This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 17 October 2014, At: 14:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Society of ArchivistsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjsa20

Online On-Site: Transforming PublicServices in The National ArchivesChris CooperPublished online: 22 Jul 2009.

To cite this article: Chris Cooper (2008) Online On-Site: Transforming Public Servicesin The National Archives, Journal of the Society of Archivists, 29:2, 193-206, DOI:10.1080/00379810902909428

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00379810902909428

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Online On-Site: Transforming PublicServices in The National Archives1

Chris Cooper

This article describes recent changes to The National Archives’ on-site services, including

the extension and reorganisation of the public areas at Kew and the closure of the FamilyRecords Centre in Islington. It relates them to developments in the online environment,

which are changing the expectations of records researchers and the capabilities of recordoffices to meet them, thus affecting the whole archives sector. It describes the outcomes of

The National Archives’ policies in making its records accessible online, on-site as well asremotely. It shows how the redesign of its reading rooms was shaped by the views of users

and staff.

Between November 2007 and March 2008, The National Archives (TNA) completeda programme of major changes to its on-site services. It extended and reorganised the

public service areas at its main site in Kew, closed its reading rooms at the FamilyRecords Centre (FRC) in Islington, and transferred its FRC services to Kew. This

article describes the causes and nature of these changes which, although peculiar toTNA, reflect developments in technology, the accessibility of records information and

the expectations of records researchers, which have much wider implications for thearchives sector.

The Impact of Digitisation

Many record offices in the United Kingdom are making digital copies of their recordsor the information they contain accessible via the internet. There is a consensus that

digitisation will allow more citizens to enjoy the richness of our archival heritage andwill contribute to broader agendas for education, lifelong learning and social

inclusion, as well as helping to preserve original documents.2 It has attractedsignificant public and commercial funding,3 and seems likely to figure large in record

office developments for the foreseeable future. It has prompted a range of research

Correspondence to: Chris Cooper, The National Archives, Ruskin Avenue, Kew, Richmond, Surrey,TW9 4DU, UK. Email: Chris.Cooper@nationalarchives.gov.uk

Journal of the Society of ArchivistsVol. 29, No. 2, October 2008, 193–206

ISSN 0037-9816 (print)/ISSN 1465-3907 (online) � 2008 Society of ArchivistsDOI: 10.1080/00379810902909428

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

into delivering archival material to users via the internet,4 as well as reflections on thewider impact on our historical understanding.5

Digitisation also affects conventional record office functions. It is likely to lowerpublic demand for on-site services, by allowing potential or existing researchers to

avoid or reduce visits or enquiries to the record office, and thus to enable financialsavings or transfers of resources to other activities.6 On the other hand, it is also

extending public awareness of records and records information, stimulating interestin other records which may not be digitised, and raising public expectations about

the possibilities of research and about what services record offices should provide.These factors are leading to new visits and enquiries, as well as changing their nature,thus posing fresh challenges to on-site record office services which will require change

and investment.

TNA’s Digitisation Policies

In TNA’s case, the 2007–08 changes to on-site services derive from policiesformulated over the previous nine years. Firstly, in 1998–99, TNA (then the Public

Record Office) made the Catalogue of its records available online and announced itsintention of making ‘public records available to internet users anywhere in the

world’.7 By 2007–08, it had achieved this for a substantial proportion of its morepopular records,8 as well as for the first accessions of born-digital records fromgovernment departments, so that for every original record delivered to a user at Kew

more than 150 digital versions were downloaded off-site.9 Secondly, during thisdigitisation programme, it was taken for granted that the internet products would be

accessible in TNA’s reading rooms as well as off-site. They would supersede access tothe originals, or to microfilm copies of them where these had been made, thus

helping to preserve the originals and reduce the costs of their delivery and security.Thirdly, TNA decided that although off-site internet access to TNA records would be

mostly chargeable, to recoup the substantial costs of digitisation, it should so far aspossible remain free of charge in its reading rooms. This would enable TNA tomaintain its role of providing free access to the public records.

