Author Archives: Max van Balgooy

About Max van Balgooy

President of Engaging Places LLC, a design and strategy firm that connects people to historic places.

The VRIO Framework: Looking Inward, Thinking Forward

When I was chatting with John Wetenhall, director of the GW Museum, he mentioned a business analysis tool I had never heard of: VRIO. It was a surprisingly lively conversation about whether this corporate framework could apply to museums and historic sites—and it piqued my curiosity. Developed by Birger Wernerfelt in his landmark 1984 article “A Resource-Based View of the Firm,” and later refined by Jay Barney in “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage” (1991), VRIO offers a way to evaluate whether an organization’s internal assets truly contribute to long-term success. The acronym stands for Value (does it help the organization exploit opportunities or neutralize threats?), Rarity (is it scarce among competitors?), Imitability (is it difficult to duplicate or substitute?), and Organization (is the organization structured to fully leverage it?).

What began as a theoretical framework for corporations turns out to have practical potential for cultural institutions as well. Tools like logic models and Porter’s Five Forces are helpful, but what about the museum’s internal capabilities? How do we know if our collections, staff, or community ties are truly strategic advantages? Two articles by Paul Knott at the University of Christ Church (New Zealand) offer guidance by critically examining the popular VRIO framework—and how it can work better for cultural institutions.

Insight #1: Strengthening Strategy with an Expanded VRIO Model

In “Integrating Resource-Based Theory in a Practice-Relevant Form” (2009), Knott builds on the traditional VRIO model—Value, Rarity, Imitability, Organization—to create a more actionable and dynamic approach. He emphasizes that internal resources (like a museum’s brand, reputation, or community partnerships) are only strategic if they are used under the right conditions. Critically, he introduces a matrix that shows how the same resource can be a strength, weakness, missed opportunity, or rigidity depending on how it’s managed. This is a significant improvement over the traditional SWOT exercise because it requires you to evaluate each asset or resource with specific questions.

Continue reading →

What if the Executive Order Applied to Us? Imagining the Impact on American History Museums

Last week, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”. Aimed at federal cultural institutions—especially the Smithsonian—it calls for more patriotic presentations of American history, emphasizing unity, greatness, and optimism while discouraging exhibits that focus on racism, inequality, or gender identity.

Right now, the order applies only to federal museums. But what if it didn’t?

Let’s imagine the impact on non-federal museums and historic sites across the country—many of which have spent years expanding their stories to include previously marginalized voices and difficult truths.

What the Executive Order Says

The order encourages museums to promote “our extraordinary heritage” and to avoid what it calls “ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives.” It criticizes content that is “inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed” and that “deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame.” Instead, it wants museums to emphasize “American excellence” and the “progress America has made.”

While these directives may be aimed at the Smithsonian Institution, many worry they signal a broader trend—one that could influence funding, public opinion, and professional standards.

Site by Site: Imagined Impacts

George Washington’s Mount Vernon (Virginia)

Current approach: Includes honest depictions of slavery and Washington’s complicated legacy.
Potential impact: Decreased focus on the lives of enslaved people; Greater emphasis on Washington’s military victories and presidency; Shift toward a more heroic and simplified narrative

Continue reading →

Warning: Objects in Museums May Be More Complicated Than They Appear

Today, the White House issued an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”, which aims to reshape the presentation of history within federal institutions—particularly the Smithsonian. The directive calls for the removal of “divisive or anti-American ideology,” restoration of monuments that have been “improperly removed,” and new restrictions on federally funded exhibits that “degrade shared American values.” While some may see this as a return to patriotic education, as a historian and museum professional, I see troubling implications for our field.

The Illusion of a Single Truth

At the heart of the order is the assertion that a “true” version of American history must be restored. But history is not a static set of facts—it is a discipline grounded in evidence, interpretation, and debate. Historical understanding evolves as new sources emerge, as questions shift, and as voices long excluded are brought into the conversation. There is no single, timeless narrative to return to—only a continuing effort to make sense of the past as honestly and inclusively as possible.

