This is the peer reviewed author accepted manuscript (post print) version of a published

work that appeared in final form in:

Brown, Heather. "Managing Disaster Preparedness and Response for Hybrid Collections in
Australian National and State Libraries." Journal of the Australian Library and Information
Association 67, no. 4 (2018): 411-33.

This un-copyedited output may not exactly replicate the final published authoritative version for
which the publisher owns copyright. It is not the copy of record. This output may be used for non-
commercial purposes.

The final definitive published version (version of record) is available at:

https://doi-org.access.library.unisa.edu.au/10.1080/24750158.2018.1539903

Persistent link to the Research Outputs Repository record:

https://hdl.handle.net/11541.2/135425

General Rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Outputs Repository
are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing
publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or
commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the persistent link identifying the publication in the Research
Outputs Repository
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will
remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Disaster management of hybrid collections in Australian national and

state libraries

Disaster planning may indeed be mapping a trip to hell, but heaven help
the organization that has to make that journey bereft of a plan. (Silverman
2006, p. 44).

Abstract

In the 21st century cultural heritage collections are increasingly hybrid; not only do they

contain physical materials, they also contain growing collections of digital materials.

However, typically their disaster plans focus on managing just the physical collections.

The digital collections are managed separately; commonly the digital disaster planning

role is assigned to IT systems staff. This research investigated disaster preparedness in

Australian national, state and territory libraries to gauge what areas might be common

in disaster management of physical and digital collections, and also what might be

different. It further investigated the potential for developing an integrated disaster plan

that could align disaster responses across all collection formats—physical and digital.

Building on the research, the author worked with experienced State Library of

Queensland (SLQ) staff to develop a ‘proof of concept’ template for an integrated

disaster plan, using the SLQ plan as a model.

Introduction
Natural disasters such as floods, fire, earthquakes, infestations of mould or pests, as well

as disasters caused by humans including warfare, vandalism, or cyber-attacks can cause

significant and irreparable damage to physical and digital collections in libraries and

other collecting institutions. Prominent examples of disasters that have caused

collection damage include the 2011 Queensland floods (Collins, 2012), the 2011

Christchurch earthquake (Harper, 2012) and the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami

(Kibe, 2013).

Disaster management involves planning, reducing risks and vulnerabilities and

establishing strategies to respond and recover. Indeed, without a sound disaster

management strategy in place, all other preservation initiatives can be rendered useless

in an instance of destruction. As Silverman (2006, p. 32) highlights, ‘Meeting the

situation’s shifting requirements calls for a well-conceived emergency response plan

and people capable of implementing it’.

In the 21st century, library collections are increasingly hybrid; not only do they

contain a wide array of physical materials, most also contain collections of digital

materials that are growing exponentially (Harvey & Mahard, 2014, p. 9). Library

budgets are also under increasing pressure (IFLA 2018; National Library of Australia,

2017, pp. 4-5). In this landscape, the role of preservation management has come into

new prominence as:

… preservation management now sits at the top of the agenda for memory

institutions around the world. It is the topic of ongoing debate as collection

development strategic policies and practices are negotiated between libraries,

museums, archives, funding agencies and governments (Gorman & Shep, 2006, p.

xiv).

In this climate of growing collection complexities and limited resources,

effective preservation management is vital, and this has direct implications for effective

disaster management which is regarded as one of the fundamental strategies of a

library’s preservation program (Harvey & Mahard, 2014, p. 53; Kahn, 2012; Kahn,

2004; Buchanan, 2000). There was also anecdotal evidence, later corroborated by the
literature review, that reports the approaches to physical and digital disaster

management have operated in silos. This is likely to be due to the specialised focus of

preservation managers in their respective fields as they have concentrated on developing

new disciplines. As will be clarified in the literature reviewed below there has been no

systematic exploration of the potential interfaces between digital and physical disaster

management. Thus it is an opportune time to bridge this gap by systematically

investigating physical and digital disaster management with special reference to

Australian national, state and territory libraries. The higher level research question was:

What are the interfaces between the disaster management of physical and digital

collections in Australian national and state and territory libraries, and do they lead to the

potential to develop an integrated disaster plan?

The national state and territory libraries represented by the peak body National

& State Libraries Australasia (NSLA) were identified as a useful sample group because

they have a clearly identified preservation requirement, with a legislated mandate ‘to

collect and preserve cultural heritage’ (Nis this a thrSLA, 2018 - About NSLA), and

furthermore their collections comprise a wide array of physical and digital formats.

The research was driven by the following questions:

• Is there an interconnection in the disaster management for digital and physical

collections in NSLA libraries?

• What are the areas of synergy and disconnect at both strategic and operational

level?

Do the synergies and disconnects suggest the potential to develop an integrated

disaster plan?

From the findings of the research it was anticipated that it would identify areas where

knowledge could be transferred, leading to alignment and coordination across the digital
and physical arenas. This could result in the development of a new framework for an

integrated disaster plan that would link these areas of disaster management.

This research on disaster management is set within the context of a doctoral

research project at the University of South Australia. The theme of the doctoral project

is the preservation management of digital and physical collections in the NSLA

libraries.

Definitions

The term digital is used to refer to two types of collection materials. The first comprises

those that are ‘born digital’ and for which there is no analogue equivalent, while the

second type comprises digitised or ‘turned digital’ materials that are copies or

surrogates that have been created by converting analogue materials to digital format

(Digital Preservation Coalition, 2018). Physical collections include paper-based

analogue items such as books, journals and newspapers, manuscripts, diaries, maps,

posters and plans, as well as photographs, microforms, audio visual materials and

physical carriers of digital materials such as CDs (Adcock, 1998, pp. 35-46, pp. 47-52).

The term disaster management is used to cover the overall organisation, planning and

application of measures in preparing, preventing, responding to and recovering from

disasters (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, 2018). Disaster preparedness is

used to describe the steps taken in advance to prepare for a disaster and involves

developing the disaster plan, identifying key personnel and supplies, and training.

Prevention usually involves assessment of risks and developing strategies to reduce the

likelihood or consequence of disasters affecting collections. The Response stage

happens during a disaster event and involves steps to minimise the consequences—such

as protecting or moving physical collections. The Recovery stage involves steps taken to
minimise the disruption and return services to as near as ‘normal’ as possible (Heritage

Collections Council, 2000, p. 10).

