Success within a museum

Success within a museum is difficult to assess and has no clear answer. The term “success” is relative depending on who you talk to; each person that has anything to with a museum, be it a patron or the director all want to get something different out of it. Weil tries to break down how to measure success of a museum using four different pieces of criteria: purposiveness, capability, effectiveness and efficiency. Using these four aspects of a museum he is able to explain how it is possible for a self-evaluation. I do agree with him that all of this is necessary to gauge success for museum staff. I however find it difficult to use this to gauge success for patrons at a museum.
One aspect that I have felt that is overlooked in many museums is the ability to engage with the viewer in an interactive environment. I do understand that not all museums are capable or should actually do this, but at the same time too many museums are simply created around the uniform idea that you just observe an exhibit, then move on to the next one. For example when I go to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry or OMSI, I feel as though I am more knowledgeable walking away from an exhibit because I have had some interaction with it. A few years back when I went there, they had a exhibit on earthquakes and the destruction they do. They had many different interactions with the patrons of the museum such as walking into a house that would replicate certain magnitudes of earthquakes. This combined with pictures of the results of an earthquake made me truly understand what it was like to go through what the people of the picture did. I would have not been able to have the same experience at the exhibit if there was not the room that replicated an earthquake, I most likely would have just moved on to the next exhibit. Exhibits that engage the patron can simply leave a more lasting affect than one that is only for viewing.