Meanwhile, advances in online technology and search engines and the growth ofbroadband access transformed the experience and expectations of users in searching

for and accessing information. They also enabled TNA to develop, in response, morecomprehensive and effective on-site services than had been possible in the paper

world. TNA extended free on-site online access from its records to other informationsources that had previously been on paper or which had been available only at other

locations. These included library or secondary materials, such as the Dictionary ofNational Biography, trade directories and periodical articles, which were increasingly

becoming available online by purchase or subscription.10 They also includedinformation on TNA’s website relating to records in other UK repositories via Accessto Archives11 and the indexes to the National Register of Archives.12 And they

eventually included any other internet site which might assist TNA visitors in their

194 C. Cooper

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

research.13 To support this extension of online access, TNA allowed researchers to usetheir own laptops; provided wireless internet access at Kew; developed a ‘global

search’ facility for its websites; added a wiki14 for researchers to contribute their ownrecords knowledge; and created cybercafe areas for researchers to exchange

information by email with off-site contacts. It also installed more terminals andrearranged its reading rooms so far as the physical constraints of its buildings

allowed—a process which was to be consolidated and extended in 2007–08, asdescribed below.

As a result of all these changes, many researchers had good reasons to visit or tocontinue to visit TNA’s reading rooms, even if the records which interested themwere accessible remotely via the internet. Many of their research needs could be met

at TNA, sometimes on a single terminal. Furthermore, digitisation greatly increasedthe efficiency of on-site records searching. Most online record products, unlike the

originals or microfilm copies, enable users to find out immediately whether theinformation they seek is in the record and then to view it. This allows them to consult

up to 20 records online15 in the 30 minutes it might take for an original record to bedelivered, and more in the time they would have taken in leafing through a volume or

file or winding through a microfilm. It enables them to print copies immediately witha few mouse clicks, rather than ordering them and possibly waiting days for copies

from the record office. They no longer have to wait to see a record being consulted byanother user or being copied or conserved.

However, online access has not supplanted conventional research into original

records. By 2006–07, although records access was around 95 per cent online at theFRC and about 50 per cent online at Kew,16 the number of original records consulted

had remained roughly the same and, in terms of seats occupied, original recordreaders still outnumbered copy (microfilm and online) record readers by about a

third.

Withdrawing from the Family Records Centre

The FRC opened in 1997 as a joint venture between TNA (then the Public Record

Office) and the General Register Office (GRO). Its aim was to make the prime centralgovernment records for family history accessible at one central London site.17 It had

been very successful, reflecting and supporting the family history boom in the UK,attracting more than 250,000 visitors a year at its peak, and receiving high satisfaction

ratings from users and awards from government and the family history sector.18

But after only nine years, the rationale for its existence had been undermined by

digitisation. By 2006, nearly all TNA’s FRC records were accessible via the internet;the GRO had announced plans to make its FRC records available online; several

commercial websites already supplied GRO information; and FRC visitor numberswere falling. Meanwhile TNA, faced by reduced real-terms funding from theGovernment and with an ambitious agenda relating to information management in

government and the preservation of digital records, could no longer justify the cost of

Transforming Public Services in The National Archives 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

maintaining a facility which was largely replicated on the internet and, thus, at Kewtoo. Therefore, in June 2006, it announced that it would withdraw from the FRC and

transfer its FRC services to Kew by the end of 2008 (later brought forward to 31stMarch 2008). It would thus make savings of £1.1 million per annum in

accommodation charges.TNA and the GRO discussed continuing their partnership by developing joint

online services. In January 2007, the GRO announced that it too would withdrawfrom the FRC, at the same time as TNA but, by mid-2008, prospects of a cyberspace

successor to the FRC were deferred by delays in the GRO’s online accessprogramme.19 However, the GRO offered TNA and other repositories complete setsof its indexes on microfiche, and from January 2008 Kew also provided free internet

access to the birth, marriages and deaths indexes held by its partner, findmypast.com.Kew thus maintains the core of the FRC concept, apart from access to the GRO

certificate service.20

The Opportunity to Transform Public Services at Kew

TNA realised that it would have to make considerable physical changes at Kew toaccommodate the FRC staff and services and the one-third increase in visitors which

it expected to result from the transfer; and that this would give it opportunities toconsolidate and develop the online service changes described above and to introduceother desirable innovations. The latter included enhancing the flexibility and

inclusivity of its services and improving access for disabled visitors, in line withgovernment policies; making the Kew environment more welcoming and less

confusing, particularly for novice researchers; improving the security of originalrecords; and updating Kew’s electrical power and data infrastructure.

