Podcast on jiscDEPO Call

12 minutes podcast discussion  between David and Frederique on an overview of Strand B (Expose) of the Call document (jiscEXPO):

Podcast on jiscEXPO Call

General background

The evolution of the national policy environment has been rapid over the past few years, with most major UK research funders now insisting that research outputs stemming from the projects they fund be deposited into an Open Access repository. Many universities have similar policies.  The Open Access (OA) institutional repository infrastructure in the UK is relatively well-developed, with the vast majority of UK researchers having access to an OA repository in which they can deposit their research outputs.  JISC has played a major role in contributing to this through various programmes of work to build and enhance repositories for open content.  There has been associated innovation in national infrastructure, e.g. openDOAR, ROAR, Sherpa-RoMEO, the Repository Junction, the IncReASe Project, UKPMC, the Welsh Repository Network and ERIS.  On the technical side, the growth of open systems that enable easier deposit have been highlighted by the success of open Web APIs (such as SWORD/APP) and the deposit tools that have been created on top of them.

However, the deposit rate is too low, and repositories remain under-used, bearing in mind the demonstrable benefits they can deliver for researchers, universities and the UK economy. One reason for this is that researchers do not, at the time when they might deposit an item, see a benefit outweighing the cost of their time in doing so (known as a ‘negative feedback loop’ ). Furthermore, while most researchers have at least one repository in which to deposit their outputs, many have more than one, and the lack of join-up between them, and between them and other services, has meant that ‘deposit’ is less straightforward than it should be.

Demonstrator deposit tools, such as those highlighted below, demonstrate that the technology is now capable of supporting deposit as an easier and more rewarding process.  What is immediately required is the embedding of the complete deposit solution into the authoring or related research process.

The aim of this call is to fund work to assemble and ensure the take-up of sustainable solutions that significantly alter the balance of benefits for the researcher (making deposit part of a constant, motivating ‘positive feedback loop’), leading to more research outputs being deposited into open access repositories with increased benefit to the researcher, the sector and the economy.  Researchers may be motivated not only to deposit more research outputs but also to build open access research outputs more effectively into their research, teaching and external engagement.

The assumption by deposit proposals should be that research outputs are multi-author, multi-funder, multi-institution and multi-national.

Examples of applicable work in this area:

• Please make sure to see the report on the “jisc depost” event that preceded this call: the list of current deposit tools that have been built and the themes/patterns beginning to emerge in these deposit situations.
• There have been a range of other JISC projects that have worked in the deposit solution.
• Open Access Repository Junction offers an API that supports redirect and deposit of research outputs into multiple repositories.
• Open Access policies are listed by ROARMAP and Sherpa-Juliet, and these may suggest research communities where deposit might be a concern for researchers.
• SWORD is applicable in this area and projects are advised to include a section in their proposals explaining whether and how they will use SWORD.
• Various “Shared Infrastructure Services” projects, such as Sherpa-RoMEO, openDOAR and Names offer functionality that can support deposit.
• Text mining tools/services by organisations such as Yahoo’s term extractor, Thomson Reuters’s Open-Calais, Nactem’s tools for researchers and other services also provide opportunities to enhance deposit.
• Also, please see further exemplary work by companies such as Flickr’s Open Source Uploadr, Google’s Docs & Picassa features, Slideshare and other Web companies that have achieved successful feedback loops by enabling a Web deposit / upload solution that has supported a motivated and sustained user community.

Strand B: Expose

General background

The aim of projects in this strand is to enable content to be made available on the Web using structured data, particularly linked data, which increases its potential value to researchers, teachers and learners.  These terms are defined in the Call. Projects are likely to encounter, and should report on, technical, legal, maintenance and sustainability,and organisational challenges.

The content in scope under this strand includes any that is available to all of UK higher education on a long-term basis, whether on the open Web or via stable licensing arrangements that can support education and research. Legal issues are likely to arise in both, and are a topic JISC wishes to explore. Content used for either teaching or research is in scope.

The structure in scope under this strand, as noted in the Call, is any arrangement of resources, metadata, repositories and the URIs that represent them, that allow users to exploit them in useful ways. Primarily projects should be exploring the implications and uses of linked data approaches and the use of Resource Description Framework (RDF) and related standards such as FOAF, RDFa, SKOS and SPARQL. However, other types of structure (e.g. CSV, JSON), whether semantically meaningful to machines or not, may be appropriate for certain purposes or users. Proposals not using a linked data approach will be expected to justify this based on their specific case for educational or research benefit, and with reference to the Cabinet Office’s guidance on URI Sets.

JISC wishes to explore in the academic sector similar problem spaces to those proposed by the Cabinet Office in its “Designing URI Sets for the UK Public Sector” document: specifically the “Design principles for public sector URI sets” (“use a consistent path structure to explicitly indicate the type of URI”, etc.) as well as the “Quality characteristics to publish for a URI set” (concept, relationships, provenance, official status, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, licensed terms, etc).  Proposals addressing these issues in the context of the .ac.uk domain and their specific applicability (and pragmatic use) are in scope for this call. To support this, JISC has recently published a “Linked Data Horizon Scan” study which outlines the advantages that could be gained in adopting linked data especially with regards to how data can be shared more easily and openly between public sector organisations.  The study concludes that these approaches applied to specific university data could result in significant gains across UK Higher Education.

The approach taken by data.gov.uk, and the potential implications of related approaches in the academic sector, are a focus for this programme. For example, proposals are in scope that would explore the implications of implementing similar tools/services to those associated with data.gov.uk, such as the Public Sector Information Unlocking Service, the “Apps” catalogue and the various ontologies that are gaining recognition and use. While these initiatives are aimed at the public sector and not higher education, similar approaches may be part of the future digital infrastructure for UK education and research. Projects are encouraged to reuse the tools, apps and data made available by data.gov.uk and other open linked data efforts, but they should do so with explicit reasoning for how this benefits the academic end user (students, teachers, researchers, etc.), and their aim should be to document the implications of this use.

Innovation relevant to the UK Location Strategy and EU INSPIRE Directive is in scope. Currently the implications of the UK Location Strategy for the academic sector are not totally clear, however, it is anticipated that compliance at some level will be sensible in the interest of use of information across sectors and in support of research and learning.

Currently there is guidance available as part of the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) / Cabinet Office work on making Government/public sector information available; for example the guidance on URI sets referred to above. As part of this programme adoption of these approaches is encouraged. Through the projects funded under this call we hope to learn where there are gaps or where improvements can be made. Some of the guidance is necessarily pragmatic to support ease of implementation. There may be changes necessary to fully address the requirements of education and research. JISC anticipates that lessons will be learnt through the implementation of these approaches and will aim to ensure that these are shared with OPSI.  As part of this programme it is hoped that dialogue with OPSI will enable the academic sector to learn from, and build on the OPSI experience.

In addition to the above exploration of process/policy is the need for further pragmatic technical work, especially in the areas of data reuse either via API or file type.  Large projects exposing collections available for reuse and small projects working with linked data as a technology should look to demonstrate where the value of linked data is and how it helps lower the technical barriers that have hindered the Semantic Web in the past.  Above all, proposed work should be justified on the basis of likely benefit to the academic end users.

Other areas of interest that are applicable to the academic sector are listed below in the examples section.

Please note that this ‘Expose’ strand, complements the JISC Managing Research Data Programme: Call for Proposals 14/09 Research Data (Strand A, ‘Citing, Integrating and Linking Research Data’).  The ‘Expose’ strand of this Call is focused on all types of digital content, including research data and a wide range of use cases, whereas the Managing Research Data Call is focused exclusively on research data and support of the scholarly communication process. Projects under this call are also likely to be smaller and more exploratory.  Despite these differences in focus, the scope of this strand does overlap with that of Strand A of the Managing Research Data Programme call  for proposals, and possibly with that of other JISC programme areas, and related proposals may be submitted under them. JISC will take this into consideration during the evaluation process.

Examples of organisational efforts in this area:

Please note the following list of examples are intentionally broad in scope and are not intended to be prescriptive:

• Some resources that JISC has supported digitising have licences that will make them ready for re-use using open structured data formats. For example many of the collections in the Digitisation and e-Content programme, Open Education Resources (OER) programme, the Repository & Preservation programmes and at JISC data centres (Edina & Mimas) would be apt for exposure.
• The Library of Congress’ Authorities and Vocabularies service (which has been made available as Linked Data) is a good example of both process and technical issues being explored and overcome to enable this type of exposure and re-use.
• CERN has recently released all of it bibliographic metadata openly under the GPPL and released this statement (and challenge) to other Libraries around the world. Also of note is the Open Library and Library Thing availability of data and the issues surrounding its use.
• The Open Knowledge Foundation continues to question and support the degree to which content is made openly available.
• The UK Government has taken a significant step towards making data more structurally “transparent” (i.e. data is openly available as both CSV, RDF and other structured data). The US Gov’t is taking a similar approach with their data.gov effort and apps wiki.
• JISC’s OpenPSI project has been converting datasets into queryable datasets that can then be mashed up to create interesting new perspectives for researchers.
• Google’s use of Rich Snippets in their core search technology has enabled individuals users to declare information about themselves that Google can pick up and index via FOAF, RDFa and vCard so skills and expertise can be more easily published on the Web.
• JISC’s Names project is working toward aggregating author names data into a central store with a common API so that author names can be disambiguated and identified.
• Southampton Universities ECS department has been publishing data about their authors as structured data for the past six years, with increasingly high Google rankings for their lecturers, researchers and authors.
• DBpedia (database version of Wikipedia) continues to act as a central hub for many linked data stores.
• Various collection projects within the JISC Digitisation portfolio have experimented with ways of exposing content online and further collections have identified their interest in pursuing better structuring and exposing their content.
• The SemTech report outlines the plausible steps towards more semantically structured content in the teaching and learning area along with the pragmatic uses already in practice.
• The EU INSPIRE directive has pushed forward the agenda of a common framework for describing geo-spatial information.

Examples of technical approaches that might be relevant:

Please note the following list of examples are examples and are not intended to be prescriptive:

• Projects should explore technical, organisational and cultural barriers where applicable, for example what technical barriers are there for exposing APIs and how do these relate to organisational and cultural barriers for opening up content?
• XCRI and JACS have gained a great deal of recognition as a common way to display course information on the Web so that it is interoperable between systems.
• Jeni Tennison as part of her work with the London Gazette and data.gov.uk  has exemplified the way that statistical data can be expressed in a common way on the Web using the SCOVO and voID ontologies.
• Some examples of Academic related ontology’s that are beginning to gain more interest include: DCMI, Bibliontology, CERIF and OAI-ORE.
• The availability of data using large community based content stores that have standard and well used APIs has enabled The Library of Cogresses Memory of America Collection to take advantage of the scalability and robustness of Flickr as a platform.
• Georgi Koblirov of uberblic.org has been working on tools that enable provenance of data to be preserved and the jointure of new data sets with existing data sets.
• Tony Hirst continues to explore new lightweight ways of playing with and utilising data from both the public and university sectors.
• Multiple file types such as XHTML (RDFa), GRRDL, Microformats, HTML5 and JSON have enabled the structuring of smaller stores of data on the Web which would enable content to be used in a variety of ways.
• OpenCalais enables digital content to be sent to them and returned with links that can be embedded to make the content of the document linked data.
• Various RDF transform tools exist that convert data formats such as CSV, SQL, and other into linked data.
• JISC provides guidance on good practice in API creation.
• Small stores of data (individual collections) can be transforrmed via RDFizer.
• Academic research scientists using specific ontologies to classify research data include the Chem4Word and FlyWeb projects.

This paper presents important supporting material relating to the JISC Grant Funding Call 2/10, “Deposit & Expose”. Bidders are advised to read the relevant sections thoroughly before drafting proposals.

This Briefing Paper describes the programme-related processes and expectations that bidders should be aware of when drafting proposals. It then outlines some of the context and related work that has been done or is underway in the substantive areas covered by the Call. While work funded under the Call is intended to benefit the higher education sector, many of the examples of related work are at least partly outside that sector. One aim of the programme is to improve dialogue and learn lessons from other sectors. This Briefing Paper is not comprehensive, rather it intended to help guide proposals in what key issues bids should be addressing.  JISC will recommend that markers refer to this briefing paper to aid their proposal marking.  Proposals should make reference to relevant examples of related work from this paper or elsewhere as appropriate.

Programme management rationale, approach and expectations

This section provides important information, an understanding of which should be reflected explicitly in proposals against both strands of work outlined in the Call. JISC seeks to encourage a culture within its programmes whereby experiences and lessons, both positive and negative, are shared frequently, early and openly, for the benefit of all.  The following arrangements are intended to support that culture.

Meetings and engagement

A programme start-up meeting for all funded projects has been planned for mid-June in London. The aim of this meeting is to help projects understand and plan how they will participate in the wider programme, and share expertise and experience with one another and the wider community. Projects should send appropriate representatives and should budget for this meeting accordingly.

In addition, projects need to build into their work plan a one day meeting with their assigned JISC Programme Manager, which must take place within the first month of the project’s start date.

Participation in relevant JISC events, especially training and dissemination opportunities made available by JISC and its Support bodies (UKOLN, CETIS, etc) is expected of all projects. Projects are encouraged to contact these support groups early to begin exploring options for participation with them.

During the programme, JISC will look for opportunities to offer practical encouragement to projects, and will focus this on successful projects. Since one indicator of success is rates of deposit or usage, projects will be require to set up and make available a public analytics engine, e.g. GoogleAnalytics, Piwik or similar log tracker.

Engagement in JISC level communications and dissemination activities should be anticipated by projects, e.g. a minimum of three phone/skype interviews with a journalist and/or synthesis consultant should be expected.
Towards the end of the programme there will be evaluation activities to help assess key project and programme lessons. This assessment will influence future JISC planning, though JISC can not make any guarantee with regards to funding for these projects or related activities.

Project communications and reporting

The first task of all projects (due within a fortnight of the project start date) will be to fill out a ‘Core Resources Form’ as provided by their JISC Programme Manager; this form collects all details about the project’s web resources as well as human resources. Once filled in this shared spreadsheet will be the de facto registry for all ongoing changes to the project; in other words, this set of data *must be kept up to date*.  This data is the core contact information sheet on all projects in each programme strand. JISC will archive this information in its Project Management Information System (PIMS) which will be exposed as part of our FoI obligations.

Within a month of the project start date, all projects should adapt their project proposal into a Project Plan that is suitable *for audiences beyond the JISC community*.  Once accepted by your JISC Programme Manager (projects should make sure to look over JISC project management guidelines for guidance), this document should then be placed online.  Projects are encouraged to place their project plan within the context of their project blog. For example, making your project plan easily readable as the first seven posts of the project blog will enable you to link to specific sections of the Project Plan as well as revisit different sections of the plan and leave comments on how the plan has changed, for example:

• Project Plan Post 1 of 7: Aims, Objectives and Final Output(s) of the project
• Project Plan Post 2 of 7: Wider Benefits to Sector & Achievements for Host Institution
• Project Plan Post 3 of 7: Risk Analysis and Success Plan
• Project Plan Post 4 of 7: IPR (Creative Commons Use & Open Source Software License)
• Project Plan Post 5 of 7: Project Team Relationships and End User Engagement.
• Project Plan Post 6 of 7: Projected Timeline, Workplan & Overall Project Methodology
• Project Plan Post 7 of 7: Budget

All *projects will be required to maintain a project blog* (with a W3C validated ATOM and/or RSS2 feed) and *post a minimum of one blog post per month*.  The project manager will provide a series of tags and popular topics that projects should endeavour to complete, though projects are encouraged to write for the wider university audience (projects should not write with the JISC executive specifically in mind).  Projects are encouraged to contact their programme manager with personal concerns, otherwise communication should remain in the open with addressable URLs assigned. JISC will harvest “project progress posts” based on specific use of tags, e.g. blog posts tagged “TechnicalStandards” will be aggregated, text-mined and tallied for key technical standards that are in use by all projects.

Projects will be required to write a ‘Final Project Post’ on their project blog that will need to meet the requirements set out by JISC.  The Programme Manager will provide the template for this final post, which will be influential in JISC’s planning any further investment based on the work of the projects.  This final project post should reflect and link to previous posts within the project blog.  JISC can not make any guarantees regarding availability of additional funds.

JISC will also require a ‘Final Sign-Off Survey’ Form to be filled out which will be kept confidential within the JISC Executive and help improve the effectiveness of JISC programme management and documentation.  This form is intended to collect lessons learned and guidance from the projects on how JISC can improve JISC projects and programmes.

All of the above have been adapted from JISC’s Project Management Guidelines (based on MSP/PRINCE2 Guidelines alongside the JISC Rapid Innovation Definition and Methodology).

Please note: the use of a “blog” as a project documentation tool is intended specifically as a word processing tool whereby the documents will have an addressable URL and Feed.  The project blog should be viewed with this in mind and not seen as an “informal” tool.  Rather the ‘blog as a publishing tool’ should be seen as a way to engage the community as well as assure all content from the project is published online and in the open. JISC will archive all project blogs as part of the UK Web Archive.

JISC Support and Engagement opportunities for projects

As part of a JISC innovation programme it is important that projects share their knowledge and lessons with the wider academic sector. Often as part of an innovation project, teams will develop skills to find innovative solutions in terms of technical or organisational approaches. These are also valuable lessons and these experiences should be shared, in ways over and above the blog-based reporting noted above. To help project team members achieve this JISC provides several support services and projects. These support bodies are listed below and proposals should identify why and how they plan to engage with one or more of the following groups:

• The JISC Developer Community, DevCSI is a JISC-funded project that supports software developers and their work by providing networking, training, showcasing and other community building activities.  Developers working on projects funded under this call should engage with DevCSI, and proposals should demonstrate an understanding of this requirement. Bidders may contact Mahendra Mahey <m.mahey@ukoln.ac.uk> for further information about the Developer Community.
• Repositories Support Project is a major JISC initiative to support the development and growth of the UK repositories network, with support for building repositories, expanding content and increasing usage.
• Digital Curation Centre is a national focus for research and development into curation issues and to promote expertise and good practice, both national and international, for the management of all research outputs in digital format.
• UKOLN is a research organisation that aims to inform practice and influence policy in the areas of: digital libraries, information systems, bibliographic management, and web technologies. It provides network information services, including the Ariadne magazine, and runs workshops and conferences.
• JISC CETIS advises UK Higher and Further Education on the strategic, technical and pedagogic implications of educational technology standards.
• OSSWatch promotes awareness and understanding of the legal, social, technical and economic issues that arise when educational institutions engage with free and open source software.  It is especially relevant to consult OSSWatch advice on the type of licence you should use for software and related sustainability issues.
• Other JISC Services may also be relevant.

Related work (both strands)

An increasing amount of digital content is being created, and legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act alongside other developments, such as the OPSI Open Government Data, Linked Data efforts, Creative Commons, Science Commons, The EU INSPIRE Directive, UK Location Strategy, and Open Access, is enabling access to this content and supporting its availability on the open Web.  The “opening up” of this content has significant potential for learning, teaching and research to allow for use and reuse in new and innovative ways. JISC’s new strategy sets out how the ‘Open Agenda’ can support teaching, learning, research and knowledge transfer. This call is intended to solicit bids for projects that both encourage these trends and explore their implications.

Proposals for both the Deposit and Expose strand funded under this call will need to demonstrate an appropriate level of awareness of all relevant work funded under previous and current JISC programmes and elsewhere. The call notes that “all proposals will need to identify relevant previous and current work, and show either how the proposed project builds on it, or why it cannot.”

The most relevant JISC programmes include:

• Information Environment Programme 2009-2011
• Repositories and Preservation Programme
• Digital Repositories Programme 2007-2008
• Digital Repositories Programme 2005-2007
• Resource Discovery Programme
• Digital Preservation and Records Management Programme
• Digital Libraries in the Classroom Programme
• Managing Research Data Programme

Relevant work has also been undertaken internationally, for example in the US (such as that funded by the Mellon Foundation), the Netherlands (funded by SURF) and Australia under the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, and now the Australian National Data Service. Bidders are advised to ensure they are aware as appropriate of relevant international work.  Further explicit examples from the Government, Corporate and the Public Sector are provided below.

Contact details for enquiries about all strands within this call can be found in the relevant strand section.

General enquiries about the bid submission process should be sent to Laura Smyth (email: l.smyth@jisc.ac.uk; Tel. 0117 931 7451).

Appendices to this call

• Appendix A: Cover sheet for bids
• Appendix B: Guidance on freedom of information and FOI withheld information form
• Appendix C: Guidance on costing a proposal and example budget
• Appendix D: JISC’s generic terms and conditions of funding

NB: All appendices should be read in conjunction with the main body of the associated JISC Grant Funding Call.

All appendices and briefing documents for this call can be found at:  http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities

• Have you completed the cover sheet (Appendix A) which is included in the page limit of your proposal?
• Have you paragraph- and section- numbered the proposal?
• Have you completed the FOI Withheld Information Form (Appendix B)?
• Have you followed the bid format outlined?
• Are you clear about the evaluation criteria on which your proposal will be judged?
• Have you looked at the Example Budget and guidance (Appendix C) to help you present your costings?
• Have you clarified the nature of the institutional contributions?
• Have you read JISC’s Generic Terms and Conditions of Grant (see Appendix D)?
• Have you kept within the page limit for the main body of the proposal?
• Have you added an additional appendix (that will not be counted against your page limit) describing any and all other JISC projects with which you are collaborating/involved?
• Have you included letters of support from the lead site and each project partner?
• Is your bid in a single file and PDF format including letters of support (and if necessary in a zipped folder if the size of the file exceeds 10Mb), with no additional security settings switched on and following good practice in UKWCAG guidelines for PDFs?
• Have you checked the email address to which you need to submit your bid, and are you aware that you need to include the name of the lead institution in the subject line of the email?
• Are you aware of the deadline for submitting bids? (12 noon UK time on Tuesday 20^th April 2010. Late bids will not be accepted).

JISC will endeavour to notify successful bidders by 4^th June 2010. Projects should commence in June 2010. Completion dates for projects can be found in the relevant strand sections.

JISC will expect to work with the selected projects to agree the workplan and to ensure that the project budget is appropriate and suitably profiled. It may be necessary to negotiate some aspects of the project objectives and content with the project teams in the interest of maximising the expected benefits of the programme as a whole.

Notwithstanding the weightings of the evaluation criteria, proposals that fail badly on any one criterion may be rejected, and proposals showing exceptional strength in one or more areas with serious weaknesses in others may be funded. In making awards under this call, JISC will take into account the need for an appropriate, varied and affordable portfolio of projects and partners. It is not, therefore, necessarily the case that the projects with the highest raw scores will be those funded in all instances.

JISC reserves the right not to commission the full amount of funding outlined in this call, and to issue a subsequent call to address any remaining work.

The deadline for receipt of submissions is 12 noon UK time on Tuesday 20^th April 2010. Late proposals will NOT be accepted. It is the responsibility of the bidder to ensure that the proposal has arrived by the deadline stated. The JISC Executive will strictly adhere to this policy. There will be no appeals process for late bids. In light of this, it is recommended that bidders plan to submit proposals several days before the deadline in case of any technical difficulties or other unforeseen circumstances.

Bids are expected to be no more than 10 A4 pages in length including the completed cover sheet. All proposals should be typeset in Arial or a similar font at a minimum 10-point size. Margins should remain at the standard distance.  All key information as outlined in the guidance on structure of proposals MUST be included within the relevant page limit unless otherwise indicated. Any bids exceeding the relevant page limit for key information will be rejected by the JISC Executive prior to the evaluation stage.

Proposals MUST:

• Include a completed cover sheet (see Appendix A) which is included in the page limit for the proposal;
• Include a completed FOI Withheld Information Form (see Appendix B);
• Be accompanied by a letter(s) of support from an authorised senior manager at the lead institution and from any partner institutions.

An electronic copy of the proposal should be sent in PDF format by the deadline. This is an electronic-only submission process, therefore all documentation (including letters of support) must be submitted in PDF format, as *a single PDF file* (if the file exceeds 10Mb it should be placed in a zipped folder – to note: any files exceeding 10Mb are likely to be returned by the mail server).

Bidders must ensure their proposals have paragraph and section numbers in case of any queries or FOI requests. No additional security settings should be activated for PDFs to allow JISC to redact information if necessary prior to any release under FOI. All PDFs should follow best practice regarding accessibility guidelines, for guidance use W3C WAI guidelines[1]. Further advice and guidance is available from the JISC TechDis Service[2], e-mail: helpdesk@techdis.ac.uk, Tel: 01904 754 530.

The bid submission email address is JIR-CALL@jisc.ac.uk

All bids should include the name of the lead institution in the subject line of the email and clearly identify to which strand the bid applies. It is the responsibility of the bidder to ensure that the bid is sent to the correct email address. Bidders will receive an automatic confirmation of receipt of any proposal sent to the relevant email address. These email addresses should not be used for general enquiries. Bidders submitting more than one bid in response to this call must submit these in separate messages to the relevant email address.

If no automatic confirmation is received, it is the responsibility of the bidder to contact JISC within 24 hours of submitting the bid to confirm whether the proposal has been received. In case of any dispute about the submission of proposals, it is the responsibility of the bidder to provide evidence that the proposal was emailed to the correct address prior to the deadline.

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AA-Conformance
[2] http://www.techdis.ac.uk/

JISC also supports the creation and use of Open Educational Resources.  JorumOpen[1] is a free online service providing access to teaching and learning resources available for everyone.  Where content that may be used in teaching and learning is made openly available by projects funded under this call for proposals then, as noted in Appendix D, this content should be deposited as appropriate in Jorum Open.

[1] http://www.jorum.ac.uk/

For outputs, such as reports or model strategies, a non-exclusive licence allowing JISC or its representatives to utilise, archive and disseminate the work will be required.

Online content and research outputs that are made available as a result of projects funded under this call for proposals should have suitable licensing arrangements in place to enable maximum re-use in education, research and, where possible, more widely.  In most cases the content and research outputs should be made available open access using an appropriate Creative Commons licence, including the CC logo and a link to the licence on each resource.  In some cases a lower level of access may be acceptable if one aim of the project is to explore and document associated rights issues, or to test the re-use of content in certain identified contexts where open access is not appropriate.  However, evaluators will need to be convinced of the wider benefits to education and research of more limited access to this material.

Projects will be provided with a set of guidelines from their JISC programme manager with regards to the documentation and obligations required as part of their Grant funding.  The JISC Programme Manager for your project will provide you with your project specific guidelines which will be based on JISC’s Project Management Guidelines[1], however please note that documentation for each programme is adapted to meet the needs of that programme so communication with your programme manager should always be your first port of call when meeting your documentation requirements.Further information specific to this programme is given in the Briefing Paper.

It is intended that the deliverables created as part of this programme will, as appropriate, be deployed by JISC as part of a long-term strategy for providing access to community resources, and, where possible, arrangements for archiving of deliverables will be put in place. However, wherever possible, projects will be encouraged to put in place mechanisms to ensure the continued availability and currency of deliverables after funding has ended. In the majority of cases JISC will not be able to commit to the long-term delivery or maintenance of project outputs after the end of the programme, though guidance will be given about any opportunities for continuation funding and embedding within institutions.  Project should expect to maintain any and all online resources produced as part of the project for two years beyond close of the project.

[1] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/proj_manguide

JISC will not disclose any information received during this tender process whilst the evaluation of the bids received is still underway. The evaluation process is deemed to be active until such time as all grant letters to successful projects have been sent out.

It is JISC policy to make the content of any bid funded by JISC through this call publicly available via the JISC web site shortly after funding has been awarded. Unsuccessful bids will be destroyed one month after the lead institution has been notified that their bid was not successful. However, it should be noted that the contents of unsuccessful bids may be disclosed should JISC receive a relevant FOI request prior to destruction taking place.

All proposals must complete the FOI Withheld Information Form (see Appendix B) indicating those sections or paragraphs of your proposal which you believe should be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. It should be noted that whilst JISC will actively consider withholding any of the information indicated within this appendix, it is ultimately JISC’s decision (as the holder of the information) and JISC may not be able to uphold such decisions in all cases. JISC will consult with the lead institution prior to the release of any information listed in the FOI Withheld Information Form.

The types of information which may be considered exempt from disclosure include (but may not necessarily be limited to):

• Information, which if disclosed, would materially damage the commercial interests of the institution or its partners;
• Information, which if disclosed, would break the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Bidders will need to consult with their institutional FOI officer for further information if a request is made to disclose any part of the bid. Failure to fill in or submit this information will be construed as consent for disclosure and/or publication on JISC’s website should your bid be successful.

Other institutions submitting bids should use their usual costing and pricing practices but all costs should be clear and transparent, clarifying the number of days each individual working on the activity will provide, in order to assist the evaluators in determining the value for money of the proposal.

The bid should indicate the contribution to the project being sought from JISC and the intended contribution from the lead institution and any project partners. The funding levels outlined in this call are the maximum that JISC will provide towards the total cost of a project; institutional contributions are additional. Where a bid involves partners from outside UK HE, such as English FE or a commercial company, the partners should cost their activities using current costing practice in their college or organisation and clearly identify partner contributions.

When assessing proposals, JISC will take into consideration the reasonableness of the total cost of the project and the institutional contributions. It is important to JISC that HE institutions are costing proposals accurately and seeking the appropriate level of support from us, so that they are not over-committed, and hence are ensuring the long-term availability of their activities. However, JISC also needs to ensure consistency of treatment, and that it is using its funding effectively across all proposals.

Through the funding provided to projects there will clearly be sector-wide benefits. However, there may also be benefits to the lead institution and any project partners (e.g. prestige/kudos, academic synergy, and financial benefits) in delivering the individual projects. Bidders should provide a summary of the qualitative and quantitative benefits the lead institution and any project partners as a whole expect to receive from the project. JISC expects these benefits to be taken into account when considering the funding requested from JISC. The nature of institutional contributions should be clearly identified (e.g. whether they are direct or indirect contributions or a mixture of both) by providing a breakdown using the example table provided in Appendix C. JISC reserves the right to ask additional questions about the budget prior to agreeing any funding for a project.

Further guidance on fEC for JISC-funded research and development projects can be found at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/bidguide/fulleconomiccosting.

For more information about TRAC, see the HEFCE web site at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/finance/costing/. The consolidated TRAC Guidance can be found at http://www.jcpsg.ac.uk/guidance/.

• What could possibly happen?
• What is the likelihood of it happening?
• How will it affect the project?
• What can be done about it?

Further guidance on Risk Assessments is available via the Programme Office at JISC. JISC InfoNet also hosts an InfoKit on Risk Management[1]. It explains what risks are, how to do a risk analysis, and how to manage risks during a project.

[1] http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/risk-management/printable-version.pdf

The JISC contribution to the e-Framework Partnership is managed through the JISC e-Framework Programme[1]. Key components of the programme provide the means by which the experience of innovation can be shared, in order that informed decisions can be made by institutions, together with software and service providers. The programme, through its Community Engagement Team[2], includes the management of community engagement with the International e-Framework Knowledgebase. Submission to the Knowledgebase involves the formal documentation of technical service artefacts. Further information regarding these artefacts can be found on the e-Framework website.

To further support the key principle of sharing the experience of innovation, the JISC e-Framework Programme is currently in the process of trialing and developing a complementary web-based application – the JISC InnovationBase. This provides a simple way to model (catalogue) JISC projects, and wider community activities, in a structured way around commonly understood concepts. The JISC e-Framework Programme will provide the necessary resources to support and guide projects in contributing content to these knowledgebases, and where necessary, assist in testing the re-use of existing content.

All project bids should consider carefully how they might relate to the e-Framework Partnership activities outlined above, making it clear in their bids where they intend to contribute, or explore the possibility of contribution. JISC Programme Management and Support, together with the JISC e-Framework Community Engagement team will work with successful bidders to ensure that the level of contribution is appropriate and feasible. As a rough guide, where such engagement is identified, projects should make an allowance of four person days per year to contribute to the e-Framework as part of their project plan.  Further information and guidance about how projects can engage with the e-Framework can be found on the JISC e-Framework web site[3].

[1] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_eframework
[2] http://www.jiscep.org.uk/
[3] http://www.e-framework.org/

As noted in Appendix D, wherever possible open standards, protocols and specifications should be adopted. Any technical approaches used in a JISC project should be based on openly published documentation and enable re-use.  Any deviation should be justified in the proposal and any alternative interface specifications should be designed with re-use by others in mind. The JISC recognises that emergent technologies lack the maturity of standards of some existing technologies. Interoperability and data transfer are key to the provision of next generation technologies for education and research, and projects are expected to work with JISC to address these issues.

Relevant standards, protocols and specifications are monitored by JISC’s Innovation Support Centres. If there is a question regarding the relevance and openness of a technology projects should contact UKOLN[1] and/or CETIS[2] for further guidance.  The JISC Standards Catalogue[3] is a general list of some of the standards that may be relevant to projects funded under this call.

Projects should demonstrate sound risk management with regard to the adoption of standards for immature emergent technologies and refer to appropriate sources of expertise. Advice and guidance is available from UKOLN[4].

Further guidance on standards and their stipulation can be found in the relevant strand sections above and in the associated Briefing Paper published alongside this call on the JISC website.

Software Outputs

It is expected that software outputs will normally be licensed as open-source unless a case is made to the contrary and accepted by the evaluation panel. Applicants should make clear the licence under which software outputs will be released, mechanisms that will be put in place for community contribution (users and developers) throughout the project, and the sustainability plan for the software beyond the period of project funding. Applicants should consult JISC’s open source software advisory service OSSWatch[5] on matters relating to open source software development.

Ideally, to enable its re-use, software should be of a certain quality and maturity. For example, it should have supporting information, FAQ, installation guides, test data etc. to help others use it. In addition to the advice from OSS Watch and SSI (formerly OMII-UK[6]), elements that contribute to software quality and project maturity are outlined in the Software Quality Assurance (QA) and Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) Development guidelines[7]. However it is recognised that the level of documentation to support software will vary according to the level of maturity of the software being created and in some instances, where projects are small scale and at early stages of development, it is more important to test the software than provide documentation.  Hence, Strand A (Deposit) projects will be expected to follow the recommendations from the sources of guidance noted above.  Strand B projects may follow these guidelines if they are working with sufficiently mature software.  Proposals for projects not intending to follow the guidelines should note and account for this.

[1] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
[2] http://jisc.cetis.ac.uk/
[3] http://standards-catalogue.ukoln.ac.uk/index/JISC_Standards_Catalogue
[4] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
[5] http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/
[6] http://www.omii.ac.uk/
[7] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/SQA_OSMM_09.06.doc

a. Cover Sheet – all proposals must include a completed cover sheet (see Appendix A). The completed cover sheet must be included within the page limit.

b. FOI Tick List – all proposals must include a FOI Withheld Information Form, indicating which sections of the bid you would like JISC to consider withholding in response to a freedom of information request or if your bid is successful and your project proposal is made available on JISC’s website. This can be found at Appendix B to this document. The FOI form will not count towards the page limit. Please note: Projects should not request that the budget be redacted but rather refrain from listing any personal details on the budget, i.e. staff titles should be listed according to their central spine listing and no personal names should be listed on the budget.

c. Appropriateness and Fit to Programme Objectives and Overall Value to the JISC Community – this section should demonstrate how the bid addresses the issues and demands outlined in the call, and shows innovation as appropriate; and the extent to which the project outcomes will be of overall value to the JISC community.  Bids should demonstrate that their innovations were  based on real user needs and that the solution proposed will be developed with that user need in mind.

d. Quality of Proposal and Robustness of Workplan – a description of the intended project plan, timetable and deliverables, project management arrangements, risks, IPR position, and sustainability issues. Recruitment should be properly addressed in the bid. Do not underestimate the amount of time it takes to set up and establish a project and undertake any necessary staff recruitment.

e. Engagement with the Community – a description of how project stakeholders and practitioners (if appropriate) will be engaged throughout the project and an overview of the dissemination and evaluation mechanisms that are envisaged for the project. Any stakeholder mapping and/or user needs analysis will strengthen this section of the bid. Proposals should also ensure there is scope for working in partnership with JISC in dissemination and evaluation activities, and in making available the outputs of the project beyond the JISC funding period. Further guidance on JISC’s expectations with regard to stakeholder engagement, evaluation and dissemination can be found in Section III of JISC’s Project Management Guidelines (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/proj_manguide).

f. Impact – A clear description of how this project will impact on the wider academic community in the UK (where appropriate). This section should include:

• A baseline review of the present research activity involved in the project, giving a view of the starting point of the project to allow impact evaluation afterwards.
• A well thought-through stakeholder analysis should be part of the proposal, showing the understanding of the involved community, their role and interests in this project.
• There should be a clear statement of how this project could impact on the wider community, immediately and long-term.
• A sustainability strategy should be included in the proposal, showing the risks, dependencies and considerations on sustainability and (if relevant) continuation of this project in the future.
• A clear evaluation methodology should be addressed related to the baseline review at the start.

g. Budget – a summary of the proposed budget, which in broad outline identifies how funds will be spent over the life of the project. The budget should be broken down across financial years (April–March) or parts thereof and should include itemised staff costs, any equipment and consumables, travel and subsistence, dissemination, evaluation, and any other direct costs required, e.g. rights clearance if required. All costs must be justified. Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) methodology must be used to calculate costs in bids from UK HE institutions. An Example Budget and guidance on the budgetary terms used can be found in Appendix C to this document. Bidders should provide a summary of the qualitative, and any quantitative, benefits the lead institution and any project partners as a whole expect to receive from the project in order to inform the funding to be requested from JISC and the costs being borne by the host institution and any project partners. Institutional contributions should be determined by taking into account the benefits to the lead institution and any project partners.

h. Previous Experience of the Project Team – names and brief career details of staff expected to contribute to/be seconded to the project, including qualifications and experience in the area of work proposed, linking the expertise to the roles required within the project, and evidence of any projects of similar nature successfully completed. Clearly indicate when posts will need to be advertised. Do not underestimate the problems in recruiting suitable staff to work on the project. Staff with suitable qualifications in areas where the JISC is interested can be in short supply or expensive. You should provide contingency plans in the event that you experience problems with recruitment.

i. Supporting Letter(s) – a copy of the letter(s) of support from a senior representative of the institution and any project partners. Only one supporting letter per project partner should be submitted. The supporting letter(s) will not count towards the page limit and should be included in a separate PDF file to the main bid sections described in a-f above, alongside the FOI tick list. The address to include on letters should be JISC, Northavon House, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QD. It is not necessary to address the letter to a particular contact within the JISC Executive.

Appropriateness and Fit to Programme Objectives and Overall Value to JISC Community

The extent to which the proposal addresses the issues and demands outlined in the call, and shows innovation as appropriate; the extent to which the project outcomes will be of overall value to the Higher Education and research communities (25%).

Questions Evaluators will be Considering

Is the proposal in scope as defined by the call?

Does the proposal address the terms of reference outlined in the call?

Does the proposal address a real end user need or problem?

Will the proposed outputs be welcome by the community

Can the project be easily transferred to a likeminded community?

If appropriate, is the bid technologically innovative (has not been repeated elsewhere)?

Is there evidence that the project idea was developed in the context of teaching, learning and/or research and will continue to be developed within this context?

If appropriate, does the bid address sustainability beyond project funding?

Quality of Proposal and Robustness of Workplan

The quality of the proposal will be assessed on the basis of the deliverables identified, and the evidence provided of how these will be achieved, including an assessment of the risks (25%).

Questions Evaluators will be Considering

Are there clear deliverables?

Is the work plan clear and feasible?

Is the IPR position clear and appropriate with regard to project outputs?

Is the methodology for meeting the deliverables sound and achievable? (e.g. is the methodology clear and are the  approaches responsive to requirements? )

Is there active engagement throughout the project to ensure a sustainable and embedded end-product, where applicable?

Is the workplan robust in terms of project management arrangements?

How will the success of the project be measured?

Does the bid include a well-thought-through initial assessment of risks, which considers the project’s failure to deliver, and predictable consequences that are not necessarily positive?

Are the staff plans feasible?

Engagement with the Community

The degree to which the proposal demonstrates an openness and willingness to work with and share findings with the JISC community and to work in partnership with JISC in forward planning, dissemination and evaluation, and to continue to make available the findings beyond the project period (20%).

Questions Evaluators will be Considering

Does the bid propose engagement with project stakeholders and practitioners (if appropriate) throughout the life of the project?

Is a stakeholder mapping and/or user needs analysis provided?

Does the bid propose an appropriate dissemination approach?

Does it have an appropriate evaluation approach, e.g. review by stakeholders?

Does the bid demonstrate willingness to work in partnership with JISC in the dissemination and evaluation activities and to make available outputs beyond the funding period?

Value for Money

The value of the expected project outcomes, vis-à-vis the level of funding requested, institutional contributions; taking into account the level of innovation, chance of success and relevance to the target communities (15%).

Questions Evaluators will be Considering

When considering value for money, evaluators will refer to their assessment under the evaluation criteria and compare this with the cost requested from JISC.

How much direct benefit will the project have within the participating institutions?

Are the proposed outputs likely to be transferable to the wider community?

Does the bid discuss the quantitative and qualitative benefits to the project partners of undertaking the work?

Given the benefits, are the institutional contributions appropriate?

Previous experience of the project team

Evidence of the project team’s understanding of the technical and/or management issues involved, and of its ability to manage and deliver a successful project, for example through work done to date in the area or in related fields (15%).

Questions Evaluators will be Considering

Does the bid demonstrate a realistic understanding of the scale of the task, both in terms of technical and management issues?

Does the bid demonstrate previous successful delivery and management of projects?

Does the bid link the expertise of the team with the roles to be undertaken and the staffing budget?

If the bid is from a consortium:

i) have the partners provided evidence of their commitment in the form of supporting letters?

ii) have the partners demonstrated how the work aligns with their objectives and priorities?

iii) is it clear what the role of each partner is and how the actual or planned management structure, governance, decision-making and funding arrangements will function?

Projects funded under this strand should look to adopt the “four rules of Linked Data“[1]. The reference point for this strand of work is the Cabinet’s Office Review on “Designing URI Sets for the UK Public Sector”[2]. While this is intended to be a point of reference for projects funded under this strand, other approaches may be proposed where more relevant, if sufficiently well justified.  Bidders should refer to JISC’s “Linked Data Horizon Scan”[3] for further context.

JISC anticipates funding a range of projects in this strand. Larger projects will address all three areas outlined at paragraph 32, other smaller projects may address just one or two of the areas outlined at paragraph 32.  JISC will seek to fund a balanced portfolio of projects.

Projects should address one or more of the areas of work outlined here, and proposals should make it clear which is/are being addressed:

(i) Make a collection of resources available on the Web as structured data, in particular linked data, where that is both feasible within the time and resource constraints of this strand, and where a case can be made that it would benefit teaching, learning, research or knowledge transfer in UK higher education. Proposals should demonstrate an iterative development and testing of the exposed content so that it is usable to a wide range of academic contexts, communities and end users.  Content must already be in a digital form by the time these projects begin.

(ii) Develop a prototype with instructional step-by-step demonstration and documentation to show how the structured content can be used by 3rd party tools and services. Proposals will need to outline how the exposed content is used by a prototype tool that benefits UK higher education during and beyond the life of the JISC-funded project, both in terms of a compelling end user case, and in terms of practical guidance on using it.

(iii) Explore and report on the opportunities and barriers in making content structured and exposed on the Web for discovery and use. Such opportunities and barriers may coalesce around licensing implications, trust, provenance, sustainability and usability. Proposals should demonstrate how the UK higher education community will be engaged in this work and how the findings will be tested/implemented.

Projects should ensure that all online resources have a stable URI for a minimum of two years beyond the life of the project.

Funding available: Total amount of funding for this strand is £750,000. Between 10 and 20 projects are sought with funding between £10,000 and £100,000 per project.

Length of projects: Projects should be proportionate in length to the amount of funding they are receiving, e.g. small project 3-6 months, large projects 6-12 months.  Projects will be expected to start in June 2010. All proposals should address any requirement for staff recruitment clearly in their risk assessment.

Further information is available in the Briefing Paper published on the JISC website. Any enquiries about this section of the call should be directed to David F. Flanders, email: d.flanders@jisc.ac.uk.

[1] http://data.gov.uk/wiki/Linked_Data
[2] http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/308995/public_sector_uri.pdf
[3] http://linkeddata.jiscpress.org/

The reference point for this strand of work is the Berlin Declaration on Open Access[1]. Questions concerning the background, aims and scope of Strand A will be decided with reference to the Berlin Declaration, with one exception; the definition of ‘research output’ for the purposes of this call (see above) is narrower than that used in the Berlin Declaration, and excludes research data. Research data is the subject of other JISC Grant Funding Calls[2] and programmes, and is in scope for Strand B in this call.

Each project should address all of the points (i-vi) below:

(i) assemble tools, processes and support to create an effective deposit solution that leads to an ongoing, significant increase in the rate of deposit, and is easily used by researchers or support staff, adds value and enhances research practice and/or management. Examples of tools, processes and support are given in the Briefing Paper. Existing work should be built on wherever possible, though it may need to be developed further or configured to meet project needs.

(ii) develop and test the solution in at least two authentic settings at the institutional and/or research community level as appropriate, for example by developing or configuring deposit tools, processes and support specific to individual research community needs, or by supporting the institution’s compliance with funder mandate policies.

(iii) ensure that each deposited research output has a stable URI.

(iv) establish and maintain a publicly accessible analytics engine that will display the total number of deposits achieved during and after the life of the project for each repository used (please see the Briefing Paper for further details)

(v) undertake the above in such a way as to allow the project to draft a practical action plan that would lead to wide and sustained adoption of the solution and to a significant, sustainable and sector-wide increase in the rate of deposit of Open Access research outputs into repositories. These projects should lead to solutions that can easily be adopted by other institutions. At this point in time JISC cannot commit to any further funding to support the adoption of the project solutions. However the results of these projects have the potential to address important strategic objectives for Open Access and therefore JISC will consider the results of this programme in its future planning.

(vi) engage as appropriate with researchers, research organisations, managers, institutional management support bodies, research funders, publishers, developer communities and support bodies. Projects will also be expected to engage in programme level activity and contribute to case studies, as described in the briefing paper. This engagement will need to be resourced from project funds.

Projects should address all of the terms of reference in paragraph 24, but should do so appropriately to the scale of resources being requested from JISC. That is, JISC will expect competitive proposals whose costs reflect their potential impact in the sector, demonstrated for example by (a) the number of deposited items and users they are affecting and (b) the levels of wider applicability and sustainability built into the project outputs.

Funding available: Total amount of funding for this strand is £750,000. Between 3 and 5 projects are sought with funding between £100,000 and £300,000 per project.

Length of projects: These are 12 month projects. Projects will be expected to start in June 2010. Due to the short timescales, proposals for projects requiring the recruitment of staff will need to address this in their risk assessment.

Further information is available in the Briefing Paper which is published alongside this call on the JISC website.  Any enquiries about this section of the call should be directed to David F. Flanders, email: d.flanders@jisc.ac.uk.

[1] http://oa.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html
[2] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities

JISC’s vision is one of easy and widespread access to content, anytime, anywhere; a vision with technology and information management at the heart of research and education. The work under this call supports the implementation of this vision, for example depositing content into digital repositories and making information available on the Web to improve the way in which it can be found and used in the digital environment.

The JISC strategic aims include developing and providing innovative and sustainable ICT infrastructure, services and practice that support institutions in meeting their mission to provide high-quality, cost-effective teaching and research that meets the needs of students, the economy and society. This can be summarised as the development, provision and use of an e-Infrastructure for education and research.

The projects funded under this call will contribute to the generic JISC Innovation programmes benefits, in particular:

• Enhanced capacity, knowledge and skills to enable positive and informed change in the sector (through piloting new technologies and approaches);
• Guidance to the sector on ‘best practice’ models for using technology that can be used at departmental, institutional, regional or national levels;
• Strategic leadership to the sector and other bodies in specialist areas and to influence national and international agendas;
• Knowledge and experience as a basis for future funding decisions for the JISC and its sub committees;
• New or enhanced services, infrastructure, standards or applications that may be used at departmental, institutional, regional or national levels.