Literature review

An extensive literature review of disaster management in libraries (reported below) was

undertaken and uncovered a number of thematic areas including:

• disaster management of physical collections and infrastructure

• disaster management of digital collections and infrastructure

• disaster management of physical collections with references to digital

collections

• common areas such as risk management, business continuity planning, key

stages and scale of disasters

The literature on disaster management of physical and digital collections reveals a

significant disconnect between the two areas, which is discussed further below.

Disaster management of physical collections and infrastructure

A major focus area of the international literature on library disaster management is on

physical collections and infrastructure. Examples range from the disaster manual of the

peak body International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) (Mcllwaine, 2006),

to the British Library’s (2012) guidelines on salvaging library and archives collections

and to the short practical response and recovery instructions from the Library of

Congress website (Library of Congress, n.d.). Similarly, studies on disaster management

by Fleischer and Heppner (2009) and Wellheiser and Scott (2002) focus on the physical

domain. International templates for disaster plans that largely focus on physical
collections include the California Preservation Program (CalPreservation) Disaster plan

template (n.d.), the Harvard University Library collections emergency plan template

(2017) and the Canterbury Disaster Salvage Team Disaster templates (2007).

Within Australia, the older Be prepared guidelines (Heritage Collections

Council, 2000) and the ALIA guide to disaster planning response and recovery for

libraries primarily emphasise the physical collections (ALIA, 2010) as does ALIA’s

disaster plan template Disaster planning for libraries (ALIA, 2010).

Disaster management for digital collections and infrastructure

Similarly, in the international literature on digital disaster management, there is a lack

of association with physical collections. Disaster management is regarded as a primary

responsibility of institutional repositories (Robertson & Borchert, 2014, p. 280) and is

especially important for trusted digital repositories (Frank & Yakel, 2013, p. 1). The

fundamental resource for certifying a trustworthy digital repository, International

Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard ISO 16363 (ISO/DIS 16363, 2012),

requires the repository to have ‘suitable written disaster preparedness and recovery

plan(s), including at least one off-site back up of all preserved information together with

an offsite copy of the recovery plan’ (ISO/DIS 16363, 2012, 5.2.4). Similarly the OAIS

reference model, which provides a widely implemented framework for digital

preservation, requires disaster recovery capabilities, policies and resilience (ISO 14721,

2012, 4-2, 4-8, 4-9, 6-1). Again, none of these refer to interfaces with physical

collections.

Other prominent examples from the international literature that focus on

disaster management purely in the digital realm range from McGovern and Stuchell

(2014), to Mallery’s Technology, disaster response and planning (2015), to Schmidt’s

(2010) article on the challenges of loss of digital communication infrastructure such as

intranets, email and servers. A further example is the Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe

(LOCKSS, 2018) model for digital preservation which has implicit disaster planning

strategies built into its framework, including identification of threats (Frank & Yakel,

2013, p. 2; Rosenthal, 2005).

Disaster management of physical collections with references to digital collections

While the literature highlights a general lack of connection between physical and digital

disaster management, a number of sources do make reference to both physical and

digital formats and/or digital infrastructure. For example, studies by Kahn (2012) Ifijeh,

Idiegbeyan-Ose, Isiakpona & Ilogho (2016, pp. 534-559) and Robertson (2015, pp. 19-

20) primarily focus on physical collections, but also include references to digital

collections and infrastructure, including the need for back-up and restoration

procedures. The National Archives of Australia (NAA) refers to digital archives in its

recovery plan (NAA, 2010 p. 17), while the Blue Shield Australia (BSA) website

(2018) refers to database failure as one of the causes of damage to cultural heritage. The

State Library of Queensland’s Counter disaster planning template (2013, p. 1) includes

references to ICT servers and briefly refers digital formats in the scope.

Notwithstanding the references to digital collections and infrastructure, none of

these sources overtly connect disaster planning across physical and digital collections.

However, despite a disconnect between the physical and digital arenas, a closer

analysis of the literature on disaster management reveals some common foundations

which are described next.

Risk management

In both the digital and physical domains, the literature reveals that disaster management

is built upon risk management principles. In the physical arena this is exemplified by

the ALIA guide to disaster planning (2010, p. 3) and the IFLA disaster preparedness

manual (Mcllwaine, 2006, pp. 8-10). In the digital domain, risk management underpins

the OAIS reference model (ISO 14721, 2012) and the certification standard for

trustworthy digital repositories (ISO/DIS 16363, 2012). This is likewise affirmed by

Rosenthal (2005), Conn (2015), Bishoff and Clareson (2015) and McGovern and

Stuchell (2014). It is also interesting to note recent parallel discussions and training at

UNESCO level on how risk management can provide a common foundation for

integrating and linking disaster responses for heritage buildings together with their

internal collection contents (UNESCO, 2018).

Business continuity planning

The literature also highlights that both physical and digital disaster management are

closely linked with business continuity planning and the organisational ecosystem. In

the digital arena this is exemplified in the HathiTrust disaster planning steps

(HathiTrust, 2010, pp. 47-48) and in McGovern and Stuchell’s Disaster planning policy

framework (2014) which identifies links with a number of corporate documents such as

the Business continuity plan and Continuity of operations plan. In physical disaster

plans this is exemplified in the ALIA guide (2010, p. 2) and the State Library of

Queensland’s Counter disaster planning template (2013), both of which refer to

business continuity. These trends are borne out by the investigations of Velasquez,

Evans and Kaeding (2016) in relation to disaster recovery in South Australian public

libraries.
Common stages

The literature review uncovered four stages of disaster management that are common to

both domains: prevention, preparation, response and recovery (ALIA, 2010 p. 1;

Prestamo, 2018, p. 102).

These stages may occur simultaneously (Kahn, 2012, p. 4) and/or they may be

combined differently (commonly merging the preparation and planning stages), as in

the three stages of the disaster plan of the National Archives of Australia (2010), or in

the steps in disaster recovery planning outlined by HathiTrust (2010, pp. 45-51.Wong

and Green (2006, p. 72) recommend that these stages be approached as an iterative

process rather than a finite one.

These common stages mean that, conceptually and at a higher strategic level,

there is potential for aligning the various steps of disaster management of physical and

digital collections, although at a more actionable and technical level, the actions are

very likely to be different for physical and digital collections.

Scale of disaster

The concept of scale or level of disaster appears in the disaster management literature in

both the physical and digital domains. The scale of a disaster depends on the cause, the

level of damage to materials and facilities, and the area damaged (Colorado State

University, section 5, 2016). An example from the digital literature is Meister and

Michalek’s Disasters at any scale (2016), while physical examples include the Library

of Congress Scenarios, levels of collections emergency (2009) and Colorado State

University disaster plan (2016).

