Join us in Los Angeles from September 17 to 20, 2006for this year’s Annual IAMFA Conference. The Los AngelesCounty Museum of Art, the Museum of Contemporary Art,and the J. Paul Getty Center will be your hosts for this year’sevent. During the conference, we will be visiting numerousLos Angeles museums, so prepare for plenty of touringand presentations on topics of interest to you as museumfacility managers.

Given the extent and cultural diversity of the Los Angelesarea, it is sure to offer something for everyone. Hollywoodand L.A.’s beach culture are part of the collective image ofLos Angeles — to say nothing of the fact there are moremuseums in Los Angeles than in any other city in the UnitedStates. Some of the best hotels in the world are also locatedhere, including Santa Monica’s Fairmont Miramar Hotelwhere we’ve arranged accommodations. Take a look atthe hotel by visiting their website at www.fairmont.com/santamonica. Nestled atop the scenic bluffs of Santa Monicabeach, it has panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean. Originally

the site of a private mansion owned by John P. Jones, aformer U.S. Senator and the founder of Santa Monica, theFairmont Miramar Hotel Santa Monica has served as anexclusive playground for Hollywood celebrities, and a quietretreat for guests, since 1921. Please visit the IAMFA websiteat www.iamfa.org to register for this year’s conference. Theregistration sheet will ask you to contact the hotel directlyto make reservations — please don’t forget to mentionthe IAMFA conference to receive the special rate forconference attendees.

Los Angeles has more than 80 stage theaters and 300museums — more than any city in the country. Our desertimage of a water oasis with palm trees everywhere hasan annual rainfall of only 15 inches (38 cm). Los Angelesis rimmed with miles of beaches, and its shipping port isnot only the busiest in the U.S. but one of the busiest inthe world. September is a wonderful time of year to visitLos Angeles. Temperatures are mild, with cool evenings.

PAPYRUSVOLUME 7 SPRINGNUMBER 1 2006

I N T E R N A T I O N A L A S S O C I A T I O N O F M U S E U M F A C I L I T Y A D M I N I S T R A T O R S

INSIDE THIS ISSUEMessage from the President . . . . . 3

Fire Protection and the British Library Repository . . . . . . . 4

The 2005 IAMFA Conference in Bilbao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Guest Perspective on the IAMFA Annual Conference . . . . . . 16

Regional Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

IAMFA Members Directory 2006 . . 19

2005 Benchmarking Review . . . . . 24

Benchmarking Update . . . . . . . . . 26

Letter from the Editor. . . . . . . . . . 28

L.A. Confidential — The 16th Annual IAMFAConference 2006

continued on page 2

Aerial view of the Getty Center.

JOH

N S

TEPH

EN

S ©

J. P

AU

L G

ETTY

TR

UST

2

The Getty Center (www.getty.edu) is the flagshipmuseum of the J. Paul Getty Trust. The 110-acre campus islocated on a hill in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles.The Getty Center is high enough that on a clear day, it ispossible to see the snow at Big Bear as well as the PacificOcean and the entire Los Angeles basin. There are 86 acresof gardens and terraces, and 600 acres of surrounding hill-sides left in their natural state. Visitors are transported fromthe main parking area, three-quarters of a mile up the moun-tain on an emission-free electric tram that glides on a cushionof air generated by electric blowers. This is the only tramsystem of its kind on the West Coast of the United States.

The Getty Center collects and exhibits classical sculptureand art, European paintings, drawings, manuscripts, sculp-ture, decorative arts and photographs. In 1997, the museummoved to its current location in Los Angeles, and the origi-nal Malibu museum, renamed the “Getty Villa”, was closedfor renovation.

The Villa re-opened in January, and we plan to includea visit to the new Villa during this year’s conference. TheVilla is dedicated to Greek, Roman, and Etruscan antiquities.

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art, known locallyas LACMA (www.lacma.org), is the premier encyclopedicvisual arts museum in the western United States. Originallyestablished as part of the Los Angeles County Museum ofNatural History, Science and the Arts in early 1900, it relo-cated to its present 24-acre campus in the mid-Wilshire areain 1965. As an independent institution, the Museum hasassembled a collection of approximately 100,000 worksfrom around the world, spanning the history of art fromancient times to the present. Through its far-reaching col-lections and extensive public programs, the museum isboth a resource to, and a reflection of, the many culturalcommunities in Southern California.

As one of the region’s foremost public art museums,located in the heart of one of the most culturally diverse

cities in the world, LACMA serves as a cultural “village green”for the people who live in, work in, and visit Los Angeles.

Since its founding, LACMA has undergone an enormousphysical expansion, driven by its achievements in exhibi-tion, collection and scholarship, as well as a growing rolewithin the fabric of the Los Angeles community. Coveringmore than 700,000 square feet, the museum currently includessix buildings on Wilshire Boulevard’s “Miracle Mile”, betweendowntown Los Angeles and Beverly Hills.

The Museum of Contemporary Art — MOCA(www.moca.org) — is the only museum in Los Angelesdevoted exclusively to contemporary art. Founded in 1979,MOCA is committed to the collection, presentation andinterpretation of work produced since 1940 in all media,and to the preservation of that work for future generations.MOCA offers a variety of exhibitions, collections, educa-tional events, and publications. The Museum is currentlyhoused in three facilities: MOCA Grand Avenue, MOCA atThe Geffen Contemporary in Little Tokyo, and MOCA atthe Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood. If you loveContemporary Art, this is one of the finest museums in theUnited States. Exhibitions are always mind-blowing, andleave you with a refreshing new look at contemporary art.

This year’s conference will feature an exciting GuestProgram, including a day at Universal Studios. There willalso be a harbor dinner cruise offering panoramic viewsof the city and coastal areas.

Lodging during the conference will be in Santa Monicanear the beaches and the Santa Monica 3rd Street Promenade.Please refer to the conference registration form at www.iamfa.org, and contact the hotel directly, mentioning theIAMFA conference when booking your room.

We are looking forward to seeing everyone thisSeptember in Los Angeles, and will do our very bestto match the terrific experience at last year’s conferencein Bilbao.

L.A. Confidential — continued from page 1

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art. MOCA Grand Avenue. MOCA Grand Avenue.

MA

RIS

SA R

OTH

MA

RIS

SA R

OTH

3

Getting on with IAMFABusinessIt’s hard to believe that several monthshave already past since our annualconference in Bilbao. My family andI thoroughly enjoyed the company ofour colleagues and their spouses, ourhosts, and the hospitality of the Basquepeople. I take this opportunity to onceagain thank Rogelio Diez and RobertoCearsolo for producing a truly wonder-ful and very informative conference.Their hard work, very structured orga-nization, dedication and support fromtheir staff and colleagues have madethis conference one that we will neverforget. I would also like to thank allof the speakers whose excellent pre-sentations were most appreciated bythe delegates, encouraging much dis-cussion among the IAMFA membersin attendance.

Since our annual conference lastSeptember, your Board of Directors hasbeen busy working behind the scenes.Richard Kowalczyk has updated ourIAMFA website to include changes tothe Board of Directors, information onthe IAMFA 2006 Annual Conference inLos Angeles, the new IAMFA MuseumBenchmarks of Survey of Facility Man-agement Practices, etc. I invite you allto visit our website to stay abreast ofour activities.

Jim Moisson has put a lot of effortinto working with our financial institu-tion to allow credit card payments formembership via the website. Becauseof his dedication to keeping IAMFA’saccounts in order, we are once againthis year operating with a surplus. Jimis also preparing the IAMFA member-ship mail-out that you should havereceived by now.

Your IAMFA Secretary and PapyrusEditor, Dan Davies, has worked hard

to publish this issue of Papyrus — hisfirst since taking on this new role onthe Board of Directors. Dan will belooking for contributions of articlesfrom members, so please be proactiveand share your experiences througha Papyrus article.

John de Lucy has been very active inputting order in the Regional Chapterlists and assisting Richard Kowalczykwith the website updates, as well asmaking contact with Chapter membersto encourage activity in their regions.John is also working on sending outletters to as many Presidents and CEOsof Museums and Cultural Institutions inthe world as possible. My membershipwith ICOM has provided me with accessto their membership lists, and I havebeen working with John on this task.

You will be happy to know thatIAMFA has created new committeesto perform more detailed work for theBoard of Directors. Each committeehas a chairperson who will report to aBoard member, and may be composedof all types of IAMFA members. Thecommittees established so far are theBenchmarking Committee chaired byKeith McClanahan of Facility Issues,the Outreach Committee chaired byJohn de Lucy, and a committee chairedby Jack Plumb dealing with the U.K.emissions initiative, which aims at hav-ing buildings labeled with a recognizedstandard such as the one proposed byIAMFA. We expect that, as these com-mittees make progress in their respec-tive areas of responsibility, they willbe able to share their progress withmembers through articles publishedin future issues of Papyrus.

Joe May has already made excellentprogress with the planning of our 2006Annual Conference in Los Angeles.This promises to be another excellentconference, and I urge you to visit ourwebsite to obtain more information ondates and places.

Finally, the results of the strategicplanning session that we had in Bilbaoare being organized, so that we can

begin to gather feedback from all IAMFAmembers on the priorities that IAMFAshould be considering over the nextfive years. The establishment of thecommittees as discussed at the Stra-tegic Planning brainstorming sessionin Bilbao is already one step ahead ofthis process, and is a positive initiativetowards achieving IAMFA’s longer-termobjectives.

As you can see, IAMFA businesscontinues to progress because of thededication and hard work of yourBoard and of other IAMFA members.These efforts are truly appreciated andI look forward to the future success ofour association.

Guy Larocque, P.Eng.President, IAMFA

Message from the President

Guy Larocque,President of IAMFA

IAMFA Board of Directors PresidentGuy LarocqueCanadian Museum of Civilization andCanadian War Museum, Gatineau, Canadaguy.larocque@civilization.ca

V.P., AdministrationRichard KowalczykSmithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,USAkowalczykr@nasm.si.edu

V.P., Regional AffairsJohn de LucyThe British Library, London, U.K.john.delucy@bl.uk

TreasurerJim MoissonHarvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA, USAjames_moisson@harvard.edu

Secretary and Papyrus EditorDaniel H. DaviesSmithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,USAddavies@si.edu

Chairman — Conference 2006Joseph E. MayJ. Paul Getty Trust, Los Angeles, CA, USAjmay@getty.edu

For additional contact information,please visit our website at

www.iamfa.org

Fire Protection and the British Library Repository

4

In recent years, the British Library hasidentified a need to facilitate automa-tion of its collections, leading to thecreation of a new repository. The repos-itory will be fully automated, deliveringand receiving totes from a conveyor beltwhich connects to the smaller ancillarystaff area (picking area) where booksare selected, then loaded for dispatch orreceived for storage. The repository isapproximately 80 meters (262 feet) long,50 meters (164 feet) wide and 24 meters(78 feet) high, providing a total volumeof 96,000m3 (3.4 million cu. ft.)

