林詠能老師赴日本評鑑出國報告 - 國立臺北教育大學研發處

行政院及所屬各機關出國報告 

( 出國類別 : 學術交流 ) 

日本博物館評鑑制度研究 

服務機關 : 國立台北教育大學 

出國人 

職稱 : 助理教授 

姓名 : 林詠能 

出國地區 : 日本 

出國期間 :98 年 7 月 14 日至 98 年 7 月 21 日 

報告日期 :98 年 8 月 11 日 

1

摘要 

為借鏡日本之文博物館評鑑制度與博物館管理經驗 , 赴日本水戶常磐大學、 

靜岡縣富士市及東京 , 與博物館評鑑有關進行參訪並蒐集相關資料 , 以了解日本 

的博物館評鑑模式及成果 , 供策劃國內博物館評鑑制度的參考。 

日本博物館管理學會與日本文部科學省長期合作擬定日本博物館評鑑制 

度 , 今年特前往日本與該學會進行博物館評鑑會議 , 加強與日本相關單位聯繫與 

溝通 , 了解日本博物館評鑑制度規劃程序與需求 , 作為制訂國內博物館評鑑相關 

政策之依據。 

2

目次 

壹、前言 

一、考察目的 ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯4 

二、實施期程 ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯4 

三、考察成員 ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯4 

貳、考察重點、行程及參訪館舍與地區 

一、考察重點 ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯5 

二、考察行程 ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯5 

三、參訪館舍與地區 ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯5 

參、考察內容 

一、第一天 (7/14) ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯7 

二、第二天 (7/15) ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯7 

三、第三天 (7/16) ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯8 

四、第四天 (7/17) ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯8 

五、第五天 (7/18) ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯8 

六、第六天 (7/19) ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯8 

七、第七天 (7/20)⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯9 

八、第八天 (7/21)⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯10 

肆、考察心得與建議 ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯11 

伍、日本博物館管理學會發表文章內容 ⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯16 

3

壹、前言 

一、考察目的 : 

( 一 ) 觀摩日本之博物館評鑑規劃與執行經驗 

赴水戶常磐大學、靜岡縣富士市及東京及等相關研究機構與重要特色博物館 

實地參觀 , 以定點資料蒐集與訪談、蒐集相關政策資料及參訪重要文化設施 , 以 

了解日本博物館評鑑制度現況與博物館經營模式 , 以供協助台灣制訂博物館評鑑 

相關政策參考。 

( 二 ) 考察日本推動都市更新與博物館發展等企劃機制 

參觀東京北之丸博物館群聚區以及六本木地區都市更新與藝術金三角規劃 

機制 , 考察都市與博物館之間建構關係。從中可學習到都市更新結合文化再造與 

博物館經營形式。 

( 三 ) 日本博物館管理學會會議 

日本博物館管理學會長年與日本文部科學省合作 , 執行許多博物館相關政策 

制定與研究關。此次獲邀與前往與該會進行日台博物館評鑑制度的會議 , 藉此了 

解雙方文化政策與博物館評鑑現況 , 作為台灣制訂博物館相關政策之參據。 

二、實施期程 :98/07/14-98/07/21, 為期 8 日。 

三、考察成員及人數 : 共計 1 人。 

台北教育大學文化產業學系暨藝文產業設計與經營研究所林詠能助理教授。 

4

貳、考察重點、行程及參訪館舍與地區 

一、考察重點 

( 一 ) 日本地區之博物館評鑑制度、現況與執行經驗。 

( 二 ) 日本都市與博物館文化發展趨勢。 

( 三 ) 學習博物館經營規劃經驗及推廣執行機制。 

( 四 ) 日本博物館協會會議 

二、考察行程 

日期天數早上下午晚上 

7/14 第一天台灣出發 13:15 抵達成田與常磐大學水 

星期二 

16:00 成田 ➔ 水戶嶋教授晚餐 

7/15 

星期三 

13:00- 15:00 水戶市內 

博物館參觀 

7/16 

星期四 

7/17 

星期五 

7/18 

星期六 

7/19 

星期天 

7/20 

星期一 

7/21 

星期二 

第二天 9:30-11:20 

常磐大學研究會 

議 

11:20-12:00 午餐 

第三天 9:30-11:20 


議 

11:20-12:00 午餐 

第四天 9:30-11:20 


議 

11:20-12:00 午餐 

第五天 

第六天 

早上 

參觀富士市立博 

物館 

早上 

參觀北之丸公園 

內博物館群 

13:00- 15:00 常磐大學 

研究會議 

12:00- 茨城縣近代美術 

館 

1500- 水戶出發前往富 

士 

14:00-15:30 參與富士 

市立博物館義工座談 

晚上從富士前往東京 

13:00 

在科學技術館參與 

JMMA 會議、演講 

和日本科學未 

來館的秋田先 

生晚餐 

晚餐 

晚餐 

東京晚餐 

與日本博物館 

管理學會交流 

第七天參觀六本木、國立新美術館等館東京晚餐 

第八天 

返回台灣 

三、參訪館舍與地區 

( 一 ) 水戶常磐大學與水戶市藝術館、弘道館 

( 二 ) 富士市立博物館。 

5

( 三 ) 東京北之丸公園內博物館群。 

( 四 ) 東京六本木藝術金三角。 

6

參、考察內容 

一、第一天 (7/14) 

第一天上午八時搭乘長榮航空客機飛往日本成田機場 , 下午抵達後先前往水 

戶住宿飯店安置行李 , 並與常磐大學水嶋英治教授晚餐。 

二、第二天 (7/15) 

第二天考察與研究地點為水戶常磐大學及水戶市內博物館 , 考察內容分述如 

下 : 