The ‘Kew 2008’ Programme

In September 2006, TNA launched its ‘Kew 2008’ Programme to plan, coordinate andimplement the required changes by 2008. It included a ‘public services and

communications’ project, to consult with stakeholders and specify and implementthe desired operational changes, and a ‘design and build’ project to commission and

manage the physical alterations. It also had a watching brief over concurrent projectsfor re-letting TNA’s restaurant contract and redesigning its museum, since these too

would have an impact on public services.TNA used its existing resources to plan changes to public services operations, to

specify related design and layout requirements and to communicate withstakeholders, but found it necessary to commission external help and advice from

government and the private sector for matters outside its normal business. Theseincluded programme governance, architectural design, ‘people flow’ analysis,procuring and managing a design-and-build contract, emergency exit requirements,

electrical infrastructure, and updating staff accommodation. It let major contracts for

196 C. Cooper

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

redesigning the public areas and for carrying out the necessary building andrefurbishment works, and other contracts for subsidiary works and removals.

The planning phase for public services changes at Kew lasted from mid-2006 toautumn 2007. It was based on extensive consultation with staff and users, as

described below. Building works took place between October 2007 and March 2008,during which time services were disrupted or, for three weeks, closed to the public.

FRC services continued as normal until it closed on 15th March, and were deliveredfrom Kew from 25th March 2008. Changes to ways of working and the achievement

of business benefits are ongoing and subject to review during 2008–09.21

The Programme cost about £4.4 million of which about £2.9 million was for itscore objectives (transferring from the FRC and transforming user and staff facilities at

Kew) and £1.5 million for related longer-term benefits, such as the upgrading of themechanical and electrical infrastructure of the relevant areas at Kew. TNA expects to

recoup the cost of the Programme, by savings on FRC accommodation charges, by2012–13.

Engaging Staff

TNA was aware from the outset that the proposed changes would have a significant

impact on many of its staff. On the operational side, about 20 faced moving toanother site; about 270 engaged in public services faced a period of disruption andchanges to ways of working; and about 100 of these faced structural reorganisation to

effect the Kew/FRC integration and other operational requirements. On theaccommodation side, about 250, including many of the above, faced office moves

or redesigns resulting from extending the public areas and accommodating extra stafffrom the FRC. TNA therefore devoted much thought and effort to engaging staff in

the change process, so that their views and issues could be considered and resolvedand they had a sense of ownership in the outcomes.

On the operational side, TNA immediately offered its FRC staff posts at Kew, sincetheir skills and knowledge were needed to maintain the quality of TNA’s familyrecords services. Most were initially dismayed at the prospect of transferring: they

enjoyed working at the FRC; they would have longer and more costly journeys towork; they would have to adapt their ways of working. TNA offered them

compensation for additional travel costs and time, and invited them to take part inplanning changes at Kew. Eventually, nearly all FRC staff transferred, and many were

prominent in planning and managing the new joined-up services.TNA arranged cross-site familiarization and training visits to facilitate the

integration of services and cultures, and set up focus groups of staff across theorganisation to lead on planning the changes needed at Kew. The focus groups

covered such topics as reading room facilities and equipment; visitor ‘flow’management; reading room staff deployment; the integration of informationresources on different media; services to first timers; and the delivery of ‘value

added’ services.22 TNA also regularly communicated the developing plans for staff

Transforming Public Services in The National Archives 197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

discussion. Most staff responded resourcefully and positively to this process.However, probably inevitably in major change programmes of this kind, not all were

satisfied with all the outcomes—partly because of unreconciled differences of opinionabout service objectives and operational innovations, and partly because of the

stresses of adapting to new ways of working. TNA is continuing to review theoutcomes in 2008–09 in consultation with staff, and to carry out any necessary

improvements.

Engaging Users

TNA’s announcement that it would withdraw from the FRC prompted strong

protests, not only from FRC users but also from Kew users, who were concernedabout the possible impact on them. TNA therefore immediately launched a

programme to explain its reasons and its intentions. It announced that it wouldconsult all users about the best way to meet their needs at Kew, and ensured that its

existing communication channels—public meetings, user advisory groups, commentsand complaints schemes and on-site and online notices23—reflected ‘Kew 2008’

issues and, later, kept users informed about disruptions.TNA held four rounds of open public meetings at the FRC and Kew: in June 2006,

to announce details of the closure and plans and to listen to users’ responses; inSeptember 2006, to explore what users wanted from future Kew services; in January2007, to present the results of consultation and to outline plans for enlarging and

enhancing the public areas at Kew; and in September 2007, to describe the finalproposals for Kew and the building and service development programme needed to

achieve them. TNA’s message was that the planned changes were unavoidable becauseof the impact of digitisation, and that although they involved short-term

inconveniences they would bring longer-term benefits for most users. It argued thatmaking records available via the internet provided good value to the taxpayer, since it

not only helped more citizens per pound spent but also reached citizens across theUK, not just those within easy travelling distance of the FRC (85 per cent of whosevisitors came from within a 50 mile radius), and thus enabled TNA to fulfil its

