Co-creating Archives Accreditation
Workshop27th January 2012
Janice Tullock Associates
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);
dovetails with Public Record Place of Deposit and Approved Archive status and S60 monitoring.
• To align with other UK archive programmes.
Benefits of archives accreditationOr 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 SolutionArchives Accreditation ‘Building Block’
DELIVERY PROCESS
GUIDANCE & SUPPORT
STANDARDS/REQUIREMENTS
ASSESSMENT
GRADING / LEVELS
MODULES
DELIVERY PROCESS
GUIDANCE &
SUPPORT
STANDARDS/REQUIREMENT
S
ASSESSMENT
GRADING / LEVELSMODULES
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; or2. 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; or2. More flexible, modular approach, offering applicants choice
1. Self evaluation2. Desk review3. In-house, external or mixed review/validation teams4. Peer reviewers5. Independent consultant assessors6. In-house, external or mixed Moderation or Awards Panels7. External third party accreditation bodies (e.g. UKAS)
1. TNA & MLA streamlining2. MDO and/or Museum Accreditation Officer changes3. Peer support networks4. 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 Health2. 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
Sample1 Organisational Health1.3 Appropriate management arrangementsObjective: 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
Headlines1. What’s missing?2. What’s described wrongly?
Sample Section1. What works?2. What doesn’t work?3. What would be your preferred text?
Thank you !