The repository will store irreplace-able documents, and the British Libraryrequires that the repository shouldcomply as fully as possible with BS(British Standard) 5454 “Recommenda-tion for the storage and exhibition ofarchival documents“. This Code ofPractice lays out the environmental con-ditions that must be achieved, and themeasures that should be taken to limitrisk to the collection. Fire is identified asa key risk, and Section 6 of the BritishStandard details the measures thatshould be taken to mitigate against it.

Applying Section 6 of the BritishStandard to this repository is not simple,in that the repository is significantlylarger than the typical archive buildingfor which the Code of Practice waswritten. In addition, with the exceptionof the ancillary staff area, it is a stand-alone building rather than being partof a larger building, as is more typical.Finally, and possibly most significantly,it is not possible to remove one of themain ignition risks (i.e., the automationsystem), by isolating the electrical sup-ply when not in use. The British Librarythus requested that possible approachesto fire prevention, detection and sup-pression be identified, the links betweenthem explained, and their costs set out.The Library has also requested that therole of providing fire compartmentsalso be considered and explained.

Given the unusual nature of therepository, the approach adopted inthe United States — as outlined inNFPA 909 “Fire Protection of CulturalResources” — has been reviewed todetermine if there is any applicableguidance. No equivalent European

standard has been identified whichcould be similarly reviewed. However,some relevant guidance on constructionhas been identified in the LPC DesignGuide for the fire protection of buildings2000, and this is discussed within thesection on Fire Compartmentalization.

The risk of a serious fire occurringin the archive building — given itshigh level of protection against arson,and the fact that it is a modern build-ing — remains low. As such, the fire-protection strategy will guard against alow-risk event that has high-potentialconsequences.

There are two main approaches tofire protection:

1. Fire Prevention — preventing firesfrom occurring in the first place.

2. Fire Suppression — containing orextinguishing fires once they havestarted.

Fire PreventionGeneralIn principle, prevention offers the mosteffective approach to fire protection

Artist’s rendition of the new British Library Repository.

by John de Lucy

5

because, if it can be prevented fromoccurring, there will be no conse-quential damage. To prevent a fireoccurring you have to remove oneof the following:

• fuel;• ignition source; or• oxygen.

Removing the fuel from the repos-itory is not practical, given that it storescombustibles. As for the ignition source,as an unoccupied warehouse, therepository’s principal ignition sourceis its automation equipment. The prac-ticality of modifying the automationequipment to prevent it from pro-viding the necessary ignition sourceis discussed below. As for oxygen, alow-oxygen system creates an inertatmosphere which reduces the con-centration of oxygen. The applicationof a low-oxygen environment to therepository is also discussed below.

Fire-Safe AutomationWithin the repository’s automationequipment, electrical motors, wiringand mechanical drives are all potentialsources of ignition. Sensible steps canbe taken to limit the potential for thisby, for example, fitting the electricmotors with thermistors. However,if removing the ignition source is tobe adopted as the repository’s fire-

prevention strategy, it will be necessaryto apply a holistic approach whicheliminates all potential sources.

Sources of ignition are not generallyeliminated in commercial building con-struction, so practices adopted in thenuclear, offshore and chemical industrywere reviewed instead. Unlike com-mercial construction, these industriesdo employ protected electrics to preventignition in flammable atmospheres, butwork on the principle of excluding theatmosphere. In highly hazardous areas,which must include only intrinsicallysafe automation equipment, pneumaticsare used instead of electrics. There arealso proprietary products, such as self-contained suppression systems, to pro-tect motors, computer cabinets, etc.However, the applicability of theseproducts to the proposed automationequipment is not clear.

It is therefore clear that, while reduc-ing the risk of ignition from the auto-mation system is not impossible, itcannot be achieved with off-the-shelftechnology, and achieving it wouldrequire significant development withautomation contractors.

Powering DownComputer rooms are similar to reposi-tories, in that the risk of fire is low, butthey are often fire-protected becausethe consequence of a fire would behigh. In such cases, the recommended

first line of defense is early detectionand rapid powering-down. This enablesan investigation to determine if remedialaction should be taken, such as theremoval of faulty equipment. As dis-cussed below, the new British LibraryRepository will be provided with ahigh-sensitivity fire-detection system,which should be able to detect an over-heating component before ignition hasoccurred. Rapid powering-down ofall electrical supplies upon first detec-tion is thus considered a worthwhilefire precaution.

At the same time that automatedsystems are shut down, considerationcould be given to shutting down theair-conditioning system as well, inorder to reduce forced ventilation andeliminate another potential ignition/fire source.

Low OxygenThe principal benefit of a low-oxygensystem is that, because it will preventa fire from occurring, there should beno consequential damage to the archive.The system achieves an inert atmosphereby forcing compressed air through amolecular sieve, which strips away theoxygen molecules to produce a nitrogen-rich atmosphere. The system will reducethe oxygen concentration to 15%, downfrom the normal 21%, at which com-bustion will not occur, although forcedpyrolosis could still occur.

The principle of maintaining an inertatmosphere to prevent fire has beenapplied in the nuclear and defenseindustry, but is not yet widespread.Over 100 systems — some of whichwere for buildings larger than theproposed repository — have beeninstalled in Europe over the past sixyears. This is inconsequential, how-ever, when compared to the proventrack record of sprinkler and water-mist systems. It should thus be recog-nized that, while low oxygen offers,in principle, the most effective fire-protection strategy, the Library anddesign team will be pioneering a newapproach to archive protection.

Floorplan for the First Floor of the new British Library Repository. continued on page 6

6

A low-oxygen system comprises acompressor, a molecular sieve and anoxygen-sensing device that samples theair over many points to ensure that itremains at the required 15% oxygenconcentration. A unique advantage ofa low-oxygen system is that the pipesused to check oxygen concentrationcan also be used for smoke detection.Given the irreplaceable nature of thearchived materials, the system wouldbe provided with a standby compressorand standby molecular sieve to providea high level of redundancy. The powersupply to the compressors and thesensing equipment would also beprovided with standby power.

The other element in the system isthe building’s fabric. In order to main-taining an inert atmosphere, the build-ing must be as airtight as possible. Therepository can be designed to achievethis, and its integrity will be testedupon completion to ensure that theinstalled low-oxygen system willachieve the required nitrogen con-centration. However, the building’sintegrity will need to be maintainedover the building’s life, which may havelong-term maintenance implications.

Events such as the removal of acrane, which requires the building tobe opened up, will result in the archivebeing unprotected for a period of timeas normal air enters the building. Oncethe atmosphere is normalized, it wouldtake approximately 75 hours to return itto a 15% oxygen concentration. Unplan-ned events, such as accidental damage

to the building envelope, could simi-larly result in the archive being unpro-tected. Should all plant systems fail, thebuilding’s atmosphere would remaininert for 90 hours.

A low-oxygen system has higherrunning costs than suppression sys-tems. Depending on the degree of air-tightness, a compressor rated between55 and 65 kW would be required forapproximately seven hours. Maintenanceof the system would include normalcompressor maintenance and annualinspection of the oxygen-sensingsystem and the molecular sieve.

With a 15% oxygen concentration,the repository would be classified as aconfined space. Therefore, while itwould be safe for the Library staff toenter the repository for regular main-tenance tasks, full confined-space pro-cedures will need to be developed andfollowed. Ironically, if things go wrongand air enters, the space gets safer!

Within the 70-year anticipated designlife of the building, there will be a needto replace the major mechanical ele-ments of the plant; i.e., the compressors.These will be in daily use; however,providing that they are well maintained,the anticipated replacement periodwould be approximately every 20 to25 years. The molecular sieve (nitrogengenerator) would require replacingevery 10 years.

The plant for the low-oxygen systemwill be housed outside the repository,and plant replacement will thereforebe an economic cost and management

issue, rather than affecting the reposi-tory’s protection strategy. For example,the benefit of having a 100% standbycapacity is that replacement of com-pressors replacement and nitrogen gen-erators would be phased-in, so that therepository always remains protected.

Staff AreaThe support building will be separatedby a four-hour fire-resistant compart-ment wall; thus, any fire within it shouldnot directly affect the repository con-tents. There are no significant issuesassociated with achieving a reasonablelevel of life safety in this part of thebuilding, and the only active fire-pre-caution measure required for BuildingRegulations is a fire-alarm system. How-ever, a fire in the support building coulddamage any part of the collection whichis in transit, as well as the conveyorsystem, thus halting operations. TheAutomation Consultant advised that,if the conveyor belts were damaged,it could take several weeks before theconveyors could be reinstated and thebuilding resume normal operations.

The support area will benefit frombeing staffed when in operation, andgood fire-safety procedures could beconsidered to provide an effective fire-precaution strategy for most buildingsof this size. These procedures will needto encompass good standards of house-keeping, having all staff trained in theuse of fire extinguishers, and beingfamiliar with emergency procedures.

Automatic Fire DetectionRecommended MethodThe British Standard recommends thata Type P1 automatic fire-detectionsystem be installed throughout. Thislevel of coverage ensures that all areasare protected with automatic fire detec-tion. The Code of Practice also recom-mends that it might be desirable toinstall a high-sensitivity fire-detectionsystem which is designed to detect afire in its incipient stage, before anysmoke, heat or flame is produced.East Elevation of the new British Library Repository.

Fire Protection and the British Library Repository — continued from page 5

7

An aspirating system is the recom-mended method of smoke detectionfor the repository. It meets the recom-mendations of the British Standard, inthat this type of system can be 1,000times more sensitive to the early signalsof fire than conventional point detec-tors. Aspirating detection is also com-monly used in high-rack storage, as amatter of best practice. This is becausesampling the environment at severallevels, via the pipes running verticallywithin the racks, overcomes the prob-lem of early smoke stratification (smokenot reaching high enough levels) thatwould render point detectors ineffectivein this environment.

An aspirating smoke detection sys-tem might sense a fire at a very earlystage, but in this large repository itwill only be able to provide an approx-imate location. The principal benefitof early detection is to enable the auto-mation system to be rapidly powereddown (as the most likely ignitionsource), and any faults investigatedwithin it.

With aspirating systems, false alarmsare prevented by enabling the systemto “learn” the background environmentit will see in the non-fire conditionduring the commissioning period. Thesystem is then set to recognize fire sig-nals in addition to the normal conditionsthat it is constantly sampling.

Secondary Smoke-Detection SystemThe British Library’s conservatorsexpressed their preference for a sec-ondary smoke-detection system whichwould act as a backup to the aspiratingsystem. However, while beam detectionis relatively simple, it is not sensitiveenough. A fire at the ground-floor levelwould have to become large enoughto be clearly visible before the beamwould likely detect it. Point detectorsare impractical, because a large numberwould have to be incorporated withinthe racking. Infrared or ultravioletdetectors are line-of-sight devices whichwould need to be automated to enablethem to scan the stacks and allow forthe crane’s motion. Furthermore, they

are actually best-suited for detectingclean-burning fires that would be pro-duced in spirit stores, for example. There are other methods of detection,such as sensing for carbon monoxide,which is present in all fires — often inlarge quantities. It might even be prac-tical to modify low-oxygen sensing tosample for CO as well as oxygen, andhave a separate conventional aspiratingsmoke-detection system to providetwo separate smoke-detection systems.