In summary, the literature review revealed areas of disconnect between physical and

digital disaster management, while also identifying areas of commonality and these

themes informed the research methodology.

Methodology

The research sought to investigate the higher level research question:

What are the interfaces between the disaster management of physical and digital

collections in Australian national and state and territory libraries, and do the interfaces

lead to the potential develop an integrated disaster plan?

The broad research framework was based on a qualitative interpretive approach.

A qualitative framework was judged to be well suited to exploring the complex

interfaces between physical and digital disaster management. Likewise an interpretive

paradigm was suitable for exploring the preservation managers’ meanings and

interpretations of disaster management. The research design was planned and structured

around the key stages of data collection—involving surveys and practitioner interviews,

analysis and validation.

Researcher’s role

As the researcher is also a practitioner in the field, it was essential to minimise the risk

of bias and leading the research outcomes. These risks were mitigated using

triangulation (Connaway & Powell, 2010, p. 119), which is discussed further below.

Participants

The target sample group of participants comprised the 18 preservation managers

responsible for digital and physical preservation in the nine NSLA libraries. This

represents what Battaglia (2011) and Palys (2008) describe as ‘purposive sampling’
which in turn contributed to the validity of the data, as these participants were state and

national experts in their field with responsibilities for preserving state and national

documentary physical and digital heritage.

Data collection

The data collection process involved surveys and qualitative interviews. Additional data

collection for developing a ‘proof of concept’ disaster plan template involved discussion

with senior staff from the State Library of Queensland, examination of corporate

documents and discussion with a focus group. An opportunity to informally trial an

integrated disaster plan template with workshop participants from the Galleries,

Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM) sector was provided in a Blue Shield (2018)

workshop.

Surveys

The survey method was selected as a data collection tool due to the ability to provide

standardised information that was relevant to the research questions. The survey

primarily collected qualitative data. The survey also yielded documentary evidence such

as organisational structures, position descriptions and disaster plan outlines which also

provided some quantitative data. It was intended that the information gathered from the

surveys would inform the questions in the next stage of interviews.

Separate surveys were designed for the two domains, with parallel questions in

each case, so each NSLA library completed two surveys. This approach provided a

means of comparing and cross-validating answers to issues that were common to both

domains—such as the existence of physical and digital disaster plans.

 The surveys were distributed using LimeSurvey (2018), a free open source

software survey tool, selected for its ease of use, capacity for respondents to upload

documentary evidence as attachments, and its capacity to provide basic reports. The

relevant preservation managers were contacted to request their support and consent.

Background information about the project was provided; together with clarification that

participation would be voluntary. There was a 100 % response rate for both the surveys

and interviews.

The development of the surveys and the interview questions was based upon the

themes that had previously emerged from the literature review and these were aligned

with the overall research questions. The surveys were first piloted with one NSLA

library and minor refinements were made, such as the inclusion of definitions.
Interviews

The second stage of data collection comprised semi-structured interviews. Their

purpose was to enable probing for further information, and to seek clarification of

apparent discrepancies and validating as required. For example, one of the respondents

had reported in the survey that their collection disaster plan was ‘partially integrated’.

The interview questions explored what this meant and, in this case, revealed that the

initial survey response had referred to the context of business continuity planning which

conceptually incorporated all collection formats at a high level.

The interviews were conducted face to face with the same preservation

managers who had completed the original surveys for digital and physical collections in

all but one of the NSLA libraries (where interviews were conducted by phone). The

remaining interviews were undertaken in various library offices and lasted

approximately one hour each. Funding from the ALIA Research Grant facilitated the

visits to the libraries for the face to face interviews.

While the interviews were semi-structured, a list of questions was provided to

interviewees beforehand. The questions allowed for modification of the wording and

order and were designed to delve deeper into information provided in the survey

responses. All interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Data analysis

Data from the surveys and interviews was hand coded according to a thematic analysis

approach (Gray 2018, p. 692), following the phases identified by Braun and Clarke

(2006, p. 87): familiarisation with data; generating initial codes; searching for themes;

reviewing themes; defining themes; producing a report. The codes were initially

developed deductively from key themes that had emerged from the literature review

such as risk management, which were subsequently reflected in the survey questions.

The data was then also coded inductively as recurrent themes and relationships emerged

from the data; for example potential barriers to integrating physical and digital disaster

management, areas of similarity and differences, the role of surrogate copies (physical

and analogue) and relationships with functions such as business continuity planning.

Findings

Survey findings

The survey findings revealed that all NSLA libraries identified disaster management as

a strategy for preserving their physical collections, and all had a disaster plan that

covered these collections (see Table 1).

Table 1 Survey response—disaster management—physical
 However, only four of the NSLA libraries identified disaster management as a

strategy for preserving their digital collections. Only one of the NSLA libraries

identified that it had a documented disaster plan for its digital collections. This library’s

digital disaster plan was separate from their physical disaster plan (see Table 2).

Table 2 Survey response—disaster management—digital

As described in more detail below, further investigation revealed that a level of

disaster management for digital collections was in place for all NSLA libraries, usually

the responsibility of the Information Technology/Information Communications

Technology (IT/ICT) section and managed independently from the disaster plan for

physical collections.

The following comments from two of the respondents reflect this situation:

We back up our digital storage but this is not linked to the hard copy materials
disaster plan.

Having said no, I am confident we could recover the files from backup. However
nothing is documented to demonstrate the DR [disaster recovery] plan.

It is likely that the comparatively smaller numbers of libraries that identified

disaster management as a preservation strategy, and the low number of digital disaster
plans was related to the relative newness of digital preservation within a number of

these organisations. This is supported by responses such as the following:

Overall our maturity is still very low.

We are often looking to similar organisations … who are further advanced.

Interview findings

The preservation managers interviewed (with the exception of one digital manager)

were supportive in principle about the potential benefits of an integrated disaster plan

template and representative responses are described below under Potential advantages.

As outlined below, all interviewees identified potential barriers and challenges— such

as added complexity, and a lack of skills across the physical and digital domains. A

copy of the draft interview questions relating to disaster management is provided below

(Table 3).

Table 3 Interview questions relating to the concept of an integrated disaster plan

Potential advantages
The main advantage of having an integrated disaster plan was seen as having a

comprehensive plan that provided a ‘one stop shop’ approach covering all collections.