Many of the terms used in this call can have multiple meanings. In this document, the following definitions are assumed:

• “Content” will be used as a generic way to describe digital material of any type, at any scale or degree of aggregation, and used in teaching, learning or research.
• “Resource” will be used to refer to an atomic unit of useful content, in a sense closely related to that implied by the term in the phrase “Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)”
• “Research output” refers to an account of research practice or findings that has been, or will be, published in some way. In many disciplines, research outputs are mainly journal articles, conference papers or books.
• “Data” will not be used in an unqualified way.
• “Research data” refers to the evidence on which research findings are based.
• “Linked data” refers to an approach to exposing resources on the Web using http URIs that de-reference giving structured metadata that includes URIs to related resources.
• “Structure” is used to denote arrangements of resources, metadata and the repositories that manage them, and that allow users to exploit them in useful ways. This definition is intentionally vague because some parts of this call are exploratory and intended to help the community define where and how ‘structure’ is useful to machines as well as end-users.
• A “repository” is an IT system that enables people to manage, share and access content.

The terms defined in paragraph 16 are used carefully in the call below (and in the briefing paper) to describe the aims and scope of each strand of work. Bidders should note which terms are used in the strand to which they intend to bid.

As part of offering the layer of scholarly content and services noted in paragraph 2 above, there are essential aspects of the digital infrastructure that need to be further enhanced. These include solutions to deposit and expose content in education and research. By ‘deposit’ in this call, we mean ensuring take-up of solutions that enable and encourage author deposit of Open Access research outputs into repositories by embedding deposit into research or related practice. By ‘expose’ in this call, we mean undertaking work to make content available on the Web using structured data, in particular linked data that increases its potential value to researchers, teachers and learners. The two sections below (A & B) outline the terms of reference for each strand of this call. The corresponding sections of the accompanying Briefing Paper provide important supporting information and examples of the kind of work that would be relevant.

Projects funded under this call will be part of the Information Environment Programme 2009 to 2011[1] (tag = INF11). It will be important for projects to build on previous relevant work funded as part of this programme and other programmes and services (see the Briefing Paper for further information on the JISC website).  Further information on the strands of work and projects can be found in the IE Programme Definition Document[2]. The Programme Definition Document is an overview of the Programme and documents the various aspects of the Programme from strategic objectives to anticipated outcomes and benefits. Please note that this is intended to be a working document as further projects will be added to the programme over the period to August 2011.

The JISC Developer Community[3] (tag = devCSI) has been set up by UKOLN as a programme support activity to provide training and community collaboration for developers; it will be important for all projects funded under this call working in code development to engage effectively with this work, and for proposals to demonstrate an understanding and time commitment for this requirement. Please see the briefing paper for further details.

All proposals will need to identify relevant previous and current work, and show either how the proposed project builds on it, or why it cannot. The Briefing Paper outlines some work that might be relevant to proposals.  Proposals MUST also declare all other JISC work in which individual team members are currently participating.  Projects may include this statement as an annex (that will not count against the proposal page limit) if they so choose.

[1] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/inf11
[2] http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/390/
[3] http://devcsi.ukoln.ac.uk/

• address maximisation of the economic, social and cultural impact of universities on learners and on the wider community;
• broaden the range of learning opportunities;
• respond to the needs of students and employers, and tackle poverty and disadvantage;
• widen participation in higher education;
• encourage collaboration with other educational institutions to widen opportunities;
• respond to the needs of Welsh medium/bilingual learners.

Proposals may be from single institutions or consortia. Partnership arrangements may be developed outside the sector (for example with research council sites, publishers, commercial suppliers, consultants, etc), but the lead partner must meet the criteria outlined above. Funds can only be allocated through the lead partner. Institutions are welcome to submit more than one bid.

Ensuring take-up of solutions that enable and encourage author deposit of Open Access research outputs into repositories by embedding deposit into research or related practice.

Total £: £750,000. Max £ per project: £300,000. Range £ per project: £100,000-£300,000. Max number of Projects: 5. Max duration: 12 months.

Strand B: Expose

Projects that enable content to be made available on the Web using structured data, in particular linked data which increases its potential value to researchers, teachers and learners.

Total £: £750,000. Max £ per project: £100,000. Range £ per project: £10,000-£100,000. Max number of Projects: 20. Max duration: 12 months.

The Joint Information Systems Committee[1] (JISC) invites institutions to submit proposals for projects in the area of the Information Environment[2] (IE).

The Information Environment programmes support the creation and use of a layer of scholarly resources for education and research across the network. This includes the development of infrastructure, technology, practice and policy to support processes from creation and access to re-use of resources. Major activities include sharing and storing content for research and learning, providing access to content (via licences and technologies), developing solutions for curation and delivering data and content resources via data centres or other shared service providers. The Information Environment is concerned with both learning and research.

A Briefing Document is available alongside this call, which outlines key background and scope information to which bidders should refer. The Briefing Paper is published alongside this call on the JISC website.

The deadline for receipt of proposals in response to this call is 12 noon UK time on Tuesday 20^th April 2010.

Bidders may submit proposals for more than one strand of this call. However each strand must be addressed in a SEPARATE bid with appropriate references to the related bid(s), identifying where there would be economies of scale and added value if more than one bid were funded.

An online forum is available on the Information Environment blog[3] to enable potential bidders to raise queries and for JISC to share further information and clarifications.

[1] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
[2] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/themes/informationenvironment
[3] http://infteam.jiscinvolve.org/

WordPress already delivers a single item RSS feed for each page containing just the substantive content of the page (i.e. the content without the header, footer and sidebar fluff), which means you can do things like this, but what I wanted is for the paragraphs on each page to be atomised as separate feed elements.

Eddie implemented support for this, but I didn’t do anything with it at the time, so here’s an example of just why I thought it might be handy – paragraph level search.

At the moment, searching a document on WriteToReply returns page level results – that is, you get a list of search results detailing the pages on which the search term(s) appear. As you might expect with WordPress, we can get access to these results as a feed by shoving feed in the URI, like this:
http://ouseful.wordpress.com/feed?s=test

Paragraph level feeds, as implemented in the Digress.it WordPress theme we were developing, are keyed by URLs of the form:
http://writetoreply.org/legaldeposit/feed/paragraphlevel/annex-c-online-content-to-be-published/#56

That is:

http://writetoreply.org/DOCNAME/feed/paragraphlevel/PAGENAME/#PARA_NUMBER

So can you guess what I’m gonna do yet…?

First of all, grab the search feed for a particular query on a particular document into a Yahoo Pipe:

Rewrite the URI of each page liked to in the results feed as the full fat, itemised paragraph feed for the page, and emit those items (that is, replace each original search results item with the set of paragraph items from that page).

The next step is to filter those paragrpah feed items for just the paragraphs that contain the original search terms:

We need to rewrite the link because (at the time of writing) the page paragraphs feed doesn’t link to each paragraph, it links to the parent page (a bug report has been made;-)

You can find the pipe here: Double dip JISCPress search

Note that at the time of writing, there’s also a problem with the paragraph number reported in the link (again a report has been made), a workaround patch for which is included in this pipe.

What this means is that we now have a workaround for indexing into individual paragraphs using a search term. If we tag content at the paragraph level, (e.g. by running a page-level paragraph feed, or double dip search results feed through OpenCalais), we can generate related search links into the document, or other documents on the platform, at a paragraph level, increasing the relevance, or resolution (in terms of increased focus), of the returned results.

Just by the by, the approach shown above is based on a search, expand and filter pattern, (cf. a search within results pattern) in which a search query is used to obtain an initial set of results which are then expanded to give higher resolution detail over the content, and then filtered using the original search query to deliver the final results. If a patent for this doesn’t already exist for this, then if I worked for Google, Yahoo, etc etc you could imagine it being patented. B*****ds.

PS here’s a trick I picked up from Joss’ blog somewhere for reversing the order of feed items published by WordPress:
http://writetoreply.org/legaldeposit/feed/?orderby=ID&order=ASC
I assume these parameters also work?

We face a similar problem in education, (the need to conform to quite stringent accessibility guidelines), so I started to wonder whether or not we could reuse tricks and tips from the OU’s Moodle VLE. Now I don’t think that the VLE supports document commenting in the way that we do on WriteToReply, but it does support forums. Which got me thinking: what would WTR look like if we supported inline comments, using a metaphor along the lines of: suppose each paragraph is a forum post, and each comment on a paragraph is like a reply to that post…

Here’s what an OU forum looks like:

And here’s how reply (comment) threads work:

So what sort of layout do we currently have on WriteToReply? Well, the comments are siloed in a floating comment box, with icons associated with each paragraph that allow uses to open up the related comments in the comment box, as well as displaying the number of comments associated with the corresponding paragraph.

The question now arises: can we learn anything from the way forums are presented about how we might render inline comments within a document? It’s important to bear in mind that we are exploring the notion of exactly what we mean by commentable documents, particularly atomised commentable documents, so don’t get too hung up on the idea that we might be proposing things that would make a PDF look clunky…

Here’s my first guess at what inline comments might look like, put forward purely as a straw man:

What do you think? Worth exploring further?

PS on the accessibility question, see also Name that tool: forthcoming ‘BBC Accessibility Settings Tool’ needs you

What are your views on the options considered for this content? [Link]

Are there any other options that should have been considered? If so what are they? [Link]

Do you agree with the analysis of these options? Explain why. [Link]

Do you agree that harvesting provides the most efficient and timely solution for deposit of publications in this category? Explain why. [Link]

Do you agree regulation is the most cost-efficient method of collection for the Libraries and imposes no direct financial or administrative burden upon the publishers? Explain why. [Link]

Do you agree that this is an appropriate definition for the type of publications that should be included in scope for regulations? Explain why. Is there anything else that should be included in this definition? Is there anything that should be excluded from this definition? [Link]

Do you agree with the territorial definition of the UK web? Explain why. Is there anything else that should be included in this definition? Is there anything that should be excluded from this definition? [Link]

Do you agree with this analysis of the UK Web Domain? Explain why. What do you think the impact of your analysis would be? [Link]

How do you see a Deposit Library driven system of web harvesting interfacing with a publisher driven duty to deposit under the 2003 Act? [Link]

How could Deposit Libraries most efficaciously ensure a comprehensive body of eligible content is deposited? [Link]

Do you agree with this costing model? Explain why. Are there costs that need to be factored in or excluded? [Link]

Do these assumptions adequately reflect the financial burden of publishers? Is there anything that needs to included or excluded? [Link]

Do you agree with the analysis of these options? Explain why. [Link]

Do you agree with the analysis on making content available to the Deposit Libraries? Explain why. What else needs to be taken into consideration? [Link]

Do you agree with this costing model? Explain why. What else needs to be taken into consideration? [Link]

Do you agree with the analysis of the costs and the impacts of each option? Explain why. What else needs to be taken into consideration? [Link]

Do you agree with risks identified here? Explain why. Are there other risks that have not been considered? What would their impact be? Are some of these risks actually not really risks? Why? [Link]

Do you agree with LDAP’s recommendation to regulate for this content? If not, what should be done instead? [Link]

Do you agree with LDAP’s proposed method for depositing of content? If not how else could this be done? [Link]

Do you agree with LDAP’s analysis of access provisions? Explain why. What other options are there? [Link]

Do you agree with these cost assumptions? Explain why. What needs to be included or excluded? [Link]

8.1      The Panel’s goal has been to propose a deposit process which is cost-efficient for the legal deposit Libraries and which also imposes no administrative cost burden upon publishers. Because it potentially involves such a large number of publications, the Panel has recommended that libraries pull them directly from the Web using an automated process in which no action is required of publishers. This process will use a software tool (‘harvester’) to crawl relevant web domains.

8.2      An initial seed list of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) will be loaded into the harvester by library staff. These will usually be URLs for the home or root pages of web domains that are within the scope as recommended by the Panel.

8.3      For each URL, the harvester will issue an electronic request to the publisher’s web hosting server for delivery of a copy of the page or file. Each request will include information which identifies:

• the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the harvester issuing the request
• the URL for the page or file requested
• a ‘user-agent string’ which identifies the library controlling the harvester and the fact that it is a harvesting request
• the URL for a web page containing details of how to contact the library, plus contextual information about legal deposit and the terms of the regulation.

8.4      The web hosting server responds automatically, delivering a copy of the page or file to the harvester. Once the copy has been delivered to the harvester, it may then be incorporated into the library’s archive collection.

8.5      Essentially the same process, albeit with different information contained in the ‘user-agent string’, underlies all browsing activity by every web user; web publishers will not need to make any systems changes or undertake any action to facilitate this.

8.6      Website owners may not choose to log this information, but the general practice is certainly to log the user-agent string; many use this information actively to tailor content accordingly for different users, e.g. for mobile phones as opposed to computer browsers.

8.7      Libraries will set rules and parameters for the harvester to ensure that there is no harmful impact upon the performance of the web hosting server:

• Only web pages and documents that are publicly and freely available will be requested; harvesting will not go anywhere that is not public.
• Web pages and documents will only be harvested periodically; the Panel’s cost estimates were based upon an assumed average of twice a year.
• When multiple requests for different pages and files are issued to the same web hosting server, a generous interval between each request will safeguard against any risk of using up bandwidth or overloading the server.
• The harvester will not obtain any content that is protected by a firewall or by any kind of barrier such as username/password protection.
• The harvester will not request any pages or documents that do not have web links to them; therefore any pages or files which are not part of the public website cannot be requested.

8.8 The harvester will automatically follow links from the home or root page to the next levels down within the same domain, issuing a separate request for each page or file.

7.1.        Sections 5.3 to 5.6 of this recommendation propose a way of defining which publishers may be affected by the regulation for this category of material. This additional information about the proposed definition illustrates how it may be interpreted in practice.

7.2.        A domain name is an identification label that defines a realm of administrative autonomy, authority, or control in the internet. A single website may consist of resources with just one domain name such as ‘anyorganisation.co.uk’ or might also include resources with other domain names, such as one website linking together ‘anyorganisation.co.uk’, ‘anyorganisation.com’ and ‘anyorganisation.biz’.

7.3.        An online ‘publication’ may include any electronic file, document, image, data, web page or web application. It also includes audiovisual content (sound and video) where this represents a part, but not the whole, of the complete work; for example a news website with sound or video clips is included, but cinema films, TV and radio programmes, music albums and songs, even if provided via an online service such as BBC iPlayer, are not.

7.4.        ‘Publisher’ includes individuals, companies, groups and organisations, and is the person or body which makes a publication available, either directly or through an agent acting under its authority. This excludes persons or bodies such as internet service providers whose sole involvement is in providing the network infrastructure or the means of publishing, but who have no direct responsibility for the content.

7.5.        ‘Making available to the public’ excludes private intranets.

7.6.        ‘UK electronic address’ refers to any domain name that is associated geographically with the United Kingdom, or with part of the United Kingdom. Therefore all publications with .uk domain names are included. Any publications with the proposed .sco and .cym, domain names or any other domain names which might be created in future for UK regions, cities or towns will also be included. Because these have a UK electronic address, it is not necessary to identify where the publisher is physically domiciled.

7.7.        Some UK publishers prefer to use .com, .biz, .tv or other generic or international domain names. If the publisher has a UK ‘physical address’ they are still included, irrespective of the domain name being used. This encompasses publications made available by a publisher who is either domiciled in the UK, or a multi-national with an address in the UK, or the UK branch or subsidiary of a non-UK organisation.

7.8.        However publications are excluded if they are made available by a publisher outside the UK and using a non-UK electronic address, even though the content of such publications might be about the UK or relevant to the UK, and even though the publication might be viewed or purchased by someone in the UK. For example an online Travel Guide to London being used by a person in the UK is not in scope if it is published by a US organisation via a .com website.

7.9.        Internet Protocol (IP) addresses may indicate the location of a computer or server connected to the internet and can therefore be a useful way of identifying whether a publication might potentially be within scope. However the IP address on its own is not sufficient; the publication must either be within a UK domain as above or the publisher must have a physical address within the UK.

6.1      This impact assessment is based on information that was provided by LDAP based on their research on the options for the legal deposit of UK online publications, which are available free of charge and without access restrictions. DCMS have only completed the summary sheets.

Options for Deposit: Summary and Analysis

Summary
6.2.        LDAP agreed on two possible options for deposit, including both voluntary and regulation-based approaches. In addition, publisher archiving was considered, as an alternative to deposit schemes.

LDL Permissions-based Harvesting and Archiving (Option One)
6.3.        This option might be considered as the equivalent of a voluntary code for deposit, in that it will not be subject to regulation, but it presumes that legal deposit Libraries will actively harvest (‘pull’) material, rather than imposing any duty or encouragement upon publishers to deposit. Thus the main burden of activity rests on the libraries to take periodic copies of websites and documents, then ingest them into an archive for preservation. However libraries may only do so after obtaining copyright permission in writing from the publishers or owners of the material; in responding to these requests, online publishers must give permission on behalf of third party rights-holders.

LDL Regulation-based Harvesting and Archiving (Option Two)
6.4.        This option presumes that libraries, or agents on their behalf, will actively harvest (‘pull’) material, rather than imposing any duty or encouragement upon publishers to deposit. Thus the main burden of activity rests on the Libraries to take periodic copies of freely available online publications and documents, then ingest them into an archive. However regulation would allow libraries to do so without needing to contact the publishers or owners of the material.

6.5.        Regulation will also protect both Libraries and online publishers, to a certain degree, from defamation claims and similar liabilities. However to benefit from these protections, all terms of the 2003 Act and regulations must be applied so that access to material harvested must be restricted to legal deposit library premises. Regulation allows the libraries to harvest more effectively, but will not impose on them any specific requirement, other than a ‘reasonable’ duty to collect.

Archiving Left to the Market (Option Three)
6.6.        This option proposes there is no central, public sector initiative, and that archiving would be left to the private sector and market forces. Moreover, Libraries would not actively seek to harvest or build a national archive for freely available online publications. Individual publishers might approach a library to archive material on its behalf; this would be subject to separate negotiations and cost-benefit analysis for the specific circumstances.

6.7.        For each option, the benefits to stakeholders – including publishers, libraries, and members of the public – have been assessed against the overall administrative costs. In addition, other impacts, such as potential risks, were considered. Taken together, these form the evidence base for determining the most appropriate option for deposit.

Question 13: Do you agree with the analysis of these options? Explain why.

Benefits of a Comprehensive Collection
6.8.        The 2003 Act recognises the benefit of collecting and preserving a comprehensive collection of UK electronic publications, including those that are online and freely available. A permanent, comprehensive collection, centrally located and easily accessible to such public stakeholders as researchers, educators, and students enhances UK research and scholarship.

6.9.        LDAP assessed the degree to which each option realised this benefit:

2. Regulation-based Harvesting (Option Two)
Regulation ensures a more comprehensive collection, as permissions are not required. It is estimated that up to 79% of material in scope could be captured and archived within available resources.

3. Archiving Left to the Market (Option Three)
Whilst some professional publishers do archive their own material, all the available evidence suggests that the vast majority of individual publishers of freely available online publications within the UK domain do not. Therefore a substantial proportion of the UK’s cultural and intellectual output will be lost forever.

6.10.        The collection must be made available to future generations of researchers, or else the benefit will be lost, and costs will accrue to the public as well as Libraries and publishers.

6.11.        Option One not only freely delivers the publications to the public at legal deposit Libraries’ premises, but also has the potential to deliver straight to the users’ PCs. However, although not subject to the premises restrictions required by the 2003 Act, the permissions obtained within Option One might include restrictions to access imposed by individual publishers. Not only might this lead to additional cost to libraries, but it would also affect to what extent researchers and others had access to a comprehensive collection.

6.12.        Option Two ensures the availability of a permanent and comprehensive collection, as the collecting and archiving of publications is subject to legislation. However, it is a collection subject to the terms of the 2003 Act, restricting the provision of access to within the premises of the Legal Deposit Libraries.

6.13.        With Option Three, the uncertainty of the access arrangements and cost to researchers mean that wide availability cannot be guaranteed. In addition, Option Three cannot assure the long-term preservation of an archive, especially when publishers go out of business.

6.14.        Finally, with Options One and Two, the nation would be likely to reap economic benefits from activity associated with international interest in centrally located, comprehensive national collections. Especially in the case of Option Two, where the collection would be more comprehensive, the archive would be of value to overseas researchers interested in the UK. Therefore it is likely to warrant their investment of time and money in the UK for subsidiary activities relating to its use as a resource, whether they are academic or business activities.

6.15.        Although Options One and Three do not impose any regulatory impact on publishers and Libraries, only Option Two, despite premises restrictions, can fulfil the goal of a deposit scheme, as defined in the 2003 Act: to deliver a comprehensive collection, both freely available and centrally located, to future generations.

Question 14: Do you agree with the analysis on making content available to the Deposit Libraries? Explain why. What else needs to be taken into consideration?

Financial Implications of Deposit
6.16.        These benefits must be balanced against administrative and other costs for the major stakeholders, i.e. Libraries and especially publishers.

6.17.       The harvesting options for deposit imposes most, if not all, the costs on Libraries. Using the cost model (see Libraries’ Key Costs Assumptions below), which is a realistic view of what could be achieved within the limitations of available resources, costs can be calculated for each of the Options:

1. Permissions-based harvesting
Av. total cost per annum £496,959
Material gathered after 10 years (benefit) 77 Terabytes (0.5%)
Cost per terabyte £6,476

2. Regulation-based harvesting
Av. total cost per annum £1,132,286
Material gathered after 10 years (benefit) 5,263 Terabytes (79%)
Cost per terabyte £215

3. Rely on the market
Av. total cost per annum £ Nil
Material gathered after 10 years (benefit) 0 Terabytes (0%)
Cost per terabyte n/a

6.18.        Regulation-based harvesting (Option Two) delivers a larger amount of publications for the lowest unit costs.

Question 15: Do you agree with this costing model? Explain why. What else needs to be taken into consideration?

Other Costs and Impacts
6.19.        In addition to harvesting costs for Libraries, each Option imposes other costs and impacts on stakeholders.

6.20.        Option One represents a labour-intensive process for both Libraries and publishers to obtain and respond to copyright permission, and this severely constrains the number of websites and volume of material that can be targeted. For Libraries, there is a relatively high staff cost associated with identifying and contacting publishers. For publishers, there are direct administrative and public relations overheads related to responding to requests from libraries, possibly resulting in higher costs to customers.

6.21.        As permissions-based harvesting represents only a small proportion of the six million or more potential publications, a greater degree of selectivity is required by Libraries. This adds cost and also has an impact upon the benefits of the archive for future research – any selection decision is based upon the current view of what is important in the present and, with the best of knowledge, in the future.

6.22.        Responding to permissions requests and seeking permissions from third parties also result in high administrative costs for publishers, as well as costs associated with customer and public relations, all of which may translate to increased consumer costs. According to the publishers’ survey conducted by LDAP, publishers generally acknowledged that this would be a costly process, especially if there were no procedure in place or if there were a number of requests to process.

6.23.        For Option Two, regulation-based harvesting, the process can be much more automated (and tools continue to be developed to facilitate the process) than in permissions-based, but the potentially huge volume of material implies significant extra processing and storage costs. Therefore, Libraries must balance the ideal of collecting all available material in a highly automated fashion against their financial and technical limitations.

6.24.         But regulation will not of itself impose any direct and specific cost to Libraries, nor require any commitment from the public purse. For publishers, costs are marginal, as they do not have to process permissions and do not have to ‘push material’ to libraries.

6.25.        With Option Three, those publishers who do archive do not typically make their archives available for access by researchers as a matter of course, or may charge for doing so. If they do make them available for a fee, it is to be expected that their own costs will be offset by revenue.

6.26.     However, with this Option, cost burdens spread to include other stakeholder groups, namely business and academic researchers; students; educators; and other members of the public. It imposes a direct cost to the public, not just because it falls short of ensuring a comprehensive collection, but also because archives are spread over a range of publishers with diverse access arrangements. In order to access the range of resources, public stakeholders will incur costs in terms of time, travel and subsistence.

6.27.     Option Two places the least amount of financial burden on publishers, and incurs costs that can be managed within existing budgets for Libraries, while ensuring a permanent historical and cultural collection for future generations.

Question 16: Do you agree with the analysis of the costs and the impacts of each option? Explain why. What else needs to be taken into consideration?

Risks and other impacts
6.28.     In addition to gathering evidence on benefits and financial implications for each Option, LDAP also identified specific risks and impacts, concerning civil liabilities, illegal content, third party and dynamic content, as well as potential impact on publisher revenue, all of which also influenced its Recommendation.

6.29.     Without regulation, any material harvested by the libraries is not subject to the terms of the 2003 Act. Therefore, Option One does not benefit from any of the protections in the Act, such as those for Libraries and publishers against defamation liability.

6.30.     However, even with regulation-based harvesting, as in Option Two, the results of the Copyright Exceptions Consultation may have an impact on preservation, access and use.

6.31.     Publishers using third-party content are usually required to take it down once licenses have expired. With permissions-based harvesting, Option One, publishers would be expected to obtain permission for this material to be used within an archive. However, these publishers are potentially liable if the libraries have harvested their publications under regulation (Option Two), including this third-party content. A Notice and Take Down policy and procedure would protect both libraries and publishers.

6.32.     As the harvesting process is partly automated, the libraries risk inadvertently collecting illegal material. Discussions have already taken place with Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) to identify the levels of risk involved and ways in which they might be minimised. IWF has also given advice on the procedures which should be followed if any such material should be found within the archive. Separate discussions have also been held with the Information Commissioner’s Office to address any concerns the Commissioner might have in relation to personal data within the archive. Overall the ICO sees no reason to restrict harvesting activity within the context of legal deposit, nor to require additional controls over access than are implied by the 2003 Act, save for the addendum to the Notice and Take down proposals.

6.33.     On the subject of permissions-based harvesting, one of the publishers surveyed observed, “Permissions are not an issue. Knowing what information to harvest is the issue. …because our website content changes regularly, such questions would need to be addressed every time a harvest was made.” Publishers are concerned over securing ongoing rights for data or images for sites that were made available free of charge but on a time-limited basis. In the face of dynamic content, Option One does not include the degree of flexibility that is required to gather a large number of publications efficiently, and without placing undue financial burden on publishers and libraries alike.

6.34.     Publishers, in the survey conducted at the beginning of 2008, expressed concern about the possible impact on their revenues of deposit of (and immediate access to) time-sensitive and other types of revenue-generating publications. As with print deposit, deposit of freely available online publications can include provisions for special arrangements to offset any potential problem (see paragraphs 6.43 and 6.44 on embargoes). Moreover, risks can be minimised by the restrictions to access imposed by the 2003 Act.

Question 17: Do you agree with risks identified here? Explain why. Are there other risks that have not been considered? What would their impact be? Are some of these risks actually not really risks? Why?

Rationale for Regulation

6.35.     Both Options One (permissions-based harvesting) and Three (archiving left to the market) fail to meet the basic requirement of creating a permanent national collection, freely available at designated sites, as envisaged in the 2003 Act.

6.36.     Only Option Two, regulation-based harvesting and archiving, would meet this requirement for the following reasons:

• Rate of Deposit: The large number of freely available online publications and the rate of increase (about 15% per annum) expected pose a challenge to creating a comprehensive collection in the most efficient way possible. Harvesting provides the most efficient and timely solution for deposit of publications in this category: regulations-based harvesting specifically ensures the greatest amount can be collected to build the most comprehensive collection for future generations.
• Proportionality: LDAP wants to ensure that the costs and scale of publications are proportionate to a Recommendation for regulation. Regulation is an appropriate response to the enormous number of publishers and publications in this category. It is the most cost-efficient method of collection for the libraries and imposes no direct financial or administrative burden upon the publishers.
• Existing Harvesting Activities and Infrastructure: Whilst libraries have not yet been able to harvest widely across the whole UK domain, much of the technical infrastructure and expertise that they would need is already in place. They have practical experience of permissions-based harvesting for the UK Web Archiving Consortium. In addition, the International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC), of which the BL and NLS are members, is developing tools, infrastructure and the policies for addressing the challenges of collection and preservation internationally. Moreover, knowledge gained from other national libraries that already carry out domain-level harvesting (e.g. in France, Denmark, New Zealand and Australia) will also assist its implementation in the UK. Indeed, the UK legal deposit libraries estimate that they could begin harvesting on this basis, up to 80% in scale, within existing resources and within a very short time of implementation.
• Civil Liabilities: Regulation would protect both publishers and libraries from such civil liabilities as copyright infringement and defamation. However, there are potential risks that may have significant impacts, if not eventual costs.

Question 18: Do you agree with LDAP’s recommendation to regulate for this content? If not, what should be done instead?

Policies for Deposit, Access and Use
Restrictions on activities in relation to freely available online publications

6.37.     LDAP recommends the following policies regarding provision for access and use as required by Section 7 of the 2003 Act:

• No limitations are imposed on access in the specific areas of time and circumstance of use (7.4 (b)) and number of readers (7.4 (d)). LDAP recommends that the standard terms of access already implied by the 2003 Act are correct and that no changes are necessary. Thus access must be confined to readers (and staff) using terminals, screens or devices that are controlled by the Libraries, and whilst they are on the Libraries’ premises.
• LDAP does not seek to extend the conditions of access in the specific areas of time and circumstance of use (7.4 (b)) and number of readers (7.4 (d)).
• Libraries must not be permitted to adapt or change the intellectual content of the material itself. The original ‘look and feel’ must also be preserved as far as possible (subject to technical limitations).
• In the case of 7.2 (b), the regulation must allow for a single copy harvested by one Library to be made available in all six Libraries and therefore to be regarded as being the equivalent of depositing six copies (i.e. one per LDL) for storage, preservation and access purposes.
• For preservation purposes, legal deposit Libraries must be allowed to transfer publications from one technology platform to another in the event of upgrades to technology or where changes of systems are required.
• Libraries must not be permitted to lend or transfer the material, except in the case of other legal deposit libraries. ¥ Libraries must be permitted to copy material for the purposes of preserving the material and ensuring that access can continue to be provided, but not in order to increase access.
• Readers must not be permitted to download or make electronic copies of any material.
• Readers must be permitted to make a printed copy [on paper] of the material.
• LDAP requests that there be a note on ‘Removal of Access’ (or ‘notice and take-down’) such that, for material in their collections that is subject to a court injunction or judgement, Libraries, subject to notice, will comply with the courts by denying all access to all readers for an appropriate period, which might perhaps be for many years (this does not include deletion or disposal of a web page).
• In the case of 7.4 (f), Libraries must be permitted to dispose of materials prior to incorporation into the collection, defined as the point before which readers have access.
• Moreover, Libraries must not be permitted to dispose of materials once access to readers has been provided.

6.38.     Regarding subsection 7.4 (b),

• Legal deposit Libraries, while not required to grant embargoes, may consider requests based on demonstrable financial prejudice to the requestor, with reference to the specific conditions of access.

6.39.     Regarding (7.4 (c)), the Panel would like the Act’s definition of ‘reader’ and ‘relevant person’ to be included where appropriate. (See 2003 Act Section 5)

a)     ”reader” means a person who, for the purposes of research or study and with the permission of a deposit library, is on library premises controlled by it;

b)     ”relevant person” means: i)  a deposit library or person acting on its behalf; ii)  a reader;

c)    references to a deposit library include references to the Faculty of Advocates.”

Policy Background
6.40. For discussions on Section 7, LDAP was guided by what is permissible in the 2003 Act as well as in print deposit practice as initial points of reference for policy development. These considerations resulted in policy allowing the reader to print, but not download or make electronic copies (‘digital copying’). Libraries will be allowed to make electronic copies for preservation and continued access, but not for lending and transferring. Further deliberation on the subject of printing included whether there should be any limits to the amount or proportion of material that a reader may print out on paper. LDAP acknowledged that this issue might need further work; while some LDAP members felt that no restriction is necessary for this category of material, as it is originally made freely available by the publisher, others felt that a lack of any restriction may have wider ramifications. However, all LDAP members agreed that, in keeping with print deposit practice and in acknowledgement of the nature of the material, a reader should be permitted to make printed copies.

6.41. In the matter of disposal (f), while the 2003 Act does not prohibit disposal for print publications, it does contain an express prohibition on disposal for non-print publications. Therefore, LDAP recognises that it is necessary to specify the right to do so in the secondary legislation, for instance of collection of duplicate and partial freely-available online publications. LDAP feels that it is possible to articulate a limited provision of such rights to dispose, perhaps in a guidance note accompanying regulation as it is arguable that duplicate and partial delivery of documents is not effective ‘delivery of relevant material’ under the 2003 Act and cannot be perceived as contravening the requirement not to dispose, as in the first case one copy has already been collected and will be retained, and in the second instance a representative or complete copy has not been effectively collected and could not therefore be considered as ‘disposed’.

6.42. LDAP sought to distinguish between harvested publications already incorporated into the permanent collection and those yet to be incorporated. Generally speaking, the restrictions against disposal would cover only those publications part of the permanent collection, and that duplicate or incomplete copies would be disposed of before becoming part of the permanent collection.

6.43. With regard to 7.4 (b), LDAP’s deliberations on the subject of embargoes originally began with defining and analysing the nature of the publications freely available, free of charge and without access restriction, the collecting or harvesting of these publications, and costs that would be incurred by publishers as a result of such activity. In considering cost, LDAP looked to the BRE guidelines in order to have a better understanding of what costs should be included. Taking into consideration the types of costs highlighted by the BRE and the relative passive role of publishers in the harvesting activity (see description of harvesting above), LDAP’s initial assumption was that as no real (admin) cost was incurred by publishers, and because the material was already freely available on the web, there was no requirement for embargoes. However, in response to subsequent concerns voiced by LDAP members and other stakeholders, LDAP deliberated on two measures that would provide comfort to publisher concerns:

• Embargoes, the well-established practice for printed publications, in which a publisher of material that is, for example, of high commercial value but sold in small numbers, may contact the Libraries and negotiate a temporary embargo upon access to deposited items for a period, typically 1-2 years. These embargoes and their conditions would be reviewed on a case by case basis. They do not prohibit the collection of material nor eventual access to the material. As a result of considering the print precedent, LDAP was persuaded that embargoes were a reasonable policy to apply in the case of the harvesting of freely-available online publications.
• Opt-outs, the practice of allowing publishers of certain types of materials to be exempted from the collection and preservation of their freely available publications, and for this exemption to be considered as part of the policy recommendations made by LDAP. Upon further consideration, LDAP felt that opt-outs were not a reasonable policy to apply in the case of the harvesting of freely-available online publications.

6.44.     LDAP has considered both options in detail, guided by current practice, research on business models and revenue streams, as well as discussions with publishing stakeholders. While none of these deliberations has produced any causal link between the practice of legal deposit of freely available online publications and the challenge to revenue streams, LDAP felt strongly that publishers’ real concerns for future impact on revenue streams should be accommodated. In the specific case of freely available online publications, legal deposit process provides for a much more controlled environment for access than readers’ own homes (where this material would be accessible in the first instance). The resulting recommendation is a policy for individual publishers to request embargoes on a case by case basis, as an acknowledgement of these concerns, balanced with the mandate of the collection and preservation of these materials set out by the 2003 Act.

6.45.     In addition, it is felt that optional embargoes do not compromise the integrity of a regulation (as does allowing certain publication types to opt-out) , nor the “future-proofing” of that regulation (i.e., the in-built flexibility within a regulation to acknowledge the changing nature of publications as a result of technology and business models dictated by it). This concern for future-proofing has been the basis of the LDAP’s considerations, beginning with the EPS consultation.

6.46.     With regard to material currently held by the Libraries which has been deemed potentially prejudicial and therefore inappropriate for public access by the courts, the libraries would presently not be notified of any resulting injunction or judicial direction against the publisher. LDAP understands that the Libraries are aware of risks and current advice on this issue. With regard to inadvertent harvesting of online publications, the publication and/or dissemination of which may be an offence (e.g. under the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003), a case may be made to grant libraries an exemption from criminal liability (pursuant to the power to do so under the 2003 Act), for both the act of harvesting and retention of the publication if the Panel and its library members see such immunity as a desirable objective.

Question 19: Do you agree with LDAP’s proposed method for depositing of content? If not how else could this be done?

Question 20: Do you agree with LDAP’s analysis of access provisions? Explain why. What other options are there? Libraries’ key cost assumptions

6.47.     The category definition and territoriality rules govern what may be collected. Within these, this model assumes that the UK web space is defined as all .uk domains registered by Nominet (6.1 million in mid-2007) plus approximately 50,000 other domains which can be readily identified as published in the UK. The numbers will continue to grow by 17% per annum until 2011, then by 15% till 2016[1].

6.48.     However 35% of domains are inactive[2], i.e. registered but not live, or where static content can be ‘deduplicated’ after a first snapshot. A further 2.5%[3] are primarily ‘deep web’ or protected sites outside the scope of this category. Overall, the number of websites in scope is therefore estimated as 3.9 million in 2007 rising to 14.6 million in 2016.

6.49.     The average size of each site has been growing significantly each year. However this model assumes that most audio-visual content, one of the major causes of growth, is out of scope and therefore a more modest 5% growth per annum is appropriate. The average size also varies dramatically, from circa 5 megabytes for 80% of sites to 1 gigabyte for 0.5% of sites; this model assumes a weighted average of 25 megabytes. However, in permissions-based harvesting selection tends to favour the larger websites, so this model assumes an average 180 megabytes in that option.[4]

6.50.     The cost of storage includes built-in redundancy to ensure safe preservation of the archive; content is replicated (with security measures) across three nodes in the BL/NLW shared infrastructure and across 2 nodes in the NLS infrastructure. However the real cost of storage per terabyte has fallen by more than 30% per annum over the last 20 years and is expected to continue falling by 25% per annum until 2016.[5]

6.51.     The two infrastructures have already being designed and built – apart from certain elements – by the libraries and will be used to store other digital or digitised collections as well as legal deposit material. Therefore this model focuses only on the incremental systems costs – including renewing equipment every three years – salaries, pensions, NI, other staff related costs, plus allocations for general support and overheads, that are required to collect and preserve ‘free web’ material.

Question 21: Do you agree with these cost assumptions? Explain why. What needs to be included or excluded?

————————

[1] Assumption based upon historic UK growth data from Nominet, historic .com/.org/.net data from http://www.zooknic.com and http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/34/32996948.pdf

[2] Assumption based upon de-duplication experiences reported by Royal Library of Copenhagen

[3] Source = http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-01/bergman.html

[4] Assumptions and estimates based upon historic data from UKWAC and national libraries in Denmark, Australia and New Zealand

[5] Conservative assumptions based upon Moore’s Law, Kryder’s Law and Kurzweil quoted in various articles, plus sources: [1] & [2]

5.1      The Recommendation only relates to freely available online publications, which can be harvested or collected by Legal Deposit Libraries (LDLs)[1] without any requirement for action by publishers (a reflection that the publications are available to the public free of charge and accessible without restriction). Restrictions that would remove publications from the scope of these proposals may include identification, authentication/authorisation, registration, subscription, and Internet Protocol (IP) address range[2]. Material that requires compliance with a basic technical formality such as downloading ‘cookies’ should be permitted, provided that this does not entail any active (human) intervention by the publisher or website owner.

5.2      The online publications to which this Recommendation applies are not intended to include:

• Sites outside the UK (see Territoriality below)
• Chargeable content/commercial content
• Sites with technical barriers
• Secured transactions
• Members-only areas within public sites
• Private intranets and restricted access content
• Recorded sound and film where such works comprise the sole or main purpose of the content or where any other material is incidental (e.g. the BBC ‘Radio Player’, any equivalents of Napster, YouTube and suchlike, and sites offering ring tones or streamed films and programmes from broadcasters).

Question 6: Do you agree that this is an appropriate definition for the type of publications that should be included in scope for regulations? Explain why. Is there anything else that should be included in this definition? Is there anything that should be excluded from this definition?

Defining the UK Territoriality

5.3      Harvesting, where online publications are collected using software that facilitates their collection and archiving, provides a simple approach to deposit of such a wide range and number of publications. The first step in harvesting is defining the parameters for collection and its required links to the UK. This definition is also a requirement of Section 1 of the 2003 Act.

5.4      In fulfilment of these proposals, the territoriality criteria proposed for publications relevant to this Recommendation are that:

• Publishers should be based in the UK or have a UK address (physical or electronic);
• Publications should be lawfully published or made available by or on behalf of that publisher from a UK address; and
• Publications should be made available to the public.

The following criteria are also thought to be relevant to fixing the place of publication and, therefore, the potential relevance to any approved harvesting for the purposes of legal deposit, namely that the site from which the publication is harvested:

• has a UK domain name
• relates to UK-based individuals or organisations which use other domain names, such as .org, .com, .net etc. or alternatives; and
• can be demonstrated, if an overseas publication, to be made available by a UK-based publisher.

5.5       Exceptions to this definition include publications:

• with no connection to the UK[3] and
• substantially consisting of sound recording or films (see Act s1 (5) a, b).

5.6      While territoriality establishes the parameters of the domain to be harvested, analysis of the domain growth and size identifies the scale of the work and some of the key assumptions underlying the calculation of costs.

5.7      Further information on this issue is set out in Annex E.

Question 7: Do you agree with the territorial definition of the UK web? Explain why. Is there anything else that should be included in this definition? Is there anything that should be excluded from this definition?

The UK Domain[4]

5.8      The category definition and territoriality rules govern what may be collected. Within these, the model used to calculate costs for harvesting assumes that the UK web space is defined as all .UK domains registered by Nominet (6.1 million in mid-2007) plus approximately 50,000 other domains which can be readily identified as published in the UK. See Libraries key costs assumptions for cost model and further information on assumptions (Annex D).

5.9      It is estimated that the numbers will continue to grow by 17% per annum until 2011, then by 15% until 2016. However, 35% of the domains are inactive, i.e. registered but not live, or where static content can be ‘de-duplicated’ after a first harvest. A further 25% are primarily ‘deep web’ or protected publications outside the scope of this category. Overall, the number of online publications in scope is therefore estimated at 3.9 million in 2007 rising to 14.6 million in 2016.

Question 8: Do you agree with this analysis of the UK Web Domain? Explain why. What do you think the impact of your analysis would be?

5.10   The average size of websites (and therefore the number of copyright works and publications that they contain) has been growing significantly each year. However, the cost model assumes that most audiovisual content, one of the major causes of growth, is out of scope, and therefore a more modest 5% growth per annum is appropriate. The average size also varies dramatically, from circa five megabytes for 80% of sites to one gigabyte for 0.5% of sites; this model assumes a weighted average of 25 megabytes.

Harvesting the Web[5]

5.11   The proposed method of collecting and preserving such a large number of publications is to ‘pull’ (harvest) them from the Web. Harvesting is an automated process, where, through the use of special software, libraries can collect publications with no action required by publishers. The costs, impact evidence, and success rate for this type of harvesting are based on a pilot implemented by the UK Web Archiving Consortium (UKWAC). The pilot, commencing in 2003 for two years (extended to September 2007), involved the selection of freely available online publications to be preserved and archived. The Consortium has so far archived more than 2,700 publications and over 10,000 instances (see http://www.webarchive.org.uk).

5.12   Harvesting conducted as part of a regulation does not require the individual permissions of publishers, as exemptions from such liabilities as copyright infringement and defamation are covered under the 2003 Act.

Question 9: How do you see a Deposit Library driven system of web harvesting interfacing with a publisher driven duty to deposit under the 2003 Act?

Question 10: How could Deposit Libraries most efficaciously ensure a comprehensive body of eligible content is deposited?

UK Legal Deposit Libraries Harvesting the Web
Harvesting Costs

5.13   This proposal involves harvesting by Libraries, therefore, the costs largely accrue to them. However, this does not impose a specific duty upon libraries to collect a pre-determined number or proportion of UK publications. Their duty is to collect in accordance with their overriding legal deposit obligations, to archive as much of the national cultural record and make it available for research within limitations of their resources and budgets. Therefore, these costs are not direct, bottom-line (cause and effect) consequences of each option. They are illustrations of what the libraries believe might realistically be achieved within their budget and resource constraints and after prioritising this activity and category of publications against other collection goals.

5.14   The cost of storage includes built-in redundancy to ensure safe preservation of the archive. However, the real cost of storage per terabyte has fallen by more than 30% per annum over the last 20 years and is expected to continue falling by 25% per annum until 2016.

5.15   Two infrastructures have already been designed and built (apart from certain elements) by the Libraries and will be used to store other digital or digitised collections as well as legal deposit material. Therefore, this cost model focuses only on the incremental systems costs (including renewing equipment every three years) plus staffing costs required to collect and preserve this category of publication. 8 Some stakeholders have reservations about the extent of harvesting and access to the harvested content and we will look at ways to overcome these concerns in our detailed policy proposals.

5.16   Costs have been analysed under the headings of selection, obtaining copyright permission, harvesting, QA, storage & preservation, resource discovery, digital rights management (DRM) & access, and other costs. They include salaries, pensions, NI and other staff-related costs, allocations for wider costs such as IT support and expenses, plus allocations for general overheads (See Annex D for more detail on costs and assumptions).

5.17   The near elimination of selection and IPR permissions activities makes harvesting a much more efficient process than requiring every publisher to deposit their own material. Total costs are estimated at £215 per annum for every terabyte archived over a 10-year period, although higher overall costs estimated at £1,132,000 per annum would be necessary for the infrastructure, harvesting, and storage, because of the greater volume collected[6]. See Libraries’ key cost assumptions Annex D.

5.18   Further information on the practical arrangements are set out in Annex F.

Question 11: Do you agree with this costing model? Explain why. Are there costs that need to be factored in or excluded?

Publishers

5.19   Ascertaining publisher costs presents a difficulty that can be ascribed primarily to the broad definition of ‘publisher’ for this category of publication, a definition that is quite distinct from that of other categories for deposit. Traditionally, publishers are a group well defined and contained by type and content of publication, as well as by business model. The online publisher of freely available publications, however, runs the gamut from the individual blogger with no revenue stream to a multinational corporation. This sheer number of publications and range of publisher types impose a considerable challenge for determining costs and benefits that suit any group of publishers, let alone cover the whole spectrum.

5.20   At the beginning of 2008, the Legal Deposit Advisory Panel undertook a survey of Trade Association publisher members, as well as non-commercial publishers that participated in the UKWAC pilot. This survey provided publishers with information about deposit as well as asked them for feedback on costs and other impacts of harvesting and archiving. The findings from the survey were as follows:

• A majority of those commercial and non-commercial publishers surveyed supported regulation-based harvesting;
• Not only did they think this kind of harvesting the most efficient and less invasive to their business process, but they also observed that there would be relatively little cost to them;
• However, publishers were not able to assess the level of cost to them associated with permissions-based harvesting.

5.21   Generally, publishers cost concerns were primarily in the area of revenue and the possible impact from harvesting, and to what extent these concerns could be addressed in a rapidly changing commercial and technological environment.

5.22   As publishers do not push (deposit) publications to libraries in the traditional sense, there appears to be no specific activity from which costs can be calculated. However, there are potential risks that may have significant impacts, if not eventual costs. These include copyright protection of freely available online publications. We are awaiting the outcomes from the UK Intellectual Property Office’s Copyright Exceptions Consultation, so that this concern can be addressed in future detailed policy proposals.

Moreover, the deposit process adds a level of complexity for publishers in their agreements with third parties, either providing content or software. Indeed, there are concerns, as expressed in the Commercial Publishers Survey, over securing ongoing rights for data or images that were made available free of charge but on a time limited basis. For example, some promotional sites provide high value business information on a time-limited basis as sample data to encourage site traffic or subscription sales. Accordingly, publishers may be exposed to such liabilities as third party IPR and licensing infringement, as well as defamation, contempt of court, and libel.

Question 12: Do these assumptions adequately reflect the financial burden of publishers? Is there anything that needs to included or excluded?

—————————–

[1] For the purposes of this paper, ‘LDLs’ or ‘Libraries’ applies to all six Legal Deposit Libraries named in this Recommendation paper: the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales, and the University Libraries of Cambridge, Oxford, and Trinity College, Dublin.

[2] Where access is only enabled for users within a specified IP address range.

[3] LDAP is reviewing the use of this phrase in connection with online publications, as its inclusion here would imply that publications on non-UK related subjects, but by British authors, would be excluded from the archive. A number of agencies with helpful practices might also aid the LDLs in identifying publications ‘connected to the UK’, such as Internet Watch and Nominet.

