Nelson & His World

There is a demanding period ahead as we work to implement the Sammy Ofer Wing project whilst maintaining our high standards of public offer and core responsibilities as well as planning for hosting the Equestrian Events of the 2012 Olympics.

Eleanor, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my most of my questions, although I must admit that I was hoping for a little more clarity in some areas. With the closure imminent, I find it very disturbing that there is no firm date for re-opening, and no clarity over long term service provision. Overall, I have to say that I find the replies desperately disappointing, as I am sure you will have anticipated, but I will try not to let too much emotion creep into my further comments, which in any case may not be very welcome.

I think it is fair to summarise the answers to my first five questions as follows. Prior to October, one announcement of the planned closure during 2009 was made on the Caird Library Blog in August, while other announcements referred only to the short one or two week closures in 2008 and to disruption in 2009. No consultation took place about the closure, but some consultation took place about users’ preferred days of opening. None of the project’s budget has been allocated to maintaining the library services during the development, there is no guaranteed latest date for the reopening, and as yet there is no commitment to returning to the either the current opening hours or increased opening hours when the work is completed in 2012.

I think the above speaks for itself. I don’t see how any of it could be considered acceptable.

I do realise that maintaining service provision during a major development presents a huge planning challenge, and also raises a debate about splitting the budget between long term investment and maintaining short term service provision. The NMM has not risen to the challenge, and just quoting other organisations that may also have failed to meet the challenge does little to suggest there was much serious consideration given to the issue. The failure to engage with stakeholders and the lack of any adequate consultation seems a very risky strategy for a publicly funded organisation.

To be blunt, I think that in answer no. 9 it is misleading to claim that you “are keeping the archive and library collections accessible during the next three years” when there will be a closure for a period of the order of six months with no access whatsoever. I simply cannot accept that this is in keeping with a strategic priority 'to maintain… a core public offer to the on-site and online visitor that ... offers opportunity for research’, especially as none of the project’s budget is allocated to meeting that strategic priority.

I am also very disappointed by what seems a rather defeatist attitude towards digitisation, and a very London-centric outlook. I think the Museum’s attitude might change if you were able to successfully canvass the many potential users not within commuting distance, who are able to visit the library only occasionally, if at all. It is clear that this blog has not been an effective means of obtaining feedback, and that canvassing regular users obtains input from only a tiny unrepresentative minority. With tens of millions being spent on physical access, the statement that you “do not have the resources available currently to digitise even the most frequently accessed material” comes across as quite extraordinary to many of us.

I am not quite clear, but presumably the statement that “the South West Wing Project does have a strong digital component, which will improve global access to documents”, means that onsite visitors will be able to access documents from elsewhere, and has no relevance to the question of digital access to the museum’s own manuscript collection?

Without there yet being a commitment to extending opening hours, the improvements in 2012 for academic researchers seem a little marginal - mainly the increased number of retrievals and the quiet study area. Presumably the enhanced online catalogue and electronic resources could be delivered independently of the building programme. This seems somewhat at odds with the earlier statement that “the long-term gains will be immeasurable”.

One thing I simply don’t understand is why bringing forward the start date increases the length of time the library will be closed? Why cannot the re-opening date also be brought forward?

Is naval history research being sacrificed to the Olympic Games?

I think my views are fairly mild compared to some I have heard from others. I think you might find it useful to take a look at the views being expressed in the ‘Nelson and His World’ forum at http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=1 and particularly this thread: http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=258

Thank you for your clarification of the queries posted above.

I have a few follow up questions which I hope you will be able to clarify further:

1. When, why and by what process was the decision to bring forward the Library closure from spring/summer 2009, to December 2008 through to late spring/early summer 2009 made?

2. I would be interested to understand your public consultation process in more detail. The information you provide, on the online consultation via your link, refers to one method and illustrates one response.

Please could you publish, as far as you are able within the terms of the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to your organisation, any further information on the process followed: through planning, implementation and evaluation, and including without compromising respondents privacy, quantitative and qualitative data on the public response?

3. In addition to the public consultation referred to, have you received any communication from the general public: individuals, groups or organisations, offering their feedback/comments for consideration on the proposed development of the Sammy Ofer wing? (In particular, in this instance, the closure and subsequent changes to public access at the Caird Library). Are you able to publish entire or summarise this information?

