NHS Scotland Knowledge into Action Review The Physical Resource: Models, Recommendations, and Implementation Briefing Paper Feb 2012

The Physical Space: The Knowledge Space Model Recommendations:  All organisation should assess the full suite of spaces available both physical and virtual which facilitate collaboration/innovation/creation and reflection, to then place their requirements within local priorities and match these to the design options available.  Improvements to be implemented when the opportunity arises or necessity dictates (e.g. change to Journal Archive).  Any change in design to be subject to local user consultation.  Open a virtual community to share best practice and capture learning outcomes as change occurs.  All physical spaces identified as part of the organisation’s knowledge space should offer a level of flexibility – to allow a range of activities (as dictated by the user) to take place.  Although the knowledge space can be used as a work space by the knowledge worker - the space and worker should not be viewed as inter-dependent.  A core set of standards for a knowledge space will be developed.  Movement between knowledge spaces will be impacted upon by the role of the librarian, and the development of ICT. This area will require further work to provide further recommendations.

What Who When Core Standards to be developed To be identified Drafted for agreement by October 2012, Agreed by December 2012 Movement between knowledge spaces to be further To be identified Project specification completed by July 2012, implementation researched and tested. through to March 2013 Tests of new environments to be constructed and To be identified Tests will be on going – first batch to be identified by July 2012, implemented implemented when able, and reported back to The Knowledge Space community Continued learning to be captured and shared All service leads Ongoing NHS Scotland Knowledge into Action Review The Physical Resource: Models, Recommendations, and Implementation Briefing Paper Feb 2012

The Books: Collaborative Framework Recommendations: National Collection Management National: Framework  A national collection management framework which will provide local services flexibility to generate their own local policy, and also to identify specialist collections. National Supplier  For any NHS member of staff to be able to borrow direct from any NHS library.  Although eBooks are not a viable (large scale) alternative for all print books at present, publisher models, pricing and available titles may improve.  National tender for a supplier – allowing negotiation All books purchased from local NHS budget for the best deal (library and all other departments) to be Local: approved /purchased via the local knowledge  Any local service piloting/testing provision of eBooks service (in accordance with the collection to provide learning outcomes to the national management policy) framework for continued development  Any eBook purchase at a local level to also include All books purchased from local NHS budget some national consultation (national deals may (library and all other departments) to be re- provide a better local cost) used within the NHS by depositing within the  Although recognised as a best use of resource it will local library collection. be a local decision to purchase all books via the library, and all books to be deposited in the library.

What Who When Development of the national framework (there are some To be determined Draft by July 2012, Agreed by December 2012 excellent examples which can provide a basis) Review dates to be determined National Tender To be determined In place for the 2013 financial year Change to LMS to allow borrowing, across boards and Shelcat/Olib groups By December 2012 across systems Identification of specialist collections To be determined To be determined Identification of local work /implementation which will To be determined To be determined. impact on the continued development of the framework NHS Scotland Knowledge into Action Review The Physical Resource: Models, Recommendations, and Implementation Briefing Paper Feb 2012

The Print Journal Archive: National limited distributed archive model (supplemented by electronic back runs with perpetual license).

Rationale Archive Space is a premium, and storage is not the best use of that space Site: Majority of journal archives are now dead runs which will decrease in value Specialist This collection does for the present still have value, and requires safeguarding –In order to both free space and safeguard this Collection collection only a hybrid model will provide the flexibility for boards to get what they need, whilst providing an opportunity for all to find an improvement. This model requires give and take – you can have the space but no immediate access to a print archive, or you have a print collection which uses space. Archive: General Collection National Agreement All boards part of the model regardless of whether they are an archive site or not, and the collection will be known as the NHS Scotland Archive. Archive sites to meet standard for storage – including not removing any items on the archive list. Non archive site agree to provide unique titles to archive sites and rescind any ownership rights No Archive There will be only 1 copy of any title held within NHS Scotland Should Copyright policy change archive sites agree to provide copies to all NHS boards (subject to copyright law restrictions). The agreement should be reviewed on a regular basis – to take into account changing local requirements, improvement to electronic back-runs, and any other developments with an impact on the collection.