[4] See notes under Libraries Key Costs Assumptions, for sources used to support the assumptions for the growth and size of the domain.

[5] Some stakeholders have reservations about the extent of harvesting and access to the harvested content and we will look at ways to overcome these concerns in our detailed policy proposals.

[6] This figure represents the total cost across Legal Deposit Libraries. It assumes that readers in any of the six legal deposit libraries’ premises would be able to access all materials and electronic publications that are harvested and archived by the BL/NLW/NLS infrastructures. The University Libraries of Oxford, Cambridge and Trinity College do not currently plan to harvest themselves to the same extent, but would retain the entitlement to do so.

3.2      They do not include UK Commercial and Protected Online Publications.

LDAP’s Recommendations
3.3      For online publication LDAP considered three options:

• Option 1: Legal Deposit Library Permissions-based Harvesting and Archiving
• Option 2: Legal Deposit Library regulation-based Harvesting and Archiving Recommended)
• Option 3: Archiving Left to the Market

Option 1
3.4      Legal Deposit Libraries Permissions-based Harvesting and Archiving. This option might be considered as the equivalent of a voluntary code for deposit, in that it will not be subject to regulation, but it presumes that legal deposit Libraries will actively harvest (‘pull’) material, rather than imposing any duty or encouragement upon publishers to deposit. Thus the main burden of activity rests on the Libraries to take periodic copies of websites and documents, then ingest them into an archive for preservation. However Libraries may only do so after obtaining copyright permission in writing from the publishers or owners of the material; in responding to these requests, online publishers must give permission on behalf of third party rights-holders.

Option 2
4.5      Legal Deposit Libraries Regulation-based Harvesting and Archiving. This option presumes that libraries, or agents on their behalf, will actively harvest (‘pull’) material, rather than imposing any duty or encouragement upon publishers to deposit. Thus the main burden of activity rests on the Libraries to take periodic copies of freely available online publications and documents, then ingest them into an archive. However regulation would allow Libraries to do so without needing to contact the publishers or owners of the material.

Option 3
4.6      Archiving Left to the Market. This option proposes there is no central, public sector initiative, and that archiving would be left to the private sector and market forces. Moreover, Libraries would not actively seek to harvest or build a national archive for freely available online publications. Individual publishers might approach a Library to archive material on its behalf; this would be subject to separate negotiations and cost-benefit analysis for the specific circumstances.

Question 1: What are your views on the options considered for this content?

Question 2: Are there any other options that should have been considered? If so what are they?

LDAP’S Analysis
4.7      Permissions-based harvesting (Option One) would capture a minute proportion of freely available online publications. In addition, a less than comprehensive collection would come at a much higher cost per unit for publishers and Libraries. Permission is only successfully obtained in 30% of cases (based on UKWAC figures).

4.8      Archiving left to the market (Option Three) makes it impossible to deliver a comprehensive or freely available collection. Whilst some professional publishers do archive their own material, all the available evidence suggests that the vast majority of individual publishers of freely available online publications within the UK domain do not. Therefore a substantial proportion of the UK’s cultural and intellectual output will be lost forever.

4.9      LDAP recommends Regulation-based Harvesting and Archiving (Option Two) for the deposit of freely available online publications, to enable Libraries to gather and preserve publications as defined within the Recommendation, and make them available according to the 2003 Act. This deposit option secures the benefits inherent in preserving for future generations a comprehensive archive of the UK’s online intellectual and cultural heritage (it is estimated that up to 79% of material in scope could be captured and archived within available resources), at a manageable and proportionate cost, not only for publishers and libraries, but also to the public.

Question 3: Do you agree with the analysis of these options? Explain why.

4.10   Rate of Deposit: The large number of freely available online publications and the rate of increase (about 15% per annum) expected pose a challenge to creating a comprehensive collection in the most efficient way possible. Harvesting provides the most efficient and timely solution for deposit of publications in this category: regulations-based harvesting specifically ensures the greatest amount can be collected to build the most comprehensive collection for future generations.

Question 4: Do you agree that harvesting provides the most efficient and timely solution for deposit of publications in this category? Explain why.

4.11   Proportionality: Regulation is an appropriate response to the enormous number of publishers and publications in this category. It is the most cost-efficient method of collection for the Libraries and imposes no direct financial or administrative burden upon the publishers.

Question 5: Do you agree regulation is the most cost-efficient method of collection for the Libraries and imposes no direct financial or administrative burden upon the publishers? Explain why.

4.12   Existing Harvesting Activities and Infrastructure: Whilst Libraries have not yet been able to harvest widely across the whole UK domain, much of the technical infrastructure and expertise that they would need is already in place. They have practical experience of permissions-based harvesting for the UK Web Archiving Consortium. In addition, the International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC), of which the British Library and National Library Scotland (NLS) are members, is developing tools, infrastructure and the policies for addressing the challenges of collection and preservation internationally. Moreover, knowledge gained from other national Libraries that already carry out domain-level harvesting (e.g. in France, Denmark, New Zealand and Australia) will also assist its implementation in the UK. Indeed, the UK legal deposit Libraries estimate that they could begin harvesting on this basis, up to 80% in scale, within existing resources and within a very short time of implementation.

4.13   Civil Liabilities: Although it cannot eliminate all potential risks, regulation would protect both publishers and Libraries from such civil liabilities as copyright infringement and defamation.

1. UK Offline and Microforms Publications; 
2. UK Online Publications, free of charge and without access restrictions; 
3. UK Commercial and Protected Online Publications.

3.2      This Chapter looks at the recommendations LDAP made for Offline and Microform Publications. 

LDAP’s Recommendations  

3.3      For Offline and Microform Publications LDAP considered four options:

• Option 1: Publisher Archiving
• Option 2: Unregulated Voluntary Code of Practice, no active requesting by libraries
• Option 3: Self-Regulated Voluntary Scheme, with active requesting by libraries (recommended)
• Option 4: Statutory regulations. 

Option 1
3.4      Publisher Archiving. Under this option the libraries would not seek to build a central archive, and the nation would rely entirely upon the private sector. Publishers would retain copies of their own publications specifically for archival purposes, with various access and cost arrangements, resulting in several archives behind multiple commercial barriers (this is not entirely dissimilar to the current publisher practice of maintaining back catalogues or online archives). 

Option 2
3.5      Unregulated Voluntary Code of Practice. In 2000, representatives from the Legal Deposit Libraries and the publishing Trade Associations drew up a Code of Practice for the Voluntary Deposit of Microform and Offline Publications. This encouraged publishers to deposit with Libraries; however, they could choose whether and how to deposit. Under this option the Code would become permanent, encouraging publishers to deposit offline and microform publications. However, there would be no governance or additional support from industry bodies apart from publicising the Code itself. In addition, the Libraries would not actively identify or request publications.

Option 3
3.6      Self-Regulated Voluntary Scheme, with active requesting by Libraries. This option would enhance the Voluntary Code above by establishing a formal, lasting agreement and governance structure via LDAP, to include Memoranda of Understanding signed by Libraries and publishers, a monitoring and annual reporting scheme, and five-yearly reviews both of effectiveness of the scheme and of the trend in the number of relevant publications. Publishers would be actively encouraged to deposit by their Trade Association representatives; Libraries would actively identify relevant publications and request deposit when necessary.

Option 4
3.7      Statutory regulations. Government regulation, under the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003, would oblige publishers to deposit, free of charge, one copy with the British Library and, upon request, up to five additional copies for the remaining libraries, on the same basis as already applies to printed publications. The Libraries would be entitled (but not legally obliged) to identify relevant publications that had not already been deposited and to claim them from the publishers. 

Government Proposals  
3.8      We have considered the detailed proposals provided by LDAP and are content to accept their recommendation of a Self-Regulated Voluntary Scheme, with active requesting by Libraries.

3.9      We reserve the right to monitor the scheme to ensure that the nation’s published output (and thereby its intellectual record and future published heritage) is collected systematically, and as comprehensively as possible. Should the need arise we will regulate at the appropriate time under the powers available to us in the 2003 Act.

3.10   Therefore we are not seeking any formal responses on this proposal.

2.2      We are seeking your views on all aspects of the recommendations and have also set some specific questions to which we would welcome your answers (Annex G).

2.3      Following this consultation, and further consultation on the detail of the regulations as appropriate, our aim is to introduce affirmative secondary legislation to Parliament that will lead to regulations for publishers of relevant non-print publications to deposit one or more copies with the Libraries, as detailed in the following provisions.

2.4      The consultation period will run for 12 weeks from 8 December to 1 March 2010.

2.5      Please respond before the closing date. If you prefer to write in, send your submission to:

Frances Love
Libraries and Archives Team
Culture Directorate
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH

2.6      For enquiries about the consultation (handling) process only please contact the DCMS Public Engagement and Recognition Unit (PERU) at the above address or email using the form at http://www.culture.gov.uk/contact_us/ heading your communication ‘Proposal on the Collection and Preservation of UK Offline and Microform Publications and UK Online Publications, which are available free of charge and without access restrictions’.

2.7      Copies of responses will be published after the consultation closing date on the Department’s website: www.culture.gov.uk

2.8      Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

2.9      The Department will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA, and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

The consultation is guided by the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation which is available at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/bre/code/page46954.html  

We can also provide documents to meet the specific requirements of people with disabilities. Please call 020 7211 6200 or email enquiries@culture.gov.uk  

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (c) Crown Copyright

December 2009/PP1173 

Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH
http://www.culture.gov.uk

1.2      The 2003 Act2[2] reaffirmed existing provisions for deposit of printed publications and created a framework of legislation in which regulations could be made for the deposit of electronic and other non-print publications. The Legal Deposit Advisory Panel (LDAP), an independent non-departmental public body, was set up in September 2005 to work at arm’s length from the Government and to advise them on the implementation of the Act and to make recommendations on regulatory options for the deposit of non-print publications.

1.3      These proposals cover the deposit of United Kingdom non-print publications in microform and offline electronic media and UK Online Publications, which are available free of charge and without access restrictions.

1.4      A separate proposal will be produced on UK Commercial and Protected Online Publications following further recommendations from LDAP.

————————————

[1] The British Library; the National Library of Scotland; the National Library of Wales; the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the University Library, Cambridge; and the Library of Trinity College, Dublin

[2] See: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030028_en_1

The discussion was on the topic of the future of the book, particularly with respect to annotating books and ebooks (in a manner similar to the way we support paragraph level comments in WriteToReply).

Annotating text with text (such as comments) requires quite a lot of effort on the part of the reader/annotator, and is perhaps one reason why it can be quite hard getting folk to engage with commenting static documents (I’m sure there are lots of other factors, too!

So if we think of things like the Community Engagement Pyramid:

or the Social Technographics Ladder of Participation:

then we see that there are various levels of engagement by – and participatory effort required from – visitors to a web site.

If we consider documents published on WriteToReply, one of the things we hope to facilitate is discussion around particular areas of the document. Lively discussions – lots of comments on a particular paragraph, or section – is one way of generating a signal that highlights “interesting” areas of a document. Web traffic analytics showing large amounts of traffic to, and reasonable dwell times on, particular pages provides another source of “interestingness” information; and so on.

But are we missing a trick?

Way back in the days when I used to print out lots of reading material, I used to skim read documents (even then!) and mark paragraphs that were somehow important with a vertical line in the margin so that I could easily return to them, or fold a page corner to “bookmark” a particular page or section. Occasionally, I would also scrawl notes in the margin, or underline particular paragraphs. But the turned page corners and the lines in the margin were the most efficient ways (for me) of marking the important parts of a text so that I could then refer to them in detail at a later time.

The commenting came later…

So what might a corollary be in WriteToReply? Each paragraph has a unique URI, so it would be possible to bookmark interesting paragraphs either within the browser, or using a social bookmarking tool such as delicious. Hovering over the linked paragraph number raises a pop up containing the text of the paragraph and a link to it (Note to self: clicking in the link box should automatically select all the text???)

Clicking through on a bookmarked link takes you to the page the paragraph exists on with the bookmarked paragrah highlighted:

If single item RSS/JSON feeds for each uniquely identified paragraph are enabled, it is straightforward (in Javascript at least) to render a page containing just the content from a list of the bookmarked paragraphs.

But what other low effort routes to engagement are there that might help an individual keep track of areas of a document they may want to return to, or that might allow the crowd sourced discovery of “interesting” areas of a document? How about ratings? How about a complement to the paragraph level commenting that the digress.it WordPress theme we use on WriteToReply offers that offers paragraph level ratings?

And in the same way that digress.it is capable of generating comment streams for each commenter, how about a similar facility that would allow me to look at all the paragraphs, sections or pages that I have commented, sorted either in the order they appear in the document, or additionally by the number of stars I have rated them?

When I read long documents, I do it in an iterative fashion. At the moment, we don’t necessarily make that very easy to do – or obvious how to do it. Maybe a ratings based approach would help?

PS the source code for the digress.it theme is available from the digress.it: WordPress plugins page under a GPL version 2 license. If you fancy creating a complementary “skim.it” theme using ratings rather that comments, post a comment here

Web address: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk

Publication date: January 2010

© Crown copyright 2010

The text in this document may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. The source of the material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document must be included when reproduced as part of another publication or service.

Ref: 299388 / 0110

Prepared for Cabinet Office by COI

Chief Information Officer (CIO) The executive in an organisation responsible for the information technology and computer systems that support delivery of strategic goals and outcomes. The CIO is focused on ICT strategy formulation, planning and strategic alignment with corporate objectives.

Chief Information Officer Council The Chief Information Officer Council brings together CIOs from across all parts of the public sector to address common issues.

Chief Technology Officer (CTO) The executive in an organisation focused on technical issues. The CTO is concerned with architecture, design and development, security, operational integrity, system support and maintenance across the IT organisation.

Cloud computing The use of the internet to deliver ICT resources rather than hosting and operating these resources locally.

Data centre A facility used to house computer systems and associated components. Data centres are classified according to the criticality and sensitivity of operations being run through them.

Desktop services Devices and services used by individuals to access functions such as email, word processing and internet browsing.

Devolved administrations Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each have their own Government or Executive, led by a First Minister and devolved legislature. Each country has devolved powers that have been defined in law.

Government Generally taken to mean central government. The Government ICT Strategy applies to all of the UK public sector including central government, local government, wider public sector and devolved administrations.

Government Applications Store (G-AS) The G-AS will provide a gateway to sharing and reuse of online business applications, services and components between public sector organisations.

Government Cloud (G-Cloud) An internet-based ICT infrastructure that enables public bodies to host, select and use ICT systems from a secure, resilient and cost-effective service environment.

Information and communication technology (ICT) An umbrella term that covers all technical means for managing, using and communicating information. It is most often used to describe digital technologies such as methods of communication, communications equipment and techniques for processing and storing information.

Information assurance Information assurance is the practice of managing information related risks around confidentiality, integrity and availability. In reality this means that information assurance is about ensuring that authorised users have access to authorised information at the authorised time from authorised locations.

Infrastructure The equipment and installations that provide the basis for ICT operations and services, for example data centres and communications networks.

Interoperable/interoperability The ability of diverse systems and organisations to work together without the need for manual intervention. In ICT, this generally means that systems use the same basic standards (protocols) to ease communication and data exchange.

Local government Local authorities have a wide range of powers and duties. National policy is set by central government but local councils are responsible for all day-to-day services and local matters.

Open source Open source software is software for which the rights to source code and other rights normally available to copyright holders are freely available. This allows users to collaboratively use, change and improve software and redistribute it. Whie open source software can be free to obtain, there are associated support and maintenance costs, which mean that there is typically some financial outlay involved throughout its lifecycle.

Open standards A technical standard that is available to all users regardless of the organisation they belong to.

Public Sector Network (PSN) A programme of activity that will deliver a single, holistic telecommunications infrastructure providing converged voice and data communications.

Shared services Those business processes and functions that are common across organisations that are sourced once and used many times. For example, payroll, human resources and finance processes are required in all organisations. Rather than each organisation running separate functions, these can be grouped and used more efficiently through a shared-service approach.

Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA) A framework providing a common language to describe the skills and attributes required of IT professionals.

Technical standards Technical standards provide the guidelines that ensure ICT systems and services are able to work together, regardless of when they were specified and who is providing them. These technical standards may be open – available for all to use and modify – or proprietary – unique to a specific organisation.

Wider public sector All areas of the public sector not covered under central and local government – for example the National Health Service, police forces, fire services.

Digital Britain: Final Report – Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Business Innovation and Skills, June 2009

Building Britain’s Future – Cabinet Office, June 2009

Excellence and fairness: Achieving world class public services – Cabinet Office, June 2008

Operational Efficiency Programme: final report – HM Treasury, April 2009

Cyber Security Strategy of the United Kingdom: safety, security and resilience in cyber space – Cabinet Office, June 2009

Power of Information – Ed Mayo and Tom Steinberg, June 2007

Greening Government ICT: Efficient, Sustainable, Responsible – Cabinet Office, June 2008

Open Source, Open Standards and Re-use: Government Action Plan – Cabinet Office, March 2009

Public Sector Network (PSN) – Cabinet Office, November 2009

National Information Assurance Strategy – Cabinet Office, June 2007

Data Handling Procedures in Government: Final Report – Cabinet Office, June 2008

The governance structure has been agreed for delivery of the strategy as a whole, as well as for each of the 14 strands. The detailed governance for each strand can be found on the Cabinet Office website, within the IT in Government section.

In developing the strand governance structure, the CIO Council has also agreed the principal roles and their responsibilities.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

]]> http://writetoreply.org/govictstrategy/annex-a-governance/feed/ 0 http://writetoreply.org/govictstrategy/6-conclusion/ http://writetoreply.org/govictstrategy/6-conclusion/#comments Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:17:03 +0000 WriteToReply 41.79 The UK public sector faces major challenges. The scale of services delivered across organisational and international boundaries, the requirements of customers and the need for ever-increasing efficiency, together mean that we cannot continue with a fragmented infrastructure that duplicates processes and solutions. This strategy delivers two significant benefits to the public sector over the next 10 years:

• a secure and resilient infrastructure providing flexible and efficient services to the public sector and delivering savings of over £3.2 billion per year, and
• simplification and standardisation of ICT across the public sector that enables interoperability and data sharing, where appropriate, to deliver improved public services to citizens and businesses.

This is a substantial strategy for Government. Transforming services against a backdrop of economic pressure requires leadership and a fundamental change in the way we specify, procure and deliver ICT to the public sector. This strategy provides the means to achieve the benefits outlined above.

CIOs and their businesses will implement the strategy and provide transformed ICT that supports and enables the public sector to meet its core aim of improving the lives of the citizens and businesses it is here to serve.

Smarter

–– Design to improve quality of customer service

–– Ensure security from design through implementation to operation

–– Focus on interoperability to facilitate information sharing and accessibility

––Work faster from concept to delivery

–– Develop and exploit strong relationships with our suppliers

–– Support innovation

–– Invest in our workforce to increase capability and professionalisation

–– Utilise effective portfolio, programme and project management techniques to maximise the impact of ICT-enabled change

Cheaper

–– Adopt greater standardisation and simplification

–– Adopt the principles of using open standards

–– Exploit open source software to deliver greater value for money

–– Reuse existing assets as the preferred option

–– Exploit a more competitive marketplace

––Work collaboratively to procure and manage common solutions

–– Develop agreed models for funding crosspublic sector ICT programmes

–– Benchmark ICT costs annually

Greener

–– Support sustainable economic development

–– Deliver the green agenda

–– Ensure energy efficiency

5.1.1 Cabinet Office

The Government CIO and Senior Information Risk Owner (based in the Cabinet Office) is head of profession for ICT-enabled business change and information security and assurance. His team lead the design, approval and delivery of the overall ICT Strategy and its supporting elements. Work is allocated to departmental CIOs, and the Office of HM Government CIO and Senior Information Risk Owner support, facilitate and ensure delivery. The Cabinet Office ensures alignment of all policy and strategies and that they can be delivered in a cohesive way. Delivery is through the CIO Council (and subordinate organisations in health, police and local government) and the CIOs in departments and public sector bodies.

The Office of HM Government CIO consists of a small central support team facilitating local delivery. For instance, for Green ICT, one Cabinet Office official supports a lead CIO from a department who leads this work on behalf of the CIO Council. A further 86 individuals are active in developing the Greening Government ICT Strategy and associated action plans. The Office of HM Government CIO also works across government on security, identity management and Digital Britain, and runs the GSi infrastructure for 500,000 public servants and 450 organisations as well as leading on shared services.

The Cabinet Office supports, facilitates, mobilises and motivates resources, ensures cohesion and compliance with other strategies, and removes barriers.

The level of commitment from the public sector to delivery of the ICT Strategy and its associated elements is evident from the resources made available to the Cabinet Office to support delivery of individual programmes of work. These resources are often delivering public sector activity in addition to their local accountabilities and objectives.

5.1.2 CIO Council

The CIO Council is accountable for developing the strategy and ensuring that it is implemented in their organisation. It is also responsible for ensuring cohesion across the strategy and for supporting delivery with resources from within its team.

Each strand in the ICT Strategy has a CIO Council lead who is accountable to the CIO Council for ensuring that their programme remains aligned with CIO Council requirements and takes account of differing delivery requirements – particularly from local government, the wider public sector and devolved administrations. These leads are supported by:

• a Cabinet Office lead official, accountable for strategy and policy
• a technical lead, from the CTO Council
• a commercial lead, from the OGC Collaborative Category Board, and
• a delivery lead, from a public sector body.

Each strand will also have its own governance for directing the programme of work (for example the Public Sector Network Steering Group and Programme Board), which will be aligned to the overall ICT Strategy governance.

5.1.3 CTO Council

Technology changes offer a real opportunity for the public sector to maximise services and increase efficiency. The CTO Council is responsible for horizon scanning on behalf of the CIO Council – identifying emerging technologies that could be used to improve the delivery of public services and meet known public sector challenges and business drivers.

5.1.4 Public sector organisations

All public sector organisations, whether in central government, local government, the wider public sector, non-departmental public bodies or agencies or devolved administrations, face the same issues regarding economic pressures and increasing service requirements outlined in section 2.1 of this strategy.

This strategy provides the UK public sector with a secure, efficient infrastructure that is available to all. All public sector CIOs are accountable for implementation of the strategy within their local environment. As a guiding principle, CIOs are expected to take the approach that simplified and standardised corporate services are the norm, and that reuse of existing applications, shared services, designs and solutions will become the default position. Any customisation of solutions will be challenged by CIO Council peers, as well as Accounting Officers, as this will reduce the potential economies of scale available to the public sector. It will also increase the risk to information assurance and security, sustainability and improving access to public services by the citizen, as well as delivery of the ICT Strategy.

A critical success factor of any major programme is a governance framework that recognises that:

• the ebb and flow of contemporary issues will both positively and negatively impact on any one strategic objective
• the more dependencies there are built into a programme, the greater the likelihood of failure, as governance becomes overwhelmingly complicated and in itself a threat to success, and
• governance has to work to a set of principles rather than hard and fast rules. Those principles are:

––match supply with demand

–– anticipate generic changes

–– identify duplication and other opportunities for standardisation and sharing

–– challenge relatively low-value projects, and

–– set priorities when competing for scarce capacity.

For any Government strategy, clear accountability to and oversight from ministerial committees and policy is critical. Ministerial accountability for the ICT Strategy lies with the Minister for the Cabinet Office. At an official level, accountability is through a number of oversight boards such as the Civil Service Steering Board, the Information Assurance Oversight Board and the Corporate Function Board.

Successful implementation of the strategy requires a governance structure that is focused on delivery across the public sector and takes account of the interdependencies between strategy elements. The CIO Council has agreed a delivery structure (detailed in Annex A), which provides clear accountability for delivery and ensures coherence across the strategy.

The overall approach will be based around portfolio management, through the creation of an ICT Strategy Implementation Steering Group (ISG). The ISG will be responsible for portfolio management across all strands of the strategy to manage interdependencies and risks to strategy delivery and take responsibility for the realisation of the overall benefits.

Working across borders and alignment with international agreements is critical to the delivery of effective ICT solutions.

To deliver cross-border services and policies set out by the EU, Member States need secure electronic networks, agreed data protocols, and common information framework.

Our engagement goes beyond Europe and reaches out to international forums across the world.

The UK public sector operates in over 145 countries; there are over four million UK citizens living abroad who still require public services from the UK and many international agreements with which our technology and systems must interface and comply.

Within the EU, UK businesses are free to trade, and UK citizens are free to live and work, in any EU Member State. Similarly, citizens and businesses from any EU Member State are free to live and work or trade in the UK. ICT-enabled public services can make this happen more simply than traditional paper-based methods. However, to take full advantage of this freedom, Europe needs common policies and agreements around ICT, and this requires Member States to work together to implement European legislative requirements.

To deliver the ICT-enabled cross-border services and policies set out in a wide range of EU agreements, decisions and treaties, Member States need secure electronic networks, agreed data protocols and common information frameworks to work to. The information sent over these networks varies widely – from farm subsidies to vehicle details, professional qualifications and social security information. Creating such networks and agreements across 27 Member States is challenging, and every effort must be made to ensure that Member States avoid duplicating the same solutions.

The UK is seen as one of the leaders in ICT-enabled service delivery, and we continue to share our experience with other governments around the world. Learning from our international peers helps the UK to improve existing services and innovate in new areas.

Historically, the Office of the Government CIO and its predecessors have engaged internationally through ongoing policy and delivery commitments with the rest of Europe, and multinational networks for knowledge and best-practice sharing, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The Office of the Government CIO also maintains two substantial commitments within an EU context:

• taking forward the i2010 Ministerial eGovernment Declarations, which form part of the umbrella i2010 European Union Information Society strategy, and delivering against the subsequent action plans, and
• providing, along with other Member States, committee oversight of the current Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to Administrations, Businesses and Citizens programme.

We are also involved in other wider networks such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Network for Senior eGovernment Officials, the 5-Nations CIO Group (members of which are the relevant government bodies in Australia, Canada, the USA, New Zealand and the UK), the International Council for IT in Government Administration and the European Public Administrations Network.

Bringing together senior policy and delivery officials across government and the devolved administrations, the Office of the Government CIO is the secretariat for the European Interest Group, which aims to share knowledge and best practice, solve common problems and overcome barriers in the delivery of ICT-enabled EU projects and programmes.

As individual strategy leads, the Office of the Government CIO officials also provides specialist policy and delivery guidance to other government departments who work on their own sectoral commitments to Europe. Much progress has been made in recent years to build understanding and common ground and approaches, although more remains to be done. Our focus, looking ahead, is on the following:

• Sharing best practice – We will engage further with our international and European counterparts, learning from their best practice in service delivery. We will work with other European Member States to overcome obstacles that hinder delivery of efficient and effective public services across Europe.
• Aligning interoperable strategies and technology – In order to remain at the forefront of ICT strategy development, we will continue to engage with European and multinational networks. Without the support of our external peers, we risk developing our own strategy in a vacuum. When so much of our service delivery crosses borders, it is imperative that we maintain these links.
• Simplification, standardisation and interoperability – To deliver on the aims of the various initiatives, common frameworks and guidelines must be established. The Office of the Government CIO will increase its engagement in the development and implementation of the European Interoperability Strategy and Framework. Without common agreement, duplication will be rife and business processes multiplied unnecessarily.

The Supply Management strand will continue to build strong and productive relationships with our ICT supply base.

We will reduce total cost of ownership and improve return on investment, effectiveness and efficiency.

Targets for Operational Efficiency Programme savings will be set for all key suppliers to government.

Government will only achieve efficient and effective ICT by working with the supply base to address the complexities and issues that arise from delivering multiple services in local environments. Our service providers can provide clear examples of good practice and prevent bad practice. They can share best practice from other market sectors and countries and embed government policy into the services they deliver. The supply management strand is a key enabler of the £1.6 billion per year savings identified by the Operational Efficiency Programme from collaborative procurement. ((The £1.6 billion per year savings is included in the £3.2 billion per year called for in the Operational Efficiency Programme.)) The overall benefits of the ICT Strategy and individual elements cannot be delivered without our supply partners, at all levels of the supply chain.

The UK public sector has a highly mature model of outsourcing ICT services, taking advantage of the economies that this can deliver. Approximately 65% of central government ICT provision is outsourced to the private sector – more than any other part of the public sector. This ensures that government gets the best resources and capability to support the development and delivery of policies. The Gershon Report of 2004 ((Sir Peter Gershon (2004) Releasing resources to the front line: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency.)) highlighted that poor relationships between government and its suppliers had negative impacts on value for money and delivery of ICT services. Additionally, suppliers were managing government better than we were managing them. This manifested itself in suppliers not providing the best resource available, not delivering their contractual commitments and, in some instances, maximising their financial return and taking resources from one government project to deliver another.

As a result, the Supply Management Initiative was launched by the CIO Council in 2006, to support delivery of the Transformational Government strategy. The original objective of the Supply Management Initiative was to enable government to become a world-class purchaser of ICT, driving up performance, value and capability. Two strands were created:

• performance improvement via a Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and regular pan-government supplier forums, and
• value and capability improvement via the Strategic Supply Board (SSB) and its associated ‘Tiger Teams’. ((The Strategic Supply Board consists of industry executives and government CIOs who work collaboratively to address structural and strategic challenges in the market.))

The CIO Council designed a two-way supplier assessment framework, which is now delivered by the OGC through biannual performance reviews via the Common Assessment Framework. The seventh Common Assessment Framework report measured performance from January 2009 to June 2009. It assessed 152 contracts covering annual spend of over £4.66 billion – approximately 36% of total public sector ICT spend. Since the first Common Assessment Framework in 2006, average performance has improved by 11.3% in all areas measured.

In January 2007, at the request of the CIO Council and Cabinet Office, the OGC launched the Common Assessment Framework 360 – a supplier assessment of departmental performance. This complements the departments’ assessment of suppliers and provides a rounded view of how and where to drive increased delivery performance from key contracts. Individual supplier performance improvement plans measure progress against key objectives and are designed to address shortfalls in delivery and measure cash savings.

A number of tools to improve programme and project delivery have been delivered by joint industry/government working groups (‘Tiger Teams’) and are now being implemented by public sector bodies. These include:

• a standard Pre-procurement Qualification Questionnaire
• a Procurement Qualification Toolkit, and
• an ICT services model contract, and the Joint Statement of Intent. (OGC ICT Guidance)

All of these tools are available to public sector bodies via the OGC website. (www.ogc.gov.uk)

After four years of joint work, delivery performance has improved incrementally but the pace of improvement could be accelerated. The average procurement of an ICT services contract takes between 57 and 77 weeks. ((Based on sample surveys by the OGC, 2006–08.)) However, aside from procurement speed, there are other clear areas of improvement, as the following chart shows.

The OGC, the Cabinet Office and the CIO Council are now working with the ICT industry to develop a revised programme of work to address the challenges of increasing requirements for better commercial outcomes and delivery within tightening economic circumstances. This work will report to the CIO Council in January 2010, and will include:

• strengthened governance
• strategic alignment to the ICT Strategy for Government (and its associated ICT Collaborative Procurement Strategy)
• targets for Common Assessment Framework aggregated supplier scores to increase to 4 out of 5 or more by the end of March 2012, and
• developing a proposition to increase access to government collaborative procurements by small- to medium-sized enterprises and local government by June 2010.

4.13.1 ICT Collaborative ProcurementStrategy

Delivery of the ICT Strategy for Government will require the right procurement approaches to be available to the public sector and for public sector organisations to follow a common procurement approach. This will be achieved through the implementation of the ICT Collaborative Procurement Strategy for government which has been developed through the OGC.

Analysis of the public sector ICT marketplace, its size, planned growth and supply and demand profile shows that there is considerable scope for efficiency and improved delivery of services. The buying arrangements of government and subsequent delivery models have historically been too fragmented, requiring further improvements and rationalisation.

The ICT Collaborative Procurement Strategy will transform ICT procurement in the UK public sector. In the future, common infrastructure should be bought under a single and well-understood set of arrangements, with the Crown as the purchasing authority wherever possible, allowing reuse across the public sector. Evidence from public sector initiatives, including the Public Sector Network and desktop services model, supports the view that ICT savings of at least £1.6 billion per year are achievable through such an approach, while delivering on other important policy objectives including sustainability, enterprise and innovation.

The fundamentals of the procurement strategy involve transforming government buying arrangements and leveraging total government spend by:

• driving increased use of the best framework and ‘champion’ contracts while rationalising the number of successor agreements; a list of major, strategic ‘champion’ contracts (i.e. frameworks and contracts which establish the new benchmark for government) will be established in order to underpin cross-government collaboration
• increasing competition, reuse and wider adoption of collaborative, shared and integrated service delivery solutions across the public sector, supported by new commercial arrangements
• continuing the drive to encourage suppliers to use open source software
• adopting a greater level of standardisation of supply, particularly for infrastructure, using industry standards developed by the CIO Council and drawing on industry best practice as the basis for future procurement reform
• developing ‘major’ supplier strategies and identifying opportunities for market leverage
• supporting transformational initiatives such as the Public Sector Network
• applying ‘Lean’ principles to create a faster and more agile supply chain
• providing strong leadership to develop the capability of the commercial community across government, and
• embedding key policy objectives into procurement including sustainability, equality and innovation and enacting policy for small-and medium-sized enterprises.

In November 2008, the Strategic Supply Board initiated a study into ICT off-shoring, which it identified as a potential way to increase efficiency and effectiveness. The objective is to identify and analyse the risks and opportunities associated with off-shoring ICT services within the public sector. It will assess feasibility and suitability for implementation across government in areas such as application development, while recognising the significant and valid concerns regarding secure management of personal data.

Reliable project delivery has introduced a number of measures to improve the performance of ICT enabled business change across the public sector.

The Major Programme and Project Portfolio (MPP) presents a simple dashboard of major programmes and all central Government departments are now reporting against standard key performance indicators.

We will strengthen the Gateway project and programme review process to improve delivery.

The reliable project delivery strand was introduced in 2005/06 against a background of failure (actual and perceived) of major public sector ICT projects. The aim was two-fold: firstly, to confirm the reality of the situation and provide a consistent and accurate response to it, and secondly, to introduce appropriate measures to improve it.

Research carried out during 2006, together with work done jointly with the National Audit Office on its report on Successful IT Projects, showed that:

• the public sector failure rate was no worse than the private sector, but the failures were more high profile
• organisations with successful project delivery track records:
  – initiated the ‘right’ projects in the first place and challenged/stopped the ‘wrong’ ones. The use of portfolio management was a common thread
  – applied robust control and governance to those projects they took forward, throughout their lifecycles
• public sector organisations were over-reliant on OGC and other best practice, rather than taking ownership of and managing the problems themselves, and
• issues specific to ICT-enabled business change were not being addressed.

In response to this, the Pan-Government Portfolio was set up and new processes for governance and portfolio management were introduced.

4.12.1 The Pan-Government Portfolio

In January 2007, the Government CIO introduced a new process of reporting on ICT-enabled business change programmes to the PSX (e) ministerial committee. The Pan-Government Portfolio aimed to present ministers with a simple ‘dashboard’ view of the major programmes, showing the state of health of the IT portfolio as a whole. Since March 2007, the Portfolio has been reported on quarterly and evolved into the single, central Major Programme and Project (MPP) Portfolio – facilitated jointly by the OGC and the Cabinet Office. The Major Programme and Project Portfolio includes major asset acquisitions programmes as well as ICT-enabled and other major change programmes.

The OGC has developed an intervention process for any of these programmes and projects which need support, and the role and influence of the CIO with regard to ICT-enabled business change programmes and projects has been strengthened. The Government CIO now has the right to intervene on programme/project- or departmental-specific issues identified via the Portfolio that relate to the agenda governed by the CIO Council.

4.12.2 Departmental portfolio management and control and governance

To further reduce the risk of failure, the Cabinet Office has worked with departmental colleagues to embed portfolio management techniques and stronger governance and control measures into their own organisations. At departmental level, the process is used to reduce the risk of failure and ensure that projects are delivered on time and on budget.

By the end of 2008/09, all central government departments were using recognisable portfolio management techniques. The Operational Efficiency Programme made specific recommendations which further embed the Cabinet Office approach, and further work with the OGC will ensure that guidance is aligned and coherent.

The Cabinet Office has developed Key Performance Indicators for portfolio management, governance and benefits realisation and will be assessing departmental performance against them.

To date, the focus has been on central government departments. A significant proportion of the largest ICT-enabled business change projects are delivered by other organisations, so by 2012 coverage will be extended beyond central government departments to include agencies, non-departmental public bodies and the wider public sector. Over this period, the Cabinet Office will also work closely with the CIOs, Government IT Profession colleagues and the OGC to help match the skills of Senior Responsible Owners, and Programme and Project Directors/Managers to the complexity of the projects they lead.

Government will build on this work to further improve the success rate of projects and also embed compliance with overarching strategies and policies, including the Government ICT Strategy and its components. The Cabinet Office will work with the OGC to ensure that the Gateway Review process continues to be strengthened so that compliance with policies and strategies is tested at each stage in ICT-related programmes and projects. Where there is non-compliance, the programme/project will be stopped until it is compliant.

The Government IT Profession is the professional group for all those working in public sector IT. We work to develop and embed professionals standards, policies and guidance that will help build a more professional IT workforce.

Increased professionalism will result in improved delivery of ICT projects and service.

All of today’s public services are underpinned by technology. The delivery of all future services will be driven by and enhanced through ICT. The skills, capabilities and value of public sector IT professionals are therefore of huge strategic importance.

The Government IT Profession aims to drive the development of a more professional government IT workforce by putting into place the right building blocks for the profession – setting the standards, policies and guidance required to ensure that the public sector has capable people and capable organisations; and delivering and managing fit-for-purpose IT-enabled projects and services.

The first of these building blocks is the Government IT Profession competency and skills framework – the basis of which is the UK IT industry standard Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA). This provides a common language to describe the skills and attributes required of IT professionals. Alongside promoting the development of core technical and specialist skills, the Government IT Profession also works to develop broader management and leadership skills to support the delivery of technology-enabled business change. The Cabinet Office has already started firmly establishing the Government IT Profession by providing:

• the Civil Service Technology in Business (TiB) Fast Stream programme, which focuses on the recruitment and development of tomorrow’s IT leaders
• the Government IT Profession community space, providing a single place for IT professionals to come together, build communities of interest and collaborate to share knowledge and best practice, and
• the Capability Consultancy, a cross-government resource which works with organisations to help them increase their IT professionalism.

To enable organisations to achieve excellence, the Cabinet Office will provide new standards, policies and guidance to increase the efficiency with which IT organisations operate and deliver. Increased professionalism across the IT workforce will in turn result in the delivery of IT projects with a greater rate of success, and more effective and efficient delivery of IT services. However, measuring increasing professionalism in isolation is meaningless, as it is the application of professional skills that will deliver better outcomes. Therefore, the increase in capability will be measured in relation to IT costs, customer satisfaction and project success rates.

As the profession develops and utilises internal talent more effectively, the reliance on external contractors and consultants will diminish.

• In 2010, government will publish a qualifications policy to enable IT professionals to understand what they need to achieve to help progress their careers – and enabling organisations to define local learning strategies and focus training budgets.
• By 2012, government will be in a position to influence the provision of industry-wide learning, based on a robust learning needs analysis across the profession.
• By 2014, organisations will be equipped to grow their own in-service talent through local talent management schemes, based on a proven methodology.
• By 2015, with industry partners, government will develop an industry-wide method of recognising exceptional IT professionalism.
• By 2015, we will enable individual and collective knowledge transfer, growth and collaboration between IT professionals through our National Competency Leads and our online community.

We will deliver an environment where citizens, businesses and government can enjoy the full benefits of Government information systems with confidence in their security, integrity and availability.

All public sector ICT systems will incorporate information assurance from design through to implementation and disposal.

Effective sharing and use of information is central to the challenges facing the public sector, whether in improving health outcomes, tackling child poverty or protecting the public from crime and terrorism. Information assurance – confidence in the security, integrity and availability of information systems – is therefore essential to achieving the goal of delivering personalised services via ICT, as well as making government more effective and efficient and increasing citizen trust in the public sector’s ability to manage and use data.

The Government ICT Strategy will deliver a standardised environment in which converged services can evolve to meet public sector business needs in a cost-effective and business-enabling way. This environment has two key characteristics which will shape the information assurance elements of the strategy. These can be summarised as:

• complexity: the government environment will comprise interconnecting services operating across multiple organisational boundaries within the public sector, and

convergence: the convergence of voice and data services will support flexible working, minimise business dependence on location and provide seamless access to data and IT functionality using fixed and mobile communications.

The National Information Assurance Strategy was published in 2003 and updated in 2007. By 2011, it aims to create ‘a UK environment where citizens, businesses and government use and enjoy the full benefits of information systems with confidence’. However, high-profile data losses have damaged this confidence, and reviews into these incidents have highlighted significant issues. For example:

• accountability for information risk was not always clear
• policy was complex and did not always keep pace with business change, and
• there was not always the necessary culture of compliance with policies to protect information properly.

The Cabinet Secretary’s Data Handling Review, published in June 2008, set out significant changes in the way that government departments address information assurance issues, with a strong focus on personal data. These changes cover four main areas:

• New mandatory policy measures: a series of mandatory measures is now in place across government and the wider public sector, including encryption of removable media and compulsory testing of the resilience of systems by independent experts.
• Cultural change: more than 300,000 civil servants dealing with personal data have undertaken mandatory annual training. The Cabinet Office has also made privacy impact assessments mandatory for new projects, as recommended by the Information Commissioner.
• Stronger accountability: data security roles within departments have been standardised and enhanced to ensure clear lines of responsibility.
• Increased scrutiny: departments report annually on their performance in handling information risk, and the Information Commissioner has begun conducting spot checks of government departments.

At the centre of government, the governance of information assurance has been improved and strengthened with enhanced oversight now in place at ministerial and senior official levels. Furthermore, the responsibilities of the Communications-Electronics Security Group (CESG – the information assurance arm of Government Communications Headquarters) have been expanded to support the delivery of information assurance in government.

The vision for information security and assurance remains the same. In the last year, there has been good progress in improving the handling of personal data, but this progress must be consolidated and embedded into every aspect of service delivery and working culture.

In light of the complex, converged environment set out above, information assurance will be built into every public sector ICT system from requirements capture through design, implementation and disposal. This will deliver the technical and process controls necessary to enable citizens, public bodies and their delivery partners to match their risk appetite with their risk exposure, in the knowledge that systems have been designed with information assurance integrated from the outset.

Three principles underpin the information assurance element of the Government ICT Strategy: partnership, professionalism and pace.

• Partnership: public sector organisations must work together to deliver the right information assurance outcomes. In particular, the Cabinet Office will work closely with its key partner SCESG and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, to drive implementation as well as to engage with the information assurance industry.
• Professionalism: there will be recognised and widespread professionalism in information assurance, encompassing those in risk ownership roles in the public sector, industry partners and government information assurance profession specialists.
• Pace: pace and agility must become the dominant characteristics of every aspect of information assurance, from design to delivery. This includes evaluation of products and services, response to incidents and management of risk impact.

The changes and principles set out above will not, on their own, be sufficient. Information assurance is a broad and cross-cutting area of government business. The recent Digital Britain report, the Cyber Security Strategy and the development of knowledge and information management all have implications for the way that government protects and handles information. This will be reflected in a refreshed National Information Assurance Strategy, which will incorporate the coordination and delivery of the cross-cutting information assurance elements of each of the ICT Strategy strands.

Finally, the process of change begun by the Data Handling Review must be sustained and deepened. The culture of protecting information must be consolidated; policy must remain responsive, relevant, clear and accessible; and the new governance arrangements at the centre of government must fully mature.

The UK government was one of the first in the world to create and implement a strategy to reduce the carbon impact of its ICT operations.

Working across the public sector, savings of 12,000 tonnes of carbon and over £6.8 million have been delivered since July 2008. By 2020, government ICT will be carbon neutral across its lifecycle.

Government runs some of the world’s largest computer systems and they are an essential element in the delivery of public services. However, ICT is a major user of energy and natural resources, creating as much as 2–3% of global carbon emissions.

In June 2008, the Government launched its strategy for green ICT. One year on, it published a report ((Cabinet Office (2009) Greening Government ICT: One Year On)) detailing progress by central government, local government, the wider public sector and devolved administrations. Each central department has produced a green ICT action plan stating what it has done to increase the sustainability of ICT operations and what plans are in place to take this further.

In addition to individual departmental delivery, there have been a number of initiatives designed to share best practice across the public sector:

• Government contract terms and conditions now include sustainability requirements (OGC model contract).
• A supplier scoring model has been developed and is now being made available to the public sector to assess supply chain sustainability during procurements.
• The Government is working internationally on areas such as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive subgroup and US Electronic Product
  Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) product specifications.

Case studies included in the One Year On report demonstrate that carbon emissions have already been reduced by over 12,000 tonnes. At the same time, the focus on greener ICT has also led to cash savings of over £6.8 million.

Moving forward, the Government has set two challenging targets:

• In line with the existing Sustainability on the Government Estate (SOGE) targets and SOGE definition for carbon neutrality, the energy consumption of government ICT on the office estate will be carbon neutral by 2012.
• Government ICT will be carbon neutral across its lifecycle by 2020.

The Greening Government ICT Strategy will be refreshed to reflect environmental and technological advances. The refreshed strategy will detail key activities for the Green ICT Delivery Unit through to 2020, including:

• the development of common measures of delivery
• work to be undertaken internationally to agree common product standards and requirements, and
• the development of mandatory minimum green standards for ICT products and services.

Sustainable ICT will have a significant impact on delivery of the savings outlined in the Operational Efficiency Programme. Green ICT products use less energy and therefore cost less to run, while intelligent use of green ICT can enable flexible working practices, thus supporting HR and estates colleagues to reduce their running costs. Finally, common international standards for products can reduce manufacturing costs and environmental impact.

The Open Source Open Standards Reuse Strategy will invigorate the use of open source software and open standards within the public sector.

Significant savings will be delivered through reuse of existing applications and solutions, which will become standard practice.

Traditionally, the public sector, in common with most large organisations, has relied on commercial off-the-shelf software or bespoke developments to run ICT systems and processes. In most instances, this comes from global commercial enterprises, uses proprietary code and cannot easily be reused across the public sector – reducing value for money, flexibility and agility. Importantly, it also restricts opportunities to reduce risks to service delivery.

In 2004, the Government formally articulated the policy that it would seek to use open source software wherever it gave the best value for money in delivering public services. However, there were then many barriers to widespread adoption of open source. The software and wider IT markets were immature and did not have competitive products that were easy to include in enterprise business solutions. Meanwhile, suppliers of commercial off-the-shelf software, recognising the risk that open source posed to their business, were sometimes less than clear about supply chain issues and terms and conditions, and refused to treat government as a single entity. This made like-for-like comparisons with open source software extremely difficult. In addition, the Government IT Profession had limited exposure to open source software: in a risk-averse culture, this not only limited uptake of open source software but also meant that suppliers were not challenged about technology solutions.

In more recent years, however, many public sector organisations have demonstrated that open source products can be best for the taxpayer – in web-hosting services, the NHS infrastructure and as components in critical systems such as Directgov. The software and wider ICT markets have also developed and made open source products more competitive and easier to include in enterprise-scale solutions.

Government itself has addressed some of the internal barriers to open source through the development of the IT profession to re-establish skills and cultures, the establishment of the CIO Council (leading to more openness and exchange of information within the public sector) and crucially, agreement of the cross-Government Enterprise Architecture framework. The techniques and culture of open source have been adopted in other parts of the public sector: for example, the London Borough of Camden used it in the development of its web content management tool, while the Cabinet Office Digital Engagement team has also harnessed it effectively.

Building on these positive experiences, the Open Source, Open Standards and Reuse Strategy was published in February 2009. It states that the Government will actively and fairly consider open source solutions, alongside proprietary ones, when making procurement decisions. In addition, the Government will, wherever possible, avoid becoming locked in to proprietary software. In particular it will take exit, rebid and rebuild costs into account in procurement decisions and will require those proposing the use of proprietary software to specify how exit would be achieved.

The strategy includes an action plan that is a positive programme to ensure an effective level playing field between open source and commercial off-the-shelf software. It also includes actions which will ensure that government uses open standards in its procurement specifications and requires all solutions to comply with open standards.

