| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
> Andy Rindsberg wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I'd like to hear your thoughts on this question: What are the
> advantages and disadvantages of storing a large collection from one
> site in one institution, or in two or more widely separated
> institutions?
Dear Andrew,
Summarized points to observe are as follows:
1) Two or more sites:
Advantages:
Better protection against accidents (such as fire, loosing the labels)
Better accessibility for visiting persons
potentially but not necessarily reduced transport costs.
In case of heavy samples: Strong structure or large surface needed.
With two or more sites this can be easily implemented (ground samples
vs. other).
Existing example:
The Ocean Drilling Program: East coast repository, West coast repository
and one in Bremerhaven/Bremen.
Experiences about costs exist there as well and might be asked for.
Disadvantages:
Double or triple storing and maintenance costs, particularly staff
and, if applicable, equipment (such as for example microscopes).
Higher building maintenace costs (compact: Larger wall-surface per
sample).
Higher technology investment costs. Three airconditions cost normally
more
than one larger. Three storage moving devices also more than one large
(e.g. in case of movable walls with no aisles between them).
Possibility of reduced responsibility in case of budget cuts.
A centralized storage can in the worst case be protected by one guard
(= worst case of the worst cases) while a decentralized storage needs
three.
2) A centralized storage:
Basically the reversal of above.
In case of heavy samples / cores: Stronger stucture needed and/or larger
surface.
In case of an irreplacable collection: Disadvantage in case of
accidents.
Factually a centralized storage needs two or three buildings in the
building
(fire protection sections etc.).
Advantage: Less staff required, Webcams, Microphones etc. might
contribute
to cost reduction even at a large storage.
My personal judgement:
It depends on the situation:
If several buildings already exist they might be the wiser solution.
If the buildings are associated with an otherwise safe institution,
where
staff can pursue a variety of assignements (e.g. in the worst case a
university warden might be housekeeper of a nearby storage) the
decentralized version is better.
Experiences of orphaned collections and their subsequent fate should
however collected and considered.
That is: An orphanization must be definitely excluded.
In the long-range the salary component is most likely the deciding
argument.
Didactical example for people saying "staff is cheap a building is
expensive":
German Railway has several high-speed lines with regular speeds being
250(280) to 300 km/h. The railways go nearly straight through the
country,
appearing sometimes drawn with a ruler. Variscan mountains and valleys
are virtually ignored, e.g. cut through by tunnels and bridges.
Considering the high costs of that approach they have been asked why
they don t consider curves?
Official answer: Any curve generates a longer distance and generates on
EACH
day for decades higher costs for operating the trains, not only energy
but also maintenance of trains (higher wearoff), the railway itsself and
reduced customer-satisfaction.
As collections are implemented with "one eye on semi-eternity" the
running costs should be summed up by an explicite Excel calculation.
If the staff at a specific site is however "already there" for other
reasons, e.g. in the worst case pensioned police officers guard the
collection (in case of budget cuts) then for staff only the real costs
should
be calculated, not a high virtual rate.
Budget cuts in the US are reported to be severe, e.g. parents of
school-children protested against teachers being fired. We are also
living in a time of dissolution of states (in Europe,
in Eurasia), privatization including privatization of law (citizens of
Iraq, bombing whom they privately dislike, bin Laden at a large scale
regarding his private view as law and tyring to implement it with mass
murder).
This context: If the mentality of privatization continues, the future
might bring anything, also for collections.
Nobody can scientifically predict to what this may lead.
Thus, as Geological Survey, you might also pull experiences from
Russian/Yugoslavian institutes/collections, how they survived, which
structure is proven to be helpful.
To avoid any misunderstanding: I do definitely not mean any sezession
war
in the US (although the riots around 1990 looked frighteningly
impressive).
If however economic downturn might depopulate a region, selected Russian
experiences might apply to the US as well. Pulling these experiences
might help to make long-term decisions of the asked-for type.
> Cheers,
> Andrew K. Rindsberg
Best regards, Peter
--
****************************************
****************************************
Dr. Peter P. Smolka
Geological Institute
University Muenster
Corrensstr. 24
D-48149 Muenster
Tel+Fax: +49(0)251/833-3989
Tel+Fax: +49(0)2533/4401
E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
PSmolka@T-Online.de
****************************************
****************************************
Partial index: