Title:
Executive Team Meeting
Date of Meeting:
5 November 2015
Location:
Blue Room, 1st Floor, Kew
Attendees:
Clem Brohier (CB – Chair)
Caroline Ottaway-Searle (COS)
Valerie Johnson (VJ)
John Sheridan (JS)
TNA Patrick Mallett (PJM - minutes)
TNA Sam Whaley (SW)
TNA Finance Business Partner
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
Apologies: Jeff James (JJ), Carol Tullo (CT)
Action
1.0
Minutes and Matters Arising
1.1
The minutes of the previous meetings held on the 28 October 2015 and 21 October
2015 were reviewed and approved subject to a number of minor corrections.
1.2
There were no conflicts of interest declared.
2.0
Board forward planner – skeleton review
2.1
Executive Team discussed proposed future agenda items ahead of review by
Management Board.
2.2
COS suggested that the succession planning item may need to be moved back into
2016. Post meeting update18/11/15: now moved into 2016.
2.3
JS proposed that the final Management Board, with its current members, might be a
useful occasion to have a retrospective item looking back at what worked well and
what areas might be enhanced.
2.4
COS advised that audience updates might be most useful twice yearly.
2.5
Action: PJM to seek JJ opinion on above suggestions.
PJM
Page 1 of 10
3.0
Diary Review / Any Other Business
3.1
Directors reviewed engagements of note in their diaries.
3.2
VJ noted that the The National Archives application to the Heritage Lottery Fund
Unlocking Film Heritage programme was successful. The award will enable
Collection Care to take forward its programme of creating digital copies of public
records films held by the British Film Institute.
3.3
CB advised that there was no update regarding our Comprehensive Spending
Review (CSR) settlement.
3.4
The Executive Team noted the outcomes of the Reclosure Panel held in October
2015.
3.5
There being no other business the meeting closed.
4.0
Corporate Vacancy Management
4.1
The Executive Team reviewed a number of recruitment requests.
4.2
CORE1 - Archivist (Catalogue Data): Approved.
4.3
CORE2 - FOI Assessor: Approved.
Title:
Executive Team Meeting
Date of Meeting:
18 November 2015
Location:
Blue Room, 1st Floor, Kew
Attendees:
Jeff James (JJ - Chair)
Clem Brohier (CB)
Carol Tullo (CT)
Caroline Ottaway-Searle (COS)
Valerie Johnson (VJ)
John Sheridan (JS)
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
Patrick Mallett (PJM - minutes)
Sam Whaley (SW)
Malcolm Todd (MT)
Project and Procurement Manager
Cathy Williams (CW)
Collections Knowledge Manager
Julian Muller (JM)
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
Head of Estates and Facilities
Senior Project Manager
Head of Conservation
Head of Independent Archives
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
Page 2 of 10
Casework Manager
David Sawyer (DS)
Jane Craigie-Payne (JCP)
TNA
TNA
TNA
Apologies: None
Action
1.0
Minutes and Matters Arising
1.1
The minutes of the previous meetings held on the 05 November 2015 were
reviewed and approved subject to a number of minor corrections.
1.2
There were no conflicts of interest declared.
2.0
Closure report for the PSI Transposition project
2.1
Public sector information (PSI) is information produced by central and local
government or any other public body. On behalf of the UK Government, The
National Archives has led on work to transpose the Directive on the Re-use of
Public Sector Information, adopted by the European Union in June 2013, into UK
law as the Re-use of Public Sector Regulations 2015.
2.2
The Executive Team was asked to note the closure report and the lessons learnt.
2.3
CT noted that there was an element of continued responsibility and potential to
cover any future tribunal costs.
2.4
JJ stated that this had been an impressive piece of work and there had been a
number of obstacles that had needed to be overcome.
2.5
JJ applauded all the hard work that had been invested in this and asked that this be
passed on to all those involved.
2.6
The Executive Team noted the report.
3.0
Membership of Archives Portal Europe Foundation (APEF)
3.1
CW and The Collections Knowledge Manager presented this paper to the Executive
Team outlining the reasons why we should or should not become a member of
APEF. The Executive Team’s opinion was sought.
3.2
The Archives Portal Europe (APE) is an international aggregator of catalogues and
collections information for almost 6000 archival institutions in 32 European
countries. The APE has developed to contain more than 240 million units of
description, approximately 7.5 times larger than Discovery in these terms.
Page 3 of 10
3.3
The Collections Knowledge Manager noted that APE was essentially a Discovery
for Europe and that it was built parallel to Discovery and using similar tools.
3.4
The Collections Knowledge Manager advised that if we did decide to fund we would
be under no obligation to provide content.
3.5
JJ noted that the plan seemed to be to provide funding and expose our content on
their system.
3.6
JJ said that suitable collaborative discussions to establish a UK wide position would
be necessary.
3.7
The Collections Knowledge Manager noted that the Discovery team were interested
in the technology that APE was using.
3.8
JS advised that APE seemed to be a mixture of different things and it would be
important to monitor who the audience was and what levels of usage were
achieved.