( 一 ) 水戶常磐大學 

7/15~7/17 早上皆在常磐大學與水嶋英治教授進行博物館評鑑制度研 

究。 

( 二 ) 水戶市藝術館 

為紀念水戶市成立一百週年 , 建造了高 100 公尺的水戶藝術塔 , 也是水 

戶藝術館的象徵。以創新藝術文化、國際視野為理念出發的水戶藝術館想要 

打造的是一個提供市民藝文交流的空間。 

藝術館沒有設置特定出入口 , 而是藉由音樂廳、劇場、美術藝廊、會議 

場、藝術塔等多棟建築圍塑出一個綠帶廣場與藝術館的敷地。為使音樂、戲 

劇、美術等各領域的藝術都能夠擁有獨立空間 , 請來著名建築師磯崎新設 

計 , 使每個空間獨立不會相互影響卻又同時緊密相扣 , 可一次串聯瀏覽。 

開闊的廣場舖上如茵的綠色草坪 , 還有以週邊笠間地區盛產的御影石作 

為主要水景 , 無論平時或假日 , 成為水戶市民最親近的藝術公園 , 甚至會不 

定期舉辦各種免費開放的藝文活動 , 可容納數千人共同参與。 

( 三 ) 弘道館 

弘道館從創校到明治 5 年送出最後一批學生為止 , 培育出許多影響時代 

的人才。歷經戰亂後 , 大部分的藩校建築已經被燒毀 , 如今所見僅剩正門、 

正廳至善堂等建築開放遊客參觀 , 只有過去遺留下的文物書簡 , 訴說舊日的 

光景。 

7

三、第三天 (7/16) 

7/16 早上下午皆在常磐大學與水嶋英治教授進行博物館評鑑制度研究 

四、第四天 (7/17) 

茨城縣近代美術館 

自昭和 63 年開館以來 , 該館主要展示日本和西洋近代美術作品為主 , 收 

藏對象是以茨城縣有關的作家作品、日本近代到現代的優質作品 , 以及影響 

日本近代美術的海外作家的作品。網站中除了美術館的展覽介紹外 , 另有藏 

品及其作家生平介紹 ( 書畫 )。 

五、第五天 (7/18) 

富士市立博物館 

富士市立博物館分為歷史名俗資料館分館與是富士市立博物館本館。 

富士市立博物館本館常設展介紹的是復市是當地紙業的歷史 , 與富士山 

相關資料。 

歷史民俗資料館則介紹富士市的常民文化。 

另外館外還有歷史建物保存公園 , 可以見到日本當地的古蹟與歷史建 

物。 

六、第六天 (7/19) 

( 一 ) 北之丸博物館群 

1969 年為紀念天皇 60 壽辰而對外開放的森林公園。園內有科學技術館和 

東京國立近代美術館以及日本武道館。 

科學技術館位於北之丸公園的東南部 , 一進清水門的左手邊。在陳列著 

各種關於視覺的科學、光學現象的展示廳裡 , 可以在遊玩中體會學習不可思 

議的科學現象。在染色體組的專區 , 利用漫畫等進行演示 , 使講解淺顯易懂。 

東京國立近代美術館創立於 1952 年 , 是日本最早的國立美術館。收藏 

品包括明治時期到現代約 100 年間的美術品 , 日本畫、西洋畫、雕刻、素 

描、照片等超過 9000 件作品。代表作品有土田麥僊「舞妓林泉」、村上華 

岳「日高河清姬圖」、岸田劉生「麗子肖像」。 

8

東京都國立近代美術館工藝館工藝館 (Kogeikn, Crafts Gallery), 附近 

於鄰近的東京國立近代美術館。這是一棟建造於 1910 年 , 外觀十分吸引人 

的明治時代磚造建築。藝廊 , 是個貼近與日本文化最佳的選擇 , 而工藝館則 

展示的是國內外陶器 , 染織、玻璃、漆工木竹工及金工等工藝品。 

( 二 ) 日本博物館管理學會會議 

進行台日博物館評鑑制度會議 , 演講。 

七、第七天 (7/20) 

( 一 ) 森美術館 

森美術館坐落六本木 hills 森大廈第 52 及 53 層 , 結合了現代藝術展覽廳、 

觀景台與都市研究所展示廳。並利用動線設計把收入依附在展望台觀光客的 

票源收入。讓只是想到展望台的觀眾也可以走進美術館 , 把非觀眾群開發成 

觀眾群。 

森美術館將國際性與現代感做為創館重要理念 , 在這裡率先向全世界介 

紹最新創造思維 , 以森美術館本身為中心點 , 以周圍亞洲圈為展覽對象 , 向 

外圍的歐美紐澳擴展 , 去刺激參展者與觀展人的好奇心與思考力。 

除了展覽當代藝術名家作品外 , 也積極支援、發掘亞洲年輕新銳設計師 

與藝術家。另外森美術館的放時間也比一般美術館長 , 一周有六天開放到 

晚上十點。 

( 二 ) 三多利美術館 

三多利美術館於 1961 年由三多利集團創建。受東京 Midtown( 東京中城 ) 

新地標吸引而遷移至此。三多利美術館是一座以日本古代與歐洲中古世紀美 

術品為展覽主題的美術館 , 透過這些古時代日常用品的展覽 , 表達「生活中 

的美」這樣的概念。新館建築請名建築師隈研吾設計 , 展覽主軸是日本傳統 

設計 , 與新城提倡的和風重新相符合。 

三多利美術館收藏古代繪畫、陶瓷漆器、木雕金琢工藝等等古美術品共 

三千多件 , 其中包含日本國寶與重要文化財。除了本身館藏外 , 也會與歐洲 

美術館定期交換展品。 

9

( 三 ) 國立新美術館 

新美術館建築是由國際建築大師黑川紀章所設計 , 國立新美術館自 2007 

年開館以來 , 入館人數衝破 3 百萬人 , 計已有 70 多個團體及個人選擇在這裡 

策展。展覽主題多元。新美術館本身並無館藏 , 是日本最大的展覽空間 (14,000 

平方公尺 )。展示空間寬敞高挑 , 讓各種藝術品不受限制盡情延展。收集美 

術的訊息並把資料公開 , 提供給大眾 , 中心的作用便是使美術教育普及。是 

一個全新類型的美術館。 

新美術館並附設有米其林三星級餐廳 , 配合展覽不定期推出創意十足的 

限定套餐 , 完美結合料理與藝術。 

八、第八天 (7/21) 

