Navigating the DAMS Buyer’s Journey: How the Nasher Sculpture Center Got Unstuck

For years, the Nasher Sculpture Center knew something wasn’t working.

Files were scattered across Dropbox, SharePoint, hard drives, and even individual desktops. Teams spent more time searching for assets than using them. As demand for digital content grew, the problem only got worse.

“We had a lot of content, but it was scattered across different systems, and it wasn't making us efficient,” says Jacques Haba, Head of Digital Operations and Strategy

This is the story of how they moved from that reality to selecting and implementing a digital asset management system (DAMS) that actually works with their collections.

Does this sound familiar?

Most institutions don’t start their DAMS buyer’s journey because of software. They start because something breaks.

At the Nasher, the signals were clear: assets scattered across multiple systems, difficulty finding and retrieving files, increasing pressure to produce digital content, and workflows slowing down instead of improving.

If you’re experiencing any of this, you’re not alone—and you’re likely closer to a decision point than you think.

The turning point: When “manageable” stops working

The Nasher Sculpture Center didn't decide overnight to invest in a digital asset management system.

The idea had been circulating internally for nearly a decade, held back by familiar barriers: budget constraints, competing priorities, and a lack of alignment across teams.

What changed? Two things converged. Externally, audiences expected more digital content, more access, more storytelling. Internally, teams were spending too much time searching, duplicating, and recreating work.

At a certain point, it stopped being manageable—and started holding them back.

Step one: Understanding how people actually work

One of the most important parts of the Nasher teams’s process had nothing to do with software.

Before evaluating a single vendor, they interviewed every department. “We met with every single staff member and used that feedback to shape our search,” says Molly Tepera, Digital Asset Specialist.

This revealed something critical: the problem wasn’t just storage—it was workflow.

Different teams created assets differently, stored them differently, and needed them in different contexts. Without understanding that, no system would succeed.

From 68 vendors down to one: What actually mattered

The Nasher started with a list of 68 vendors and narrowed it down based on what truly mattered in a collections environment:

• Integration with their collections system: “Our team was very insistent on that,” says Molly.
  
  

• Cultural heritage experience: Not all DAM systems understand how museums work.
  
  

• Roles, permissions, and governance: They needed to manage sensitive assets.
  
  

• Scalability and affordability: As a small-to-mid-sized institution, cost and room to grow both mattered.

But one factor stood above the rest.

The real decision driver: Connecting assets to objects

Most DAM systems manage files. Collections institutions think in objects. That distinction became the deciding factor.

“That relationship between the object record and an asset record was key,” says Jacques.

In a traditional DAMS, assets live in folders, context is limited, and relationships are manual. In an object-based approach, assets connect directly to artworks, exhibitions, artists, and events, so context is preserved and discovery becomes intuitive.

This is where most digital asset management systems fall short.

A DAMS doesn't replace your collections management system

A common concern is: will a DAMS replace our collections management system?

At the Nasher, the answer was clear. Your CMS manages object records and collection data. Your DAMS manages digital assets and how they’re used.

The value comes from how the two systems work together, not from replacing one with the other.

Implementation: What actually made it work

Getting a DAM approved is one thing. Getting it adopted is another. The Nasher team focused on a few key strategies:

• Create ownership: Hire a dedicated Digital Asset Specialist. Someone like Molly whose sole job is to own the system, communicate across departments, and keep things moving.
  
  

• Involve staff early: The Nasher let staff vote on a name for the system. (“The Foundry” won, courtesy of the education department.) Small gestures like this build investment before anyone’s even logged in.
  
  

• Start with power users: Training began with active content creators and department heads, the people most likely to become internal advocates.
  
  

• Keep momentum visible: The implementation team shared updates, documentation, and progress with staff even before full rollout, so no one felt left in the dark.

What changed after DAMS implementation

With over 4,500 assets already in the system, the impact was immediate. Staff reactions included: "I didn't know we had all this content!"

Quick wins after implementation were:

• Easier asset discovery

• Better cross-department communication

• Less duplicated work

• Content creation became faster

What's still in progress (and why that matters)

The Nasher is still evolving their DAM system. The next steps include:

• Integrating with their CMS

• Migrating legacy content

• Continuing training

• Planning website integration

A DAM isn’t a one-time project. It's a system that grows with your institution.

Thinking about your own DAM journey?

The Nasher Sculpture Center’s story isn't unique. What’s different is that staff reached a point where they decided to act.

If you're starting to feel that same friction, you're likely closer to your own decision than you think.

Your institution may be at a similar point if:

• Your systems don’t work well together

• Digital assets are difficult to find

• Workflows are becoming more manual

• Content demands are increasing

Terentia is built for institutions managing collections. Our platform can connect your digital assets to the objects, people, and events that give them meaning. See how this works in practice →