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 4^th 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...

Return to the index page