Open Forum

Hello,

I work for a small museum that is focusing on becoming more visitor-centered.  I'm currently creating a Visitor Orientation Guideline that encourages all staff and volunteers to observe visitors and evaluate each interaction.  The first reason being that we want to collect information about the visitor experience to make adjustments in the future.  The second is to serve as a reminder for staff and volunteers to be friendly, engaging and helpful as they orient new and returning visitors to the museum.

For part of the evaluations, I wanted to create a rubric for staff and volunteers to make a quick, self-assessed rating for visitor engagement.  I want to emphasize that these ratings are completely subjective and exist only to provide a general reference to keep ratings on a comparable level.  The ratings are from 1-5, 1 being very unsuccessful and 5 being very successful.  While the ratings serve to assess the interaction as a whole, I primarily want staff and volunteers to use the rubric to rate their participation in the interaction.  For example, if a visitor left the museum with a positive review, seemed interested in returning, signed up for the e-newsletter and took brochures for future programs, the rating would be a 5.  However, when each staff explains the reason for their rating, I want them to focus on the ways in which they contributed to that interaction.

I was wondering if anyone could offer some general guidelines that they would use to assess visitor engagement.  Or, if more specifically, anyone had specific ideas for each rating (1,2,3,4,&5).

------------------------------
Michele Pierson
Visitor Engagement Facilitator
Wagner Free Institute of Science
------------------------------

Hi Michele,

Have you considered using a structure similar to the Net Promoter Score (NPS)? This is a general international satisfaction standard and used in many museums. 

In this example, the visitor would usually be asked "How likely is it that you would recommend this museum to a friend?" and the answer given out of 10 (0 being negative, 10 being positive). You can then summarize the results across the museum. Scores of 9 - 10 are 'promoters', scores of 0 - 6 are 'detractors' and anything in between (7 - 8) are Passive. To calculate the museum's net score, you subtract the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters, giving a score anything between 100 (excellent) to -100 (poor). This can then be benchmarked against other organizations, monitored over time, compared against a target, etc.

Aside from staff Q&A, this could be supported by a paper or electronic survey (e.g. on a tablet or emailed out), or even with a physical display (such as dropping a plastic token in a box). Usually the question is accompanied by the ability to capture feedback comments too. 


------------------------------
Angie Judge
CEO @ Dexibit
www.dexibit.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-27-2017 10:07 AM
From: Michele Pierson
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Hello,

I work for a small museum that is focusing on becoming more visitor-centered.  I'm currently creating a Visitor Orientation Guideline that encourages all staff and volunteers to observe visitors and evaluate each interaction.  The first reason being that we want to collect information about the visitor experience to make adjustments in the future.  The second is to serve as a reminder for staff and volunteers to be friendly, engaging and helpful as they orient new and returning visitors to the museum.

For part of the evaluations, I wanted to create a rubric for staff and volunteers to make a quick, self-assessed rating for visitor engagement.  I want to emphasize that these ratings are completely subjective and exist only to provide a general reference to keep ratings on a comparable level.  The ratings are from 1-5, 1 being very unsuccessful and 5 being very successful.  While the ratings serve to assess the interaction as a whole, I primarily want staff and volunteers to use the rubric to rate their participation in the interaction.  For example, if a visitor left the museum with a positive review, seemed interested in returning, signed up for the e-newsletter and took brochures for future programs, the rating would be a 5.  However, when each staff explains the reason for their rating, I want them to focus on the ways in which they contributed to that interaction.

I was wondering if anyone could offer some general guidelines that they would use to assess visitor engagement.  Or, if more specifically, anyone had specific ideas for each rating (1,2,3,4,&5).

------------------------------
Michele Pierson
Visitor Engagement Facilitator
Wagner Free Institute of Science
------------------------------

Michele,

The method you describe is too subjective to be of value. It depends on a museum staff's or volunteer's judgement of satisfaction, not the visitor's. I suggest you consult the literature on the subject. Start with Informalscience.org. Even if you cannot afford a professional evaluator, there are methods that are relatively simple yet more systematic and reliable than having a representative of the museum decide on a visit's relative success.