Government will continue to use only open standards for documentation such as ODF, PDF and OOXML. The Government Applications Store (see section 4.4) will hold existing open source code and solutions for reuse across the public sector.

The CIO Council commissioned the OGC and the Cabinet Office to ensure implementation of the action plan. Using the governance structure in Annex A, the Open Source, Open Standards and Reuse working group will deliver clear and open guidance to ensure that open source and proprietary products are considered equally and systematically for value for money. By 2011, public bodies will store and share records of their approval and use of open source software on the Government Cloud. The Government Applications Store will hold open source solutions that are available for reuse in the public sector and, by 2015, public bodies will review the existing solutions available before seeking out new solutions.

A set of standards and a common architecture are essential for the delivery of all elements of the ICT strategy. It enables the sharing of data between systems, provides opportunities for reuse of ICT components and facilitates transition between suppliers and products.

The use of standards ensures that as technology develops public sector ICT assets can be easily adapted.

The architecture and standards strand underpins all elements of the ICT Strategy. Through setting the right standards, we will ensure that each element of the strategy can interoperate with each other and, through defining a consistent architecture, we will ensure that it can be reused and deployed across the whole of the public sector.

4.7.1 Enterprise architecture

The cross-Government Enterprise Architecture (xGEA) was a fundamental element of Transformational Government. The first release focused on building the initial portfolio of opportunities to share information and processes. It was supported by:

the cross-Government Enterprise Architecture Reference Model (xGEARM), to enable communication through an agreed set of terms and definitions

• a repository with enterprise architecture assets captured for all government to use
• an opportunity portfolio of potential exemplars, and
• a set of processes, based on industry practices, for describing the exemplars and the enterprise architecture models.

The Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Council has continued to focus on the necessary technical work which underpins the development and adoption of the cross-Government Enterprise Architecture. Work is now in progress on:

• developing a common infrastructure based on open standards and proven interoperability
• setting common standards to help facilitate reuse and sharing
• ensuring that information assurance is included in all aspects of design and build
• rationalising government data and voice networks, and
• adopting a consistent approach to identity management.

4.7.2 Information architecture

Common information architecture is vital to ensuring that information and data can flow across government to provide seamless, efficient, secure and trusted services. It provides opportunities for the reuse of public data, benefiting the economy and fuelling innovation.

The Information Domain of the CTO Council works closely with the Knowledge Council, the Location Council and the Making Public Data Public initiative to ensure that their aims are supported through ICT.

The CTO Council is currently drawing together a public sector information architecture covering seven key themes:

• semantics – the meaning of information
• syntax – the format of information
• data quality – how to give people the confidence to reuse information
• use rights – covering the right to use information
• authentication – how to establish who is using information
• transport – how to move information, and
• information assurance and governance – the behaviour and culture to protect and
  exploit information.

The public sector information architecture will also consider how the public sector should manage its information: for example, will the public sector hold multiple copies of information or will it be held centrally and accessed by many? This has implications for all of the strands within the ICT Strategy, particularly data centre rationalisation, the Government Cloud and information assurance and security. It also affects decisions core to the Public Sector Network as it will impact on bandwidth requirements and likely volumes of data transfer.

The technical infrastructure and enterprise and information architectures are the foundations that underpin successful delivery of all elements of the ICT Strategy. Provision of common technical standards and designs that are available through the Government Cloud and Government Applications Store will be a key enabler of efficient reuse of solutions and assets. These standards ensure interoperability, assure information security and will maximise the opportunity from open source code and open standards.

4.7.3 Standards

Delivering better public services tailored to the needs of the citizen and businesses requires the seamless flow of information across government. The e-Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) set out the Government’s technical policies and specifications for achieving interoperability and ICT systems coherence across the public sector. It defined the essential prerequisites for joined-up and web-enabled government, and adopted the internet and World Wide Web specifications for all government systems. Work has now started to update the standards captured in the e-Government Interoperability Framework and align them with the public sector assets that have been identified for reuse.

As part of developing the cross-Government Enterprise Architecture, the specification of ICT standards rests with the CTO Council, through its domain teams. (The CIO Council retains authority for approving the strategy.) The CTO Council will centrally manage only the standards that are required across a number of organisations and that are not specific to a particular business area (for example, education, taxation or transport). Accordingly, three types of standard have been identified:

• universal: fundamental standards that are required by all public sector organisations (for example, XML)
• common: standards used across multiple business domains (for example, champions), and
• local: where responsibility is held by local domains/businesses/regions.

Domain teams will focus only on universal and common standards. They will liaise with external standards bodies, monitoring their activities to ensure that government interests are supported and not compromised. Precedence is given to standards with the broadest remit, so appropriate international standards will take precedence over EU standards, and EU standards will take precedence over UK standards.

Standards are primarily driven by the needs of citizen- and business-facing services. As a result, the CTO Council is prioritising standards that serve the requirements of generic services or processes that are used across many public sector organisations. The other priority strand is concerned with agreeing standards that will facilitate new, joined-up services and interorganisational processes.

We will deliver a set of standard desktop designs and adopt a shared services approach.

Government will increase collaboration between departments, reduce the number and cost of procurement exercises and increase economies of scale in delivery.

Reducing the operating cost of each public sector desktop by £100 per year, would yield annual savings of £400 million.

Organisations across the public sector all need to provide their staff with access to common IT functions such as email, word processing, spreadsheets and internet browsing which are regarded as essential, day-to-day ‘tools of the trade’. Historically, however, each organisation has independently specified, developed and delivered its own hardware, software and networks to meet that need. This has resulted in very different systems which impede collaboration, incur repeated procurement and development costs, and miss opportunities for economies of scale in delivery.

To overcome this, the public sector as a whole needs to simplify and standardise, adopting common models and commoditising desktop computing, using off-the-shelf options rather than bespoke development. Where technologies have been developed and proven by one organisation, they should be available for use by others: the commercial, contractual and cultural barriers to the adoption of existing solutions must be removed.

Our aim is to see desktop computing across government delivered through common models and shared services. While it is right and appropriate that there will be multiple desktop shared services, operating in a competitive environment, each will serve a community sufficient to offer the maximum economy of scale. This suite of standard desktop designs will therefore include one based on open source operating systems and applications for office automation such as word processing, email and internet browsing. We envisage that, by 2015, 80% of central government desktops will be delivered through a shared utility service with increasing levels of adoption by the wider public sector, including local government.

Together, these changes will lead to increased capability – ICT staff will no longer spend time repeatedly solving the same problems and will instead focus on enhancing and adding to system functionality – and lower price. Both procurement and delivery costs can be reduced: the reuse of established technology within and between desktop services will enable faster deployments with fewer faults and reduced reworking. If the operating cost of every public sector desktop were to be reduced by just £100 a year, it would yield annual cross-government savings of £400 million.

Creating a suite of standard desktop designs is the key to delivering a significant proportion of the £3.2 billion of savings per year outlined in the Operational Efficiency Programme. The provision of these designs will provide assurance to procurement experts, Senior Responsible Owners of programmes and Accounting Officers that their desktops not only meet minimum government standards on information assurance and value for money but also utilise mandatory technical standards. Public servants will not have to think about their desktop services – they will be robust, meet their needs and provide value for money to the taxpayer.

• Between 2012 and 2015, desktop design will evolve to converge with the cloud strategy.
• In line with the Greening Government ICT Strategy, all shared utility desktop services will be carbon neutral by 2012.
• Desktop supply chains will be required to conform to sustainability standards by 2015.
• We will share across government the lessons learnt from managing shared services so that, by 2015, effective intelligent customer models will be replicated across all shared services.

Finance, HR and procurement services are now delivered to over 80% of civil servants through shared service solutions.

We will increase efficiency through the use of a greater range of shared services across Government.

The adoption and wider use of shared services in the public sector was a key part of Transformational Government and has already made a significant impact on the bottom line. By rationalising HR, finance and procurement delivery and making better use of current technology such as shared enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, major savings have been generated.

• The Department for Work and Pensions Shared Services Centre provides many HR and finance functions to the Department, its executive agencies and other parts of government. By the end of the financial year 2008/09, this led to £100 million worth of savings.
• Shared Business Services, a joint venture between the Department of Health and IT company Steria, now serves over 100 health trusts, delivering 20–30% savings on like-for-like services. Some 90% of its customers would recommend it.

Over 80% of civil servants are now supported by a shared service solution and there has been real success in delivering shared services across departments. The Cabinet Office now receives its day-to-day finance, HR and procurement support from DWP Shared Services and shares its enterprise resource planning platform. The Department for Children, Schools and Families is now also using this platform and service. The Home Office and the UK Border Agency receive back-office services from the National Offender Management Service’s Shared Services Centre, and plans are in place for the Identity and Passport Service, Criminal Records Bureau and Ministry of Justice to also share this service. The ICT Strategy now recommends an increased role for shared services, moving government systems to the Government Cloud. This will lead to:

• wider use of enterprise resource planning systems across central and local government to improve efficiency, and
• greater visibility of applications that can be shared across the public sector (for example, electronic document and records management, ministerial correspondence, banking, vetting etc.).

This will be achieved through collaborative procurement and the creation of the Government Applications Store of business services and components to ensure reuse across the public sector.

The current programme of public sector corporate service benchmarking will be used on an ongoing basis to continue to improve the performance of the back office and to drive more public sector organisations towards the shared services model.

By 2020, there will be a step change in the way that shared services are perceived, operated and paid for. The Government Cloud and Government Applications Store will together meet the internal business needs of most public sector organisations, while many back-office business activities will have been commoditised and made accessible to all public sector organisations and employees via an online portal. Additionally, having been procured at Crown level, the shared ICT infrastructure will be located in the Government Cloud. The greater visibility of applications afforded by the Government Applications Store will ensure that the public sector will buy once and use many times.

The Government Applications Store will be a marketplace for the sharing and reuse of online business applications on a pay by use basis.

This will deliver reduced software costs across the public sector, and speed up procurement.

The reuse of existing solutions and a reduction in the number of applications in use across the public sector, will deliver savings of approximately £500 million per year.

The Government Applications Store (G-AS) is a new initiative that will substantially reduce the number of unique applications and applications contracts that are currently used by public sector organisations. There are currently more than 10,000 of these: reducing them will not only enable savings exceeding £500 million a year by 2020, but will also heighten the public sector’s ability to respond to change and to move to standard approaches for providing citizen- and business-facing services.

The vision for the Government Applications Store is for the reuse of existing assets to become the standard approach across the public sector – whether for policy- or efficiency-driven initiatives. In contrast to today’s approach, where new business requirements almost always result in development of bespoke solutions and thus the proliferation of systems, reuse will become the norm – from relatively common back-office requirements through to customerfacing front-office services that are unique to the organisation involved.

Reuse is, in principle, already accepted as the preferred delivery approach across the public sector. However, in most cases today, it is easier to do a fresh procurement exercise.

The Government Applications Store will change this, acting as a gateway to easier sharing and reuse. It is built on the principle that, even where organisations have unique requirements, typically many steps in the business process are similar to those of other organisations – even when these organisations have radically different roles. For example, the approaches used for authenticating employees, authenticating customers and making payments through the banking system are similar in most organisations – no matter what their business is.

In the future, each of the steps in a process will be defined as a reusable service: these services can then be used as the basis of new business solutions, joined together using ‘mash-up’ technology. The only additional requirements will be the truly unique components.

The Government Applications Store is the key to this, enabling reuse of existing assets to become the standard model for delivery of new business services. It is closely integrated with other aspects of the ICT Strategy, including desktop services, the Public Sector Network, the Government Cloud and data centre rationalisation, which together will establish the standard infrastructure platform on which reusable services will be delivered.

The net effect will be to increase visibility of software already owned by the public sector so that other public sector bodies, and those bidding for public sector work, can see what is available at no basic cost.

New assets in the Government Applications Store will benefit from the policy that future public sector ICT procurement exercises will be carried out on behalf of the Crown, rather than an individual organisation. This will enable reuse across the public sector, safe from licensing restrictions. Wherever possible, reusable business services that are already owned by the Crown will be provided ‘free at the point of use’ to public sector organisations. There will be a charge only for those aspects of the service that directly impact cost – such as Government Cloud usage costs, support services, helpdesk calls and printed outputs.

The Government Applications Store will provide automated electronic support for the applications procurement lifecycle and reduce the overhead costs of reuse of applications. This will be done using proven functions, including:

• an online store front with search and user feedback capabilities
• an e-procurement platform technology that automates the ‘procurement to payment’ process, and
• an interlinked online repository providing access to software, documentation, tools and related assets.

As the number of assets in the Government Applications Store increases over time, the business case for public sector organisations to adopt a reuse-based approach will become ever more compelling.

Moving to this way of working will be a major cultural change. Public sector leaders are accustomed to specifying unique requirements that are then met on a bespoke basis – an expensive and unwieldy approach that has led to proliferation of systems. Under the new model, the expectation will be that existing capabilities are used ‘as is’ wherever possible. Unique requirements will be implemented only where this is unavoidable and where there is very clear business justification for the additional lifecycle costs.

The CIO Council will work to build support for the new approach among senior business leaders across the public sector.

The Data Centre Strategy will reduce the number of data centres used by Government to between approximately 10 and 12 secure, resilient services.

Cooling and power consumption will be reduced by up to 75% per year and infrastructure costs by up to £300 million per year.

It is time for a significant rationalisation of the data centres that provide information-based services to public sector organisations. Such rationalisation will bring substantial savings in cost and energy consumption; at the same time, it will improve service standards and increase the ability to cope with disruption. This strand is aligned with other elements of the Government ICT Strategy – in particular the Public Service Network – and provides the enabling platform for the Government Cloud and the Government Applications Store.

Development of the data centre infrastructure in the public sector has followed a similar pattern to that in most large organisations. Budgets and procurement decisions have been devolved to many different levels, meaning that while procurement decisions have been taken in the best interests of each individual organisation at a specific time, at the ‘big picture’ level this has resulted in a proliferation of data centres. This is not only costly in itself, but also makes it difficult to:

• achieve large, cross-government economies of scale
• meet environmental and sustainability targets
• protect against natural disasters or human initiated incidents
• provide consistent security controls across government
• deliver ICT systems that are flexible and responsive to demand in order to support transformational government
• take advantage of new technologies in order to deliver faster business benefits, and
• procure in a way that supports and encourages a dynamic and responsive supplier marketplace.

In late 2008, members of the CIO Council and the Intellect Public Sector Council initiated joint work that concluded there was now an opportunity to develop a data centre strategy for the whole of the public sector. The intention is to consolidate public sector data centres (whether in house or outsourced), firstly in central government (including non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies), and then moving into the wider public sector. This will be delivered in line with the approaches pioneered by the large internet firms for data centre design, thus enabling the Government Cloud, as set out in the previous section, as well as creating significant savings.

The Data Centre Strategy will be implemented in a way that delivers benefit at the earliest opportunity. One option under consideration is the early introduction of a data centre space brokerage service for the public sector which will help reduce the procurement of new data centre space: instead, organisations will be able to take advantage of unused space in existing facilities.

Over the next three to five years, approximately 10 to 12 highly resilient strategic data centres for the public sector will be established to a high common standard. This will then enable the consolidation of existing public data centres into highly secure and resilient facilities, managed by expert suppliers. As well as savings on ICT infrastructure costs in the order of £300 million a year, this will also make a significant contribution to environmental targets through a reduction of up to 75% in power and cooling requirements. These benefits will be achieved in parallel with improved service standards: the new ICT infrastructure will be more resilient, significantly more reliable and far better equipped to recover quickly from major incidents with minimal disruption to service.

The result is that public servants will be able to store their data in the knowledge that it is secure, accessible and sustainable.

The Government Cloud infrastructure will provide a secure and resilient shared environment through which public sector bodies can resource ICT services at greater speed and lower cost.

This is a key enabler of the £3.2 billion annual savings laid out in the Operational Efficiency Programme.

Developments in ICT mean it is now possible for different teams, offices or even organisations to share the same ICT infrastructure. The different hardware can be brought together and used to deliver increased flexibility and responsiveness to business needs while reducing costs. Essentially, it means moving from ICT that has been procured separately by organisations as their own infrastructure, to a new model in which ICT is provided as a utility. This shift, known as ‘cloud computing’ has been likened to the changes in the electricity industry during the early part of the 20th century, when organisations moved from buying their own generators to procuring electricity as a utility.

The term ‘cloud computing’ comes from the way some large internet firms responded to rapid change and growth in their businesses. They separated the provision of standard ICT services needed to support customer-facing activities from the detail of the computer systems in use and their physical locations. In other words, the physical infrastructure the company owned became a pool, or cloud, of resources, available to the whole business rather than being linked to a specific location or process. Resources were typically located in purpose-built data centres, providing optimal levels of security and reliability.

As well as enabling business flexibility, the cloud approach also provided other benefits.

• It led to the development of new standards that made it possible to deploy business applications on any available computer system, rather than just those that had been uniquely configured.
• The unit costs of computer resources fell substantially: because workload was allocated flexibly and dynamically to any available computer system, the businesses saw much higher system utilisation levels.

It also led to further significant cost savings in both capital expenditure on computing resource, as each server is carrying a bigger workload, and operating expenditure, as things like energy consumption are reduced.

While the cloud model is sufficiently proven for there to be clear benefits to the public sector, it is still at an early stage of development. The main challenges to overcome include:

• delivering confidence in information assurance
• achieving guaranteed service levels, and
• determining the standards to adopt.

However, it is clear that there will be a major shift in the ICT industry to the cloud model, and that the benefits will be substantial. Government therefore cannot afford to miss out on these opportunities and, in the relatively short term, it will be possible to mitigate many of the risks through putting in place a private cloud for government – sharing resources across the public sector.

Establishing the Government Cloud will involve a major change in the way that ICT is procured and supplied, which will in turn require significant change in both ICT suppliers and public sector organisations. Cloud commercial models are in their infancy and we will need to support the industry in developing the business case for investing in this new model.

The Public Sector Network (PSN) will create a single, more secure telecommunications infrastructure. It opens up new opportunities for more efficient information sharing and will provide the operating environment for the Government Cloud.

The PSN will deliver at least £500 million savings per year and will allow voice and data services to be delivered seamlessly to any location via a private and secure version of the internet for the public sector.

The Public Service Network will be a single, holistic telecommunications infrastructure for the whole of the public sector. It would replace the existing approach where each public body designs, develops, installs and maintains its own network – an approach which has led to fragmented and expensive service delivery. As well as reducing operating costs and complexity, the Public Service Network opens up new opportunities for information sharing and increasing local and national participation.

The Public Service Network is expected to deliver annual savings worth at least £500 million by 2014. Public sector bodies will be able to use Public Service Network contracting vehicles for all their telecommunications needs, thereby significantly reducing the costs and timescales of procurement for the private and public sectors. It will create an innovative marketplace – where competitively priced, commoditised services can be obtained on a utility basis and suppliers compete to introduce innovation.

The Public Service Network Programme has been established to create the Public Service Network and a sustainable market for delivery of Public Service Network-based commodity services. It will:

• encourage the private sector to deliver Public Service Network services
• oversee the delivery of converged voice, video and data communications
• create a coherent network design to facilitate market delivery of interoperable services
• select the open, interoperable standards on which the network will work
• motivate public sector organisations to transition to Public Service Network services
• establish an effective governance structure to establish trust between all participants, and manage the development and application of standards, and
• support the transition of public sector organisations to the new approach.

The core network infrastructure of the Public Service Network will be:

• appropriately secure
• based on open standards
• interoperable – supporting the transition from legacy systems
• energy efficient, and
• highly cost competitive.

It will provide a number of core services, including:

Government Conveyance Network (GCN): this will be a composite ‘mesh’ of core industry networks used to interconnect supplier data networks and other services in terms of network transport. Any operator can participate, provided they meet stated capability and standards criteria

Service Information Monitor (SIM): this is a repository of data providing an appropriate end-to-end view of service information and service interdependency, underpinning service and performance management across services and suppliers. The Service Information Monitor will help tackle faults and service events rapidly, by ensuring that the most likely root cause or origin is identified earlier

Standardised common services: the Public Service Network will provide a range of important services including common user authentication standards, standards for intrusion detection services, secure file transfer, standardised email services, a domain name system, secure internet access and directory integration.

The aim of the Public Service Network Programme is to enable the delivery of shared services. This will both ensure and assure business continuity and continued improvement through infrastructure capability enhancement.

A core set of network and central services will be in place by the end of 2010, alongside a procurement directory.

The Public Service Network will speed up the move towards internet protocol-based voice services, using the networks already built for data services. There are currently over 4 million public sector voice lines, many of which could be replaced – giving significant scope for cost savings. Additionally, a ‘roaming’ capability that allows mobile handsets to operate over the Public Service Network whenever possible will achieve further cost savings.

This is not just about cost: it also reflects user behaviour. In today’s world, people are used to a much more mobile lifestyle and expect to be able to access their ICT services wherever and whenever is convenient – often outside the office environment. The Public Service Network will allow the delivery of services to any location and, through standards, will enable unified communications in terms of voice, video and collaboration capabilities.

By the end of 2012, all Government Secure Intranet (GSi) ‘family’ (including x.GSi, GCSX, PSI, GSE) and Managed Telephony System customers will migrate to Public Service Network-based services and 80% of public sector users will have started utilising the Public Service Network marketplace. Further development work will ensure that 95% of network services procurements are carried out through the Public Service Network services directory by the end of 2015, and that all government voice systems will move from the public service telephone network to delivery using voice over internet protocol by 2017.

As the telecommunications infrastructure becomes more embedded in our current way of life, the impact of disruption to that infrastructure becomes greater – whether through damage, technology failure or even coordinated cyber attacks. This may lead to the threat of severe degradation or even failure of key government functions and the Critical National Infrastructure as they come to rely more and more on standard commercial networks.

Therefore, an integral part of the Public Service Network Programme will focus on identifying how to ensure the continued availability, confidentiality and integrity of the required communications functions in the event of a failure within the commercial telecommunications networks.

1. The Public Sector Network Strategy: Rationalising and standardising to create a ‘network of networks’, enabling secure fixed and mobile communications for greater capability at a lower price.

2. The Government Cloud (G-Cloud): Rationalising the government ICT estate, using cloud computing to increase capability and security, reduce costs and accelerate deployment speeds.

3. The Data Centre Strategy: Rationalising data centres to reduce costs while increasing resilience and capability.

4. The Government Applications Store (G-AS): Enabling faster procurement, greater innovation, higher speed to deliver outcomes and reduced costs.

5. Shared services, moving systems to the Government Cloud: Continually moving to shared services delivered through the Government Cloud for common activities.

6. The Common Desktop Strategy: Simplifying and standardising desktop designs using common models to enhance interoperability and deliver greater capability at a lower price.

7. Architecture and standards: Creating an environment that enables many suppliers to work together, cooperate and interoperate in a secure, seamless and cost-efficient way.

8. The Open Source, Open Standards and Reuse Strategy: Levelling the playing field for procurement, enabling greater reuse of existing tools, fewer procurement exercises and enhanced innovation – all at a lower cost.

9. The Greening Government ICT Strategy: Delivering sustainable, more efficient ICT at a lower price.

10. Information Security and Assurance Strategy: Protecting data (citizen and business) from harm – whether accidental or malicious.

11. Professionalising IT-enabled change: Building capable people and capable organisations with the capacity to deliver and manage fit for purpose IT-enabled projects and services.

12. Reliable project delivery: Using portfolio management and active benefits management to ensure that government undertakes the right projects in the right ways.

13. Supply management: Working together to gain maximum value from suppliers – both for individual organisations and collectively across the public sector.

14. International alignment and coordination: Ensuring that international treaties and directives reflect UK national requirements and that the UK remains at the forefront of delivery.

It consists of 14 strands of delivery, each of which is covered in more detail in the following sections.

The CIO Council has agreed an integrated governance structure that combines expertise from central government, local government and the wider public sector as well as both technical and commercial roles. This will provide all public sector bodies with the opportunity to shape implementation of the ICT Strategy, and ensure that solutions never lose sight of the need for improved public services as well as increased efficiency. It will also mean that local requirements and the need for flexibility are not overtaken by a ‘one size fits all’ approach that will negatively impact service quality.

In order for the strategy to fully deliver its potential, the Cabinet Office, on behalf of the CIO Council, will work closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government and its partners across central and local government to promote and embed the principles and approaches of the ICT Strategy throughout the wider public sector. This will mean working initially with the Local CIO Council and the Local Government Delivery Council to develop a shared vision of locally delivered digital public services, enabled by ICT, which will help local authorities and their partners to align with the Government’s ICT Strategy. The Cabinet Office will also work with devolved administrations to similarly develop a shared vision for their countries that aligns with the Government ICT Strategy.

Professionalising IT-enabled change: Increasing the capability of our staff will not only improve the performance of our IT, it will also reduce the amount the public sector spends on ICT consultants and contractors by some 50% by 2020. The Government IT Profession provides a focal point for increasing the professionalism of IT delivery within the public sector. The Government IT Profession skills and competency framework is now being used for recruitment, training and performance management of IT professionals. The launch of the Technology in Business Fast Stream has been extremely successful and is now the preferred route for graduate recruitment into government IT.

Reliable project delivery: Reliable project delivery is a cross-government approach that was introduced in response to perceptions of significant project failure in the public sector. It seeks to provide a clear understanding of issues and to address areas of poor delivery. The Cabinet Office works closely with the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) to identify those major programmes and projects that have a high complexity and associated high delivery risk, and take a more proactive role in managing them and overseeing progress. This more structured approach to skills matching, reporting and management of portfolios will be a key enabler for consistent high delivery of public sector programmes and projects.

Supply management: Approximately 65% of government ICT is outsourced to the private sector. While this brings capable resources and efficiency, government has not always managed these relationships effectively. The supply management strand builds on the work already undertaken by the CIO Council, OGC and private sector partners to deliver a step change in the efficiency and effectiveness of outsourced government ICT. This will incorporate delivery of the ICT procurement strategy for government, which will provide the procurement vehicles to enable implementation of this ICT Strategy.

International alignment and coordination: ICT does not stop at international borders and the UK public sector operates in over 145 countries. A key element of this strategy, therefore, is to ensure alignment and compliance with EU agreements, decisions and treaties to support international working. The Cabinet Office also regularly interacts with ICT peers from the USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to share best practice and help solve common problems. This approach ensures that we continue to exploit technology to its full effect in our efforts to deliver constantly improving services.

Architecture and standards: The technical architecture and standards work underpins all elements of the ICT Strategy. This will assure security, interoperability and common data standards, which will facilitate transition of supplier or product, as well as data sharing and the joining up of public services.

Open Source, Open Standards, Reuse: Traditionally, the public sector has relied on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software or bespoke developments from global providers. This restricts the ability of the public sector to reuse solutions, reduces flexibility to manage assets efficiently and prevents government organisations from switching suppliers. The Open Source, Open Standards, Reuse Strategy provides government’s approach to open source alternatives that meet public sector requirements. Government already commits to using only open standards for documentation. The ICT Strategy will build capability within the public sector to increase the amount of open source code and software in use and to make it available for reuse elsewhere.

Greening Government ICT: ICT globally emits comparable levels of carbon to the aviation industry, and emissions continue to grow. Recognising this, the Greening Government ICT Strategy set two challenging targets which support delivery of mandatory SOGE (Sustainability on the Government Estate) targets: –– government ICT will be carbon neutral by 2012, and –– carbon neutral across its lifecycle by 2020. The Greening Government ICT Strategy is embedded in all elements of the ICT Strategy and will deliver significant cash savings from smarter working practices as well as reduced energy consumption, alongside lower carbon emissions.

Information security and assurance: Data losses within the public sector have rightly raised the profile of information assurance. However, data sharing is an essential element of joining up services and providing personalisation. This means that there must be effective, proportionate management of information risk. The National Information Assurance Strategy cuts across all elements of this ICT Strategy and is embedded within all strands. By developing the secure infrastructure, as outlined above, the ICT Strategy provides a trusted platform that will allow public sector bodies to match their information risk appetite with their information risk exposure: users of the infrastructure will be able to take information assurance for granted without feeling that their effectiveness has been compromised.

The Public Sector Network: A single holistic telecommunications infrastructure that will deliver converged voice and data communications. The Public Sector Network will deliver at least £500 million savings per year ((Public Sector Network business case, 2009 – assumes 80% uptake as per section 4.1)) by 2014.

The Government Cloud (G-Cloud): A government cloud infrastructure that enables public bodies to select and host ICT services from a secure, resilient and cost-effective shared environment. Multiple services will be available from multiple suppliers, which will make it quicker and cheaper for public sector bodies to switch suppliers if they face service or delivery issues. The Government Cloud is a key enabler of the £3.2 billion savings per year outlined in the Operational Efficiency Programme as it provides a single access point for ICT services, applications and assets.

Data centre rationalisation: A programme of data centre consolidation that will deliver large cross-government economies of scale, meet environmental and sustainability targets and provide secure, resilient services. Aligned with development of the Government Cloud, this programme will reduce the number of data centres in use from the current many hundreds to provisionally between 10 and 12 highly resilient, secure data centres. Not only will this reduce cooling and power consumption by up to 75% on current infrastructure, it will also reduce IT infrastructure costs by up to £300 million per year. ((Strategic Supply Board Study, September 2009))

Government Applications Store (G-AS): A new gateway to enable sharing and reuse of online business applications, services and components across the public sector. Rather than create bespoke solutions each time a requirement is identified, reuse will become the norm, with anticipated savings of over £500 million per year. ((Strategic Supply Board Study, September 2009))

Shared services: An ongoing commitment to developing the shared services culture that has been building both within and between departments in recent years for finance, human resources and procurement services. This approach has saved money and headcount: over 80% of civil servants are now supported by a shared service solution. By 2020, shared services will be provided via the Government Applications Store and Government Cloud to further exploit opportunities.

Desktop services: A new set of common designs for desktop services across the public sector. While all public sector bodies need to provide their staff with access to functions such as email, word processing, spreadsheets and internet browsing, historically each public sector organisation has separately specified, built and run its desktop service – creating additional cost and complexity. Instead, there will be a set of common desktop designs which conform to information assurance and sustainability requirements. All suppliers will be required to deliver common designs and shared services at the lowest price available. A £100 saving in operating cost per public sector desktop per year would yield an immediate saving of £400 million ((Strategic Supply Board Study 2005)) per year if all public sector bodies adopted best practice.

The time is now right for the public sector to take a fresh approach to its ICT and to review how it can better exploit ICT services and systems to enable organisations to meet the challenges they face.

This strategy addresses these through focusing on:

• a common infrastructure
• common standards, and
• common capabilities.

• improving public service delivery
• improving access to public services, and
• increasing the efficiency of public service delivery.

Each department, local authority or other public body also has its own business strategy to deliver specific services and commitments. The ICT Strategy provides a standardised, flexible and efficient ICT infrastructure to enable delivery of these individual business objectives. It provides public servants with the confidence that they can deliver their objectives effectively and securely in a sustainable manner. Above all, it reduces inefficiency, replication of systems and duplication of effort.

The strategy will also transform ICT procurement, giving Accounting Officers the confidence that they can use services available across the public sector which have already met procurement legal requirements and provide value for money to their business. This will be assured through the supply management strand (section 4.13), which covers pan-government procurement of ICT products and solutions.

The governance structure, meanwhile, ensures that information assurance (IA) requirements are incorporated into all strands of the strategy.

This will provide assurance to Senior Information Risk Owners (SIROs) and Departmental Security Officers (DSOs) that solutions meet mandatory public sector information assurance and security requirements. Most importantly, the strategy will enable delivery of pan-government objectives, while maintaining local control over delivery and personalisation for services that are unique to those organisations.

For example, citizens and businesses are likely to notice an increase in the use of interactive tools, providing opportunities for empowerment and participation, promoting transparency and improving services. Internally, the use of new technology will enable different business models to be developed for the procurement, use and reuse of applications. Organisations will be able to take advantage of a cross-public sector software licence that is assigned to the Crown and transferable across the public sector, adopting a ‘pay as you go’ model and paying only for consumption or use of services.

In the longer term, which in ICT terms means between 2015 and 2020, other technologies will begin to play a role. Location-aware services and developing technologies that enable more energy-efficient operations are likely to play a large part in shaping government’s future ICT infrastructure, assets and processes. Some technology developments will be more applicable within certain sectors than others. For example, developments in human-computer interaction will enable greater penetration of technology in the clinical (health) environment; removing the need to use a keyboard or pointing device will bring a step change in the use of ICT in healthcare settings.

This strategy provides the flexibility for new technology developments and sector-specific requirements to be incorporated as they arise.

As well as being the largest employer of IT professionals in the UK, the public sector is also a significant customer to ICT vendors. The public sector spends approximately £16 billion per year on technology, which accounts for 4.6% of overall public sector expenditure (as detailed in the recent independent benchmarking undertaken by the Operational Efficiency Programme).

This investment is making a significant difference to productivity levels: half of Europe’s productivity gains in the last few years have been attributed to ICT investment, and the gross value add per ICT job is £81,400, some 2.5 times higher than the UK average. This may be attributed to the high-level skill set of those employed within ICT: 55% of IT professionals are qualified to at least Level 4, nearly double that of the UK working population.

The UK public sector has made real progress in responding to this increased demand, changing processes for interacting with government but also changing the law to recognise the clear shift to an online world.

• Thanks to changes in business legislation, companies can now send information to shareholders – such as their annual report – by email rather than hard copy. Some 75% of firms have taken this option, reducing printing costs and the impact on the environment.
• The Department for Work and Pensions has transformed its operations through ICT. In 2008, it issued 3,000 State Pension forecasts electronically every working day, while employers were able to submit 15,000 job vacancies online each day. This in turn freed up staff to focus on serving customers: advisers conducted 45,000 customer interviews each day, leading to around 5,000 people finding work every day.
• More than 90% of businesses now incorporate with Companies House electronically, and over 85% submit their annual returns online. In 2007/08, this equated to 3.1 million online transactions.
• The Highways Agency now provides traffic information via a 24-hour automated telephone service, its website and alerts to registered mobile phones.

But while technology has played a key role in improved service delivery, this has been matched by a greater understanding of its potential. Expectations have changed, as have demands – and these changes have made it easier for government not only to carry out its dayto- day business but also to help those who most need help. Technology can be used to provide access to citizens who might otherwise be excluded from services delivered using traditional methods – for example, using websites to inform teenagers/children about the dangers of drugs (FRANK – talktofrank.com), or providing online learning for young people excluded from mainstream education through NotSchool.net. ((NotSchool.net is a national project, originally commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. It provides alternative education provision for young people who cannot cope with traditional schooling, home schooling or other specialist units (source: The Economic Case for Digital Inclusion, PWC 2009).))

While the UK is not alone in its successful embrace of ICT, we are one of the leaders in using technology in the public sector. Delivery of citizen-based services ((A citizen-based service is a service specifically focused on citizens rather than businesses or other public service recipients.)) is benchmarked by the European Commission approximately every 18 months. Between 2004 and 2009, the rate of growth in the percentage of fully online services ((A ‘fully online’ service is defined by the EU as one that enables two-way interaction between government and the citizen. No survey was undertaken by the EU in 2005 or 2008. Measures are taken from a sample of government services.)) delivered across the UK has exceeded the European Union (EU) average. Today, 100% of citizen-based services in the UK are fully online, compared with the EU average of just 71%.

The EU also measures the overall development of online services, towards the ultimate goal of a proactive automated service. Against these criteria, by 2009 the UK had reached 94% sophistication compared with the EU average of 83% (see chart opposite), ensuring that most citizens and businesses can make use of services online in addition to other routes.

The newly appointed Government Chief Information Officer (CIO) drove implementation of the strategy through the CIO Council (CIOC). As the Transformational Government annual reports ((See www.cabinetoffice/c10/transformational_government.aspx for the annual reports from 2006, 2007 and 2008.)) have highlighted, the strategy has been delivered successfully and is now widely copied around the world. Substantial progress has been made in its implementation and onward development.

Now, the CIO Council has developed a refreshed ICT Strategy for Government, building on previous policy announcements to deliver a high-quality ICT infrastructure. This is a substantial strategy for government. Transforming services against a backdrop of economic pressure requires leadership and a fundamental change in the way we specify, procure and deliver ICT to the public sector. It provides a common approach to ICT that maintains local accountability and control over implementation to meet unique delivery and business requirements.

The need to continue to transform public services and to use ICT to enable transformation of the way the public sector runs and operates has become more pressing. As the UK public sector has responded to increased and increasing demand within this complex technology arena, it has built an ICT infrastructure that in many instances duplicates solutions across different areas of government. The ICT Strategy will ensure that this infrastructure now goes through a process of standardisation and simplification, to create a common infrastructure designed to enable local delivery suited to local needs. Delivery will increasingly be through partnerships between the public, private and third sectors, and this strategy focuses on providing the greater interoperability necessary to underpin this model.

The strategy applies to all of the UK public sector, whether central government, local government, wider public sector or devolved administrations. It is aligned with the Transformational Government and Digital Britain ((Department for Business, Innovation and Skills/Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2009) Digital Britain: Final Report)) strategies, the National Information Assurance Strategy, the Cyber Security Strategy, ((Cabinet Office (2009) Cyber Security Strategy of the United Kingdom: safety, security and resilience in cyber space)) Building Britain’s Future, ((HM Government (2009) Building Britain’s Future)) Excellence and fairness, ((Cabinet Office (2008) Excellence and fairness: Achieving world class public services)) the Operational Efficiency Programme ((HM Treasury (2009) Operational Efficiency Programme)) (OEP) and the recommendations of the Power of Information Task Force.

Today, of course, much has changed. Modern life runs on technology, and government is no different. From computerised payment of benefits and tax credits which saves £1 billion in administration costs to online tax returns being processed at 10 per second, from broadband in all secondary schools to the hundreds of millions of X-rays and images that have been digitised in our hospitals, technology is being used to make public services more effective and more efficient.

We have achieved much and there is always more we can do. We’re dedicated to providing high- quality public services. Now we’re moving on to the next stage, maintaining those high standards while making the systems that underpin them more efficient so that we maximise the value of every penny we receive from the taxpayer.

We need to remove unnecessary overlaps between departments and avoid costly duplication of technology. We need to standardise, simplify and move to a more shared and open world, ensuring that we continue to deliver local solutions to local needs at a price we can all afford.

Every year, the public sector spends some £16 billion on information and communication technology (ICT); this strategy sets out our approach to reduce this, over the life of the strategy, in line with our commitments in the Operational Efficiency Programme – meaning annual savings in the region of £3.2 billion.

But we shouldn’t just think about the financial cost of technology – there is also the environmental cost. ICT is one of the causes of climate change, with worldwide computing industry emissions equalling those of the airline industry. We’ve already led the world by adopting an environmentally friendly approach to ICT and our commitment to greener technology runs through this strategy, helping us to build a more sustainable future.

We have already used technology to revolutionise public services and this innovation will continue. But we also need to adapt to the changing world and changing circumstances. We need to make the way government works smarter, cheaper and greener, and this strategy sets out how we’ll use technology to achieve just that.

Angela Smith, Minister of State for the Cabinet Office

http://www.netvibes.com/cabinetoffice#Open_Source.

If you write about this online, please use the tag #ukgovOSS to help us find your comment.

Action 1: Clarity in procurement: The CIO Council, with the Office for Government Commerce, will develop clear and open guidance for ensuring that open source and proprietary products are considered equally and systematically for value for money.  This guidance will be published and will include:

(a) The specification and evaluation of compliance with open standards and of potential for re-use across the public sector.

(b) A standard form of words for Statements of Requirements to state positively that the Government’s policy is to consider open source solutions on their merits according to total lifetime cost of ownership.

(c) Authoritative advice for public sector purchasers to the particular licensing, warranty and indemnity issues associated with open source.

(d) Clear guidance that where public sector organisations have procured ‘perpetual licences’ from proprietary vendors, a shadow licence cost will need to be applied to the cost of the licences.  Where an agreement has been reached on behalf of the Crown, this price will be applied as the shadow cost.  Where no agreement has been reached on behalf of the Crown, the shadow cost will be the non-discounted list price of that product from the vendor.

Action 2: Increasing capability within Government: The CIO Council and the OGC, working with industry and drawing on best practice from other countries, will institute a programme of education and capability-building for the Government IT and Procurement professions on the skills needed to evaluate and make the best use of open source solutions.  The aim will be to raise the level of awareness, skills and confidence in the professions in the different licensing, support, commercial and cost models associated with open source solutions.

Action 3: Re-use as a practical principle: Learning from others is a key aspect of the CIO Council’s operating principles.  Where open source solutions are evaluated and approved by one part of Government, that evaluation should not be repeated but should be shared.   To support this, Departments will keep and share records of their approval and use of open source, including open source components within composite solutions.  Where possible and practical we will ensure that this knowledge and the availability of these systems are available in the proposed Government Applications Store.

Action 4: Maturity and sustainability: Open source software covers a multitude of products.  Given the nature of Government work, a degree of confidence that a product is mature, that the code base is secure, that the project itself is sustainable is needed.  The CIO Council will regularly assess products for maturity and recommend a list of products and implementations that meet agreed criteria.

Action 5: Supplier Challenge: Building on the actions above, Government Departments will challenge their suppliers to demonstrate that they have capability in open source and that open source products have been actively considered in whole or as part of the business solution which they are proposing.  Where no overall open source solution is available suppliers will be expected to provide evidence that they have considered the use of open source products within the overall solution to optimise the cost of ownership.  Particular scrutiny will be directed where mature open source products exist and have already been used elsewhere in government.  Suppliers putting forward non-open source products will be asked to provide evidence that they have carefully considered open source alternatives and to explain why they have been rejected. If they are unable to provide evidence of fair consideration of open source solutions, their bid will be deemed non-compliant with government policy and the proposal is likely to be automatically be delisted from the procurement.

Action 6: International examples and policies, and keeping up to date with developments: The UK Government will actively seek examples from other countries and sectors to encourage the development of product knowledge and better to challenge suppliers.  The UK will actively engage in the development of policies across the EU and internationally.

Action 7: Industry/Government joint working: The CIO Council will work with systems integrators and software suppliers to open up their solutions to meet open standards, to include open source, and to facilitate re-use.  The Government will encourage and facilitate closer links between open source providers (including organisations which provide support for open source) and system integrators.  The Government will share with industry information about current deployments of open source and testing already performed so that knowledge can be re-used.

Action 8: Open Standards: The Government will specify requirements by reference to open standards and require compliance with open standards in solutions where feasible.  It will support the use of HTML(ISO/IEC 15445:2000), Open Document Format (ISO/IEC 26300:2006) as well as emerging open versions of previously proprietary standards (eg ISO 320000-1:2008 (“PDF”) and ISO/IEC 29500 (“Office Open XML formats”).  It will work to ensure that government information is available in open formats, and it will make this a required standard for government websites.  

Action 9: Open Source techniques and re-use within Government, and appropriate release of code: Government purchasers will use a standard OGC-approved OJEU clause to make clear that solutions are purchased on the basis that they may be re-used elsewhere in the public sector.  Solutions and licences will have transferability across the public sector and into cloud based service environments.  The OGC Standard Contract Clauses will contain a clause to ensure that the government secures full rights to bespoke software code or customisations of commercial off the shelf products it procures, and that it is clear that these rights cover re-use anywhere else in the public sector and the ability to release the code on an open-source basis.  Where appropriate, general purpose software developed by or for government will be released on an open source basis.

Action 10: Communication, Consultation and Review: Government will communicate this policy and its associated actions widely and will expand it as necessary.  It will engage with the Open Source community and actively encourage projects that might, in due course, develop into ‘Government Class’ products.  It will keep the policy and progress on the actions under review, and report on progress publicly.

Open Source Software

(1) The Government will actively and fairly consider open source solutions alongside proprietary ones in making procurement decisions.

(2) Procurement decisions will be made on the basis on the best value for money solution to the business requirement, taking account of total lifetime cost of ownership of the solution, including exit and transition costs, after ensuring that solutions fulfil minimum and essential capability, security, scalability, transferability, support and manageability requirements.  Where a ‘perpetual licence’ has previously been purchased from a proprietary vendor (and therefore often giving the appearance of a zero cost to a project), a shadow licence cost shall be applied to ensure a fair comparison of total cost of ownership.  The shadow licence cost will be equivalent to the published list price of the product (no discounts can be factored in), or the price the public sector pays overall on a ‘crown’ deal.

(3) The Government will expect those putting forward IT solutions to develop where necessary a suitable mix of open source and proprietary products to ensure that the best possible overall solution can be considered.  Vendors will be required to provide evidence of this during a procurement exercise.  Where no evidence exists in a bid that full consideration has been given to open source products, the bid will be considered non compliant and is likely to be removed from the tender process.

(4) Where there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products, open source will be selected on the basis of its additional inherent flexibility.

Non-Open Source Software

(5) The Government will, wherever possible, avoid becoming locked in to proprietary software.  In particular it will take exit, rebid and rebuild costs into account in procurement decisions and will require those proposing proprietary software to specify how exit would be achieved.

(6) Where non open source products need to be purchased, Government will expect licences to be available for all public sector use and for licences already purchased to be transferable within the public sector – including into cloud based service environments – without further cost or limitation.   The Government will where appropriate seek pan-government agreements with software suppliers which ensure that government is treated as a single entity for the purposes of volume discounts and transferability of licences.

Open Standards

(7) The Government will use open standards in its procurement specifications and require solutions to comply with open standards.  The Government will support the development of open standards and specifications.

Re-Use

(8) The Government will look to secure full rights to bespoke software code or customisations of commercial off the shelf products it procures, so as to enable straightforward re-use elsewhere in the public sector.  Where appropriate, general purpose software developed for government will be released on an open source basis.

(9) Where the public sector already owns a system, design or architecture the Government will expect it to be reused and that commercial arrangements will recognise this.  Where new development is proposed, suppliers will be required to warrant that they have not developed or produced something comparable, in whole or in part, for the public sector in the past, or where they have, to show how this is reflected in reduced costs, risks and timescale.

(10) When suppliers are proposing a third party product there should be full price transparency.  If there is a pan-Government agreement there should be the option to source through this where doing so would maximise overall public sector value.  The Government will expect to be charged only the cost the supplier incurs unless the supplier can clearly and transparently provide evidence of the additional value created.

The key objectives will be to:

(1) Ensure that the Government adopts open standards and uses these to communicate with the citizens and businesses that have adopted open source solutions.

(2) Ensure that proper consideration of open source solutions is provided in procurement activity, and where they deliver best value for money (taking into account other advantages, such as re-use and flexibility) are selected for Government business solutions.

(3) Strengthen the skills, experience and capabilities within Government and in its suppliers to use open source to greatest advantage.

(4) Embed an ‘open source’ culture of sharing, re-use and collaborative development across Government and its suppliers, building on the re-use policies and processes already agreed within the CIO Council, and in doing so seek to stimulate innovation, reduce cost and risk,  and improve speed to market.

(5) Ensure that there are no procedural barriers to the adoption of open source products within government, paying particular regard to the different business models and supply chain relationships involved.

(6) Ensure that systems integrators and proprietary software suppliers demonstrate the same flexibility and ability to re-use their solutions and products as is inherent in open source.

(1) Over 25% of secondary schools use the Linux operating system on at least one computer.

(2) The NHS “Spine” uses an open-sourced operating system meaning that 35% of NHS organisations (300,000 users) are supported on Linux infrastructure.

(3) Birmingham City Council has been rolling out open source software across their library services since 2005.  All staff and public PCs in their library services now have a mixture of open source and proprietary software.

2. The software and wider IT marketplace have also developed to make Open Source products more competitive and easier to include in enterprise business solutions.  For instance:

• Robust and sustainable enterprise-class business models for the implementation and support of open source solutions have emerged.

• An increasing number of major players in the IT industry are actively engaged with open source and are supporting the use of open standards.

• Large enterprises, including Government departments, have started routinely to use open source components within large, mission-critical systems; as a consequence the different commercial, cost, licensing and risk models are better understood among enterprise CIOs.

3. There have also been developments in the approach to Government IT which affect the approach to Open Source:

The creation of the Government IT profession and the open recruitment of technology professionals into government has re-established skills and cultures for a more open challenge to suppliers about technology solutions.

