collaborative preservation the university of cincinnati
play

Collaborative Preservation: the University of Cincinnati (UC) and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Collaborative Preservation: the University of Cincinnati (UC) and Public Library of Cincinnati & Hamilton County (PLCH) Model Holly Prochaska, Head Preservation Services and Lab Preservation Administrators Interest Group, Annual 2014


  1. Collaborative Preservation: the University of Cincinnati (UC) and Public Library of Cincinnati & Hamilton County (PLCH) Model Holly Prochaska, Head Preservation Services and Lab Preservation Administrators Interest Group, Annual 2014

  2. Welcome to the HISTORY Preservation Lab’s Preservation Week Celebration!

  3. GOING IT ALONE UCL – • lab outfitted in the early 80s • two conservation technicians managing general circulation repairs • contract conservator working 2 days a week on rare books • bindery technician sending items to the commercial bindery • half-time department head PLCH – • small room with work tables and the most basic tools • two conservation technicians doing basic repairs • some 3 rd party work sent out for special collections Both of us – • neither where we wanted to be, addressing general collection repairs but continuing to fall behind on a backlog of special collections treatments

  4. COMING TOGETHER • idea began to form after sitting with PLCH colleagues during a 2010 Connecting to Collections regional meeting • PLCH was interested in building a lab, they had the capital for staffing, but needed assistance with planning all aspects of the physical space and training • two thoughts came to me immediately: • great, it will be nice to have another lab to bounce ideas off of • wait, do we really need two labs so close? • UCL and PLCH were successfully collaborating in digital services, UCL was using their services rather than building a digitization lab on-site • UCL had space and expertise, but no money for a full-time conservator A chocolate and peanut butter situation? I think so!

  5. BUILDING SUPPORT What we had going for us - • an existing model of collaboration between our digital services • proximity – less than 3 miles apart • the UCL lab had space to expand and UCL was willing to support a renovation • staff that were immediately excited and supportive of the Before renovation idea of working together and becoming a team • support from the State Library of Ohio of $81,000 in equipment (LSTA Entrepreneurial Grant) • Lab opened January 2012, but PLCH conservation technicians on-site part-time beginning October 2011 for training • Idea to implementation = August 2010 to December 2011 (17 months) o 9 months to get agreement through legal o In the academic environment this is lightning speed! After – brighter, more benches

  6. WHY OUR MODEL

  7. COLLABORATIVE LAB MODEL • pool our staff resources to expand our capacity for general repair treatments and special collections conservation • share the cost of staffing, equipment, and supplies • opportunity to seek an innovative solution to address preservation needs of two closely aligned institutions • increased capacity allows us to offer services to smaller institutions for a fee – addressing both outreach needs and lab sustainability • impetus to improve the preservation lab facility at UC Libraries • rejuvenated our departments – new staff, new goals, new techniques, new opportunities

  8. HOW IT WORKS • The Preservation Lab was formed with a formal legal agreement between the two collaborating institutions (PLCH and UCL) o the legal agreement has no expiration or renewal date and can continue in perpetuity until either institution no longer finds the collaboration mutually beneficial o the agreement also has a stipulation that should funding at one institution need to decrease then output would correspondingly decrease, in essence rebalancing the workload from 50/50 to some other formula without dissolving the collaboration • the department head (UCL) and the conservator (PLCH) co-manage the department • we each pay for roughly 50% of the staffing • we each pay for 50% of the supply and equipment expenses • all staff members work on the materials of both institutions • the goal is to have even output for each institution at the end of each quarter

  9. KEEPING THINGS EVEN • each month UCL reports statistics on the quantity of materials completed for each institution and a weighted point calculation • the weighted point system more accurately reflects the cost of repairing each item • the cost of a conservator treating a special collection item will be more than a trained student worker performing a simple spine repair • to balance this, the time taken to complete the repair is multiplied by a “factor”. For example: conservator treatment: 70 minutes X 20 (the “factor”) / 60 minutes = 23 pts student assistant repair: 60 minutes x 4 (the “factor”) / 60 minutes = 4 pts • ideally at the end of each accounting quarter the points generated (work completed) will be equal, representing a balanced work load

  10. THE FIRST 2 YEARS

  11. PRODUCTION January 2012 - present • treated 317 special collections items • treated 3924 general collection items • evaluated 10,805 general collection items Comparison - time per repair with output Time (minutes) Count 317 392 768 1028 811 341 101 78 53 27 Special Enclosure Pamphlet Spine Bookblock Collections

  12. MILESTONES & ACCOMPLISHMENTS • New photo documentation area and equipment • Homegrown robust treatment database • Website and blog, blog has had over 12,000 hits • Hosted and provided instruction for Flattening and Humidification Workshop • On-site training for staff by Jeff Peachy and Karen Hamner • Conservation technicians attended FLICC Preservation Institute, Library of Congress • Taught 4 class sessions to design students on how to make a portfolio • Hosted open houses and tours during preservation week with over 60 guests

  13. STAFFING • Department Head (UCL) • Conservator (PLCH) • 4 Conservation Technicians (2 UCL, 2 PLCH) • 1 Binding Technician (UCL) • 2 Volunteers (UCL emeriti faculty) • 1 Pre-program Volunteer • 5 Students (UCL)

  14. LESSONS LEARNED

  15. IF WE KNEW THEN… • importance of developing an individual brand/identity – we aren’t UC nor are we PLCH, we are both • different fiscal calendars • what happens when the lab closes? UC closes more then PLCH, both in terms of holidays and weather closures • different processes for staff training and development between institutions o one solution has been for us to bring trainers on-site ensuring continuity in training and helping to bolster teamwork o ideally would have set up a budget line as we did for supplies and equipment

  16. WHAT NEXT?

  17. ON THE HORIZON • more pre-program volunteers • exploring paid internships, fellowships, and grant funded preservation projects (visiting conservators) • continuous improvement of website and blog • more involvement in preparation, handling, and post-production housing for reformatting projects • further standardization of our practices between institutions – disaster preparedness, exhibits, environmental monitoring

  18. A QUICK SHOW, NO TELL

  19. M ARY L. C OOK PARCHMENT DIPLOMA Unrolling using a Flattening using a combination stretch-dry method – magnets, humidification chamber blotter pressing stacks and weights

  20. S TEREOVIEW P HOTOGRAPHS from the Popular Library Special Collections (PLCH) Surface cleaning: smoke sponge eraser crumbs aqueous Before After

  21. M USICAL F ESTIVAL P AMPHLET from the Genealogy and Local History (PLCH) Before During (paper mended) After

  22. T WO - PART STURDY CORRUGATED BOXES a Preservation Lab creation for oversized items Finished product: a sturdy, reinforced box with a side opening and lid

  23. Q UR ’ AN from the Archives & Rare Books Library (UC) o Miniature leather Qur’an housed in a copper alloy case with a glass magnifier window. o Preservation created a protective Mylar slipcase with vents and cloth clamshell with nested insert to house silica gel.

  24. T HE P ROSTHETIC E AR

  25. THANK YOU! AND DO VISIT OUR WEBSITE AND BLOG – thepreservationlab.org

Recommend


More recommend