Develop a structure for the business case toolkit and preservation support pages: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Brain storm for the development of the business case for preservation | Brain storm for the development of the business case for preservation | ||
Neil Grindley reporting back his breakout group: | '''Neil Grindley reporting back his breakout group: | ||
Useful to think about a simple interrogatory approach ... | '''Useful to think about a simple interrogatory approach ... | ||
When, Why, What, How, Who | When, Why, What, How, Who | ||
Maureen Pennock reporting back: | '''Maureen Pennock reporting back: | ||
Define what we thought should go in a business case then work back to what we might need to help people right. this breaks down into a series of tasks: | '''Define what we thought should go in a business case then work back to what we might need to help people right. this breaks down into a series of tasks: | ||
*Exec Summary | *Exec Summary | ||
*Strategic vision (where do we want to be) | *Strategic vision (where do we want to be) | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*Resources needed, institutional readiness (Skills / resourcs / stakeholders) | *Resources needed, institutional readiness (Skills / resourcs / stakeholders) | ||
*Practical recommendations over a short period (and risks associated with them) | *Practical recommendations over a short period (and risks associated with them) | ||
'''Discussion''' | |||
These are noticeably different approaches but they reinforce each other. The when/who/what/how questions are 'real english' and they work well to provide questions that are useful and also immediately understandable. But it won't steer you through a large wad of stuff. The headings are more 'cookie-cutter' giving the outline of everything that would be needed. These two approaches are not mutually incompatible. | |||
Revision as of 14:47, 30 July 2013
Brain storm for the development of the business case for preservation
Neil Grindley reporting back his breakout group: Useful to think about a simple interrogatory approach ... When, Why, What, How, Who
Maureen Pennock reporting back: Define what we thought should go in a business case then work back to what we might need to help people right. this breaks down into a series of tasks:
- Exec Summary
- Strategic vision (where do we want to be)
- Understand the collection
- Understand the context / landscape
- Fit to organizational mission
- What are the risks facing the collection / institution
- Prioritisation of risks
- List of benefits - Value, ROI
- Costs of action and inaction
- Resources needed, institutional readiness (Skills / resourcs / stakeholders)
- Practical recommendations over a short period (and risks associated with them)
Discussion These are noticeably different approaches but they reinforce each other. The when/who/what/how questions are 'real english' and they work well to provide questions that are useful and also immediately understandable. But it won't steer you through a large wad of stuff. The headings are more 'cookie-cutter' giving the outline of everything that would be needed. These two approaches are not mutually incompatible.