Information Studies Research

Policy Implementation Issues

11.1 The implementation of the policy outlined at the start of the document and the recommendations which are necessary to make that policy effective depend upon the HLF’s ability to mobilise suitable training for Case Officers and on the establishment of a series of new guidelines for applicants, assessment strategies, and post-project evaluation procedures.

Training for HLF Case Officers

11.2 HLF Case Officers provide frontline advice to potential applicants about ICT usage in the heritage sector and make the first level evaluation as to the eligibility of particular applications. In order to implement the policies and recommendations proposed here the HLF staff will require some general grounding in ICT beyond the basic word processing, electronic mail, and spreadsheet skills that they have already acquired. This training should provide them with an overview of the applications of technology which are viable and likely to produce productive results in line with HLF objectives to conserve, preserve, and improve access to, and understanding of, the heritage.

Recommendation
 
65. All Case Officers should be provided with a two-day training course to introduce them to the main issues of heritage information technology including an overview of current applications and the technological possibilities. In subsequent years they should be provided with a half-day refresher course.

Pre-Application Guidance

11.3 Applicants require guidance when preparing applications. They need to know what sorts of ICT projects the HLF will be prepared to consider, what uses of ICT on larger projects are acceptable, and what kinds of materials need to be submitted with a project to demonstrate that it is technically viable.

11.4 In addition to completing the risk assessment exercise outlined in ¶s 10.3-10.5 the risks associated with ICT projects can be further reduced when emphasis is put on:

• project management;
• the project steering committee;
• time and motion studies;
• broad consultation during the planning stage (¶ 10.1-10.2);
• service level agreements between developers and the applicant (or grantee);
• use of appropriate standards for system development, data capture, and encoding;
• tailoring of existing software as opposed to new bespoke developments;
• undertaking software development in a modular way; and
• evidence that the project has taken a very long-term view.

Judgement of the quality of ICT projects will be taken as a separate matter from the assessment of the risks associated with the ICT aspects. It is quite likely that an excellent project might not be viable because the ICT aspects pose unacceptably high levels of risk.

Recommendation
 
66. Potential applicants should be encouraged to bear in mind that as well as demonstrating the public and heritage benefits associated with the use of ICT in projects, they will need to demonstrate that the project is effectively designed to reduce the risks commonly associated with ICT projects.

Application Guidelines

11.5 The current application guidelines do not encourage applicants to provide sufficient materials for expert advisers on ICT to make comprehensive judgements. The real question is what level of documentation the HLF should expect at application stage. The production of the necessary documents requires substantial investment on the part of the applicant.

11.6 In addition to the technical details, to facilitate the evaluation of bids applicants must submit front-end studies so that advisers can determine whether or not there is a real need that will be answered by the proposed project.

Recommendations
 
67. The HLF should require that all ICT-based projects produce at least a project initiation design document before the HLF takes a decision in principle about whether or not to fund the project.
 
68. Before proceeding to a final funding decision, the applicant should produce a full set of technical documentation.

Application Assessment Guidelines

11.7 In addition to demonstrations of heritage and public benefits, ICT projects will need to provide evidence that they have actively been designed to reduce risks. In evaluating projects we should start from the premise that ICT people tend to be incurable optimists—if it wants doing, then there is a technical way to do it. This enthusiasm can on occasion be misplaced. It is important to have good ideas, but you also need hardware, software, cables, and ICT skills to implement them. In considering whether or not to fund an ICT project the HLF should investigate at least the following aspects of the proposed applications:

• How does the project fit with the institution’s own strategy and policy?
• Has the team looked at the potential user(s)?
• Have the user needs been thought out?
• Has maintenance been included?
• Is the core resource that is to be digitised in a good enough state to permit its digitisation?
• Is the approach merely cloning a manual process with automation or is it using automation to improve practices?
• Will the project produce reusable digital assets?
• Are the assumptions on which the time and motion studies were carried out sensible (e.g. was a valid sample chosen, under what conditions was the study run)?
• Does the outcome of the time and motion studies make sense?
• Will the evidence from the time and motion studies scale up?
• Is the project sustainable after the HLF funding stream has come to an end?
• Has the project planning involved making the risks associated with the project manageable?
• What is the output of the application of the risk assessment model?
• Are the project milestones reasonable and auditable?

Recommendation
 
69. The HLF should adopt a detailed ICT project assessment strategy.

Contractual Arrangements

The current HLF contract is not sufficiently IT-aware. It needs to address some of the following issues: standards; requirements for watermarking; encryption; rights management; and digital preservation.

Recommendation
 
70. The HLF should revise its contract so that it is suitable for ICT projects.

Project Monitoring

11.9 The current methods for monitoring the progress of projects are a matter for concern because increasing amounts of Lottery money are being spent on evaluators, consultants, and monitoring. These developments are building a very large infrastructure, which may be wasting a lot of resources. ICT projects are no different and, because of the risks associated with them, they need more monitoring. The challenge is to make heritage projects release creativity and innovation without becoming too bureaucratic. HLF could follow two models: have a small professional group of reviewers who would do spot random checks of projects; or have a large group checking everything. The evaluation procedure probably needs to be determined on a project-by-project basis. However, movement to an audit model rather than a handholding model will require the auditing to be carried out against an agreed list of milestones. The applicant should identify the key milestones that would form the benchmark for the auditing process and these should be included in the Special Conditions attached to specific contracts between the HLF and grantees.

Recommendation
 
71. The HLF should adopt an audit model for monitoring new ICT projects which relies on using applicant-defined milestones to measure the successful achievement of progress and occasional external visitations.

Post-Completion Evaluation

11.10 Many projects make claims about public and heritage benefits that need to be tested in the post-completion phase of projects. Not only will evaluations of this kind make certain that grantees continue to provide a public benefit, but it will provide the HLF with verification that its procedures for selecting projects for funding are effective. These evaluation activities should address the following questions:

• Has the project achieved its objectives?
• Is the public benefit in line with the level of investment? and
• Are the claims about the sustainability of the project being met?

These evaluations should be carried out by individuals who were not involved in the project as part of the original team, or as a project monitor, or the auditor checking that the milestones where completed on time.

Recommendation
 
72. The HLF should undertake post-project appraisal which validates the objectives and outcomes of the project as defined in the business case.

Role of Experts: Advisers and Panel Members

11.11 Expert advisers should be used in the examination of ICT applications and their report should continue to be one of the key factors in the decision-making process.

11.12 There is no need for an ICT Panel, just a need to make certain that each panel contains at least one IT-literate professional. Technology must be viewed as an enabling tool and not as a driving force. The establishment of an ICT panel might shift this balance.

Recommendations
 
73. All applications containing an ICT element should be considered by an ICT expert before being considered for funding. A risk assessment model should be applied in evaluating all applications.
 
74. The existing Panel Membership should be extended to include IT-literate professionals.