http://action4archives.com/campaign
In
early July 2009 a representative of the senior management of The National Archives
presented interested readers with ‘proposals’ for a ‘ten per cent’ reduction in
services overall at Kew. Termed ‘consultation’, this same manager had already
tacitly admitted previously at a readers’ forum that there was to be no genuine
negotiation: although this statement was not noticed by most attendees.
Therefore, personally I was not surprised by the tone of the announcements of
early July.
The
senior management of The National Archives can be characterised as ‘McKinseyite’. In fact, the ‘Chief Executive Officer’,
Natalie Ceeney, briefly worked for this consultancy:
although it is interesting to note that she was not made a partner. For those
that have no knowledge of McKinsey, one of its simplistic dictums is:-
‘If
you can measure it, you can manage it’!
With
this at the heart of present TNA ‘management’, statistics have been routinely
issued to those attending readers’ forums. Nevertheless, as in those for
delivery times for manuscripts when pressed it was learned that their
mathematical model lacks sophistication. This explains why claimed high
‘success’ rates have simply often not matched readers’ experiences. Through
personal negotiation, requests were made for the relevant TNA management to
record and acknowledge the true level of production failures. These have
essentially proved fruitless, although even having this acknowledged has been to all intents impossible.
My
brief foray into the realm of document production statistics is to outline one
specific example of TNA use of figures. The production times within their
‘targets’ will remain overwhelmingly met, no matter how many
incorrectly-produced, or mis-delivered items there
are.
For
all the management’s claims of managing through arithmetical analysis of
figures, when requested to provide detailed numbers, vagueness has been
routinely deployed. Also, using their own ‘management-speak’, it was
interesting to see that these senior managers apparently do not even understand
standard accounting terms (that anyone doing their own books will understand).
Again
as an example of this ‘management-speak’, readers attending The National
Archives, Kew are now regarded merely as ‘footfall’. Although denied by the
management, there is certainly a perception by regular readers that we have
become inherently ‘undesirable’. This alone can be seen in the way that
statistics of electronic downloads as opposed to manuscript retrievals have
been unfairly manipulated to show the latter as ‘lagging behind’ the former.
It
was also interesting to note that during the early July presentation the
manager repeatedly referred to TNA operations as ‘the business’.
That this particular manager at the heart of their decision making process, could not, or would not furnish readers even with a ballpark figure of the sums
returned to the Treasury in the last working year says a great deal. Had this
been a commercial Annual, or Extraordinary General Meeting, the board of
directors would have been for the high jump. However, this essentially shows
the difference between business and the civil service: one is at least partly accountable, the other is not at all.
As
per TNA’s management thinking, providing information online is massively preferred: especially as this
brings returns for the Treasury. While most regular readers have absolutely no
problems with online information, not only do we encounter repeated inherent
weaknesses in these systems, online delivery can only ever cover a tiny (and
growing) percentage of the total records.
With
the above in mind, cutting services to readers
that visit Kew have now been announced and are being implemented. These are:-
Closing
Mondays (as of 4th January 2010);
Charging
for the public car park (as of March 2010);
&
a reduction of public face to face contact with specialist knowledge of records
It
should be noted that there are all sorts of peripherals that are either not
being subjected to cuts, or only lightly. For a start these include gardens,
ponds and an almost completely visitor free ‘museum’.
The
National Archives’ management has encountered much protest from the regular
readership. Unlike in relation to cuts to services at the National Maritime
Museum, where there was a lack of commitment by most of the readership, there is real determination in many of
Kew’s readers. What is more, this is across the board and a disciplined
campaign is now being embarked upon. Of note, Dr. Nick Barratt has taken
responsibility for coordinating the media elements and a website has now been
launched. This is at:-
http://action4archives.com/campaign
Lobbying
the minister of state at the Ministry of ‘Justice’ with responsibility for The
National Archives has already taken place and is being continued by a high
level team of readers. This has the backing of the local Member of Parliament.
In
many respects, the future at The National Archives depends on the results of
the next Parliamentary Elections. It is believed, both by readers and also
intelligent members of staff that the present Chief Executive Officer was a political
appointee. Therefore, it may well be that her position becomes untenable for
this reason alone. Hopefully, the woefully poor standards of management will
improve from 2010 onwards. Nevertheless, any support continues to be greatly
appreciated...