The establishment of the CIO Council has led to more openness and exchange of information about good IT solutions and experience within Government.  There is greater willingness and mature service frameworks to re-use more of the Government’s existing IT assets.   Open Source and Open Standards are able to make an important contribution to making this happen.

The agreement to the Cross Government Enterprise Architecture framework and its acceptance by the Government’s major IT suppliers has enabled the disaggregation of ‘closed’ business solutions into component requirements.  This which allows sharing and re-using of common components between different lines of business.

The licensing policies of software suppliers, particularly where government is not treated as a single entity, and the lack of cost transparency in the supply chain, have created issues in the progress towards greater cost reduction and joining-up of services across government.

Some major departments have now established ‘ecosystems’ which allow the use of a wider range of IT suppliers within an overall service provision partnership.

The techniques and cultures of open source have been adopted in other parts of Government business, for instance in the public consultation on the DIUS Science White Paper and the work of the Cabinet Office’s Power of Information Task Force.

4. This Strategy does not represent a wholesale change to the Open Source Open Standards Reuse Strategy published in February 2009.  It has been updated to take account of comments posted on www.writetoreply.org following republication of the strategy on the site as a commentable document.  The key changes to policy are:

We will require our suppliers to provide evidence of consideration of open source solutions during procurement exercises – if this evidence is not provided, bidders are likely to be disqualified from the procurement.

Where a ‘perpetual licence’ has been purchased from a proprietary supplier (which gives the appearance of zero cost to that project), we will require procurement teams to apply a ‘shadow’ licence price to ensure a fair price comparison of total cost of ownership.  We have also defined the shadow licence cost as either:

(1) the list price of that licence from the supplier with no discounts applied, or

(2) the public sector price that has been agreed through a ‘Crown’ agreement.

We have clarified that we expect all software licences to be purchased on the basis of reuse across the public sector, regardless of the service environment it is operating within.  This means that when we launch the Government Cloud, there will be no additional cost to the public sector of transferring licences into the Cloud.

But over the past few years, the people have begun to fight back.  Individuals, working together over the internet, can create products that rival and sometimes beat those of giant corporations.  The age of Open Source is dawning and Government has embraced it, becoming more innovative, agile and cost-effective.

We have long had the policy, first published in 2004 and updated in February 2009 that Government should seek to use Open Source where it gave the best value for money to the taxpayer in delivering public services. While we have always respected those who think that governments should favour Open Source on principle, we have always tempered our approach to guarantee best value for the taxpayer.

Often, Open Source is best – in our web services, in the NHS and in other vital public services.   But we need to increase the pace and drive the principles of Open Source Open Standards and Reuse through all ICT enabled public services

We want to share and re-use existing purchases across the public sector – not just to avoid paying twice, but to reduce risks and to drive common, joined up solutions to the common needs of government.

We want to encourage innovation – inside Government by encouraging open source thinking, and outside by helping to develop a vibrant market. The IT industry and the wider economy will benefit from the information we generate and the software we develop.

Since our last open source strategy was published in February 2009 we have been listening closely to the market and now this refresh addresses a number of the issues raised by experts in this field.

Our refreshed open source strategy addresses these key points and sets out what we need to do to take full advantage of the benefits of open source, open standards and reuse.

Angela Smith, Minister of State for the Cabinet Office

One easy way of tracking this is to use bit.ly. If you get yourself a bit.ly account, you’ll find it also comes with an API key (you can find it on your bit.ly account page). This can be used in some Twitter clients (I use Tweetdeck) to generate a short URL that can be tied back to your bit.ly account. (Configure Tweetdeck by going to Settings, and then looking for the Services tab, where you’ll find a slot to enter your bit.ly API key.)

So what sorts of stats do you get back? Summary ones like these:

and these:

and more useful conversation tracking stats at the link level, like this:

You’ll notice for this link that several bit.ly URIs have been minted for the same web page (the total number of clicks exceeds the number of clicks from my link). So I can track the extent to which the bit.ly link I generated drove traffic, either directly from my tweet or other folk retweeting the link (or sharing it on without referencing @psychemedia back), or from other folk who generated a shortened link to the same post.

Let’s see who those people might be, in the context of the conversations surrounding this bit.ly shortened link (and other bit.ly variants that resolve to the same page):

So what’s all this good for? A couple of things spring to mind:

1) tracking conversation around OUseful.info posts that are reference the post via a bit.ly short link;

2) monitoring the extent to which I have managed to amplify a post, by virtue of the number of people who have clicked on it;

3) monitoring the extent to which other people have in turn amplified the bit.ly link I minted;

4) identifying other conversations around the same linked to web page via other bit.ly URIs that resolve to the same web page.

I can’t think why I didn’t sign up to bit.ly sooner?

PS note to self – how might we make use of this in a WriteToReply context?

PPS could this info be used as part of a “link community” tracker, cf. hashtag communities?

I’d noticed the call when it came out too via some of the press coverage it raised, but being offline over the holiday couldn’t dig much further.

A full copy of the original press release appears to have been posted but a more detailed brief is still lacking (maybe they should have posted a wiki to let the crowds develop the brief? – it seems like we’ll have to wait till after the election – and presumably a Tory victory? – before that appears, if this quote is anything to go by: “the specifications that we will be publishing alongside the official opening of the competition following the election”

As to the vague mention of “an online platform that enables large scale collaboration”, I’m not sure what that means either, in several different senses?

Technically, would a WordPress extension or WordPress/Mediawiki configuration count, that could be deployed across departments, local councils and/or initiatives, maybe automatically generating related links between then? Or “to win” would a hosted 1-click WPMU installation that could launch a pre-extended/pre-configured site be the sort of submission that’s required?

Benefits wise, what would a successful community collaboration result in? A popular idea floating to the top of a voting pile (but how would that feed into the policy development or consultation process?) A flexible data powered platform (like Geocommons or Many Eyes) that provided people with access to data that could inform, support or deny the ideas that are put forward on a suggestions part of the platform? (An loosely coupled system of independent apps might suit that approach better? In which case, might a particular orchestration of independent systems/APIs qualify as a prizewinning entry, (though it would probably require a shiny interface to win!;-)

One of the things we tried (albeit largely unsuccessfully) around the Digital Britain Interim Report was the Fake Report on a wiki Wikipedia has shown that it is possible to collaboratively author documents, with each wiki content page showing a consensus NPOV view (sometimes!) and the related Talk page capturing elements of the discussion and rationale for why the content page is as it is. It may be that for developing policy documents, this diptych/dual view approach would capture a an argument in a more convenient way than a list of comments?

(One thing I’d like to explore is whether a Commentpress style theme could be used to pull wiki talk elements in to a wiki page as comments/discussion at a section level. As well as working for policy document formulation, a similar approach might also be useful as an authoring tool for closed communities, such as standards authoring (e.g. BSI Drafts ) or drafting Government bills.)

Votes are another way of compressing opinion, as is sentiment analysis, in order to summarise a large body of comment in order for it to be usable by the poor sod charged with the task of taking on board the opinions of the masses!

Or maybe you need a platform that can offer something to, and draw from, a wide range of visitor types: folk who might cast a vote but not comment, or comment but engage in discussion?

PS This reminds me of an essay I never did gt round to writing about the structure and role of state sponsored grand challenges and prize challenges in driving innovation in a particular direction (notes)

PPS in the short term, how about a comment platform for party manifestos as and when they appear, maybe on, I dunno, WriteToReply?

In 2004, Google started a mass digitisation programme of books in the collections of several libraries and protected by U.S. copyright law. In response to this, several authors and publishers brought a lawsuit against Google, claiming that its digitisation activities without permission infringed their copyright. Google subsequently argued that its digitisation programme and display of a few lines of these books is permitted under the U.S. copyright law’s doctrine of “fair use.” Instead of resolving this legal dispute, Google and representatives of rights owners and publishers have come to an agreement.

UPDATE: The New York Times has reported that as of 24/09/09,  the Settlement was officially withdrawn from the New York court where it was being decided. Reasons for the withdrawal include objections from the US competition authorities and concerns raised at a congressional hearing on 10 September (PDF)

Whilst the settlement may be withdrawn from the time being, issues that it has raised may be reinvigorated in the future, therefore JISC continues to be very keen to gather views from the HE/FE community.

The Google Book Settlement

The Google Book Settlement applies to US published works including books, inserts that are contained in books, government works and public domain books, published on or before 5^th January 2009. The settlement does not include works published after this date. It will provide a route for copyright owners of out-of-print books to opt out of the settlement and submit claims to Google, via the Book Rights Registry (BRR).  The BRR is part of this settlement and will be established by Google to distribute its revenues, finding rights holders, settling rights disputes and, where authorised by the rights-holder, exploiting third party rights, including works for which the rights holders are unknown or cannot be traced “orphan works”. Works which are still in print will require copyright holders to opt in. The settlement will also allow Google to sell advertisements and digital versions of these books, while paying royalties of 63% to copyright owners as well as a share of revenue collected from advertising via the BRR.

In detail, the settlement, aimed at US users, allows Google to offer four primary services:

1. Previews

All US users will be able to search Google’s entire search database for digitised books free, and view up to 20% of text from out-of-print books. (There are special rules for special categories e.g. fiction vs. non-fiction.).

2. Consumer purchases

Consumers may buy perpetual online access to the full text of out-of-print books. In-print books require that the copyright owner “opt in”.

3. Institutional subscriptions

Users within an institution may view the full text of all the books in the Institutional Subscription Database (ISD), which will include all the books in the in-copyright but out-of-print category.

4. Free Public Access Service

Google may provide Free Public Access Service to not-for-profit Higher Education Institutions and Public libraries on specified conditions. In the case of each Public Library, no more than one terminal per library building.

In a recent development, Google has announced that it will be sharing its online collection of out-of-print works with other books re-sellers and Amazon who will be able to provide access to these works online.

More information about the settlement can be found on the Google Book Settlement website.

An explanation guide [PDF] to the issues for libraries has been provided by OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) together with links to further information.

There are other forums for discussion on the Settlement. The Public Index is a project of the Public-Interest Book Search Initiative and the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School. It is a discussion site dedicated to the Google Book Search lawsuit and settlement.

Implications for Researchers and Academics

A number of organisations and umbrella organisations in the US and internationally have produced statements about the Google Book settlement and its potential implications for researchers and academics, including raising concerns about territory, privacy and censorship issues.  The following points (PDF) have been made by EBLIDA European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations, supported by LIBER and IFLA (International Federation of Library Institutions and Associations).

Territoriality: EBLIDA has raised concerns about the territorial limits of the settlement. Because this settlement is only valid under US law and therefore applicable only within the US, Europeans will not be able to access the full-text view of any texts, only the display and snippets views. This means that UK researchers will be at a disadvantage to their US colleagues in not being able to view full text works nor the complete database of scanned books.

Control of information by one corporate entity: It is estimated that the Google digitisation programme may amount to over 30 million books. The scale of this programme and Google’s 5-year lead means that other projects will find it difficult to mount competitive digitisation programmes. This means that a large proportion of the world’s heritage of books in digital format and associated metadata will be under the control of a single US corporate entity.

Long-term preservation: There do not appear to be any provisions for the long term preservation of the entire database of digital files of all the books nor any stipulations referring to the legal deposit of this database in the instance that Google no longer wishes to preserve it.

Pricing policy: The economic terms for the Institutional Subscriptions Database will be based upon the realisation of revenue at market rates, and the realisation of broad access by the public, including institutions of higher education. It is crucial at broad access is given full consideration in this settlement to ensure that the beneficial societal effects of the project are realised.

Censorship: According to the settlement, Google may exclude 15 % of scanned books in copyright, but out-of-print from the database. This may amount to the exclusion of 1 million books. Political pressure exerted on Google may result in books being removed from the database. Such exclusions must be published together with the reasons for their exclusion.

Privacy: Some of the services offered imply that Google will collect and retain information of users’ activities. However, the Settlement does not specify how users’ privacy will be protected and in particular how that data may then be used.

Research: The database containing the digital copies of the scanned books represents a unique corpus for computational analysis and research. Google and two institutions may host this Research Corpus for purposes of “non-consumptive research” by “qualified users”. (“Non-consumpti­ve” means that the text is not accessed for display or reading.) The host site has the authority to decide whether a user is qualified and whether the research is non-consumptive. There is no mechanism to challenge the host’s decision and in consequence, certain types of research may be privileged. There seems to be no possibility for foreign researches to get access to the database for research purposes.

Contracts vs. statutory exceptions and limitations: The settlement does not stipulate that it’s terms will not supersede legislated users’ rights, including specific and general exceptions for libraries and users, and any existing or new approaches to making orphan works accessible.

With regards to the specific implications for UK researchers and academics, in addition, the following should be considered:

Restrictions on access to the US complete database of books  may lead to particular problems when UK researchers are working collaboratively with US partners.  If such a project was to be undertaken in the EU, a similar settlement/ agreement would need to be reached in each member state in order to facilitate access to the scanned books.

UK authors will also be directly affected by the settlement as a consequence of their books being published in the US and/or because the UK is subject to the same international treaties as the US. Subsequently, UK authors and/or publishers will be entitled to receive appropriate royalties for their works, or alternatively, they have the right to opt out of the settlement if their works are out-of-print and opt into the settlement if their works are in-print.

It is currently unclear what the implications will be under this settlement regarding US originated works published in the UK and digitised by UK libraries and other research organisations, including orphan works.

Do you agree with the issues raised by the Implications for Researchers and Academics section?

What the impact might be of this settlement on the UK Higher and Futher Education in terms of teaching and learning?

What the impact might be of this settlement on the UK Higher and Futher Education in terms of research?

Does the settlement represent a democratisation of access to knowledge or has it the potential to be Pyrrhic to UK education and research?

Should the UK negotiate a similar settlement and on what basis?

What might the impact be of an extended UK-based settlement on the UK population as a whole?

Do you have any other concerns about the settlement or issues you’d like to highlight?

Territoriality: EBLIDA has raised concerns about the territorial limits of the settlement. Because this settlement is only valid under US law and therefore applicable only within the US, Europeans will not be able to access the full-text view of any texts, only the display and snippets views. This means that UK researchers will be at a disadvantage to their US colleagues in not being able to freely view full text works nor the complete database of scanned books. However, Google’s willingness in the revised settlement, to allow authors to provide access to works under Creative Commons Licences, may provide UK researchers and academics with free access to certain works.

Control of information by one corporate entity: It is estimated that the Google digitisation programme may amount to over 30 million books. The scale of this programme and Google’s 5-year lead means that other projects will find it difficult to mount competitive digitisation programmes. This means that a large proportion of the world’s heritage of books in digital format and associated metadata will be under the control of a single US corporate entity.

Censorship: According to the settlement, Google may exclude 15 % of scanned books in copyright, but out-of-print from the database. This may amount to the exclusion of 1 million books. Political pressure exerted on Google may result in books being removed from the database. Such exclusions must be published together with the reasons for their exclusion.

Privacy: Some of the services offered imply that Google will collect and retain information of users’ activities, although Google has subsequently been keen to emphasis that “The revised agreement includes language that specifies that Google will not share any private information with the Registry without valid legal process. Google also has a robust privacy policy (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/privacy.html) that describes how we treat personal information when you use Google Books. We also addressed our privacy commitments (http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/090903bcpgoogleletter.pdf) directly to the Federal Trade Commission.”

Research: The database containing the digital copies of the scanned books represents a unique corpus for computational analysis and research. Google and two institutions may host this Research Corpus for purposes of “non-consumptive research” by “qualified users”. (“Non-consumpti ve” means that the text is not accessed for display or reading.) The host site has the authority to decide whether a user is qualified and whether the research is non-consumptive. There is no mechanism to challenge the host’s decision and in consequence, certain types of research may be privileged. There seems to be no possibility for foreign researches to get access to the database for research purposes.

Contracts vs. statutory exceptions and limitations: The settlement does not stipulate that it’s terms will not supersede legislated users’ rights, including specific and general exceptions for libraries and users, and any existing or new approaches to making orphan works accessible.

With regards to the specific implications for UK researchers and academics, in addition, the following should be considered:Restrictions on access to the US complete database of books may lead to particular problems when UK researchers are working collaboratively with US partners.  If such a project was to be undertaken in the EU, a similar settlement/ agreement would need to be reached in each member state in order to facilitate access to the scanned books. UK authors will also be directly affected by the settlement as a consequence of their books being published in the US and/or because the UK is subject to the same international treaties as the US.

Subsequently, UK authors and/or publishers will be entitled to receive appropriate royalties for their works, or alternatively, they have the right to opt out of the settlement if their works are out-of-print and opt into the settlement if their works are in-print.

It is currently unclear what the implications will be under this settlement regarding US originated works published in the UK and digitised by UK libraries and other research organisations. In terms of orphan works, (works for which the rights holders are unknown or cannot traced), proposals in the revised settlement outline that Google intends to use settlement funds to trace rights holders, and subsequently allocating any money collected which has not been claimed to good causes after 10 years. There remain issues over any interest that Google may make during this period related to any unclaimed funds, as well as the relationship between this settlement and any UK or European-based legislative based solutions which are currently being discussed for example in the UK’s Digital Economy Bill.

The US Google Books Settlement represented a major watershed in the digitisation and access to millions of books, including in copyright publications and therefore the rediscovery of a huge proportion of the world’s knowledge. The settlement was supported by a balanced revenue share model with authors and other rights holders. However, the settlement and its potential ramifications sparked controversy as well as support from some sectors. The settlement was withdrawn due to objections from the US competition authorities. The congressional hearing raised anti-trust and copyright issues – not least because it would have given Google the sole authority for books whose copyright holders could not be found, provided inadequate protection to foreign rights holders and did not allow adequate time and notice for rights holders to opt-out of the settlement.

Therefore in November 2009, the settlement as it stood was reviewed and amended with a much narrower scope.

THE SETTLEMENT

In essence, the revisions to the settlement had little effect on the digitised works which were now out-of-copyright and considered to be in the public domain which continued to be accessed without geographical prejudice. However, the amended settlement greatly limited the geographical scope of the works included, with only works registered with the US Copyright Office or published in the UK, Canada and Australia (due to more similar legal and publishing cultures) being included.

Other notable amendments are as follows:

• As with the previous iteration of the settlement, limited preview can be viewed from within the US, but there will now be an option to buy access to the full-text.
• An increase in the number of free public access terminals offered to public library and HE institutions with the option to subscribe to the in-copyright book database.
• To allow booksellers to sell access non-commercially available works covered by the settlement.
• To allow rights holders to deliver works under a Creative Commons licence or remove restrictions on view as they see fit.
• To allow the Books Rights Registry to issue digitisation licences.
• To prohibit the Books Rights Registry from using unclaimed revenues to cover its running costs or distributing to other rights holders

Please see the following for more details: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/11/modifications-to-google-books.html

THE TIMELINE

28th January 2010: Deadline for rights holders to opt out of the class.

4th February 2010: Deadline for the Department of Justice to respond to amendments in the settlement.

18th February 2010: The final fairness hearing for class members to voice concerns.

122. General enquiries about the bid submission process should be sent to: Avalon McAlister (email: a.mcalister@jisc.ac.uk; tel: 0117 931 7124).

123. To find out more:

a. Visit the JISC Information Environment team blog for Frequently Asked Questions and a presentation about the call at http://infteam.jiscinvolve.org/. You can also post queries here; please tag your post with ‘jisclms’
b. Use the JISC Write to Reply site to post queries on specific parts of the call: http://writetoreply.org/jisclms
c. Post a query on Twitter. Please tag your tweet with ‘jisclms’.

i. Have you completed the cover sheet (see relevant appendix)?
ii. Have you followed the bid format outlined?
iii. Have you paragraph- and section-numbered your proposal?
iv. Have you read JISC’s Generic Terms and Conditions of Grant (see relevant appendix)?
v. Are you clear about the evaluation criteria on which your bid will be judged?
vi. Have you looked at the Example Budget and guidance (see relevant appendix) to help you present your costings?
vii. Have you provided a summary of the qualitative and quantitative benefits the lead institution and any project partners as a whole expect to receive from the project and clarified the nature of the institutional contributions?
viii. Have you kept within the page limit for the main body of the proposal (do NOT include any appendices to your bid unless specifically requested in the call)?
ix. Is your bid in a PDF format with no additional security settings switched on?
x. Have you completed the FOI Withheld Information Form (see relevant appendix) as part of a separate PDF file with the letter(s) of support?
xi. Have you included a letter(s) of support from the lead site and each project partner and included these in a separate PDF with the FOI Withheld Information Form?
xii. Is your bid in a zipped folder if the size of the files exceed 10Mb?
xiii. Are you aware of the email address to which you need to submit your bid and the need to include the name of the lead institution in the subject line of the email?
xiv. Are you aware of the deadline for submitting bids? (12 noon UK time, Friday, 5th February 2010).

120. To summarise, a bid will be automatically rejected if:

i. It is received after the stated deadline;
ii. A cover sheet is not included;
iii. The bid exceeds the page limit outlined in the call;
iv. An additional appendix/appendices are provided that are not requested in the call (as these will be considered to count towards the page limit outlined in the call).

115. JISC will endeavour to notify successful bidders during week beginning 22^nd March 2010. Projects should commence from 19^th April 2010. All projects must be complete by 15^th October 2010.

116. JISC will expect to work with the selected projects to agree the workplan and to ensure that the project budget is appropriate and suitably profiled. It may be necessary to negotiate some aspects of the project objectives and content with the project teams in the interest of maximising the expected benefits of the programme as a whole.

117. Notwithstanding the weightings of the evaluation criteria, proposals that fail badly on any one criterion may be rejected, and proposals showing exceptional strength in one or more areas with serious weaknesses in others may be funded. In making awards under this call, JISC will take into account the need for an appropriate, varied and affordable portfolio of projects and partners. It is not, therefore, necessarily the case that the projects with the highest raw scores will be those funded in all instances.

118. JISC reserves the right not to commission the full amount of funding outlined in this call, and to issue a subsequent call to address any remaining work.

102. A guide to bidding for JISC projects can be found at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/bidguide

103. The deadline for receipt of submissions is 12 noon UK time on Friday 5^th February 2010. Late proposals will NOT be accepted. It is the responsibility of the bidder to ensure that the proposal has arrived by the deadline stated. The JISC Executive will strictly adhere to this policy. There will be no appeals process for late bids. In light of this, it is recommended that bidders plan to submit proposals several days before the deadline in case of any technical difficulties or other extenuating circumstances.

104. Proposals should NOT exceed six single-sides of A4 pages including cover sheet (for projects in Areas B1 and B2) or four single-sides of A4 pages including cover sheet (for the case studies in areas A and C) and should be typeset in Arial or a similar font at 11-point size. All key information as outlined in the guidance on structure of proposals MUST be included within the six-page (or four-page) limit unless otherwise indicated. (the FOI form and institutional letter of support are not included within the page limit). Any bids exceeding the six-page (or four-page, as appropriate) limit will be rejected by the Executive prior to the evaluation stage.

105. Proposals MUST:

• Include a completed cover sheet (see Appendix D) which is included in the page limit for the proposal;
• Include a completed FOI Withheld Information Form (see Appendix A) in a separate pdf file which also includes the letters of support;
• Be accompanied by a letter(s) of support from an authorised senior manager at the lead institution and from any partner institutions (only one letter per institution) in a separate pfd file which also includes the completed FOI Withheld Information Form.

106. This is an electronic-only submission process, therefore all documentation must be submitted in PDF format. Two PDFs are required as part of the submission: one to include the main proposal (including cover sheet); and one to include the FOI Withheld Information Form and letter(s) of support. The size of the overall submission should not exceed 10Mb; a zipped folder should be used if the size of the files exceeds 10Mb (note: any files exceeding 10Mb are likely to be returned by the mail server).

107. Bidders must ensure their proposals have paragraph and section numbers in case of any queries or FOI requests. No additional security settings should be activated for PDFs to allow JISC to redact information if necessary prior to any release under FOI.

108. All proposals must complete the FOI Withheld Information Form (see Appendix A) indicating those sections or paragraphs of your proposal which you believe should be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. It should be noted that whilst JISC will actively consider withholding any of the information indicated within this appendix, it is ultimately JISC’s decision (as the holder of the information) and JISC may not be able to uphold such decisions in all cases. JISC will consult with the lead institution prior to the release of any information listed in the FOI Withheld Information Form.

109. The types of information which may be considered exempt from disclosure include (but may not necessarily be limited to):

• Information, which if disclosed, would materially damage the commercial interests of the institution or its partners;
• Information, which if disclosed, would break the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998.

110. Bidders are encouraged to consult with their institutional FOI officer for further information if required. Failure to fill in or submit this information will be construed as consent for disclosure and/or publication on JISC’s website should your proposal be successful.

111. The bid submission email address is IE-BIDS@JISC.AC.UK

112. All bids should include the name of the lead institution in the subject line of the email and the strand that the proposal is being bid against. It is the responsibility of the bidder to ensure that the bid is sent to the correct email address. Bidders will receive an automatic confirmation of receipt of any proposal sent to the relevant email address. The email address should not be used for general enquiries. Separate contact details for enquiries are provided below. Bidders submitting more than one bid in response to this call must submit these in separate messages to the relevant email address(es).

113. If no automatic confirmation is received, it is the responsibility of the bidder to contact JISC within one day of submitting the bid to confirm whether the proposal has been received. In case of any dispute about the submission of proposals, it is the responsibility of the bidder to provide evidence that the proposal was emailed to the correct address prior to the deadline.

99. JISC, however, reserves the right to acquire all Intellectual Property Rights, including, without limitation, copyright, database right, performers rights, patents and trade marks, whether registered or unregistered, in any works created as a result of the funding either indefinitely or for a certain fixed period of time on behalf of HEFCE. JISC also reserves the right to request that all Moral Rights are waived. This ability to acquire the Intellectual Property Rights will only be used under exceptional circumstances and in any such case where JISC considers this necessary, the JISC will explain in writing to you the reasons for the transfer. This includes the situation where JISC is funding the creation of a national service for the community and there may be a need for HEFCE, on behalf of JISC’s funding partners, to retain ownership of certain rights in order to maintain flexibility of future provision and availability of the service.

100. For all project and/or service outputs, acceptance of the terms and conditions of the grant will provide JISC or its representatives with an irrevocable, non-exclusive royalty-free licence in perpetuity to exploit the outputs in any way it sees fit, including enabling the JISC to use, archive, preserve and disseminate the outputs.

95. JISC will oversee and monitor the progress of projects. All projects will be expected to follow JISC’s Generic Terms and Conditions of Grant. A copy of this is attached at Appendix B to this document. It is the bidders’ responsibility to read this.

96. All projects will be managed following JISC project management guidance, which can be found at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/proj_manguide .  These guidelines may also be of use to bidders when putting together a project proposal.

97. It is intended that the deliverables created as part of this programme will, as appropriate, be deployed by JISC as part of a long-term strategy for providing access to community resources, and where this is possible, arrangements for archiving of deliverables will be set in place. However, wherever possible, projects will be encouraged to set in place mechanisms to ensure the continued availability and currency of deliverables after funding has ended. In the majority of cases JISC will not be able to commit to the long-term delivery or maintenance of project outputs after the end of the programme, though guidance will be given about any opportunities for continuation funding and embedding within institutions.

92. JISC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Therefore potential bidders should be aware that information submitted by them to JISC during this tender process, and throughout the life of any project subsequently funded, may be disclosed upon receipt of a valid request.

93. JISC will not disclose any information received during this bidding process whilst the evaluation of the bids received is still underway. The evaluation process is still deemed to be active until such time as all grant letters to successful projects have been sent out.

94. It is JISC policy to make the content of any bid funded by JISC through this call publicly available via the JISC web site shortly after funding has been awarded. Unsuccessful bids will be destroyed one month after the lead institution has been notified that their bid was not successful. However, it should be noted that the contents of unsuccessful bids may be disclosed should JISC receive a relevant FOI request prior to destruction taking place.

86. JISC development projects are funded in UK higher education institutions on the basis of full economic costs. Bids from these institutions should therefore be constructed on a full economic cost (fEC) basis using the TRAC methodology. An example budget for bidders to use can be found in Appendix C.

87. Other institutions submitting bids should use their usual costing and pricing practices but all costs should be clear and transparent, clarifying the number of days each individual working on the activity will provide, in order to assist the evaluators in determining the value for money of the proposal.

88. The bid should indicate the contribution to the project being sought from JISC and the intended contribution from the lead institution and any project partners. The funding levels outlined in this call are the maximum that JISC will provide towards the total cost of a project; institutional contributions are additional. Where a bid involves partners from outside UK HE, such as English FE or a commercial company, the partners should cost their activities using current costing practice in their college or organisation and clearly identify partner contributions.

89. When assessing proposals, JISC will take into consideration the reasonableness of the total cost of the project and the institutional contributions. It is important to JISC that HE institutions are costing proposals accurately and seeking the appropriate level of support from us, so that they are not over-committed, and hence are ensuring the long-term availability of their activities. However, JISC also needs to ensure consistency of treatment, and that it is using its funding effectively across all proposals.

90. Through the funding provided to projects there will clearly be sector-wide benefits. However, there may also be benefits to the lead institution and any project partners (e.g. prestige/kudos, academic synergy, and financial benefits) in delivering the individual projects. Bidders should provide a summary of the qualitative and quantitative benefits the lead institution and any project partners as a whole expect to receive from the project. JISC expects these benefits to be taken into account when considering the funding requested from JISC. The nature of institutional contributions should be clearly identified (e.g. whether they are direct or indirect contributions or a mixture of both) by providing a breakdown using the example table provided in Appendix C. JISC reserves the right to ask additional questions about the budget prior to agreeing any funding for a project.

91. Further guidance on fEC for JISC-funded research and development projects can be found at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/bidguide/fulleconomiccosting.aspx For more information about TRAC, see the HEFCE web site at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/finance/costing/.  The consolidated TRAC Guidance can be found at http://www.jcpsg.ac.uk/guidance/about.htm.

82. All projects have an element of risk.  Even in the best-planned projects there are uncertainties, and unexpected events can occur.  A risk can be defined as:

“The threat or possibility that an action or event will adversely or beneficially affect the ability to achieve objectives.”

83. A risk analysis when putting together a bid will help you predict the risks that could prevent a project from delivering on time or even failing.  It will also help you to manage the risks should they occur.  Consideration should be given not only to threats that could lead to failure to deliver objectives (as has already happened) but also to consider opportunities (constructive events) which if exploited could improve the way of achieving objectives.

84. A risk analysis addresses the following questions:

• What could possibly happen?
• What is the likelihood of it happening?
• How will it affect the project?
• What can be done about it?

85. Further guidance on Risk Assessments can be found in Section III, paragraph 7 of the Project Management Guidelines. JISC InfoNet also hosts an InfoKit on Risk Management[1]. It explains what risks are, how to do a risk analysis, and how to manage risks during a project.

[1] JISC InfoKit on Risk Management http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/risk-management

80. The e-Framework informs all JISC Programmes seeking to ensure that their outputs, both in the form of knowledge and software:

• Can be built on by following the progress of programmes & projects so that they become cumulative (encouraging the use of open standards and modular component software & services);
• Form a basis for stakeholders and developers to collaboratively develop practices and processes integrally with the supporting ICT (through the development of domain maps, good practice and process models);
• Can be discovered and successfully adopted by any institution that wishes to benefit from the vast information and/or services available (through institutional and developer use, and project contribution to, the e-Framework Website).

81. All project bids should consider carefully whether they relate to the e-Framework agenda, making it clear in their bids where they do so. Further information and guidance about how projects can engage with the e-Framework can be found on the JISC e-Framework web site^[2].

[1] e-Framework http://www.e-framework.org/

[2] Guidance for Projects Engagement with e-Framework http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_eframework/engagement

78. To be able to re-use the software it must be of a certain quality and maturity. For example, it must have supporting information, FAQ, installation guides, test data etc. to help others use it. In addition to the advice from the OSS Watch and OMII-UK, elements that contribute to software quality and project maturity are outlined in the Software Quality Assurance (QA) and Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) Development guidelines.^[4] Projects will be expected to follow the recommendations from these sources of guidance.

[1] OSS Watch http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/

[2] OMII-UK http://www.omii.ac.uk/

[3] Open Source Policy http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/opensourcepolicy.aspx

[4] Software Quality Assurance (QA) and Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) Development guidelines: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/SQA_OSMM_09.06.doc

74. Relevant standards can be found in the JISC Standards Catalogue[1]. Those bidding for projects related to the Information Environment should also refer to the Information Environments standards[2] and those bidding for projects related to the e-Framework should refer to the guidance for projects engagement with the e-Framework[3].

75. Bidders must also ensure that they request adequate funding for any additional costs that may be incurred by adopting a standards-based approach. Projects should demonstrate sound risk management with regard to the adoption of standards for immature emergent technologies and refer to appropriate sources of expertise.

76. Further guidance on standards and their stipulation can be found in the relevant calls.

[1] JISC Standards Catalogue : http://standards.jisc.ac.uk

[2] JISC Information Environment technical standards http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/distributed-systems/jisc-ie/arch/standards/

[3] Guidance for Projects Engagement with e-Framework http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_eframework/engagement

a.   Cover Sheet – all proposals must include a completed cover sheet (Appendix D) which is included in the proposal as part of the overall maximum page limit.

b.   Appropriateness and Fit to Programme Objectives and Overall Value to the JISC Community – this section should demonstrate how the bid addresses the issues and demands outlined in the call, and shows innovation as appropriate; and the extent to which the project outcomes will be of overall value to the JISC community.

c.   Quality of Proposal and Robustness of Workplan – a description of the intended project plan, timetable and deliverables, project management arrangements and risks and, for projects in areas B1 and B2, IPR position, and sustainability issues. Please note that projects under this call must not require staff recruitment.

d.   Engagement with the Community – a description of how project stakeholders and practitioners will be engaged throughout the project and an overview of the dissemination and evaluation mechanisms that are envisaged for the project. Any stakeholder mapping and/or user needs analysis will strengthen this section of the bid.  Proposals should also ensure there is scope for working in partnership with JISC in dissemination and evaluation activities, and in making available the outputs of the project beyond the JISC funding period.  Further guidance on JISC’s expectations with regard to stakeholder engagement, evaluation and dissemination can be found in Section III of JISC’s Project Management Guidelines (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/proj_manguide).  Project blogs (where specified for projects under each area of the call) and the end of projects ‘show case’ event will be particularly important dissemination activities for projects under this call.

e.   Budget – a summary of the proposed budget, which in broad outline identifies how funds will be spent over the life of the project. The budget should be broken down across academic years (August–July) or parts thereof and should include itemised staff costs, any equipment and consumables, travel and subsistence, dissemination, evaluation, and any other direct costs required as appropriate (please note that for the case studies in Areas A and C all the direct and directly allocated costs allowed for in the template are unlikely to apply and you are only expected to quantify those that do). All costs must be justified. Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) methodology must be used to calculate costs in bids from UK HE institutions. An Example Budget and guidance on the budgetary terms used can be found in Appendix C to this document. Bidders should provide a summary of the qualitative, and any quantitative, benefits the lead institution and any project partners as a whole expect to receive from the project in order to inform the funding to be requested from JISC and the costs being borne by the host institution and any project partners. Institutional contributions should be determined by taking into account the benefits to the lead institution and any project partners.

f.    Previous Experience of the Project Team – names and brief career details of staff expected to contribute to/be seconded to the project, including qualifications and experience in the area of work proposed, linking the expertise to the roles required within the project, and evidence of any projects of similar nature successfully completed.

g.   FOI Tick List – all proposals must include a FOI Withheld Information Form, indicating which sections of the bid you would like JISC to consider withholding in response to a freedom of information request or if your bid is successful and your project proposal is made available on JISC’s website. This can be found in Appendix A of this document. The FOI form will not count towards the page limit and should be included in a separate PDF file to the main bid sections described in a-f above, alongside the supporting letters.

h.   Supporting Letter(s) – a copy of the letter(s) of support from a senior representative of the institution and any project partners. Only one supporting letter per project partner should be submitted. The supporting letter(s) will not count towards the page limit and should be included in a separate PDF file to the main bid sections described in a-f above, alongside the FOI tick list. The address to include on letters should be JISC, Northavon House, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QD. It is not necessary to address the letter to a particular contact within the JISC Executive.

69. Proposals will be evaluated according to criteria in the table below:

[1] In the case of consortium proposals, the strength of the consortium will be considered as part of the project team criteria. This refers to evidence of the commitment shown by the consortium partners to the consortium and the proposed project, and the degree to which the work proposed is aligned with institutional strategies and is shown to be embedded within the mainstream of the consortium and with the collaborative partners’ priorities. Bidders may wish to refer to documents that exist such as partnership agreements, strategic plans etc. that the evaluation panel can obtain copies of upon request.  Please do NOT include such documents as appendices to a bid.

66. Funds can be spent on support from external Web developers for projects in areas B1 and B2 if necessary.  Funds may also be spent for support from library systems vendors.  However, vendor costs should make up no more than 20% of the overall cost of the project.

67. The cost of attending workshops (area C) and the end of projects ‘show case’ event (for all projects) should be included in project budgets.

68. Consortial bids (other than from established consortia) should be avoided as these projects are intended to deliver practical results within a relatively short timescale and the time required to establish consortia may mitigate against this.

54. Proposals are invited for institutional case studies which illustrate practical issues which libraries face in a number of ‘problem areas’ currently associated with library management systems.

55. The purpose of these case studies is to identify and document specific constraints which prevent libraries from developing or providing services as they would wish, to illustrate how improved systems integration could support learning and research and to document any ‘work arounds’ which individual libraries may have found to address the issues.

56. The problem areas in which case studies are invited are:

• Management of electronic information resources (electronic journals, electronic books, databases, digital images, etc);
• Integration with university administrative systems such as finance, student and staff record systems;
• Integration with Virtual Learning Environments, Virtual Research Environments and/or university Web portals;
• Provision of management information for decision-making.

57. Case studies should include consideration of user authentication and authorization issues where these form part of a ‘problem area’. Other problem areas can also be proposed.

58. The maximum funding available per case study is £5,000.  Proposals may cover more than one problem area but any additional costs for covering more than one area must be fully explained in the proposal and should not simply be based on multiples of £5,000.

59. These case studies will be used as the basis of a number of workshops in which case study institutions will share their experiences.  The case studies and workshops will be used to compile a report which details the specific difficulties encountered in these problem areas and any ‘work arounds’ which libraries have found to overcome them.

60. Case studies should be documented by the end of May 2010.  It is currently anticipated that the workshops (up to 5) will take place between June and September 2010.

61. It is hoped that this information sharing process will be of practical use to libraries, particularly with respect to any work arounds identified, and also enable practical illustrations of these problem areas to inform planning for libraries’ future systems needs.  In particular, the outcomes may contribute to the development of the SCONUL shared services initiative, particularly with respect to the management of electronic information resources which has been identified as a priority area for shared systems in the future.

62. The required deliverables of each case study are:

• A report documenting specific problems and any ‘work arounds’ in one of the problem areas;
• Attendance at a series of workshops to discuss the problem areas;
• Contributing to and commenting on the overall report arising from the case studies and workshops;
• Attendance at an event show casing the work of the projects funded by this call (please note: This will take place after the formal conclusion of all the projects).

63. Travel costs for attending the workshops and the final ‘show case’ event for projects under this Call should be included in the project budget.

64. A mix of problem areas and types of library will be sought across the case studies selected.

46. A relatively new means of enabling people to access services and resources of their choice from within different Web environments is the development of so-called ‘widgets’ – small pieces of code which users can embed in a Web page or use as an add-on to a Web browser.  A longer established method is the use of ‘portlets’ where the Web portal page which the user sees is composed of information and services provided by different underlying systems.

47. Proposals are invited for projects which develop widgets and/or portlets to embed access to library resources and services within institutional, social and/or personal Web environments.  Examples of institutional Web environments would include student and staff portals and Virtual Learning Environments (such as Moodle and Blackboard).  ‘Social/personal Web environments’ means applications such as Facebook, Netvibes and iGoogle.

48. The maximum funding available for projects addressing this area is £40,000.

49. Examples of library resources and services which might be embedded include:

• Display and renewal of library loans;
• Searching library resources and displaying the results;
• Paying library charges.

50. For information on how the code produced should be made available for use by others, please see paragraphs 77-78. It is recognised that in some cases, code created may be suitable for use with a particular library management system only.  However, it should be as adaptable as possible by others with the same system and necessary local configuration settings readily apparent and documented.

51. The required outputs for these projects are:

• Project blog;
• Re-usable code and supporting documentation;
• A guide to how the widgets and/or portlets were created, which others can use to create similar widgets or portlets and which records what has been learnt during the project;
• Contributing to a public event which ‘show cases’ the work of projects under this call (Please note: This will take place after the formal conclusion of all the projects).

52. Bidders under this area may be interested in the EU funded Wookie project at the University of Bolton which developed a solution for adding widgets to Web applications which conform with the draft W3C widgets specification[1].  This has now become an open source widget engine ‘incubated’ at the Apache Software Foundation[2].

53. Examples of library related widgets for use in Web applications include:

• London School of Economics and Political Science: as part of the JISC funded Library Social Widgets Toolkit project[3]
• University of Cambridge libraries iGoogle widget[4]
• Widgets created or adapted for local use at the University of Texas[5]
• University of Hull portlets[6]

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

[2] http://incubator.apache.org/wookie/

[3] http://lib-1.lse.ac.uk/library-widgets/

[4] http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/toolbox/igoogle.html

[5] http://lib.utexas.edu/tools/

[6] http://www.eservices.hull.ac.uk/cree/Demo/

39. JISC does not wish to be prescriptive about the types of enhancements made by these projects.  However, they should improve the usability of an existing OPAC and be feasible within the timescales for these projects.

40. OPAC enhancements could include:

• Content enrichment for catalogue records (cover images; tables of contents; summaries);
• Social bookmarking of catalogue records;
• User ratings and review of resources;
• Location finders for physical items recorded in the OPAC;
• Resource recommendations based on previous usage.

41. Proposals should result in a significant overall enhancement to an existing OPAC.

42. For information on how any significant code produced should be made available for use by others please see paragraphs 77-78. It is recognised that in some cases, code created may be suitable for use with a particular library management system only.  However, it should be as adaptable as possible by others with the same system and necessary local configuration settings readily apparent and documented.

43. The required outputs for these projects are:

• Project blog which is maintained during the life of the project;
• Re-usable code (where appropriate) and supporting documentation ;
• A guide to how the enhancements were made which others can use and which also records what has been learnt during the project;
• Contributing to a public event which ‘show cases’ the work of projects under this Call (Please note: This will take place after the formal conclusion of all projects).

44. Examples of libraries which have ‘enhanced’ their OPACs and of other related initiatives include:

• University of Huddersfield[1]: enhancements include the addition of cover images, resource recommendations and links to related resources;
• University of Bath[2]: cover images and information from Google Books;
• Leeds Metropolitan University[3]: tags and links to ‘similar’ items from Library Thing[4];
• A community code repository (JUICE) for Javascript based OPAC enhancements initiated by Richard Wallis of Talis[5].

[1] http://www2.hud.ac.uk/cls/library/index.php

[2] http://www.bath.ac.uk/library/

[3] http://library.leedsmet.ac.uk/uhtbin/isbn/0713906774

[4] http://www.librarything.com

[5] http://code.google.com/p/juice-project/

32. The primary purpose of these projects is to provide practical examples which others can follow or use to inform their decision-making.  Outputs from these projects will, therefore, have a ‘how you can do this’ focus.

33. Key outcomes across these projects include:

• Increased understanding of the possibilities for enhancing existing library catalogue Web interfaces and the visibility of library Web resources and services within the current library systems environment;
• Increased adoption by institutional libraries of existing technologies and approaches for enhancing the usability of library catalogue Web interfaces and the visibility of library Web resources and services.

34. Key outputs from these projects include:

• Guides to what has been learnt during the projects and how enhancements were made which others can follow;
• Re-usable code (where applicable) with supporting documentation;
• Contributing to a public event ‘show casing’ the work of the projects (please note: this will be after the formal conclusion of the projects).

35. Proposals are invited in the following specific areas:

• B1: Enhancing existing Online Public Access Catalogues
• B2: Making library resources and services available outside library Web environments

36. Proposals which cover more than one of these areas are welcome.  Please make it clear which area(s) you are addressing in your proposal.  The maximum funding for projects addressing area B1 only is £25,000.  The maximum funding for projects addressing B2, or a combination of B1 and B2, is £40,000.

37. The total number of projects funded across these two areas will depend on the nature of the proposals received.

25. The resource discovery interface used can either be provided by a library systems vendor, or be open source.  A mix of different commercial/open source systems will be sought across the case studies selected.

26. Funding is provided towards the costs of implementing, using and evaluating the system and not the cost of purchasing the system.  These case studies should, therefore, be from libraries which have recently implemented one of these systems or intend to do so well within the required timescales of this call.

27. Please note that the case study must include a full evaluation of the system.  Evaluation must include usability testing with representative samples of the library’s users.  (Useful sources of information on usability testing include a usability study for JISC services which includes guidance on methodologies and techniques[1] and a Usability Toolkit developed by the United States based Society for Technical Communication).[2] and a series of publications on audience research from the Strategic Content Alliance.

28. Each case study should be documented in a report which includes:

• Objectives of implementing the system;
• Technical implementation;
• Technical interoperability achieved with other library, university and third party systems;
• Challenges encountered in implementing and using the system;
• The outcomes of usability testing the system with representative samples of the library’s users;
• Future plans for using the system;
• Recommendations for further development of resource discovery interfaces of this kind.

29. The required outputs for each case study are:

• Report, which includes the areas outlined above;
• Contributing to a public event ‘show casing’ the work of projects under this call (please note: this will be after the formal conclusion of all the projects).

30. Examples of existing but still relatively recent implementations of new resource discovery interfaces include:

• VuFind (an open source system) at the LSE[3]
• AquaBrowser at the University of Sussex[4]
• Primo at the University of East Anglia[5]
• Encore at the University of Glasgow[6]
• Summon at the University of Liverpool[7]
• Blacklight (open source) at Stanford University[8]

[1] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/presentation/usability.aspx

[2] http://www.stcsig.org/usability/resources/toolkit/toolkit.html

[3] https://catalogue.lse.ac.uk/

[4] http://catalogue.sussex.ac.uk/ABL/

[5] http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/broadsearch

[6] http://encore.lib.gla.ac.uk/iii/encore/home?lang=eng

[7] http://www.liv.ac.uk/Library/e-library/summon.html

[8] http://searchworks.stanford.edu/

21. Developing new systems to respond to some of the changes set out above will take time and considerable effort by systems vendors and/or the open source community. Some of the strategic issues which the future development of library systems raises for UK university libraries are being considered by the SCONUL shared services study and the Resource Discovery Task Force as outlined above. In the meantime, libraries are making the most of the systems available and areas (a) and (b) of this call are intended to support this process. The case studies in area (c) – exploring existing problem areas for library management systems – are, however, intended to inform future work on libraries’ systems needs and where appropriate to support the SCONUL shared services initiative. In order to move towards this future it is important to better understand the issues which academic libraries wish to address in order to meet learners’, teachers’ and researchers’ needs in the networked environment.

22. The MOSAIC project is a further related JISC funded initiative . This project has been exploring whether usage data from different libraries can be combined to provide ‘resource recommendations’ (Economics students who used this resource also used x, y, z resource, for example) with a view to use in future national resource discovery services. Resource recommender systems at the local library level are within scope of this call (see paragraph 40). However, should it be considered an area to pursue any further work in combining usage data from different libraries for this purpose will be funded as a separate, centrally co-ordinated activity and not through this Call.

23. Projects under this call are, therefore, largely intended to focus on enhancements to and development of the existing library systems environment.  They should provide practical examples of how the existing systems environment can be improved to help other libraries in their planning and decision-making in this area.

[1] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/inf11/mosaic.aspx

8. This call relates to objectives (i) and (ii) of the JISC Strategy (2010-2012) which are to “Help institutions to improve the quality of learning and teaching and the student experience” and to “Help institutions to improve the quality and productivity of academic research”.