Representative responses about the advantages included the following:

I think the obvious advantages are that you get a planned approach. You’ve got
people who are informed. The fact is that when a disaster occurs it happens fast
and people need to be informed, educated and work together cohesively, quickly
and so the closer these are aligned the better in terms of achieving them.

It would be helpful to have one comprehensive disaster portal.

The approach to dividing up the collection, understanding the priorities,

understanding who gets to make the decisions and who feeds up to the

overarching crisis emergency response and crisis management team, that would

work in the same way.

Potential barriers, challenges and themes

During the interviews, a number of potential challenges and/or barriers to developing an

integrated disaster plan were identified, along with themes such as ….

Prominent among the barriers was the view that digital and physical disaster

management had been historically managed separately. Integrating them would entail

expanding the scope of the existing disaster plan, and this would require change

management and ‘buy in’ at all organisational levels. Closely related to this was the

view that each of the areas had unique and highly specialised skill sets and it would be

important to be able to align these in a meaningful way without making the plan too

large or complex.

This was expressed in comments such as the following:

I’m the disaster recovery coordinator for this organisation, but I do not have any
prowess in the area of recovery procedure for IT.
 I don’t think they [the skills] interchange as naturally or as easily or in very
many ways. In fact your IT specialist in terms of responding to paintings or wet
manuscripts is going to be no different to asking someone in off the street to
respond. Similarly we have not the faintest idea how to respond to digital
salvage.

A major challenge related to communication, specifically that combining

physical and digital disaster management potentially adds a layer of complexity, so that

the communication and command structure of an integrated plan would need to be clear.

As one respondent succinctly said: ‘communications is a significant part of it’.

Interviews with the staff of libraries that had experienced a recent disaster also

highlighted the closely related area of access and the need for an integrated plan to

explicitly clarify physical access to buildings and remote access to IT infrastructure.

A theme from the literature review that also emerged from the interviews related

to the importance of scale of disaster in the planning process as a means of guiding

appropriate levels of responses. One manager referred to a continuum: ‘I think there are

degrees of disasters’. Another manager described how scale shaped a recent disaster

response:

Then it was determined—with the scale of it—where people needed to be; who
was doing what.

The role of analogue and digital surrogates, their locations (on and offsite,

backed up, in cloud storage) and their relationship to physical ‘originals’ also emerged

as a theme during some of the interviews. Several of the interviewees recognised that an

integrated disaster plan could provide a central list of originals, surrogates and their

locations and hence potentially inform overall salvage priorities.

As above, the interviews uncovered that a level of disaster management for

digital collections was already in place in all libraries to varying levels, commonly

undocumented and assigned to the IT section. A characteristic response was:

 Although we don’t have a disaster response plan for digital collections it does
not mean that we don’t have anything initially.

Another potential challenge, also highlighted in the literature review, was that

disaster management does not sit in isolation, but is part of a whole organisational

ecosystem and needs to align with corporate plans, policies and strategies. Indeed, a

number of preservation managers pointed out during the interviews that disaster

planning for physical and digital collections is linked at higher levels of business

continuity planning (as identified in the literature review) and emergency response

planning.

This was typified by one of the respondent’s comments:

We have a disaster plan for physical collections… but it’s part of the library’s
overall business continuity plan—so it’s just a segment of it… So digital would
fall under the ICT segment of that [plan].

Where possible, the higher level association with areas such as business

continuity and risk management were corroborated by viewing examples of the various

libraries’ business continuity and risk management documentation. However, in each

instance it was clear that there was no cohesive or systematic alignment between the

disaster planning for physical and digital collections. In practice, this means that the

process of developing an integrated disaster plan cannot be a superficial adjustment of

existing plans, but rather it requires a thoughtful and systematic alignment with strategic

policies and plans across the organisation’s ecosystem.

Validation

Validation of the survey and interview findings was achieved through using

triangulation which involved analysing supporting documentation, such as relevant

policies and procedures to search for convergence of information. It also involved cross-

validation of the survey responses on similar issues from the two domains, and
discussion of potential discrepancies with interviewees, as described above under

Interviews. The ‘purposive sampling’ of participants who were state and national

experts in their field and the 100% response rate that was achieved for the survey and

interviews also contributed to the validity of the data.

Proof of concept development with the State Library of Queensland

As the research had uncovered a significant level of support in principle amongst the

NLSA libraries for the development of an integrated disaster plan, as well as

highlighting a number of potential barriers or challenges, this stage of the research

project was deemed a suitable time to test the feasibility of an integrated disaster plan

template in practice as a ‘proof of concept’.

Investigation of dPlan

The dPlan online disaster planning tool (dPlan, 2006) developed by the North East

Document Conservation Centre (NEDCC) and the Massachusetts Board of Library

Commissioners (MBLC) was investigated as a potential template. The dPlan online

disaster planning tool potentially provides a flexible disaster planning template that

could be used for both physical and digital collections, particularly with its inclusion of

information technology (Conn, 2015, p. 24). It is conceptually organised around the

four stages, although the steps of prevention/preparation and response /recovery are

merged into two larger sections. A major disadvantage is that the template uses out-

dated and ‘clunky’ software (Conn, 2015, p. 31).

However, more detailed online investigation of the functionality of dPlan

uncovered limitations to the degree of integration across the physical and digital

domains. The current version lacks a cohesive framework that could overtly align and
integrate disaster management across the two domains. This is evidenced in dPlan’s

‘Scope and goals’ and ‘List of contents’ which lack an explicit connection between the

two areas.

For these reasons it was concluded that dPlan was not a suitable tool from

which to test the feasibility of an integrated disaster plan template.

During the process of undertaking the surveys and interviews, it became apparent that

the State Library of Queensland (SLQ) was an ideal organisation to work with to

develop a proof of concept template for an integrated disaster plan. This was

predominately due to the Library’s January 2011 experience in responding to the

disaster caused by riverine flooding of the Brisbane River. The Library’s existing

Counter disaster planning template (SLQ, 2013) provided a useful framework; not only

was it structured according to the well-established stages of prevention, preparation,

response and recovery, it was also organised in a way that was flexible and easy for

users to access and follow. The main body covering the four stages was concise, while

the more detailed and specialised sections were incorporated as attachments which were

clearly distinguished and colour coded. It had recently been updated, incorporating

lessons learnt and improvement measures from the flood disaster. The template of the

SLQ plan had also been publicly made available via the SLQ website as a resource for

other organisations to use and tailor to their own needs (SLQ, 2013). As previously

noted, the existing SLQ disaster plan predominately covered physical collections, with

some references to digital infrastructure and collections.

