118 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
Challenge 1: Challenge 2: Challenge 3:
Tension between needs of researchers
and ability of staff to arrange and
describe increasingly larger and more
complex collections.
Reconciling archival description with the
requirements of digitization metadata
needs.
Anticipating how Web 2.0 technologies
might be leveraged to assist in
providing greater access to archival
materials, while doing so in a controlled
environment.
The biggest challenge is to find
processing time while we’re dealing
with a surge of patrons. Reference
services are consuming now a great deal
of our time.
Another challenge is weighing
the processing of partially closed,
institutional records (limited use, but
important to our host institution)
against more widely-opened but less
important materials.
The size of the archives. The number of donations of archives. Complexity of the fonds or collection
and its order.
We are beginning to receive collections
of materials primarily in digital formats.
Although we have implemented
procedures for flexible, efficient
processing of large twentieth-century
collections, the born-digital material
threatens to send us back to item-
level processing. We need to develop
tools and procedures that will let us
identify, preserve, and provide access to
digital files without having to address
individual files on a server, CD, DVD, or
other medium.
Our current processing efforts are
focused on providing better storage
and access for architectural collections.
We are applying principles of flexible,
efficient processing to these fragile and
oversize materials as well as to other
20th-century collections we hold. Our
most valuable collections merit storage
in flat files, but we need alternatives
that make more efficient use of space
while still allowing good access for other
collections.
We have made the decisions that it
is important to have at least minimal
descriptive information available about
all of our collections. For this reason, we
have been working to develop tools and
workflows that will allow our processing
to keep up with our acquisitions and
allow us to address our backlog. We are
currently developing a workflow that
allows for minimal processing at the
point of accessioning.
We have a very small staff, and we’re
probably going to lose a position due to
budget cuts. Part of that position would
be processing, EAD guides, etc.
We’ve been developing more content
of our own, e.g., Web sites on specific
topics, so we’re having to balance that
type of work versus more traditional
processing work.
We want increasingly, and are under
pressure, to offer digital surrogates
at the item level. This involves many
challenges — of format, of copy and
other rights, of metadata creation and
entry.
What level should a collection be
processed.
Which collections should be processed
out of massive backlogs.
Having the right staff to process
collections.
Challenge 1: Challenge 2: Challenge 3:
Tension between needs of researchers
and ability of staff to arrange and
describe increasingly larger and more
complex collections.
Reconciling archival description with the
requirements of digitization metadata
needs.
Anticipating how Web 2.0 technologies
might be leveraged to assist in
providing greater access to archival
materials, while doing so in a controlled
environment.
The biggest challenge is to find
processing time while we’re dealing
with a surge of patrons. Reference
services are consuming now a great deal
of our time.
Another challenge is weighing
the processing of partially closed,
institutional records (limited use, but
important to our host institution)
against more widely-opened but less
important materials.
The size of the archives. The number of donations of archives. Complexity of the fonds or collection
and its order.
We are beginning to receive collections
of materials primarily in digital formats.
Although we have implemented
procedures for flexible, efficient
processing of large twentieth-century
collections, the born-digital material
threatens to send us back to item-
level processing. We need to develop
tools and procedures that will let us
identify, preserve, and provide access to
digital files without having to address
individual files on a server, CD, DVD, or
other medium.
Our current processing efforts are
focused on providing better storage
and access for architectural collections.
We are applying principles of flexible,
efficient processing to these fragile and
oversize materials as well as to other
20th-century collections we hold. Our
most valuable collections merit storage
in flat files, but we need alternatives
that make more efficient use of space
while still allowing good access for other
collections.
We have made the decisions that it
is important to have at least minimal
descriptive information available about
all of our collections. For this reason, we
have been working to develop tools and
workflows that will allow our processing
to keep up with our acquisitions and
allow us to address our backlog. We are
currently developing a workflow that
allows for minimal processing at the
point of accessioning.
We have a very small staff, and we’re
probably going to lose a position due to
budget cuts. Part of that position would
be processing, EAD guides, etc.
We’ve been developing more content
of our own, e.g., Web sites on specific
topics, so we’re having to balance that
type of work versus more traditional
processing work.
We want increasingly, and are under
pressure, to offer digital surrogates
at the item level. This involves many
challenges — of format, of copy and
other rights, of metadata creation and
entry.
What level should a collection be
processed.
Which collections should be processed
out of massive backlogs.
Having the right staff to process
collections.
