Analysis

8 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

1. RichardMcCoy says

   I think this Workflow represents my process very well.

   July 11, 2009, 12:00 pm
2. Robert van Langh says

   A workflow like this is really comprehensive and functions exactly for the purpose it was intended. i have to admit it is something that we will use as a blueprint in our approach for analysis.

   July 13, 2009, 1:58 am
3. 18090000 says

   Statens Museum for Kunst/KV
   Look fine to us.

   July 16, 2009, 4:26 am
4. Austin Nevin says

   Well done - Looking at this tree I have a couple of questions: what is meant by trigger examples? I think that there are many major reasons for analysis - and repatriation is one of the last I would imagine - what about art historical interest and conservation as major drivers? Also, having recently been involved in a horrible debate between private conservators and a construction firm, I believe this tree is the “ideal” and very applicable to museum-based work, but know this may be far from the adopted practice in the private world (outside the museum context) : with the undesirable but inevitable work flow which is sometimes adopted in private practice, analysis proceeded following the need for justification of treatment, and need for a report on the part of private conservators at the end of their intervention.

   July 19, 2009, 9:05 am
5. Angela Spinazze says

   Thanks Austin, for your detailed reply. I’ll try and answer your questions as best I can. The trigger examples are there to suggest the types of events that precede analysis that actually cause a conservator to engage in an analysis. We called these precipitating events at the workshop. We can certainly add historical interest and conservation to this list as well. Re: possible other workflow for outside the museum sphere, if the analysis comes at the end of a treatment in order to justify the treatment, then perhaps, we need to add an inbound arrow from the grouping (treatment, acquisition movement) towards the analysis block mid-stream to suggest that the process does not always start from the top? It muddles the diagram a bit but, might be the cleanest and easiest approach. Does that help or hinder the situation?

   July 23, 2009, 7:08 am
6. MetMuseum says

   Add under “Trigger Examples” : technical studies, condition problems, health and safety issues, Clearer decision flow process for in-house and out-of-institutioin analyses; which can occur at multiple points. Approval for use of intellectual propertiy for analytical results needs to be noted. No flow chart exits noted when permission is denied,;budget isn’t approved, curator/owner denial, time limitations, etc.. This chart lacks flow.

   July 29, 2009, 11:55 am
7. jpadfield says

   The end points of this flow seem to be unclear. As MetMuseum noted there is no stop process. The [End Decision] step could lead to a “Yes” or a “No” option, with the “No” option leading to the end of the process. Also the purpose of the [Movement] option, dead-end, as a result of a “possible” decision seems unclear.

   The [Consult existing Documentation] step would seem to be better placed directly after the [Proposal]. When a question is posed the first thing to check would be have we already answered this question or do we need to do more work. [Consultation] could then lead to [Issue Resolved], end process, or [Further work Required] move on to the [Decision] process.

   Then given the existing information available the [Decision] process begins. I think it would be good to consider that people may need to redo the [Consultation] step or even extend it to other sources of information during the [Decision] step. It may be best to consider the [Decision] process as a separate process that loops back to [Consultation] or moves on to a [Request Declined] or [Request Approved]. [Request Declined] would then lead to the end of the process.

   In some cases the [Decision] might be carried out all at once by one person

   You will also probably need two parallel sub process between [Decision]/[Request Approved] and the [Analysis]. [Prepare Sample] and [Prepare Object], either of these process could involve a [Movement] step of an object or sample.

   It might be clearer to replace the [Further ...] option with [Assess Results], which would then lead to [Issue Resolved], end process, or [Further work Required] and loop back to the [Decision] process.

   All ends of this process could lead to [further document production, DB data input and/or Amendment of existing records] which would then lead to an [Archive] step. Also all ends of process can lead to new processes, [Movement], (return of the sample/object or further movement), [Treatment], [Acquisition] etc.

   August 7, 2009, 6:59 am
8. Petria Noble says

   I agree with the remarks of the Met and Jo Padfield: consulting existing documentation / expert opinions are usually the first things that are done since it may turn out that (additional) analyses are not necessary. A document with Research Questions should also appear at top right. Deadlines, budget limitations also need to be included. In long term / complex research projects, these aspects continue to evolve as research proceeeds. In addition to scientific report/s, publications/presenations are also generated. Publications cam also be a trigger. Should also reflect that analyses can also be carried out by several scientists/ researchers (in house and/or external), and that sometimes analyses needs to take place in a particular sequence (for instance, for cross sections of paint samples where light microscopy preceeds SEM/EDX).

   August 9, 2009, 5:51 am

You must be logged in to post a comment.