What Who When Draft Agreement To be identified By June 2012 Each board to identify role, and if specialist All boards, co-ordinator to be identified By June 2012 Project team to then identify the collection and To be identified By October 2012 location Agreement finalised – identifying archive sites, and To be identified December 2012 title only providers Movement of collection to final location, and All boards, co-ordinator to be identified By March 2013 removal of duplicates Continued development plan to be developed To be identified By March 2013 NHS Scotland Knowledge into Action Review The Physical Resource: Models, Recommendations, and Implementation Briefing Paper Feb 2012

The Delivery of Full Text: Seamless Model The Knowledge Network New System embedded within The Knowledge Network Recommendations:

The purpose of model is to get the full text to the end-user quickly and with minimal fuss.  One user authentication for entire process  Current estimate that >90% of full text is provided by eJournals, improvement of access and process would increase this, eJournal Document End User and decrease costs of DDS Delivery Receipt of  Auto population of DDS request (user Service detail and journal) to be accurate and Full Text day to day requests put through without intervention  Exceptions to be automatically identified and flagged to the end-user local service Local Librarian – for check/over-ride over-ride for  When required/desired option for exceptions & End librarian input of request direct onto DDS user assistance or via eJournal route  All DDS activity (local accounts, and book) via one system.

What Who When Simplify eJournal access Paul Manson Lead – full WG to be identified Actions identified by October2012 – improvements by end March 2013 Document Delivery System specification and Andy Jackson Lead – full WG to be identified Project Initiation Documentation: By March 2012 build Specification: By September 2012 Implementation: By March 2013 Librarian Interface Julia Green – full WG to be identified Timescales will be dictated by work of DDS group NHS Scotland Knowledge into Action Review The Physical Resource: Models, Recommendations, and Implementation Briefing Paper Feb 2012

Notes on implementation: The ‘Who’, ‘Where’ and ‘What’ as detailed in the implementation tables, are subject to change. The ‘What’ are overarching outcomes only, with detailed plans being the first order of business for each lead, or team. At present only a few leads have been identified as the ‘Who’; over the next month this will be more thoroughly populated. It will then be the lead’s responsibility to recruit the required working group members for successful implementation. These will be appropriate to the tasks at hand – for example a national tender will require membership from procurement and possibly finance; ICT improvement will require involvement from IT and systems. The ‘When’ will again be negotiated by the leads.

The leads for each implementation strand will also be members of The Physical Resource Group which will continue on through implementation to ensure that all strands result in a cohesive whole. This group will meet on a monthly basis. Most meetings will be online although around major deadlines there may be a need for face to face sessions.

Consultation: This also will be ongoing – as each strand reaches key milestones.

Release of the models on the 16th of February 2012.

The models will be published for consultation on implementation - the full paper detailing the rationale and methodologies will be ready for distribution at a later date. It should be noted that the consultation will be about implementation and not the models themselves as it is through implementation that local services will be able to tailor the models to local needs. Clearly the Physical Archive and the Delivery of Full Text models do require all boards to participate and move as one – for these the consultation and ongoing communication will very much inform how the end product will look. Anyone with a strong view on these should be encouraged to participate in the implementation working groups.

The 4 discussion groups on the 16th are (15 mins each):

Delivery of Full Text: Andy, Julia, and Paul Physical Archive: Gill and Charlotte The Books: Michelle and Sheila The Physical Space: Ann, Laiq and Diane

Prompt Questions for Discussion: 1. What do you need in order to agree to the implementation of this model? 2. What are the barriers and facilitators to local implementation? 3. Is there any interest in participating in the national implementation (as detailed in the implementation tables here)?