SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 13
Management Tools
Just over half of the respondents (39 or 54%) have a
written processing policy for manuscripts and archi-
val collections. Of the 33 (46%) who don’t, 14 commu-
nicate standard practices verbally, seven by written
procedure manuals, and five through hands-on train-
ing. More of the responding institutions (52 or 74%)
have in-house processing procedures manuals and 51
have documents that list workflow steps.
Process Evaluation and Statistics
Thirty-eight respondents (53%) indicated that their
institutions have procedures or tools to monitor and
evaluate manuscript and archives processing activi-
ties. The types of tools and procedures included Excel
spreadsheets, annual reports, and review of finding
aids once they are completed by designated staff
members. The vast majority of the responding librar-
ies (68 or 94%) do collect statistics about processing.
Most commonly they gather information about the
number of accessions and the physical size of collec-
tions processed, followed by the number of finding
aids digitized/encoded and the number of catalog re-
cords created/updated. Statistics are reported largely
through annual reports and the annual ARL statistics.
Estimating Processing Work and Processing
Metrics
When asked how libraries calculate the amount of
time it takes to process manuscript collections, not
one institution indicated that they followed Greene
and Meissner’s calculation “that a competent process-
ing archivist ought to be able to arrange and describe
large twentieth century archival materials at an aver-
age rate of 4 hours per cubic foot.”6 A portion of the
respondents use internal tools, past experience, past
observations, and experiments to estimate processing
time, while many of the Canadian libraries refer to
the Canadian Council of Archives Time Guidelines for
Arrangement and Description Project, published in 2007.
Two respondents are using the Beinecke Rare Book
and Manuscript processing manual to estimate pro-
cessing rates (available online at http://www.library.
yale.edu/beinecke/manuscript/process/). Still others
have no standard way for calculating time or do not
calculate time at all.
Only seven of the respondents (10%) indicated they
use processing metrics—a formula used to measure
or predict the success of outcomes—when making
processing decisions. Of those who use metrics, one
respondent compared the estimated time required
with the actual time elapsed for processing. Another
indicated that “this has worked best for use with rela-
tively orderly collections.”
Staff Training
Not surprisingly, 100% of the respondents checked
“on-the-job” when asked how staff who are respon-
sible for processing received their training. Other pop-
ular methods include professional association-spon-
sored workshops and library school, followed closely
by peers, conferences, and professional reading. When
asked the most important skills needed for processing,
the majority indicated organization, attention to detail,
and analytical skills. One respondent said it this way:
“Resilience, flexibility, and intelligence: processing is
as much art as craft and somebody has got to see the
big picture before launching themselves on the myriad
parts. In my experience, staff either has the instincts
to be a useful processor or they don’t. If they don’t, it
doesn’t matter how much ’training‘ you throw at them:
they still don’t get the point.”
Challenges of Making Processing Decisions
When asked to provide three challenges faced in
making processing decisions, most respondents gave
what were expected and unsurprising answers. One
person’s replies sum up these answers: ”Adequate
funding” and “Adequate staffing levels.” This is a
continual challenge and was put eloquently by one
respondent, “An ongoing challenge is trying to pro-
cess collections with insufficient staff. Acquisitions
continue, but staffing remains at unchanging levels.”
Other common challenges include handling backlogs
and related space issues.
In addition to the lack of resources libraries con-
tinue to face, respondents also report that technology
is an obstacle to making decisions in processing col-
lections. Issues of concern are born-digital materials,
digitization demands, and media obsolescence. One
respondent was concerned how to provide “access to
and preservation of born digital archival materials
Previous Page Next Page