SuppressionThe British Standard recommends onlythe consideration of fire suppressionfor maximum protection. Thus, anysystem could be considered to com-pensate for the additional risk presentedby the automation system. NFPA 909recommends the adoption of a sprinklersystem.

Other fire-protection measures whichwere considered and discounted aredetailed in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1 — DISCOUNTED METHODS

Method Means Reasons

Inert gas

Chemical gas (FM200)

If either of the above gases was discharged inadvertently, the archive would beunaffected, but there would be a large cost associated with replacing the“wasted” gases, during which time the archive would not be protected.

Cycling sprinkler systems

High-expansion foam

Powder suppressant system

Suppressant mounted on crane

Smoke ventilation

Displaces oxygen

Uses a refrigerant thatextinguishes the fire bychemical action.

Acts as a sprinklersystem, but wateris turned off whenautomatic detectionsenses that the fire hasbeen dealt with.

Fills large spaces, pre-venting combustionby excluding oxygen.

Delivers powder tothe fire source, whichacts by halting thechain reaction in thecombustion process.

Puts out the fire locally.

Designed to keepsmoke above the levelof stock to protect itfrom damage.

Repository is much larger thanavailable systems can handle.

As above; in addition, becauseonly low concentrations byvolume are required, it needsa relatively airtightenvironment to be effective.

Cannot be applied to therepository, because of difficul-ties in accurately sensing thestate of any fire. Also, in theU.S. there have been practicalfailures in which the heatdetectors which turn off thewater supply have beencooled by the sprinkler,causing the water flow tohalt while there is still a fire.

Rejected for the repository: ifit went into operation, everysingle tote would need to bedecontaminated afterward.

Rejected because it wasdeveloped for more localizedapplications, in which floodingassistance helps effectiveness.

Not considered workable,because of the time delaybetween the fire beingdetected and the robotreaching it.

A system that kept smokeabove the highest level ofstock could not practicallybe provided. (N.B.: Smokeclearance as required by BS5454 will be provided.)

continued on page 8

8

SprinklersSprinklers work simply by puttingwater onto the fire source. A pointoften misunderstood about sprinklersis that they are thermally operated andtherefore only sprinklers close to thefire are activated. NFPA 909 suggeststhat 70% of fires are controlled by foursprinkler heads or less.

The disadvantage of thermal-operatedsprinklers is that they require a reason-able fire to operate, and damage to thearchive would inevitably occur. Thisdamage would include direct fire dam-age, smoke contamination and waterdamage from sprinkler run-off. How-ever, it is stressed that a sprinkler headwill typically deliver 65 litres per minute,whereas a fire brigade hose will deliver1,000 litres per minute, making thelatter far more like to cause extensivewater damage.

A sprinkler system for the repositorywould comprise in-rack sprinklers toensure that they operate at an earlystage. The extent of damage that islikely to occur in the event of suc-cessful sprinkler operation is not easyto estimate. The best indication is

given by reference to the case studiesprovided in NFPA 909. These referto 29 library fires that have occurredin the U.S. and elsewhere. Of these,23 libraries had no sprinklers or hadonly partial sprinkler protection. Inthe majority of these fires, damagewas extensive. In the six incidents inwhich sprinklers had been provided,the extent of damage was reduced,as shown in Table 2 below.

The repository’s sprinkler systemwill comprise heads positioned atthe front of the racks and in the flues.Heads will be provided at every level,alternating between the front of therack, then in the flue and so on. Inorder to enable the supplier to providecost and plant estimates, it was neces-sary to assume that there would be25 layers of totes that were 600 mmhigh, with a 150 mm gap betweeneach tote and the sprinkler head.

The system would include thefollowing components:

• the heads within the racks;

• the pipe work;

• sprinkler zone valves, and

• sprinkler tanks and pumps. Twotanks would be provided, so ifone had to be drained for main-tenance, the other would remainavailable. There would be a dutyand a standby pump.

The sprinkler system would need tobe a closed system, and a small jockeypump will maintain system pressure,requiring a small amount of electricalpower. The main pumps will only berun for a short period to ensure thatthey will operate when required.

Maintenance requirements wouldbe fairly minimal, involving weeklyoperation of the sprinkler valves andthe pumps. In addition, an annualinspection should be carried out. Thereare numerous approved contractorswho could do this, irrespective of whosupplies and installs the system.

A more significant factor is the rec-ommendation that a foam additive beprovided. The foam additive AFFFwould be introduced into the sprinklerwater via a bladder tank and a propor-tioning valve, as only 3% by volume isrequired. It would be released throughthe normal sprinkler heads and foamsupon contact with air. By forming afoam blanket, AFFF generally improvesthe suppression system’s effectivenessby excluding air from the seat of the fire.

The sprinkler system’s mechanicalplant would have to be replaced withinthe repository’s lifespan. The duty andstandby pumps would be run on aregular basis only to test their operation,would be well maintained, and shouldnot wear out. However, it is usualindustry practice to assume that theywill require replacing every 25 years.As with the low-oxygen plant, becausethey are housed outside of the reposi-tory and have a 100% standby, theirreplacement will be a cost and man-agement issue, and will not affect therepository protection.

The sprinkler system would havezones, enabling the phasing of headand pipe replacement, and allowing

Fire Protection and the British Library Repository — continued from page 7

TABLE 2 — REPORTED INCIDENTS OF SUCCESSFUL SPRINKLER OPERATION

Number ofSprinkler Heads

Library Initiating Event in Operation Reported Damage

Broward County Fire in trash room Not reported Parts of first floor Main Library (1993) from cigarette damaged, including

some library material.

University of Utah Overheating Two heads Damage mainly (1981) slide projector confined to

audiovisual area.

South Bend Public Fire started in Not reported Building damage Library (1992) elevator shaft associated with

elevator area.

Saint Joseph Hospital Incendiary device Two heads Damage contained Missouri (1982) in second floor to room of origin

book stack

New York University Fire in book stack One head Damage reported Library (1965) to be limited to

$7,000.

New York University Fire in book stack One head Damage was Library (1951) reported to be

limited to $1,000.

9

for the decanting of totes to protectedareas. However, their replacement willclearly involve significant costs andmanagement resources by the Library.

Water MistA water-mist system is best regardedas a high-pressure sprinkler system,although the pressure at 200 Bar is suchthat the water is delivered in drops justseveral microns in size. This gives thema larger surface area and a greater capa-city to absorb heat. The fine natureof the spray also enables water mistto be more penetrative, although thisdoes rely on the thermal currents of afire to draw it in. This makes watermist less effective on small fires thanan equivalent sprinkler system. Whendrawn into a fire, the mist will also dis-

place air, thus reducing the availableoxygen to the fire and increasing thesystem’s effectiveness. This increasedeffectiveness enables a water-mist sys-tem to extinguish a fire with typicallya tenth of the water required by asprinkler system.

This reduced water delivery limitsthe extent of water damage that wouldoccur if the water mist operated withinthe repository. It also requires a smallerplant and pipes, which would make iteasier to fit into the building. It mayeven be possible to reduce the clear-ance between the mist head and topof the tote to below 150 mm.

The major disadvantage of a high-pressure water-mist system is that eachapplication is a one-off design. A water-mist system design for the repository

could only be established by full-scalefire testing to determine the most effec-tive positioning of sprinkler heads.These fire tests would need to be insti-gated, and several would be requiredto determine the optimum head spacing.This would be expensive.

A water-mist system does differ froma sprinkler system for lifecycle costs,in that the pipe work and heads areof stainless steel. The need for stain-less steel is partially due to strengthrequirements, but is largely due tothe fact that the small holes within thehead could easily become blocked bycontamination. As the “wet” side ofthe water mist system is stainless steel,it should not be necessary to replacethe pipes or water-mist heads withinthe repository’s 70-year lifespan.

TABLE 3 — COMPARISON OF SUPPRESSION METHODS WITH LOW OXYGEN

Advantages Disadvantages Running and Maintenance

SuppressionCosts

method Principal Secondary Principal Secondary System Secondary

Low Oxygen

Sprinklers

Water mist

Will prevent firefrom occurring.

Claimed 100%effective whenplant running.

Plant availability > 99.9%

Proven effectivemethod of pro-tecting archivestorage.

80–90% effective

Quick knock-down of fire; lessdamage thansprinklers.

80–90% effective

Oxygen sensing systemcan be supplementedwith smoke detectors,avoiding the need fora separate system.

Staff area easilysprinkler-protected.

Well-establisheddesign codes tovalidate.

Reduced water delivery.

Smaller sprinkler pipes.

Reduced plant arearequired.

Novel technology; theBritish Library wouldbe pioneering thisapproach to archiveprotection.

If they operate, a firehas occurred anda proportion ofthe archive will bedamaged by waterrun-off and smokedamage, as well asdirect fire damage.

Sprinkler heads andpipe work will requirereplacement in theracking during the lifeof the building.

Will require expensivetesting to prove it forthis application.

System can only bemaintained by supplier,potentially putting theBritish Library in a poorcommercial position.

System’s effectivenessis dependent onbuilding integrity.If lost, archive willbe unprotected fora period of time.

Repository will needto be treated as aconfined space.

Building size has to beincreased to accommo-date sprinklers.

Potential for leaks oraccidental activation.

Expensive.

£535,000

70-year cost:£1.7M

£800,000

70-year cost:£2M

£3–4 million

70-year cost:£4.4M

Saving on smokedetection system:£20,000.

Annual maintenancecosts: £8,100.

Power consumption:£13,000 per annum.

Additional buildingcost due to increasedbuilding size:£450,000

Annual maintenancecosts: £10K

Running cost advisedas £250 per annum.

Similar to that forsprinklers.

continued on page 10

10

Fire CompartmentalizationApplicable GuidanceSince the repository is a single-storeybuilding, there is no requirement underBuilding Regulations to divide it intoseparate fire compartments. The SupportBuilding is two storeys in height. Inorder to treat the repository as a single-storey building, it is necessary to providea fire compartment wall between them.

As no maximum compartment sizeis given in the British Standard, theonly requirement for compartmen-talization is between the repositoryand the Support Building. However,as discussed above, BS 5454 does notenvisage archive storage on this scale.It is understood that, when the clausewas written, the largest compartmentarea was envisaged was 300 m2. Withan assumed floor-to-floor height of4 meters, this gives a total volume of1,200 m3 or 1/50th of the proposedsize of the British Library Repository.

