For our last article, Anna and I presented on one that analyzed the effectiveness of museums in relation to their inputs and outputs (inputs being staff, exhibits, design, etc. while outputs would be considered visit numbers). According to the article, most of the museums (specifically those in Sicily) are not operating at full capacity and could increase their visit numbers by increasing their size and traffic volume. Since Sicily is not on the mainland, the museums that do perform the best are usually those that are connected to a resort or have a reason to attract attention. By attracting more visitors, the museums in Sicily may have a chance at using their inputs efficiently.
Since this article compares size of the museum to technical efficiency, it made me wonder whether the larger museums we visited are more efficient than the smaller ones. The largest museum we visited was the Louvre, which, while not in Italy and not part of the actual trip, still counts in my opinion. The Louvre not only has a large museum in physical size, but it also has a vast collection that includes the Mona Lisa. Its reputation and renowned collection has the potential to attract a large group of people possibly making it more efficient than smaller museums. Going off of the assumption of an increase in size is an increase in efficiency proposed in the article, then the Louvre should be more efficient compared to a smaller museum like the Academia. While the Academia does have the statue of David to attract visitors, it does not have a large building size. However, higher efficiency doesn’t necessarily correlate to increases in visitor satisfaction. I know that when we were in the Louvre, the size of their collection was overwhelming. It would have taken days to stop and appreciate every single item. While the Louvre was impressive, I know I appreciated the small size of some of the other museums even if their smaller collections make them less efficient to the author.