返台 

10

肆、考察心得與建議 

日本博物館評鑑指標發展 

亞洲國家中 , 以日本博物館的發展最為蓬勃。在日本全國 47 個一級行政區 

( 都、道、府、縣 ) 中 , 每個行政區多設有美術館、歷史博物館與科學博物館 ; 

至 2005 年為止 , 全國博物館與博物館類似設施計共有 5614 座 1。 

日本政府對於博物館績效評量非常重視 , 在其博物館法中有二條相關條文 

規範了博物館須進行自我評量、同時必須公開這些資訊給社會大眾。其中第八條 

指出「為促進博物館之健全成長 , 文部科學大臣應制定博物館設置及營運基準 , 

並向教育委員會及一般大眾公佈。」; 第九條接著闡述「博物館於施行該館營運 

評鑑之同時 , 應基於評鑑結果 , 致力於必要措施以圖改善。」; 第九條之二則說 

明「博物館在增進與該館業務有關地方居民及其他相關者理解之同時 , 應致力積 

極提供該館營運相關資訊 , 以資推動與其之連結與合作。」2。 

日本的博物館評量的策略方向為機構自我評量為主 , 由各館自行設計其評 

量體系與執行方式 , 呼應了新公共管理的去中心化原則。依據日本博物館協會於 

2008 年 10 間所進行為的調查為例 , 超過五成以上 (53.4%) 的博物館有進行其館 

舍的績效評量。其中國立博物館實施評量的比例最高、達 70%; 其次為其他公立 

館舍為 60%; 而私立博物館的實施情況最低、僅達 38.3%。其評量種類可分為 3 

類 : 第一類為「自己評價」由博物館內部職員所進行的評量、第二類為「外部評 

價」係由博物館邀請外部人士前來進行評量 ; 第三類則為「第三者評價」由獨立 

的外部人士所進行。以埼玉縣立近代美術館為例 , 其 2007 年的評量構面分為展示 

水準、資料運用、博物館利用情形、宣傳、學校支援、支援縣內其他單位、合作 

與交流、調查研究與其他等 9 項構面、26 項量化指標分別註明目標值與達成值等 , 

並採「第三者評價」方式進行績效評量作業 ( 日本博物館協會 ,2009)。 

除了博物館本身的評量機制外 , 亦有許多學者提出評量方法 , 如加藤哲弘 

等人 (2001) 曾針對東京的美術館的評量進行指標的建構工作 ( 表 1), 這些學者 

1 

2 

見日本文部科學省社會教育調查報告書 , 平成 17 年 (2005)。 

見日本最新修訂的博物館法 , 平成 20 年 (2008)6 月 11 日法律第 59 號。 

11

建議 , 評量內容可以投入指標、產出指標、影響指標等分別建構 , 以提供博物館 

參考運用。 

表 1 日本美術館績效評量指標 

項目指標 

產出指標 (Output) 

1 展覽的策展數 

2 入館人數 

3 第一次到訪美術館人數 

4 高齡者、身心障礙、低收入者等社會弱勢者的使用率 

5 外國人觀光客數 

6 居民使用率 

7 館內滯留時間 

8 對於教育、普級活動參加的人數 

9 自願義工人數 

10 會員入會數 

11 美術館網頁的造訪人數等 

成效指標 (Outcome) 