Requirement and Effectiveness The true benefit of any compartmentwall will only be realized in the unlikelyevent that the suppression system failsto operate, or halt the fire, and fire-fighters subsequently fail to preventthe fire from involving a large part ofthe building. Therefore, any compart-ments formed in the repository wouldbe provided as the last line of defense.The caveat to this statement is that, evenwithout fire resistance, any subdivisionof the repository will help to protectnon-fire-affected items from any smokeor steam that will be generated, evenwhen a sprinkler or water-mist systemhas successfully controlled the fire.

A four-hour compartment wall,established against the standard time/temperature curve, will not necessarilysurvive this period of time in a realfire. However, given the standard ofconstruction required to achieve fourhours under the standard BS476 test,it is reasonable to assume that anycompartment wall will maintain itseffectiveness for a significant period

of time in a real fire — long enoughto allow for firefighters to interveneand ensure that the fire is containedin that compartment.

A further advantage to providing anycompartment walls within the reposi-tory is that they will run longitudinally,and will generally avoid any penetra-tions for doors and services. These pen-etrations have been proven to be theweak link in compartment construction,with some estimates putting the instanceof failure in fire doors as high as 40%.

Given the above, it can be statedwith a high degree of confidence thatany compartment wall provided withinthe repository will prevent fire spreadingto the adjacent compartment.

Application to the British LibraryRepositoryTo strictly satisfy the British Standard,as written, the only compartment wallrequired is the one between the reposi-tory and the ancillary accommodation.This compartment wall will have tobe provided. The British Library hasdecided to provide a single longitu-dinal compartment wall dividing thebuilding into one four-aisle space andone three-aisle space.

Compartmentalization Summary

Advantages

• Reduces consequence ofuncontrolled fire

• Reduces consequential damage (dueto smoke/steam) of controlled fire

Disadvantages

• Increases building footprint andland requirements

• Additional cost

Reduced Oxygen FirePrevention Systems:Risk/Benefit AnalysisBenefits

1. A reduced-oxygen fire preventionsystem will prevent fire occurringwith the proposed oxygen level of

15%. It offers preventive fire pro-tection, not post-event (reactive)suppression of an actual fire.

3. No water present in the repository.

4. An advantage for salvage, as com-pared to discharge of sprinklers andresulting water and smoke damage.

5. Nitrogen is an inert gas whichachieves homogeneous distribu-tion, easily providing consistentlevels of protection throughoutthe building.

6. The system continuously samplesand monitors oxygen levels in therepository. It is always clear whetheror not the repository is protectedagainst fire.

7. The system indirectly monitorsintegrity of the building fabric byindicating any issue with air-tightness.A reduced-oxygen fire preventionsystem operates in conjunctionwith air-handling systems.

8. Early smoke detection (an aspiratedsystem) is combined with the oxy-gen sampling system and uses com-mon pipes in the repository. Pipework is plastic and not pressurizedand therefore has good resistanceto deterioration and accidentaldamage (e.g., by a crane).

9. The aspirated system can detectvery early stages of pyrolysis invery large spaces with a highdegree of sensitivity.

10. The fire risk posed by automatedsystems is mitigated: electrical cabl-ing will not burn in 17% oxygen.

11. There is a clear advantage in thesimplicity of the plant used, itsstandardized industrial components,and its known maintenance cycles.

12. Plant maintenance is not tied to aspecific reduced-oxygen systemsupplier.

Fire Protection and the British Library Repository — continued from page 9

11

13. The proposed system offers goodscope for disaster planning. Theproposal includes a duplicate com-pressor and nitrogen generator. Thisplant redundancy permits severallayers of fire mitigation within thesolution (e.g., backup should onecompressor fail or run both com-pressors continuously to reduceoxygen below 15% if desired). Itwill also be possible to cater foran emergency nitrogen gas dumpfrom a tanker.

14. It is simple to integrate the reducedoxygen system with the existingsite-wide fire alarm and buildingmanagement systems.

15. The current architectural buildingdesign parameters (air tightness;environmental controls; BREAMratings) needed to meet Part M ofthe Building Regulations alreadyaccommodate a reduced-oxygenfire-prevention system’s operationalrequirements.

16. There is a period of oxygen stabilitywhen the plant is not running: therepository remains protected (anestimated 90 hours between failureof plant and oxygen levels risingabove the upper operationalthreshold).

17. BL/service provider technical staffcan be trained to act as first-lineresponse for maintenance andplant repair.

Risks

1. There is no precedent for the useof a reduced-oxygen fire-preventionin a comparable size building; highdensity, automated storage andlibrary materials.

3. To work efficiently, the system isdependent upon maintaining ade-quate air tightness of the buildingover its lifetime. Buildings become“leaky” over time; failure to ensureair tightness over 25, 50, or 70 yearswould incur financial costs andpotentially lessen fire protection.

4. While the principles, equipment,and fire prevention rationale arenot new, the combination is inno-vative in relation to fire protectionand a building of this type.

5. The Library would be applyingan innovative solution to a largerepository, having not tested thesolution elsewhere; it would notbe using an incremental, proto-typing strategy, which is the BLapproach now adopted for otherdevelopments such as IT systems.

6. In Europe, reduced-oxygen systemshave only been in use since 1998in approximately 100 installations,and thus do not have a long trackrecord.

7. We do not have data on reliabilityof these systems.

8. Forced pyrolysis can still occur:e.g., damage including charringproduced by proximity to a veryhot motor, oxyacetylene torch,or overheating cable.

9. Suppliers can own the patented con-trol panel software system and havea monopoly over its maintenance.

10. The BL will be pioneering thissolution and will be seen by theprofessional community as cham-pioning this approach; failure coulddamage the BL’s reputation.

11. The BL needs to ensure that low-oxygen/enriched-nitrogen atmos-pheres do not have a detrimentaleffect on the longevity of cellulosecollections.

Mitigations

1. The Library has seen library materialsin a small vault and a large oil explo-ration data centre building bothprotected by a reduced-oxygenfire-prevention system. The Libraryhas also visited a clothing supplier’sstorage site in Germany: an auto-mated high-density warehouseprotected by a reduced-oxygensystem, and on a similar scale to

the Library’s proposed building.They protect three years’ worth ofadvance fabric stock with a reduced-oxygen environment, and chose tobuild a single warehouse protectedin this way, rather than two separatewarehouses protected by sprinklers.(They would cease to exist as acorporate entity if this stock waslost to fire.) Their main reason forthis shift in their property strategywas the perceived additional bene-fit of the preventative/monitoringfire-engineering rationale offeredby a reduced-oxygen system. Alsosee mitigation for point (9) below,re: Oxford University.

3. Constant monitoring of oxygenlevels by the reduced-oxygen fire-prevention system also providesdata about building integrity andair tightness. This would be requiredanyway to monitor BREAM stan-dards. Building foundations arebeing designed to avoid differentialsettlement that would deform theautomation racking. Sealant betweenthe panels has the same design lifeas the PAROC wall panels. Thearchitects’ design proposal andcosts already include over-claddingof the building walls every 25 years.Even if the building began to leakmore air, fire protection shouldremain possible within the toler-ances of the proposed system(although energy costs would riseas the compressors would need towork for more than the proposedeight hours per day to maintain the15% oxygen level).

4. Low oxygen already protects build-ings containing dangerous and/orbusiness-critical material, includinga Shell Oil exploration data storeand two chemical storage facilities.A German low-oxygen product isapproved by the VdS (independentstandards authority for the Germaninsurance industry which conductsits own tests and validation ofthose tests).

continued on page 12

12

5. We would not be the first to deploylow oxygen in a large building withautomation. Prototyping is easierwith IT projects but often difficultin building design. A prototypecould not mimic the scale of theactual project adequately.

6. See the mitigation for (3) above.The British Library has requestedfurther information regarding thenature of the existing low-oxygeninstallations and their performancestandard.

7. BL staff will ask for improved dataon the statistical likelihood of firesin a similar building vs. actualevents in buildings protected withlow oxygen.

8. Pyrolysis would be detected at avery early stage by the aspiratedsystem, and the alarm would beraised.

9. The controlling software is openprotocol. The system is relativelysimple in IT terms and containsroutines common in industrialcontrol applications. All other com-ponents are proprietary industrystandard. Maintenance of compres-sors and other hardware is not tiedto any specific supplier.

10. The professional reputations ofboth the low-oxygen supplier andthe architects would be at stake.A successfully managed innova-tion would be a benefit to the BL.Oxford University has informed theLibrary of plans to build a similarautomated high-density bookrepository, also to be protectedby a reduced-oxygen system.

11. BL staff investigated the effectsof low-oxygen/enriched-nitrogenatmospheres on cellulose, and noeffect is anticipated.

IAMFA 2006 IN LOS ANGELESThe Los Angeles Chapter welcomes you!

September 17–20, 2006

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUM FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS

M YES! Sign me up to attend the 2006 IAMFA Annual Conference inLos Angeles, California, USA

Name: ___________________________________________________________________________

Title: ____________________________________________________________________________

Institution:_______________________________________________________________________

Address: _________________________________________________________________________

City: _________________________________________ Postal/Zip Code: _________________

State/Province/County: ______________________ Country: _________________________

Phone: ________________________________ Fax: ____________________________________

E-mail: ________________________________ @ ______________________________________

If your address/contact information has changed in the past year, please check box M

Special dietary, access, or other requirements: __________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

ALL FEES ARE PAYABLE IN U.S. DOLLARS

Please visit http://www.iamfa.org/ on the 2006 conference page to registerfor the conference using a credit card.

M Member conference fee: $500 (after Aug 20, add $50)

M Non-member conference fee: $600 (after Aug 20, add $50)

M Sign me up as a new member: $150

M Guest program fee: $300 (after Aug 20, add $50)

M Guest under 12: $150

M One-day attendance fee: $200 per day M MON M TUE M WED

You may also complete this form, and send a hard copy along with a check to:

International Association of Museum Facility Administrators (IAMFA)P.O. Box 277Groton, MA 01450 USA

SUGGESTED ACCOMMODATIONWe have reserved a limited number of hotel rooms at The Fairmont Miramar Hotel forthe period of Saturday, September 16 through Wednesday, September 20. The conferencerate is $229 per night per room plus 14.05% tax, single or double occupancy, with anadditional charge of $25 each for a third or fourth adult per night, with a maximumof four people per room. There is no extra charge for children up to, and including,the age of 18 years who share a room with their parents. Early hotel registration isstrongly recommended during this busy season in Los Angeles. The block of rooms willbe held until August 1, 2006. To contact the Fairmont Miramar Hotel directly, please call1-800-441-1414 or (310) 576-7777. Ask for Reservations and make sure to mention theIAMFA conference to get the special rate. Reservations can also be made by Internet atwww.fairmont.com. Internet users must use the promotional code GRMUS1 to submitrequests. The hotel will extend the program rate (3) days prior and (3) after conferencedates, based on availability.

