Transcript TITLE

Measuring the Value:
Valuing the Measure
Caslin 12th – 15th June 2006
Deborah Novotny
Head of Preservation
Overview - Times they are a-changin’
Two examples:
 Contingent Valuation
 condition survey
2
2
Modernisation programme
 2000 modernisation programme





new CEO
reorganisation management structure
rigorous strategic agenda
re-engineered information supply service
obtain electronic legal deposit
 Optimise efficiency savings
 programme of reform
 service improvement
3
3
Graph of funding
Grant in Aid funding 2005-2008
100000
90000
80000
70000
£k
60000
Operational grant
Capital funding
Total Grant in Aid
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
2005/6
2006/7
2007/8
Financial year
4
4
Measuring Our Value
 independent economic impact study
 Kenneth Arrow & Robert Solow
 quantitative evaluation
 economic
 cultural
 social
 intellectual
 directly
 indirectly
5
5
Contingent Valuation
 2000 people interviewed
 random selection from different groups
 snapshot
 does not capture emerging products and services e.g.
digitisation and web-based services
6
6
Contingent Valuation
Methodology:
 Questionnaire
1. willingness to pay
2. willingness to accept
3. investment in accessing the services
4. the cost of alternative
5. change in demand to a hypothetical price change
7
7
Results of the study
The total value
each year of the
British Library is
£363m of which
£304m is indirect
value and £59m direct
value.

£363m
Benefit
cost
 For every £1 of
public funding the
British Library
receives annually,
£4.40 is generated for
the UK economy.
 If the British
Library did not exist,
the UK would lose
£280m of economic
value per annum.
ratio
4.4:1
£83m
Total Value
per annum
Public
Funding
8
8
BL Preservation Needs Assessment Surveys
 background to the surveys programme
 headline results
 using the findings
 need for an objective picture of the state of the
collections
 need for a standardised tool to achieve this
9
9
Pas weighted scoring
PAS Weighting Scores
Percentage of total weighting (max = 100)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Series1
Access
Use
Condition
Accommodation
Value/importance
0
30
30
20
20
Preservation Factor
 Sample of c.400 items assessed (+/- 5% accuracy)
 Low score = low preservation need/low priority
 High score = high preservation need/high priority
10
10
PAS Scoring
Very Low Priority
BAND 1
(1-20)
Low Priority
BAND 2
(21-40)
Medium Priority
BAND 3
(41-60)
High Priority
BAND 4
(61-80)
Very High Priority
BAND 5
(81-100)
11
11
KNOWING THE NEED - National UK Picture
97 surveys completed so far
 43,000 individual items surveyed (represents estimated 28 million
collection items)
 87% of UK collections are in stable condition
 13% of UK collections are in unstable condition
 70% of material surveyed show some form of damage
 21% of material surveyed showed evidence of brittle paper
 80% of all newspapers surveyed showed some form of damage
 Most pressing issues are environment, written disaster plan,
Storage, ‘housekeeping’ – cleaning.
12
12
s
7.65
8.64
9.34
10.07
11.75
13.02
26.25
27.94
29.10
73.75
72.06
70.90
92.35
91.36
90.66
89.93
88.25
86.98
83.73
70.00
ap
0.00
68.73
90.00
M
10.00
31.27
20.00
66.27
50.00
33.73
80.00
16.27
30.00
65.92
60.00
34.08
Unstable
ew
sp
ap
Ea
er
rl
s
y
Pr
in
te
d
Ph
ila
te
lic
M
us
M
ic
an
us
cr
ip
ts
A
M
PA
od
C
O
er
ffi
n
ci
Se
al
ri
Pu
al
s
bl
ic
at
io
M
ns
od
er
n
M
ST
on
I
og
ra
So
ph
un
s
d
D
A
oc
um rch
iv
en
e
tS
up
pl
y
Stable
N
Percentage of survey
BL results: condition (as % stable/unstable)
100.00
40.00
13
13
Condition survey - assessment
14
14
Results: NEWSPAPER LIBRARY
Condition and Preservation Priority Bands
Condition & Usability Rating
Stable
Unstable
160
140
% Stable: 65.92
% Unstable: 34.08
120
No of items
100
80
60
40
20
140
125
78
59
0
Good
Fair
Poor
Unusable
% in Band 1:
% in Band 2:
% in Band 3:
% in Band 4:
% in Band 5:
Preservation Priority Bands Summary
300
Number of survey items
250
200
150
168
154
100
1
41.79
38.31
18.15
0.75
73
50
4
3
0
Band 1
Lowest Priority
Band 2
Band 3
Band 4
Band 5
Highest Priority
15
15
Results: MAPS
Condition and Preservation Priority Bands
Stable
Condition & Usability Rating
Unstable
160
% Stable: 92.35
% Unstable: 7.65
262
140
120
112
80
60
40
20
25
6
0
Good
Fair
Poor
U nus able
Preservation Priority Bands Summary
300
250
Number of survey items
No of items
100
232
200
150
136
100
50
35
2
0
% in Band 1: 33.58
% in Band 2: 57.28
% in Band 3: 8.64
% in Band 4: 0.5
% in Band 5: 0
0
Band 1
Lowest Priority
Band 2
Band 3
Band 4
Band 5
Highest Priority
16
16
Using the results
 establish a baseline figure of condition (KPI)
 make informed preservation funding decisions
 contribute to the national picture of preservation needs
 answer ad hoc preservation questions
 gain valuable incidental information
 learn from the experience for future surveys
17
17
Using the results: baseline statistic
Condition of the collections:
Key Performance Indicator delivered March 2004
86% of the British Library’s collections
in stable condition
18
18
Preservation bidding cycle
 £3m preservation budget
Oct
Bidding cycle begins
 collection areas bid for
work via bidding database
Nov
All bids submitted by end of
month
Dec-Jan
 All bids verified, scores
computed
 same format, same criteria
applied to all bids
 bids for
 bids for external services
costed, budget profiled
 conservation
 boxing/enclosure
 bids for internal treatments
sent to Conservation for
estimating
 binding
 microfilming
 digitisation
Feb
Preservation Board meets to
ratify budget and bid
programmes
April
Programmes begin
 migration
 furbishing
 condition assessment
19
19
Preservation Bidding Scoring Matrix
20
20
Using results: comparing strategies
– an example of “What if” projections
Newspapers - Impact of risk-reduction strategies
250
200
150
100
50
0
As Surveyed
Better
Shelving
Better
Protection
Better
Environment
All 3 aspects
improved
Items in Band 1
4
4
11
65
79
Items in Band 2
168
206
170
166
172
Items in Band 3
154
138
153
134
130
Items in Band 4
73
54
66
37
21
Items in Band 5
3
0
2
0
0
21
21
The end
Happy to be here
Happy to answer questions
Thank you
22
22