The puzzle is a wonderful metaphor.
But in addition to that, we probably also need an additional way to think about the motive to solve the puzzle. How about rewards (from funders) for institutions willing to simultaneously collaborate AND narrow their missions? If foundations were fund ONLY projects in collaborative ventures, we'd see several kinds of results, not the least of which would be a decline in competition just for the sake of it and an increase in sector thinking. Let's talk more here and in class about what that kind of thinking would be like and what it might yield.
BTW, to clarify: it was the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, not the Philadelphia History Museum (formerly called the Atwater Kent Museum) that put forth the idea for a History Center in Philadelphia in the mid 1990s.
Thank you for the clarification about the History Center proposal! I found that a little unclear as I was reading.
I agree that if foundations were only to fund to projects in collaborative ventures that we'd see a decrease in competition for competition's sake and greater sector-wide thinking which was the TDC's entire point with their article. I think rewards from funders as you describe here would be an interesting way of implementing this.
I proposed a kind of overarching flow of money to fund all of the nonprofits in the city, but who would regulate this and how might their biases influence the cultural sector? How would we even decide upon a regulator? Perhaps a council of sorts could be established with representatives from each nonprofit who would all have equal sway would be a way of implementing this. What are your thoughts?