Please check the IAMFA website for updates at: www.iamfa.org

✁Fire Protection and the British LibraryRepository — continued from page 11

13

The Guggenheim Museum, the Ria de Bilbao MaritimeMuseum, the Euskalduna Conference Centre and ConferenceHall, the Fine Arts Museum, Bilbao, and the entire Basqueregion of northern Spain were gracious hosts for the AnnualIAMFA Conference in September 2005. Many members andguests extended their stays to take in the sites, sounds andtastes of the region.

Interaction with our colleagues from around the worldprovided opportunities to share best practices and lessonslearned. The organized sessions and tours were excellent,but the classic IAMFA model of networking between andamong these planned events formed the unique backboneof a classic conference.

Here, then, on the following pages, are a few of thescenes caught by the Editor.

Networking in Sunny Spain — The 2005 IAMFA Conference in Bilbao

Delegates assembled for the traditional group photo.

Guests joined delegates to close out a long-awaited, but far too fleeting conference in Bilbao.

14

Networking in Sunny Spain — The

2005 IAMFA Conference in Bilbao

15

16

If I learned nothing else during my week in Bilbao, I learnedthese three words: café con leche. My three years of high-school French, years of watching Sesame Street with my twochildren (Spanish language lessons are a regular feature ofthe show) and a Spanish language CD I purchased after theIAMFA conference in Boston were not a whole lot of help.In most cases a simple “Hola” and a smile went a long wayto getting you what you needed. (A certain Bilbao linen/fabricshop shall remain nameless!)

My first conference was D.C. 2001, delayed from Septemberto December due to 9/11. (Near and dear to my heart, asDan works for the Smithsonian and was part of the D.C.planning group. It was fun to be able to see your “hometown” as a tourist.) London was great. Brought the umbrella,no rain. San Francisco was excellent. Brought the umbrella,no rain and a record heat wave. Boston was awesome. Ifound the tombstone of my thirteenth great-grandfather atKings Chapel, and I took photos of Fenway Park. (Maybethat is why the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004 —my Dad would have been so happy.)

Then there was Bilbao . . . WOW! The food was great! Ibought a tapas cookbook. The wine was great! We brought

a bottle of that home too. The hospitality of our hosts wasexceptional! Muchisimas gracias a Roberto y Rogelio.

Bilbao is a great city to walk in. From the ancient archi-tecture to the modern to the Guggenheim to the neat littleshops to the street mime made-up to look like a stone statue,there was so much to see and experience that each walkwas an adventure. It is a good thing we were able to do somuch walking, considering all of the food we ate duringthe week. (I need to remember that little tidbit now thatwe are home.)

Now it is on to Los Angeles! I cannot wait to see all myIAMFA friends, the Getty and the newly reopened Villa, theL.A. County Museum of Art, the Museum of ContemporaryArt, the Santa Monica Pier and Universal Studios (no roller-coasters for me!). I will bring my umbrella, and with anyluck at all we will have great weather for our week insunny southern California.

Kim DaviesHave IAMFA spouse, will travel!

The Guest Perspective on theIAMFA Annual Conference

Scenery in and around Bilbao, and nearby points of interest.

DA

NIE

L H

. D

AV

IES

17

Our regional chapters continue their active networking,discussing issues important to us all, while also workingto raise IAMFA’s profile within their respective regions.The following two reports detail the recent and upcomingactivities of two of our most active chapters.

Northern California Chapterby Joe Brennan

Our first meeting of 2006 took place during the afternoonof February 15, 2006, at the newly opened Museum ofthe African Diaspora (MoAD) in San Francisco. Ten of usshowed up for the tour, hosted by MoAD Facilities DirectorPaula Ramsey, despite my transposing the street number inthe invitation.

We assembled in their Boardroom for introductions andsome discussion of their opening experience, which focusedon events, catering and rentals. We also heard about someof the challenges of operating within the building as atenant, including access and exits, loading dock usage,alarm logistics etc. We were then taken on a tour of thefacility. This included their traveling exhibition space onthe third floor, where a diverse array of art is displayed.

The second floor features the exhibition, Made in Africa,displaying stone tools made in Africa nearly two millionyears ago. We also experienced permanent interactivedisplays on Food and Music, as well as the second floor’stwo theaters. Back-of-house space is minimal, since theMoAD is a tenant within the St. Regis Hotel tower. Theirtotal space is 20,000 square feet, which has put space forstorage and personnel at a great premium.

Ascending the main stairway in front of MoAD’s iconic photocollage mural of a girl’s face, made up of 1,200 individualphotos — see their website for the full effect at www.moadsf.org.

John de Lucy, VP Regional Affairs

Regional Chapters

continued on page 18

Dan Dunn of the Blackhawk Museum and John Lewis of theCalifornia Academy of Sciences hold tools made nearly twomillion years ago. These stone tools, from the Olduvai Gorgein Tanzania, are on loan from the British Museum, and aresome of the oldest known manmade objects in the world.

18

U.K. ChapterOur next meeting is scheduled for May 5, 2006 at the National Library of Scotlandin Edinburgh. The proposed program for that meeting is as follows:

10:00–10:30: Bill Black — Set the Scene for Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order

10:30–11:45: Colin Todd — Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order: Life after theRisk Assessment

11:45–12:30: Bill Jackson — Another Standard — An Introduction to NFPA 909:Code for the protection of Cultural Resources

12:30–13:30: Lunch

13:30: Either a visit to the National Gallery of Scotland’s Playfairextension, or a presentation on IAMFA Benchmarking

This is a formidable line-up of speakers, and I am sure we will all benefitgreatly, not only from what they have to say, but also through the opportunityto join in the discussions that will follow.

The lasting effects of the conference in Bilbao, as well as our tours of its manywonderful galleries and museums, have undoubtedly kept many of us from think-ing about organizing regional activities and tours of our own local facilities. By thetime you read this, however, I hope you will all have heard from me, encouragingyou to host events in your respective regions — and of course reporting on themin Papyrus!

John de LucyVice President, Regional Affairs

Future ChaptersCleveland, USATom CataliotiCleveland Museum of Art

The NetherlandsJan AbrahamseRijksmuseum

Pennsylvania, USAVictor T. RazzeBrandywine River Museum andConservatory

Seattle, USAPatrick DowlingWhatcom Museum of History and Art

The tour gave us all an interestinglook at the particular challenges facingmuseological institutions which mustoperate in rented facilities that are notpurpose-built, and provided us withfood for thought on management ofour own facilities.

Our next three quarterly meetingshave already been scheduled as follows:

May 17, 2006:Lindsay Wildlife Museum in WalnutCreek

September 21, 2006:Joint meeting of the Northern andSouthern California IAMFA Chaptersat Hearst Castle in San Simeon

November 15, 2006:Location to be determined . . .forward me your ideas.

MoAD staff member demonstrating stonehand tools to Jennifer Fragomeni of theExploratorium, Nils Welin of CypressSecurity, and Andy Hirschfield of theExploratorium.

Regional Chapters — continued from page 17Chairpersons

of Regional ChaptersAtlanta, USAKevin StreiterHigh Museum of Art

Australia Kim ReasonMuseum Victoria

Bilbao, SpainRogelio DiezGuggenheim Museum

Chicago, USAWilliam CaddickArt Institute of Chicago

Hawaii, USARobert WhiteHonolulu Academy of Arts

Los Angeles, USAJoe MayJ. Paul Getty Trust

New England, USAJim LabeckIsabella Stewart Gardner Museum

New York, USAMark Demairo

New ZealandPatricia MorganAuckland Art Gallery

Ottawa-Gatineau, CanadaChristian PageCanadian Museum of Civilization

San Francisco, USAJoe BrennanSan Francisco Museum of Modern Art

United KingdomJack PlumbNational Library of Scotland

Washington-Baltimore, USARobert EvansFreer Gallery of Art/Arthur M. SacklerGallery

19

Kim ReasonMuseum VictoriaGPO Box 666EMelbourne, Victoria3001Australiakreason@museums.vic.gov.au

Tony van NoordenburgNational Gallery of Victoria7259 St. Kilda Road VIC 8004180 St. Kilda RoadMelbourne, Victoria3004Australiat.van.noordenburg@

ngv.vic.gov.au

Anthony WilliamsSydney Opera HouseBennelong PointGPO Box 4274Sydney, NSW2000Australiaawilliams@

sydneyoperahouse.com

Jean AllardNational Archives of CanadaLibrary Room 132344 Wellington StreetOttawa, OntarioK1A 0N3Canadadmcaron@archives.ca

Dale CameronNational Archives of Canada –

Preservation Branch344 Wellington StRoom 5080Ottawa, OntarioK1A 0N3Canadadcameron@archives.ca

Ian FollettFacility Management Service LTD45 Maryland Place SWCalgary, AlbertaT2V 2E6Canadafmsltd@fmsltd.com

CANADA

AUSTRALIAToby GreenbaumDepartment of National Defence9CBN, D007NDHQ, 101 Colonel By DriveOttawa, OntarioK1A 0K2Canada greenbaum.tf@forces.gc.ca

Richard HardingBlack & McDonald Limited2460 Don Reid DriveOttawa, OntarioK1H 1E1Canadarharding@

blackandmcdonald.com

Chan Hung DoCanadian Museum of

Civilization100 Laurier StreetP.O. Box 3100, Station”B”Gatineau, QuebecJ8X 4H2Canadachan.do@civilisations.ca

Jean-Guy La JeunesseCanadian Museum of

Civilization100 Laurier StreetP.O. Box 3100, Station”B”Gatineau, QuebecJ8X 4H2Canadajean-guy.lajeunesse@

civilisations.ca

Lucie LanctotCanadian Museum of NatureP.O. Box 3443 Station DOttawa, OntarioK1P 6P4CanadaLLanctot@mus-nature.ca

Guy LarocqueCanadian Museum of Civilization100 Laurier StreetP.O. Box 3100, Station”B”Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4H2Canadaguy.larocque@civilisations.ca

Ian MacLeanCanada Science & Technology

Museum CorporationP.O. Box 9724 Station T2421 Lancaster Rd.Ottawa, OntarioK1G 5A3Canadaimaclean@technomuses.ca

Elizabeth MoxleyLibrary and Archives Canada550 Boulevard de la CitéGatineau, QuebecJ8T 8R3Canadaelizabeth.moxley@lac-bac.gc.ca

Nancy NaussFacility Management Services LTD45 Maryland Place, SWCalgary, AlbertaT2V 2E6Canadafmsltd@fmsltd.com

Jose-Luis OliverosCanadian Center for Architecture1920 BailesMontreal, QuebecH3H 2S6Canadajolivero@cca.qc.ca

Christian PageCanadian Museum of Civilization100 Laurier StreetGatineau, QuebecJ8X 4H2Canadachristian.page@civilisations.ca

Ed RichardNational Gallery of Canada380 Sussex DriveOttawa, OntarioKIN 9N4Canadaerichard@gallery.ca

Karen KeemanRijks MuseumP.O. Box 748881070 DN Amsterdam AmsterdamThe Netherlandsk.keeman@rijksmuseum.nl

