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