SLQ support was formally requested to work on a proof of concept disaster plan

template, with the outcome that stakeholder staff agreed to work with the researcher to

develop a draft template based on the SLQ experience and its disaster planning
framework. SLQ provided access to major documents including the Counter disaster

plan. These were analysed in association with senior staff, which informed the

preparation and development of a draft model for an integrated disaster plan. In keeping

with the literature review trends, and findings of the survey and interviews, other

strategic areas and documentation with which such an integrated plan would need to

align (such as the Business continuity plan (SLQ n.d.a) and Risk register (SLQ n.d.b))

were also identified.

Initial findings

During a visit to SLQ during July 2016, existing SLQ disaster planning documentation

was examined in consultation with a small number of senior SLQ staff who were

familiar with the disaster plan and related higher level documentation such as the

Business continuity plan (SLQ n.d.a and Risk register (SLQ n.d.b) From the earliest

stage it became clear that the existing disaster planning for digital and physical

collections was built on a common foundation of risk management principles and thus,

conceptually, there was no need to start from scratch. Furthermore, it was clear that the

existing plan’s stages of prevention, preparation, response and recovery could

potentially be used to logically structure and incorporate the digital disaster information.

Another finding that emerged from discussions with senior staff was that the

Business continuity plan and Risk register were already partially integrated in that they

incorporated references to both physical and digital collections and risks; however,

these sections were very much ‘stand-alone’. To achieve a full integration they needed

to be adjusted to systematically and logically align the links between physical and

digital collections. This process clearly demonstrated that the process of aligning the

concept of an integrated disaster plan with the wider organisation ecosystem was not
just a case of superficially inserting or changing a few words, as above; it required

complex thinking about the organisation’s priorities and understanding of the current

and potential interrelationships between major areas of importance.

First stage draft of plan

As a result of the process of unpacking the existing documentation, a first stage

conceptual draft of an integrated disaster plan was produced. This first draft required

integrating digital collections and issues at all stages of the plan (prevention,

preparation, response and recovery), with the more technical or actionable aspects to be

incorporated in the various specialist attachments.

Initially, the draft plan assumed one (overall) role of disaster coordinator

responsible for coordinating responses for both digital and physical collections. When

this was tested with the Manager, Collection Preservation (who is currently responsible

for leading SLQ’s disaster response for physical collections) the feedback was clear: no

single staff member would currently have the knowledge or skills to effectively carry

out this role. This feedback reinforced interview responses about the specialist skill sets

required in the digital and physical arenas.

Second stage draft

The initial draft of the disaster plan and associated documents such as the Business

continuity plan (SLQ n.d.a) and Risk register (SLQ n.d.b) were then revised to

incorporate the dual role of two specialist disaster coordinators heading specialist

disaster teams.

The excerpt from the draft summary chart of the SLQ Business continuity plan

SLQ (n.d.a) below (Figure 1) highlights the changes added digital and physical to the
area of Collection damage, and includes the two specialist disaster coordinator positions

(D) and (P).

Figure 1 Excerpt from SLQ draft Business continuity plan chart with proposed

changes to integrated framework highlighted. Used with permission by SLQ.

SLQ focus group

The revised draft model for an integrated disaster plan was then discussed with a focus

group comprising senior SLQ stakeholders with responsibilities for and experience in

disaster management of digital collections and systems, physical collections and broader

organisational functions (facilities, integrity and risk). The focus group discussed the

higher level modified documents such as the Business continuity plan and Risk register

as well as the more ‘practical’ level of the disaster plan and communications issues

previously highlighted as potential barriers.

The focus group discussion revealed general support for aligning physical and

digital in both the higher level modified documents and the revised disaster plan. From

the discussions it was clear that the major points of difference between physical and
digital domains occurred at the actionable level—for example, in first response, and in

recovering damaged physical collections and digital collections. As reflected in the

earlier survey and interviews, the discussions indicated that there was already a

significant amount of digital disaster preparation in place managed by the ICT section,

and that these processes were largely invisible in the current SLQ disaster plan.

One of the unexpected benefits that emerged from this focus group was that the

process of developing an integrated disaster plan template provided a framework and

opportunity for staff to discuss issues such as current salvage action priorities across the

organisation and all its collections. For example, as the group discussed the current

approaches for prioritising it emerged that, for physical collections, the priorities

focused on significant and rare materials relating to Queensland, whereas for the digital

collections, the emphasis was on providing access, which pragmatically led to restoring

the less complex digital objects first. Likewise the integrated plan provided a new

perspective to discussing collection risks across all domains, and interestingly, it

emerged from the discussions that one of the highest organisational risks could

potentially be digital—the loss of power to the server room leading to rapid overheating

of the server.

Another issue that arose during focus group discussion was the need to clarify

authorisation/activation levels to the physical and digital collections according to

disaster and scale. The suggestion was to incorporate this by developing a single

Command structure that incorporated digital and physical disaster responsibilities, and

to include onsite as well as remote access.

Third stage of draft incorporating scale of disasters

The theme of ‘disaster scale’ had emerged from the literature in both physical and

digital contexts, and also during the interviews. Although disaster scale did not overtly

feature in the current SLQ Counter Disaster Plan, it was recognised by some of the

staff as being a potentially useful element. The third stage examined whether the

concept of ‘disaster scale’ could be conceptually and practically applied to the SLQ

disaster plan. A draft disaster scale framework was sourced and adapted from the

Colorado State University model (2016), based on the clarity and flexibility of this

framework in comparison with more complex models such as the Library of Congress

framework (2009).

A visit to SLQ in January 2017 tested with senior staff (with physical and digital

specialisations) the concept of a ‘scale of disaster’ framework and draft model to further

refine the template. The modifications to the draft largely entailed providing appropriate

examples of disasters at each of the levels. Following this feedback a new Incident

disaster scale levels chart was developed and the concept of disaster scale was

embedded in the Immediate actions reference chart in the integrated disaster plan

template (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Excerpt from Immediate actions reference chart incorporating scale of

disaster. Used with permission SLQ.

Key features of the SLQ integrated plan template

Overall, the information and feedback provided iteratively during three visits helped to

shape the development of an integrated disaster plan template for SLQ. While the

overall layout and structure of the integrated disaster plan template was similar to the

previous plan, the conceptual modifications described above were systematically made

to both the higher level documents such as the Business continuity plan, as well as to the

main body of the existing plan and attachments.