Mike HeinemannChristchurch Art Gallery Te Puna

O WaiwhetuWorcester BoulevardPO Box 2626Christchurch, CanterburyNew Zealandmike.heinemann@ccc.govt.nz

NEW ZEALAND

THE NETHERLANDS

Patricia MorganAuckland Art Gallery -Toi O

TamakiP.O.Box 5449AucklandNew Zealandpatricia.morgan@

auklandcity.govt.nz

Roberto CearsoloMuseo Guggenheim – BilbaoAbandoibarra 2Bilbao, Viz Caya 48001Spainrcearsolo@guggenheim-bilbao.es

Consuelo CiscarIVAM – Instituto Valenciano

d’Arte Moderno118 Guillem de Castro StreetValencia46003Spaindireccion.consuelociscar@ivam.es

Rogelio DiezMuseo Guggenheim – BilbaoAbandoibarra 2Bilbao, Viz Caya 48001Spainrdiez@guggenheim-bilbao.es

Consuelo SalomXarxa de Museus de la

Diputacion de ValenciaC/Artes Graficas No. 5, piso 7,

puertas 21 y 22Valencia46010Spaincynthia.salom@xarxamuseus.com

Willie AnthonyNational Museums of ScotlandChambers StreetEdinburgh, ScotlandEH1 1JFUKw.anthony@nms.ac.uk

Frank BrownNational Gallery, LondonTrafalgar SquareLondon, EnglandWC2N 5DNUKfrank.brown@ng-london.org.uk

UNITED KINGDOM

SPAIN

IAMFA Members Directory 2006

20

Alastair CunninghamHopetoun House Preservation

TrustHopetoun HouseSouth Queensferry, ScotlandEH30 9SLUKalastair.cunningham@

hopetounhouse.com

John de LucyBritish Library96 Euston RoadLondon, EnglandNW12DBUKjohn.delucy@bl.uk

Peter FotheringhamNational Gallery, LondonTrafalgar SquareLondon, EnglandWC2N 5DNUKpeter.fotheringham@

ng-london.org.uk

Robert GalbraithNational Galleries of Scotland73 Belford Road Dean GalleryEdinburgh, ScotlandEH4 3DSUKrobert.galbraith@natgalscot.ac.uk

Stephen GillBritish MuseumGreat Russell StreetLondon, EnglandWC1B 3DGUKsgill@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk

Jack PlumbNational Library of ScotlandGeorge IV BridgeEdinburgh, ScotlandEH1 1EWUKj.plumb@nls.uk

Harry WanlessBritish Library96 Euston RoadLondon, EnglandNW12DBUKharry.wanless@bl.uk

Marlene FloresSmithsonian InstitutionAttn: STRIUnit 0948APO/AA34002USAfloresm@si.edu

Fernando PascalSmithsonian InstitutionAttn: STRIUnit 0948APO/AA34002USApascalf@si.edu

Keith McClanahanFacility IssuesPO Box 1447Flagstaff, AZ86002-1447USAkeithmcc@facilityissues.com

John PaganArkansas Art CenterP.O.Box 2137Little Rock, AR77023-2137USAjpagan@arkarts.com

Gordon BaileyAsian Art Museum200 Larkin StreetRoom 2211San Francisco, CA94102USAgbailey@asianart.org

Donald BattjesLos Angeles County Museum of

Art5905 Wilshire BlvdLos Angeles, CA90036USAdbattjes@lacma.org

CALIFORNIA

ARKANSAS

ARIZONA

UNITED STATESJoe BrennanSan Francisco Museum of

Modern Art151 Third St.San Francisco, CA94103USAjbrennan@sfmoma.org

Greg BrownThe Tech Museum of Innovation201 South Market StreetSan Jose, CA95113USAgregb@thetech.org

James BullockJ. Paul Getty Trust1200 Getty Center DriveSuite 100Los Angeles, CA90049-1678USAjbullock@getty.edu

Brenda Cobb-WilliamsAsian Art Museum200 Larkin StreetRoom 2211San Francisco, CA94102USAbwilliams@asianart.org

John CoplinSanta Barbara Museum of Art1130 State St.Santa Barbara, CA92101USAjcoplin@sbmuseart.org

John DonohoeJ. Paul Getty Trust1200 Getty Center DriveSuite 100Los Angeles, CA90049-1678USAjdonohoe@getty.edu

John DowningBerkeley Art Museum/Pacific

Film Archives2625 Durant AvenueBerkeley, CA94720-2250USAjdown@berkeley.edu

Jennifer FragomeniExploratorium3601 Lyon StreetSan Francisco, CA94123USAjfrago@exploratorium.edu

Oren GrayJ. Paul Getty Trust1200 Getty Center DriveSuite 100Los Angeles, CA90049-1678USAogray@getty.edu

Jim HartmanFine Arts Museums of San

FranciscoGolden Gate Park50 Hagiwara Tea Garden DriveSan Francisco, CA94118-4501USAjhartman@famsf.org

Andy HirshfieldExploratorium3601 Lyon StreetSan Francisco, CA94123USAandyhh@exploratorium.edu

Patty LacsonFine Arts Museum of

San Francisco50 Hagiwara Tea Garden DriveGolden Gate ParkSan Francisco, CA94118USAplacson@famsf.org

Joseph MayJ. Paul Getty Trust1200 Getty Center DriveSuite 100Los Angeles, CA90049-1678USAjmay@getty.edu

Mike McCaughinProPM, Inc.3470 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Ste. A205Lafayette, CA94549USAmikem@propminc.com

Gary McKeanJ. Paul Getty Trust1200 Getty Center DriveLos Angeles, CA90049USAgmckean@getty.edu

Randy MurphyMuseum of Contemporary Art –

Los Angeles 250 S. Grand Ave.Los Angeles, CA90012USArmurphy@moca.org

IAMFA Members Directory 2006

U.K. (cont’d)

21

Ann RocheRutherford & Chekene 427 13th Street, 2nd floorOakland, CA94612USAaroche@ruthchek.com

Michael RogersJ. Paul Getty Trust1200 Getty Center DriveSuite 100Los Angeles, CA90049-1678USAmrogers@getty.edu

Jeff SheahanCalifornia Academy of Sciences

Golden Park55 Concourse DriveSan Francisco, CA94118USAjsheahan@calacademy.org

Gerry SoccoYerba Buena Center for the Arts701 Mission StreetSan Francisco, CA94103-3138USAgsocco@ybca.org

Will SpencerJ. Paul Getty Trust1200 Getty Center DriveSuite 100Los Angeles, CA90049-1678USAwspencer@getty.edu

Nils WelinCypress Security, LLC220 Sansome St.Suite 500San Francisco, CA94104USA

Jose BrancoYale University Art GalleryP.O. Box 208271New Haven, CT06520-8271USAjose.branco@yale.edu

Ernest ConradLandmark Facilities Group, Inc.252 East AvenueNorwalk, CT06855USAeconrad@lfginc.com

CONNECTICUT

George ConteYale Center for British ArtP.O. Box 208280New Haven, CT06520-8280USAgeorge.conte@yale.edu

Richard MooreYale University Art GalleryP.O.Box 208271New Haven, CT06520-8271USArichard.moore@yale.edu

John RutchickMystic Seaport Museum, Inc.75 Greenmanville AvenuePO Box 6000Mystic, CT06355USAjohn.rutchick@mysticseaport.org

Daniel DaviesSmithsonian Institution750 Ninth Street NWSte. C300Washington, DC20560-0201USAddavies@si.edu

Richard DaySmithsonian Institution10th and Constitution Ave NWWashington, DC20056USAdayr@si.edu

August (Andy) DietzSmithsonian Institution National

Museum of Natural History10th & Constitution Ave., NWRoom 7, MRC 102Washington, DC20560USAdietza@si.edu

Robert EvansSmithsonian Institution, Freer

and Sackler GalleriesFreer Gallery of Art & Sackler

Gallery of Art 12th & Independence, SWWashington, DC20024USArobert.evans@asia.si.edu

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Wayne FieldSmithsonian Institution4720 Opp-Metro Support BranchWashington, DC20560-0908USAfieldwa@opp.si.edu

Michael GiamberNational Gallery of Art –

Washington6th & ConstitutionWashington, DC20565USAm.giamber@nga.gov

Joseph “Neal” GrahamThe Library of Congress101 Independence Ave., S.E.Room LM-225Washington, DC20540-9420USANGRA@LOC.GOV

Larry GraubergerSmithsonian InstitutionOffice of Facilities Management

and Reliability900 Jefferson Dr. SW, PO Box

37012 (MRC 412)Washington, DC20013-7012USAgraubergerl@si.edu

Ron HawkinsSmithsonian Institution12th & Independence SWWashington, DC20024USArhawkins@qfac.si.edu

Fletcher JohnstonHirshhorn Museum & Sculpture

GardenIndependence Ave at 7th St. SWWashington, DC20560USAfletchj@hmsg.si.edu

Kenneth OlmstedSmithsonian Institution750 Ninth Street NWRoom 5200, MRC 908Washington, DC20560USAOlmstKe@opp.si.edu

Kurt SissonNational Gallery of Art –

Washington6th & ConstitutionWashington, DC20565USAk-sisson@nga.gov

John StandishSmithsonian InstitutionWashington, DCUSAstandishj@si.edu

John CastleWinterthur Museum, Garden

and LibraryBuilding 69Winterthur, DE19735USAjcastle@winterthur.org

Michael DownsHagley Museum & LibraryP.O. Box 3630Wilmington, DE19807-0630USA27299@udel.edu

Kevin StreiterHigh Museum of Art1280 Peachtree NEAtlanta, GA30309USAkevin.streiter@

woodruffcenter.org

Robert WhiteHonolulu Academy of Arts900 South Beretania StreetHonolulu, HI96814USArwhite@honoluluacademy.org

Ed MahlstadtDes Moines Art Center4700 Grand AvenueDes Moines, IA50312USAemahlstadt@

desmoinesartcenter.org

IOWA

HAWAII

GEORGIA

DELAWARE

IAMFA Members Directory 2006

IAMFA Members Directory 2006

Thomas BarnesArt Institute of Chicago111 South Michigan AvenueChicago, IL60603USAtbarnes@artic.edu

Brendan BerryAdvantage Operations/

Art Institute Chicago125 East MonroeChicago, IL60603USAbberrjci@artic.edu

William CaddickArt Institute of Chicago111 South Michigan AvenueChicago, IL60603USAwcaddick@artic.edu

Jennifer ChristakesMuseum of Science and Industry57th Street & South Lake Shore

Drive Chicago, IL 60637USAJennifer.Christakes@

msichicago.org

Paul HuberAdvantage Operations1831 Lewis LaneNew Lenox, IL60451USApshuber@telocity.com

Charles InglesAdvantage Operations111 South Michigan AvenueChicago, IL60603-6110USAchuck_ingles@msn.com

