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
Welcome to the HISTORY Preservation Lab’s Preservation Week Celebration!
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
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!
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
WHY OUR MODEL
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
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
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
THE FIRST 2 YEARS
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
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
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)
LESSONS LEARNED
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
WHAT NEXT?
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
A QUICK SHOW, NO TELL
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
S TEREOVIEW P HOTOGRAPHS from the Popular Library Special Collections (PLCH) Surface cleaning: smoke sponge eraser crumbs aqueous Before After
M USICAL F ESTIVAL P AMPHLET from the Genealogy and Local History (PLCH) Before During (paper mended) After
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
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.
T HE P ROSTHETIC E AR
THANK YOU! AND DO VISIT OUR WEBSITE AND BLOG – thepreservationlab.org
Recommend
More recommend
