Jenny,
Fair enough, however I guess in the future HERs would not require paper
copies if we received PDFs and we could print these on demand. It would not
be a requirement for HERs to have paper copies of reports for archive
reasons because we do not (or at least should not) hold archive material,
this would be covered in the Archaeological Archive which would generally
be submitted to a Museum and should include a paper copy of the report.
It was Archaeological Archives that I was referring to in depositing things
with Museums, of course legal owners of objects can charge what they like
to people/organisations that want them.
However, we seem to be straying from the discussion a bit.
I am not sure how many HERs would pay for contractors data if it was
offered. Like someone said before we would need to spend time validating
and integrating it into our own systems anyway, and then there is the issue
of ownership, copyright, licencing etc.
This is not to say that the data you have is not valuable or useful to us
but I already have a backlog of material to add to the HER so I would
probably use the money (if I had it) to pay for a post to tackle the
current backlog rather than pay for new data that just gets added to a
backlog.
Ho hum!
Ben
*Ben Wallace*
*(Historic Environment Record Manager)*
BA (EU) Hons, MA, MIfA
Warwickshire Historic Environment Record
Archaeological Information and Advice (AIA)
Archives and Historic Environment,
Heritage and Culture Warwickshire,
Localities and Community Safety,
Communities
Warwickshire County Council
Phone: 01926 41*2734*
*
*
Mailing Address: Archaeological Information and Advice, Communities,
Warwickshire County Council, PO Box 43, Shire Hall, Warwick CV34 4SX
Physical Address: Archaeological Information and Advice, Communities,
Warwickshire County Council, Barrack Street, Warwick CV34 4TH
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/her
http://timetrail.warwickshire.gov.uk
On 14 November 2012 12:15, Jenny <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sending stuff digitally isn't always a cost saver. We usually send clients
> pdf of the report these days as that it what is preferred but send paper
> copies as well to the NMR and HER as part of our archiving policy on the
> grounds that the paper may well be readable for longer than the digital.
> Over and above that though is the database we construct whilst working and
> this is probably useful to the HER to update data. There are various
> changes to the data structure and the data that need to be made before we
> send it to the HER and we keep a running commentary on records provided on
> the accuracy of NGRs etc. This all takes time and hopefully is beneficial
> to the HER, but maybe we could offer this to the HER at a cost not giving
> it for free. On the point of museums, they will pay for items they feel of
> value to their collections.
> To get round the problem of the complexity of differing charges, we have
> taken to telling our clients what our costs and that on top of that there
> will be an HER charge.
>
> *From:* Paul Cripps <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 10:57
> *Subject:* Re: HER Charges
>
> Jenny indeed raises some excellent points.
>
> Not wishing to put cat amongst pigeons (again) but it would still be
> really helpful if the whole licensing/charging/supply issue could be looked
> at across the board. It’s still the case that charges are highly variable,
> from nothing to a day rate that equates to best part of £1000/day. Some
> include explicit licenses to use data, some homebrew licenses and some
> (inappropriate) OS licenses which preclude certain (essential) use
> scenarios. Some don’t bother with licensing at all. VAT is variably
> applicable depending on who provided what advice. Not to mention data
> quality; some is good to go, some requires considerable man handling to
> make something of it. Turnaround is similarly variable, some HERs doing it
> on the spot and others taking eons to supply which as Jenny points out can
> be problematic when we have tight deadlines. Some contractors also
> apparently bypass charges by visiting and using the public access
> facilities.
>
> All this makes it complicated to cost for and undertake work as obtaining
> HER data is so variable depending on where the job is. Clients are often
> confused when one job costs much less/more than another as a result of this
> situation.
>
> I understand the idea of exempting HER data from OS licensing through the
> formal OS exemption procedure is actively being looked at and I would
> wholeheartedly support this; one less complexity to deal with. Some HERs
> have moved on this already which is fantastic. Of course, this would not
> preclude some charge for use of the data if that is seen as best option but
> let’s have some parity here please.
>
> I’ve copied my previous post on this topic below for information and
> hopefully some discussion as to how best to move forward on this.
>
> As I write previously:
>
> Worms indeed...
> Not wishing to throw in more worms, and any names below have been changed
> to protect the innocent, but...
