balance access etcetera, but coming back to this example it is that open discussion right from the beginning in terms of: this is what our spaces can provide, the different mitigations available, the different costs, and an open discussion with the lenders and other colleagues across the department. I mean the V&A is a very large organization with over a thousand employees, you know, we large department with the organization but of course we can't have a one-to-one relationship with every single colleague in the V&A so it's about the data, important data that we can bring from the department and our knowledge, and making sure that then we have we are transparent and we reach out to each of the teams, actually let's understand the building, let's understand what we have, trying to avoid a situation where the organization raises an expectation and then you know when we actually start providing data it doesn't match, and then we enter in almost a crisis mode and how do we manage expectations etcetera, so if it is from the beginning at least based in our experience you know it creates a very good communication and trust with lenders and organizations. And we all work in museums ,we all understand limitation in our own buildings as well, and it kind of I think actually it starts then from a position of trust.

Yadin: Yeah that makes a lot of sense. And I think that building relationships is such an important component, but I think this is what's so exciting about this tool is that it kind of helps get that communication across. Kate there was one more question I think? Did I get that right?

Kate: There is, there is a really interesting point that was made in the chat just about how the idea of damage can be very broad, you know, depending on your role within the institution and so a curator's definition of damage, you know, may be more focused on aesthetics than a conservator’s is, and so have you experienced any discrepancies in terms of the loss of value between conservators and curators, or do you feel like the training that you provided really got everybody on the same page?

Pedro: We're not on the same page [laughs] I think just to be very clear within the context of the V&A we a very large department, and it's not just curatorial, conservation, we have a range of different departments, from, you know, learning departments we have an academy as well that doing fantastic work that also access the collection for the purpose of that work, we have different curatorial teams working in different museums with different target audiences, so the complexity of organization means we are not, and we will never be, I think, in the same kind of line in terms of our thinking. This is why having that framework connected to the governance, official governance organization is so key because we can always go back to that point and say actually let's start from here. I think we will always look at objects in a different way I guess from different perspectives and points of view. We also have, you know, I would say, you know, colleagues in commercial for example, and, you know, they will bring a very valuable point of view as well in terms of, you know, how we can use collections, and in a way I think we all recognize we're probably all in the center trying to manage those relationships and different points of view, and of course then we also bring our different point of view. So I go back to the spreadsheet and to the risk matrix which can be quite dry, but to make sure that in a way we try and talk in the same language. And I try to avoid the word damage as well, because you know again how do you define that? What change? What's damage? And I always connect to the policy and saying talk about the risk appetite .I think that's- and with did risk appetite there is always a willingness to accept some change, whether that change is damage, I think it's a whole different discussion and I'm not sure we always been aligned in saying actually this is damage. We can talk about loss of value, and loss of different values as well, how we manage that loss, so I try to steer away from using the word damage because it can also be quite motive as well and brings us back to what we were talking earlier on about perceived risk, actual risk as well, and so trying to align to a matrix avoiding the word ‘damage’ and trying to see actually how do the different values change with that level of risk.

(56:58 Closing Remarks)

Yadin: Yeah. Well I think it's a wonderful place to end. I am so grateful for both you Pedro, and you Sarah for taking the time. I know that you're both going through some major transitions work-wise. Sarah you just started your new job, Pedro you have two jobs now. [Pedro laughs] so just, it's been a really wonderful conversation and I'm so grateful to you both. Thank you Nick Farrell over at AIC for manning the platform and getting all the slides and all the coordination together. Thank you all participants for attending, without you we wouldn't be here, and just a reminder that there will be a recording of this available within the next few weeks and we'll be sharing that through the AIC forum for those that would like to share it with their colleagues. And with that, bid you all farewell and have a wonderful rest of your days and weekend.

Pedro: Thank you.

Sarah: Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://www.conservation-wiki.com/w/index.php?title=Full_transcript_for_the_conversation_with_Pedro_Gaspar_and_Sarah_VanSnick.&oldid=67667"