Good luck! It's worth the effort to be responsive to your visitors.

Ellen

------------------------------
Ellen Giusti
Independent Consultant
New York NY
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-30-2017 07:07 PM
From: Angie Judge
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Hi Michele,

Have you considered using a structure similar to the Net Promoter Score (NPS)? This is a general international satisfaction standard and used in many museums. 

In this example, the visitor would usually be asked "How likely is it that you would recommend this museum to a friend?" and the answer given out of 10 (0 being negative, 10 being positive). You can then summarize the results across the museum. Scores of 9 - 10 are 'promoters', scores of 0 - 6 are 'detractors' and anything in between (7 - 8) are Passive. To calculate the museum's net score, you subtract the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters, giving a score anything between 100 (excellent) to -100 (poor). This can then be benchmarked against other organizations, monitored over time, compared against a target, etc.

Aside from staff Q&A, this could be supported by a paper or electronic survey (e.g. on a tablet or emailed out), or even with a physical display (such as dropping a plastic token in a box). Usually the question is accompanied by the ability to capture feedback comments too. 


------------------------------
Angie Judge
CEO @ Dexibit
www.dexibit.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-27-2017 10:07 AM
From: Michele Pierson
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Hello,

I work for a small museum that is focusing on becoming more visitor-centered.  I'm currently creating a Visitor Orientation Guideline that encourages all staff and volunteers to observe visitors and evaluate each interaction.  The first reason being that we want to collect information about the visitor experience to make adjustments in the future.  The second is to serve as a reminder for staff and volunteers to be friendly, engaging and helpful as they orient new and returning visitors to the museum.

For part of the evaluations, I wanted to create a rubric for staff and volunteers to make a quick, self-assessed rating for visitor engagement.  I want to emphasize that these ratings are completely subjective and exist only to provide a general reference to keep ratings on a comparable level.  The ratings are from 1-5, 1 being very unsuccessful and 5 being very successful.  While the ratings serve to assess the interaction as a whole, I primarily want staff and volunteers to use the rubric to rate their participation in the interaction.  For example, if a visitor left the museum with a positive review, seemed interested in returning, signed up for the e-newsletter and took brochures for future programs, the rating would be a 5.  However, when each staff explains the reason for their rating, I want them to focus on the ways in which they contributed to that interaction.

I was wondering if anyone could offer some general guidelines that they would use to assess visitor engagement.  Or, if more specifically, anyone had specific ideas for each rating (1,2,3,4,&5).

------------------------------
Michele Pierson
Visitor Engagement Facilitator
Wagner Free Institute of Science
------------------------------

Thank you for your feedback.  I understand your point and we are definitely making efforts to get each visitor's opinion. The visitor evaluation rubric is to be considered in conjunction with a visitor feedback survey.  The rubric serves to ensure that staff and volunteers maximize their engagement efforts.  I'm interested in their subjective ratings as well as visitor feedback to evaluate each engagement from both vantage points.  I will check out the website you mentioned.  Thanks again!

------------------------------
Michele Pierson
Visitor Engagement Facilitator
Wagner Free Institute of Science
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-31-2017 08:41 AM
From: Ellen Giusti
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Michele,

The method you describe is too subjective to be of value. It depends on a museum staff's or volunteer's judgement of satisfaction, not the visitor's. I suggest you consult the literature on the subject. Start with Informalscience.org. Even if you cannot afford a professional evaluator, there are methods that are relatively simple yet more systematic and reliable than having a representative of the museum decide on a visit's relative success.

Good luck! It's worth the effort to be responsive to your visitors.