Anthony McGuireMcGuire Engineers300 S. Riverside PlazaChicago, IL60606USAtony@mcguireng.com

ILLINOIS

Don MeckleyMuseum of Contemporary Art –

Chicago 220 E. Chicago Ave.Chicago, IL60611USAdmeckley@macchicago.org

Steven ErnestIndianapolis Museum of Art4000 Michigan RoadIndianapolis, IN46208USAsernest@ima.art.org

Alan DiricanBaltimore Museum of Art10 Art Museum DriveBaltimore, MD21218-3898USAadirican@artbma.org

Maurice EvansSmithsonian InstitutionSuitland, MDUSAevansma@si.edu

Jeffrey GreeneBanneker Douglas Museum84 Franklin St.Annapolis, MD21401-2738USAgreene@dhcd.state.md.us

Richard KowalczykPaul E. Garber Facility3904 Old Silver Hill RoadBuilding 10Suitland, MD20746USAkowalczykr@si.edu

Charlie CochraneCochrane Ventilation Inc.154 West StreetWilmington, MA01887USAiaqcvi@aol.com

David GeldartMuseum of Fine Arts – Boston465 Huntington AvenueBoston, MA02115USAdgeldart@mfa.org

MASSACHUSETTS

MARYLAND

INDIANA

James LabeckIsabella Stewart Gardner Museum2 Palace RoadBoston, MA02115USAjlabeck@isgm.org

John LannonBoston Athenaeum10 1/2 Beacon StreetBoston, MA02108USAlannon@bostonathenaeum.org

Emily MikolayunasEric Carle Museum of Picture

Book125 West Bay Rd.Amherst, MA01002USAemilym@picturebookart.org

James MoissonHarvard University Art Museums32 Quincy St.Cambridge, MA02138USAjames_moisson@harvard.edu

Robert MonkPeabody Essex MuseumEast India SquareSalem, MA01970USArobert_monk@pem.org

William Powers IIIClark Art Institute225 South StreetWilliamstown, MA01267USAbpowers@clarkart.edu

Sarah van BentenBoston Athenaeum10 1/2 Beacon StreetBoston, MA02108USAvanbenten@

bostonathenaeum.org

Dennis ZembalDetroit Historical Museums5401 Woodward AvenueDetroit, MI48202USAzembald@hist.ci.detroit.mi.us

MICHIGAN

David GrimardCurrier Museum of Art201 Myrtle WayManchester, NH03104USAdgrimard@currier.org

Richard StomberNewark Museum49 Washington StreetNewark, NJ07102-3176USArstomber@newarkmuseum.org

Rouslan SimonovNevada Museum of Art160 West Liberty St.Reno, NV89501USArsimonov@nevadaart.org

Mark de MairoNeue Galerie1048 5th Avenue New York, NY10028USAmarkdemairo@neuegalerie.org

Daniel GelmanLighting Services Inc.2 Kay Fries DriveStony Point, NY10980-1996USA

Mark MalekshahiCosentini Associates2 Penn PlazaNew York, NY10121USA

Daniel McCormickGeorge Eastman House900 East AvenueRochester, NY14607USA

Thomas ScallyMetropolitan Museum Of Art1000 5th Avenue New York, NY10028USAtom.scally@metmuseum.org

NEW YORK

NEVADA

NEW JERSEY

NEW HAMPSHIREUSA (cont’d)

22

23

Thomas ShannonThe Morgan Library29 East 36th St.New York, NY10016USAtshannon@morganlibrary.org

Frantz VincentBrooklyn Museum of Art200 Eastern ParkwayBrooklyn, NY11238USAfrantz.vincent@

brooklynmuseum.org

Tom CataliotiCleveland Museum of Art11150 East BlvdCleveland, OH44106USAtcatalioti@clevelandart.org

Ian HerronCleveland Museum of Art11150 East BlvdCleveland, OH44106USAiherron@clevelandart.org

Michael McKnightThe High Desert Museum1000 NW Harmon Blvd.Bend, OR97701USAmike@riverwestbuilders.com

Douglas BowermanAllentown Art MuseumFifth and Count StreetP.O. Box 388Allentown, PA18105-0388USAoperations@

allentownartmuseum.org

Walt CrimmEwing Cole100 North 6th St.6th FlPhiladelphia, PA19106USAwcrimm@ewingcole.com

PENNSYLVANIA

OREGON

OHIO

Vince DiPieroAllied Security3606 Horizon DriveKing of Prussia, PA19406USAvince.dipiero@alliedsecurity.com

Robert MorronePhiladelphia Museum Of ArtP.O.Box 7646Philadelphia, PA19101-7646USArmorrone@philamuseum.org

Peter Poncheri Jr.Foundation for the Reading

Public Museum500 Museum RdReading, PA19611-1425USApete356@aol.com

Richard ReinertLinc Facility Services c/o

Philadelphia Museum of Art2600 Benjamin Franklin PkwyPhiladelphia, PA19130USARReinert@philamuseum.org

Jim SuttonPhiladelphia Museum of ArtBenjamin Franklin ParkwayPO Box 7646Philadelphia, PA19101-7646USAjsutton@philamuseum.org

Curtis GengaPreservation Society of Newport

County424 Bellevue Ave.Newport News, RI02840USAcgenga@newportmansions.org

William TaylorCultural Facilities Management

Group385 S. Spring StreetSpartanburg, SC29306USAbiltay@spartanarts.org

SOUTH CAROLINA

RHODE ISLAND

Steve KirbyFrist Center of the Visual Arts919 BroadwayNashville, TN37203USAskirby@fristcenter.org

Bruce CauseyCorporate Care3530 West T. C. Jester Blvd.Houston, TX77018USAbcausey@corporatecare.com

Henry GriffinMuseum of Fine Arts – HoustonPO Box 6826Houston, TX77265-6826USAhgriffin@mfah.org

Brett ChubbMariner’s Museum100 Museum Drive Newport News, VA23606USA

James LeeLee Construction Consultants LLC700 East Main StreetSuite 1503Richmond, VA23219-2604USAjlee@lee-cc.com

Ken MyersValentine Richmond History

Center1015 East Clay StreetRichmond, VA23219USAkenmyers@

richmondhistorycenter.com

Tom PeckColonial Williamsburg FoundationP.O.Box 1776Williamsburg, VA23187-1776USAtpeck@cwf.org

VIRGINIA

TEXAS

TENNESSEE Dave SamecSmithsonian Institution9601 Little Cobbler CourtBurke, VA22015USAsamecd@si.edu

Jeffrey ToshSeattle Art Museum100 University StreetSeattle , WA98101-2902USA

Michael ArnyLeonardo Academy1526 Chandler StreetMadison, WI53711USAmichaelarny@

leonardoacademy.org

Larry BannisterMilwaukee Public Museum800 W. Wells StreetMilwaukee, WI53233USAbannister@mpm.edu

Spence StehnoMilwaukee Public Museum800 W. Wells StreetMilwaukee, WI53233USAspence@mpm.edu

WISCONSIN

WASHINGTON

IAMFA Members Directory 2006

This list reflectsmembership dues

paid as of April 2006.

Although we do our best toensure that our Directory

information is as up-to-dateas possible, errors and

omissions can always occur.If you would like to make

any changes to your listing,please contact Jim Moisson at

james_moisson@harvard.edu

Thank you very much.

24

Museum Benchmarks 2005 — Surveyof Facility Management PracticesThis was the fifth consecutive year for this benchmarkingexercise: 22 million square feet (2.2 million square meters/of space were benchmarked. To date, 95 museums and artgalleries from six countries have participated in these surveys,with 91 million square feet (8.6 million square meters) ofspace benchmarked.

Some Highlights of the Benchmarks 2005 Report

• Cost of Custodial/Janitorial Services ($US)

In-House Fine Art History Archives All

per sq.ft. 2.13 3.75 2.83 3.28per m2 22.89 40.30 30.52 35.26

Contract Fine Art History Archives All

per sq.ft. 1.66 1.38 1.17 1.52per m2 17.93 14.82 12.64 16.32

• Provision of Custodial/Janitorial Services

% 2005 2004 2003

totally/mostly in-house 47 49 46totally/mostly contract 47 40 42combination 6 11 12

• Average Area Cleaned Per Custodial/Janitorial Worker24,500 sq.ft./2,300 m2

• Average Consumption of Electricity 20.6 KwH per sq.ft. / 219.4 KwH per m2

• Average Daily Cost of Utilities By Facility Size ($US)

A B C D All

6,250 2,660 1,150 620 3,450

• Cost of Building Maintenance ($US)

$ Per Sq.Ft. All

mgmt/accounting/admin support 1.14external bldg maintenance 0.25internal systems maintenance 2.13utility/central system maintenance 0.46process treatment & environ systems 0.20

$ Per m2 All

mgmt/accounting/admin support 12.23external bldg maintenance 2.64internal systems maintenance 22.97utility/central system maintenance 4.90process treatment & environ systems 1.82

• Average Area Per Maintenance Worker By Facility TypeFine Art: 29,000 sq.ft / 2,700 m2.History: 26,600 sq.ft. / 2,500 m2

Archives: 39,300 sq.ft. / 3,700 m2

• Cost of Building Security ($US)

In-House Fine Art History Archives

per sq.ft. 12.01 6.82 4.13per m2 129.31 73.70 44.45

Contract Fine Art History Archives

per sq.ft. 10.72 4.18 —per m2 115.42 44.96 —

• Average Area Per Building Security Worker

Gross Area Fine Art History

sq.ft. 6,900 15,700m2 650 1,500

Exhibition Space Fine Art History

sq.ft. 1,600 6,400m2 150 600

• FM Budget as % of Institutional Budget

% 2005 2002

29 27

If facility managers have responsibility for 30% oftheir institution’s budget, why aren’t they in seniorlevel positions and sitting on boards?

• Have an Up-to-Date Disaster Recovery Plan?yes 78%no 22%

• Has Disaster Recovery Plan Been Implemented?yes 48%no 52%

• Lifecycle ManagementFormal audit 81%Regular inspections 14%Ad hoc, informal inspections 5%

• Deferred Maintenance Costs Reported Annuallyyes 63%no 37%

2005 Benchmarking Review

25

• Top 10 Best-In-Class Practices

% All

1. energy management program 832. building management system (BAS) 783. computerized maint. mgmt. system (CMMS) 754. customer satisfaction & service tracking 755. life cycle renewal program 676. disaster recovery plan (DRP) 647. customer service/help desk 588. strategic facilities plan (SFP) 569. custodial/janitorial quality program 53

10. universal/barrier-free design policy 50

Benchmarking and Best PracticesWorkshop 2005, Bilbao, SpainThis one-day workshop, always part of the benchmarkingexercise, was held in Bilbao, Spain, immediately prior tothe IAMFA Conference. The following institutions wererepresented at this Workshop:

Auckland Art Gallery Toi o TamakiCanada Aviation MuseumCanadian Museum of CivilizationCanadian Museum of NatureFreer Gallery of Art Hirshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden Library of CongressNational Air and Space MuseumNational Gallery of CanadaNational Gallery of VictoriaNational Library of Scotland National Museum of the American Indian Renwick Gallery of Art Smithsonian Institution Cultural Resource CenterThe British LibraryThe Getty Center The National Gallery (London)Winterthur Museum, Garden & Library

Workshop Highlights

• Survey ResultsPresentation and discussion of Museum Benchmarks2005 results and trends, including good/best practices.

