3. 1. Make it easier for
everyone, whatever their
level of knowledge, to learn
from and engage with the
collections in ways that suit
them as individuals, families
or groups.
2. Be a truly interactive
service where heritage
collections become a
catalyst for creativity
and are a living archive,
offering a lively
interface between our
audiences and the
academic community.
4. Make radical
improvements in the
conservation and
management of the
heritage collections so
that they have a
sustainable future.
3. Create exciting, enticing and flexible
multi - functional physical and digital
facilities for learning and engagement.
LEARN / PEOPLE
CONSERVE /
HERITAGE
PARTICIPATE /
COMMUNITIES
5. Current
audience
Potential
audiences
and scope of
engagement! To enhance the
knowledge and
nurture the soul
A great way to
engage others
Inspire in
work and
life
Wow can
I see
some
shirts?
I feel encouraged
to use the
collections already
You’ve mentioned a lot
of things i would have
looked at if I’d known
they were there
9. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Individual researchers
Audiences for events & other
programming
Remote direct users
Remote indirect users
Projection during 4 years project 2013/4 - 2016/7 Total last 4 years 2010/1-2012/3
During
project
362% p/a
Post
project
532% p/a
10. Heritage collections at
risk
Heritage collections
safeguarded for
future learning and
participation
Environment: passive
measures
Boxing: passive
measures
Individual
conservation
treatments
Increase staff
resources plus
volunteer
capacity
13. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Round 1
Average refurbishment
Round 2
£ per m2
14. {Title}
• {text or
graphics
here}
Delivery
2013-2017
Audiences’
desires for
heritage
collections
Maximum use of
infrastructure
and resources
Effective project
delivery
Transformed
opportunities for
people to learn and
participate
Heritage safeguarded
National standards
Wider heritage
strategies
15. • Message from Professor Tim Thornton, Project Sponsor
Tour of facilities
• The new Centre
Editor's Notes
Overview of proposed projectA bit about our development project over the last 10/11 months: thank you for your contribution to the development funding
Overview of project – how does it support HLF’s aims & what will we actually doLasting difference for people & for heritage collectionsPartners range from very small very local groups to bodies with national/international profile
Our agreed project aims mapped against HLF’s priorities
This is the budget breakdown – [general refurbishment costs shared among all areas but specialist building stuff attributed to appropriate areas eg. mobile racking = conservation; AV/multimedia = learning]
Gaps in the market – we can fill particular needs that we understand, thanks to stage 1 development processActivity Plan details how more people & a wider range of people will engageHow they’ll learn and develop skillsIn some cases how they’ll volunteer expertise, passion & timeWork done on interpretation plans - applies to all exhibitions, learning resources, talks, digital engagement strategies and so on. Details how we’ll provoke and explore experiences, feelings and actions: quality of interaction with heritage beyond “that’s interesting”So what are the heritage collections??
Infrastructure – low levels collections information & physical environment severely limit capacity & effectiveness: running to stand still with current audiencesOur Activity Plan outlines the numbers – current capacity & future plans. Conservative projections, especially for “remote indirect users” – those who stumble across material from the heritage collections in places we don’t “own” eg. social media pinterest, via our partners. Our digital engagement framework beings to evaluate this: very new thing for archives (museums a bit further ahead, but only the nationals really)
Journey from our round 1 application can be seen clearly here: development process for activity plan & collections management & maintenance plan reveal much better quality information about our audiences and about the heritage collections & their future growth. Comparative GIAs superficially very different BUTConfident that appropriate and sustainable facilities to support and achieve our aspirations for audiences and for collections. Consolidation of facility onto 1 level at round 2 – other requirements changed as University’s wider campus development plans (see with your own eyes...) (currently: 3 floors, 9 storage locations; round 1 proposals were 2 floors; round 2 proposal single floor)
As part of the development project we’ve obviously been able to undertake a lot of work on the costsRound 1 application significantly undercosted - £535 per m2 unrealisticSince submitting round 1 application: ARA research average £1,500 m/2 for refurb (£2,500 for new build) – so good value for money.Our round 2 application £1,159 m/2 – includes costs of exhibition facilities incl. as well as traditional exhibition cases high level of top quality multimedia & AV facilities demanded by the collections & audiences. [heard the music earlier on]Consider this offers good value for money[Accommodation designed to last at least 20 years in line with PD5454 standard – p/a cost £54,000 (in all probability much longer, average 50 years reducing p/a cost to £21,600)]
