Co-creating Archives Accreditation Workshop

3rd February 2012

Janice Tullock Associates

Aims of the day

• Introduce research and thinking to date

• Discuss the proposed model for archives accreditation

• Discuss the possible contents of an archives accreditation standard

• Secure support for participation in the co-creation process

Accreditation in the museums sector

Co-creation

“the practice of collaborative product or service development: developers and stake-holders

working together.”

Fronteer Strategy White Paper 2009,

Co-creations 5 guiding principles

Thinking about accreditation

• What, in your opinion and experience, would make an Archives Accreditation Scheme successful in improving your service?

• Please suggest up to 3 key points in order of importance

Overview of the Project Purpose: to Design an Archives Accreditation Scheme for the UK Aims to be : • A standards scheme that drives improvement by externally validating and

accrediting achievement • Purpose built to meet the needs of archives

• Driven and owned by the archives sector

• Focused on user needs and experiences

• Affordable and deliver value for money

• Open to all archives that meet basic eligibility criteria

• Aligned to museum Accreditation

• Replace the Self Assessment Scheme (for local government in England & Wales); dovetails with Public Record Place of Deposit and Approved Archive status and S60 monitoring.

• To align with other UK archive programmes.

Benefits of archives accreditation Or isn’t this the wrong time for this?

Work to date

• Stage 1: – Scope the aims and aspirations of partners, explore best practice

models and examine how these could be transferred. – to explore how a standard should be developed to ensure sector

support – To identify possible models – to assess what resources might be required to pilot, deliver and

manage the standard.

• Stage 2: – establish partnerships with strategic bodies and sector stakeholders – set scheme scope and parameters – conduct post-CSR review of delivery mechanisms and budgets – set up sector working groups

• Stage 3: – Co-creation with the sector

Stage 1 research : A precis

• Review of the benefits and issues arising from Self-Assessment process in England and Wales

• Examination & analysis of other models and discussion of improvement tool v accreditation scheme:

• Self-improvement tools: – goal = achieving sustainable excellence

– do not seek to accredit, recognise, or rank

• Accreditation Schemes – certificate excellence or achievement of defined standards

– externally validated, but may incorporate self-evaluation

– formal ‘badge of approval’

Models : Key learning points

• Eligibility

– Archives and/or records management – what’s being assessed?

– Securing corporate buy-in

• Model type

– Self-improvement tool or Accreditation Scheme?

• Process

– Directive, or flexible and modular?

– Proportionate

Models : Learning points

• Validation – small, focussed review/validation teams

– use of peer reviewers

• Costs – Fee charging for validation services common

• Support – clear, coordinated guidance essential

– one-stop-shop

– quality rather than quantity

– value of people support

Stage 2 research

• Refinement due to governmental policy changes

• Changes due to the demise of MLA and transfer to TNA

A Blended Solution Archives Accreditation ‘Building Block’

DELIVERY

PROCESS

GUIDANCE &

SUPPORT

STANDARDS/

REQUIREMENTS

ASSESSMENT

GRADING /

LEVELS

MODULES

DELIVERY

PROCESS

GUIDANCE

& SUPPORT

STANDARDS/

REQUIREMENTS

ASSESSMENT

GRADING /

LEVELS

MODULES

1. Same structure as revised Museum Accreditation Scheme; 2. Request changes to the proposed modules for Museum Accreditation; 3. Create additional modules; or

4. Create different modules.

1. Single minimum standard like Museum Accreditation; or 2. Stepped awards e.g. • Star ratings (TNA Self-Assessment) • Standard, Silver and Gold Awards (Artsmark) • Levels of Excellence (EFQM Excellence Model recognition awards) • Stepping Stones – Foundation, Intermediate, Full Award (International Schools Award)

Pre-qualification or ‘milestone’ markers • for organisations on a journey towards full accreditation Minimum standards • common to all museum and archive applicants • museums only • archives only Additional standards • Supplementary standards for certain categories of archives and museums • ‘Silver’ standards • ‘Gold’ standards

1. Prescriptive delivery process directed by the awarding body; or 2. More flexible, modular approach, offering applicants choice

1. Self evaluation 2. Desk review 3. In-house, external or mixed review/validation teams 4. Peer reviewers 5. Independent consultant assessors 6. In-house, external or mixed Moderation or Awards Panels 7. External third party accreditation bodies (e.g. UKAS)

1. TNA & MLA streamlining 2. MDO and/or Museum Accreditation Officer changes 3. Peer support networks 4. Centralised online guidance

Options

Recommendations

•Core (minimum) standards – weighted

to different archive types

•Basic level + 1 or 2 enhanced levels

DELIVERY

PROCESS

GUIDANCE &

SUPPORT

STANDARDS /

REQUIREMENTS

ASSESSMENT

GRADING /

LEVELS

MODULES

•Nationally-managed assessment process, moderated by

a UK Panel/Committee

•Level of validation for X% new applicants; X%

returns

•Small mixed review teams including peer reviewers

•Combined committee structure with sub-panels in

partnership with Museums Accreditation Scheme

•Widen Committee/Panel membership to include other

sectors (e.g. education, health, business)

•Develop regional partnerships

•Create peer support networks

•Develop central UK digital

resource

•Develop UK training programme

and networks through ARA

•Identify common standards with

museums

•Develop standards specific to

archives, and to different archive

types

•National administrative structure,

coordinated centrally by TNA

•Open invitation process

•Flexible, modular approach

•Some direction and prioritisation by

national assessing bodies

•Same sections as revised

Museum Accreditation Scheme:

•Organisational health

•Collections

•Users & their experience

Discuss: The Building Block Approach

1. What might work and why?

2. What might not work and why?

3. Are there other options?

DELIVERY

PROCESS

GUIDANCE &

SUPPORT

STANDARDS/

REQUIREMENTS

ASSESSMENT

GRADING /

LEVELS

MODULES

The plan for co-creation

• The creation of a “destruction” document

• Series of workshops to introduce our thinking

• Webinar – 9 Feb

• By the 6 Feb online environment will be complete and you will be emailed joining information for the online discussions

• The online forum will be web based, accessible and encourage short sharp contributions.

Co-creating the Standard – Destruction Document layout

Sections :

1. Organisational Health

2. Collections

3. Users and their experiences

• Divided into :

– Headline - Area of work

– Objective - The goal of this section

– Standard – The specific requirement

– Learn more - More detail

– Evidence

– Resources

Co-creating the Standard – Destruction Document layout

Sample

1 Organisational Health

1.3 Appropriate management arrangements

Objective: The interests of stakeholders and collections are served through the responsible management of the archive service.

Standard: The archive service is an effective organisation that is well managed and able to provide evidence of the requirements outlined below

1.3.1 The service has a satisfactory management structure from the governing body to the user

Headlines

1. What’s missing?

2. What’s described wrongly?

Sample Section

1. What works?

2. What doesn’t work?

3. What would be your preferred text?

Thank you !