‘national’ remit. It accepted that many citizens still lacked effective access to theinternet, but that their numbers were decreasing: 70 per cent of the population had

access to a computer at home, over 50 per cent with broadband, and free access wasavailable in public libraries and other places. TNA would preserve all its FRC services,

offer jobs at Kew to its FRC staff, and enhance overall family records services byintegrating its expertise and sources on one site. Savings made by withdrawing from

the FRC would enable TNA to continue to finance internet access to its records andfree it to provide a range of specialist services onsite, for those who wish to consult

original records, or receive face-to-face advice from staff.TNA also sought advice and endorsement from the broader records community. It

set up an independent User Advisory Group comprising senior representatives of

stakeholder organisations (researcher, user, professional and operational), to review

198 C. Cooper

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

and make suggestions about its plans and to give it assurance that they wereappropriate and practicable. It organised a workshop at Kew in September 2006,

hosted by its government minister, Baroness Ashton, for representatives from thefamily history, archive and academic sectors, to present its proposals in the context of

government policy. It held meetings with officers of the Society of Genealogists andthe Federation of Family History Societies and other organisations, to hear their

views and to provide updates for their members. Finally it participated in externalstakeholder events, which gave it additional opportunities to explain and consult.

These activities proved successful: most stakeholder organisations, while representingthe concerns of their members, also took a balanced view of TNA’s position, andTNA faced little concerted or organisational opposition to its plans.24

In the planning process, TNA exchanged and reviewed the views of staff and usersiteratively. Overall, there was a consensus about the ways in which the research

environment was changing. But there was less agreement about how TNA shouldadapt its operations in response, and particular user segments had different and

sometimes incompatible priorities. Regulars at Kew or the FRC understandablywished the elements of those two different environments which they valued to be

preserved. ‘Personal leisure’ users25 at both sites, particularly occasional or inexpe-rienced researchers, tended to prioritize user-friendliness, a welcoming environment,

ease of access, and the availability of staff help and advice across the full range ofreading room activities; some wanted their research to be a social experience,involving family or friends. ‘Professional/occupational’ and ‘education’ users at both

sites tended to focus on the efficiency and timeliness of services and facilities,and on the quietness of the reading rooms; they did not need help with routine

matters but wanted ready access to staff experts when necessary. Some professional/occupational and education users saw personal leisure users as threats to their

requirements. Staff too had different views about priorities, which reflected those ofusers, and discussions often centred on reconciling the open and user-friendly culture

of the FRC with the more traditional research ambience which prevailed at Kew.

Redesigning Kew: Issues and Outcomes

Location and Ease of Access

Many FRC users complained about the relative inaccessibility of Kew for most

researchers. It was further from central London and the mainline stations and lesswell served by public transport. It also lacked immediate access to the GRO indexes

and nearby access to the London Metropolitan Archives and the Society ofGenealogists.

TNA acknowledged the substance of these points and regretted the inconveniencefor many researchers. It reiterated that users of its FRC sources could continue theirresearch at home or locally via the internet, at a reasonable cost. It also reported on

discussions with the GRO to plan a cyberspace version of the FRC, combining

Transforming Public Services in The National Archives 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

registration and census sources online, although, as described above, this prospecteventually foundered. For those who were unwilling or unable to cross the ‘digital

divide’, TNA offered continuing access to FRC microfilms (see also below) and paperindexes and staff tuition in online usage at Kew. TNA’s commitment to maintain the

full range of its FRC services at Kew seems to have been successful: after therelocation, 88.1 per cent of former FRC users visiting Kew for the first time reported

that they were satisfied or very satisfied with Kew services.26

Some FRC users suggested that TNA should provide free access to its online

sources at another central London site. TNA had no objection in principle, providingthe site was in the public sector and TNA would incur no significant cost, but in theevent this proved impracticable. Other users suggested that TNA should expand its

public car park at Kew to accommodate more visitors. TNA decided against this,since it would be contrary to government and local authority ‘green’ policies, but

undertook to review the use of its existing car park in order to maximise access byresearchers. It also intends to provide an additional coach parking space in 2008–09.