3.9
Action: CW to provide usage statistics from EAG reports to the Executive Team.
3.10
CW said that paying for membership would bring in learning and produce outputs
and would enhance our reputation as leader in the archive sector.
3.11
Action: JJ asked JS to investigate potential benefits with our Discovery team in
order to evidence any potential value gained from funding.
4.0
ICT shutdown options
4.1
Executive Team was asked to note the options in the paper and make a
recommendation on the NightWatchman PC shutdown policy.
4.3
JM took the Executive Team through the options and the recommended approach.
4.4
Action: JM to investigate further and provide in depth costings and demonstrate the
green impact and bring back for a review in 6 months.
JM
4.5
Action: JM to arrange for communications to go out to staff relating to our ICT
shutdown policy and to encourage staff to shut down computers themselves.
JM
4.6
The Executive Team agreed the suggested approach.
5.0
ET review of a ‘Loan-in-Principle’
5.1
SB updated the Executive Team on progress on exploring the possibility of an
exhibition on Shakespeare celebrating 400 years of his legacy.
5.2
Action: COS to report back to the Executive Team in January 2016 ahead of the
planned opening of the exhibition
5.3
The Executive Team agreed the ‘Loan-in-Principle’.
Page 4 of 10
CW
JS
6.0
Diary Review / Any Other Business
6.1
Directors reviewed engagements of note in their diaries.
6.2
Action: CSR communication plans to be reviewed by SW.
6.3
There being no other business the meeting closed.
7.0
Corporate Vacancy Management
7.1
The Executive Team reviewed a number of recruitment requests.
7.2
CORE1 - Conservation Manager: Approved.
7.3
CORE2 - Transfer Adviser: Approved
7.4
CORE3 - Research and Academic Liaison Adviser: Approved
7.5
CORE4 - Trainee Technical Support Administrator: Approved subject to change
described in 8.8.
7.6
CB noted that this creative solution was suggested with the knowledge that there
was a lack of skills right across the team.
7.7
Action: JJ requested assurances that we were ready to move to voice over IP
technology.
CB
7.8
Action: JJ asked for the word administrator to be removed from the job description.
JCP
7.9
CORE 5 – Head of Licensing. Approved
7.10
CB stated that recruiting to this team proves challenging and it was a key area in
terms of revenue generation.
SW
Page 5 of 10
Title:
Executive Team Meeting
Date of Meeting:
24 November 2015
Location:
Blue Room, 1st Floor, Kew
Attendees:
Jeff James (JJ - Chair)
Carol Tullo (CT)
Caroline Ottaway-Searle (COS)
Valerie Johnson (VJ)
John Sheridan (JS)
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
Patrick Mallett (PJM - minutes)
Sam Whaley (SW)
Paul Davies (PD)
Senior Project Manager
Caroline Pegden (CP)
Guidance Manager
Digital Transfer Manager
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
David Sawyer (DS)
Corporate Performance and
Transparency Manager
Jane Craigie-Payne (JCP)
HR Manager
Media Manager
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
TNA
Apologies: Clem Brohier (CB)
Action
1.0
Minutes and Matters Arising
1.1
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 November 2015 were
reviewed and approved subject to a number of minor corrections and further
review by JJ.
1.2
There were no conflicts of interest declared.
2.0
IT network migration work / Network and Data Centre project close-out
report
2.1
The Executive Team was asked to note the Network and Data Centre Project
Closure Report and the lessons learned review. These reports are used to
assess the success of the project, to resolve or allocate open issues and risks,
and to close the project formally.
2.2
JR took the Executive Team through the key points in the report noting that a
key learning was the need for communications to the wider business to have
input from staff with technical knowledge.
2.3
CT asked if there would be a requirement for this new data centre if our new
Page 6 of 10
digital strategy moved us to more cloud based solutions.
2.4
PD advised that there was still potential to move to cloud solutions, much of
the processes have been virtualised and much had been decommissioned, we
had a very precise idea of the systems we have in place and it was operating
in a far more efficient manner.
2.5
JJ noted that the fact we now had this facility meant that when thinking about
our digital strategy we would not be forced to make quick decisions. Time
could be taken to thoroughly review the options.
2.6
CT said that it seemed clear that there was now a need for project managers
to have technical expertise in certain instances.
2.7
COS suggested it would be useful to make more people aware of this work
that had been ongoing ‘behind the scenes’, the very real benefits to The
National Archives should be explained with those involved receiving
recognition for their hard work and what had been achieved.
2.8
CT noted the need to include a scale on the graphical representation.
2.9
JR advised that the Head of IT Operations had been consulted and was happy
with the current position.
2.10
Action: Senior Project Manager to discuss possible blog with Clarissa Angus.
2.11
The Executive Team agreed and noted the reports.
3.0
Lessons learned: Digital Transfer - software trials / pilot transfers
3.1
The National Archives is tackling the challenges of digital preservation and
presentation, ensuring continued access to digital information in the future. We
play an active role in storing and preserving digital material created by UK
government.