Independence Under Threat

The Smithsonian Institution, like many of our most trusted public history institutions, relies on scholarly rigor and curatorial independence. By assigning Vice President JD Vance a role in overseeing content and linking congressional appropriations to ideological compliance, this executive order politicizes museum interpretation and undercuts professional standards. When history is shaped by political power instead of evidence, public trust erodes.

Continue reading →

History Redacted? What Museums Can Do About Censorship and Content Restrictions

Across the United States, museums and historic sites are feeling the pressure of growing efforts to limit how history is interpreted and shared with the public. Whether it’s school boards restricting curricula, exhibitions removing stories about women or African Americans, or state legislatures targeting specific narratives, the landscape for public history is shifting. Two recent statements—one from national associations of professional historians and another from a leading association of history organizations—offer timely guidance for navigating this challenge.

Upholding Academic Freedom and Public Access to History

In their joint statement, the American Historical Association (AHA) and the Organization of American Historians (OAH) raise alarm over federal directives aimed at censoring public-facing historical content. Specifically, they object to restrictions on the use of terms like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” as well as efforts to remove access to resources about gender, race, and immigration history across government platforms. These actions, the associations argue, “deny the American public access to the complex, nuanced, and evidence-based historical knowledge that is essential to democratic society.”

For museum professionals, this serves as a reminder that we are not only stewards of collections but also of public understanding and trust. AHA and OAH call on historians–including those in museums and historic sites–to resist these pressures by reaffirming their commitment to historical accuracy, critical inquiry, and public service. The practical takeaway? Review interpretive plans, online content, and programs to ensure they are grounded in evidence-based scholarship, even–and especially–when the topics are politically charged.

Standing with the National Park Service: A Sector-Wide Response

Continue reading →

Why Board Diversity Matters for Museums (and When It Doesn’t)

Museums are facing a period of transformation—shifting visitor expectations, financial uncertainty, and growing pressure to be more inclusive and socially responsible. But who is making the decisions that shape how museums navigate these challenges?

A museum’s board of directors plays a crucial role in setting strategy, securing funding, and guiding institutional priorities. While board diversity has become a major talking point, research suggests that simply adding diverse voices isn’t enough. The type of diversity, how it’s measured, and how boards function together all influence effectiveness.

Three recent studies offer key insights into how board diversity affects decision-making, resilience, and institutional success. Together, they provide a roadmap for museums looking to build stronger boards.

Insight #1: Measuring Board Diversity Matters but Not All Diversity Is the Same

Behlau and colleagues provide a systematic review of how board diversity is measured and highlight a key problem: diversity is often discussed in broad terms without precise definitions. They categorize board diversity into three dimensions:

Structural diversity, which includes factors like board size, term limits, and leadership roles.
Demographic diversity, which includes observable characteristics like gender, age, and ethnicity.
Cognitive diversity, which includes unobservable attributes like expertise, education, values, and skills.

Continue reading →

IMLS Targeted for Elimination—How Museums Can Prepare and Advocate

On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the elimination of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the Woodrow Wilson Center at the Smithsonian Institution “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” While the full impact of this order is still unfolding, museums that rely on IMLS resources should take immediate steps to safeguard critical information. IMLS websites and databases may be taken down soon, limiting access to funding guidelines, research reports, and professional development materials. If your institution depends on these resources, now is the time to download and archive what you need.

If your museum has an active IMLS grant, there’s reason to believe that existing awards will be honored, but based on past experience with federal grant funding disruptions, delays are highly likely. Be proactive in communicating with your IMLS program officer, tracking your grant-related expenses, and preparing contingency plans for potential funding interruptions.

This Executive Order may also signal broader cuts to federal cultural funding. It wouldn’t be surprising to see similar threats to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), National Gallery of Art, and even the Smithsonian Institution. If these agencies are reduced or eliminated, the impact on museums, historic sites, and cultural organizations nationwide will be profound.

If your museum is affected by these potential cuts, now is the time to act. Inform your board, staff, members, and community stakeholders about what this means for your institution. Contact your elected representatives in Congress and urge them to protect federal support for museums, libraries, and cultural heritage. Without direct advocacy from the field, lawmakers may assume these cuts will go unnoticed.

For more details, see the full Executive Order here: White House Executive Orders.