1 入館者滿意度 

2 未利用美術館的居民的滿意度 

3 義工的滿意度 

4 教育等普級活動參加者的意識或行動的變化 

5 對於現代美術抱持關心的居民比率 

資料來源 : 加藤哲弘等 ,2001 

此外 , 日本博物館協會在博物館評量的建置工作上亦有十分豐碩的成果。 

博物館協會曾接受文部科學省的委託於 2002 與 2003 年分別派員前來美英二國進 

行考察 , 針對二國的評量方式進行調查 ( 日本博物館協會 ,2003)。協會於 2004 

年出版博物館自我評量的手冊 , 提供博物館自我評量的參考。手冊中將博物館評 

量構面分為 9 項分別為使命與計畫、資料蒐集、保管與運用、調查研究、展示與 

教育活動、施設的整備與管理、宣傳、市民參與、組織與人員、財務與社會支援 

等、計 49 項指標 ( 日本博物館協會 ,2004)。而後經過多年的討論 , 將 9 項構面減 

為 8 項 , 但指標由 49 增加為 110 項 ( 表 2)( 日本博物館協會 ,2008)。協會於 2009 

年進一步提出線上版供博物館進行自我評量 , 並提供博物館間的相互比較基準。 

透過個別博物館與整體表現水準中相對位置或不同構面進行比較 , 個別館舍可進 

一步了解自我績效的相對位置與優缺點 3。 

3 

見 http://www.j-muse.or.jp/jikotenken/index.html 

12

館長、館舍經營 

A01 館方和設置單位有定期的經常聯絡。 

A02 博物館使命 ( 基本理念和設置目的 ) 簡 

單明瞭。 

A03 博物館使命 ( 基本理念和設置目的 ) 有 

在參觀者的宣傳單、網站、宣傳文本上 

公告。 

A04 館長的職務為全職。 

A05 館長有人事 ( 包括升職的情況下 )、財 

務、業務等全部經營的權限。 

A06 有關館的業務和運作 , 會為了決策而定 

期招開會議。 

A07 訂立館的中長期經營管理目標 ( 設置者 

有認知、了解 )。 

A08 訂定年度管理計劃 , 以達成經營目標。 

A09 業務及管理運作方面等 , 全面實施自我 

評鑑。 

A10 業務及管理運作方面等 , 全面實施外部 

評鑑。 

A11 制定了中長期財務計劃。 

A12 自我收入 , 自我收入的比例 , 至少已有 

設定一個目標。 

A13 館具備活動有關的快速參考條約、法、 

倫理規則。 

A14 透過網路和年度報告目錄 , 公開經營業 

績和實現目標程度 , 財務等館的運作狀 

況。 

A15 為了提高工作人員士氣 , 有設置目標管 

理、提案制度、獎勵制度等自我認證制 

度。 

展示 

C01 制定展示政策和以及展覽計劃。 

C02 定期更新常設展。 

C03 進行問卷調查 , 了解觀眾滿意度。 

C04 根據展覽 , 設立目標觀眾人數。 

C05 有製作、發放 ( 銷售 ) 展覽目錄及導覽手 

冊指南。 

C06 已有固定時間由博物館的專業工作人員 

( 學藝員等 ) 做展覽導覽解說。 

C07: 已有固定時間進行由博物館的義工做展 

覽導覽解說。 

C08: 館內介紹有外國語言標示或針對外國人 

作詢問處、導覽指南。 

C09: 發行企劃展和特展的圖錄。 

C10: 導入參加體驗型的展示方式。 

C11: 展覽室有安裝監視錄影機與配置監看人 

員。 

C12: 定期檢查盤點展品。 

C13: 展品的展示環境有做光線、溫度和濕度 

的控制。 

C14: 隨著展示機器的定期檢查 , 能夠針對故 

障情況迅速作出適當反應的系統體制。 

表 2 日本美術館績效評量指標 

 博物館觀眾、市民和社區關係 

B01 博物館設有公共關係計劃。 

B02 博物館設有網站 , 並有適當更新內容的體 

制。 

B03 博物館有發行宣傳刊物 ( 快訊等 )。 

B04 有為了記錄來館者的狀態與實際數量實施 

觀眾調查。 

B05 有設定目標參觀人數。 

B06 為了瞭解館的利用現狀和趨勢及觀眾需 

求 , 實施問卷調查和錄影裝置。 

B07 針對老年人 , 實施門票價格折扣 ( 包括免 

費 )。 

B08 針對身心障礙者 , 實施門票價格折扣 ( 包 

括免費 )。 

B09 已經成立 “ 博物館之友 ”。 

B10 已經引入 “ 義工制度 ”。 

B11 社群、非營利組織等 , 讓市民有機會參與 

館事業的機會。 

B12 透過 “ 博物館協同會議 ” 讓公民參與規劃博 

物館的運作。 

B13 博物館制定與地區合作的計劃、政策等。 

B14 和當地的企業和組織 ( 企業協會和工商會 

等 ) 合作或贊助 , 執行業務。 

教育推廣 

D01: 教育推廣活動根據制定的方針政策有計畫 

的執行。 

D02: 實施問卷調查 , 了解教育推廣活動的參與 

者滿意度。 

D03: 根據教育推廣活動 , 設定目標參與者人數。 

D04: 清楚地設置問題、聯絡、協商的窗口。 

D05: 有不用提供到館也可以進行問題協商的系 

統 ( 傳真、電話、信箱 , 網路等 )。 

D06: 實施博物館利用方法講座、學藝員工作體 

驗講座、背景導覽等支援教育推廣活動。 

D07: 設置來館者可使用的圖書室、訊息室。 

D08: 有聯外的訪問活動 ( 宣傳活動 )。 

D09: 有編寫給學校的計畫與籌備的工作人員。 

D10: 有提供給學生團體的教育指導計畫。 

D11: 有針對學校教師舉辦博物館利用辦法的研 

討會和研修會。 

D12: 博物館接受實習制度。 

D13: 有接受學生實習。 

D14: 關於教育推廣活動有製作紀錄。 

13

C15: 特展與企劃展等的紀錄 , 有做成報告書。 

學藝員、一般職員 

E01: 有配置全職學藝員。 

E02: 有採用學藝員這個專門職位。 

E03: 關於學藝員等有關職員有資格上的要求。 

E04: 學藝員有人員交流和人事變動。 

E05: 學藝員可任命為幹部 ( 館長 , 副館長 , 

部課長 )。 

E06: 其他機構舉辦的培訓活動 , 會派學藝員 

前往參加。 

E07: 其他協會、機構主辦的研究會議 , 鼓勵 

認同學藝員參加。 

E08: 展覽和教育推廣活動 , 調查研究和保存 

等學藝員活動的成果 , 博物館會發行版物公 

開。 

E09: 除了學藝系統的職員 , 也有其他的全職 

人員。 

E10: 也有針對不是學藝系統的工作人員 , 實 

行研修培訓。 

資料・典藏 

G01: 制定典藏資料收集的方針。 

G02: 為了典藏資料收集遵守法律 , 條約規章 

和道德標準等 , 策訂標準。 

G03: 典藏資料的出處來源的正當性與真假 , 

執行討論研究會議 ( 包含外部專家 ), 接受建議 

來決定購買。 

G04: 典藏資料收集有七成以上有登錄手冊。 

G05: 收集數據有進行記錄與其材質。 

G06: 收集的資料 , 能夠清楚地看到記錄的材 

料。 

G07: 有組織計劃未處理材料。 

G08: 典藏的溫濕度及光線等必要資料 , 有一 

半以上已經執行管理。 

G09: 基於綜合蟲害管理防治 ( IPM ) 的想 

法 , 日常有採取有害細菌與蟲害的預防措施。 

G10: 至少對主要的典藏資料進行定期檢查典 

藏狀態。 

G11: 有執行典藏資料修復計劃。 

G12: 典藏資料有七成以上都有整理在典藏目 

錄裡。 

G13: 有公開典藏目錄。 

G14: 典藏目錄七成以上有電腦數據化。 

G15: 有定期適當的更新、追加典藏資料相關 

資訊。 

G16: 有借出典藏資料的認可制度及相關規章 

手續。 

4 

資料來源 : 日本博物館協會 

調査研究 

F01: 建立研究計劃等政策方針。 

F02: 有調查研究專門的預算。 

F03: 有購買設備、設施和專門知識的書籍雜誌 , 

準備增進調查研究的環境。 

F04: 有根據學藝系職員的執勤時間和職務內容 

說明 , 努力進行研究。 

F05: 關於資料收集以及相關領域學術 , 正在著 

手研究。 

F06: 著手進行資料的管理、修復、保存、展示 , 

教育推廣的理論和方法 , 以及博物館的管理等 , 

博物館學領域的研究。 

F07: 著手進行以促進地方區域的貢獻 , 找出博 

物館當地的資源、資料的研究。 

F08: 調查研究的過程與研究成果 , 公開報告。 

F09: 和其他館與其他研究機構進行共同研究。 

< H> 設施 

H01: 設施的維修和改善有制定中長期計劃。 

H02: 主要建築有實行最低限度的抗震措施。 

H03: 展覽室和典藏庫有抗震對策。 

H04: 有製作危機管理手冊。 

H05: 執行定期防災安全緊急救命災害訓練。 

H06: 對於緊急事故有作保險。 

H07: 對於無障礙設施有作自我評鑑確定需要改 

進的地方。 

H08: 有針對導覽標示等進行改進規劃。 

H09: 有了解來館者動線及注意力情況做調查和 

改進。 

H10: 停車場有對一般遊客、身心障礙人士 , 分 

別規劃。 

H11: 有設置休息區。 

H12: 有設置餐廳或是咖啡廳。 

H13: 展覽圖錄和導覽指南、教材等 , 有直接介 

紹、販售。 

H14: 館有開發原創商品販售銷售。 

H15: 有根據利用的實際狀態延長開館時間 , 或 

是夜間開放。 

H16: 視必要定期執行接待方面的工作人員培訓 

( 包括委託業者培訓 )。 

H17: 針對參觀者的要求與希望作出投訴程序。 

心得 

4 

見 http://www.j-muse.or.jp/jikotenken/index.html 

14

赴日研究博物館評鑑制度 , 大有斬獲。關於日本博物館的評鑑制度擬定、推 

廣、執行等各層面 , 皆蒐集到不少資料可供台灣建立博物館評鑑制度參考。為求 

國內博物館評鑑制度順利建立與專業素質 , 充分提昇台灣博物館的國際競爭實 

力。博物館評鑑人員之專業培訓及實務訓練 , 是目前評鑑政策中最為重要的發展 

方向。 

但由於我國博物館評鑑制度仍在發展中 , 建議多以國家政策主導的公立博物 

館為發展主軸 , 並加強在大學課程內容及培訓方式導入博物館評鑑觀念 , 以免造 

成博物館相關從業人員於日後對博物館制度適應不良等現象。 

藉由本次赴日考察 , 實地瞭解日本博物館評鑑制度與博物館政策發展的特殊 

性及營運模式 , 期待發展規劃出更為完善、更符合時代需求的博物館評鑑制度。 