These exchanges about location revealed that however effective the internet is inmaking records information accessible offsite, it does not necessarily provide record

researchers, particularly personal leisure users and particularly those who are ‘time-rich, cash-poor’, with the experience they seek. They often prefer on-site services,

even if they have to travel to access them, partly for staff advice, partly because theyare free or inexpensive, but also for social interaction with other users, for thepleasure of having a day out, perhaps with family or friends, and for the sense of

belonging to a community of researchers.There were also discussions about access by disabled users, particularly in the light

of the Disability Discrimination Act 2002. TNA responded by providing push-buttonentrance doors, a low-level welcome desk and reading room desks with adjustable

heights for wheelchair users, and an area for accessing records via text to voicetechnology for visually-impaired users.

The Inadequacies of Online Products

Many FRC users feared that TNA would withdraw the microform copies of censusreturns and wills that were still available at the FRC. They argued that the online

products were sometimes defective, omitting or mistranscribing original records, anddid not lend themselves to some types of research, for example browsing through a

series of records. TNA has always acknowledged the validity of these points, andcontinued its policy of making microform versions available at Kew.

Capacity

Annual Kew visits had been fairly stable at about 100,000 over several years, roughlymatching the capacity of the public areas. In 2006, TNA estimated that the closure of

the FRC would lead to an increase of about a third. Both users and staff were

200 C. Cooper

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

therefore apprehensive about overcrowding, queues for services, and health andsafety risks, and concurred that TNA would need to expand the capacity of Kew’s

public areas27—not only the reading rooms on the first floor28 but also therestaurant, cloakroom, toilets, meeting rooms and emergency exits. The redesign of

the reading rooms benefited from the fact that the first floor is extensive (86 metressquare) and—apart from a central core and four stairwells at the corners—can be

reconfigured fairly easily by removing or installing partitions. However, the buildingwas not designed for current power and data needs, and substantial works were

needed to upgrade the mechanical and electrical infrastructure.The Kew 2008 Programme increased the capacity of the restaurant and cloakroom on

the ground floor by about 25 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. On the first floor, it

extended the public areas by about 20 per cent to a total of about 3,900m2, including newpublic toilets. Within the reading rooms, it roughly doubled the seats for those

consulting copies of records (microform and online) and secondary sources to 334;within this number, the seats for online users were roughly trebled to 217. TNA also

increased the seating capacity of the main document reading room by about 13 per centto 376, hoping and expecting that some former FRC users would move on to consulting

a wider range of original records at Kew. These first floor changes also led to furtherworks, removals and expenditure in staff areas, as indicated above.

Security and User-Friendliness

The TNA section of the FRC had a good reputation for its welcoming and helpfulenvironment. Its security measures were more relaxed than in most repositories, closer

to those of a public library, since it contained only copies of records. Its staff haddeveloped considerable skills in helping a regular flow of users who were beginners in

historical research. FRC users were apprehensive about Kew’s more stringent measures,including compulsory registration, security barriers, restrictions on what could be taken

into the reading rooms and high levels of inspection and invigilation, and about theperceived less sympathetic attitude of its staff to beginners or family historians.

TNA acknowledged these views. It already knew from user surveys and from its

comments and complaints schemes that some users found Kew intimidating andconfusing; and elements of Kew’s security measures had already been challenged by

readers as unnecessarily restrictive. TNA therefore took the opportunity to design amore user-friendly environment. It improved signage and layout throughout so that

visitors could readily locate what they needed. On the ground floor, it created a newwelcome desk and moderated the visible security presence. On the first and second

floors, it maintained existing measures, with minor modifications, for areas in whichoriginal documents were consulted, but abolished them for areas in which only

copies of records or secondary materials were consulted. Visitors could enter andleave the new Open Reading Room and adjoining meeting rooms on the first floorwithout registering as readers or negotiating a security barrier or having their

belongings checked by a security officer; restrictions on bags and coats and access by

Transforming Public Services in The National Archives 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

children were largely removed. The potential risks of this more relaxed approach weremitigated by technological changes—the upgrading of the CCTV facility to provide

comprehensive invigilation by cameras, and the extension of a magnetic strip alarmsystem to prevent the unauthorised removal of books and other items. Finally, TNA

remodelled its reading rooms, as described below.