> It would be great if a national policy could be implemented. Currently
> there is enormous variation in what HER/SMRs charge, for what and also what
> they can supply. Some do not charge, some charge nominal fees to cover
> costs, some charge hundreds of pounds (!), some charge additional fees on
> top for licenses to use the data supplied.
> At the same time, the nature of the information supplied is incredibly
> variable. This ranges from well structured digital data (GIS, tabular, XML)
> requiring minimal handling to some unstructured information in a pdf or
> word document, possibly even a jpg, requiring considerable manual handling.
> Timescales for supplying information also vary considerably, up to many
> weeks in some cases which for rapid turnaround projects is problematic.
> So, as an end user, we have to factor in the up front costs levied by each
> HER/SMR for conducting a query (= highly variable), any additional costs
> (eg for licensing; again variable) plus time taken this end to turn the
> information provided into something useable for
> assessment/analysis/reporting ( = highly variable, dependent on what is
> supplied).
> A national Service Level Agreement (SLA) type approach could provide a
> level playing field against which contractors could operate. It could
> define:
> * What data can/should be provided and in what format (GIS + MidasXML
> would seem logical, leveraging existing standards)
> * Timescales in which a response can be expected including options for
> fast track searches
> * Costs and associated licensing, VAT-ability, etc
>
> Now, really not wishing to put cat amongst pigeons but...
> It has also been noted here that the HER/SMRs who are less capable of
> providing structured data are also often those who take longer and charge
> more... Perhaps indicative of how the HER/SMR operates, with those
> operating more functional systems being able to respond quicker with more
> useable output for end users and hence lower costs due to it taking less
> time to deal with enquiries...?
>
> I would welcome the thoughts of the forum on the idea of some nationally
> agreed standards.
>
> Kind regards,
> Paul.
>
>
>
> *From:* Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Chris Webster
> *Sent:* 14 November 2012 10:40
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: HER Charges
>
> Jenny makes some good points. The normal HER search, given a GIS polygon,
> takes me about 10 minutes and the number of records produced is irrelevant.
> They are usually turned round the same day and we don't charge. If HERs are
> to create income, this all points towards the idea of licensing the use of
> the data - it has cost the HERs a large amount of money to accumulate and
> manage it to this point.
>
> Chris Webster
> Historic Environment Record
> Somerset County Council
> Somerset Heritage Centre
> Brunel Way
> Taunton
> TA2 6SF
>
> 01823 347434
>
> Online HER: www.somerset.gov.uk/her
>
>
> *From:* Issues related to Historic Environment Records [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Jenny
> Hall
> *Sent:* 14 November 2012 10:26
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: HER Charges: North Somerset
> .......£100 per hour...does that mean the person doing enquiries gets
> £4000 a week - £208000 a year? Or does it take four people on £52000 a year
> to do each enquiry?..........
>
> I completely support that costs need to be covered for a persons time to
> do the enquiry, plus any extra such as time to raise an invoice etc, but
> surely £100 an hour is way beyond cost-recovery and on the way to making of
> a rather large profit for the service provided.
>
> Given that the HER for an area is a monopoly so we have no choice in
> which provider we use, and that the HER has to be consulted for certain
> types of work, this very high cost sometimes feels unfair. Having
> paid large sums for an enquiry, when we get back data which is wrongly
> located, misinterpreted, or with duplicate records for the same site, or
> with no description, as often happens, we start to get a bit grumpy.
> Adding in that the enquiry will be done within 10 working days (or 20 days
> in one area we work in) when our client requires us to have completed
> within a week and things really start to rankle.
>
> Thinking about why archaeological contractors are charged when others
> aren't, is it because they are making money? If so then the processing of
> the enquiry has to be timely and purposeful in order for the contractor to
> be able to make that money. Data that arrives after the work is supposed
> to be finished, or that takes longer to tidy up than looking for new sites
> is not the service that contractors should expect for the amount charged.
>
> We always want to give added value back to the HER and will often return
> a database as well as the report to help things along. We wonder what
> would happen if we charged £100 for the database and report to be returned
> to the HER. We may be required to return new information to the HERs but I
> don't believe that anything says it has to be for free.
>
> I remember all the pressures within an HER/SMR and know it isn't easy
> but such high costs seem to be unreasonable and if the HERs weren't
> monopolies the charges would not stand up to market pressures.
>
> Jenny
> Ex SMR Officer - now a "contractor"
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Vince Russett <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:30 AM
> *Subject:* Re: HER Charges: North Somerset
>
> Hi Stuart!