Ellen

------------------------------
Ellen Giusti
Independent Consultant
New York NY
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-30-2017 07:07 PM
From: Angie Judge
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Hi Michele,

Have you considered using a structure similar to the Net Promoter Score (NPS)? This is a general international satisfaction standard and used in many museums. 

In this example, the visitor would usually be asked "How likely is it that you would recommend this museum to a friend?" and the answer given out of 10 (0 being negative, 10 being positive). You can then summarize the results across the museum. Scores of 9 - 10 are 'promoters', scores of 0 - 6 are 'detractors' and anything in between (7 - 8) are Passive. To calculate the museum's net score, you subtract the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters, giving a score anything between 100 (excellent) to -100 (poor). This can then be benchmarked against other organizations, monitored over time, compared against a target, etc.

Aside from staff Q&A, this could be supported by a paper or electronic survey (e.g. on a tablet or emailed out), or even with a physical display (such as dropping a plastic token in a box). Usually the question is accompanied by the ability to capture feedback comments too. 


------------------------------
Angie Judge
CEO @ Dexibit
www.dexibit.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-27-2017 10:07 AM
From: Michele Pierson
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Hello,

I work for a small museum that is focusing on becoming more visitor-centered.  I'm currently creating a Visitor Orientation Guideline that encourages all staff and volunteers to observe visitors and evaluate each interaction.  The first reason being that we want to collect information about the visitor experience to make adjustments in the future.  The second is to serve as a reminder for staff and volunteers to be friendly, engaging and helpful as they orient new and returning visitors to the museum.

For part of the evaluations, I wanted to create a rubric for staff and volunteers to make a quick, self-assessed rating for visitor engagement.  I want to emphasize that these ratings are completely subjective and exist only to provide a general reference to keep ratings on a comparable level.  The ratings are from 1-5, 1 being very unsuccessful and 5 being very successful.  While the ratings serve to assess the interaction as a whole, I primarily want staff and volunteers to use the rubric to rate their participation in the interaction.  For example, if a visitor left the museum with a positive review, seemed interested in returning, signed up for the e-newsletter and took brochures for future programs, the rating would be a 5.  However, when each staff explains the reason for their rating, I want them to focus on the ways in which they contributed to that interaction.

I was wondering if anyone could offer some general guidelines that they would use to assess visitor engagement.  Or, if more specifically, anyone had specific ideas for each rating (1,2,3,4,&5).

------------------------------
Michele Pierson
Visitor Engagement Facilitator
Wagner Free Institute of Science
------------------------------

Thanks so much for your feedback!  I'll definitely implement this into our survey for visitor feedback. 

------------------------------
Michele Pierson
Visitor Engagement Facilitator
Wagner Free Institute of Science
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-30-2017 07:07 PM
From: Angie Judge
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Hi Michele,

Have you considered using a structure similar to the Net Promoter Score (NPS)? This is a general international satisfaction standard and used in many museums. 

In this example, the visitor would usually be asked "How likely is it that you would recommend this museum to a friend?" and the answer given out of 10 (0 being negative, 10 being positive). You can then summarize the results across the museum. Scores of 9 - 10 are 'promoters', scores of 0 - 6 are 'detractors' and anything in between (7 - 8) are Passive. To calculate the museum's net score, you subtract the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters, giving a score anything between 100 (excellent) to -100 (poor). This can then be benchmarked against other organizations, monitored over time, compared against a target, etc.

Aside from staff Q&A, this could be supported by a paper or electronic survey (e.g. on a tablet or emailed out), or even with a physical display (such as dropping a plastic token in a box). Usually the question is accompanied by the ability to capture feedback comments too. 


------------------------------
Angie Judge
CEO @ Dexibit
www.dexibit.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-27-2017 10:07 AM
From: Michele Pierson
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Hello,

I work for a small museum that is focusing on becoming more visitor-centered.  I'm currently creating a Visitor Orientation Guideline that encourages all staff and volunteers to observe visitors and evaluate each interaction.  The first reason being that we want to collect information about the visitor experience to make adjustments in the future.  The second is to serve as a reminder for staff and volunteers to be friendly, engaging and helpful as they orient new and returning visitors to the museum.

