Objective 2: Quality assessments in collections management
Task 2.1 Develop a Web-based self-assessment process (including audit)
Deliverable 2.8 Report on state of collections in Europe
1. Introduction
An online self-assessment tool has been developed based on the collections benchmarks developed in SYNTHESYS
1 (see: http://www.synthesys.info/network-activities/synthesys2-na2/). This allows institutions to self-assess at
institutional and departmental level. In order to ensure survey consistency, an efficient audit system has been
developed to validate the results of the self-assessments.
This tool provides valuable information that institutions can use in planning, management and in seeking funding. In
addition, it provides SYNTHESYS with valuable data on collection management needs across Europe so that training
courses can be targeted to meet these needs.
The survey tool became available (free of charge) online from October 2010 and will continue beyond the end of
SYNTHESYS 2 for the foreseeable future. It will be updated and modified to include benchmarks relating to new
collections as part of SYNTHESYS 3 (starting in September 2013).
The self assessment tool builds upon previous successful SYNTHESYS museum collections surveys undertaken by a
panel of external experts (2006-2009). Feedback on the process was positive, with many institutions using the results
to improve internal procedures. Some institutions used the results to obtain additional funding for collections
management.
The assessment can either be completed at department or institution level. The institution nominates an individual to
register and act as the main contact point. This individual is then responsible for entering data on the institution and for
completing the questionnaire.
The questionnaire has two sections that relate to the institution as a whole (e.g. management structure) and three that
are department specific (e.g. collections care). The self assessment takes approx. 2-3 days for data gathering and a
couple of hours to enter the results. The results are submitted online to the SYNTHESYS administration team.
Within one month of completing the institution receives a report via the contact person summarising the results of the
assessment which will include recommendations for improving any areas which do not meet the benchmark level.
In order to ensure consistency of the results an efficient audit system was developed to validate the results of the selfassessments. This involved two members of the SYNTHESYS consortium with in-depth experience of collections and
their management visiting the institution to validate results and took one to two days depending on the size of the
institution. A more detailed report than the assessment alone was produced by the auditors and returned to the
institution. .
Not all institutions completing the self-assessment could be audited and institutions were selected at random.
The results of the survey were and remain completely confidential. The reports are sent to the institution’s contact
person only. The data are used in a summary report and associated publications on the status of collections in Europe
but all data remain anonymous.
Seventeen institutions completed the survey representing more than 200 million specimens. Fourteen institutions were
subjected to an audit to ground truth responses. Overall few major changes were made following audits although the
process was found very valuable by institutions as recommendations were given for improvement. Changes by audit
teams made were mostly either to upgrade “Met” to “Exceeded” or vice versa and some changes from “Not Met” to
“Partially Met” or “Met”. Rarely was a score downgraded to “Not Met”. Institutions already use the self-assessment and
audit results in their planning and priorities to improve standards, collection management (CM) and collection care
(CC).
As institutions varied considerably in size of collections, ranging from a few with less than 100,000 objects to more
than 70 million objects, making comparisons in our analyses was only possible by dividing institutions into classes: 1)
small (< 1M objects); 2) medium (1–5M objects) and 3) large (> 5M objects). Data from surveys and audits were
placed in spreadsheets to create a results matrix which was analysed in a number of ways for size class and/or type
of department. Benchmarks relating to collection care, collection management and collection access were analysed
separately to those that were cross-institution, i.e. infrastructure, management and buildings.
Fig. 1. Matrix of institutions by department (for illustration only).
How and why the results are weighted
It is clear that some of the benchmarks in the assessment are more critical and may require more immediate remedial
action if “Not Met” than others. For example, the benchmark statement “Repairs should be made to the collections
buildings as a matter of priority to ensure the collections are protected.” is of immediate importance to the safety of the
collection and is rated Criticality level 3. If this is “Not Met or even “Partially Met” then the collection could be at
immediate risk of damage or loss through water ingress for example. Both “Not Met” and “Partially Met” give a “Red”
response in the report.
On the other hand failure to meet or even partially meet the benchmark “The institutions mission statement makes a
commitment to the preservation and management of its collections” is rated as level 1 as it is unlikely to have any
immediate or even mid-term effect on the safety of the collection although subtly and in the longer-term such a lack of
commitment at this level could have detrimental effects.
The weightings are summarised in table 1.
Criticality Level
1 = low 3 = high
Assessment Rating
Not met
Partially
met
Met
Exceeded
1
Amber
Amber
Green
Blue
2
Red
Amber
Green
Blue
3
Red
Red
Green
Blue
2. Selection of conclusions from the matrices
Key
CL = Criticality level see table 1 above.
BM = Benchmark. These are numbered from 1 to 63 and are listed as Appendix 1 with their criticality rating
2a. Benchmarks 1 – 27: Infrastructure, Management and Buildings1
Benchmarks with most “Exceeded”