As previously noted, a strength of the existing plan was its logical and flexible

arrangement as well as its clarity and conciseness. In turn, this meant that potentially,

the changes would not increase the size of the integrated plan to unwieldy proportions

and impact on its accessibility and ability to be implemented.

Development of a generic integrated disaster plan template and guide

Generic integrated disaster plan template

The new Contents list for the SLQ draft integrated template aligns disaster management

across both the physical and digital domains. It can, therefore, readily function as the

foundation for a generic template that could be adapted by other organisations as

appropriate, as is the case with the existing SLQ Counter disaster planning template

(2013). A Contents list for a generic integrated disaster plan template, based on the SLQ

model, is provided in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Contents of generic integrated disaster plan template. Adapted from SLQ

template with permission.

Guidelines

To complement and aid the implementation of this integrated template, there is potential

to develop accompanying guidelines in the future, similar to the ALIA Guide to disaster

planning response and recovery (2010). These new guidelines would be valuable in

providing a context that explicitly interconnects disaster management across the

physical and digital domains, as well as practical application issues. They could be

potentially developed in conjunction with peak bodies such as Blue Shield Australia

(BSA, 2018).

Trial of integrated disaster plan template

A Blue Shield symposium workshop (2018) provided an opportunity to informally trial

an integrated disaster plan template with 20 workshop participants from the Galleries

Libraries Archives Museums (GLAM) sector. Using the generic template, five small

groups investigated different stages of the disaster plan as well as some major

documents in the context of a hypothetical scenario.

The groups discussed what their particular component of the integrated plan

template might look like in more detail (e.g. preparation), what the challenges were, and

what issues or questions need resolving. The informal feedback was positive; all groups

were able to successfully apply the generic disaster plan template, providing practical

examples of how the plan would work in practice, using the scenario as context.
Conclusions

This research concluded that there was a clear difference in NSLA libraries between the

physical and digital domains in recognising disaster management as a preservation

strategy, with the physical collections having the highest levels of recognition and

formal disaster plans. This difference is likely to be due to the field of digital

preservation being comparatively new in a number of NSLA libraries.

The interviews uncovered general support across NSLA libraries for the concept

of an integrated disaster plan. However, they also identified potential barriers including

increased complexity of communication issues and the requirement for specialised skill

sets. They also highlighted the significance of aligning with wider organisational plans,

policies and strategies. A number of areas were identified as common management

foundations for an integrated disaster plan, including risk management, links with

business continuity planning, common stages and scale of disaster. The major points of

difference between physical and digital domains occurred at the actionable level, for

example in first response and in recovering damaged physical collections and digital

collections; however, many of these actions could be incorporated in a disaster plan as

attachments.

The proof of concept project with the SLQ provided an opportunity to test the

concept of an integrated disaster plan. The project confirmed that there was no need to

start from scratch due to common foundations such as risk management. It also

demonstrated that there was a need to align the integrated disaster plan with the wider

organisational ecosystem of plans, policies, and strategies such as the Business

continuity plan.

It also confirmed that there was the need for two specialist coordinator roles

(digital and physical) with their respective disaster teams which would respond to
specific actions at the more technical and actionable level. It also established the need

for a clear single command structure with activation levels that incorporated digital and

physical disaster responsibilities.

The proof of concept project demonstrated that the option of a comprehensive

integrated plan was feasible. It also confirmed the potential benefits of an integrated

plan as a ‘one stop shop’ source of information on disaster management,

interconnecting many strategies and actions that had already been taking place

separately in the digital and physical areas. Another potential benefit is the capacity of

an integrated disaster plan to provide a central list of ‘originals’, surrogates and their

locations, and hence inform overall salvage priorities. In practice, all potential benefits

would need to be evaluated in the context of individual organisational needs in any

decision to adopt the framework of an integrated disaster plan. Further testing of the

integrated disaster plan framework in smaller organisations will be useful as an

indication of what components could be to be tailored to meet their needs.

Overall, these research findings have implications for collection disaster

planning across NSLA libraries and the wider GLAM sector within Australia, and

internationally, with organisations such as Blue Shield, providing another option for

disaster management in hybrid collections within an integrated framework.

Reference list

Adcock, E. (1998), Principles for the care and handling of library material. Paris:

IFLA-PAC. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/8712

Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience. (AIDR). (2018.) Disaster resilience

knowledge hub – Glossary. Melbourne: AIDR. Retrieved from

https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/glossary-about/

Australian Library and Information Association. (ALIA). (2010).

ALIA guide to disaster planning response and recovery for libraries. Canberra: ALIA.

Retrieved from

http://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/ALIA_Guide_Disaster_Plan_Resp_

Recover.pdf

Australian Library and Information Association. (ALIA). (2010).

ALIA disaster planning for libraries [template]. Canberra: ALIA. Retrieved from

http://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/ALIA_Disaster_Planning_Libsfinal

.pdf

Battaglia, M. P. (2011). Purposive Sample. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.) Encyclopedia of

Survey Research Methods (pp. 645-647). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Retrieved from DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947
Bishoff, L. & Clareson, T. (2015). Inventory and risk assessment for digital collections.

In M. Mallery (Ed.), Technology Disaster Response and Planning (pp. 11-22). London:

Facet.

Blue Shield Australia. (BSA). http://blueshieldaustralia.org.au/

Blue Shield Australia. (BSA). (2018, January 29-30). Symposium: Cultural heritage,

climate change and natural disasters. Workshop 2: Integrated disaster planning for

cultural collections: connecting the physical and digital. Canberra: National Library of

Australia. Retrieved from http://blueshieldaustralia.org.au/symposium/workshops/

Braun V. & Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.

Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.

British Library. Collection Care. (2012). Salvaging library and archives collections.

London: British Library. Retrieved from

http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/collectioncare/publications/booklets/salvaging_li

brary_and_archive_collections.pdf

Buchanan, S. (2000). Preservation management: Disaster preparedness. In P. Banks &

R. Pilette (Eds.), Preservation: issues and planning (pp. 159-165). Chicago: ALA.

California Preservation Program. (CalPreservation). (n.d.). Library disaster plan

template. Retrieved from https://calpreservation.org/disasters/generic/plan_toc.html

Canterbury Disaster Salvage Team. (2007). Disaster templates. Retrieved from

http://www.disalteam.co.nz/plans.htm

Collins, G. (2012). We knew the floods were coming but . . .. In K. Barrett (Ed.)
Contributions to the AICCM 7th book, paper & photographic materials symposium 29–
31 August 2012, Brisbane (pp. 6–12). Canberra: AICC

Colorado State University. (2016). Disaster scale and recovery operations. In Libraries

disaster recovery plan manual. Section 5.1, Retrieved from

https://lib.colostate.edu/images/mps/disasterplanmasterplanwebversion.doc

Conn, D. (2015). Disaster planning and risk management with dPlan. In M. Mallery

(Ed.), Technology disaster response and planning (pp. 23-32). London: Facet.