並為求博物館評鑑制度之順利推行 , 亦與日本博物館協會及相關及專業研究之機 

構 , 洽談未來課程合作之計畫及相關機制 , 以求博物館評鑑制度順利擬定及確實 

推廣。 

15

Developing Performance Indicators for National Museums 

Yung-Neng Lin 

Assistant professor, Department of Cultural Industries, 

National Taipei University of Education 

Abstract 

Performance measurement in public agencies, including national museums, has been 

greatly influenced by New Public Management (NPM) philosophy. As the NPM 

approach has taken hold, many museums have been forced to shift from the traditional 

administrative management paradigm to an entrepreneurial management paradigm, 

and to set up appropriate performance indicators. Rather than the traditional emphasis 

on accountability for process, emphasis is now being placed on accountability for 

results. Central to this is the requirement to identify desired outcomes. It is the aim of 

this study to propose appropriate performance indicators for adoption by Taiwan`s 

national museums. The study begins by examining the influence of New Public 

Management philosophy and reviewing the use of performance indicators in museums 

in two western countries. It goes on to suggest a range of performance indicators that 

might be used by DoE and CCA sponsored museums. 

Keywords: New Public Management, national museums, performance measurement, 

performance indicators, Taiwan 

16

What gets measured gets done. 

Osborne & Gaebler, 1992: 146 

Performance measurement using objective indicators is a way of defining and monitoring 

the performance of an organisation on a regular basis. It is very common in profit-making 

sectors and some non-profit organisations, where it is seen as a way of identifying 

potential problems. Performance measurement has not yet been adopted by the museum 

sector in Taiwan, though it has been debated for the last decade. 

This paper first examines the concept of New Public Management and reviews the 

experience of museums in two western countries where performance measurement has 

been enacted in the museum sector. The ultimate aim is to identify performance 

indicators suitable for use in Taiwan’s national museums. 

1. The influence of New Public Management in performance measurement 

The measurement of performance in public agencies has been greatly influenced by New 

Public Management (NPM) philosophy. NPM is an umbrella term covering the wave of 

public sector reforms which have been instituted since the late 1970s. It is a new 

paradigm for public management, aimed at fostering a more market- and 

performance-oriented approach in a less centralised public sector. Under NPM, agencies 

have been encouraged to shift from the traditional administrative management paradigm 

to an entrepreneurial management paradigm (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992); and it has 

been widely used by governments to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and to modernise 

the public sector. Some of the major characteristics of NPM in terms of performance 

measurement are: 

the introduction of quasi market mechanisms; 

emphasis on the provision of high-quality services; 

the introduction of performance indicators; and 

the advocating of managerial autonomy, particularly by reducing central 

agency control (Borins, 2002; Pollitt, 1995) 

Governments in a number of countries have used NPM to reform public management and 

introduce new legislation. These include the US (the Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) of 1993), Canada (the Expenditure Management System), the UK 

(the Financial Management Initiative), New Zealand (the Strategic Management), 

Australia (the Financial Management Act, 1994) and Sweden (the Three-year Guidelines). 

The NPM has had a major impact on the museum sector; many national museums, such 

as the Smithsonian Institution in the US, all national museums in the UK, the Louvre 

Museum in France, New Zealand`s Te Papa Tongarewa Museum and the Australian 

National Maritime Museum, have been forced to introduce performance measurement 

systems and key performance indicators. In Taiwan, however, although performance 

measurement in museums has been under discussion for the last decade, it has never been 

17

put into action. This paper aims to examine NPM-led management reforms and their 

influence on the museum sectors in the US and UK as the first step to developing 

performance indicators for Taiwan’s national museums. 

The case in the US 

The US Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) in 1993. 