The institution has a basic collections management (CM) policy (criticality level CL1, benchmark BM2);
Staff have been trained in, and are aware of, current CM and collections care (CC) procedures and best
practice (CL2, BM11).
Benchmarks with most “Met”


Resources and a budget for CM and CC have been allocated to ensure all collections can be maintained
(CL2, BM7);
There is a clearly defined staff structure with defined roles and responsibilities in CM to cover all major areas
of CM (CL1, BM8).
Benchmarks with most “Partially Met” (and institutions therefore have to improve on)





There are procedures and documentation in place to ensure that knowledge is transferred and not lost when
staff leave (CL1, BM9);
Staff training needs in areas of CM and CC are assessed (CL1, BM10);
Staff have been trained in, and are aware of, current CM and CC procedures and best practice (CL2, BM11);
The institution complies with all local, national and EU health and safety statutory regulations (CL3, BM12);
The institution provides healthy and safe working conditions for all staff and other users working in collections
(CL3, BM13).
Benchmarks with most “Not Met” (and institutions therefore have to improve on)


There is a written emergency preparedness (including business continuity) plan for the collections which
includes strategies for dealing with disasters and the salvage of collections and all staff know their role within
the plan (CL2, BM27).
o This remains an issue with some 30% of institutions surveyed failing to meet this;
o In SYNTHESYS 1 survey most institutions failed on this so this may indicate an improvement;
o Smaller institutions score better on this benchmark. Developing a plan for a collection in one
room/building is less challenging than large multi-site institutions.
Staff receive regular training and advice on health and safety issues specific to the collections they are
working on (CL3, BM15).
o Although general health and safety training is strong in most institutions as it the law specific threats
from collections such as mercury and/or arsenic contamination are not always acknowledged and
staff not trained in handing these;
o More of a problem in medium sized institutions.
Benchmarks with most “Not Met” AND “Partially Met” (and institutions therefore have to improve on)

1
There are procedures and documentation in place to ensure that knowledge is transferred and not lost when
staff leave (CL1, BM9).
o Succession planning is acknowledged in most institutions but transfer is mainly by word of mouth;
o Reflects a general tendency to not write things down.
These benchmarks apply across the whole organisation rather than by department .

Repairs should be made to the collections buildings as a matter of priority to ensure the collections are
protected (CL3, BM16).
o Most institutions have at least one room or building that is in need of repair work.
There is a written emergency preparedness (including business continuity) plan for the collections which
includes strategies for dealing with disasters and the salvage of collections and all staff know their role within
the plan (CL2, BM27).
o See above.

2b. Benchmarks 28 – 63: Collections Management, Care and Access
General notes


Medium sized institutions had more “Exceeded” than large or small institutions;
One institution exceeded in several areas as a consequence of it being part of larger institution including
significant fine art collections and a strong commitment to conservation and documentation;
Basic procedures and documentation controlling transactions such as loans is carried out in all institutions.

Benchmarks with most “Exceeded”



75% of the collections are sufficiently ordered to permit staff to locate material easily (CL1, BM38);
There are procedures in place regarding acquisition of new collections/specimens (CL1, BM28);
There are written procedures for specimen loans and returns and they are consistently applied (when loaning
specimens from the collection and when borrowing specimens from another institution) (CL2, BM33).
Benchmarks with most “Met” or “Exceeded”




Staff are available to support access of the collections (CL2, BM60);
Collections are organised by a recognised structure allowing items to be easily located (CL1, BM58);
All collections are accessible to internal and external researchers (CL1, BM50);
Information on visitors to collection areas is recorded (CL2, BM53).
For smaller institutions the following were 100% “Met” or “Exceeded”