Connaway, L & Powell, R. (2010), Basic research methods for librarians, Santa
Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.

Digital Preservation Coalition. (DPC). (2018). Digital Preservation Handbook.

Glossary. Retrieved from https://dpconline.org/handbook/glossary

dPlan: The online disaster-planning tool for cultural and civic institutions. (2006).

[NEDCC & MBLC]. Retrieved from http://www.dplan.org/

Fleischer, S. & Heppner, M. (2009). Disaster planning for libraries and archives: What

you need to know and how to do it. Library & Archival Security, 22 (2), 125-140.
Frank, R. & Yakel, E. (2013). Disaster planning for digital repositories. Proceedings of

the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 50 (1), 1-10. Retrieved

from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/106841.

Gorman, G. & Shep, S. (2006). Preservation management for libraries, archives and

museums. London: Facet.

Gray, D. (2018). Doing research in the real world. London: SAGE.

Harper, J. (2012). Art Gallery to emergency response centre—Our response to the

Christchurch earthquakes. [NSLA Disaster Preparedness Seminar, State Library of

Queensland 21 March 2012]. Retrieved from https://www.nsla.org.au/disaster-

preparedness-seminar-communicating-disaster

Harvard University. Preservation Services. (2017). Library collections emergency plan

template. Retrieved from http://library.harvard.edu/preservation/emergency-

preparedness

Harvey, R. & Mahard, M. (2014). The preservation management handbook: A 21st

century guide for libraries, archives and museums. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &

Littlefield.

HathiTrust. (2010). HathiTrust’s foundations of a disaster plan for the share digital

repository. Ann Arbor, Michigan: HathiTrust Research Centre. Retrieved from

https://www.hathitrust.org/technical_reports/HathiTrust_DisasterRecovery.pdf
Heritage Collections Council. (2000). Be prepared: Guidelines for small museums for

writing a disaster preparedness plan. Canberra: Heritage Collections Council.

Retrieved from

https://aiccm.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/CAN_resources2014/beprepared.pdf

Ifijeh, G., Idiegbeyan-Ose, J., Isiakpona, C. & Ilogho, J. (2016). Disaster and digital

libraries in developing countries: Issues and challenges. In E. Decker & J. Townes,

(Eds.), The handbook of research on disaster management and contingency planning in

modern libraries. (pp. 534-559). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

International Federation of Library Associations. (IFLA). (2018).

IFLA Trend report 2018 update. The Hague: IFLA. Retrieved from

https://trends.ifla.org/files/trends/assets/documents/ifla_trend_report_2018.pdf.

International Organization for Standardization. (ISO). (2012). ISO/DIS 16363

Space data and information transfer systems - Audit and certification of trustworthy

digital repositories. Geneva: ISO. Retrieved from

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=56510
International Organization for Standardization. (ISO). (2012). ISO 14721

Space data and information transfer systems – Open archival information system

(OAIS) – Reference model. Geneva: ISO. Retrieved from

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57284

Kahn, M. (2004). Protecting your library’s digital resources: The essential guide to

planning and preservation. Chicago: ALA.

Kahn, M. (2012). Disaster response and planning for libraries. (3rd ed.) Chicago: ALA.

Kibe, T. (2013). Mass treatment recovery for tsunami damaged documents by local

people assisted by conservators. International Preservation News, (59-60), 37-41.

Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/pac/ipn/ipn-59-60.pdf

Library of Congress. (n.d.). Response and recovery. Retrieved from

http://www.loc.gov/preservation/emergprep/recovery.html

Library of Congress. (2009). Scenarios, levels of collections emergency. Retrieved from

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/emergprep/plan/scenarios.pdf

LimeSurvey. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.limesurvey.org/.

Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe. (LOCKSS). (2018). Retrieved from

https://www.lockss.org/
Mallery, M. (Ed.). (2015). Technology disaster response and planning. London: Facet.

McGovern, N., & Stuchell, L. (2014). Disaster planning policy framework: Outline.
Disaster planning policy framework: Outline. In Digital

preservation management workshop: implementing short-term strategies for long-term

problems. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Library and Cambridge,

Massachusetts: MIT Library. Retrieved from http://www.dpworkshop.org/

Mcllwaine, J. (2006). IFLA disaster preparedness and planning; a brief manual. (IFLA

International Preservation Issues (IPI) 6). Paris: IFLA PAC. Retrieved from

http://www.ifla.org/publications/node/8068

Meister, S. & Michalek, G. (2016). Disasters at any scale: The MetaArchive

Cooperative’s community-based approach to risk mitigation and disaster preparation in

the 21st century. Columbus, Ohio: IFLA WLIC 2016 Conference. Retrieved from

http://library.ifla.org/1357/1/083-meister-en.pdf

National and State Libraries Australia. (NSLA). (2018). Retrieved from

http://www.nsla.org.au/

• About NLSA. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.nsla.org.au/about-nsla

National Archives of Australia. (NAA). (2010). National disaster preparedness and

recovery strategy for archival records. Canberra: NAA. Retrieved from

http://www.naa.gov.au/Images/ndprs_tcm16-49144.pdf

National Library of Australia. (NLA). (2017). Annual report. Canberra: NLA. Retrieved

from http://www.naa.gov.au/Images/ndprs_tcm16-49144.pdf

Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.) The SAGE encyclopedia of

qualitative research methods, 2. (pp. 697-698). Los Angeles, Sage.

Prestamo, A. (2018). Libraries and natural disasters. Journal of Library Administration,

58 (1), 101-109.

Robertson, G. (2015). Disaster planning for libraries: Processes and guidelines.

Waltham, MA: Chandos Information Professional Services.

Robertson, W. & Borchert, C. (2014). Preserving content from your institutional

repository. Serials Librarian, 66, 278-288.

Rosenthal, D., Robertson, T., Lipkis, T., Reich, V. & Morabito, S. (2005).

Requirements for digital preservation systems: A bottom up approach. D-Lib Magazine,

11 (11). Retrieved from

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november05/rosenthal/11rosenthal.html
Schmidt, G. (2010). Web 2.0 for disaster response and recovery. Journal of Web

Librarianship, 4 (4), 413-426.