The act underpinned the most significant reform of US federal agencies in decades 5 . 

The legislation was launched in response to the view within the US Congress that waste 

and inefficiency in federal agencies was undermining the confidence of the public; that 

federal agencies had failed to improve programme efficiency and effectiveness; and that 

policymaking and spending oversight committees were handicapped by having 

inadequate information about programme performance and results. 

Under GPRA, federal agencies have been mandated to become results-oriented. They are 

now required to develop long-term strategic plans, annual performance plans and to 

publish an annual performance report. Strategic plans should define the agency`s goals 

and objectives for their various programmes, they should cover a period of not less than 5 

years from the current fiscal year, and they should be updated at least every 3 years. 

Federal agencies are also required to prepare an annual performance plan covering each 

programme activity set forth in the budget. The annual performance plan should establish 

performance goals to define the level of performance to be achieved. Such goals should 

be objective, quantifiable, and measurable. Moreover, performance indicators should be 

developed in order to assess the outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each programme 

activity. 

All federal agencies must submit an annual performance report summarising programme 

performance for the previous fiscal year. This report must set out the performance 

indicators established in the annual performance plan and describe the level of 

performance achieved compared with the performance goals. 

Under GPRA, the focus has shifted from accountability for process to accountability for 

results. There is therefore greater emphasis on the need to identify desired outcomes, and 

on the distinction between outputs (what a programme actually does) and outcomes (the 

results it produces). 

For museums, only the Smithsonian Institution (SI) is required to produce such reports. 

The SI’s strategic and annual performance plans are based on 4 strategic goals: 

increased public engagement, strengthened research, enhanced management excellence, 

and financial strength; a further 9 programme goals have been set out within these 

strategic goals. This framework has enabled the SI to establish 46 key performance 

indicators relating dollars budgeted and results achieved (Table 1). According to the SI 

5 Government Performance Results Act of 1993, see 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/gplaw2m.html 

18

annual performance plan, it ‘has made great progress in integrating performance 

indicators throughout the institution to track program results and incorporating linked 

performance metrics in individual performance plans’ 6 . 

Table 1 Performance Indicators of the Smithsonian Institution, USA 

Dimensions 

Increased 

Public 

Engagement: 

Diffusion of 

Knowledge 

Strengthened 

Research: 

Increase of 

Knowledge 

Enhanced 

Management 

Excellence 

1.1 Education 

1.2 Other Public 

Programmes 

2.1 Exhibitions 

3.1 Collections 

4.1 Smithsonian 

Science Research 

4.2 Art, History, 

and Cultural 

Studies Research 

5.1 Facilities 

Capital 

Performance Indicators 

Number of educational resources available on Smithsonian 

Education.org 

Number of people participating in Smithsonian education 

programmes 

Number of physical visits to SI museums and the National Zoo 

Number of visitors to Smithsonian (SITES) travelling 

exhibitions 

Number of SI website visitor sessions 

Number of Smithsonian Affiliates and geographic distribution 

Number of Smithsonian (SITES) travelling exhibitions and 

geographic distribution 

Average percentage of surveyed audiences rating their 

experience in SIexhibitions as “superior” or“excelent” on a 

scale of poor-fair-good-excellent-superior 

Number of collecting units meeting goals for current 

policies/plans of four types: collections management policy; 

collections plan; cyclical inventory plan; and digitization plan 

Number of collection objects/specimensdocumented in units’ 

electronic collections information systems (CIS) 

Total number of collection objects/specimens available in 

electronic form to the public 

Dollar amount of external grants and contract awards 

Number of awards for Smithsonian- and Unit-funded science 

fellowships 

Number of publications in high impact journals resulting from 

science research 

Number of scholarly research outputs: (1) print publications and 

(2) electronic publications 

Percentage of available capital funds obligated compared to 

funds available 

Number of major capital projects meeting milestones 

Percentage of revitalization projects designed to 35% prior to 

request for construction funding 

Percentage of major projects completed within budget compared 

to initial government estimate at construction start 

Progress in improving average Facility Condition Index (FCI) of 

SI facilities 

Number of major projects whose change from the 35% design 

cost estimate to final project completion cost is within ±15% 

per industry standards 

6 See http://www.si.edu/about/documents/2010PerfPlan_to_OMB.pdf 

19

Financial 

Strength 


Maintenance 


Operations 

6.1 Security 

6.2 Safety 

7.1 Information 

Technology 

8.1 Performance 

Management 

8.2 Human 

Resources 

Management and 

Diversity 

8.3 Financial 

Management 

8.4 Public and 

Government 

Affairs 

8.5 Procurement 

and Contracting 

9.1 Development 

9.2 Smithsonian 

Enterprises and 

Unit Business 

Activities 

9.3 Investment 

Management 

Source: Smithsonian Institution, 2008 

Planned maintenance costs as percentage of total annual 

maintenance costs 

Systems meet reliability targets 

Improve level of cleanliness from Moderate Dinginess (level 4) 

to Orderly Tidiness (level 2) on APPA scale 

Percentage of customer work orders that are completed within 

120 days 

Security system upgrade and anti-terrorism protection projects 

meeting milestones 

Crime rate (per million visitors) and intentional loss/damage to 

collections 

Percentage of incoming background checks completed: 

employees, interns, volunteers, and contractors. 

Achieve a Zero Injurygoal by reducing the SI’s totalrecordable 

injury rate (TRIR) as part of the Presidential 

SHARE Initiative 

Network Availability 

Customer satisfaction with quality and timeliness of IT services 

Cost reduction for voice services -- VoIP Telephony 

Percentage of SI senior level (SL) and non-senior level 

employees whose performance plans link to SI strategic plan 

goals/objectives 

Completion rate for senior-level (SL) and non-senior level 

performance appraisals 

Workdays to complete recruitment action against OPM 45 Day 

Hiring Model 

Percentage of employees who are satisfied with working at the 

Smithsonian on annual employee survey 

Percentage of minorities in the Smithsonian workforce 

Percentage of minorities in the Smithsonian workforce in grades 

13 to 15 

Percentage of women andminorities in the Institution’s 

executive ranks 

Business days after month-end to close out activities 

Business days to process unit service requests 

Enhance the reputation of the Smithsonian by maintaining good 

relations with the news media and with federal, state, and local 

governments. 