Enquiry Service Ergonomics

It was accepted that the reading room for original records on the first floor at Kewwas still satisfactory, and apart from the enhancement of CCTV invigilation and theintroduction of more computer terminals, no substantial changes were proposed. But

staff and users agreed that the three other reading rooms, created in 1996, wereoverdue for reorganisation. The first had been designed for staff based at an enquiry

desk to advise users about researching original records with the help of TNA’s papercatalogues and indexes; the second for users to consult microfilm (and later online)

copies of records—initially comparatively few series with comparatively simpleresearch paths—with a minimum of staff advice and supervision; the third for TNA’s

Library, largely on open access, with its own reading desks and enquiry desk. Thedistinction between these areas had become blurred; they were now operationally

inefficient and confusing for users.One reason was that the proportion and complexity of TNA records on microfilm

and online had increased, and users needed as much advice on their content as for

original records, so a further, overlapping enquiry desk had been added to themicrofilm/online area. Secondly, online access was transcending physical divisions and

superseding paper resources, as outlined above. It had made an increasing proportion ofthe transactions in the three areas functionally similar—that is, through or with the help

of a computer terminal—so visitors no longer needed, nor wished, to move from onelocation or from one member of staff to another. Thirdly, since resources in all three

areas were increasingly seen on machines and could be printed from linked machines,and since these machines had diverse products, software and instructions, most visitorsasked staff for advice on the mechanics of access. Some needed help with using a mouse

or threading a film. Nearly all needed advice on where to click, how to scope an onlinesearch, how to interpret the results and which buttons to press in order to get the best

out of the machines and their products. This transformed enquiry service ergonomics:staff needed to be at the shoulders of readers as they consulted the records, facing the

image or control panel on the machine, rather than behind a desk at a distance. It thusundermined two record office conventions—the separation of ‘enquiry point’ and

‘reading desk’ and the reading room ‘silence’ rule.

User Expectations

Meanwhile, an increasing proportion of visitors was new to records research29 or had

unrealistic expectations about what it involved. This was due partly to the success of

202 C. Cooper

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

television programmes such as Who Do You Think You Are? which popularised familyhistory and made it look relatively easy. It also derived from the accessibility of key

starter sources such as census returns and birth, marriage and death indexes on theinternet, enabling many to achieve promising beginnings with a few hours work.

Such researchers were often perplexed to discover that getting beyond this wouldrequire lengthy research in records in different locations and lacking search engines.

At the same time they were less able to describe the provenance of the informationthey had—derived from a succession of computer screens—in a way which would

help staff to advise what they should do next. Also, in the internet age, theyincreasingly expected ‘library’, ‘records’ and ‘institutional’ information to bedelivered seamlessly and staff to offer a ‘one stop shop’. Finally many researchers,

whose interest had been stimulated by television or the internet in a family or socialenvironment, wished to visit TNA together with their family or friends in order to

continue to share the experience. All these factors made fresh demands on staff timeand resourcefulness, and further undermined the ‘silence’ principle.

These developments also caused anxiety to many existing users, particularly long-term or professional/ occupational Kew readers. They feared that the services they

valued would be overwhelmed or dumbed down by an influx of FRC visitors ornovice family historians who, they perceived, would take up more staff time, cause

queues for services and undermine traditional reading room practices.

Reading Room Outcomes

The size and relative flexibility of the first floor space gave TNA the scope to

accommodate different user needs. In response the changes in expectations andfunctionality outlined above, it integrated the three areas into one extensive Open

Reading Room, with zones for different activities that are delineated by layout,furniture and signage. Seats for terminals, for microforms and for library or

secondary sources are distributed throughout so that visitors can choose what theyneed in whichever zone they are working. The central areas are free of tall furniture,so that staff have good sight lines for security and operational purposes and users can

readily identify the facilities they need.Most of the advice to enquirers is given not at an enquiry desk but throughout the

room by ‘floor walking’ staff based at two information points. One information pointis in the new ‘Learning Zone’, at the entrance to the Reading Room. Here staff greet

visitors, find out what help they need, and either offer it within the Learning Zone ortake or direct them to other areas in the room. The ‘Learning Zone’ is designed to be

a welcoming area for first timers, including informal soft seating, a range of basicresearch sources and ‘learner’ terminals, so that staff can introduce visitors to the

mechanics of access and prepare them for working in other areas, without disturbingmore experienced users. The other information point is in the main research zone ofthe Reading Room. It provides a base for staff to advise users, mostly those engaged

