Challenges to Intellectual Property Management in Kenyan Public Museums

Abstract

This study aimed to assess challenges to Intellectual Property management (IP) in Kenya’s public museums. The research was a case study of the National Museums of Kenya (NMK), a body corporate mandated to oversee management of public museums in Kenya. The theoretical underpinning of this study was management theory. The study used Sullivan’s (2000, p. 162 & 229) model to explain the Intellectual Property Management (IPM) process and related challenges in museums. The choice of this model was hinged on the fact that it gave a crisp description of the intellectual Property management (IPM) process in organizations. Further, the model outlines the essentials of an ideal IPM system, the role of human capital in promoting intellectual assets value, and explains possible challenges in this system (see Sheen, 2005 p. 64). The study employed a case study design. The target group was public museum employees working, in senior positions: the museum curators, managers, and administrators. Participation in the study was voluntary. The Nairobi Railway Museum, an organization of the Kenya Railways Corporation was selected as a pretest case for research instruments, and documentation from the institution used for comparative purposes. Selection of NMK respondents was purposive taking into consideration size of institution and geography. In-depth face to face and self- administered interviews were used to obtain information on employee IP management practices. Nineteen (19) respondents selected from Kisumu, Nairobi, Karen Blixen, and Fort Jesus Museums participated in the self-administered questionnaires administration exercise. The in depth interviews targeted six key informants. Also used in this study were document analysis that looked at literature resources mainly, institutional reports, and academic commentary and journal articles relevant to issues of IPM challenges in museums. The study also carried out Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to assess IPR management in target museums. Data analysis was undertaken with aid of Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) [version 14]. Information was categorized in thematic areas and the texts analyzed for trends in responses. Results of the survey study showed overall, to a level exceeding 70%, that the NMK was clearly lacking good IPM practices and structures. Specifically, 78.8% of the staff ranked the NMK IPM performance below average. Also, 84.2% of staff noted NMK suffered the challenge of weak legal framework. Other weaknesses observed by staff was lack of formal offices (94.7%), balancing Rights between access and IP rights (94.7%), and digital technology (78.9%). In-depth interviews, focus group Discussion results and institution documents reflected the same. It was found by the study that the NMK does not have a formal IP policy. Besides absence of an IP policy, it was also found that over three quarters of the organization opined that there was low IP awareness among staff and stakeholders. The study recommended that NMK put in place an institutional IP policy to guide IP Management in NMK institutions. It was further recommended that be part of the overall “deliberate push” to institutionalize good IP management practices. Specific initiatives recommended include IP training programme for all staff who manage museum heritage at NMK, an IP awareness creation programme targeting stakeholders and an incentive regime to promote creativity and innovation among staff.