1. Co-creating Archives Accreditation
Workshop
3rd February 2012
Janice Tullock Associates

2. Aims of the day
• Introduce research and thinking to date
• Discuss the proposed model for archives
accreditation
• Discuss the possible contents of an archives
accreditation standard
• Secure support for participation in the co-
creation process

3. Accreditation in the museums
sector

4. Co-creation
“the practice of collaborative product or service
development: developers and stake-holders
working together.”
Fronteer Strategy White Paper 2009,
Co-creations 5 guiding principles

5. 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

6. 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 &
Wales); dovetails with Public Record Place of Deposit and Approved
Archive status and S60 monitoring.
• To align with other UK archive programmes.

7. Benefits of archives accreditation
Or isn’t this the wrong time for this?

8. 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

9. 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’

10. 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

11. 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

12. Stage 2 research
• Refinement due to governmental policy
changes
• Changes due to the demise of MLA and
transfer to TNA

13. A Blended Solution
Archives Accreditation ‘Building Block’
STANDARDS/
REQUIREMENTS
MODULES GRADING / GUIDANCE & DELIVERY
LEVELS SUPPORT PROCESS
ASSESSMENT

14. Pre-qualification or ‘milestone’ markers
Options • for organisations on a journey towards full
accreditation
1. Same structure as revised Museum Minimum standards
Accreditation Scheme; • common to all museum and archive applicants
2. Request changes to the proposed • museums only
modules for Museum Accreditation; • archives only
3. Create additional modules; or
4. Create different modules. Additional standards
STANDARDS/
• Supplementary standards for certain categories of
REQUIREMENTS archives and museums
• ‘Silver’ standards
• ‘Gold’ standards
1. Prescriptive delivery process
GRADING / GUIDANCE DELIVERY
& SUPPORT directed by the awarding body;
MODULES LEVELS PROCESS
or
2. More flexible, modular
approach, offering applicants
choice
ASSESSMENT
1. Single minimum standard like Museum 1. TNA & MLA streamlining
Accreditation; 2. MDO and/or Museum
or Accreditation Officer changes
2. Stepped awards e.g. 3. Peer support networks
• Star ratings (TNA Self-Assessment) 4. Centralised online guidance
• Standard, Silver and Gold Awards (Artsmark) 1. Self evaluation
• Levels of Excellence (EFQM Excellence Model 2. Desk review
recognition awards) 3. In-house, external or mixed review/validation teams
• Stepping Stones – Foundation, Intermediate, 4. Peer reviewers
Full Award (International Schools Award) 5. Independent consultant assessors
6. In-house, external or mixed Moderation or Awards Panels
7. External third party accreditation bodies (e.g. UKAS)

15. Recommendations •Identify common standards with
museums
•Develop standards specific to
archives, and to different archive
types
•National administrative structure,
coordinated centrally by TNA
•Same sections as revised STANDARDS / •Open invitation process
Museum Accreditation Scheme: REQUIREMENTS
•Flexible, modular approach
•Organisational health
•Some direction and prioritisation by
•Collections
national assessing bodies
•Users & their experience
MODULES GRADING / GUIDANCE & DELIVERY
LEVELS SUPPORT PROCESS
ASSESSMENT
•Core (minimum) standards – weighted
to different archive types
•Develop regional partnerships
•Basic level + 1 or 2 enhanced levels
•Create peer support networks
•Develop central UK digital
resource
•Develop UK training programme
•Nationally-managed assessment process, moderated by and networks through ARA
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)

16. Discuss: The Building Block Approach
1. What might work and why?
2. What might not work and why?
3. Are there other options?
STANDARDS/
REQUIREMENTS
MODULES GRADING / GUIDANCE & DELIVERY
LEVELS SUPPORT PROCESS
ASSESSMENT

17. 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.

18. Co-creating the Standard – Destruction Document layout
Sections :
1. Organisational Health
2. Collections
3. Users and their experiences

19. Co-creating the Standard – Destruction Document layout
• Divided into :
– Headline - Area of work
– Objective - The goal of this section
– Standard – The specific requirement
– Learn more - More detail
– Evidence
– Resources

20. Sample
1 Organisational Health
1.3 Appropriate management arrangements
Objective: 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

22. Headlines
1. What’s missing?
2. What’s described wrongly?

23. Sample Section
1. What works?
2. What doesn’t work?
3. What would be your preferred text?

31. Thank you !