Modernize and streamline the Institution’s acquisitions 

management operations. 

Total dollar amount of (1) voluntary support (gifts) and (2) 

non-government grants and contracts to Smithsonian 

Dollar amount of SE net gain 

Dollar value of the Endowment portfolio 

The case in the UK 

20

The NPM philosophy actually grew out of public sector reform in the UK. The 

development of this public sector reform can be separated into two phases: 1979 to 1988, 

and 1988 to date. 

When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, she pointed Sir Derek Rayner as her 

adviser. Rayner launched the Financial Management Initiative (FMI) in 1982 with the 

aim of promoting better management in the public sector. At this stage, the core targets 

were to cut costs and achieve greater transparency in resource allocation in order to 

improve efficiency. 

The Next Steps programme was announced in 1988, in Thatcher`s second term. It aimed 

to accelerate the reforming, value-for-money and managerial trends which began with the 

FMI. The Next Steps programme introduced quasi-market-type mechanisms, increasing 

the emphasis on service quality and the decentralisation of management authority (Greer, 

1994). 

In 1997 the National Audit Office (NAO) set up the Value for Money framework, which 

presented a series of performance indicators which might be used to measure economy, 

efficiency and effectiveness. The NAO continues to encourage public sector agencies to 

use its indicators as part of their value for money improvement programmes, and to 

incorporate the indicators in tools for benchmarking corporate service performance and 

sharing best practice. 

Currently, all national museums are required by the Department of Culture, Media and 

Sport (DCMS) to report annually on their performance in regard to 23 performance 

indicators as a condition of funding. These indicators cover categories including visit 

numbers, educational programmes, website visits, loan venues, collection care, access to 

collections, income and sick absence. It can be seen from Table 2 that the performance 

indicators are skewed to the audience dimension. 

There are 6 core targets: 5 involve promoting access to collections and 1 is geared 

towards income generation. 

Total number of visits to the museum 

Number of visits by children aged 15 and under 

Number of visits by adults aged 16 and over from lower socio-economic groups 

Number of children aged 15 and under in organised educational programmes 

Number of visits to the museum website 

Net income from trading (including corporate hire) 

In principle, it should be possible to use some of the DCMS performance indicators to 

generate benchmarks to enable the comparison of data, although this was not the 

DCMS`s original intention. 

Table 2 Performance Indicators for National Museums in the UK 

Dimensions 


21

Visit Numbers 

Educational 

Programmes 

Website Visits 

Loan Venues 

Collection Care 

Access to 

Collections 

Income 

Sick Absence 

Source: Cowell, 2007 

Total number of visits to the Museum (excluding virtual visits) 

Number of adult visits 

Number of visits by children aged 15 and under 

Number of visits by over 60s 

Number of overseas visits 

Number of repeat visits 

Percentage of UK visitors from ethnic minorities 

Percentage of UK adult visitors aged 16 or over from NS-SEC groups 5–8 

Number of visits by UK adults aged 16 and over from lower socio-economic groups 

(NS-SEC groups 5–8) 

Percentage of visitors who thought the museum overall was good/very good 

Number of learners in on- and off-site organised educational sessions 

Number of children in on- and off-site organised educational sessions 

Number of unique website visits 

Number of UK and overseas loan venues 

Percentage of collection stored in correct environmental conditions 

Percentage of collection internet accessible 

Percentage of time open 

Grant-in-aid per visit 

Grant-in-aid per user 

Revenue generated from sponsorship and donations per visitor (average) 

Non grant income per visitor (average) 

Net income from trading (including corporate hire) 

Average days lost sick per employee excluding long term sickness (average) 

2. Developing performance indicators for national museums 

Developing performance indicators for national museums is never easy: several issues 

need to be considered. 

Micro and macro performance indicators 

When developing performance indicators, distinction needs to be made between micro 

and macro performance indicators. Micro indicators are generally designed to measure 

the performance of individual museums, and need to reflect every aspect of museum 

management if they are to provide adequate information for managers. Micro indicators 

are widely used for planning and control purposes. The Smithsonian Institution uses these 

kinds of performance indicators. 

On the other hand, macro indicators refer to the entire museum sector. This kind of 

information allows professionals to see trends across the sector and to compare individual 

museums. The performance indicators for the UK national museums are good examples 

of macro-level indicators. However, the NPM philosophy supports decentralisation and 

increased managerial autonomy, particularly by reducing central agency control. As 

greater managerial autonomy is given to individual museums to meet their own goals, 

macro-level indicators will be of most interest to those at the policy-making level. Thus, 

it needs to be focused on few key indicators only (Borins, 2002; Poister, 2003; Pollitt, 

22

1995). When developing performance indicators, professionals need to ask two vital 

questions: what do they want to measure, and which methodology is most appropriate 

What to measure 

The National Audit Office in the UK proposes measurement of the three Es: economy, 

effectiveness and efficiency (NAO, 1997). Gilhespy (1999) suggests another E–equity– 

should also be evaluated. 

Economy is solely concerned with minimising the cost of resources used and is achieved 

when inputs are acquired at minimum expense. However, if output is not also taken into 

account, this minimum outlay may turn out to be a false economy. A better way to 

measure economy is the degree to which input cost is minimised for a given output. 

However, this is very close to the definition of efficiency (Gratton and Taylor, 1992). 

Effectiveness is concerned with the relationship between the intended and actual results 

of public spending. It is the extent to which objectives have been achieved and the 

relationship between the intended impacts and actual impacts of an activity. 

Efficiency is the relationship between outputs, in terms of goods, services or other results, 

and the resources used to produce them. An efficient activity maximises output for a 

given input, or minimises input for a given output and, in so doing, pays due regard to 

appropriate quality. 

Equity refers to the accessibility of museums. It has two dimensions: social and regional. 

The social dimension refers to the distribution of accessibility among different 

socio-economic groups; and the regional dimension describes the museum`s accessibility 

within the region in which it is located. 