Silverman, R. (2006). The seven deadly sins of disaster recovery. Public Library

Quarterly, 25, (3-4) 31-46.

State Library of Queensland. (SLQ). (n.d.a). Business continuity plan. [confidential in-

house document]. Brisbane: State Library of Queensland.

State Library of Queensland. (SLQ). (n.d.b). Risk register. [confidential in-house

document]. Brisbane: State Library of Queensland.

State Library of Queensland. (SLQ). (2013). Counter disaster planning template.

Brisbane: State Library of Queensland. Retrieved from

http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/resources/preserving-

collections/salvage_damaged_collections.

UNESCO Chair Programme on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management. (2018).

International training course (ITC) on Disaster risk management of cultural heritage.

Retrieved from http://r-dmuch.jp/en/project/itc_2018.html

Velasquez, D., Evans, N., & Kaeding, J. (2016). Risk management and disaster

recovery in public libraries in South Australia: a pilot study. Information Research, 21

(4), 1-21.
Wellheiser, J. & Scott, J. (2002). An ounce of prevention: Integrated disaster planning

for libraries, archives and record centres. Maryland: Scarecrow Press.

Wong, Y. & Green, R. (2006). Disaster planning in libraries. Journal of Access

Services, 4 (3-4), 71-82.

Figure 1 Excerpt from SLQ draft Business continuity plan chart with proposed changes

to integrated framework highlighted. Used with permission by SLQ.

Figure 2 Excerpt from Immediate Actions Reference Chart incorporating scale of disaster

Emergency – Immediate Actions

DOCUMENT
PROCESS SCALE OWNER COMMENTS
RELATION
SHIPS

LEVEL 1 Staff/ Physical Collections COLLECTIONS

A critical incident that
INCIDENT Security • Water leak or spill DISASTER PLAN
has potential to or is
who notice Physical & Digital
damaging collections
Event is a minor the
(physical or digital) is
unforeseen damage/ Digital Collections
noticed
situation calling occurrence • Unscheduled power
for immediate interruption
Where practicable -
action • Pulled cable
take immediate
Incidental • Switch fails
damage to only a • Service failure that
remedial actions to
few items or may require a restart
prevent damage
digitally affecting (eg Email virus
Seek assistance of staff a small area or scanner stops)
in the immediate area use of a service
Figure 3 Contents of generic integrated disaster plan template. Adapted from SLQ

disastertemplate with permission.

Topic Integrated scope

Emergency Immediate Covers digital and physical

Actions Chart
Introduction and explanatory Covers digital and physical
page
Title page
Document Circulation Extend to ICT/digital stakeholders
Related Documents Include additional digital documentation
Document Control
Contents
Attachments Summary List contents of specialised attachments - digital and
physical
1 Executive Summary Integrated - covers digital and physical
2 Introduction Integrated - covers digital and physical

3 Scope Integrated - covers digital and physical

4 Command Structure Command Structure

and key charts -
Emergency Immediate Actions Chart (repeated as required)
typical examples
Activation Plan
Business Continuity Plan Chart
Stakeholder Group
Disaster scale
5 Prevention Brief integrated introduction – covers digital and physical

5.1 Risk Covers digital and physical

Assessment
5.2 Incident Covers digital and physical
Register
5.3 Risk Covers digital and physical and prioritised risks across all
Monitoring collections
5.3.1 Priority physical collections and items (Salvage priorities)
5.3.2 Priority digital resources
6 Preparedness Brief integrated introduction – covers digital and physical
6.1 Currency Digital Physical
6.2 Supplies Internal - digital External - physical
External- digital External - physical
6.3 Personnel Digital Disaster coordinator and Physical Disaster
specialist digital team coordinator and
specialist physical team
6.4 Training Digital Disaster Coordinator and Physical Disaster
specialist digital team Coordinator and
specialist physical team
7 Response Brief integrated introduction – covers digital and physical
7.1 Immediat Based on risk and scale
e Digital Physical
Response
7.2 Retrieval Physical Retrieval
7.3 Sorting Digital – data recovery Physical Sorting
7.4 Salvage Physical Salvage

8 Recovery Brief integrated introduction – covers digital and physical

Digital Recovery Physical Recovery

9 Attachments Specialised attachments - digital and physical

Offsite and remote locations – digital and physical

Table 1 Survey response—disaster preparedness—traditional (physical)

Don't No
Traditional (physical) Yes No Partially know answer Comment
In your organisation is
disaster preparedness a
strategy for physical
preservation? 9 All
Does your organisation
have a disaster preparedness
plan for collection
materials? 9 All
1
The respondent
considered the library was
conceptually integrated at
higher level under the
business continuity plan.
Further investigation
revealed that integration
did not occur at the next
level of disaster plan
documentation.
Is disaster preparedness for
2
digital materials fully Followed up in
integrated as part of this interview as discrepancy
plan at all levels (strategic with answer provided by
and operational) including both preservation
salvage priority lists and managers. Revealed error
offsite back up 2 1, 2 4 2 1 0 in initial survey response.
Table 2 Survey response—disaster preparedness—digital

Don't No
Digital Yes No Partially know answer Comment
In your organisation is
disaster preparedness a
strategy for digital
preservation? 4 5
Does your organisation
have a disaster preparedness
plan for collection
materials? 1 8 0 One only
Is disaster preparedness for
traditional materials fully ‘Having said no I am
integrated as part of this confident we could
plan at all levels (strategic recover the files from
and operational) including backup. However nothing
salvage priority lists and is documented to
offsite back up 0 2 1 0 6 demonstrate the DR plan’.
Table 3 Interview questions relating to the concept of an integrated disaster plan

Subjects Examples of questions

Benefits What are the benefits of an integrated collection disaster plan that
covers physical as well as digital collections?
Disadvantages What might be the disadvantages to such a plan?
Integration What might an integrated disaster preparedness approach look like at
these key stages:
Prevention: assessing the risks?
Preparation: the disaster plan, disaster team, training, salvage priority
list?
Response: turning off utilities, protecting other vulnerable objects?
Recovery: retrieval assessment, of damaged objects, salvage?
Specialist What might be the points requiring specialist knowledge skills
knowledge responses? How would this work in practice?
Barriers What would be the barriers to an integrated framework?
Context Context: How would an integrated framework, plan relate
to organisational frameworks e.g. library business continuity, risk
management?