Some digital tools are too expensive, too time-consuming or too specialist for individual arts, culture and heritage organisations to tackle alone.
That does not mean they are not needed. In many cases, they are exactly the tools the sector needs most.
The problem is not always the idea. It is the economics of building it, maintaining it and improving it over time.
A small museum might need a better way to share collections online. A heritage organisation might need a more practical way to manage community participation. A gallery might want better audience insight, clearer campaign journeys or a more joined-up way to promote exhibitions, events, learning and membership. A cultural partnership might need shared directories, digital resources, event listings or collaborative storytelling tools.
Each organisation can see the value. Few have the time, budget or internal capacity to build the full system from scratch. That is where a different approach is needed.
Instead of every organisation trying to solve the same problems separately, we can build practical digital tools together.
The same problems keep appearing
Across arts, culture and heritage, many organisations are facing similar digital challenges.
Teams are trying to do more with limited resources. Content is spread across websites, spreadsheets, documents, booking platforms, email tools and social channels. Knowledge sits with individual people rather than in shared systems. Campaigns are rebuilt from scratch. Community projects create valuable learning, but that learning is not always captured in a way that can be reused. Digital ideas are often exciting, but the gap between ambition and delivery is too large.
This can lead to a familiar pattern.
A project gets funding. A tool is built. The project ends. The tool becomes hard to maintain. The learning does not travel far enough. Another organisation then starts again with a similar need, a similar brief and a similar set of constraints.
It is not a lack of creativity. It is a lack of shared infrastructure.
The Museums Association’s Empowering Collections report backs this up. It highlights the ongoing challenge of resourcing vital collections work, while also pointing to the value of strong partnerships, digital technologies, better sharing of collections information and cross-sector working. Those themes apply well beyond collections. They speak to a wider digital challenge across arts, culture and heritage: how do we build useful tools when time, funding and expertise are unevenly distributed?
Built alone, tools can be fragile
When one organisation commissions a digital tool on its own, it carries the full weight of the work. It has to define the requirements, fund the design, manage the build, test the system, train the team, create the content, fix the issues, support users and keep improving the tool after launch.
That is hard enough for a large organisation. For smaller teams, it can be unrealistic.
The result is often a compromise. The tool does part of the job, but not all of it. It works for the funded project, but not the longer-term need. It is useful to one team, but not designed to support wider adoption. It solves an immediate problem, but does not become part of a bigger digital ecosystem.
This is why “build once, use once” is such a wasteful model.
The issue is especially important in a sector where public benefit, trust and stewardship matter. The Code of Ethics for Museums frames museums as public-facing, collections-based institutions that hold a position of trust with audiences, communities, partners, sponsors and funders. That creates a higher bar for digital work. Tools cannot simply be functional. They also need to support openness, access, accuracy, participation and responsible decision-making.
Built together, tools become more useful
A shared tool starts from a different assumption. It asks: what do many organisations need, and how can we build something that works well enough for the common use case, while still allowing local flexibility?
When digital tools are built together, the cost can be shared. The thinking can be shared. The testing can be shared. The improvements can be shaped by real organisations using the tool in real settings.
One museum might help define the collections workflow. Another might test how the tool works for schools and learning. Another might bring community participation needs. Another might help refine accessibility, reporting or governance. Over time, the tool becomes stronger because it has been shaped by different contexts, not designed in isolation.
This does not mean every organisation needs exactly the same thing. It means the common foundations can be shared, while the local expression remains flexible.
That principle sits comfortably alongside A Manifesto for Museum Learning and Engagement, which argues for participation, representation, agency and partnership as central to the role of museums. If communities should have a greater say in how culture is accessed, interpreted and used, then the digital systems supporting that work also need to be designed in a more collaborative way.
Shared tools should not mean generic tools
There is a risk with shared digital infrastructure. If it is designed badly, it becomes too generic. It tries to please everyone and ends up being useful to no one. That is why the starting point should not be “what platform can we build?” It should be “what work are people actually trying to do?”