9. Projects under this call will contribute to the continuing development of the Information Environment (IE) for UK higher education. The IE forms part of JISC’s contribution to developing the UK e-Infrastructure for learning and research – an e-Infrastructure which helps UK higher and further education fulfil its core mission to provide high-quality, cost-effective teaching and research that meets the needs of students, the economy and society. The IE’s key aim is to provide a scholarly layer of content across the network that is easily available and flexible enough to support the diverse requirements of learners, teachers, researchers, administrators and managers across UK higher and further education.

10. Projects funded under this call will form part of the Information Environment Programme (2009-2011).

11. University libraries in the UK and internationally are currently debating what systems they need for the future to provide their users with convenient and easy access to the huge range of digital information resources which they make available, together with print and other physical resources.

12. A study of information seeking behaviours on the Web carried out by CIBER (University College London) for JISC during 2007 and published early in 2008 , illustrated (in common with other related studies of recent years) the profound effect which Web search engines and ubiquitous digital information have had on the information seeking behaviours of people of all ages. The information seeker expects to be able to find and access information resources quickly and easily.

13. A joint JISC and SCONUL study of the market for university library management systems (LMSs) in the UK of 2008 illustrated dissatisfaction amongst UK university libraries with the systems available. Issues raised included Web catalogue interfaces which are unappealing and difficult to use (particularly when compared with Web search engines and sites such as Amazon), limited integration with other university systems and inadequate functionality for managing digital information resources.

14. A SCONUL study is currently exploring the feasibility of UK university libraries using shared systems in future . This work has been funded by HEFCE as part of a wider initiative to identify potential new shared services for UK universities. The SCONUL study has identified electronic resource management as a priority area for shared systems and services. The final report is expected in late 2009. While decisions on funding of future work in this area are unknown, the outcomes from this study are potentially very significant.

15. National resource discovery needs are also being explored by a JISC and Research Libraries UK (RLUK) Resource Discovery Task Force which will report in early 2010. This work is of relevance to existing UK national resource discovery services; but is looking at the issue of resource discovery of core library resources in a broad sense. The key outcome is recommendations that focus on the creation of aggregations of metadata/catalogues in more effective and efficient ways.

16. Library systems vendors have been developing and libraries implementing, additional systems in recent years to improve access to digital information resources in particular. Many libraries now make use of Open URL Resolver and federated search systems to link between and to search across different digital information resources respectively, for example. While these systems have simplified access to libraries’ very diverse digital information resources, they still must compete with the simplicity of the Web search engine from the user’s point of view.

17. The library systems environment continues to evolve. One of the changes of recent years has been the development of new ‘resource discovery interfaces’. These are separate from the LMS but enable users to search across bibliographic metadata derived from the LMS and, in some cases, metadata (or even documents) drawn from other systems as well (such as institutional repositories or publishers’ sites) through one, ‘Google like’, Web interface. The interface also offers additional features such as user ratings and social bookmarking. These interfaces are being run alongside, or in some cases replacing, the LMS’s Online Public Access Catalogue. Examples of such interfaces include Primo from Ex Libris, Summon from Serials Solutions and VuFind, an open source system developed at Villanova University .

18. The increasing availability of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) from some library systems vendors and major Web sites such as Amazon, together with the use of Web Services to facilitate machine to machine communication, are also enabling library Web developers to enhance existing library Web interfaces and to make library resources and services visible in different Web environments, whether institutional (such as Virtual Learning Environments) or social (such as Facebook).

19. The technical architecture required for library systems is also being reconsidered. OLE, a project based in the United States and funded by the Mellon Foundation, has drawn up an outline model for a library management system of the future . This work has been informed by work of the National Library of Australia to develop a future library technical framework which enables use of common, underlying technical components to achieve different purposes and which ‘joins up’ access to information for its users currently held across different systems . Both the OLE project and the National Library of Australia have used the approach of the e-Framework for Education and Research to help define requirements. The e-Framework is an international initiative (which includes JISC) that advocates service-oriented approaches to facilitate technical interoperability of core technical infrastructure. Further information on the e-Framework is provided later in this Call (paragraphs 79-81). Last but not least, a number of library systems vendors are also reviewing what technical architectures are required for the future.

6. Proposals should be from single institutions given the focussed nature of these projects. However, projects may involve effort or relationships with others and these may be outside the sector (for example with library systems vendors).  It is anticipated that the projects will address service needs within a single institution.

1. Visit the JISC Information Environment team blog for Frequently Asked Questions and a presentation about the call at http://infteam.jiscinvolve.org/.  You can also post queries here; please tag your post with ‘jisclms’
2. Use the JISC Write to Reply site to post queries on specific parts of the call: http://writetoreply.org/jisclms
3. Post a query on Twitter.  Please tag your tweet with ‘jisclms’.

1. The Joint Information Systems Committee[1] (JISC) invites institutions to submit funding proposals for projects to explore enhancements to existing library management systems.

A: Use of new resource discovery interfaces

Case studies which explore the implementation of new resource discovery interfaces

Approximately 5 to 8 case studies of £10,000 each

B: Enhancing existing interfaces and the visibility of library resources & services

B1: enhancing existing Online Public Access Catalogues (provision of content enrichment, social bookmarking, etc.)

B2: creating widgets/portlets to embed access to library resources and services in university and/or social Web applications

Projects of £25,000 to £40,000 each.  Either or both areas can be addressed.  The maximum for addressing area B1 only is £25,000

C: Exploring problem areas

Case studies which illustrate examples of problem areas and explore short term  and possible future solutions to these problems through a series of workshops

Approximately 8 to 10 case studies of £5,000 each

2. The deadline for receipt of proposals in response to this call is 12 noon UK time on Friday 5^th February 2010.

3. Funding is available for projects starting from 19^th April 2010 for 6 months. All projects must be completed by 15^th October 2010.

[1] Further information on JISC is available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk ]]> http://writetoreply.org/jisclms/introduction/feed/ 0 http://writetoreply.org/clickclever/back-page/ http://writetoreply.org/clickclever/back-page/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:43:15 +0000 clickclever 39.44 UK Council for Child Internet Safety
Santuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3BT
Telephone: 0870 000 2288
Textphone/minicom: 01928 794274
Fax: 01928 794248

Product reference number: DCSF-01100-2009
Reference: 01100-2009DOM-EN
Title: Click Clever Click Safe: The first UK Child Internet Safety Strategy
ISBN: 978-1-84775-585-8
Copies of this publication can be obtained from:
DCSF Publications
PO Box 5050
Sherwood Park
Annesley
Nottingham NG15 0DJ
Tel: 0845 60 222 60
Fax: 0845 60 333 60
Textphone: 0845 60 555 60

Published by HM Government
Please quote the ref: 01100-2009DOM-EN
© Crown copyright 2009
The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.
The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. December 2009

3™
11 Million
Action for Children
Activision
Advertising Association
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
Angus Child Protection Committee
AOL UK
Ask Jeeves
Association for Infant Mental Health
Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS)
Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS)
Chris Atkinson
Bath University
Beatbullying
Bebo
Paul Beresford
Birkbeck University
Blitz Games Studios
British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
British Computer Society (BCS)
Becta
British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB)
British Standards Institute
BT
Broadband Stakeholder Group
Annette Brooke
Carphone Warehouse Group Plc
Central Bedfordshire Council
Channel 4
Chat Moderators
Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP)
Childnet International
The Children’s Society
Churches’ Child Protection Advisory Service (CCPAS)
Cisco Systems
Richard Clayton
Crisp Thinking
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Cumbria Children’s Services
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
Digital Media Group
Digital Outlook
Diligence Consultancy Ltd
Disney
Dixons Group
E Safety Ltd
Edinburgh Lothian & Borders Child Protection Office
Electronic Arts
Joe Elliot
eModeration
Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA)
Entertainment Retailers Association
Essex University
Facebook
Keri Facer
Family Action
Family and Parenting Institute
Family Online Safety Institute
Fife Child Protection Committee
Fox Interactive Media
FutureLab
Game Group
Get Safe Online
Alisdair Gillespie
Jon Gisby
Google
Harrow Council
Home Office
Independent Commission for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS)
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
Intellect
Institute of Education
Interactive Software Federation of Europe (ISFE)
Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB)
Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA)
Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)
Intuitive Media
Jagex Ltd
Kingston University
Anthony Lilley
LINX
London School of Economics
The Lucy Faithfull Foundation
Magic Lantern
Marie Collins Foundation
Mary MacLeod
Paul Massey
Mastertronic Group
Media Literacy Task Force
Mediawatch
Microsoft
Andrea Millwood Hargrave
Ministry of Justice
Mobile Broadband Group
Myspace
National Academy for Parenting Practitioners
National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)
National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT)
National Children’s Bureau (NCB)
National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)
NC Soft
News Corporation
Nickelodeon
Nintendo
Northamptonshire County Council
North West Regional College
Northern Ireland Government
Nottingham Trent University
Office of Communications (OFCOM)
Ofsted
Open Rights Group
Orange
The Overtis Group Limited
Oxford University
Pan-European Game Information (PEGI)
Papyrus
Parenting UK
Parentline Plus
Phorm
Piczo
Press Complaints Commission
Research In Motion
RM
Fiona Romeo
SAFEchild
Samaritans
Sandbach High School & Sixth Form College
Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement e-crime
Sentry Parental Controls
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
South West Grid for Learning
Square Enix
Stop It Now
Symantec
TDA
Telefónica O2 UK
Tempero
Thus PLC
Tiga
Tiscali
T-Mobile
Ubisoft
University for Industry (Ufi) – UK Online Centres
University of Lancaster
University of London (Goldsmiths)
Video Standards Council
Virgin Media
Vodafone
Welsh Assembly Government
Monica Whitty
WISE KIDS
Yahoo!
Young Scot

More information on the Council and how it works is available at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/ukccis
With thanks to: the NSPCC, the Family and Parenting Institute, Kingshurst Academy, Solihull and Weeke Primary School, Hampshire.

• September 2011 Online safety education is a requirement from age five in England.

As well as this, the Government has also asked Professor Tanya Byron to look in the new year at how well the Council is doing and suggest any ways in which we could do better.

Creating a safer online environment

Are fewer children coming across content that is not suitable for them?

• 18% of children say they have come across harmful or inappropriate content online (DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009). We want to see this figure decrease.

How many parental control products hold the Kitemark™?

• None hold the Kitemark™ at the moment. We want to improve on this.

How many companies are using the Council’s guidance?

• To measure this we will collate the results of reviewing arrangements. We will want to see this figure increase.

Giving everybody the skills, knowledge and understanding to help children and young people stay safe online

How many teachers are delivering online safety lessons?

• This will be measured through the Becta Harnessing Technology survey in England. A similar measure will be developed for Scotland. We will want to see this figure increase.

How many schools have acceptable use policies?

• This will be measured through the Becta Harnessing Technology survey in England. A similar measure will be developed for Scotland and Wales. We will want to see this figure increase.

Are parents confident they know how to help their children stay safe online?

• 13% of parents say they feel they do not know enough about how to help their child stay safe online (Ofcom, March/April 2009 ((Children’s and young people’s access to online content on mobile devices, games consoles and portable media players, Ofcom 2009 43 Ofcom Media Literacy Audit 2009 www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/online_access.pdf)) ). We want this figure to increase at first as awareness raises and then decrease as parents become more knowledgeable.
• 33% of children say their parents don’t really know what they do on the internet (DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009). We want this figure to decrease.

Are children and young people confident they know how to stay safe online?

• 30% of 7–12 year olds and 11% of 13–16 year olds say that no one has spoken to them about staying safe online (Ofcom, March/April 2009). We want to see both figures decrease.
• 91% of children say they know how to protect themselves online (DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009). We want this figure to increase or at least stay the same.
• 82% of children say their school has taught them how to use the internet safely (DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009). We want this figure to increase.

Inspiring safe and responsible use and behaviour

Do parents have the right attitudes towards child internet safety?

• 84% of parents of 8–11 year olds and 76% of parents of 12–15 year olds check their child’s social networking activity (Ofcom April/May 2009 ((www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/uk_childrens_ml)) ). We want to see this figure increase.
• 79% of parents say that they talk to their children about online safety. 52% of children say that their parents speak to them about online safety (DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009). We want both these figures to increase and the gap between them to decrease.
• 67% of parents have rules for their children’s internet usage. 50% of children say that their parents make rules for their use of the internet (DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009). We want to see both figures increase and to see the gap between them decrease.

Do children and young people have the right attitude towards online safety?

• 69% of 12–15 year olds use privacy settings on their social networking profiles (Ofcom April/May 2009). We want to see this figure increase.
• 55% of children encountering what they considered harmful or inappropriate content say they did something about it (DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009).We want to see this figure increase.
• Ofcom’s next 2009 Tracker Survey will include the proportion of children who agree that when they are on the internet they forget about the safety rules. We will want to see this figure decrease.

Are parents and children using online safety tools?

• 40% of parents of 5–7 year olds and 53% of parents of 8–11 year olds use parental control software (Ofcom, April/May 2009). We want to see these figures increase.
• 15% of parents whose child’s phone can be used to access the internet say parental controls are enabled (Ofcom March/April 2009). We want to see this figure increase.
• 10% of parents of 8–11 year olds don’t know how to use filters/software;  6% didn’t know it was possible (Ofcom, March/April 2009). We want to see these figures decrease or at least stay the same.
• 30% of parents of 5–7 year olds, 41% of parents of 8–11 year olds and 30% of parents of 12–15 year olds say they use safe search settings (Ofcom April/May 2009). We want to see these figures increase, particularly for the parents of younger age groups, for whom the settings will be most effective.
• 32% of parents whose child uses a games console to go online are aware of access controls, 67% of which say the controls are activated (Ofcom, March/April 2009). We want to see both these figures increase.

How many people are accessing the key online safety information?

• To measure this we will agree a list of the key information sources and aggregate the number of visits to these sites. We would want to see this figure increase.

Because the question of who is vulnerable online is so complex, we have asked specific people in each area of our work to be responsible for making sure we understand and take account of the needs of vulnerable groups. As a first step they are doing a special piece of work to look in detail at the question of which children and young people are vulnerable online. As well as looking at the factors listed above, this work attempts to look at how children develop and how these changes affect how vulnerable they are.

To achieve this we have brought together over 20 experts from universities, charities, companies and the Government in our Expert Research Panel. Working with the Panel:

• We are carrying out a review of the available evidence to understand what is out there and what the gaps in our knowledge are. This will be published in spring 2010 and we will do a further review every year to keep our knowledge up to date.
• We are establishing a new online database of research about child internet safety which will be available to the public and anybody working to improve children’s safety.

This work sits alongside research which we are carrying out to support specific parts of our work, and the wide range of other research which is carried out both by individual Council members and researchers in other countries.

To inspire safe and responsible use and behaviour we will:

• Launch a major public awareness campaign backed by £2 million of Government funds over two years and based on new research into what will best support parents and children. The first stage of this campaign is being launched at the first UK Child Internet Safety Summit. A second stage will be launched during Safer Internet Week in February 2010.
• Work with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (CEOP) to promote their help, support and advice website ((http://ceop.gov.uk/reportabuse)) as an authoritative one-stop-shop for child internet safety.
• Continue the anti-cyberbullying campaign aimed at young people, launched as part of Anti-Bullying Week 2009.
• Support the Internet Watch Foundation Awareness Day 2010.

Online video game safety is an important part of our awareness campaigns. However, because many popular games can be played both online and offline, many parents and children do not distinguish between online and offline play. For this reason we will work to make online safety part of wider video game safety awareness work, including information about the new PEGI classification system.

We will ensure that our campaigns are always informed by current evidence about the changing ways in which people are using technology and the new risks for children this might lead to. We will also make sure that our messages are consistent with what our guidance says about the things companies should be doing to keep children safe and that we join up with what is happening at a European level by working with the UK Node for the EU Safer Internet Programme.

Making a difference for you

Children and young people:

• Above all we want to help you to use the internet now and in the future,  to learn, communicate and have fun.

Parents and carers, we will:

• Provide information and advice to help you talk as confidently with your children about online risks as you do about those they find offline and  choose services that are suitable for them.

Much of the work to do this started as soon as the Council was established, building on what was there already. The results of this work are shown in the ‘what has the Council done so far?’ section of this strategy. But to achieve our aim we need to reach all children and make sure that they get the right information.

We will:

• Make sure that the school curricula across the whole of the UK reflect online safety for all age groups. In England, the new primary curriculum will mean that all children from the age of five must be taught about how to use technology safely and responsibly from September 2011.
• Give those who work with children, such as teachers, social workers, and childcare workers access to free, high quality resources. For example, we will develop further the ‘Know IT All’ suite of teaching materials for secondary teachers by March 2010.

• Look at how we can make sure that online safety is part of the skills and knowledge that everybody who works with children is expected to have. In England and Wales by March 2010 we will include online safety in the ‘Common Core’ of skills and knowledge for people who work with children and work to make sure this is reflected in qualifications for people who work with children.
• Every local area in England has a Children’s Trust, which brings together everyone who works with children in that area. Each year the Trusts produce a plan, saying what they are going to do. We will make it clear to them that they should include online safety in their Children and Young People’s Plans.
• Continue to encourage school inspectors to challenge schools on how well they teach online safety by raising inspectors’ awareness of the best ways for schools to address online safety issues.
• Encourage schools to look at online safety across the whole school. This means we will promote a tried and tested approach such as Becta’s Self Review Framework ((www.becta.org.uk/safeguarding)) which addresses issues about teaching and how to use technology safely, both at school and at home. We will also look at how safe and responsible use of technology should be covered in the guidance on teaching personal, social, health and economic education which the Government plans to give schools in England next year.
• We will issue guidance on Acceptable Use Policies ((http://esafety.ngfl-cymru.org.uk)) for schools in Wales in December 2009 and local authorities have been asked to report on how these are adopted by schools.
• Deliver the Becta Home Access Programme to help poorer families buy computers and get connected to the internet. All computers bought will come with parental controls already set up and high quality educational materials such as the Know IT All for Parents guide. The programme will help over 270,000 families by March 2011.
• Make sure that information and support to parents and families about online safety is part of the national services for parents by working with parenting organisations like Parenting UK and the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners.

The right support and messages need to reach all who work with children and families. This is especially important for those who work with vulnerable children.

We need to keep listening to parents and those who work with children to help share what works well on the ground.

Our initiatives need to link closely with awareness raising work to inspire safe and responsible use and behaviour. This will be most successful when messages given to children and parents are backed up with direct support from the teachers and other professionals that they come into contact with.

We know that our understanding of the issues is not complete and we will continue researching how children learn and how they use technology, so that our work is based on evidence and understanding of how children’s brains and learning abilities develop.

Making a difference for you

Children and young people, we will:

• Teach you about the risks online and how to stay safe. These risks are not just about what you might find, but about how you and others you meet online might behave.
• Help you to deal with what you find online. There is always a risk of finding things that may upset you but we will help you and your parents to understand what you can do and where to go for help.

Parents and carers, we will:

• Help teachers and all of those who work with your children to support them when you are not around.
• Give your children the knowledge and skills to build up resilience to the things they find online. Like the real world, we can’t take away all the risks, but together we can help children to play and learn safely.

The British Standards Institution (BSI) has developed a Kitemark™ ((www.bsigroup.com/en/ProductServices/Child-Safety-Online-Software) for parental control software which helps parents manage their children’s internet access. We will work with the BSI and announce the first group of products to carry the Kitemark™. We will continue to encourage makers of this software to apply for the Kitemark™.

We will keep looking at the parental control systems available for games consoles to ensure they are effective and clear for parents to use. We will promote the use of these controls to parents, and encourage console manufacturers to apply parental control systems that are simple and effective to use on all new devices that are intended to be used by children and young people.

In all our work to create a safer online environment for children, we will make sure that we support and join up with initiatives such as Get Safe Online ((www.getsafeonline.org)) that address issues that affect all internet users.

We will agree an overall framework for how these reviews will work. For example, reviews will be carried out by someone impartial with the right understanding and experience, and the review process must make sense for services that are not exclusively available to users in the UK.

Each set of guidance will set out how this framework will apply to the topics covered by that guidance. In each case, the review process will take account of the fact that services are different and fast changing, and that organizations play different roles in providing them.

In keeping with the Government’s Digital Britain Report, this is about ‘effective self regulation’ ((www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5631.aspx)).

• Produce updated guidance for organisations that employ staff to moderate interactive services such as chatrooms, by summer 2010.
• Produce updated guidance for providers of chat, instant messaging and other web-based services to help them design these services in a way that encourages safe and responsible use and behaviour, by summer 2010.
• Produce updated guidance for search providers on how they can help parents choose search options that make it less likely that their children will find things that are not suitable for them.

Wherever this guidance is relevant to services we provide, we will use the guidance to make sure our services form part of a safer online environment for children. We will make sure that as many organisations as possible, not just the biggest providers, know about our guidance.

Where Council members provide services that are covered by the Council’s guidance, we will make it clear to everybody using our services how we are using the guidance.

Making a difference to you

Children and young people, we will:

• Make clear what the rules are on the websites and services that you use and what to do when you see something that shouldn’t be there.

Parents and carers, we will:

• Provide search options and high quality controls that you can use to stop your children seeing harmful and inappropriate content online and monitor their behaviour. This software will be easy to set up and use.
• Make clear what content and behaviour is acceptable on our organisations’ websites, its age appropriateness, how you can complain and what response you can expect if you are uncomfortable about what you or your children find online.

Because the question of what we are trying to protect children from at different times is so complex, we believe that what really matters is that everybody is clear about the role they are playing at any particular time. This means service providers making it clear what is acceptable on their services and users, including parents, children and young people, playing their part by reporting unacceptable behaviour and behaving responsibly themselves.

• Creating a safer online environment: We will work together to make sure that children are less likely to come across or get access to things online that are not suitable for them. For example, we will work to find better ways for companies to moderate content on websites and provide families with good tools to manage what children access. Also, we will support the work of the Internet Watch Foundation to remove and filter access to online images of child sexual abuse.
• Giving everybody the skills, knowledge and understanding to help children and young people stay safe online: We will help parents, carers and people who work with children and families to understand how to help children stay safe online and how to deal with problems if they occur. For example, we will work with schools to deliver better online safety education.
• Inspiring safe and responsible use and behaviour: We will make it clear that individuals, including children and young people themselves, need to take responsibility for their own online behaviour. For example, we will deliver a public awareness campaign, letting parents and children know that they can and should make use of the information, support and tools that are available.

These aims draw on Professor Tanya Byron’s description of the ways to keep children safe online in terms of reducing availability, restricting access and increasing resilience to harmful and inappropriate material. Each of these aims supports the others, and if we are to succeed in making children safer we need to succeed in all three aims. This section sets out our priority work over the next year to achieve our aims.

In schools:

• The Welsh Assembly Government published guidance about online safety for schools in October 2008 ((http://esafety.ngfl-cymru.org.uk)).
• The Scottish Government launched ‘Glow’, the Scottish schools’ intranet which provides pupils and teachers with a safe and secure online facility allowing for joined-up networking. By April 2009 over 420,000 pupils and staff had been issued with Glow accounts.
• After the Rose Review ((www.dcsf.gov.uk/primarycurriculumreview)) was published in May 2009, online safety was included in the revised Primary School Curriculum in England. In Wales the revised National Curriculum, introduced in September 2008, makes strong reference to online safety. Introduced in September 2009, the new curriculum in Northern Ireland includes online safety.
• School inspectors will now assess how well online safety is taught in primary schools in all parts of the UK.
• A new e-safety resource for primary teachers produced by Childnet, ‘Know IT All for Primary Teachers’ ((www.childnet.com/kia)) was launched by Professor Tanya Byron in June 2009. It has been sent out to every primary school in England.
• The Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) has revised its annual survey for newly qualified teachers in England to include questions on online safety. This will measure how teachers’ knowledge is improving.
• The TDA has included elements on online safety in its ICT skills test for newly qualified teachers. This means that all newly qualified teachers have to demonstrate understanding of the issues and ways to stay safe online.

To help children directly:

• Since 2006 CEOP’s Thinkuknow ((www.thinkuknow.co.uk)) internet safety programme has reached over 4 million children and young people. In 2008–2009 alone, over 3,500 local professionals and industry volunteers were trained. For Safer Internet Day 2009, volunteers from Microsoft, O2 and Visa delivered Thinkuknow directly to children in schools.
• A new Childnet leaflet for parents and young people ((www.childnet.com/publications/resources.aspx)) was published in April 2009 covering how to use social networking sites safely. Over 34,000 copies have been sent out.
• The Council supported Anti-Bullying Week 2009 ((www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/get_involved/anti-bullying_week.aspx)), for which the theme was cyberbullying – ‘Don’t be mean on the screen’ – including launching a communications campaign aimed at young people.
• The Prime Minister and Professor Tanya Byron launched Beat Bullying’s award-winning peer mentoring social networking site ‘CyberMentors’ ((http://www.cybermentors.org.uk)). Almost 2000 young people have signed up to be CyberMentors and over 260,000 young people have accessed the site. The launch showcased excellent partnership work by UKCCIS members such as Google, Vodafone, Crisp Thinking, Becta and CEOP.

To support parents:

• MyGuide ((www.myguide.gov.uk)) is a Government run online training resource for adults to learn about the internet and online safety training for parents and other internet users has been developed. The resource was launched in August 2009 and is now available for free on the website.
• Over 1 million parents have now received Childnet’s ‘Know IT All for Parents’ ((www.childnet.com/kia)) and this number continues to grow.
• The Council supported Internet Watch Foundation Awareness Day 2009 ((www.iwf.org.uk/media/page.192.htm)) through promotion on our members’ websites.
• The Department for Culture, Media and Sport carried out a review of the classification of video games. It was announced in June 2009 that the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) ((www.pegi.info)) system will become the only system of video games classification in the UK. This will provide parents with a single clear system of labelling that replaces the current system where either BBFC or PEGI symbols are displayed.
• UK mobile phone operators reviewed their code of practice for content on mobile phones ((www.mobilebroadbandgroup.com/social.htm)) in June 2009.
• The Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers’ Association (ELSPA) produced guides for parents in October 2008 that give information on safer online gaming, parental controls for games consoles and the PEGI system of ratings for games ((www.askaboutgames.com)).

In addition:

• The Council funded an investigation into the sale of age-restricted video games, the results of which are being used to aid work with retailers around sales of video games.
• The Digital Britain ((www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5631.aspx)) report was published in June 2009. The report showed how the Government is bringing together all of its policies for technology, including online safety for children.
• Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education has completed Scotland’s first inspections of how schools, police and health staff are working together to make sure children are given advice about online safety.
• The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 simplifies and modernises the law on assisting or encouraging suicide. The new provisions are intended to increase public understanding of the law in this area and reassure people that it applies as much online as it does offline.
• The NSPCC and Sport England produced guidance ((www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/cpsu/Resources/Briefings/briefings_wda60650.html)) for sports clubs and sport governing bodies in October 2009 that gives advice on how to use social networking and other web services safely.
• The Council has carried out research about what our public awareness campaign should look like. This work has shown the need for a Digital Code for online safety.

As well as these achievements, we have prepared the ground for our work over the coming year. This programme is outlined in the next section.

For children and young people, we will:

• Teach you about the risks online and how to stay safe: these risks are not just about what you might find, but about how you and others you meet online might behave.
• Make clear what the rules are on the websites and services that you use and what to do when you see something that shouldn’t be there.
• Help you to deal with what you find online: there is always a risk of finding things that may upset you but we will help you and your parents to understand what you can do and where to go for help.
• Above all we want to help you to use the internet now and in the future, to learn, communicate and have fun.

For parents and carers, we will:

• Provide search options and high quality controls that you can use to stop your children seeing harmful and inappropriate content online and monitor their behaviour. This software will be easy to set up and use.
• Provide information and advice to help you talk as confidently with your children about online risks as you do about those they find offline and choose services that are suitable for them.
• Help teachers and all of those who work with your children to support them when you are not around.
• Make clear what content and behaviour is acceptable on our organisations’ websites, its age appropriateness, how you can complain and what response you can expect if you are uncomfortable about what you or your children find online.
• Give your children the knowledge and skills to build up resilience to the things they find online: like the real world, we can’t take away all the risks but together we can help children to play and learn safely.

While the internet brings opportunities which no generation of children has enjoyed before, there are – as with any area of life – also risks ((Discussed in more detail in at www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EUKidsOnline)). Of the 99% of children who have access to the internet ((Ofcom Media Literacy Audit 2008)), 18% have come across harmful or inappropriate content online ((DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009)). Taking advantage of the opportunities which new technology provides is becoming increasingly necessary for anyone who wants to play a full part in society, so if today’s children are going to play their full part as digital citizens, they need to be able to deal with the risks.

Parents, carers and the other adults who work with children are learning how to help them stay safe online. But there is still some way to go: 82% of children say their school has taught them how to use the internet safely, but 33% say their parents don’t really know what they do on the internet. Even though 79% of parents say that they talk to their children about online safety, only 52% of children agree ((DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009)). Children and young people are leading the way in using new technology but some don’t know enough about how to keep themselves  safe, and some don’t realise how important their role is in keeping themselves and others safe. 31% of 12–15 year olds don’t use privacy settings on their social networking profiles it ((Ofcom Media Literacy Audit 2009w www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/uk_childrens_ml)) and only half of children encountering harmful or inappropriate content say that they did something about ((DCSF Staying Safe Survey, 2009)).

The vast majority of companies want children to be able to use their online services safely. Most children and young people want to use the internet responsibly to learn, communicate and have fun without being exposed to things that aren’t suitable for them. And most adults – with or without children of their own – want to use the internet to talk about issues or use services that might not be suitable for children, but not in a way that might expose any children to inappropriate or harmful things.

The Council is a partnership where responsible organisations involved with  the internet and children’s welfare come together to help children and young  people enjoy the benefits of the internet whilst staying safe from the risks. As  in the offline world, we can never keep children completely safe, and this is  not about imposing unnecessary restrictions that undermine the internet’s  benefits. But, by working together, learning from one another’s experience and  reinforcing one another’s messages we can achieve more than the toughest legislation, the biggest company or the most caring charity ever could alone. We need to make links between international, national and local efforts to help children; only through working together can we keep pace with changes in technology and the way people live.

The Council is not the first place or the only place where people are working together to keep children safe online. Our work builds on work done by the Home Secretary’s Taskforce on Child Protection on the Internet, which existed before the Council, and the current efforts made by companies to raise standards and help their customers. It complements and supports work done by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) ((www.ceop.gov.uk)), and work by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) ((www.iwf.org.uk )) to combat illegal content online. It supports work to help everybody take advantage of the benefits of new technology led by the Digital Inclusion Taskforce and members of the Consortium for the Promotion of Digital Participation as well as work to protect people from online threats such as fraud and computer viruses through initiatives like Get Safe Online ((www.getsafeonline.org)).

We in the UK don’t work in a vacuum and many of our members operate worldwide. Work done here must be done with and alongside international efforts to improve child online safety such as the EU Safer Internet Programme ((www.saferinternet.org)) and eNACSO (the European NGO Alliance for Child Internet Safety) ((www.enacso.eu)), Achievements such as the recent EU Safer Social Networking Principles ((http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/eu_action/selfreg/index_en.htm)) show what is possible when organisations work together at this level.

The Council is a large group of organisations and individuals, and when there is reference to ‘we’ in this document we mean members of the Council as a whole. Sometimes we refer to specific Council members to avoid confusion.

The Council was a recommendation in Professor Tanya Byron’s report ‘Safer Children in a Digital World’ ((www.dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview)). The Government accepted Professor Byron’s recommendations in full and her report is still an important document which informs our work.

• 44 million people in the UK have access to the internet ((Nielsen Online Marketing Highlights, May 2009 http://en-us.nielsen.com)) including 99% of 8–17 year olds ((Ofcom Media Literacy Audit 2008 www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/ml_childrens08))

• 76% of young people say the internet means their friends are there whenever they need them ((The Futures Company/YouthNet Survey 2009 www.youthnet.org/mediaandcampaigns/pressreleases/hybrid-lives))

• Only half of children encountering harmful or inappropriate content say they did something about it ((SF Staying Safe Survey, 2009 www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RR183.pdf))
• 18% of children have come across harmful or inappropriate content online
• 67% of parents have rules for their children’s internet usage
• 33% of children say their parents don’t really know what they do on the internet

This is the first UK Child Internet Safety Strategy. It sets out:

• the things we have done so far to keep children safe online;
• our commitments to parents, children and young people and the things we are planning to do to make them happen; and
• how you will know whether we are succeeding in making children and young people safer.

This strategy focuses on the next year, and this work starts today as we launch the Digital Code, which will be the basis of our public awareness campaign.

However, we know that making children safer on the internet needs a long term partnership. We will regularly measure progress over the next year and at the Second Child Internet Safety Summit in a year’s time we will look at this strategy to see how far we have come and what we need to do in future years.

…because what it is about is looking for context and embedding a consultation document within that context.

Part of what we’re trying to do with WriteToReply is explore how we can repurpose commentable documents in order to support effective networked, online digital consultations, so with every document we republish, we try to explore the problem space a little further.

The reason why this is necessary is because no-one is really sure yet what the best ways of running public online consultations are. So for example, in a recent blog post on the Digigov blog, Measuring digital engagement, Adam Bailin asks: “How do you evaluate the cost-benefit of the government’s digital engagement?”, before briefly considering three approaches:
1. Number of relationships
2. Number of user-generated content items
3. Number of referrals/recommendations

In a complementary post a week or so ago, Steph Gray sidestepped the question of evaluation (“it doesn’t quite fit the model of how we approach the [digital engagement] task as an element in its own right”) in a consideration of the The pieces of the digital engagement puzzle, where he posted a commentary upon the following slide:

So when it came to adding value to the Empower, Inform, Enrich consultation document, one of the things that came to mind was how we might actually situate the document in the context of related content that is already out there on the web and potentially draw traffic and/or attention from that third party content and benefit from it…

Actually, it didn’t come to mind like that at all, at least, not initially…

Here’s what did come to mind…

One of the things that I keep mulling over is how we might be able to use consultations as an authentic locus of discussion in an educational context, particularly for developing professional awareness about social, political, ethical and legal issues alongside the purely technical (I’m thinking of IT and computing, or engineering style degrees, here).

One pedagogical approach that might be used to deliver this is to set the consultation questions as a set of essay like questions, and encourage the students to produce a balanced consideration of it, drawing on technical expertise as well as an awareness of the wider issues.

To support such an activity, it is common to provide a set of reading resources that the student could draw on (a “reading list”) whilst developing their response. So for the current consultation, I started looking round for additional, unbiased, supporting material that could be used to inform the reader about some of the issues that lay within the scope of the consultation. These have been collected together on the More page of the consultation. (Some of the reports linked to were mentioned in the consultation document, some weren’t…)

On of the references I included was to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libraries, Literacy and Information Management’s ‘Inquiry into the Governance and Leadership of the Public Library Service in England’; because reading reports takes a certain amount of time and skill, I also linked to a Panlibus blog review of the report, a link which triggered off the thought: “we should be embedding WriteToReply documents within the wider web context”.

In a blog context, linking to another blog can often generate a “Trackback”, whereby the blog that is linked to is alerted to the fact that is has been linked to. (Inspection of referrer traffic from web stats can also alert a publisher that a particular third party web page is sending traffic via a link to a particular web page on the first party site.) A link to the third party site will then often (and automatically) generate a link back to the first party site (subject to various spam filtering measures).

Which means what? Well, it means that links going from a WriteToReply document can automatically request trackback links that point back to the WriteToReply document from the linked to documents. If nothing else, the author of the third party content will be alerted to the presence of the consultation document and may be tempted to publish their own post about it, or visit WriteToReply in order to comment on the linking document. In addition, visitors to the third party (linked to) documents may then see the trackback links to the (related) WriteToReply document, and click through to the WriteToReply site.

That is: by linking out to third party sites, the consultation document can become embedded within the wider context of already published web content, and potentially raise reciprocal links back to the consultation document via the trackback mechanism (see also Trackbacks, Tweetbacks and the Conversation Graph, Part I).

Even prior to that, however, benefits may arise from the consultation author looking for documents to link to – a form of desk research that may inform the authoring consultation document itself that corresponds to “Listening” in Steph’s engagement chart; linking out potentially counts as engaging, and the content that is used to link out as explaining. At a push, the development of link based networks of related content might even be classed as convening…?!;-)

[tony]

Click to view the full-size image

Q20

Is it important that libraries remain a statutory obligation for local authorities?

• What might be the advantages and disadvantages?
• For instance, would the removal of statute allow greater flexibility for fundraising or different modes of operation currently off limits?

Q21

Is the obligation to provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ library service the correct one?

• Does it need further definition or guidance around what that means or should the interpretation be left to local authorities?
• For instance, should there be more prescription around opening hours, web presence, service provision, staff skill mix?
• Is there a need for less, more or different local or national monitoring?
• Are visits and books borrowed still relevant?
• What else should we consider and measure when determining the efficiency and effectiveness of our libraries?
• Would an accreditation scheme for libraries be beneficial or are there other systems which might incentivise libraries to deliver more effectively?
• Is the Secretary of State’s power to intervene still appropriate?

Q22

How should we measure performance?

You might like to consider:

• Is there a need for less, more or different local or national monitoring?
• Are visits and books borrowed still relevant?
• What else should we consider and measure when determining the efficiency and effectiveness of our libraries?
• Would an accreditation scheme for libraries be beneficial or are there other systems which might incentivise libraries to deliver more effectively?
• Is the Secretary of State’s power to intervene still appropriate?

Q23

What research do we need to do to best demonstrate the benefits of the library service to local and national leaders? Who would be best placed to initiate this research?

Traditional information skills – such as good understanding of information resources – remain important to the delivery of library services, but other skills are becoming increasingly critical for their future success.

Q18

How could we encourage a greater skill mix beyond traditional librarianship in the library service?

• Do you think library courses have the relevant content and teach the right skills to equip the library workforce?
• How can we ensure that the library service attracts and nurtures leaders with the ability to drive improvement, engage in partnerships and innovate services?
• What other skills and/ or qualifications are required to staff a modern library?

Q19

Do you think that volunteering is a useful component of the library workforce? How can we ensure that volunteering arrangements are used to best effect?

Q15

What are the circumstances in which a Local Authority would be justified in closing a library?

Q16

Co-location of libraries with other public services, schools and colleges or business is becoming increasingly prevalent. When is co-location successful and what factors should LAs consider in making co-location decisions?

Q17

There is a mixed economy of library buildings including large central libraries, smaller local libraries and mobile libraries. What should library leaders consider in making decisions about the make-up of their library service? For instance:

• What kind of customer information should library leaders have in deciding where to locate libraries?
• How should Library leaders make decisions about library buildings’ accessibility and fitness for purpose?
• How should the library service be provided in small rural communities?
• Are there benefits from unstaffed mini-libraries, library machines and self service check out of books?
• How important is it that libraries should be housed in dedicated buildings?

Q13

Commercial partnerships through libraries are not common. How might we bring more private funding into the public library service?

• What commercial activities should we encourage libraries to operate? (Examples of commercial activities or partnerships might be book selling or partnerships with bookshops, provision of coffee shops, rental of certain materials, contracts with local business, national partnerships with private companies?)
• What benefits do you think these might bring to the library service?
• Are there any commercial activities which you think are not appropriate for libraries to undertake?

Q14

Where can libraries learn from the commercial sector and what private partnerships can you think of which have been useful for library services?

• How can we better spread good practice here?

We know that the services libraries offer vary across the country from opening hours to e-books to other community services. We know that there is a striking variation in the use of libraries across authorities. This must be linked to the services on offer and the responsiveness to customer demand. If we want the library service to flourish in the future we need to reverse the established downward trend in usage and ensure that libraries are relevant, popular and used by local communities. So we need to think about what libraries offer to their communities and what is effective in growing the demand by customers for libraries.

Contributors to the library review discussed whether a clear national ‘offer to consumers’ of the library in the 21st century needs to be articulated or whether the service content should be entirely locally led. A national offer would have the benefit of enabling coherent national marketing.

Q10

Are there any services which you consider should be prescribed across all library services or should services be entirely determined at local level? Is there any value in having a clear national ‘offer to consumers of the library in the 21st century’. If so which elements would be vital components? Besides hard copy books do you think there are other services which should be free at the point of delivery on a national basis?

Q11

How can we widen usage and make libraries more accessible to the public? For instance:

• On what basis should library leaders make decisions about opening hours and location?
• Should library joining and membership arrangements be simplified across all libraries? Indeed should library membership be national so that citizens can use any library and borrow and return material anywhere.
• Do you think there are particular services which would encourage more library use? You might wish to consider a universal home delivery service (in addition to the scheme for housebound people), and enabling people to request a book online.
• Only a third of 16-24 year olds now visit public libraries. How can we ensure that young people who leave full time education remain library users?
• How can we improve our understanding of the people who use libraries – and of the people who do not – in order to improve services to them?
• How might library users have a greater voice in decision making

Q12

Do we do enough to market library services? If not, what more could/should be done to promote or explain the benefits of libraries?

Q7

Digital Services: What is the future of library services in a digital environment? What changes do you envisage as a result of changes in technology over the next 5-10 years? You might like to consider –

• How can we use the digital revolution to extend access to library resources?
• Should virtual lending (ie lending downloads to the home via the internet) be the future of the public library service either generally or in some areas? What challenges would virtual lending present?
• What digital content should libraries provide? For example should all libraries make subscription online services available to users? Should this be a free service?
• Web 2.0 enables people and communities to contribute web content? Do you think that there is a role for libraries in Web 2.0? If so, what?
• Is there other content or technology which you think should be guaranteed to users?
• How can libraries support the Digital Inclusion agenda? What are some of the potential obstacles to greater digital engagement within libraries, and how might these be overcome?
• What other opportunities does new technology present for libraries? Do you have ideas for innovative ways in which new technology could be applied in local libraries?

Q8

Digital technology is already helping with the back office and administrative functions of many libraries

• How can we spread best practice and maximise those opportunities?
• Self service and return technology is intended to free up library staff to deal with more complex customer enquiries. Should this technology be available in all libraries?

Q9

• Do Local Authority IT strategies support or impede libraries’ digital innovation? Should libraries have a national web presence?
• Would a national online catalogue covering all public libraries be beneficial?

Two DCMS public bodies – the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council or MLA (a strategic Non Departmental Public Body promoting best practice) and the Advisory Council on Libraries (providing strategic advice to the Secretary of State on public libraries) – support central government policy making. In addition, third sector organisations like The Reading Agency and BookTrust work with central government and libraries to deliver programmes supporting literacy and learning.

During the early stages of this review we spoke to the library authorities that are testing new and emerging governance models such as Trust structures and procurement to private companies, and those that are opening up new revenue streams, fund raising opportunities or radical efficiency measures. Case studies on these authorities are included in the final section of this document.

Q4

A recent report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Libraries, Literacy and Information Management concluded that central Government structures complicate the delivery of library funding and policy. The Report also called into question the suitability of the MLA and ACL and recommended a Library Development Agency.

• Are there benefits in changing the structures in government?
• Are there benefits in changing the structures or roles of the public bodies?
• Is there a value in a greater central function around particular issues? Eg Marketing and publicity, digital services?
• Do you see any benefit in establishing new national/local structures as set out in Margaret Hodge’s essay?

Q5

In 2007 the Department for Communities and Local Government published Developing the Local Government Services Market: New ways of working and new models of provision within the public library service but only a handful of local authorities currently deliver libraries through a trust or private company. The case studies show that alternative delivery models can be effective so how might we best encourage Local Authorities to explore the opportunities they offer? What other governance models might be suitable for library services or are there barriers to introducing these models? For instance:

• What could libraries learn from other sectors including the private sector?
• Would other models of delivery and funding – eg the academy model for schools, social enterprise models or Foundation Trusts for hospitals – be appropriate for library services?

Q6

How can we prioritise investment in libraries, especially at a time of financial constraints? You may like to consider:

• How we might ensure that all libraries are able to develop successful funding models which are based on a diversity of funding streams.
• How could we help open new and more revenue streams for libraries,
• What could libraries learn from other sectors?
• How do we effectively spread best practice?

Q2

Do you think the current roles as defined for central and local government are still appropriate? Is the 1964 legislative framework still appropriate or does it need review? If so what changes would you like to see? Is there any value in central government having a more direct role in setting the vision and objectives for the library service or is the service better managed entirely at local level.

Q3

Could (a) central government departments, and (b) local authorities better use the public library service to communicate initiatives and contribute to other public services? Do you have any ideas on how this might work?

• Providing books, learning, information and entertainment to customers: All libraries provide a range of books and written material, often in a variety of formats, eg hard copy, audio, online and e-books. Most libraries also offer Music and Film material and provide computers with free internet access.
• The library at the centre of the Community: in many areas libraries are centres of the community, facilitating community meetings such as social groups or book clubs. Often, libraries work in partnership with other public services, providing signposts to customers or integrating health, learning, skills or education provisions.
• The library as an education resource and proactive provider of information and learning – In many areas libraries have a strong role in guiding customers through a morass of information, providing opportunities for education by linking to digital inclusion initiatives, improving literacy, offering reading events and providing learning opportunities within the library.

However, new challenges require new responses by libraries and give us an opportunity to consider afresh the role of public libraries.

Q1

Does every library authority have to share a common purpose? Are these purposes complementary and relevant? Are some more important than others? Are there other purposes we should consider?

The Norfolk and Norwich Millennium Library is the busiest library in the country. Visitors have remained at over 1.5m, and issues at over 1.1m since 2005/06.

Some of this has to do with the library being in the centre of Norwich, in a landmark building, but largely its success is due to Norfolk Library and Information Service’s approach to marketing.

The Service focuses specifically on the questions: who is using and not using the library, what do they want, and what does the library do to support their needs? Community profiling, consultation and data analysis help answer those questions. Increasingly the service is using marketing tools such as Mosaic to find out more about its customers.

As Jennifer Holland, Head of Norfolk Library and Information Service at Norfolk County Council explained, “We try to ensure that messages about the library service are directed at particular audiences with information about what will be relevant to them. Our activity programme, and the way we deliver our service is targeted at specific market segments while also ensuring we are linking in to council and county-wide priorities. An example of this is our approach to reading groups – the Millennium Library supports a large number of reading groups but puts extra effort into those for groups identified in the community profile as our target audiences – such as parents with small children, people reading books in translation, children and young people, people with sight disability, people with mental health problems.”

Young people were involved in the design and stocking of the children’s library at the Millennium Library. They continue to help with stock selection and lead many of their own activities; disabled groups advise on adjustments to make services more accessible and local gay and lesbian community representatives advise on the selection and display of stock. The library is regularly mystery-shopped by people from target groups and as a result services are continuously improved.

Wigan

In the six years since it was established the Wigan Leisure & Culture Trust has demonstrated considerable improvements and major investment in Wigan Council’s libraries, archives, museums and leisure centres. Business rate savings of half a million pounds a year have enabled investment to flow back into services.

As a result of investment of £1.5 million over the last five years and a re-energised service, residents enjoy a more efficient and effective library service with extended opening hours, new stock and better partnership projects with schools, health and children’s centres.

Peter Gascoigne, Executive Director of Wigan Libraries, Heritage and Arts, said: “It’s very easy to think that all your problems will be solved by setting up a Trust, but a whole range of other factors have to be in place. Much depends upon the size of the organisation and what savings can be released from the business rate. In Wigan’s case, there were minimal savings from libraries; however, libraries have been able to benefit from the exemption of the business rate on our leisure centres, which are also part of Wigan Leisure & Culture Trust’s mandate.”

Worcester Library and History Centre

The development of a new joint university and public library and history centre in Worcester, funded by PFI and partnership funding, will raise the aspirations of the community across the county – encouraging the retention of skills and knowledge in the region and providing an integrated site to fulfil a wide variety of information, interest and learning needs.

The project, which will be completed in 2012, involves the development of one building which will house integrated collections from both the public and university libraries. Spaces will be accessible to all and audio visual technology will ensure that physical barriers are removed.

The partnership approach was able to leverage funding not available to a single organisation. In addition to HEFC funding, Advantage West Midlands granted funding because of the regenerative impact of the scheme which is considered an exceptional example of an holistic approach to service integration, urban regeneration and enhanced service delivery.

Extensive community consultation has been important to the new centre’s development. A dedicated area for young people (which they have helped to design) is located adjacent to one of the social study areas that will be used by students of all ages. This is intended to inspire the young library users and make them realise that higher education is accessible to anyone.

