More Product, Less Process: A Low-Calorie, High-Fiber Alternative to Traditional Archival Processing

1
More Product, Less Process A Low-Calorie,
High-Fiber Alternative to Traditional Archival
Processing
Mark A. Greene, American Heritage Center Dennis
Meissner, Minnesota Historical Society
2
The Problem

• Archival processing does not keep pace with the
  growth of collections

3
The Problem

• Archival processing does not keep pace with the
  growth of collections
• Unprocessed backlogs continue to grow

4
The Problem

• Archival processing does not keep pace with the
  growth of collections
• Unprocessed backlogs continue to grow
• Researchers denied access to collections

5
The Problem

• Archival processing does not keep pace with the
  growth of collections
• Unprocessed backlogs continue to grow
• Researchers denied access to collections
• Our image with donors and resource allocators
  suffers

6
Hypotheses

• Increasing breadth and scale of contemporary
  collections

7
Hypotheses

• Increasing breadth and scale of contemporary
  collections
• Failure to revise processing benchmarks to deal
  with problem

8
Methodology

• Literature review

9
Methodology

• Literature review
• Repository survey

10
Repository Survey Respondents
11
Methodology

• Literature review
• Repository survey
• Grant project survey (NHPRC files)

12
Methodology

• Literature review
• Repository survey
• Grant project survey (NHPRC files)
• User survey

13
Methodology

• Literature review
• Repository survey
• Grant project survey (NHPRC files)
• User survey
• Review of related surveys

14
Findings

• Processing benchmarks and practices are
  inappropriate to deal with problems posed by
  large contemporary collections

15
Findings

• Processing benchmarks and practices are
  inappropriate to deal with problems posed by
  large contemporary collections
• Ideal vs. necessary

16
Findings

• Processing benchmarks and practices are
  inappropriate to deal with problems posed by
  large contemporary collections
• Ideal vs. necessary
• Fixation on item level tasks

17
Findings

• Processing benchmarks and practices are
  inappropriate to deal with problems posed by
  large contemporary collections
• Ideal vs. necessary
• Fixation on item level tasks
• Preservation anxieties trump user needs

18
Findings

• Arrangement
• Practice Still often at the item level

19
Survey Arrangement Practice
20
Findings

• Arrangement
• Practice Still often at the item level
• Warrant Literature mixed, but much advises
  against item level work

21
Findings

• Description
• Practice
• Weak commitment to online access
• Little focus on item level

22
Survey Descriptive Practice
23
Findings

• Description
• Practice
• Weak commitment to online access
• Little focus on item level
• Warrant
• Describe all holdings, in general, before
  describing some in detail
• Descriptive level follows arrangement level
• Level varies from collection to collection

24
Findings

• Conservation
• Practice Strong commitment to item level work

25
Survey Conservation Practice
26
Findings

• Conservation
• Practice Strong commitment to item level work
• Warrant Item-focused conservation prescriptions
  often contradict advice on arrangement and
  description

27
Findings

• Metrics
• Literature Range of 4-40 hours per cubic foot

28
Findings

• Metrics
• Literature Range of 4-40 hours per cubic foot
• However, a convincing body of experience
  coalesces at the high-productivity end
• Maher, 1982 (3.4 hours per cubic foot)
• Haller, 1987 (3.8 hours per cubic foot)
• Northeastern University Processing Manual (4-10
  hours per cubic foot)

29
Productivity Expectations(Hours/cubic foot)
30
Findings

• Metrics
• Literature Range of 4 - 40 hours per cubic foot
• Grant Project Survey 0.6 67 hours per cubic
  foot (Mode 33 hours Mean 9 hours)

31
NHPRC Grant Files Survey Cubic Feet
Processed Per Day
32
Findings

• Metrics
• Literature Range of 4 - 40 hours per cubic foot
• Grant Project Survey 0.6 67 hours per cubic
  foot (Mode 33 Mean 9)
• Survey of Archivists 2 250 hours per cubic
  foot (Mode 8 Mean 14.8)

33
Repository Survey Quantity that Archivist Can
Process in a Year
34
Recommendations

• General Principles for Change

35
Recommendations

• General Principles for Change
• Establish acceptable minimum level of work, and
  make it the processing benchmark

36
Recommendations

• General Principles for Change
• Establish acceptable minimum level of work, and
  make it the benchmark
• Dont assume all collections, or all collection
  components, will be processed to same level

37
Recommendations

• Arrangement
• Description
• Conservation
• Productivity

38
Recommendations

• Arrangement
• In normal or typical situations, the physical
  arrangement of materials in archival groups and
  manuscript collections should not take place
  below the series level

39
Recommendations

• Arrangement
• In normal or typical situations, the physical
  arrangement of materials in archival groups and
  manuscript collections should not take place
  below the series level
• Not all series and all files in a collection need
  to be arranged to the same level

40
Recommendations

• Description
• Since description represents arrangement
  describe materials at a level of detail
  appropriate to that level of arrangement

41
Recommendations

• Description
• Since description represents arrangement
  describe materials at a level of detail
  appropriate to that level of arrangement
• Keep description brief and simple

42
Recommendations

• Description
• Since description represents arrangement
  describe materials at a level of detail
  appropriate to that level of arrangement
• Keep description brief and simple
• Level of description should vary across
  collections, and across components within a
  collection

