This all seems very sensible.  Perhaps we need some basic Stage 1 Benchmarks – compliance with data standards, regular updating, availability on a website etc -   which most HERs could achieve without any great difficulty and then a number of more advanced stages.

 

Mike  

 

 

 

I think Rob has hit the nail on the head here. We need to be certain about whether we are talking about standards or benchmarks. Benchmarks may indicate a certain level of achievement but if the level is artibrary (as the first benchmarks really were) then they don't necessarily tell you whether you are meeting your professional responsibilities or not. From memory the first set of benchmarks were introduced in large part because the government was felt likely to be more receptive to making HERs statutory if we had a close definition of what an HER actually was and what services it should provide. As HPR never happened the main driver to achieve the standard was lifted. There was no-one to provide an objective assessment and so we all looked at the level 1 benchmarks, gave ourselves the benefit of the doubt and said 'yeah, I've got that' and went away happy.  There was no incentive to achieve them and no penalty for not doing so.

 

I think we do need benchmarks but they need to be made meaningful and, to my mind, include stronger basic standards and fewer aspirations. The current benchmarks only really contain two references to standards at level 1 - 'compliance with MIDAS and INSCRIPTION' and 'compliance with national spatial data standards'. All the other benchmarks refer to aspects of the service such as policies, outreach and resources which could in theory be present in a completely hopeless service. They were also launched in the full flood of Blairite Britain with its multiplicity of standards, measures and (for some) resources. We're simply not in that world now and I doubt we're going back.

 

The HER sector is under huge pressure and in future more and more LPAs may be tempted to stick the HER on a shelf but claim to 'maintain or have access to a HER'. The lowest level benchmark needs to define tightly what information should be in the HER, a minimum acceptable quality standard, and how accessible the information is. If there is to be a policy aspect to the level 1 benchmark keep it short and relevant. Having just completed the Audit (which is definitely worth the effort and thanks to EH for supporting it) I think we now have more policies than other teams in the council who are ten times our size and many are really not necessary or are subsumed in wider corporate policies. There are also aspects of the benchmarks like getting the HER or even the Forward Plan adopted that are simply unrealistic.

 

I also think that we need to allow room for variation in different HERs, in particular as regards some of the more aspirational benchmarks (outreach, education etc). Since the first benchmarks we have seen the ongoing march of community archaeology and in Kent at least most of our outreach and educational activities are now delivered through a community archaeologist, not via the HER. Ten years ago the HER led the way on outreach but now we mostly restrict ourselves to maintaining the website. Other HERs will support community groups or HLF projects in their work rather than carry out this kind of activity themselves. They don't deserve to be marked down for it. I also occasionally have a democratic fit and wonder if these kind of activities aren't for our democratically elected lords and master to prioritise or not as they see fit rather than for ALGAO/EH to insist on.

 

In summary then I'd say make the benchmarks support us with strong standards and proper external (EH) scrutiny but otherwise leave us to choose our own directions. Perhaps instead of a higher level benchmark we could have a continually changing set of great case studies of HERs doing exciting things and then we can choose our own priorities and lines of development.

 

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

Paul Cuming
Historic Environment Record Manager
Planning & Environment Division
Kent County Council
External: 01622 696918
Internal x6918
Fax: 01622 221636
www.kent.gov.uk/heritage
Please help to save paper by NOT printing
this email unless absolutely necessary.

 

From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of EDWARDS, Robert (Environment)
Sent: 01 November 2013 10:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Benchmarking & Empiricism

Certainly some interesting ideas coming forward!

 

I think it’s important that we keep some clear space between what we refer to as standards and what we refer to as benchmarks. Standards can a requirement to reaching a benchmark, but I don’t really see that a standard should be a benchmark.

 

Personally, and it would seem to strike a chord with some, I’d like to see a set of benchmarks based around outcomes (it’s not my idea I hasten to add). I think the benefit of such an approach is that it leaves the HER to determine the actual nuts and bolts as to how it reaches its objective. HERs are quite diverse with different organisations providing a wide range of HER related services. I think that we should try and define core set of benchmarks which will define what a HER is and what the baseline services are (that should be fun, anyone remember the HER job description?). It doesn’t prevent us developing benchmarks for the other services, a modular system, so in effect each HER has its own, for want of a better phrase, ‘compliancy profile’. It shouldn’t be arduous as you can ignore the benchmarks irrelevant to your service. I think a modular approach would help shape the audit process too, enabling the HER to focus in on areas relevant to their service.

 

Neil raises a lot of interesting and valuable points and certainly challenges our thinking. But, and I think this is a real big but, data standards i.e. MIDAS Heritage are very important. As much as it appeals to me, we cannot leave it to the semantic web to sort out. What keeps this HER funded is its contribution to planning and land charge services; not searches, not researchers, not HLF projects and not public outreach. They have their own IT systems and the path (for me) to providing accurate, fit for purpose data with some degree of interoperability has been time consuming and painful. We need, as a community, to build on this. We need the suppliers of such IT software to begin to see the value their clients see in this and begin to develop effective interoperability tools to enable this to happen. It can only happen through defined national data standards.

 

I’d like to add that we carried out a HER audit in 2009/10. This wasn’t management driven or a management decision. We, at the coal face, have found it to be a very useful exercise; especially the action plan which has helped us target our limited amount development time effectively. It has proven a very useful tool in negotiations with management. It has proven a very useful tool in our service reports to our partners and SLAs. I sometimes think we all have a bit of a moment when we see some of the documentation required, however we have found that in many instances our host organisations already have such polices – it’s just finding them!

 

 

************************************************************************
Disclaimer:

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council. The Council cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks.
Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council may monitor emails and as a public sector organisation; the Council may disclose this email (or any response to it) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Contracts cannot be concluded with the Council nor service effected by email, unless otherwise expressly agreed. The contents of this e-mail may be subject to privilege.
************************************************************************