As Kathy Kirk, Head of Culture & Community Services, said, “The parent who comes with a child to look for a picture book. The home owner seeking planning advice.

The student researching 17th century conflict. A carer seeking advice on claiming a benefit. This could be one and the same person. This new service will provide ease of access to all the community’s knowledge, and information requirements and we hope that it will excite and inspire them to aspire for more as a result of their visit.”

The new £2 million Shepherds Bush Library and Workzone was built and fitted out at zero cost to the taxpayer thanks to an innovative partnership between the Council and Westfield Ltd which was designed to deliver key community gains from the Section 106 planning agreement for the new Westfield Shopping Centre.

The new library is proving popular with local residents with an astonishing 700% increase in membership compared with the previous year, a 50% increase in visits to the site compared to the old library and a 45% increase in book loans and has also led to increased book issues and more active customers in libraries across the authority.

The Workzone area of the library is an innovative partnership with Ealing Hammersmith & West London College, Job Centre Plus and Hammersmith & Fulham Council to provide a dedicated recruitment and retention service for retailers on the Westfield site and for other employers helping them to fill their jobs locally. Individuals benefit from all the services offered by all the agencies involved, from financial help with childcare costs to help with job interview techniques.

LBH remains the only local authority to outsource the management of its library and cultural services to a private sector company, John Laing Integrated Services (JLIS).

JLIS has a self monitoring process which is also available via the web to the Borough and is designed to ensure that real improvements are delivered and can be evidenced. Library attendance has increased by 7% in the last 12 months.

Over the last eighteen months, to deliver improved local services and increased community participation and engagement, JLIS have introduced

• new HR expertise and management
• new IT infrastructure
• new performance management systems
• new financial management systems

A Community Service Development Team will work across the whole portfolio (libraries, parks, arts and heritage), maximising staff resources, increasing capacity, reducing silos and generating more events and outreach services.

An agreed library improvement programme will improve the fabric of the boroughs libraries, address layout, decor, accessibility, and usage and make further improvements to IT. Co-location of services and facilities is central to plans and work has started on the development of two new community hubs, bringing leisure centres and libraries together and expanding the services they provide to include community space, crèches, café facilities, new IT and security systems.

Luton

In 2007, Luton Borough Council agreed to transfer their museums, libraries and arts activities to a charitable trust and company limited by guarantee in order to enhance the services and protect them from local authority cuts.

Currently 73% of the trust’s funding comes from the Council, but the ability to be more flexible and entrepreneurial will enable the trust to develop a new business model over the next 10 years, reducing its dependency on council funding.

The Trust is represented on Luton’s Health and Wellbeing Management Group, Children’s Trust and Safer and Stronger Communities Board, and so contributes to wider outcomes.

Cllr Hazel Simmons, Leader of the Council commented on the Trust, “A charity running the services on a not-for-profit basis has meant resources not available to the Council have been accessed and speedier decisions made, meaning the focus has been on providing first class services to customers.”

Manchester

Manchester Library and Information Service (MLIS) is in year 5 of a major service improvement journey designed to enhance services and improve efficiency. Satisfaction with the service has already improved by 5%.

The programme has focussed on:

• Improving key indicators and delivering better value for money
• Refurbishing and replacing buildings
• New training for staff
• Partnership working across the public sector and with developing partnerships with FE and HE, health, and the voluntary sector
• Extending opening hours in 9 libraries within existing resources and opening six libraries on Sundays In order to deliver a 21st Century library service, MLIS has demonstrated that its work contributes to overall Council priorities, the LAA and other national indicators. The service has, therefore, received additional resources, 600 public facing PCs, the introduction of RFID technology, and the development of on-line services including an upgrade of the Library Management System.

Newcastle

Newcastle’s new library building which, was mostly funded by a PFI consortium, is a significant part of wider regeneration projects taking place across the city.

The design of the library offers a high-profile entrance and bold signage to make the building visible from all aspects; providing light and transparency through large glass facades and; creating an attractive, high quality open-plan building. The furniture and furnishings create a welcoming environment.

The library has extended opening hours and is100% self-service – with nine download stations or consoles which have facilities to sample CDs and DVDs and download music and which offer access to the online catalogue – leaving staff available to walk the library floor assisting users. A vending machine enables people to borrow a range of books and DVDs when the building is closed.

Between 7 June and 31 October there were 528,000 visits to the library and 263,000 loans of books, CDs and DVDs. Councillor Pauline Allen, Executive Member for Culture, Leisure and Customer Services, Newcastle City Council said, “We value our library service, even in difficult times, perhaps even more so in difficult times because this is when people really need help, advice and in my view, a good book”.

When a prize winning new mobile library brought modern library services to residents in predominantly rural communities in the East Riding user satisfaction improved significantly.

To meet the needs of residents in both agricultural communities and commuter areas, evening and Saturday visits were introduced and the new service brought free computer and internet access as well as a selection of high quality book stock. By providing a broad range of services within the one vehicle, rural communities now have the equivalent of a one-stop­shop on their doorstep.

As Libby Herbert, Libraries Manager, said, “Community value has been created. Alongside a substantial improvement in library provision village schools gained access to broadband services and networking, some village halls have created local IT suites utilising the broadband link at no cost to the community, Police Community Support Officers are using the Travelling Library as a base for village visits and other agencies use them for one-off contact and advice sessions. School visits to introduce the library service in rural areas are based on the travelling libraries.”

Essex

A service that began as a pilot project funded by the Laser Foundation and managed jointly with Co-East and Loughborough University is proving that there is a market for e-books in UK public libraries.

In Essex libraries, US suppliers Overdrive and ebrary provide content that can be read on multi-purpose, generic devices such as a home computer or laptop, and are proving popular with users – 2,500 people regularly use the Overdrive service, with another 50-100 people signing up each month. The services enable the authority to have a far greater selection of titles, as well as providing remote access, and are now considered a permanent feature of the library offer.

Essex now also offer e-audio through Overdrive, whose material is also compatible with iPods and iPhones. This is attracting a new range of users, many of whom go on to use e-books as well. As demand grows, additional suitable content from further suppliers – Bloomsbury and W F Howes has been added.

Greenwich Leisure Ltd (GLL) London Borough of Hounslow

Greenwich Council’s Leisure Department, facing significant budget reductions in 1993, took a risk and allowed the staff to form Greenwich Leisure Ltd (GLL), a ‘non profit distributing’ social enterprise that is now the UK’s largest leisure trust managing 18 public sector partnerships (70 leisure centres), employing 3,500 staff and generating £75m in revenues.

The social enterprise model gives local authorities an alternative to either lethargic in house management or wholly commercial private externalisation. GLL’s entrepreneurial nature borrows much from the private sector mentality of sales, income generation, pricing, marketing and raising capital but uses its surpluses to support its social and community objectives. The model increases investment, increases usage and satisfaction and at a lower cost to local authorities and, in addition, a dedicated community development team ensures local health, regeneration, social inclusion; employment and education issues are delivered in the local areas.

Starbucks has become a cosy, welcoming place to study for students across the country. During the day business men and women sit alongside them for impromptu meetings and in the evenings, book groups gather. Despite the age of the internet and laptop, people still want a place to meet or to feel a sense of connection with the wider world as they read, study or chat.

In the UK a lot of kids are leaving libraries and heading to coffee shops. In the US, many libraries at universities have noticed the trend and have put Starbucks coffee shops into the library. One of 30 colleges that have a Starbucks is the University of South Florida in Tampa. The number of students using the library there rose by a staggering 145,000 a year following the opening of Starbucks and the library is once again the hub of campus life. Closer to home, here in the UK, Starbucks has been working with, among others, the local authority for the London Borough of Hillingdon to provide quality coffee for members of a number of libraries in the district.

Making the library the hub of community life in the UK may be the best bet for its survival – at a time when the library is no longer the only place where knowledge can be found. That’s the role that coffee houses have fulfilled in the UK since the first ones opened in the late 17th century. By the 18th century, it was natural for wits to gather to hear John Dryden at Will’s Coffee House in Covent Garden or for others to debate politics or conduct business in the 500 plus coffee shops in London.

Can libraries learn anything from the coffee shop experience and can they continue to thrive? I hope so because as a parent I know how important it is for children and students to have a place where they can study and be safe away from the distractions of siblings and their peers. I know how useful I found it when I was studying all those years ago. Everyone needs a place to go. It’s something we call the “third place”. It’s neither home nor work, but a comfortable spot where you are welcome to stay as long as you like. Libraries need to be a “third place” of choice rather than a last resort for increasingly isolated or marginalised groups.

The good news is that there’s a real hunger for communities to have a place to meet in large or small groups where they can be comfortable and feel at home. So perhaps libraries can have quiet rooms and spaces for concentration, but space too for discussion and the exchange of ideas where silence is not a prerequisite.

Like a coffee shop, no appointment is needed and no-one will turn and stare as you come through the door. Join in however you want, in whatever size group or if you’re alone.

Of course they might need some good coffee to keep the conversations flowing.

That search for a community hub is a growing trend and it’s no coincidence that our new store designs focus heavily on creating meeting places with long tables and sofas drawn up alongside coffee tables. Additionally, over 580 Starbucks coffeehouses throughout the UK offer free Wi-Fi through our rewards programme. Could libraries follow suit? I think they can.

We know too that the future success of libraries is vital in promoting literacy in the UK. That’s why we joined the National Literacy Trust, over seven years ago, in a partnership to create exciting events for children to hear stories and to receive free books. We recently held an event in Dundee, but we didn’t hold it in a Starbucks, we held it in the Central Library with 250 children from five primary schools. We call our employees “partners” and dozens of them have volunteered to read stories and listen to children read.

It would be a tragedy if libraries declined and faded from our lives. They offer equal access to knowledge and give kids and adults a chance to learn and to share ideas. However, as the world changes, they have to change too and Starbucks wishes them well as they face the challenge ahead.

Members of the Society of Chief Librarians consistently deliver these changes on behalf of local people. SCL would propose that public libraries are already making themselves fit for the 21st century. They are making themselves fit for the communities within which they work by being relevant to today’s needs. That means access to jobs and careers advice, tackling literacy through reader development, improving health through information and bibliotherapy, supporting digital literacy and serving as an access point for all national government and local council services.

However, improvement is needed, and SCL feels that the following areas should be focused on in order to create a better service.

Recognition of Public Libraries’ Contribution

Public Libraries contribute to many agendas across Government. We would want to see these contributions recognised and built on. Partnerships in health, education, business and the economy, basic skills, literacy, elderly care, social inclusion and others are helping improve people’s lives every day, but sadly go unnoticed in the debate on public libraries. SCL gathers and publishes case studies that illustrate these partnerships but more support is needed to ensure these best practices reach a wider audience and are replicated.

Delivery Models

There are different delivery models for public services which need to be investigated so they might be better understood and described so authorities can make informed choices. SCL facilitates peer support to make access to good practice easy so authorities can learn how to improve.

There are many examples of good practice, radical thinking and leadership in public libraries across the country. These need to be communicated and understood so they can be replicated.

Libraries should be actively working with the private sector to learn new and better ways to innovate. They should make effort to understand how modern corporate responsibility works and how they can work within it. Marks and Spencer, Tesco, Starbucks, Borders: they all have innovated through the recession and there are lessons for libraries to learn from them on rebuilding links between customers and library services.

Digital Opportunities Leadership and Governance

In an age where public libraries are testing e-books for public use, bridging the digital divide and, increasingly, commanding a large number of followers on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, isn’t it time there was a clear lead on digitising the nation’s content? Public libraries play a major role in the delivery of digital literacy, this role needs to better understood by government and supported through the Digital Britain agenda.

Shared Services

Many regions, including the North East, North West and Yorkshire, and the South East are sharing services and seeing significant savings. SCL would like more attention focused on the best practices in this area that are working, with support and incentives being identified for further work.

Measuring Success

Today, there are many ways in which people use public libraries. SCL would like these ways better understood and measured. The traditional means of measuring public library use are out of date and yet are repeated in the media as if they tell the whole story. We need ways to capture the impact of using library services and we need ways of measuring the rising numbers of people accessing their library service online.

Libraries should remain a part of local authorities to ensure they can deliver meaningful local services. But they also need strong central government leadership that makes strong recommendations on all of the above points. This leadership should be a combination of library drivers—ie, made up of people who are running the service day to day—and professional communications, advocacy, development and education specialists. A Libraries Development Agency would be welcomed in the sector. The statutory duty underlines the importance of the work by public libraries and should remain – if a little better defined.

Conclusion

In the face of cuts, some up to 20%, in local library services, now more than ever, public libraries need strong leadership. The positive ways that public libraries help people change and improve their lives every day also need to be recognised and promoted. The Society of Chief Librarians, through its website www.goscl.com and its network, gathers and actively promotes these success stories, but a national movement is needed. There is no need to reinvent the public library service to make it fit for the 21st century. It already is.What we need now is leadership and strategic thinking.

So a review of libraries policy needs to understand the ways in which current policy might stand in the way of change and growth. To my mind, there are four barriers we should be trying to lift, and the fourth encapsulates the first three.

First, policy’s enduring focus on the physical detail of the tools that deliver the service – books, buildings, and so on. This is not inevitably backward-looking, but in a world of performance management where we measure what we had last year, it is much harder to think about what we need next year.

If elected councils believe the wrong book stock is getting in the way of delivering the service their communities want, it is right for them to dispose of books and provide something that gives a better service. If elected councils believe the wrong buildings are tying the service to a substandard offer in the wrong places, then it is right to replace those buildings with something that gives a better service.

Secondly, and related, a besetting confusion about professionalism.

The people who deliver the service need to be consummate professionals, with clear values, focussed on providing the information service citizens want to high standards. That professionalism may or may not be reflected in specific qualifications; but in my view it is a professionalism that is not directly related to the technical skills required to manage the service’s assets

Libraries need people who know how to care for and access book stocks, just as they need people who can manage budgets. But those skills are only the servant of the library service’s larger purpose in informing and empowering citizens. The possessors of those skills should not have a privileged voice in informing policy, especially where they plead for producer interests under a threadbare ethical covering.

Thirdly, the library service is weakened by being seen as islands of specialism. The gateway to information it provides is most empowering when it improves citizens’ access to all public services – and not just public services – and helps people learn more about the opportunities they have to shape the way they are governed. For this to happen, the library service needs to make lively linkages with other services from adult learning to health, from the police to the Jobcentre. National policy that encourages the library service to look up a narrow pipeline of accountability to the centre, be it a quango, an inspection, or a government Minister, diminishes the library service and reduces the good it can do for the people who use it.

I hope it is obvious by now what I believe the fourth, overarching and most problematic element to be. The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 is a barnacle-encrusted sheet-anchor dragging the national debate on libraries back into the ooze of the Wilson era. It describes a service whose principal function is “the borrowing of books”, not the provision of empowering information.

What is a twenty-first century government doing holding statutory inquiries into how to provide modern services, when the statute itself prescribes the provision of “films and gramophone records” as its vision of modernity? Moreover, the Act gives the Secretary of State a “superintending” role that, as we have recently seen demonstrated, prudent Ministers hesitate to exercise, but that distorts accountability upwards to Whitehall and the quangocracy rather than outwards to the communities the service is working for. It entrenches the role of policy advice from those who “have experience of …administration”, and ignores both political leadership and the voices of users.

It is time for a new Libraries Act: one that puts local accountability to the citizen and service user first, recognises that the library service is valuable for its outcomes, not its inputs, and awards national government its true role as strategic leader, not superintendent. That would be the best conclusion for a libraries modernisation review that aims to encourage the service to evolve in line with a changing democratic society that still desperately needs what the libraries service has to offer.

Evidently public libraries have adapted to changes in the world around them. My vision maintains this core purpose but recognises that too many public libraries have been too slow to adapt to changing user needs. Local delivery of the public library service has enabled it to respond better to local needs but has got in the way of the national marketing so essential to a consumer service. Indeed it is the only statutory service without an “attached” national marketing campaign of some kind. The very best libraries are changing fast. It is therefore even more important for them to communicate these changes to their users and it follows that local marketing of their services is also essential. Hence my vision is for a public library service with markets its offering in a commercial way, is constantly seeking new users and constantly finding new offers within the core purpose, not only to bring in new users but also to assist local and national government in the delivery of services relevant to the core purpose. Some public libraries have NHS health information desks with staff from the NHS operating them and collection of materials promoting healthier lifestyles. Some public libraries help you set up your own business. Many will help you with housing and planning issues. In my vision there is no government department without a presence in public libraries.

My vision recognises that the DCSF has had a very poor engagement with the public library service given the central role of libraries in learning. In recent years there have been excellent initiatives in connection with reading. But for a government committed to the role of science and technology as a key driver for the economy, the science book stock of our public libraries is a national disgrace. State intervention is crucial in this area for, while the latest novel may well be available at Tesco’s for a bargain price, science books are very expensive and increasing in price.

Much learning nowadays is online. Much information is online. We used to go to our reference library to consult ordinance survey maps. Much of what we need is online. The People’s Network was a superb and cost effective initiative which did so much to democratise online learning and information, but it is now out of date. We need a new national network in our public libraries and it is obvious that this should be JANET, the academic network. Its power would mean the raft of online information services which have to be paid for (those of the highest quality and most up to date) would be made available cost effectively in public libraries.

In my vision, public library staffing would reflect that necessary for a consumer oriented service, not history. In my vision, the various public library professional bodies would focus on new ideas, new futures and proselytising these with local and national government much as the engineering professional bodies do today. They would also force through the necessary revolution in professional training to underpin this vision.

Without doubt, for a long time universities and colleges have thrived better and served local and national interests better and more cost effectively once they become stand­alone independent financial entities. Suddenly consumer orientation, marketing, the provision of new services became essential, not add­ons. The advantage of this approach has of course most recently been recognised by government for schools. It is my vision that public library services should be granted this freedom and established as public library corporation free of direct political control but rather accountable to local needs through the constitution of their boards. This freedom would allow effective managers to make savings in one area and reinvest them in another without fear of the cash saved being hived off by some over-arching body. It would also expose ineffective managers.

In my vision, the availability of a public library service is paramount. Every public library service should be open for at least two nights a week and on Saturday and Sunday, though not in every branch. The whole public library system should be capable of being accessed online with material made available for collection at a nominated public library or through the post. It should be possible to return material at any public library. It should be a requirement that self-issue and self-return stations are in every public library to free up staff for the non-mechanical aspects to service delivery. And finally all public library buildings are within a single national “brand”.

“A creative service at the heart of Hampshire communities which prides itself on meeting their evolving needs for reading, information, learning and enjoyment.”

Introduction

Hampshire is a large county with a population of 1.3 million living in a mix of large cities, market towns, coastal areas and rural communities.

Our Library Service is one of the biggest in the country with 53 libraries and Discovery Centres and 24 mobile

library vehicles. Nearly 7 million people a year pass

through the doors of our libraries and mobile libraries to access our services and many more access services via the web.

The Challenge

The challenge that we have taken up is to ensure that, as we move into the 21st century, we continue to offer services to meet the changing needs of our residents whilst making the most of the resources that we have available to us.

We believe that the way to do this is through collaboration:

• With local communities and community groups so that we understand and can respond to their needs
• With our colleagues in other County Council departments and other public sector organisations so that we make best use of our combined resources, knowledge and skills
• With partners with whom we have shared goals and values, whether that be by providing spaces for them to meet with local people, by signposting their services or by collaborating to ensure that opportunities are made easily available to our residents
• With our staff to ensure that we retain their commitment and develop the skills and experience to respond to the changes ahead

We must also respond to the ever changing and developing technologies both in our libraries and in the range of services that we offer.

The delivery of these services will continue to be through a mix of static libraries, mobile libraries, our School Library Service and our website. Our service must be driven by the communities we serve and the services that they need.

Our Approach

In response to this challenge we have reviewed every element of our service and set new standards for ourselves arising from local customer feedback, our commitment to excellence and the national debate about libraries.

Static libraries

The provision in our static libraries is led by the offer in our flagship Discovery Centres which offer:

• Full borrowing and reference services
• Access to e-resources and e-books
• Provision of a wide range of community/performance/visual arts activities and events
• Public IT access
• Provision of and signposting to County Council services, including the developing personalisation agenda
• Access to a range of learning opportunities
• Facilities for partner services
• Spaces for community use
• Local studies and family history materials and facilities
• Opening hours – 55+ hours a week
• Open on Sundays where appropriate

All our 50 other libraries aspire to offer a similar service, constrained only by the needs of smaller communities, the facilities available, the viability of that offer and the size and shape of the building they are in.

Where it is not possible for the Library Service to provide and staff a static library we are eager to reach agreement with communities to enable them to run and manage their own library, using self-service technology and operating within the terms of a management agreement with us.

In addition we would like to create new Library Service access points in non-traditional settings, such as sports or community centres and managed by the staff at that location. These would offer a more limited range of books that customers could issue and return themselves, using self-service technology.

Mobile library service

Where a static library or access point is not appropriate library services will be supplied by our mobile service with the following priorities:

• Isolated rural communities – where there is very limited/no public transport and the residents do not have good access to their own transport
• Priority areas of urban deprivation
• Pre-school and children’s centres
• Residential and nursing homes
• Sheltered accommodation located where public transport links are poor
• Individuals who are housebound

Virtual library service

Increasing numbers of residents are accessing our library services via our website including:

• Requesting and renewing books and other materials
• Accessing information from reference on-line
• Finding out about activities, classes and events

We will continue to build and develop this remote access to our services.

The Future

We are convinced that we can continue to provide a library service that meets the needs of the residents of Hampshire. We will achieve this by working increasingly closely with, and listening to, the communities we serve, our partners and colleagues. We must ensure that our communities know about all the services that we offer and that our staff is fully trained and supported to respond to the challenges ahead.

I’m excited about how libraries are already engaging young people in volunteering and about how we can do more to unleash this potential even further.

Building on good foundations

Attending the recent Public Library Authorities Conference, I was fascinated to learn about all the great work that libraries are doing in partnership with others to encourage young people to volunteer.

I’ve worked with young people for all of my professional life and I’ve noticed how over recent years, all political parties, government departments and local authorities realise more than ever the vital importance of positive youth engagement. They understand the important role that volunteering can play in changing lives and improving communities.

Research shows that young people volunteer more than any other group. It shows that they do so to develop their own skills and experience, and to help their communities and the planet.

Libraries are so well placed in our communities as places where young people study, meet and congregate. Involving young people can give a library a more vibrant image, the involvement and excitement of young people providing a fresh impetus to what a library does and offers.

What we do at v

At v,The National Young Volunteers’ Service, we aim to revolutionise volunteering for 16 to 25 year olds and inspire a new generation of young people to change their communities for the better. By bringing volunteering directly to young people and providing them with opportunities that excite them, we’ve helped create over 900,000 new volunteering opportunities.

We work with over 500 voluntary and community organisations throughout the country, providing funding and support to enable them to harness the talents of young people.

We encourage youth-led action and have a 20 strong youth advisory board called v20 who are helping us to shape the future of volunteering.

We’ve engaged with consumer brands, through our Match Fund projects, to deliver an extra £84 million so far into youth projects.

Our youth fund – vcashpoint, jointly backed by HSBC, puts money directly in the hands of young people to develop the initiatives they care about for community benefit.

Our nationwide network of teams and projects provide high quality access to volunteering opportunities. We have 107 teams covering every local authority area in England. They are supported by 107YouthActionTeams whose role is to inspire their peers to volunteer.

Our fulltime programme vtalent year forms the core of our national service pilots. It offers high quality, structured volunteering placements for young people in public and voluntary services.

Working together for young people, for libraries and for our communities

The mission of libraries to promote reading and literacy forms the perfect platform on which to build a unique volunteering offer to young people.

I’m delighted that next year v will be working in partnership with the Reading Agency to assist recruitment of young volunteers for the Summer Reading Challenge. We’re doing this so it can be bigger and better than ever before and reach many more children than ever before. Over the next few months we’ll be creating a national campaign to promote the project with our local teams and across our online platform, vinspired.com. It’s critical that volunteering opportunities for the young are presented in a compelling way that will inspire them to engage.

Reading to a child can change the lives of both the reader and the listener.

We’ll work with libraries and the Reading Agency to examine how we can build on current ideas, as well as developing brand new ones. 95% of 4000 libraries took part in the Reading Challenge, reaching 750,000 children. This is highly impressive but we hope, together, we can do even better. We need to think more broadly, for example promoting the Reading Challenge in schools via our local Youth Action Teams. We need to explore the private sector, especially where libraries already have existing relationships. And, most importantly, we must engage young people more through their worlds and lifestyles, such as through the digital world and with language and images they can identify with.

One of the great joys of reading is how it fires the mind and soul… and so must our appeal to young people. Together, we can inspire young people to learn, to help others, to think, to imagine…

Regular meetings between local librarians and teacher representatives from every local school to discuss how the provision of books into schools and getting children into libraries can be improved.

A clear, simple local authority map of local libraries to be provided to every parent upon the arrival of a child into the education system. This map (and sheet) should carry the essential, basic information that every child is entitled to 10 (in some areas, it’s 12) books out at a time, and that fines are not charged to children for late returns. It should also show in an attractive, simple way just what kinds of books a child might find in a library.

By whatever scheme is possible, it should be arranged that all a child (and parent) needs to do is turn up at the library with the form issued in school, and the child will be given a library ticket. (This can be done, I gather, if the form is partly filled in with name and address of the child – which the school could do. This is particularly important for households where English is not a main language.)

It is vital that schools make space and time for librarians to come into school to do demonstrations both to children and to parents, showing them the range of books that they have. This can take the form of daytime or twilight sessions. Ideal is the face-to-face encounter at going-home time for Nursery, Reception and Year 1 and 2 classes.

The old arrangements for schools making regular visits to the local library need to be re-introduced. Great care needs to be taken to make these sessions interesting and helpful for the children. Where libraries provide homework clubs for secondary-age school students, this needs to be made clear to all students so that they all know what is available for them.

The School Library Service is in great need of repair. I understand that specific ring-fenced funding has not been provided to require that schools subscribe to these where they exist. I suggest that this is a luxury that we cannot afford. The provision of books to match the curriculum is essential. It is only through the regular provision of a wide range of attractive new books that children from homes where there are no books will get access to the world of complex ideas that only books can provide. Both the SLS and schools access to it have to be properly funded and specifically funded in a secure ring-fenced way.

All holiday and out of school events organised by libraries should be co-ordinated and publicised through schools and school librarians. At present, this is a very patchy affair across the country as a whole, i.e. in some places it happens, in others it doesn’t. This means that schools and libraries must work together so that every child and every parent knows of the events that libraries lay on in the way of reading clubs, story-telling sessions, author readings, competitions, exhibitions, performances and the Summer Reading Challenge. Every area must learn from the areas where there is the best practice in this respect. I understand that Rochdale is one such example. I have witnessed excellent work in Hackney, Basildon, Brighton and Bournemouth. It is vital that this kind of work is continuous and not sporadic.

More and more areas are running literary festivals. Sometimes libraries are involved, sometimes not. Where not, this is a great opportunity missed of getting people of all ages into libraries in order to support the interests aroused by sessions at the festivals. One of the conditions attached to public funding of literary festivals should be that formal arrangements should be made to involve the local libraries e.g. through some of the author sessions being in the libraries, (as already done in some places); that a free place (e.g. a tent) should be made for the library service, that a library stand should be placed next to the book stall; that the library service should be allowed free advertising in the festival brochure and so on.

The relationship between museums, heritage sites, National Trust sites etc and libraries needs to be improved. It’s quite possible to make visits to such sites and exhibitions without being made aware of how the exhibits are supported by what’s available in the local library. So, for example, it is not obvious to all who visit that not far from that particular visitor’s home, there will be a free borrowable book that can support any or every aspect of what the visitor has seen. I suggest that free and specific leaflets, making this clear should be available at all sites that receive public funding. So, at a castle, there should be a free, attractive library leaflet available giving examples of the kind of book that the visitor could find in their local library on medieval life, buildings and history.

But these reasons alone are not enough to justify the endless hand-wringing, inquiries, reviews and reports. Libraries need to engage more effectively with their consumers who will become their greatest advocates. Once consumers understand – through personal experience – what their local library either physical or digital can offer and how they themselves can benefit, can contribute and above all enjoy they – as voters – will demand a high level of service appropriate to the 21st century and will do more to persuade local government to resource properly and prioritise than any amount of ministerial hectoring. Let’s not get bogged down in endless governance and structure debates – of course libraries should sit at the heart of the community, funded and run locally – let’s spend time and energy (and some money) on getting the user experience right and trumpeting the extraordinary resource that libraries are from the rooftops.

So to ‘the how’. Reinvention of the wheel is costly and unnecessary. We are surrounded by examples of best practice – and how to make libraries ‘fit for purpose’ in Manchester, Newcastle, York, Devon and many other places. Their excellence and efforts need to be actively shared in a practical way with all Local Government chiefs and should form one of the key communication strategies of the MLA. Consumers care about buildings open when the high street’s open (particularly Sunday); about 24 hour digital access. They care about up-to­date stock and books and e-products they’ve just heard about in the media. They care about clear shelf navigation , visually exciting displays, author visits, reading groups, story times, readers picks, discovering new writers (increasingly not available on the high street)-risk and cost-free. Much good work around all this is already being done now by the Reading Agency and its partnership project with the publishers – Reading Partners – and this needs to be extended and championed.

Upgrading the universal consumer library experience is key – physical libraries need to be a nice place to spend time in with facilities that any leisure destination would have with coffee shops and loos and the best practitioners have achieved it through focus, effort and in many cases partnerships with other local services and private business.

If it means shutting some small non-viable remote libraries and replacing them with ‘outreach’ services such as mobile libraries and digital access this needs to be done.

And while some local councils are being shown and encouraged by their peers to improve their library services we should start a vigorous national campaign of marketing to the consumer what the library offer is: hundreds of thousands of books at your fingertips; meet authors, join a reading group, discover new writers – all for FREE.A marketers dream with – in addition- the environmental and community messages to boot and hundreds of high profile advocates waiting and willing to participate: authors, publishers, teachers. When the first ‘positive’ library marketing campaign was done for some time as part of the National Year of Reading in 2008 around library membership it had a huge response. This needs to be done annually and as part of this we need to adopt the consumer entitlement statement that the Love Libraries campaign drew up with the SCL (again no need to reinvent the wheel) so that users and voters know what to expect.

From this improved advocacy and consumer messaging will naturally flow the other key aspect of a 21st century library service – the recruitment of an engaged and energetic workforce who feel motivated and excited by customer service. There are declining opportunities in the publishing and book retail sector for recruitment so a real opportunity for the library sector to scoop up some highly-talented individuals.

Let’s look at training/buddying with retail and publisher partners – something already being trialled under the Reading Partners banner. And not just paid employees – library ‘volunteering’ should be on the agenda for students, retirees, stay-at-home mums and busy professionals. Their contribution will be invaluable both in time and expertise.

So, in my view, making the library sector a vibrant 21st century consumer experience is there for the taking. In more affluent times I would be advocating a ‘Renaissance’ type fund to kick-start many of the improvements around fabric, opening hours, digital investment – and I think this should be kept firmly on a future government’s agenda. But in the short term let’s focus our resources more wisely: there are efficiencies to be made in book procurement which the publishers and the library suppliers could energetically participate in with encouragement; there are more private sector partnerships to be explored at local and national level: most consumer businesses would kill for the still very impressive footfall and visitor stats from the sector. Above all there is the messaging: about best practice and opportunity to local government and about what a wonderful destination the library is for the consumer. And that marketing leadership needs to be urgently sought from one of the existing bodies – MLA and/or

The Reading Agency with one champion to drive and coordinate. No more reviews and reports – just action please!

A society which values the public library, values books and their capacity to amuse, entertain, educate and maybe even change lives. Free access to all is the guiding principle and the only criterion for entry is interest.

But libraries cannot afford to stand still. The modern library must still promote reading and learning but alongside this they must provide access to digital skills and services; work to tackle social exclusion and truly build their own unique identities within the communities they serve.

Make it easy for people to love libraries

In the age of view on demand and catch-up services, we no longer live in an ‘appointment to view’ era.

Libraries are recognising this with greater flexibility in their opening hours and already some are experimenting with ‘lovefilm’-style online ordering where books can be reserved online and returned to libraries in pre-paid envelopes.

Should we introduce a system where all residents are automatically made members of their local library and would need to ‘opt out’ of the library services? Could more be done to encourage groups to come together using the library as a focal point: a national book club if you like?

There are many examples of hotspots of excellence, but without a national framework of best practice which allows libraries to retain their unique localness, service innovations will remain patchy.

Engage with young children

Libraries do incredible work to engage with young and pre-school children and the number of children’s books borrowed from UK libraries has risen in each of the last four years, which the Reading Agency attributes to an increase in investment in libraries’ reading services for children and families and the development of powerful local partnerships coupled with big national interventions such as the Summer Reading Challenge.

Hard to reach teens

But what of older children? Teenagers who have not grown up with a reading habit are hard to reach.

Research from the National Literacy Trust confirmed that reading, for some, has an image problem; perceived as a boring and solitary endeavour undertaken by ‘Johnnie-no-mates’. These professed non-readers cannot see a relevance to reading outside of the classroom and fail to see how improved literacy could improve life chances or the extent to which reading is both fun and rewarding.

The challenge for the modern library is to become an attractive haven for all demographics.

Digital

The proliferation of new hardware such as ebook readers and handheld devices to access audiobooks will help grow the market for books. These advances, however, generate a number of challenges around sale and distribution and as such, measures must be put in place to ensure the fair protection of content whilst meeting the needs of authors, publishers, libraries and readers alike.

The digital space offers some terrific opportunities to the modern library; opening up new channels through which to promote reading.

Indeed The Random House Group trialed its own virtual book club – Readers Place – with library users in the West Midlands. There is a huge amount of scope to make available downloadable promotion materials from colouring-in books to serious readers guides – anything which can make the reading experience ever richer. Focus too will be needed on overcoming the hurdles which prevent libraries and librarians greater access to social networking sites such as Facebook – essential tools when talking to generations who expect to see, feel and hear their brands.

Facetime

Whilst digital is undoubtedly a growth area, we must never forget the importance of face-to-face interaction between reader and writer, and libraries play a key role in doing this.

The best libraries we work with have excellent librarians with a good knowledge of books – but they also have so much more. They act as community centres with mums and babies clubs; exercise classes in free spaces; further education classes; open access to digital resources and even coffee shops.

Get the users to evangelise

Libraries have access to millions of ‘brand advocates’ walking, talking word-of-mouth champions who can help spread the message about the fantastic facilities available. I’d like to see libraries do more to harness that power.

Could more be done to inform communities of just what rich treasure houses of knowledge libraries are? I count myself as blessed to be part of a generation brought up on the value and importance of libraries, though I wonder how many people out there today fail to be aware of just what is on offer and indeed does everyone even know that the service is free?

Resource

Another issue for us is that the number of professional librarians working in public and schools libraries trained to specialise in children’s and family reading continues to decline. We support the Campaign for the Book calling for a national provision of school library services and the improvement of training and professional development of public and school librarians.

Place shapers, community glue, street corner universities; those libraries that recapture this territory, that understand the concept of the library as the heart of the community and its impact on real people will be the ones carrying off the BAFTAs.

So what New Tricks are required to get back to basics and reinvigorate the public library? There are those who have gone down the route of rebranding into Ideas Stores and Discovery Centres and in those places the Gok Wan approach to looking good may be the answer. There are others though who are taking a more fundamental approach and stripping back the clutter to reveal the real heart and soul of public service, the House Doctor methodology. Excellent, public service is what will fix libraries – providing services that people want, in a timely manner, by customer focused, well trained staff in accessible locations. Mine is not an argument for more books or new gimmicks, the focus and the effort should be on the customer and a free core offer.

It’s less about changing the name and more about developing a new customer service ethos, about being ambitious like our library fore fathers were and about meeting community need. This renewed effort is also about listening, involving and sharing. Our customers’ Points of View should be informing strategy, our political leaders and Friends Groups, should be overseeing scrutiny and they should be our Watchdog and our Question Time.

Our buildings need to look good, we need Grand Designs and they need to be in the right place. We all know the Location Location Location mantra but how far will we go to relocate, co-locate and integrate? Here lies the answer to creating the new public library and it’s not just a question of shoving random services under the same roof. We need to interweave the golden thread that links co-located services and helps make them integrated, gives them a make over and turns them into something new. This is the new library. This is Britain’s Next Top Model. It joins together books with learning spaces for adults, it melds children’s libraries with Surestart centres and it puts the People’s Network into supermarkets.

We need joint management arrangements, new financial models and a rich and diverse pool of talent amongst the staff team with a focus on excellence. This is the new X Factor. X is for excellence. Volunteers, drawn from our neighbourhoods add value, care passionately about their locality and have skills to compliment the staff team. We must nurture them and offer them the route maps into employment or volunteering with us, a new partnership.

We need to make libraries more popular and less Lost. We need to recapture the essence of the words Public Library and reinvent them for a new digital age. The broadcasters have fixed this with iPlayer solutions so you catch up at your convenience. Libraries need to do the same, transfer transactions, live enquiries and more digital content online, making it accessible 24/7. If libraries really are at the heart of our communities then let’s do more events in neighbourhoods away from the shiny iconic buildings and let’s cement all that rich culture right at the heart of every place.

What about the library leaders? Have we taken our eye off the ball? Have we slipped back into Lazy Town? Is our management style more David Brent than Alan Sugar? We need to extend our skills, show more leadership and develop styles that are entrepreneurial and encourage risks. Are we encouraging new ideas, transforming our services and enticing partners into the Dragon’s Den? Does your Working Lunch involve regeneration partners, property developers and the Third Sector, have you worked out who your stakeholders are and how they influence the strategic planning of your service?

It’s not Old Library or New Library it’s Next Library. Do you know what your Next Library looks like? Is it a world of Web 2.0, co-creation and Third Places or is it wonky notices, closed on a Wednesday and management by byelaw? Are we Tomorrow’s World or Antique’s Roadshow?

It is time to end the situation whereby individual local authorities just do their own thing (some well, some badly, some plain mediocre), with MLA/DCMS exhorting them from the sidelines (but exhorting them to do what?) and trying to tackle every problem with a bureaucratic tangle and another form to fill in. Also, DCMS does not have the vital control of the purse strings which would enable it to have real influence and, for example, practical enforcement of the Public Libraries and Museums Act. At the moment, the impact of the public library service, as a national “force”, is less than the sum of its parts, and this has to change. It is not fundamentally the fault of local authorities, individually or collectively, or indeed of MLA/DCMS and their staff – they do what they are enabled to do; rather it is a national structural failure, of organisation and budget responsibility, as Leadbeater pointed out in his report. Moving around the deck-chairs within MLA, etc will not change anything!

I think most practising librarians would probably agree that the only successful thing that MLA has done (i.e. with a real outcome and impact) is the People’s Network – a national initiative, with mainly national funding but delivered locally. The Reading Agency’s Summer Reading Challenge is a similar success story where a national initiative is implemented locally, with significant cost savings. The former had largely central funding whereas the latter doesn’t, but both are successful in doing something real and practical, out there with the public, and getting the best of both worlds – national co-ordination, efficiency, publicity, profile, etc but with a strong local character. Both are examples of how a National Development Agency could work where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Any review should run as fast as it can from the red-tape solutions that are likely to fudge the real issues, and show real blue-sky thinking by defining a vision for a national public library service with a strong local face and by concentrating on converting the public libraries element of MLA, and its inward-looking bureaucratic and peripheral role, into a National Development Agency to implement the vision.

Its brief should be to define, enable and enforce a high quality national public library service but also to do “real” things for the service, on the model of the

People’s Network/Summer Reading Challenge; its remit

should be robust in terms of the Public Libraries and Museums Act, but also carefully balanced between national initiatives and control and local needs and implementation. It would not run the public library service but lead it. And, of course, it should have a proper budget – “golden teeth” perhaps?

The creation of such an organisation is the only way to provide the national leadership that is now so lacking. Of course, there is the question of potential tensions between national and local agendas and budgets, but the two models I have given above are practical examples of fruitful co-operation between the national and the local and I am not aware that they have caused too much friction. And frankly I don’t think the national infrastructure could be much worse than it is now. With a high-profile, dynamic head (please not a Tzar!) – a leading author or “sensible” media person perhaps – and a mandate for excellence and real, direct improvements, a National Development Agency could transform the lack-lustre national image that the public library service currently has (even if not wholly justified) but without trampling on or destroying its local identity.

The above is a slightly edited version of a letter published in CILIP Update in December 2008.

What with the advent of e-books this process is about to rapidly accelerate, bringing into the virtual space a large body of new people – students, humanities and social science scholars and, of course, the general public. Indeed, generally people are being fast-forwarded by Government and other organisations into this virtual space (in an attempt to create e-citizens of all of us) and yet the public library seems incapable of adapting to the realities of this and the needs and behaviours of the newly enfranchised digital information consumer . For any institution or profession to decouple from their audience, constituency or market represents its death knell. And in terms of the key metrics of loans, membership and visits, as your letter points out, we can already hear the bell ringing. For a much-loved information institution, public libraries, to face possible melt-down in an information age, when information has never ever been so important, is unpardonable and something we should all be ashamed of. Yet it will happen because nobody seems to understand the need to look at the big picture and that the tail (the digital) now wags the dog.

There has been so much change, indeed a fundamental shift in behaviour, especially amongst the young, which appears to have been completely missed by public library policy makers and many practitioners. They seem to be re-arranging the chairs rather than moving house, which is what they must do. This is partly because much of today’s information seeking and consuming goes on remotely and anonymously (and few people look to see what goes on behind the curtain, much to their shame) and partly because librarians fear the worse and are in denial. Without this knowledge of the digital information consumer librarians are working on the basis of an old and false paradigm. There is too much looking to the future and too much blaming the kids for a form of information behaviour and reading which is endemic to the whole population, which essentially reflects a failure on the part of the profession to deal with what is happening now.

Government, society and professions need to face up to the consequences and a good start would be to wake up to what has actually happened to our users, library members etc; they have opted for fast information as they have for fast food. Only then can we deal with the consequences that result from this – lack of attention, lack of a mental map, no sense of collection, and a poor idea of what is good and relevant. Understanding information seeking behaviour in the digital space is a prerequisite to determining academic, education, cultural and personal outcomes – positive and negative. Then we shall be in a position to determine whether we are really benefiting from the information society and always-on information, and not blowing it as seems to be the case. If we are right about this – and we have better data then anyone, then whose responsibility it is? If it is to be public libraries – the logical choice, then they show little signs of helping e-citizens to survive in a digital world where almost all of their strategic activities are conducted. These concerns should be driving the public library agenda not defending increasing tired and bankrupt provision and policies. I am afraid I remain very pessimistic.

• How to retain books at the heart of all they do but at the same time embrace the landscape and behaviours of the digital world;

• How to stay true to local needs but also find ways to build integrated national services;

• How to resist surrender to market forces but still find new and financially sustainable models of partnership?

Yet anyone who was fortunate enough to be unaware of these raging debates, and who stumbled across local libraries for the first time, might reasonably think they had hit on a fabulous asset, a mechanism perfectly positioned to help enrich the nation’s cultural and community resources. They might even feel a little quickening of the pulse…

• Here’s a pretty robust and comprehensive broadband infrastructure with the huge added bonus of 4,000 ‘retail outlets’, many of them in High Street locations.

• Here’s a system which has long adopted the basic business model that the music industry is only now struggling to embrace in the digital world – you don’t sell the book, you sell the right to read it (via the Public Lending Right) just as spotify doesn’t sell the song but the right to listen to it.

• Here’s a much-loved and trusted public resource which for almost a hundred and fifty years has been seen not just as a store-house for books but as a window to the wider world, especially for those with limited resources; what better brand positioning could there be at a time when the ‘wider world’ has been made so much wider and more confusing by digital technology?

• And at a time when many people feel the public realm has become much too outcome-driven to be comfortable, here’s a set of institutions where no one tells you what to think or do. That puts local libraries amongst the very few public buildings into which teenage boys can stroll, in 2009, without fear of being challenged for just being there. It makes them places where you can browse without interference, but seek assistance when you want it – which is how most of us explore the online world.

These are assets and attitudes of incalculable value that can readily be built on.

Libraries are under local control and should remain so, but that doesn’t preclude the need for a common approach to digital services – a branded national online presence, or a national library card.

In the world of museums and galleries Culture24 is already demonstrating that small institutions can benefit hugely by having an additional, national ‘front door’ – something that amplifies their value and makes them part of a bigger picture. The local and national energise and enrich each other, just as the virtual and the physical each add value to the other. This is not about getting rid of books; it is about the promotion of reading, about learning some tricks from amazon, Wikipedia, google, and perhaps even from Richard and Judy.

Librarians will need new skills. Much of that may be done simply by sharing what the brilliant best are already doing, but there are more fundamental changes that need to be taken on board, to do with business models and brand management. If the PLR really is an analogue version of what appears in the digital world as legal music download services, how is it to be enlarged to accommodate e-books and other online content?

Libraries already act as a door to a wider body of cultural assets, owned by museums, galleries and archives. That’s why it makes sense to have an ‘MLA’ and not just an ‘L’. But if that vast mass of content is to be shared in the most open and effective way online, there must be protocols in place that facilitate the building of common architecture, navigation systems and services.

Of course, many libraries already have data and image archives of their own. Together with the dozens of local and regional film archives they form a hugely valuable but under-exploited resource. How can their profile and their value be raised? One way might be for the national curriculum to point schools a little more forcefully towards requiring students to use local archive material in history projects. And perhaps there’s a further role for libraries in helping build the archives of the future, curating and guiding new online social networks – facebook with a community twist.

Herbert Samuel’s description of the library as “thought in cold storage” may have had resonance in the twentieth century. We have the possibility of making the library of the twenty-first something a good deal warmer, more dynamic and inter-active.

Whether or not local partnerships have adopted National Indicator 9, experience shows that libraries give local people an opportunity to engage with service providers. They are a hub for community activity, a focus for engagement through consultation, advice surgeries and information events, and a place where families can learn and grow. Libraries narrow the gap between the haves and the have­nots; they are places where a fresh start is always possible.

This starts with reading and literacy, and libraries should concentrate on adding value to the reading experience for children and young people as well as adults, building on the sense of ownership which distinguishes libraries from commercial bookshops.

The increasing range of work which libraries undertake with health services, with learning and skills providers and with community safety agencies reinforces the case for co-location, with all its associated efficiencies. We have the chance to create a new kind of public space – one which combines efficient delivery of public services with an accessible and inviting place where people want to spend time.

Derbyshire’s county-wide strategic partnership is not alone in appreciating the scope and value of libraries’ contribution to shared priorities. Many agree that the right locus for this activity is the local authority. Top tier councils have the resources and strategic reach to make the best use of libraries – and leading councils combine this with effective political leadership and advocacy. I am not therefore convinced of need to create a new national agency.

I do believe that local authorities need clarity from Government about its aspirations and expectations for libraries. These aspirations will be delivered more consistently if they are supported by real resources from the Department of State which is responsible for libraries, as is the case with many other local authority services.

For example, there is a continuing digital divide, which risks excluding many from participation and engagement in social and democratic processes. Libraries have been outstandingly successful in improving digital skills, and I welcome the Learning Revolution’s proposal to realign some of the funding which has gone to traditional adult learning to enable libraries to achieve even more.

In return, Government should expect local authorities to spend their money on what it was intended for. So those expectations should include a requirement to invest in adequate stocks of books and electronic resources, together with opening hours which meet local needs.

Whether libraries are in stand-alone premises or shared facilities, their users deserve a good range of resources, and professional management combining effective local delivery with strategic development at regional and national level.

Emerging models of community ownership are interesting but they can never achieve this joined-up approach. Nor should they be used to fudge difficult political decisions about use of resources. We should be careful about committing public money to the ongoing support of local facilities for which no realistic business case exists. I began my career as volunteer-run village centre libraries were being replaced by modern, professional and inclusive local libraries: I would not wish to turn the clock back.

