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

Welcome to the Preservation Lab’s Preservation Week Celebration!

HISTORY

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 3rd 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
• f
• 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

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)

• 9 months to get agreement through legal
• In the academic environment this is lightning speed!

Before renovation After – brighter, more benches

WHY OUR 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
• pportunity to seek an innovative solution to address preservation needs
• f 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

COLLABORATIVE LAB MODEL

• The Preservation Lab was formed with a formal legal agreement

between the two collaborating institutions (PLCH and UCL)

• the legal agreement has no expiration or renewal date and can

continue in perpetuity until either institution no longer finds the collaboration mutually beneficial

• 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

• ther 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

HOW IT WORKS

• 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

KEEPING THINGS EVEN

THE FIRST 2 YEARS

341 101 27 78 53 317 392 811 768 1028 Special Collections Enclosure Pamphlet Spine Bookblock

Comparison - time per repair with output

Time (minutes) Count

January 2012 - present

• treated 317 special collections items
• treated 3924 general collection items
• evaluated 10,805 general collection items

PRODUCTION

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

• ne solution has been for us to bring trainers on-site

ensuring continuity in training and helping to bolster teamwork

• 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

MARY L. COOK PARCHMENT DIPLOMA

Unrolling using a humidification chamber Flattening using a combination stretch-dry method – magnets, blotter pressing stacks and weights

STEREOVIEW PHOTOGRAPHS

from the Popular Library Special Collections (PLCH)

Surface cleaning:

Before After

smoke sponge eraser crumbs aqueous

MUSICAL FESTIVAL PAMPHLET

from the Genealogy and Local History (PLCH) Before During After

(paper mended)

TWO-PART STURDY CORRUGATED BOXES

a Preservation Lab creation for oversized items Finished product: a sturdy, reinforced box with a side opening and lid

QUR’AN

from the Archives & Rare Books Library (UC)

• Miniature leather

Qur’an housed in a copper alloy case with a glass magnifier window.

• Preservation

created a protective Mylar slipcase with vents and cloth clamshell with nested insert to house silica gel.

THE PROSTHETIC EAR

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