1 / 16

The Directors of Collections Group beyond EDIT - Options and consequences -

Christiane Quaisser, René Dekker, Michel Guiraud, Rob Huxley, David Mabberley. The Directors of Collections Group beyond EDIT - Options and consequences -. Seventh EDIT BoD meeting Paris, 22-23 June 2010. DoCC – current structure.

ferrol
Download Presentation

The Directors of Collections Group beyond EDIT - Options and consequences -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Christiane Quaisser, René Dekker, Michel Guiraud, Rob Huxley, David Mabberley The Directors of Collections Group beyond EDIT - Options and consequences - Seventh EDIT BoD meetingParis, 22-23 June 2010

  2. DoCC – current structure • Directors or heads of collections of 16 EDIT institutions:BGBM, HNHM, IBPAN, MfN, MIZPAN, MNHN, NBGB, NHML, NHN, NNM, RBGK, RBINS, RMCA, SMNS, UKBH, ZMA • Structure: task group, coordinator • Initiated in June 2008, three full DoC, three task group meetings • Agreed policies & strategies • Efficiency, cooperation with regard to collection preservation and access • Implementation of SYNTHESYS results Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  3. Context EDIT Activities: - Science Policy Group - BoD EDIT Directors of Collections Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  4. Target audience Institutions holding scientific collections Scientists of earth and life sciences EDIT Directors of Collections Collection managers Political boards & fora National & international funding agencies Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  5. Current activities • Common principles for scientific loans • “Clearing house” for orphaned collections • Overview of coll’s man’ organisational structures • Opportunities for a EU collection managers association • Cooperation with science policy groups: strategies for specimen digitisation & acquisition • Cooperation with SYNTHESYS NA2(Collection standards) • helpdesk & performance indicators • Newly arising issues, e.g. collections security, repatriation • Continuation of DoCC after EDIT: options & consequences Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  6. Summary • The DoCC as a working group on a directors of collections level is successfully addressing problems linked with colls man. • The EDIT BoD has defined the DoCC as one of the core activities to be sustained after EDIT. • The structure of a post-EDIT DoCC network- will need some amount of coordination and additional funding to ensure work progress, outreach and flexibility - must not be too heavily funded and formal; hinders partners in participating over long-term perspective- must be flexible to be adapted smoothly and quickly to internal or external changes Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  7. Mission • Strengthen the role of EU natural history collections in the world as a community, by: • Helping to ensure long-term management and preservation as cultural heritage and fundamental research infrastructure • Increased efficiency by developing and implementing common standards, policies and procedures in coll’s man’ and access • Facilitating access to collections and their associated information to enable more collection based science • Increased effectiveness by seeking commonsolutions for collections complementarity (incl collection development and growth) Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  8. Objective & strategy Key objective: Durable integration - build a sustainable network of EU natural history collections at a decision taking level Strategy:Move from project phase (year-to-year planning) to mid- and long-term planning to deliver vision for EU natural history collections Requirements:- Partner involvement and expertise- Common purpose and identity- Organisation and governance- Communication tools- Resources Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  9. Organisation: Option I 1. Digital discussion forum Description: loose network based on a digital forum to circulate news and documents, temporary task groups set up on demand, in-kind coordinator, some coordination within the task groups, commitment almost 100 % in-kind by staff time dedicated to work in task groups, some funds for task group meetings Pro: lightest version, only a few additional costs, easy (?) to maintain, successful within other communities Con: more an information forum, hardly possible to work towards common goals, slow work progress Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  10. Organisation: Option II 2. Directors of Collections working group Description: working group with a minimum of organisational structure, e.g. core group, chair, and coordinator, basic communication mechanisms (mailing list, discussion forum), coordinated activities and projects, periodical meetings, task groups on demand, commitment in-kind by staff time, some funds for meetings, activities, and a (part-time) coordinator Pro: focus on certain tasks, flexibility and work progress in balance Con: long-term maintenance depends on funds from projects and member institutions, work progress and outreach on availability of members, might change over time Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  11. Organisation: Option III 3. Directors of Collections Committee Description: committee with a complex organisational structure including chair, steering committee, and secretariat, annual meetings and reporting periods, agreed work plans, periodical information service, e.g. newsletters and website, coordinated activities and projects, sub-groups possible, commitment by staff time and funds, e.g. through membership fees, to finance meetings, activities, and the secretariat Pro: work progress fast and focused, high visibility and outreach Con: formal and heavy administration, financial and possibly also in-kind commitment might be too heavy to be maintained on a long-term perspective Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  12. Conclusions From 3rd DoCC workshop, Tervuren, May 2010: Recommend: Option ii New model: might not look much different from the current EDIT DoCC working group - Task groups to achieve agreed task to date- Coordinator- Communication: internet platform, mailing list Affiliation: under the umbrella of CETAF- Pilot project on how to integrate EDIT activities in CETAF Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  13. Resource implications • Institutions:- Minimum in-kind staff-time: > 4 person days/month • - Under direction DoCC leader • - Fund travel and meetings (from each participating inst) • Coordination: - 1/3 FTE (ca. 25 kEuro on annual basis)- Some costs for communication, workplace (if not provided by an institution) etc. • Co-funding with another initiative could be cost-saving Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  14. Next steps – DoCC & BoD DoCC • Revision & refinement of business plan • Investigation of opportunities for cooperation or liaison with other groups & initiatives • Opening up to non-EDIT institutions, e.g. starting with CETAF institutions Action requested from the EDIT BoD • Decision on institutional commitment to DoCC beyond EDIT Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

  15. Considerations Option I Option II Option III Discussion forum Working group Committee Institutional commitment (indirect & direct)Organisational structures Seventh EDIT BoD meeting, Paris, 22-23 June 2010

More Related