Which methodology is to be utilised 

Performance indicators give empirical data representing the performance of a museum, 

which can be compared over time or with other museums. They are financial and 

non-financial measures utilised to help museums define and evaluate how successful they 

are. Performance indicators, as a means to measure, monitor, evaluate and improve 

performance, provide an indication of how well museums are doing in achieving their 

desired outcomes or objectives. 

The most meaningful performance indicators are derived from the museum’s mission, 

goals and objectives (Poister, 2003). Typically, performance indicators are expressed as 

ratios, expressing the relation of one figure to another figure or to some resource of the 

museum. These can be used to evaluate performance and may be helpful to management 

23

in decision-making and policy-forming. A ratio (for example subsidy per visit or visits 

per square metre of exhibition space) provides a quick and simple means of comparing 

the performance of museums whose scale of operations may be significantly different. In 

such cases, direct comparisons may be misleading; for example, comparing absolute 

levels of subsidy is less useful than comparing subsidy per visit, and the latter 

standardises the comparison. Thus, ratios are often used to provide a reference point for 

comparisons. 

Although ratios can be used to examine different aspects of performance and are widely 

used for planning and control purposes in profit making organisations, this is still 

uncommon inTaiwan’s museum sector. 

3. Developing performance indicators for national museums in Taiwan 

In Taiwan, national museums are under the authority of the Department of Education 

(DoE) and the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA). The only performance measurement 

system to have been put forward so far is that developed by the DoE. 

The DoE has now recognised the importance of performance measurement and started to 

develop a system for the national museums under its control. The first draft was 

completed in 2005. In this performance measurement system, 3 core dimensions cover 

administration and management, core and basic functions, and innovation. There are 10 

programme goals within the core dimensions (Table 3) and 69 qualitative performance 

indicators. Because the performance measurement system is designed to rank national 

museums from the best to the worst, it has been criticised fiercely by museum 

professionals and researchers, and it has not yet been put into practice. The following 

objections have been raised: 

performance indicators are not well designed; 

it misuses micro indicators as macro ones, thus violating the principle of the 

decentralisation of management authority; 

there is no provision for an independent review panel to monitor assessment; 

it lacks objectivity because performance is decided by only a few reviewers; and 

this performance measurement system is limited to the DoE’s national museums 

only. It does not apply to the CCA’s national museums. 

Table 3 Performance Indicators for National Museums in Taiwan (DoE) 

Dimensions 

Programme Goals 

Efficiency of administration 

Administration Building and facilities management 

and Customer services and marketing strategies 

Management Use of social resources 

Core and 

Basic Function 

Organisation reform 

Collection management 

Exhibitions 

24

Innovation 

Educational programmes 

Research 

Innovation 

Proposed new performance indicators for national museums 

Having examined performance indicators used by national museums in the US and UK, 

and those drawn up by the DoE in Taiwan, the following performance indicators are 

proposed for use in Taiwan`s national museums. The macro performance indicators may 

apply to both DoE and CCA sponsored museums. The performance indicators proposed 

in this paper fall into six dimensions: audience, website visits, educational programmes, 

access to collections, international projects, and financial. There are indicators 

representing economy, effectiveness, efficiency, and equity dimensions (Table 4). More 

generally, they may be used to reveal trends and meet the obligation of public 

accountability. 

Table 4 Performance Indicators for National Museums in Taiwan (proposed) 

Dimensions 


Number of visits to the museum 

Number of visits per square metre (exhibition space only) 

Percentage of repeat visits 

Percentage of visits by local residents 

Percentage of overseas visits 

Audience 

Percentage of visits by children aged 14 and under 

Percentage of visits by adults aged 15 and over from the lowest of the five personal 

income levels 

Percentage of visits from ethnic groups (indigenous people) 

Percentage of visitors who thought the museum overall was good/very good 

Website 

Number of website visits 

Visits 

Educational Number of children in on- and off-site organised educational sessions 

Programmes Percentage of education staff in total staff 

Access to 

Percentage of collection internet accessible 

Collections 

International 

Number of international exchange exhibitions 

Projects 

Subsidy per visit 

Financial 

Percentage of subsidy in total revenue 

4. Limitations of performance indicators 

Although performance indicators offer a quick and useful way of analysing the 

performance and relative position of museums, they do have limitations. 

Firstly, performance indicators require a basis for comparison in order to be useful. 

However, no two museums are exactly the same, and the greater the differences between 

the museums being compared, the more limited is the effectiveness of performance 

indicator analysis. 

25

Secondly, it should be remembered that the performance indicators are largely based on 

the results of questionnaire surveys conducted in museums. The resultant analysis is 

therefore dependent on the quality of these surveys; performance indicators will inherit 

the limitations of the questionnaire surveys on which they are based. 

Finally, it is vital not to rely exclusively on performance indicators. When comparing two 

museums, performance indicators may be used to evaluate their relative performance and 

position, but this will only tell part of the story. 

26

References 

Borins, S. (2002) New Public Management, North American style. In McLaughlin, K., 

Osborne, S.P. and Ferlie, E. (eds.) The New Public Management: Current Trends and 

Future Prospects. New York: Routledge. 

Gilhespy, I. (1999) Measuring the performance of cultural organizations: A model. 

International Journal of Arts Management, 2(1), 38-52. 

Gratton, C. and Taylor, P. (1992) Economics of Leisure Services Management. 2nd ed. 

London: Pitman Publishing. 

Greer, P. (1994) Transforming Central Government: The Next Steps Initiative. 

Buckingham: Open University Press. 

National Audit Office (1997) Value for Money Handbook: A guide for building quality 

into VFM examinations. London: National Audit Office. 

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government:How the entrepreneurial 

spirit is transforming the public sector. MA: Addison-Wesley. 

Poister, T.H. (2003) Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Pollitt, C. (1995) Justification by works or by faith: Evaluating the New Public 

Management. Evaluation, 1(2), 133-154. 

27

林詠能老師赴日本評鑑出國報告 - 國立臺北教育大學研發處

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?