Continue to speak up! Museums, historic sites, historical societies, and libraries matter—let’s make sure Congress knows it.

Rethinking Goals in History Organizations: A New Framework for Internal and External Impact

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:

Cognitive (Know) – Intellectual engagement and knowledge acquisition.
Affective (Feel) – Emotional and attitudinal responses.
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

Continue reading →

Building Lasting Museum Connections: The Four Levels of Audience Engagement

Imagine this: you’ve spent weeks planning a concert at your local history museum. You’ve arranged every detail, from booking a fantastic band to setting up the stage. The chairs are perfectly aligned, the lighting is just right, and the atmosphere feels full of possibility. But as the start time approaches, your excitement gives way to nervous glances at the clock. The parking lot remains empty. You keep hoping someone will arrive late, but after ten minutes, the seats are still vacant. The band—thankfully understanding—decides to use the time to practice, and while their music fills the room, you’re left grappling with embarrassment and frustration. Just a week earlier, a similar concert you organized thirty miles away had a packed house. What went wrong this time? How could the results be so different?

That happened to me early in my museum career and it was a humbling lesson. Perhaps you’ve faced similar moments—community events that fell flat, partnerships that fizzled, or publicity that didn’t attract attention. It’s easy to feel defeated when a community group declines to collaborate because their priorities don’t align, or when a business association’s objectives clash with the mission of interpreting artifacts rather than hosting public events. Sometimes, the problem is simply bandwidth—not enough staff to attend community meetings or follow up with volunteers. Community engagement can feel like a puzzle with a lot of missing pieces. But with the right tools, those challenges can transform into opportunities.

Continue reading →

Preserving History or Playing Politics? Marco Rubio Takes Over National Archives

In a significant reshuffling of federal leadership, President Donald Trump has appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio as the acting Archivist of the United States. This move follows the abrupt dismissal of Colleen Shogan, the former head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), earlier this month. The decision has raised concerns about the potential politicization of an agency traditionally known for its nonpartisan role in preserving the nation’s historical records.

The National Archives has recently been at the center of political tensions, particularly concerning its involvement in the Justice Department’s investigation into President Trump’s handling of classified documents post-presidency. The agency’s referral led to an FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, culminating in a federal indictment that was later dismissed. In the wake of these events, several senior staff members at NARA have resigned or been terminated, further intensifying debates about the agency’s future direction and independence.

To delve deeper into these developments, the podcast 1A hosted a discussion today titled “The National Archives and the Trump Administration.” The episode explores the implications of Secretary Rubio’s appointment, the recent upheavals within NARA, and what these changes mean for the preservation of America’s historical records. Listeners can access the episode on WAMU’s website.

As the situation continues to evolve, stakeholders and observers alike are closely monitoring how these leadership changes will impact the National Archives’ mission to safeguard the nation’s documentary heritage.

Sources

Gerstein, Josh and Kyle Cheney, “Trump Fires National Archives Chief,” Politico,(February 7, 2025).

Swenson, Ali and Gary Fields, “The National Archives Is Nonpartisan but Has Found Itself Targeted by Trump,” Associated Press (February 26, 2025).

How to Turn Exploratory Visitors into Loyal Fans

Museums and historic sites face a persistent challenge: how to transform mildly interested visitors into deeply engaged patrons. These exploratory visitors—those who follow your social media accounts, visit the website, or attend an occasional event—represent a critical audience segment with untapped potential. How can museums help these visitors feel more connected and motivated to return?

Three recent studies offer actionable insights into addressing this challenge: one on the power of framing and emotional relevance, another on the role of clear wayfinding in reducing visitor anxiety, and a third on the holistic visitor experience at heritage attractions.

Lesson 1: Framing and Emotional Relevance Matter

In “The Role of Framing, Agency, and Uncertainty in a Focus-Divide Dilemma,” Justin Claydon et al highlight how contextual framing—presenting information in a familiar, relatable way—dramatically improves motivation and engagement. When tasks are abstract or unfamiliar, people struggle to prioritize and engage effectively. Conversely, framing a task with real-world relevance reduces uncertainty and increases interest.

Continue reading →