Increasingly, we need to recognise and respond to changing preferences in the way services are accessed. More flexible delivery options and greater personalisation should not merely be about creating premium services for those who can afford them , but also about supporting the most vulnerable – disabled people, those with learning disabilities, and the frail elderly – to help them lead independent lives. This will need refocusing of existing resources, but also a new commitment from Government.

In conclusion, I recognise that public libraries are unlikely to be a ‘headline’ service, but they deliver a broad agenda cost-effectively. They can make the difference between acceptable and truly excellent public provision. To make that a reality they need effective political and managerial leadership at all levels: in Government, in LSPs, and in local authorities. That, I believe, should be the focus for debate over the coming months.

The e-reader briefly bridged the gap between page and screen, but soon every laptop and mobile was a platform for prose. Far from killing literature, new devices led to a renaissance of artworks mixing text and images, sounds and conversations. The book was no longer defined as an object but as an experience, a unit of meaning, some of which were produced in beautiful, customised printed form, others in lavish online editions. But perhaps surprisingly the term remained—thanks to Macbooks and Facebook, Audiobooks, Digibooks, Skybooks, ifbooks etc, but the term was used to include events, performances, recordings, websites which demanded a certain level of attention. And all books were also communities, though mostly quiet ones, like library users silently sharing the same virtual space.

Libraries used to contain copies of works that were otherwise inaccessible to people without parting with their cash. Books were chained to desks, then loaned out for short periods, then after culture went up to the cloud, their role became really important, providing a safe local space in which to meet real people with the expertise and ideas to help us each explore our particular interest.

Where once people had been intimidated but uplifted in places of culture such as theatres and libraries, now all content emanated from the same devices. There was no longer any need to differentiate much between movies, books, ifbooks, pop music and opera. Whereas once these commodities were sold and performed in completely different places for different prices, now all was stuff, funded from the licence.

So we needed to create new means to uplift the spirit and encourage deeper attention and focus. Unlibraries flourished—designed to inspire and intrigue through displays, events and atmospheres which helped minds to expand; they sold and loaned out souvenirs of intellectual journeys undertaken there, were havens for debate and the simple, basic pleasures of social networking.

Libraries reach into every neighbourhood and every family, giving free access for everyone to all of the world’s knowledge whether of the intellect or of the imagination, whether in print or online, all mediated by skilled and helpful library staff. That core purpose addresses some of the most pressing challenges facing our society. With seven million people in Britain lacking basic literacy skills, at least six million excluded from access to digital technology, and over four million experiencing multiple social and economic deprivation, libraries should be central to our strategies for literacy and learning, digital inclusion, regeneration, equality of opportunity, and personal well-being. To fit libraries for the future, government needs to recognise the contribution they can make to key policy objectives.

Where libraries have risen to these challenges – and have invested in strategic planning, improved opening hours, better buildings, skilled staff, and an in-depth range of print and digital resources – the graph of library use is rising, not falling.

Investment in libraries produces a rich return in terms of innovation, use, and impact. We need to accentuate the positive, not reinforce a negative narrative in the discourse around libraries, public policy and popular use.

Positives such as: Investment in fine new or re-provisioned buildings like the new Newcastle City Library opened by Her Majesty The Queen on 6th November 2009. The Public Library Building Awards provide many examples, large and small, of brilliant library buildings.

Examples of innovation and impact evidenced from a number of sources: the many inspirational projects considered over the years for the Libraries Change Lives Awards; the public library services that have won Beacon Council status; the current programme of projects funded by the Big Lottery.

Development of effective and successful national partnerships delivering important local outcomes – such as the partnership with the BBC to encourage reading development, or with NHS Choices to encourage access to health information, or with organisations such as The Reading Agency and the National Literacy Trust to deliver the annual Summer Reading Challenge or last year’s hugely successful National Year of Reading.

The track record of investment in new technology not just to transform library systems and spaces (with library management systems and automated self-service operations) but also to transform library services. The People’s Network is recognised as a world class initiative to bring Internet access and help with ICT skills within the reach of everyone in the UK. Libraries don’t just embrace new technology: they do so on time, within budget, and to powerful effect.

This is not the story of a failing service and a defensive, change-averse profession. This is the story of a successful service and forward-thinking staff – and the recent response of local communities in places such as Swindon and the Wirral show how passionately local people continue to value their local library service.

But Swindon and the Wirral also highlight the major challenge facing public libraries – the inevitability, following the banking crisis, of serious and sustained reductions in public spending. Closing libraries simply to cut costs is not acceptable, as politicians in Swindon and the Wirral have discovered – but the challenge of reducing costs will not go away. Public Library Authorities need to focus on the core purpose of libraries, look closely at matching service provision to local need, and consider opportunities to drive down cost within a strategic framework of service provision.

The process of taking cost out of library services had already begun when I became a Chief Officer responsible for public library provision in 1988, twenty one years ago. After many years of seeking “efficiencies” only one opportunity remains to make significant reductions in the overall cost of public library provision other than wholesale closure of local libraries – collaboration across administrative boundaries either of place or of profession. One option is to look holistically at the public services offered in one place with a view to rationalisation of provision. The other option is to look holistically at the public library service across a region or sub-region.

A system delivered by 151 separate Public Library Authorities in England is inherently inefficient. While continuing to recognise the need for local democratic accountability, more needs to be done to explore options for collaboration and collective operation

– perhaps with an eye on the development of Librarians, established earlier this year as one public library service for the whole of Northern Ireland.

The challenge of achieving greater efficiency is matched by the challenge of sustaining investment in new technology, in three distinct ways: by using new technology to improve library operations (such as investing in RFID technology to introduce self-service to a library system); by providing access to new technology for library users (thus contributing significantly to the digital inclusion agenda: is there a librarian on Martha Lane Fox’s Digital Inclusion Task Force and, if not, why not?); and by taking the public library itself into the digital space. Universities invest in virtual learning environments. Should not public libraries, as the nation’s most cost-effective agency for lifelong learning, invest in virtual library environments?

The proposition of increased investment in libraries has come up several times in these comments. When money is tight, value for money is paramount. So a key challenge for libraries is to demonstrate their value and the return – educational, social, economic – on investment in public library service. Research shows that the Summer Reading Challenge makes a positive difference to children’s literacy levels and educational attainment. More research on impact and outcomes is needed – and the Research Councils, particularly AHRC, need to be encouraged to support such a programme of research.

Britain has a world class reputation for research and a world class reputation for libraries. But where, in Britain’s higher education system, is there a locus for world class research into the impact of public library provision?

The public library is both a local resource – at the heart of its community – and the gateway to a wider, national and international, network of resources. This presents both an opportunity and a challenge for public library services. The opportunity is to develop more national initiatives such as the introduction of a genuinely national library membership card, and the Society of Chief Librarians is well positioned to do this. The challenge is to achieve consistency so that library users experience a good quality of library service wherever they are in the country. The CILIP Guidelines provide an outline of the guidance needed, and the most useful outcome of the Wirral Inquiry could be guidance on how the statutory duty placed on Public Library Authorities might be interpreted. The task then will be to find a process which will drive a “levelling up” of public library service quality – perhaps by a process of peer review or by the use of the sort of “public library quality improvement matrix” used in Scotland.

Taking libraries forward at a time of reduced resources, increased aspirations, and changed lifestyles will require clear leadership at political and professional levels. A stronger locus for libraries within government (reappraising the roles of DCMS, MLA and ACL as recommended in the All-Party Parliamentary Group report) needs to be matched by a stronger focus on leadership within the ranks of public library professionals. When I was a Chief Officer in local government I had opportunities to understand and develop my leadership role through a variety of sources: the SOLACE Scheme of Continuous Learning for Chief and Senior Executives in Local Government; the “Top Managers” Programme run by the then LGMB; and the partnership programme between my local authority and the Local Government department of the Warwick University Business School. Where is there a similar and coordinated range of opportunities for present and future public library leaders?

The way we think about libraries reflects the way we think about society – and indeed about ourselves. If we believe in community, opportunity, equality, and democracy – then we’ll invest in our libraries even when (particularly when) times are hard. And the reverse is also true.

Modern times make the core purpose and contribution of libraries more important than ever – and the best library services show the levels of investment that are required and the levels of innovation, use and impact that can be achieved. The challenges are clear – to reduce the core cost of the service, to sustain investment in new technology (and in new buildings and new books), to demonstrate value for money in terms of the educational. social and economic return on investment, and to “level up” so that library users experience a consistently good quality of library service wherever they are in the UK. All of this requires leadership – and a relentlessly positive approach. Positive leadership has no time for the damaging and misleading narrative of a failing service and staff who cling defensively to an outdated concept of professional status. The right levels of investment, innovation, use and impact will only be achieved if those of us in leadership positions move beyond the negative narrative and focus on the positive outcomes which can be achieved by libraries – animated by good librarians – for local communities and for society in general.

But I can be most useful in concentrating on my specialism, reading.

Clear vision

We’re lacking a clear vision for libraries; that’s a real problem.

Libraries were set up to create a nation of learners and readers by giving everyone free access to the world’s knowledge. Let’s hold fast to that radical, enduring purpose but reinvent how we achieve it.

We’re not going to get modern consumers reading and learning simply by providing access to rows of books – the future needs to be much more multi-media and dynamic

Libraries’ reading role should be of profound interest to local authorities because of its impact on the population’s literacy levels, educational progress, employability, well being and sense of community.

“In a time of huge pressure to be everything to everyone it is absolutely important to clamp hold of the central pillar that holds the whole thing together – reading. Reading is your jewel-make it your future” Liz Forgan, Chair Arts Council, 2009 PLA conference

A new reading role

To appeal to a 21C public a much livelier, interventionist reading service is needed. This should be shaped with the public and delivered with broadcast, booktrade and other partners.

The last fifteen years has seen the emergence of libraries’ reader development movement. This is starting to position libraries as the community place bringing reading and learning alive and drawing us together to share it, and is pioneering interventions with targeted groups. This can be massively built on.

The most intense work has been with children’s reading and it’s no accident that children’s book issues are rising.

Social justice

56% of UK adults have literacy skills below the level of a good GCSE

25% of young offenders have reading skills below those of the average 7 year old.

If libraries build on the reader development movement they can make a serious contribution to tackling these and other problems.

Research shows this way of working has profound implications for helping people enjoy reading, for bringing communities together, building literacy skills, for helping people feel better in themselves, even for increasing community volunteering.

New ways of working to achieve a marketable common core offer

With falling visitor figures, there’s a desperate need to tell the public what’s on offer.

To do this there needs to be a common core of resources, activities and opportunities to market and a proper annual marketing drive. Recent pilot work on shared offers and programmes could be rolled out– eg the Youth Offer (endorsed by DCSF) and the national database of library readers groups.

Analyse the trends and get ahead of the curve

We could carve out a new strategic position for libraries in light of market trends, especially the contraction of the high street book retailing sector and a whole new digital world. There are new opportunities to relate to readers in new ways.

The socialisation of reading through festivals, author events, reading groups and on line conversations gives libraries a huge role in connecting readers to each other.

We need to combine all the exciting piloting of the last few years into a big, exciting new programme of action. Partners are waiting to help – from publishing to health, from BBC on a digital literacy campaign to CCE on targetting disadvantaged families.

I hope the action campaign the Reading Agency is talking about with the Arts Council, SCL and MLA can have as much impact as the Music Manifesto.

A new relationship with the public

Libraries’ reading role could be the springboard for a huge community engagement and volunteering push – young people supporting children doing the Summer Reading Challenge; volunteers running telephone groups for isolated older people.

Local people can volunteer to help select library stock, interview staff, design areas of the library.

There are models waiting to be rolled out, including HeadSpace, currently running in 20 authorities.

Partnership sparkle: a new relationship with the reading industry

Changes to reading’s business model offers new chances of harnessing the interest of publishers, booksellers and writers.

“publishers, broadcasters and arts organisations all want to work with you on new distribution models for reading… sprinkle a bit of stardust on the scene” Liz Forgan.

The Reading Agency is talking to its 34 publisher partners about new workforce development approaches

– skills sharing, shadowing, shared training. Anyone interested in words could move fluently between jobs in bookselling, publishing, gaming, libraries.

Just as film has FindAnyFilm, the reading world could co-operate to signpost the public to the right book in the right place – on or off line

A workable book sales model

Let’s roll out the model that’s starting to work through Reading Partners author events.

In return for publishers sending their authors to libraries in all kinds of communities, libraries guarantee to have books on sale through partnerships with local booksellers.

This results in happy readers, publishers, authors, booksellers.

Economies of scale combined with innovation

It’s interesting that some of the functions the APPG calls for in a national development agency are ones The Reading Agency carries out.

Including helping libraries share best practice and create economies of scale through innovative national reading programmes like the adult literacy 6 Book Challenge.

We’re small but have managed to make quite an impact, and could do more in a more effective national framework.

Libraries should not be buildings full of books; they should be menu driven services flexibly responding to local need to encourage independence. The best libraries will offer virtual and face to face services shared with other local agencies and services public, private and third sector focussed on the needs of the local neighbourhood. Libraries must actively look for partners with whom they can integrate, not just co-locate.

Sole ownership of buildings is not important now, and even less so in the future. It is the role that libraries play to add value to strategic plans and priorities and bring understanding and meaning to individuals that is crucial.

Good libraries already prioritise Literacy, Reading and Learning. In order to do this well excellent libraries are actively involved in partnerships at local and strategic level. They are safe community places with an integrated multi skilled workforce to make the most of working with specific groups around unemployment, job search, health promotion, environmental sustainability and learning. Libraries are integral to the delivery of the personalisation agenda.

Libraries provide information and access to a range of services and organisations. Local people still look to the library to provide that. People trust libraries. Libraries of the future, whether virtual or physical, need to capitalise on this to continue to help people make sense of the world. Libraries are uniquely placed to do this. They provide knowledge; their role is to actively encourage people to explore the virtual and literary resources available. Even better, Libraries support the learning journey by providing information literacy to enable us to understand and evaluate what is being revealed. In short, library staff translate information into knowledge that can be learned. It is easy to overlook this vital role, but more important than ever in the 21st Century. Everyone can find Wikipaedia but can everyone judge its validity?

Local Authority led Libraries empower local communities and develop social capital. They provide the opportunity to get involved with local activities, not only volunteering but also the opportunity to meet, think and act for your own neighbourhood, the collective good is still a value to hold dear, expectations are high and budgets are more challenged than ever before.

Libraries essentially recycle books, surely a core value of our communities and society generally? Libraries can learn from the retail sector but the role of Libraries is wider but should be clearer, it is too confused at present.

The retailer will sell high volume popular stock cheaply but will never have a role in providing scarce material or helping a customer to interpret it and learn.

The lending function of libraries is largely a processing function as part of a much wider spectrum of services that require skilled, passionate staff that open doors to all, proactively marketing opportunities for people and role models for social inclusion and self awareness.

Outdated library staff structures, attitudes and culture have no place in the library of the 21st Century.

There is a valuable role for the librarian’s professional skills, but for the majority of staff it is the core values, behaviours and skills of communication, sharing, understanding, lifelong learning and self actualisation of the diversity of individuals in society that is crucial.

This needs to be underpinned by a strong performance management framework and that should come from Central Government who can bring clarity around standards that are sorely missing. Outdated Key Performance Indicators “Active Borrowers” do nothing to measure the use and impact of libraries.

This is why integration is vital; to piggy back other services’ customers to continue to give access to the world of books and pleasure, but also to actively engage

non readers/users to tempt them to explore and feel comfortable and safe to learn and to interpret information and knowledge. And we need to be able to demonstrate the impact of that cross sector working to government and beyond. So that we can build bridges between cultural and religious differences in the world and make them real for people locally in a way that are understandable and achievable.

Whilst public library services are moving more towards partnerships, overall the pace of change has been glacially slow and the number of services has increased. In April 2009 two more services were created by the division of the services in Cheshire and Bedfordshire. Others may be in the pipeline. More voices, more local initiatives, more management costs. Collectively we are spending too much behind the scenes and, when reductions are needed, taking too much from the public service.

Behind the scenes costs include not only the library service’s own overheads, but those budgets for the Council’s central services (finance, property, ICT, legal, etc) that are characterised as “below the line”. The head of the library service rarely has any control over these, which can in total account for up to 20-25% of what appears on paper to be the library service budget. When the hunt is on for savings it isn’t unusual to find these budgets protected from reduction. Even the reverse can happen: in one county council when 10 small branches were transferred to be run by volunteers – and the library staffing budget accordingly reduced – the budget for central services went up.

This background matters because until we sort out the funding and governance of public libraries, argument over what it should be doing is secondary. Unless we can improve the financial position we will not be able to pay for the service in the first place. An increasing number of Councils are examining other options for governance. These options include concepts of joint services and contracting one with another. They also include moving the library and other services into trusts and inviting competitive bids to run the library service from the private sector. Public libraries provided by trusts already exist in Wigan and Luton (and in Scotland, in Glasgow), and by the private sector in Hounslow.

However, moving from a position in England of 148 Council run services, two trusts and one private sector supplied service to an environment where there are 151 services delivered by a mixture of all three, isn’t on its own going to offer much scope for major improvement. It changes the method of delivery, and variously this will offer opportunities for savings in management and backroom services, tax advantages and access to new income streams. But it doesn’t provide the scale of operation to offer significant savings for re-investment. To do that there need to be fewer services. This need not necessarily mean reducing the number of Councils designated as Library Authorities but it would mean reducing the number of separate services.

Councils should be encouraged to form joint services, to create joint trusts and to invite joint bids from the private sector.

None of this is new; it was proposed in the DCLG paper Developing the Local Government Services Market in 2007, but with some exceptions Councils have been slow to act, particularly as regards joint service provision. The metropolitan areas have too many small services. For example, London could be reduced to five services (inner and four outer London services) jointly provided by boroughs working together; Merseyside to one service centred on Liverpool; Greater Manchester to one led by the city that provides the area with its identity. Regional services could be created between two or more counties and the unitaries contained within them. Northern Ireland, where one service has been created out of five, points the way ahead.

Until we are prepared to reduce the myriad of small services there will be no major savings to pay for service development. So long as the doors remain open, the stock is comprehensive and the computers work, few members of the public will care who provides the public library service. We should not fear alternative forms of public library governance; we should be wary, however, of jumping from the frying pan of poorly funded Council services into the fire of underfunded trusts and unprofitable contracts.

The right books that the people want to borrow.

The library situated where the borrowers can have easy access.

The library in premises that borrowers really want to enter.

The library open – if at all possible – at the best times at which people want to have access.

A clear management structure.

I believe the Governance issue has to be sorted out. At present, when people moan about the inadequate book stock, DCMS says it is up to the local authorities. When people moan at local government, they say It is not us, Guv, it’s those lot up there at DCMS in London.

In my view, one new body has to take total responsibility and accountability for the library service, both for the management and the funding. The library service will continue to have problems if the buck can easily be passed from one body to another.

In the future, I see tensions increasing between the librarians and the rightsholders over Intellectual Property Rights.

I think the libraries must be directed to operate in such a way that they don’t undermine the position of the authors, publishers and booksellers. The way in which e-books are loaned by libraries in the future will deserve special consideration to ensure that copyright is respected and supported.

I think there might also be a danger in the future of information previously being held by libraries in the public sector being transferred to one company in the private sector, with shareholders to please.

Finally, I know that Mrs Hodge is particularly keen for libraries to extend their activities to include selling books in some way, but libraries are there to lend, not to have a competitive advantage over the commercial sector that helps provide the funding for libraries to operate in the first place.

Historically, libraries are where you go for large print books.

Very few bookshops stock large print books and the recent RNIB initiative, Focus on Books, whilst very welcome, has only resulted in about 100 titles being available for booksellers to stock (the vast majority of these being print-on-demand titles).

Nearly all Public Libraries have a section of large print titles, normally limited to a few hundred titles, predominantly fiction.

Within the RNIB’s Right to Read report, Overdue, issued in 2003, whilst discussing the difficulty people with sight problems and reading disabilities have in finding out which titles actually exist in a format they can read, they appealed: “We call on publishers and booksellers to come together to create a database of all large print and unabridged audio books produced commercially.”

To the best of my knowledge our company, www.largeprintbookshop.co.uk, is the only organisation to respond to this appeal. (However, we have recently removed all audiobooks from our website so that we can devote all our attention to large print books). We have the most comprehensive list of what is available in large print, and our database comprises about 20,000 titles. We buy a monthly bibliographic data feed from Nielsen Data, and supplement this with an immense amount of manual work, adding titles from publishers who do not inform the bibliographic agencies of the existence of their titles. We also spend a lot of time amending the records, as many publishers neglect to tell Nielsen when a title is no longer available.

The result of this is that we have a resource of unrivalled accuracy which is free to use by anyone who logs onto the website. We are only too pleased when libraries make use of the resource.

The opportunity exists for libraries to partner with us in order to enable the general public to buy large print books, because they cannot get them from normal bookshops.

Greater access to large print books is very much in accord with the brief for the ‘Framework for the Future’ where ‘books, reading and learning’ and ‘community and civic values’ should be at the heart of libraries’ modern mission.

Reading and learning: One in six people in the UK struggle with literacy. Larger print sizes are a proven aid to reluctant readers and those seeking to improve their literacy. “Research and action studies confirm that Large Print improves reading speed and comprehension and is an extremely effective alternative tool for students reading below grade level. The larger font and additional white space between lines slows the eye and increases the care that students take with the text. Because Large Print books appeal to struggling readers they are more willing to pick up books and read, often encouraging their classmates to do the same. (www.galeschools.com).

Community and civic values: The RNIB estimates that there are 3 million people in the UK who have a visual impairment or a reading disability that makes them unable to read conventional print. The figure is probably growing with an ageing population with declining vision. At the moment there is no realistic alternative to the Public Libraries to satisfy the large print reading needs of this sector of the community. The Public Libraries could recognise that they are the first port of call to the visually impaired, enabling them to continue their lifelong pleasure in reading, and increasing the range of accessible titles.

Summary

I have mentioned that there are 20,000 large print titles in print at the moment but this is a minute proportion compared to regular print titles. Less than 1.5% of new books are issued in large print, and they remain in print for a very short while. For example there is very little backlist of large print books (no Birdsong, no Captain Corelli’s Mandolin); the improvements in print-on­demand technology has meant that the out of copyright classics have now been made available, and they need never go out of print again (Thomas Hardy, Jane Austen, Dickens, etc).

If the Library Service Modernisation Review recognises that it is ideally placed to provide a lead in the promotion and provision of large print books, either for borrowing or buying, they could prove the catalyst that encourages mainstream publishers to produce their own large print editions, with the eventual result that many more large print books are published, and become available through normal booksellers, both independents and chains.

But will it be possible to drive change and improvement, especially in stubbornly poor performing services, without some prescription or compulsion? Clearly it won’t, otherwise it would have already happened.

Key issues to address

Workforce reform

Ensuring excellence in customer service is essential… so why not make it a requirement for all public library services to gain the Customer Service Excellence Award, or equivalent. Better that, than the endless debate pro or against the qualification requirement. Underpinning knowledge is critical, but so is the “can do” attitude that characterises the very best services.

Partnerships

Some services do well, but even the best have new partnerships to make. Take reading as an example.

Instead of ‘why don’t libraries sell books’, ask why don’t libraries and bookshops work together in new ways for the customer’s benefit? So, why can’t you order books (out of stock or out of print) to borrow when it’s not possible to buy there and then in a book shop. And if you want to, why can’t you, in your library, order a book to buy from your local bookshop, with a paid for delivery option? Why can’t we have a joined up/ seamless reading service delivered by public/private partnership?

Delivery models (and governance)

Digital technology, new customer requirements and a changing community landscape make it really timely to look at new physical and organisational delivery models. We need to be clear that there are different types of public library, and make it clear what they deliver. We cannot have a universal model for every community library. There should be different models, appropriate to local need;

public and community;

public and commercial;

the traditional

the Trust.

We need government not only to endorse mixed delivery models, but also to make it clear that such models go hand in hand with reconfigured networks ensuring that investment is most appropriate (the right library, the right place, with the right partners).

Digital role and content

There is no compelling vision for the public library’s digital future. There is excellent work in parts of the country, but none of it is connected. The People’s Network has been a huge modernisation success, but is being allowed to flounder. MLA is pulling together enablers – but without a national vision. We have most of the ingredients for an excellent meal, but no menu.

21% of the population are not digital enabled. Why can’t government and the key agencies see that the public library network, with its community use pcs, could (with strategic direction and some investment) be poised to resolve this problem? Or at the very least significantly reduce the 21%?

And can we have a truly 21st century library and information service without shared e-content? We need clear national drive and ambition to sort copyright and license issues so that we can feed our appetite to effectively deliver universal digital access for study and research, for business, and for leisure and pleasure.

Space and access

Libraries at the heart of communities? Increasingly, traditional community buildings (pubs, post offices) are closing down, and public libraries become one of the few remaining community facilities. Where else is there free and safe community access?

Communities need quality and safe community space. We had hoped for something like a ‘Building Libraries for the Future’ building programme. We urgently need more investment opportunities – for new model, partnership, and stand alone library buildings – but contingent on new network models offering customer responsive service and access, including community responsive opening hours.

Profile

Rather like the comments on digital above, many public library services work hard on their own profile. But there is no national ‘push’ (though it has been repeatedly promised in recent years). How can we promote the key messages/benefits of the public library service in a fragmented and piecemeal way. Yet the best national messaging has come from the Society of Chief Librarians with initiatives such as Universal Membership. This has been achieved in desperation at the lack of national advocacy leadership, but is not a sustainable position.

Defined – Do you know what it is? Can you describe it easily to others?

There should be a clear nationwide promise to provide a basic suite of services such as book borrowing, access to newspapers and magazines, free wi-fi and the provision of skilled and empathetic librarians. Local decisions will need to be taken about the emphasis on these different services and the provision of others, such as celebrity readings, book clubs, computers, classes and community meetings.

Some new services should be centrally run, including a national digital e-book service, a country-wide library membership scheme with automatic membership for every citizen, and possibly a comprehensive book recommendation engine.

Libraries must stop trying to be all things to all people. That way, nobody will rate them very highly. On a local basis, decide which target groups are important and go for them, hell-for-leather. Decide who is less important and stop going after them. This is not easy for public servants whose reflex is to cater for everyone.

Pubs, clubs retailers and restaurants all define their clientele. People like to be with others of like mind and similar attitudes. Each local library must be fabulously attractive to its key target groups and every user should feel that this is ‘my club’. This doesn’t mean that every library should feel the same. On the contrary, when almost every English high-street has become boringly similar to every other, there is an opportunity for libraries to be exciting, full of local character and exuberantly unique, as long as the basic offer is well-defined.

Fresh – Is it new and interesting each time?

Retailers know to refresh their stock. Bookshops constantly rotate merchandise on their displays, and so should libraries. The more that featured items are quirky and idiosyncratic, the more they make unusual juxtapositions, the more people will remember and value them. ‘Fresh’ doesn’t have to mean that all the books are new. Indeed, one of the attractions of libraries is that they can combine new and old books in novel and interesting ways.

Accessible – Do you know how it works? Can you find what you want?

While continuing to use their school libraries, children should be taken to local and regional public libraries frequently, encouraged to borrow from them and taught how they work. They should learn to ‘own the space’ while being considerate of others and should get to know the library staff. All libraries that serve young people should have enthusiastic, knowledgeable children’s librarians.

And of course, libraries need to be situated in places that people will naturally visit now and in the next twenty years, which isn’t necessarily in a place that was popular in the nineteenth century.

Immersive – Can you lose yourself in the experience?

The ability to concentrate and read deeply is very precious and children need to be taught this skill. It’s so very much easier for a young person to take part in the digital interactive world, than it is to become a confident participant in the world that requires focus – easier to be distracted than not distracted. Yet we need citizens with tenacity, who can appreciate slow-burn gratification, not just instant. I sometimes wonder whether the ‘digital divide’ is really as important as the ‘attention divide’. Teach children to play chess and they might well appreciate and use libraries more.

Perhaps some libraries have the opportunity to become temples to focus and concentration, quiet havens in a sea of media that compete for our attention, where we can choose to be alone yet part of a like-minded community. Other libraries will choose to serve a different audience and be energetic, with a constant hubbub. Either is fine.

Details matter. Libraries need to be attractive destinations in their own right. Bookshops and coffee outlets that aim to be popular destinations avoid ghastly institutional fluorescent strip-lighting and so must libraries. They need to be lit with daylight or warm artificial light.

Significant – Does it help you develop, or connect? Is there something that matters to you?

Connection to stories, information, and ideas, need to be at the heart of what libraries offer. However, efficient recommendation of books and information sources needs to be balanced with the joy of serendipity. It should be easy to develop interests you didn’t know you had. There must be opportunities to meet others, whether via book clubs, or professional networking or story groups for toddlers. (Just remember not to try to cater for all of them, unless the library is large enough to accommodate them properly)

Transformative – have you changed, do you have something to show for it?

Libraries should encourage intellectual journeys. People will start and finish at different places and take different routes but ultimately, libraries should be celebrations and homes human advancement and every visitor should feel that they have made at least some small step on their personal journey, for work, for their children, or just for fun. Libraries may have many purposes but one of them is surely to foster the intellectual betterment of individuals and society.

People are entitled to local public library services delivering to local needs, free at the point of delivery, as part of a national network.

A network fit for modern consumers – fulfilling the democratic right to books, information and personalised advice in a digital age.

Everyone is entitled to be a customer of public libraries. The habit of reading and learning starts early and extends throughout life. Libraries create and develop a love of reading and have the capacity to change lives by inspiring people to learn and to develop new skills.

Quality and scope

The quality of services is rightly a matter for elected councillors, but the scope must be defined nationally and accredited. Performance is best assessed by local consumer response, informed by best practice.

Leading library services already work in partnership with each other and with a wide range of other organisations; the rest need to be shown how to catch up with the best.

However, a single national library authority, responsible for all public libraries, would jeopardise the progress being made in many places and would throttle local delivery.

Physical space

The physical spaces that are provided depend on patterns of local demand; some places merit buildings on a vast scale, but neighbourhoods and communities need attractive provision that reflects what local people want.

Currently there are too many buildings and too many decrepit buildings. Local political leadership has to recognise that buildings do not equal services; buildings can be closed to improve services. Opening hours, the range of books, information and services must reflect consumer expectations, derived through engagement with the community.

Digital space

Digital technologies present the biggest opportunities.

The 24/7 public library already exists, but most local authorities do not promote or market it.

The internet does not respect Council boundaries, and neither should a customer focused national network. The digital space that is provided for modern consumers must provide a 24/7 complement to

physical services. The principles of on-line library delivery can match the speed and character of commercial offers.

A nationwide, publicly-searchable database of library books and other products should be provided. Faster broadband access and greater capacity are available; local authorities can use existing educational networks like JANET, which can also provide access to additional high quality on-line resources.

Shared delivery

Library services ought to be an integral part of local delivery, synthesised with services for adults and young people and supporting education for personal, family and community development.

Delivery partners vary by location, but typically include other branches of the local authority, plus schools, colleges, universities, museums, archives, surgeries, nurseries and centres for children and for adult day-care.

Marketing and non-users

Councils need to do more to market their books and information services, both physically and digitally.

Research indicates that people are pleasantly surprised when they go into a library, which suggests a lack of prior knowledge of what is on offer.

More than half the population never use a library; many non-users are potentially new consumers. Their perceptions and attitudes need to be understood, locally and nationally, and used to drive change.

Staffing

An accent on consumers demands new skills and more rounded leadership. Qualified librarians are needed alongside experts in learning, digital and customer services, complemented by greater use of volunteers for specific tasks.

Council-wide volunteering programmes can improve service delivery to communities, involving people and helping them to share and develop skills and experience, with benefits for employment and the economy.

Governance

Various models of governance are available, offering a variety of business plans and professional and funding partnerships. Councils can choose between out­sourcing; strategic commissioning and charitable trusts, with the latter known to stimulate improvement and creative thinking.

Not all these options suit all locations; choices are best made locally. Revenue-generating activities already exist and can be encouraged where they do not compromise the principles of ‘free services for all at the point of delivery’.

Legislation

The governing Act (1964) does not reflect modern local government, nor the accent on localism, nor the push for quality and innovation through new ways of working, with partners and shared services.

The legislation should be recast with the concept of ‘membership’ replaced by openness to all, for personal, individual development, and with expert services characterised by welcoming experiences and new business models.

National organisation

A single national body can provide advice and guidance on best practice and innovation; collate evidence of outcomes and impact; oversee self-assessment and accreditation; and support improvement led by local government.

The MLA, recently-restructured and reorganised, now doing more with less, is equipped to undertake this role. It needs only to be mandated accordingly.

Efficiency and value

Public investment in libraries pays dividends in terms of benefits for individuals, the community and the economy. Results are reflected in performance indicators, the CAA and public audit of VFM.

There has never been a greater need for local public library services.

Moreover, the library as a physical space is no longer as necessary as it once was. Many other services – e.g. banking, grocery shopping, DVD rental, book buying – are done online by an increasing percentage of the UK population. Like these services, visiting a library for many users may no longer be seen as an important physical experience when online searches and home delivery can replace it.

On the other hand, the Book is still a cherished object that represents what libraries offer, even if people no longer make as much use of them there. We still measure libraries’ health by the number of books borrowed. Press and public complain when book stock goes down. The Building too is sacred, even when it is little used; complaints skyrocket when library branches are shut. At the moment both issues are a public relations disaster.

If the physical – the Book, the Building, the Book in the Building – has become symbolic rather than a true reflection of use and need, how do we redefine the character of libraries in a way that users will recognise as being what they want – and indeed, in some places already have?

The answer may be simultaneously to pool resources and to free them from site-specific locations. The library needs to be validated as an idea rather than an item, a service rather than a place, carefully constructed and balanced between an overarching national offer and a local delivery.

Here is how it could work:

Every UK resident is offered a lifelong national library card, allowing access to every UK library and its contents. Those contents are searchable on one main database, and you can order online or in person at any branch whatever you want from that database. It will be delivered within one week free of charge to the branch of your choice, or in the post to you for the price of postage (like mail order DVD rentals).

As a result, book stock in particular will be considered a national collection, akin to the British Library. Local branches will still carry stock specific to its area and needs (e.g. Dorset books about Dorset, etc), though it will be available to users nationwide. In this way users will regain confidence that they will have access to the books they need.

Also available via a main internet site will be a core of online resources available to every card holder, such as the Dictionary of National Biography, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and others.

Such a system – a national collection of books and digital services, underpinned by a stellar delivery system – does not have to render buildings obsolete, however. One thing libraries are already popular for is their free online access. This should be strengthened with a faster broadband service, and the offer extended by providing free wifi in every branch. It will encourage people to bring in laptops and use library buildings as places for work, socialising, and exchange of information – the regeneration of a community, digitally based but physically present. Finally, every library branch will be open 7 days a week, 9am-9pm. (Of course the online library service is available 24/7.)

For such a vision to be achieved, an almost unprecedented amount of cooperation, coordination and good will needs to exist between national and local government. Library users want a fast, comprehensive, reliable service. They don’t care how that is accomplished, who runs it, or who is responsible, as long as it is set up well and doesn’t squander public funds. National and local governments need to repair their damaged, ambivalent relationship, so that library users can regain confidence in Books, Buildings, and Beyond.

2. So the first thing to do is to encourage those who run libraries to stock more books, be open longer, and be attractive, welcoming, well designed and equipped buildings. The buildings are important and we have kidded ourselves that the internet will answer every question – it doesn’t and it won’t although initiatives like our Bloomsbury Library Online – www.exacteditions.com/bloomsbury – can supplement physical books, project libraries into the homes of the community they serve, engage with ‘digital natives’ and improve class mobility through education. The encouragement to go back to the basics is the leadership that people are crying out for – a flag to follow that can easily be seen.

3. This is easy to say – and certainly works where it is done (vide Hillingdon, Westminster, Oxfordshire etc), where the libraries have become more popular and book borrowing has increased – but it does appear to be difficult to get councils to do these obvious things.

4. There are management reasons why the service fails which are more important than the cultural and technical ones that are so often quoted. And the management failure comes because neither is it clear who is in charge nor do those responsible know what they are trying to achieve. Those councillors who are in a position to set priorities that will make libraries improve are not properly informed about the issues nor do they share an objective for what the service should be like. It is fine for councils to run their own libraries, but that does not mean they can decide what a library is. A pub can be a ‘local’ but it is still a pub.

5. A minister cannot manage – but she can give leadership

– and if one minister would say: ‘libraries are about making available what authors (of all kinds) have written both recently and in the past’, then that one simple thing would reset the direction of the library service.

The building in which the library is housed is not attractive, but it is currently in a prominent position in our small local shopping area. We love it because it is filled with books and a couple of computers, and particularly because it is staffed by two excellent part-time library assistants who know and understand the diverse needs of our community. When its future was under threat, we campaigned hard all the way up to the Prime Minister to ensure that we could keep it. Some 3,000 local residents supported our campaign, as did the local media and even prominent national commentators.

After a full year of vigorous opposition to the library’s proposed closure, we are grateful that our Council has recently promised to retain a branch library in Old Town, Swindon. Our community will be much richer and stronger because of this decision and many, many people, young and old, in our community will benefit. We are now trying to ensure that the facility to be provided will be of a good quality and properly staffed.

I am aware that the task for the Minister is not an easy one but – before our excellent network of branch libraries is irrevocably lost – I very much hope that the she will conclude that governments are but the temporary custodians of Britain’s cultural heritage, in trust for future generations. Ministers do not come into ownership of the library service when taking office. Our leaders have a mandate from the public to protect and enhance the library network for the benefit of its users.

Surely it is not only the credit crunch that has threatened the existence of community libraries; they were under threat long before, in times of plenty. Local councils might see various reasons for interfering with a library network:

(a) create something big and shiny, to make the incumbent administration’s mark on history, but whose lavish creation at high cost will destroy the smaller libraries – disregarding local need and community cohesion. New buildings are, of course, welcomed by residents, but people are not told of the impact such expenditure will have on their library network, until it is too late.

(b) slash library budgets every year, to feed money into the black holes in other budgets (unrelated to any coherent strategy for a quality library service).

(c) refuse to scrutinise library budgets, to identify areas for savings which do not impact on front line services.

(d) threaten residents with the choice of library closures or neglecting services to the elderly: a cynical ploy that obscures the issues surrounding whether public money is wasted by a council in many other areas.

The needs of residents seem not to date to have been the focus of government.

This ‘think piece’ aims to make a contribution through the challenge of four ideas. It is not intended to answer the whole challenge of making libraries fit for the 21st century, nor do I wish to rehearse again the debates around the importance of reading v digital activities. I believe that a core of activities and services that contribute to making a ‘good library service’ should be stated, championed, and evaluated and that, through local engagement and accountability, there are many opportunities for differential services to be offered. The recently published CILIP guide ‘What Makes a Good Library Service’ is a particularly welcome addition to the tools that help to encourage consistently high standards in public libraries.

Idea one

The recent launch of a universal library card to enable access to books at any public library is a significant step in widening library access to an ever-more-mobile population. There remains however a huge leap to greater access by providing many more people with library cards that will unlock the vast resources, expertise and support available to them.

Issuing a universal library card alongside birth certificates would literally ensure every child is very visibly offered the chance to be a member of, and benefit from, the public library system and beyond. It would become a citizen ‘birth-right’ and could be linked to Bookstart which currently provides books to babies, along with information on reading to their parents.

Whilst there are often informal links between university libraries and the British Library, and in the case of the latter we certainly play a part in supporting public libraries through a range of activities, these links could be better promoted to increase public access to a wider range of materials. The Inspire scheme already plays a valuable role in supporting libraries across England in working together, whether they be public, higher education, health, specialist or national libraries. Together these libraries offer a hugely powerful resource and the challenge is to create seamless access to all citizens.

Idea two

A recent visit to the National Library of China gave me the opportunity to learn of plans there to establish a nationwide network of 70,000 digital grass roots cultural centres, 33 regional centres, and a national centre. The National Library of China will coordinate activity and training, and contribute its digitised book collections and archives to this programme, which aims to create at village level a digital community archive in traditional languages, dialects, local affairs, photographs and oral history. Alongside these community cultural archives it is hoped that this initiative will act as a catalyst for IT skills development. As is often the case in China, the sheer scale of the project is awe-inspiring, but it offers a valuable vision on what it is possible to achieve.

The British Library has touched upon some of the areas covered by China’s programme; for example our ‘Sounds Familiar’ website provides access to recordings of a broad range of dialects from across Britain, whilst our newspaper website provides access to three million pages of digitised and fully searchable newspapers online. These and many other similar projects have obvious local relevance, and there is the potential for extending such projects much more widely at local level. This would give opportunities to add user-generated content, adding richness to local collections and developing digital skills and involvement of local communities.

Idea three

The Digital Britain report highlighted the need to increase digital/media literacy levels for those of all

ages and backgrounds. Libraries can and should play a significant role in this work. Increasingly they have been equipped with computers for public use, offering invaluable access to resources for those who would otherwise be disenfranchised. Of course it is desirable that all homes have high speed broad-band, but meanwhile, why not use and promote public libraries as trusted and safe spaces to carry out this role, and to lead the development of citizen media literacy skills alongside reading skills. This would help fulfil a vital role to ensure that no member of society is locked out of the modern world through any lack of capability or access routes to an increasingly digital society.

Idea four

Since it opened in March 2006, the British Library’s Business and IP Centre has helped more than 100,000 people to start their own businesses. Initial discussions have already taken place with a few large public libraries interested in delivering the services we offer in London to their communities, through a combination of an online portal and local business support using the British Library model. The idea resonates particularly in large urban centres and with libraries which already have skills and services in business information

Whilst public libraries already play a significant role in communities across Britain, there is enormous scope to increase their value, and to make them a lively, welcoming and indispensable part of the public service landscape for the 21st century.

Data from the DCMS Taking Part Survey shows a consistent decline in public library use now for many years, and this trend is most prevalent among young people aged 16-24.Whilst investment in our libraries has grown over the last decade, book loans have declined. Many library buildings are aging and some staff in libraries find it difficult to respond to the challenges of the digital age and the changing demands from customers.

There is of course great innovative practice in many libraries – more flexible opening hours, using practices which work for retailers , attracting new users, developing new governance arrangements, partnering with public and private companies and securing new streams of revenues through commercial ventures.

But I want libraries across the country to learn from the best – to create a collective drive to increase membership and to spread the word. If we don’t, libraries could become an easy target for cuts when local authorities are faced with stringent financial constraints.

So what are some of the ideas we should think about?

• Book stock is vital and so are the location and quality of library buildings. Let’s not lose sight of that.

• Opening hours should reflect the changing pattern of people’s lives. We can’t drive up usage if the local library is closed when people want to go there.

• How do we spread best practise to the rest? Many libraries are getting creative in the services they provide in order to appeal to different interest groups.

For example:

• All local authorities participate in the universal Bookstart offer as well as providing ranges of books for babies and toddlers. What more can we do to encourage all parents to take out library membership for their babies from the earliest weeks of life?

• The Society of Chief Librarians launched the Universal Library membership scheme in September allowing a library member to use any library they like. Why can’t we take that further and let people borrow in Bromley, but return their book in Birmingham?

• What other services could be offered in our libraries? Why don’t more libraries contract with coffee shops, as many book shops do, or provide a crèche? Why couldn’t more libraries co-locate with Post Offices, Job Centres or Health Centres?

• Why shouldn’t more libraries sell books as well as lend them?

• How can we make it easier for everyone to borrow online, or provide a universal home delivery service in addition to the schemes for elderly or disabled people?

I know that some people were expecting a final policy document from us and some are disappointed that we are having a further period of consultation. But I want to take on board the comments from the All Party Parliamentary Group and CILIP, reflect on the process of the Wirral Inquiry, and I want to provoke a debate on some of the more radical suggestions which have emerged over the last 12 months.

I am particularly interested in looking at some of the radical ideas on governance structures. The responsibilities of central government with respect to libraries were put in place in the 1964 Act and the Local Authority role dates back to the 1850s. Given the considerable social and technological changes which have taken place in the interim it is worth reconsidering those arrangements now. We need to assess the right balance of national and local roles to address the challenges of the 21st century. Could a new balance help ensure national minimum standards whilst enabling local areas to determine their own services based on local priorities. For instance, could a national library service delivered locally better position the library service to address national challenges such as digitisation, whether that be a future of virtual lending to the home or a bigger role in up-skilling the digitally excluded? And could we find a way to gain economies of scale through multi-area or national procurement deals (e.g., digital activity, book stock, national partnerships)?

Other governance structures are being developed by local authorities, like trust models and outsourcing the service to private companies, for instance in Wigan, Luton and Hounslow which are detailed in case studies in this document.

And has the library service anything to learn from the new academy structures for schools, from social enterprise models, like community interest companies or Foundation Trusts in the Health service where Trusts can ‘peel off’ from Local Authority accountability once they obtain certain standards?

Do these models help us provide a better service and do they help secure new funding streams?

In a time of limited public resources is there anything the library sector might learn from the best library fundraisers or indeed from International libraries or other public services?

Digitisation may appear a threat to many traditionalists, but I think it provides great opportunities for both extending access to new readers and realising cost savings to the service. We already enjoy the success of the People’s network. But what about the future?

The e-reader may become the way many people want to read, learn and study. Some libraries are experimenting with audio books and e-books, but will digitisation lead to virtual lending and what does that mean for libraries, authors, publishers and book-sellers?

Finally, what about the legislative framework under which libraries function? Does it need to be reformed? I know this is a controversial debate but we have just announced the outcome of the Wirral Inquiry and we need to consider what can be learnt from that. I think we can all agree that the process needs modernising, I believe that the Government should retain an ultimate power of intervention. Only with that authority can we maintain a universal library service. I don’t think Government should prevent authorities from taking local decisions to close libraries if that makes sense locally and the needs of the community are taken into account, but we do need to have a national power to ensure that a comprehensive and efficient service is available to everyone in every community.

Contributors

Margaret Hodge

Dame Lynne Brindley

Shirley Burnham

Richard Charkin

Tracy Chevalier

Roy Clare

Professor Jon Drori

Tony Durcan

Guy Garfit

Tim Godfray

John Hicks

Kathy Kirk

Miranda McKearney

Bob McKee

Chris Meade

Martin Molloy

John Newbigin

Professor David Nicholas

Adrian Olsen

Nicky Parker

Gail Rebuck

Amanda Ridout

Michael Rosen

Terry Ryall

Andrew Smith

Mike Thorne

Cllr Chris White

Fiona Williams

Darcy Willson-Rymer

Our aim is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, support the pursuit of excellence, and champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries.

The public library service has a vital role in a democratic society. Libraries help to promote equality of opportunity and intellectual freedom and public libraries embody a commitment to open access to information and education for all. Libraries contribute to a wide range of National and Local Government targets – improving literacy and early years education, community cohesion, learning and skills development, health and well being, digital inclusion, citizenship, business support and entrepreneurship (see table at Appendix A).

However, there are five significant challenges for the library service:

• How can the library service demonstrate to citizens, commentators and politicians that they are still relevant and vital?

• How can we reverse the current trend of decline in library usage and grow the numbers using their local library?

• How can all libraries respond to a 24/7 culture and respond to changing expectations of people who want immediate access to information?

• How can all libraries grasp the opportunities presented by digitisation?

• How can the library service cope with limited public resource and economic pressures?

This Review aims to address these challenges by questioning the structures, services and skills of the public library service to ensure that libraries are a major player in creating skilled, informed, creative citizens and communities for the 21st century.

The world is a different place to that set out in the 2003 document, Framework for the Future, the Government’s strategy for public libraries. ((http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/4505.aspx)) Changes in consumption and customer expectations mean that people are used to free and instant access to information on multiple platforms, in the home, at work and ‘on the go’. Digital TV, radio, free newspapers, internet, mobile phone technology means that information is ever more available. The average person now spends 30 hours a week ((Source: Hooked on the internet, uswitch.com)) on the internet with 99% of children between 8 and 17 using the internet. ((Source: Safer children in a digital world: the report of the Byron Review))

A recent survey for the Digital Britain Report suggested that 70% of adults had used the internet in the past month and four out of five internet users accessed the internet every day or most days. ((Source: Digital Britain:Attitudes towards Internet Content among adults – BMRB Social Research, http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/bmrb_internetcontent_amongadults.pdf))