3.2
Under the 20-Year rule departments will need to transfer selected, sensitivityreviewed digital records 20 years after they are created.
3.3
CP advised that the Executive Team was asked to note an update on the
progress of the Digital Transfer Project, the lessons learned from pilots and
software trials and the planned next steps.
3.4
CP stated that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) may
result in departments being required to search their digital records. This could
encourage adoption of new processes and tools which could have interesting
applications in terms of digital appraisal and selection and sensitivity review,
with the need of support and guidance from The National Archives.
3.5
The Digital Transfer Manager updated that we were currently working with
both Government Digital Service (GDS) and Crown Commercial Service
(CCS) to look at what the requirements of the digital framework needed to be.
Page 7 of 10
Senior
Project
Manager
Work was also ongoing with the academic sector to try and drive research,
especially around sensitivity review where there are no immediate scalable
solutions.
3.6
VJ implored the team to publish this work in order to raise awareness and
further our reputation in this important area.
3.7
CP informed that the business intelligence and lessons learnt from the
software trial should be published by the end of December 2015.
3.8
The Guidance Manager highlighted the challenges around digital record dates
and names, noting work was ongoing with our Cataloguing team.
3.9
JJ commented that the Advisory Council would have a particular interest in the
dating of digital files when being consulted on file opening / closure issues.
3.10
JJ said that with the first business-as-usual digital transfers due to occur in
2016 it would be important to have a final, more accurate estimate of volumes
and number of departments transferring to The National Archives early in the
new year.
3.11
Action – PJM to add item to the Executive Team agenda in early 2016.
3.12
The Executive Team noted progress, lessons learnt and next steps.
4.0
October Financials
4.1
Executive Team was asked to consider and note the October Finance Report.
4.2
The Executive Team noted and approved the report.
5.0
Dashboard
5.1
The Dashboard is a monthly reporting and monitoring mechanism for the
Executive Team. The Executive Team is being asked to note and approve the
October Dashboard ahead of publication on our intranet.
5.2
The Dashboard provides an easy reference of how the Performance Indicators
for The National Archives have performed in the month and alerts the
Executive Team to those where achievement is under threat and where some
remedial action may be necessary.
5.3
The Executive Team reviewed the metrics of the October report by exception.
5.4
The Corporate Performance and Transparency Manager advised that the UK
Web Archive – total visits metric showed a YTD reduction of 43.9% on this
time last year.
5.5
JS said that this metric may be showing that people could more easily find and
access current resource thus reducing the need to access the archived
material.
Page 8 of 10
PJM
5.6
JJ stated that it would be useful to take a longer term view of where we were
and what we would hope for and expect from the UK Web Archive in the
future. Updates on progress could then be provided to the Executive Team.
The
Corporate
Performance
and
Transparency
Manager
5.7
Action: The Corporate Performance and Transparency Manager to request a
paper on this issue for the Executive Team from Web Continuity Manager.
5.8
The Executive Team noted the October dashboard.
6.0
Strategic Risk Register 2015-16
6.1
The Executive Team was asked to review and agree updates to the Strategic
Risk Register that were necessary to reflect the change to our directorate
structure and the recent Machinery of Government change with our move to
DCMS.
6.2
PD took the Executive Team through the updates.
6.3
The Executive Team agreed the updated Strategic Risk Register.
7.1
Staff Survey
7.2
JCP took the Executive Team through the Staff Survey results advising that
our overall engagement was 70% and there were no statistically significant
changes to the previous survey.
7.3
JJ noted the positive response to question B43. ‘I believe that the Executive
Team has a clear vision for the future of The National Archives.’
7.4
JJ advised that it would be useful to consult colleagues at DCMS.
7.5
JCP said that results could be discussed at a meeting with their HR director in
December.
7.6
JCP advised that the next step was to distribute the staff comments to
directors.
7.7
Action: JCP asked Directors to contact her or DC if they required a session to All
look at their directorates’ results.
7.8
Action: JCP to bring back to the Executive Team in January for further detailed JCP
analysis and planning our responses.
7.9
The Executive Team noted the positive results.
8.0
Diary Review / Any Other Business
8.1
Directors reviewed engagements of note in their diaries.
Page 9 of 10
8.2
The Media Manager updated on plans for media releases.
8.3
There being no other business the meeting closed.
9.0
Corporate Vacancy Management
9.1
The Executive Team reviewed a number of recruitment requests.
9.2
CORE1 - Senior Advisor - Independent Archives: Approved.
9.3
CORE4 – Collections Knowledge Manager Extension: Approved
9.4
CORE 7 – FOI Manager: Approved
9.5
CORE 8 - Online Editor: Approved
9.6
CORE10 - Imaging Operator: Approved
9.7
CORE 13 - Project Conservator: Approved
9.8
Action: JJ requested JCP to distribute list of vacancy’s not approved this week
and those awaiting approval next week to directors.
JCP
9.9
Action: Directors to pre – prioritise vacancies ahead of discussion at next
week’s Executive Team meeting
All
Page 10 of 10