• Best Practice Presentations — Beneficial Use of Survey Data

Joe May, The Getty Center

— On-Line Energy MonitoringIan MacLean, Canada Aviation Museum

— Process Improvement Through Wireless HandheldsDan Davies, Smithsonian Institution

— Integration of Data (and People) for CAFMDave Samec, Smithsonian Institution

• Focus Groups— Three separate groups discussed the following topics:

— Building Condition Audits — Dos and Don’ts

— Good/Best Practices for Lifecycle Management

— European Building Directive

• Thank You — All those who helped in the development of the

survey questionnaire

— All Workshop Best Practice presenters (as notedabove)

— Rogelio Diez, Jesus Bilbao and Roberto Cearsolo atthe Museo Guggenheim Bilbao, for great hospitalityand arrangements for the workshop room, equipmentand catered luncheon

— Guy Larocque and other IAMFA members for theirgreat continuing support of this annual benchmarkingexercise

Big News: Sale of Benchmarking SurveyThis annual survey was sold — effective January 17, 2006 —to Keith McClanahan of Facility Issues. It was sold becauseNancy and I had had a long-term plan to start anothercompany, called Fumblies Inc., which we had delayedstarting because of the challenge, fun and great supportreceived from IAMFA and its membership.

Keith McClanahan and his firm, Facility Issues, havebeen involved with benchmarking and best practice sur-veys for over 13 years. Keith’s commitment to expandingand improving this annual benchmarking exercise startedwhen he decided to attend the Benchmarking and BestPractices Workshop in Bilbao, Spain.

There’s nothing like “new blood”; new ideas and dif-ferent experiences to spur improvement. And it’s timelyat the start of this, the sixth consecutive year for thisbenchmarking survey.

Nancy and I have no reservations in recommending KeithMcClanahan and Facility Issues to our past benchmarkingparticipants. We encourage IAMFA members to continueto support this annual benchmarking exercise — andwe will see you at the IAMFA Conference in Los Angelesin September.

Ian FollettPresident, Facility Management Services Ltd.

26

Facility Issues purchased the benchmarking survey fromIan Follett and Facility Management Services in January2006, and we’ve been working to make the transition astransparent as possible. We actually started the negotiationswith Ian in mid-2005, and had the opportunity to meet many ofyou at the IAMFA conference in Bilbao. This was also anexcellent opportunity to understand the business and specialissues that are unique to IAMFA members.

In addition to the IAMFA benchmarking program, wealso lead benchmarking programs for many other organiza-tions including IFMA’s Utility Council, Research Facilities,FM Roundtable, Distribution Facilities, and major corpora-tions such as Boeing, Honeywell, Washington Group, etc.These other programs help give us insight into the commonissues faced by nearly all facility managers.

Since January, we have carefully reviewed the 2005 IAMFAbenchmarking survey and moved it to a web-based format.This will have several advantages to the participants, including:

• easier submissions;

• easier revisions, and

• the potential for fewer errors, since the data isn’ttransferred manually.

We asked for a Benchmarking Steering Committee to helpkeep us on track and provide a forum to help set new surveydirections, establish schedules, assist with best practicesidentification, and help improve participation. The SteeringCommittee has been established and includes: Daniel Daviesof the Smithsonian Institution, Joe May of the J. Paul GettyTrust, and Harry Wanless of the British Library.

The Steering Committee will meet monthly byteleconference. In our first meeting the Committee:

• reviewed the survey, made recommendations, and hasalready included those changes in the survey;

• recommended adding the Occupancy Satisfaction websurvey — the website has included this as a benchmarkingoption, and

• suggested that we develop a session in which delegatescan share use of the benchmark material in an actualbusiness environment within their organization.

We are in the registration phase of the benchmarkingprogram ,and you should have already received an e-mailnotice or two inviting you to participate. If you haven’tregistered yet, please do so at: www.FacilityIssues.com andclick on the “Cultural Institutions” button. If you have anyfeedback or comments on the benchmarking program,please give me a call at 1-928-213-9767, or e-mail me atkeithmcc@facilityissues.com.

Benchmarking Updateby Keith McClanahan

Ian Follett, crouching, hands off the reins of the IAMFA Bench-marking process to Keith McClanahan at the Bilbao Conference.

The International Association of Museum Facility Administratorsis an international, educational organization devoted tomeeting the professional needs of museum facility admin-istrators, especially their efforts to set and attain standardsof excellence and quality in the design, construction,operation and maintenance of world-class cultural facilities.

IAMFA earnestly desires to promote and foster commu-nications between facilities professionals at museums as

well as other cultural facilities. We believe doing so willallow our members to be better educated and betterequipped to serve the mission of their institutions.

In pursuit of these goals, the association sponsors anAnnual Conference and communicates quarterly with itsmembership and friends around the world through theIAMFA journal Papyrus.

Statement of Purpose

On behalf of the membership and Board, we invite you tojoin with other museums and cultural organizations through-out the world in becoming a member of the only organizationexclusively devoted to museum and cultural facility admin-istrators: the International Association of Museum FacilityAdministrators (IAMFA). As a member, you will join a growinglist of museum and cultural facility administrators in theirefforts to provide a standard of excellence and quality inplanning, development and design, construction, operationand maintenance of cultural facilities of all sizes and varietiesof programming.

The Association currently has representation in severalcountries on three continents. Our goal is to increasemembership in institutions throughout the world.

Your involvement in the IAMFA will continue the growthof the organization and provide you with excellent educationaland networking opportunities. As your colleagues, we lookforward to welcoming you to membership in the IAMFA.

Cordially yours,The Board of the International Association of Museum Facility Administrators

Membership OpportunitiesJoin the IAMFA at any of the following levels and enjoy fullbenefits of membership:

Regular Member — $150 annually. A regular memberholds the position of principal administration in directcharge of the management of facilities, and represents theirinstitution(s) as a member of the association.

Associate Member — $50 annually. An associate memberis a full-time facilities management employee (professional,administrative or supervisor), below the level of the facilityadministrator of the member association.

Affiliate Member — $50 annually. An affiliate member isany full-time employee of a member institution who is notdirectly involved in the facilities management department.

Subscribing Member — $300 annually. A subscribingmember is an individual, organization, manufacturer ofsupplier of goods services to the institutions who ascribesto the policies and programmes of the Aassociation, andwishes to support the activities of the Association.

Become a Member of the IAMFAand Get a Friend to Join

YES! I would like to join the IAMFA as a:

M Regular Member $150 M Associate Member $ 50

M Affiliate Member $ 50 M Subscribing Member $300

Institution: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Title: ________________________________

Address: ____________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________

State/Province: _______________________ Zip/Postal Code: _______________________ Country:_____________________________

Phone: _____________________________________ Fax: ____________________________________ E-mail: ______________________________

ALL FEES ARE PAYABLE IN U.S. DOLLARS

M I enclose a check in the amount of $ ____________________

M Please invoice me

✁

Send in your membership dues by using the convenient form below. Membership payments and conference registration can also be made online at www.IAMFA.org

Don’t forget to make a copy to give to a colleague.

Please remit to:International Association of Museum Facility AdministratorsP.O. Box 277Groton, MA 01450, USA

Website: www.iamfa.org

M I am interested in joining.Please have a membercontact me.

27

28

Greetings from Smithsonian Institution’s

new Donald W. Reynolds Center for

American Art and Portraiture, so named

in honor of a most generous gift. This

is the newest Smithsonian entity, but

occupies the oldest of all Smithsonian

facilities: the Old Patent Office Building.

President Andrew Jackson laid the cor-

nerstone of the original south wing in

1836. Now, some 170 years later, we

are re-opening the renovated facility to

once again house the National Portrait

Gallery and the Smithsonian American

Art Museum, in this fourth-oldest of all

federal buildings in Washington, D.C.

The intensity of the technology used

in the renovation requires us to bring

sharpened skills to the management,

operation and maintenance of this his-

toric landmark. Beyond the prevalence

of advanced systems, we are challenged

by a shortage of staff, so we will need

every individual to be highly skilled,

committed, passionate, and thoughtful

— in short, a knowledge worker, a

whole person, working among whole

people, as in Stephen Covey’s definition

of the Eighth Habit: from effectiveness

to greatness.

So, as our fond memories of Bilbao

soften into nostalgia, and the fervor and

anxious anticipation of Los Angeles

rises to a boil, the interim excitement

is here in D.C., where Independence

Day fireworks will carry a dual meaning

with the July 1 Grand Opening of the

new Donald W. Reynolds Center pre-

ceded by several weeks of ceremony,

and followed by several weeks of

intensive celebration. Come and see us!

Oh no, I’m not busy. No more so

than a long-tailed cat in a room full

of rocking chairs. And yet, knowing

this huge undertaking was before me,

I welcomed the opportunity to serve

IAMFA as your Secretary, and Editor

of Papyrus. This edition is notably

lighter than the great publication Larry

Bannister and Richard Harding pro-

duced last fall, and I encourage you

to help me return it to the caliber of

previous issues. Send me your hottest,

most thought-provoking articles, com-

ments, research, photos and prose.

Share with your peers through this

medium. Tell us about your facilities’

problems and solutions, shortcomings

and best practices. You’ll find them

right here in these pages, then sub-

sequently on the IAMFA website for

all to see.

Meanwhile, between Papyrus issues,

please follow Board, Committee and

L.A. Conference activity online at

www.IAMFA.org.

Daniel H. Davies

Secretary, IAMFA

Daniel H. Davies,Editor, Papyrus

Letter from the Editor

IAMFA/PapyrusSPRING 2006

EditorDaniel H. DaviesSmithsonian Institution, Renwick Gallery& Donald W Reynolds Center

Papyrus Correspondents

Joe Brennan

Daniel H. Davies

John De Lucy

Ian Follett

Guy Larocque

Joe May

Keith McClanahan

Design and LayoutPhredd Grafix

EditingArtistic License

Printed in the U.S.A. byLake Litho

ISSN 1682-5241

Statements of fact and opinion are madeon the responsibility of authors alone anddo not imply an opinion on the part of theeditors, officers, or members of IAMFA. Theeditors of IAMFA Papyrus reserve the right

to accept or to reject any Article oradvertisement submitted for publication.

While we have made every attempt to ensurethat reproduction rights have been acquiredfor the illustrations used in this newsletter,please let us know if we have inadvertently

overlooked your copyright, and we will rectifythe matter in a future issue.