Eleanor, thank you very much for your long and detailed responses to my comments, which at least give me considerably more understanding of what is going on. I really do believe that you should be commended for the noble efforts you are making in defending decisions that clearly originated other than in the Archive and Library section, and indeed must have been very unwelcome to your department. It is a shame that those responsible for the decisions do not stand up and defend them for themselves.

I must say that I am appalled by the reasons behind the decision to bring forward the closure of the Caird Library. Bringing forward the start date creates a double whammy for researchers, resulting firstly in extending the period of closure and secondly removing almost all the time available for researchers to make any plans to mitigate its impact. The decision is clearly detrimental to the Museum’s achievement of its strategic priority to maintain services to researchers during the development.

The reasons quoted are:

1. “to make the overall building works period shorter” – This might seem desirable, but researchers may not benefit, as at present it seems that the reduced opening hours of the Caird Library might remain a permanent feature after the opening of the new Research centre in the Sammy Ofer wing in 2012.

2. “to achieve more with the funds in this period of global financial downturn” – this may seem commendable to some, particularly politicians, but the Museum’s priority is its duty to maintain its core offering to researchers and the wider public, not to kick-start the British economy.

3. “the Olympics” – This is simply outrageous – that the Olympics should take precedence over Maritime and Naval History. What is the NMM thinking of?

4. “the wishes of the major donor to the project” – During this project, the Museum will receive considerably more in public funding than the amount of the donation for this project, and while this is obviously a delicate area, it is not right that the wishes of a major donor are allowed to have a detrimental effect on the Museum’s offering to the British public. This represents a fundamental failure in the Museum’s public accountability.

I am sorry that you did not respond to the other comments that were left about public consultation, as I would have been most interested to have known the answers, and I do hope you will extend the same courtesy there that you have to me. Forgive me for expressing some scepticism here, but the reference to consultation does seem little more than a smokescreen. What you refer to as a consultation in June 2008 “with our stakeholders about Library service provision from 2009-2012” was in fact no more than a single question posted on a little read blog, and with a two day period allowed for responses! The question itself (which three days would you prefer us to open?) did not invite any in depth feedback about users’ needs. Again, there are major issues around public accountability here.

Your responses so far have, perhaps understandably, concentrated on the difficulties faced by the Archive and Library section, rather than on the needs of users. I would like to appeal to the Museum to reconsider some of its plans (and lack of plans) for service provision over the next three years and beyond, in the light of the needs of researchers. It seems that delaying the start date of the project to allow for the proper planning of service provision, although highly desirable, would probably be a bridge too far. Instead, I would like to appeal to the Museum to mitigate the impact on researchers as follows:

1. To reconsider the length of the temporary closure. For example, why not phase the removal of the archives to the off-site location and keep access open to the remainder of the archives while the first parts are removed?

2. To reconsider the service provision from 2009 to 2012 to allow researchers to work more effectively. On re-opening in 2009, the number of document retrievals per day will be reduced because documents have to be retrieved from off site. To mitigate the impact of this, the number of days or hours of opening could be increased, rather than reduced. Arrangements for the method and number of documents that can be ordered could be finalised now and be such that researchers can work effectively. I also think it absolutely essential to improve the ease of copying from the Archive and Library collections. From others’ comments it would appear this could be transformed by relaxing the restrictions on digital photography. It seems to me that this does not even involve a change of policy – merely implementing the policy already published.

3. To commit now to providing greater access to the archives after the opening of the new Research centre in 2012, and in particular to commit to extending opening hours.

4. To engage now in a meaningful public consultation with users and potential users about service provision for researchers for the next three years and beyond. The above are just my own personal views, although I think there will be others that agree with them. To proceed further without proper consultation must surely damage the Museum’s reputation.

Clearly some of the above will require some of the project’s budget to be allocated, and it seems extraordinary that this has not been considered. Now is surely the time to allocate some of the contingency in the budget to maintaining the Museum's core offering to researchers.

I am glad you found my suggestion interesting on the digitisation of the most frequently accessed manuscripts. I would just comment further that it would not be necessary to reassign copyright from the photographer to the Museum. All that is necessary is for the photographer to grant permission for the Museum to reproduce the images for the purpose of personal non-commercial research by users, and to allow users to make copies for that purpose. Demanding a reassignment of copyright would kill the project stone dead as it would raise suspicion and antagonism in users. Reassigning copyright would remove the individuals own rights to their own work and would allow the Museum to exploit the images commercially, which would run totally counter to the ethos of a collaborative project.