The data associated with the collections is stored and accessible (CL2, BM61);
Access to collection storage areas is restricted to authorised persons (CL2, BM51);
75% of the collections are sufficiently ordered to permit staff to locate material easily (CL1, BM38).
Note: It is understandable that it is easier to locate items in small collections. For example, locating material in
a collection of less than 100,000 objects stored in a single area with some level of organisation is considerably easier
than a large institution with collections in several locations and possibly large backlogs of unprocessed materials.
Similarly with associated information such as field note books and correspondence. It is also easier to restrict access
to one room under the control of a single curator than many.
Benchmarks with most “Partially Met” (and institutions therefore have to improve on)



All collections data is stored in, and accessible via, an electronic collection management system (CL1, BM36);
The environment in areas where collections are stored or displayed is controlled within agreed environmental
parameters, monitored, and an early warning detection system in place in any area at high risk of an
emergency (CL2, BM44);
There is equipment available and written guidelines for safe handling and transportation of material supplied
to all staff and visitors (CL1, BM35).
Note: Data capture is an ongoing process which started relatively recently, so few institutions and certainly not
the larger ones will have yet captured all data electronically.
Benchmarks with most “Not Met” (and institutions therefore have to improve on)

There are written procedures for controlling access to the collections by the public and research visitors (CL3,
BM54).
o reflects a general trend observed in audits to not write things down;
o The risks of not doing so are
 lack of consistency of message given verbally by different individuals;
 lack of written evidence that rules have been pointed out to visitors by staff.

There is a written procedure regarding the internal movement of specimens and all movements are recorded
(CL2, BM34).
o “Met” by all small institutions;
o Most medium and around half of the large institutions either partially or totally fail to meet this;
o Small institutions rarely move material out of one room and recording is easier;
o Audit revealed that institutions misunderstood this benchmark and failed to realise that by putting slips
in collections recording where a missing item had been moved to, they were meeting this benchmark.
Benchmarks with most “Not Met” AND “Partially Met” (and institutions therefore have to improve on)