on routine, family history searches, as they consult or make copies of online,

Transforming Public Services in The National Archives 203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

microform and paper resources. There is also, however, a conventional Enquiry Deskwith seated staff. Its role is to provide general or specialist advice on the full range of

sources which might be useful to enquirers, including original TNA records, those inother repositories, and online, microfilm and library sources outside the routine

family history range.30

In most areas of the Open Reading Room, low levels of conversation are permitted

so that staff can advise users as they carry out their research, and so that small partiesor family groups can share and discuss their findings. The main research zone

includes a new ‘cluster’ seating layout to facilitate this. There is also a zone in whichsilence is strictly enforced.

TNA also added a Talks Room, adjoining the Open Reading Room. This holds 90

visitors and can be split into two smaller rooms. It is used for daily talks for ‘new toKew’ readers, regular talks on popular records, and occasional talks on more

specialist topics. A key aim is to enable staff to provide advice more efficiently, ‘one-to-many’ instead of ‘one-to-one’. Visitors, particularly first timers, are encouraged to

attend the talks before they start to use the reading rooms so that they will require lessstaff assistance when they do so. The Talks Room is complemented by three small

‘surgery rooms’ in which staff can provide in-depth advice by appointment, awayfrom the pressure of reading room queues.

While introducing these changes, TNA was also able to maintain the features of itsservices which were most valued by existing Kew and professional/ occupationalusers. The two reading rooms for original documents are largely unchanged. ‘Silent’

zones are retained for those who prefer them. The Learning Zone and the floorwalking staff, by meeting most of the needs of first timers and routine family history

researchers, free staff at the Enquiry Desk, in the second floor reading room and frombehind the scenes, to focus on dealing with more complex and varied enquiries. TNA

continues to recruit, train and deploy staff who can provide high levels of historicaland archival expertise to those who need it.

Conclusion

The internet gives the archives sector unprecedented opportunities to extend itsreach and effectiveness. In TNA’s case, it has enabled an essentially local31 supplier

of records information to about 0.3 million on-site visitors32 to move, in a fewyears, to being predominantly a national and global online supplier to about 57

million visitors,33 and to reduce its unit cost of giving access to records fromabout £6 to about £1.34 Online developments are also impacting on conventional

archive services, and may prompt on-site changes similar in kind to thosedescribed in this article. In the longer term, their impact on on-site visitor

numbers may prove the most significant. TNA’s overall on-site visits have fallenby about 55 per cent in six years.35 Similar falls across the archives sector wouldintensify current doubts about the sustainability of record office services as

currently structured and financed.

204 C. Cooper

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Notes

[1] I am grateful to my colleague, Lee Oliver, for his advice on many aspects of this article.[2] As articulated in UK Government, Government Policy on Archives, Cm 4515 (London, 1999).[3] Examples of government funding, via the Heritage Lottery Fund, with support from the

National Council on Archives’ Archive Lottery Advisory Service, are available at http://www.ncaonline.org.uk/archive_lottery_advisory_service/case_studies/ (accessed 17 September2008). Examples of commercial products are available at http://www.ancestry.co.uk

[4] Reflected and developed in A. Sexton, et al., ‘Understanding users,’ 33–49.[5] For example, M. Moss , ‘Choreographed encounter,’ 41–57.[6] For example http://www.innertemple.org.uk/archive/itad/new_to_database.html, partly

funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, provides biographical details of members of the InnerTemple from its archives, and has thus roughly halved the time spent by the Archivist inanswering enquiries. Information from the Inner Temple Archivist

[7] Public Record Office Keeper’s Report 1998–99, 2.[8] Details can be traced in successive TNA Annual Reports.[9] TNA Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2007–2008, 4–5. Circa 85.6 million records were

delivered in total.[10] Delivered through TNA’s Online Publications and Electronic Resources for Archives

(OPERA) system, which provides on-site access to over 600 electronic publications. It isnot accessible off-site.

[11] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/[12] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/default.asp. The Register itself, on paper, is at Kew.[13] TNA maintains a list of approved internet sites, which can be extended on request. Its internet

access policy is described at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/rules.pdf[14] http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title¼Home_page[15] Estimate based on TNA staff observation.[16] Estimates based on TNA staff observation of patterns of use. Statistical evidence is incomplete

since TNA methods for counting original records ordered and digital versions downloaded donot precisely correspond.