For arts, culture and heritage organisations, that might include:
- Helping audiences discover what is on.
- Making learning offers easier for teachers, families and communities to understand.
- Supporting membership, friends and supporters.
- Sharing collections, stories and research in more meaningful ways.
- Creating better routes into volunteering and participation.
- Turning one-off projects into reusable resources.
- Helping organisations track what is working and improve over time.
These are practical needs, but they are also mission-driven needs. Museums Change Lives talks about museums working with communities, listening to priorities, setting common goals and using spaces and collections to make a positive difference. Digital tools should help that work happen more easily. They should not pull teams into another layer of administration or make meaningful participation harder to manage.
The best shared tools are practical. They remove repeated work. They make good practice easier. They support teams who are already busy. They help organisations become more confident, not more dependent.
Collaboration can improve quality, not just reduce cost
The most obvious benefit of building together is affordability. But the bigger benefit may be quality.
A tool shaped by one organisation reflects one set of assumptions. A tool shaped by many organisations can reflect a wider range of needs, audiences, barriers and opportunities.
That is especially important in arts, culture and heritage, where context matters. Organisations work with different communities, collections, places, histories, access needs and levels of digital confidence. A shared tool can create the structure, but it should also make room for local knowledge.
This is where collaborative development becomes powerful.
It allows the sector to pool insight, not just money. It creates space for people to compare approaches, share mistakes, test ideas and build on each other’s learning. It means a small organisation can benefit from thinking that would normally only be available to a larger, better-resourced institution.
Empowering Collections is helpful here too. It does not simply call for more digitisation. It calls for better collaboration, knowledge sharing and purposeful use of collections. That distinction matters. Digital work is strongest when it is connected to a clear reason for doing it, a real audience need and a shared commitment to improving practice.
The tool is only part of the value
A digital tool on its own is rarely the full answer. What matters is the system around it: guidance, templates, training, examples, support, governance and continuous improvement.
This is where many digital projects fall short. They focus heavily on the launch, but not enough on what happens next.
A shared model should work differently. The first version should not be seen as the finished product. It should be seen as the first working version of something that can improve with use.
That improvement might come from user feedback, new accessibility requirements, new campaign ideas, new funding priorities, new audience behaviour or new technology. The tool should evolve because the work evolves.
The Museums Association’s Off the Shelf: A Toolkit for Ethical Transfer, Reuse and Disposal is a useful reminder that good sector practice often depends on clear processes, careful judgement, due diligence and documentation. Although the toolkit focuses on collections management, the same principle applies to digital infrastructure. A good tool should not just store information or automate tasks. It should help people make better decisions, follow better processes and leave behind a clearer record of what has happened.
In that sense, building together is not just a cheaper way to build. It is a better way to learn.
A more sustainable digital model for the sector
Arts, culture and heritage organisations are often encouraged to innovate, but innovation is difficult when every team has to start from scratch.
A more sustainable model is possible.
Identify the common needs. Build the shared foundations. Allow local flexibility. Support adoption. Measure what works. Improve over time.
This approach can help organisations access digital tools that would otherwise be out of reach. It can reduce duplication. It can help funders support work with a longer legacy. It can give smaller organisations access to better infrastructure. It can help the wider sector move forward together rather than in isolated pockets.
It also fits the direction of travel set out across the Museums Association’s work. Empowering Collections calls for stronger partnerships and better sharing of information. Museums Change Lives places community benefit and social purpose at the centre. A Manifesto for Museum Learning and Engagement argues for participation, agency and partnership. The Code of Ethics for Museums reminds us that public trust, access and integrity must sit behind the work. Off the Shelf shows the importance of clear process, ethical practice and long-term sustainability.
Taken together, these documents point towards a simple conclusion: shared problems need shared responses.
Most importantly, shared digital tools can help the sector focus on the real work of arts, culture and heritage: connecting people with stories, places, collections, creativity, learning and each other.
Some tools are too big to build alone. But built together, they can become more affordable, more practical and more useful for everyone.