43
Recommendations

• Conservation
• Rely on storage area environmental controls to
  carry the conservation burden

44
Recommendations

• Conservation
• Rely on storage area environmental controls to
  carry the conservation burden
• Avoid wholesale refoldering

45
Recommendations

• Conservation
• Rely on storage area environmental controls to
  carry the conservation burden
• Avoid wholesale refoldering
• Avoid removing and replacing metal fasteners

46
Recommendations

• Conservation
• Rely on storage area environmental controls to
  carry the conservation burden
• Avoid wholesale refoldering
• Avoid removing and replacing metal fasteners
• Avoid photocopying items on poor paper

47
Recommendations

• Conservation
• Rely on storage area environmental controls to
  carry the conservation burden
• Dont perform conservation tasks at a lower
  hierarchical level than you perform arrangement
  and description

48
Recommendations

• Productivity
• A processing archivist ought to be able to
  arrange and describe large twentieth century
  archival materials at an average rate of 4 hours
  per cubic foot

49
GOAL Effective collection management
strategies

• User access is preeminent objective

50
GOAL Effective collection management
strategies

• User access is preeminent objective
• Resource management is crucial strategy

51
GOAL Effective collection management
strategies

• User access is preeminent objective
• Resource management is crucial strategy
• We must understand the practical consequences of
  our processing decisions

52
Lessons learned

• What do our users really need and expect?
• Access
• Online discovery tools
• Effective finding aids

53
Lessons learned

• What are the essentials of effective arrangement
  work?
• Respect des fonds
• Original order
• Series-level arrangement

54
Lessons learned

• What preservation activities are truly necessary?
  
• Protection from light
• Protection from atmospheric pollutants
• Protection from excessive heat
• Protection from moisture

55
Lessons learned

• What productivity levels can realistically be
  achieved and expected?

56
Understanding our behavior

• Our processing actions contradict our managerial
  self image

57
Past Model

• Process driven
• Resource insensitive
• Artisan quality
• High unit cost
• Lengthy turnaround
• Stable resources

58
Future Model

• Audience driven
• Resource sensitive
• Production quality
• Low unit cost
• Rapid turnaround
• Uncertain resources

59
A better model

• Make user access paramount the most material
  available in a usable form

60
A better model

• Expend the greatest effort on the most deserving
  or needful materials

61
A better model

•     
• Establish acceptable minimum level of work, and
  make it the processing benchmark

62
A better model

• Embrace flexibility Dont assume all
  collections, or all collection components, will
  be processed to same level

63
A better model

• Embrace ambiguity Stop pretending that you
  know what will be important in the future
• User needs and interests
• Access and description needs
• See every collection as a potential work in
  progress
• Let future events drive further work

64
A better model

• Dont allow preservation anxieties to trump user
  access and higher managerial values

65
A better model

• Establish good risk management models

66
Early Implementers

• University of MontanaMissoula
• Donna McCrea donna.mccrea_at_umontana.edu
• No physical work within file folders
• Uniform collection-level descriptive access
• No weeding below series level for backlog
• No notable user acceptance problems
• 2 hours per linear foot on average

67
Early Implementers

• Yale Univ.Manuscripts Archives
• Christine Weideman christine.weideman_at_yale.edu
• Minimal but adequate processing at point of
  accessioning
• Offer to share processing work with donors
• Emphasize flexibility in approach each collection

68
Early Implementers

• Texas Christian University Archives
• Michael Strom m.strom_at_tcu.edu
• Jim Wright Congressional Papers (huge)
• Minimal processing on most series, reserving
  intensive work for others
• Restricted appraisal to high-level decisions only
• Proved effective for guiding student workers
• Productivity increases have impressed deans

69
Early Implementers

• YaleBeinecke Library
• Tom Hyry thomas.hyry_at_yale.edu
• Use drives processing priorities and levels
• Minimum standard used on vast majority
• All collections should have basic descriptions
  before any receive more detailed description
• All collections are not created equal

70
Early Implementers

• Univ. of WIEau Claire
• Colleen McFarland mcfarlcd_at_uwec.edu
• Be flexible rigid standards dont work
• Be imperfect keep focused on the forest
• Focus on users Access is their priority

71
Early Implementers

• Univ. of AlaskaFairbanks
• Anne Foster ffalf_at_uaf.edu
• Series level processing of extensive photographs
• Lets use drive more intensive processing
• Involves donor in processing continuum
• Solicits donations from donors for more
  processing

72
Early Implementers

• Univ. of WIOshkosh
• Joshua Ranger ranger_at_uwosh.edu
• Series level processing of digitized collections
• High-speed bi-tonal scanning of photocopied
  collection materials
• The perfect is the enemy of the good
• Move metadata level from item to folder level

73
Early Implementers

• Library of CongressPrints Photos
• Helena Zinkham hzin_at_loc.gov
• Minimal processing of photo collections
• Prioritize level and sequencing of processing
  work based on collection characteristics use,
  value, viability
• Save big efforts for the neediest materials

74
Insanity is when you do things the way youve
always done them, but expect a different result.
--adage ascribed to both Albert Einstein and
Ralph Waldo Emerson.