For part of the evaluations, I wanted to create a rubric for staff and volunteers to make a quick, self-assessed rating for visitor engagement.  I want to emphasize that these ratings are completely subjective and exist only to provide a general reference to keep ratings on a comparable level.  The ratings are from 1-5, 1 being very unsuccessful and 5 being very successful.  While the ratings serve to assess the interaction as a whole, I primarily want staff and volunteers to use the rubric to rate their participation in the interaction.  For example, if a visitor left the museum with a positive review, seemed interested in returning, signed up for the e-newsletter and took brochures for future programs, the rating would be a 5.  However, when each staff explains the reason for their rating, I want them to focus on the ways in which they contributed to that interaction.

I was wondering if anyone could offer some general guidelines that they would use to assess visitor engagement.  Or, if more specifically, anyone had specific ideas for each rating (1,2,3,4,&5).

------------------------------
Michele Pierson
Visitor Engagement Facilitator
Wagner Free Institute of Science
------------------------------

The follow up questions have been most useful to us when using a net promoter score. This let's us know specifically what we are doing really well and where we fall short. 

------------------------------
Ly Foor
Manager of Visitor Studies
Ohio History Center - Ohio History Connection
Columbus OH
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-30-2017 07:07 PM
From: Angie Judge
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Hi Michele,

Have you considered using a structure similar to the Net Promoter Score (NPS)? This is a general international satisfaction standard and used in many museums. 

In this example, the visitor would usually be asked "How likely is it that you would recommend this museum to a friend?" and the answer given out of 10 (0 being negative, 10 being positive). You can then summarize the results across the museum. Scores of 9 - 10 are 'promoters', scores of 0 - 6 are 'detractors' and anything in between (7 - 8) are Passive. To calculate the museum's net score, you subtract the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters, giving a score anything between 100 (excellent) to -100 (poor). This can then be benchmarked against other organizations, monitored over time, compared against a target, etc.

Aside from staff Q&A, this could be supported by a paper or electronic survey (e.g. on a tablet or emailed out), or even with a physical display (such as dropping a plastic token in a box). Usually the question is accompanied by the ability to capture feedback comments too. 


------------------------------
Angie Judge
CEO @ Dexibit
www.dexibit.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-27-2017 10:07 AM
From: Michele Pierson
Subject: Evaluating Successful Visitor Engagement

Hello,

I work for a small museum that is focusing on becoming more visitor-centered.  I'm currently creating a Visitor Orientation Guideline that encourages all staff and volunteers to observe visitors and evaluate each interaction.  The first reason being that we want to collect information about the visitor experience to make adjustments in the future.  The second is to serve as a reminder for staff and volunteers to be friendly, engaging and helpful as they orient new and returning visitors to the museum.

For part of the evaluations, I wanted to create a rubric for staff and volunteers to make a quick, self-assessed rating for visitor engagement.  I want to emphasize that these ratings are completely subjective and exist only to provide a general reference to keep ratings on a comparable level.  The ratings are from 1-5, 1 being very unsuccessful and 5 being very successful.  While the ratings serve to assess the interaction as a whole, I primarily want staff and volunteers to use the rubric to rate their participation in the interaction.  For example, if a visitor left the museum with a positive review, seemed interested in returning, signed up for the e-newsletter and took brochures for future programs, the rating would be a 5.  However, when each staff explains the reason for their rating, I want them to focus on the ways in which they contributed to that interaction.

I was wondering if anyone could offer some general guidelines that they would use to assess visitor engagement.  Or, if more specifically, anyone had specific ideas for each rating (1,2,3,4,&5).

------------------------------
Michele Pierson
Visitor Engagement Facilitator
Wagner Free Institute of Science
------------------------------