In this post, I want to talk about one of the most consistently raised issues since this series started — what happens when the people responsible for hiring art technicians don't fully understand what the role actually requires, and the consequences that have for everyone involved.

Since starting this series, a number of people have got in touch privately to share their own experiences. And one theme has come up repeatedly — being hired into a role by someone who didn't fully understand what the job actually involved. Or being brought in with less experience than the role required, without the support structure to develop properly once there.

I want to be clear: this isn't a criticism of the individuals making those hiring decisions. In many cases, they are doing their best with limited knowledge and limited resources. But it is a structural problem — and one that has real consequences for collections, for institutions, and for the people caught in the middle of it.

Here's how it typically plays out: A role needs filling. The hiring manager — often someone from a curatorial, administrative or facilities background — is responsible for the appointment. They know they need a technician. But without a clear competency framework, documented standards, or a detailed understanding of what the role genuinely requires, the hiring process becomes largely instinctive. CVs are assessed on proxies — job titles, institutions, years of experience — rather than on demonstrated technical capability.

And sometimes, to save money, a less experienced candidate is appointed. Which can absolutely work — if the right support and development structure is in place around them. 

But often it isn't.

So you end up with someone who is capable but under-supported, in a role that demands more than they currently have, working for an organisation that isn't sure what good looks like and therefore isn't sure what they're missing. And the gap only becomes visible when something goes wrong.

This is particularly acute in regional institutions and organisations outside of London and the major cities. And I say this in the most supportive way possible — our national survey data consistently shows that organisations in the regions have smaller pools to recruit from, and practitioners there can have more limited exposure to different institution types, collection scales, and working environments simply because of geography and opportunity. That's not a reflection of individual ability. It's a reflection of structural inequality in how knowledge and experience are distributed across the sector.

Which is exactly why accessible, high quality training matters so much outside of the major centres. Online training in particular has a real role to play here — because it removes geography as a barrier to professional development and gives practitioners in every region access to the same knowledge and standards.

But back to hiring.

The root of the problem is the same one running through this entire series: without documented standards and clear competency frameworks, we are making decisions — hiring decisions, training decisions, operational decisions — based on assumptions rather than evidence. We don't have a shared definition of what a competent art technician looks like at different stages of their career. So we can't hire consistently, develop consistently, or assess consistently.

And that costs organisations more in the long run than investing in proper standards and training would ever cost them upfront.

Because if you don't know what you need, you can't hire it.

And if you can't hire it, you certainly can't build it.

Have you ever been hired into a role where the expectations weren't clear — or managed someone without fully understanding what their role required? And what would documented professional standards change about how we hire and develop in this industry?

#training #arttechnician #arthandling #museumtechnician #artlogistics #arttechspace