The environment in areas where collections are stored or displayed is controlled within agreed environmental
parameters, monitored, and an early warning detection system in place in any area at high risk of an
emergency (CL2, BM44).
o Even the largest institutions have one store at least that is not up to environmental standard;
o All small institutions surveyed failed to meet this;
All collections data is stored in, and accessible via, an electronic collection management system (CL1, BM36)
Information on the collections held are available on the internet (CL1, BM62)
o Many institutions have this as “Partly Met”;
o Variable within institutions where one department has an active web presence describing the broad range
of holdings and other departments having nothing;
o Might be an artefact as some institutions may have assumed that this meant specimen level data rather
than general statements on what main groups are held etc.;
o Although not a critical failure to advertise institutions holdings and strengths can make them invisible to
users beyond the systematics community;
o Natural history collections in small multi-disciplinary institutions with limited funding and strong bias to
humanities could benefit from a web presence to raise awareness and encourage use.
APPENDIX 1 Benchmarks used in self-assessment
These are divided into five sections
Infrastructure Management
Infrastructure Buildings
Collections Management
Collections Care
Collections Access
Benchmark list
Benchmark
number
Benchmark statement
Criticality
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
The institutions mission statement makes a commitment to the
1 preservation and management of its collections
1
The institution has a basic collections management (CM) policy (or
2 policies)
3 The institution has a basic collections care (CC) policy (or policies)
1
1
All staff involved in CM have been issued with current museum policy
4 documents
1
The institution has agreed environmental standards at which its
5 collections should be stored and displayed
1
The institution complies with laws and regulations relevant to CM and
6 has a mechanism to ensure staff are kept up to date with changes
3
Resources and a budget for CM and CC have been allocated to ensure
7 all collections can be maintained.
2
There is a clearly defined staff structure with defined roles and
8 responsibilities in CM to cover all major areas of CM
1
There are procedures and documentation in place to ensure that
9 knowledge is transferred and not lost when staff leave
10 Staff training needs in areas of CM and CC are assessed
1
1
Staff have been trained in, and are aware of, current CM and CC
11 procedures and best practice
2
The institution complies with all local, national and EU health and
12 safety statutory regulations
3
The institution provides healthy and safe working conditions for all
13 staff and other users working in collections
3
The institution has identified all health and safety risks that are posed
14 by their collection
2
Staff receive regular training and advice on health and safety issues
15 specific to the collections they are working on.
3
INFRASTRUCTURE BUILDINGS
Repairs should be made to the collections buildings as a matter of
16 priority to ensure the collections are protected.
3
Resources and a budget for the maintenance of buildings, plant and
17 equipment have been allocated
2
All buildings and equipment are inspected on a regular basis and
18 potential risks to collections are identified and reports maintained
2
Procedures are in place to ensure that actions are taken to mitigate
19 any risks identified (in Question 3 of this section)
20
A maintenance department monitors all buildings and facilities and has
financial resources to ensure they are maintained to an agreed
standard and operate to ensure the environment stays within agreed
parameters
3
2
Reports on the condition of the building and conservation advice are
21 used in planning improvements or major developments.
2
All access points to the building such as doors, lifts, windows and
22 ventilation are secure
3
All collections are kept in a secure environment, including those that
23 are on display/exhibition
24
Written security procedures and guidelines are in place and enforced.
All maintenance staff are made aware of protocols by regular
communication with staff
3
2
All collection and exhibition space are regularly cleaned by staff
25 following maintenance protocols
2
26
Reports on the environment (including IPM) are used to inform those
managing the building on improvements or repairs that need to be
made to ensure the security of the collections
1
27
There is a written emergency preparedness (including business
continuity) plan for the collections which includes strategies for dealing
with disasters and the salvage of collections and all staff know their
role within the plan.
2
COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT
There are procedures in place to ensure that the collections
28 management (CM) policy is met
1
Records are maintained on acquisition and deaccessioning of all
29 specimens
30
31
32
33
Each accession is marked or labelled with a unique identifier, which is
produced to agreed standards and does not damage or deface the
object. Previous markings/labels are preserved.
A secure copy of the accession register/catalogue is stored at a
separate location
There are procedures in place regarding acquisition of new
collections/specimens
There are written procedures for specimen loans and returns and they
are consistently applied (when loaning specimens from the collection
and when borrowing specimens from another institution)
2
2
2
1
2
There is a written procedure regarding the internal movement of
34 specimens and all movements are recorded.
35
36
37
38
There is equipment available and written guidelines for safe handling
and transportation of material are supplied to all staff and visitors.
All collections data is stored in, and accessible via, an electronic
collection management system
Access is available to legal advice on all areas of collections
management
75% of the collections are sufficiently ordered to permit staff to locate
material easily
2
1
1
2
1
COLLECTIONS CARE
39
40
There are procedures in place to ensure that the collections care (CC)
policy is met
All conservation work is carried out according to recognised standards
1
3
Conservation requirements have been assessed and prioritised in
41 consultation with users and management staff
1
42
Collections are periodically surveyed to assess their status and
condition and identify potential risks. The results are used as part of the
planning process.
2
43
Any interventive processes undertaken on an item need to be fully
documented. This should include an assessment of any loss or change
to the item that will be caused by the process.
1
The environment in areas where collections are stored or displayed is
controlled within agreed environmental parameters, monitored, and an
early warning detection system in place in any area at high risk of an
emergency
44
45 Technical support is always available to support collection care
46
47
Technical facilities should be maintained by the institution to ensure the
protection of items and a safe working environment
Methods have been identified and reviewed to prepare materials
entering the department. Preparation facilities are available (either
within or outside the department)
2
1
3
3
All materials used around collections should minimise the risk of
48 deterioration to the collections or their associated information
49
There is an established standard for storage furniture. There is a
review and assessment of current storage furniture and future
requirements.
COLLECTIONS ACCESS
50 All collections are accessible to internal and external researchers
51 Access to collection storage areas is restricted to authorised persons
52 Response to a request for access occurs within a specified time
53 Information on visitors to collection areas is recorded
2
2
1
2
1
2
There are written procedures for controlling access to the collections by
54 the public and research visitors
3
Instructions on handling specimens/objects and related security and
55 health and safety issues are supplied to anyone using the collections
56
57
58
Users of the collections are made aware of the laws and regulations
relating to their use
There is written policy for researcher access. This should include
destructive sampling and returning data to owning institution
Collections are organised by a recognised structure allowing items to
be easily located
A workspace that is not detrimental to the collections is available for
working with items.
Staff are available to support access of the collections
59
60
61 The data associated with the collections is stored and accessible
62 Information on the collections held are available on the internet
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
Digitisation priorities for collections and associated information have
63 been identified
63
Digitisation priorities for collections and associated information have
been identified
1
1