[17] Microform copies of PRO’s census returns 1841–1901, Prerogative Court of Canterburyprobate records 1384–1858, death duty records 1796–1903, non parochial registers 1567–1858, and foreign returns of births, marriages and deaths 1627–1960; and GRO’s indexes ofbirths, marriages, deaths from 1838, adoptions from 1927 and civil partnerships from 2005.

[18] I. Watt, ‘The Family Records Centre,’ 234–47.[19] http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/aboutus/lookingahead/Digitisation_Project.asp#0 (ac-

cessed 16 January 2009).[20] Outcomes were different in Scotland, where a partnership between the General Register Office

for Scotland, the National Archives of Scotland and the Court of the Lord Lyon created theScotlandsPeople Centre in Edinburgh and the scotlandspeople.gov.uk website, to providejoint on-site and remote access to their digitised records.

[21] The planned business benefits are: financial savings; improvements in operational efficiency;and specific service enhancements requested by users (described below). The success of theenhancements will be measured by user satisfaction levels.

[22] For example, the talks and surgeries described below, the integration of online and on-siteservices and the improvement of online research paths for common enquiries.

[23] These channels are described in E. Hallam Smith, ‘Customer focus and marketing,’ 39ff.[24] The main exception came from Archives for London, which published a hostile editorial

in the summer of 2006, available at http://www.archivesforlondon.org/downloads/file/newsletter_3.pdf (accessed 16 January 2009), and together with the British Association for

Transforming Public Services in The National Archives 205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Local History organised a meeting in November 2006 to express concerns. This campaign wasnot sustained after TNA staff had attended the meeting to address the issues raised.

[25] The three categories of users referred to in this paragraph and below are familiar to mostarchivists, and are more closely defined in A. Sexton et al., ‘Understanding Users’. Together,they comprise about 95 per cent of TNA users.

[26] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/onsite-user-satisfaction-survey-results-october-2008.pdf

[27] That is, in the older ‘Kew 1’ building, opened in 1976, whose design and construction isdescribed in Lionel Bell, ‘The new Public Record Office at Kew,’ 1–7.

[28] It was agreed that the transfer would have little impact on the Map and Large DocumentReading Room on the second floor, so this was excluded from the 2007–08 Programme.

[29] Recent user surveys show that each day about 20 per cent of Kew visitors are first timers.[30] These changes to managing the flow of visitors, improving the experience of first timers and

deploying staff and facilities more flexibly to meet varying user needs, have not been withoutproblems, particularly during very busy periods. TNA is continuing to review operations andto trial adjustments to signage, furniture and the deployment of staff in order to achieveoptimum effectiveness.

[31] In 2007, around 81 per cent of Kew and 91 per cent of FRC visitors lived within 100 miles.[32] In the peak year of 2002–03 when around 190,000 visited the FRC and c. 108,000 visited Kew:

reported in TNA, Corporate Plan 2005–06 to 2007–08 and Business Plan 2005–06, 58.[33] TNA, Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2007–08, 13.[34] Indicative figures. Precise comparisons are unfeasible since definitions of access units and the

allocation of costs have varied from time to time. Details can be tracked in successive TNACorporate Plans and Annual Report and Resource Accounts.

[35] Assuming that Kew visitors in 2008–09 will number c.135,000.

References

Bell, Lionel. ‘The New Public Record Office at Kew.’ Journal of the Society of Archivists 5 (1974):1–7.

Moss, M. ‘Choreographed Encounter—The Archive and Public History.’ Archives 32, no. 116(2007): 41–57.

Public Record Office Keeper’s Report 1998–99. London: The Stationery Office, 1999.Sexton, A., C. Turner, G. Yeo and S. Hockey. ‘Understanding Users: A Prerequisite for Developing

New Technologies.’ Journal of the Society of Archivists 25 (2004): 33–49.Smith, E. Hallam. ‘Customer Focus and Marketing in Archive Service Delivery: Theory and

Practice.’ Journal of the Society of Archivists 24 (2003): 39ff.TNA. Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2007–08. London: The Stationery Office, 2008.TNA. Corporate Plan 2005–06 to 2007–08 and Business Plan 2005–06. London: TNA, 2006.Watt, I. ‘The Family Records Centre: Government Joins-Up to Serve the Family Records

Researcher.’ Archivum 45 (2000): 234–47.

206 C. Cooper

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

4:54

17

Oct

ober

201

4