Measuring the Value:Valuing the Measure

Caslin 12th – 15th June 2006

Deborah NovotnyHead of Preservation

22

Overview - Times they are a-changin’

Two examples:

Contingent Valuation

condition survey

33

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

44

Graph of funding

Grant in Aid funding 2005-2008

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8

Financial year

£k Operational grant

Capital fundingTotal Grant in Aid

55

Measuring Our Value

independent economic impact study

Kenneth Arrow & Robert Solow

quantitative evaluation economic cultural social intellectual

directly indirectly

66

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

77

Contingent Valuation

Methodology:

Questionnaire1. 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

88

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.

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.

£363m

£83m

Benefit

cost

ratio

4.4:1

Total Value per annum

Public Funding

99

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

BL Preservation Needs Assessment Surveys

1010

Pas weighted scoring

Sample of c.400 items assessed (+/- 5% accuracy)

Low score = low preservation need/low priority

High score = high preservation need/high priority

1111

PAS Scoring

Very Low Priority

(1-20)

Medium Priority

(41-60)

High Priority

(61-80)

Low Priority

(21-40)

Very High Priority

(81-100)

BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

BAND 5

1212

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.

1313

BL results: condition (as % stable/unstable)

65.9

234

.08

66.2

733

.73

68.7

331

.27

70.9

029

.10

72.0

627

.94

73.7

526

.25

83.7

316

.27

86.9

813

.02

88.2

511

.75

89.9

310

.07

90.6

69.

34

91.3

68.

64

92.3

57.

65

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Per

centa

ge

of su

rvey

Stable

Unstable

1414

Condition survey - assessment

1515

Results: NEWSPAPER LIBRARYCondition and Preservation Priority Bands

140 125 78 59

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

No

of it

ems

Good Fair Poor Unusable

Condition & Usability RatingUnstableStable

4

168 154

73

3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Nu

mb

er o

f su

rvey

item

s

Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Band 5

Lowest Priority Highest Priority

Preservation Priority Bands Summary

% Stable: 65.92% Unstable: 34.08

% in Band 1: 1% in Band 2: 41.79% in Band 3: 38.31% in Band 4: 18.15% in Band 5: 0.75

1616

Results: MAPSCondition and Preservation Priority Bands

262

112

25

60

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

No

of it

ems

Good Fair Poor Unusable

Condition & Usability RatingUnstableStable

136

232

352 0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Nu

mb

er o

f su

rvey

item

s

Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Band 5

Lowest Priority Highest Priority

Preservation Priority Bands Summary

% Stable: 92.35% Unstable: 7.65

% in Band 1: 33.58% in Band 2: 57.28% in Band 3: 8.64% in Band 4: 0.5% in Band 5: 0

1717

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

Using the results

1818

Condition of the collections:

Key Performance Indicator delivered March 2004

86% of the British Library’s collections in stable condition

Using the results: baseline statistic

1919

Preservation bidding cycle

£3m preservation budget

collection areas bid for work via bidding database

same format, same criteria applied to all bids

bids for

conservation

boxing/enclosure

binding

microfilming

digitisation

migration

furbishing

condition assessment

Oct

Nov

Dec-Jan

Bidding cycle begins

All bids submitted by end of month

All bids verified, scores computed

bids for external services costed, budget profiled

bids for internal treatments sent to Conservation for estimating

FebPreservation Board meets to ratify budget and bid programmes

April Programmes begin

2020

Preservation Bidding Scoring Matrix

2121

Using results: comparing strategies – an example of “What if” projections

Newspapers - Impact of risk-reduction strategies

0

50

100

150

200

250

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

As SurveyedBetter

ShelvingBetter

ProtectionBetter

EnvironmentAll 3 aspects improved

2222

The end

Happy to be here

Happy to answer questions

Thank you