>
> Vince here: we curently charge £100 per hour for searches, with a
> guaranteed level of search. We may be increasing this in the new financial
> year.
>
> Vince (and Daniel Smith, HER Officer)
>
> Vince Russett
> County Archaeologist
> Development Management Group
> North Somerset Council
>
>
> Our Historic Environment Record is now on-line: Go to the North Somerset
> web site (http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/) then use the tabs Environment /
> Conservation / Archaeology/ Historic Environment Record. Enjoy!
>
> Landline: 01934 426456
> Mobile: 07919 265645
>
> Please note my work hours are usually 8am to 4pm
> *From:* Issues related to Historic Environment Records [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *CAKEBREAD,
> Stuart
> *Sent:* 13 November 2012 16:52
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: HER Charges: Suffolk
>
> Hi Colin,
>
> Sorry about that, and thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> Stuart Cakebread | Greater London Historic Environment Record Manager
> Direct Line: 0207 973 3731
>
> English Heritage | London Planning
> 1 Waterhouse Square | 138-142 Holborn
> London | EC1N 2ST
>
> Please see our website:
> http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/glaas
>
>
> *From:* Issues related to Historic Environment Records [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Colin
> Pendleton
> *Sent:* 13 November 2012 16:49
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* FW: HER Charges: Suffolk
> Stuart,
>
> same as in 2010 for Suffolk but as it was blank on your form have
> re-completed. Likely to see some change in near future eg, licensing and
> charging some local authorites (currently under discussion).
>
> Colin Pendleton
>
> *From:* Issues related to Historic Environment Records [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *CAKEBREAD,
> Stuart
> *Sent:* 13 November 2012 15:43
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* HER Charges
> Afternoon All,
>
> As we in the Greater London HER are thinking of reviewing our search
> charges, and there is a discussion on HER charging policies at the next
> HERForum meeting, I was thinking that it was an ideal time to update the
> HER charging data in the JISCmail file area. I've attached a spreadsheet
> which combines the data from the 2010 and 2007 surveys, I can't seem to
> open the 2009 survey, and added a couple of new data fields which I've
> highlighted in italics. Could you please have a look at the spreadsheet
> and either email me ([log in to unmask]) your
> updated information or let me know if there has been no change. I'll then
> update a master spreadsheet and try and get it ready in time for the
> December meeting.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Stuart
>
> Stuart Cakebread | Greater London Historic Environment Record Manager
> Direct Line: 0207 973 3731
>
> English Heritage | London Planning
> 1 Waterhouse Square | 138-142 Holborn
> London | EC1N 2ST
>
> Please see our website:
> http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/glaas
>
>
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically
> stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system
> and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to
> English Heritage may become publicly available.
>
> Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage
> Collection; have a look and tell us what you think.
>
> http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/
>
>
>
>
> Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in accordance
> with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimise any
> security risks.
> The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may
> be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of
> the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive
> this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using
> the reply facility in your email software.
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically
> stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system
> and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to
> English Heritage may become publicly available.
>
> Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage
> Collection; have a look and tell us what you think.
>
> http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/
>
> This email, and any attachments is intended solely for the individual to
> whom it is addressed. It may contain personal and / or sensitive material
> and should be handled according to the principles of the Data Protection
> Act 1998. If this email carries a protective marking of PROTECT or
> RESTRICTED in the header it should be handled according to HMG guidelines,
> if not protectively marked it can be regarded as UNCLASSIFIED.
>
> If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author immediately.
> If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute,
> copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it or attached,
> and all copies must be deleted immediately.
>
> Whilst we take reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses,
> any attachments to this email may nevertheless contain viruses which our
> anti-virus software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out
> your own anti-virus checks before opening any documents. Somerset County
> Council will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses
> emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this email.
>
> All GCSx traffic may be subject to recording and / or monitoring in
> accordance with relevant legislation.
> Wessex Archaeology Ltd is a company limited by guarantee registered in
> England, company number 1712772. It is also a Charity registered in England
> and Wales, number 287786; and in Scotland, Scottish Charity number
> SC042630. Our registered office is at Portway House, Old Sarum Park,
> Salisbury, Wilts SP4 6EB. If you have received this message in error,
> please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do
> not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in
> any attachment.
>
>
>
This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All email traffic sent to or from us, including without limitation all GCSX traffic, may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
