For many years, history organizations—including history museums, historical societies, house museums, and historic sites—have measured success using a traditional planning framework focused on outputs (what an organization produces). By the 1990s, there was a growing recognition of the importance of outcomes (how visitors change because of that work), over merely completing tasks.

While the confusingly-named outputs and outcomes framework have improved museum projects, they often overlook how history organizations themselves evolve—how their staff, volunteers, and boards gain knowledge, shift perspectives, and take action to improve their work.

I’d like to introduce a new way of thinking about goals in museums, distinguishing between internal change (within the organization) and external change (within the community and visitors). Using the Know, Feel, Do framework, this model helps history organizations better understand their impact—both inside and outside the institution.

The Know, Feel, Do framework is a structured approach to understanding how individuals and organizations learn, experience emotions, and take action. It is based on Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains, which classifies learning into three categories:

1. Cognitive (Know) – Intellectual engagement and knowledge acquisition.
2. Affective (Feel) – Emotional and attitudinal responses.
3. Behavioral (Do) – Actions taken as a result of learning.

This model is widely used in education, marketing, nonprofit management, and project evaluation to design experiences that lead to meaningful change.

---

The Traditional Model: Outputs vs. Outcomes

Most history organizations plan and evaluate their work by distinguishing between:

• Outputs – The tangible or intangible work that a history organization produces (e.g., new exhibits, guided tours, preservation projects, research publications, digital programs).
• Outcomes – The changes in visitor knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors resulting from those outputs.

For example, if a historic house museum develops a new interpretive tour on 19th-century domestic life, the traditional model would create:

• Outputs → New tour script, trained docents, updated signage, digital resources.
• Outcomes → Visitors leave the tour with a better understanding of daily life in the 1800s (Know), feel a stronger emotional connection to the people who lived in the house (Feel), and take action by sharing what they learned with others or supporting preservation efforts (Do).

This model helps measure visitor engagement, but it does not account for how the organization itself has changed through the process—how staff, volunteers, and board members learn and grow alongside their audiences.

---

Expanding the Model: Internal & External Change

History organizations are learning organizations as much as they are public institutions. They don’t just educate the public—they also develop new skills, improve operations, and evolve as institutions.

To capture this dual impact, I propose a refined framework that distinguishes between:

1. Internal Change → How museum and historic site staff, board members, and volunteers gain knowledge, shift attitudes, and change behaviors as a result of their work.
2. External Change → How visitors, community members, and stakeholders gain knowledge, shift attitudes, and change behaviors in response to the organization’s programs.

These internal and external goals can then be assessed using the Know, Feel, Do framework:

Dimension	Internal (Staff, Board, and Volunteers)	External (Visitors & Community)
Know (Cognitive – Knowledge & Understanding)	How do staff, board members, and volunteers develop expertise in historical interpretation, preservation, or nonprofit management?	What new information or insights do visitors and community members gain from exhibits, tours, or programs?
Feel (Affective – Emotions & Attitudes)	How do staff and leadership become more confident, motivated, or aligned with the organization’s mission?	How do visitors feel about history after their experience—does it deepen their emotional connection?
Do (Behavioral – Actions & Participation)	How does the organization change its operations, interpretation methods, or community outreach? What new actions do staff, board, and volunteers take?	What behaviors do visitors adopt? Do they return, donate, participate in preservation efforts, or share their experience?

This approach helps history organizations assess both institutional growth and community engagement, leading to more well-rounded evaluations and better decision-making.

---

Applying the Framework in History Organizations

1. Reimagining a House Museum Tour

A historic house museum revises its tour to better incorporate the lives of enslaved people and domestic workers who lived and worked on the property. Using this framework, the organization evaluates its success across both internal and external dimensions:

Internal (Staff & Board Growth)	External (Visitor & Community Engagement)
Know: Staff and docents gain new research skills in interpreting difficult history.	Visitors gain a deeper understanding of the complex history of the house and its residents.
Feel: Staff and volunteers feel more confident leading discussions on challenging topics.	Visitors feel emotionally moved by the stories of past individuals.
Do: The organization implements new training sessions and revises tour formats.	Visitors engage in post-tour discussions and share what they learned with others.

By tracking both organizational learning and visitor impact, the house museum ensures the tour doesn’t just change the audience’s understanding of history but also strengthens its own institutional capacity.

---

2. Board Development in a Historical Society

A state historical society initiates a board development program to improve governance and fundraising. The traditional model might overlook this internal effort, but this framework ensures the board’s progress is evaluated alongside its public impact:

Internal (Staff & Board Growth)	External (Visitor & Community Engagement)
Know: Board members gain knowledge in nonprofit governance and fundraising best practices.	Community members better understand how historical organizations are funded and why support is needed.
Feel: Board members feel more confident advocating for the organization.	Visitors and donors feel more connected to the society’s mission.
Do: The board develops a new fundraising plan and actively engages with donors.	More donors contribute, membership increases, and event attendance grows.

By linking board improvements to public impact, the historical society can demonstrate how strong governance enhances community engagement.

---

3. Preservation Advocacy at a Historic Site

A historic site launches a preservation advocacy campaign to protect a threatened landmark. This framework ensures both organizational learning and public action are measured:

Internal (Staff & Board Growth)	External (Visitor & Community Engagement)
Know: Staff and volunteers learn advocacy strategies and historic preservation laws.	Community members gain awareness of the site’s historical significance.
Feel: Staff feel more empowered in advocacy work.	Residents feel a stronger emotional connection to their local history.
Do: The organization launches a petition and meets with policymakers.	Community members sign petitions, attend public meetings, and advocate for preservation.

---

Why This Matters for History Organizations

This new approach offers several key benefits:

1. Recognizes Institutional Growth → History organizations evolve as much as their audiences do. This model ensures that internal development is measured and valued.
2. Strengthens Reporting for Funders → Many grants support organizational capacity building as well as public programs. By evaluating both, history organizations can provide stronger impact reports.
3. Encourages Holistic Planning → Organizations can align internal improvements (staff training, governance changes) with external impact (visitor engagement, advocacy success).

---

Next Steps: Implementing the Model

• Develop evaluation tools that track how staff, board, and volunteers “Know, Feel, and Do” differently after projects.
• Use surveys and interviews to assess both internal and external change.
• Align strategic plans and grants with both institutional capacity and public engagement goals.

By adopting this dual-focus approach, history organizations can better measure their full impact—not just on visitors, but also on their own growth as institutions.

This new goals framework is a work-in-progress so I welcome your thoughts and comments on its value to museums and how well it can be applied to your projects. I’ve begun to introduce it as a forward-thinking practice to students in the Museum Studies Program at George Washington University. Please share your experiences in the comments!