Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives, SPEC Kit 314 (November 2009)

Hackbart-Dean, Pam; Slomba, Elizabeth

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 89
Digitization projects offer a powerful inducement to preparing finding aids to provide access to those collections.
Digitization projects often result in the reprocessing of collections to the item level as well as collection rehousing and
preservation reformatting as needed.
Digitization projects, which are usually grant funded, move unprocessed material to the head of the processing and
cataloging line.
Digitization usually requires item-level metadata that must be manually contributed. It takes resources away from
collective description.
Expertise gained through EAD work positioned Curator as policy leader in library-wide digitization programs.
For us, this has more to do with making the finding aid for a collection work with digital objects from that collection that
live in a digital assets management system. This is especially relevant as we push on with our efforts to digitize whole
collections. For processing, this effort has an impact on the levels of description in the finding aid because of the way
links from the finding aid to the digital objects are created. It all has to work together.
Great for patron access and preservation, but our digitization efforts tend to be somewhat driven by patron demand for
specific collections.
Has no effect.
High demand for university sports images demand for some photograph collections.
If a collection looks like a good potential digitization project, it would be placed in a higher priority processing queue
but how it is processed would not change.
If we are going to digitize something, we need to have it processed to a more minute level than otherwise.
If we are processing a collection in conjunction with digitizing some or all of it, it’s likely to affect the level of processing.
Both the selection of items to digitize, and the type/quantity of metadata required for digital objects, are likely to require
item-level processing of all or part of the collection.
Impact on staff, still reviewing new approaches.
In process.
Increased knowledge of our collections but again, item-level digitizing is time consuming and labor intensive, and can
interfere with collections processing.
Increased requests for item-level control and description of digital assets.
Increased usage of our collections due to online access helps to determine which collections to digitize based on usage.
Increases use of collection but also requires resources.
Introduces a new element to decision making about processing, in some cases better access for users.
It takes a great deal of time by department personnel to scan, create appropriate metadata, and place materials online
but the result is increased visibility and access. Within the last year our Digital Library Services department has provided
more support for departmental digitization projects than in the past and this has really helped move projects forward.
Large and looming. We have 30 hours of Newsfilm digitized, 32 hours of interview footage, and 850 Peabody programs
digitized. This has affected us on every level from preservation to metadata creation. It has certainly improved access to
the collections and has increased use of the collections.

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

Extracted Text (may have errors)

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts &Archives · 89
Digitization projects offer a powerful inducement to preparing finding aids to provide access to those collections.
Digitization projects often result in the reprocessing of collections to the item level as well as collection rehousing and
preservation reformatting as needed.
Digitization projects, which are usually grant funded, move unprocessed material to the head of the processing and
cataloging line.
Digitization usually requires item-level metadata that must be manually contributed. It takes resources away from
collective description.
Expertise gained through EAD work positioned Curator as policy leader in library-wide digitization programs.
For us, this has more to do with making the finding aid for a collection work with digital objects from that collection that
live in a digital assets management system. This is especially relevant as we push on with our efforts to digitize whole
collections. For processing, this effort has an impact on the levels of description in the finding aid because of the way
links from the finding aid to the digital objects are created. It all has to work together.
Great for patron access and preservation, but our digitization efforts tend to be somewhat driven by patron demand for
specific collections.
Has no effect.
High demand for university sports images demand for some photograph collections.
If a collection looks like a good potential digitization project, it would be placed in a higher priority processing queue
but how it is processed would not change.
If we are going to digitize something, we need to have it processed to a more minute level than otherwise.
If we are processing a collection in conjunction with digitizing some or all of it, it’s likely to affect the level of processing.
Both the selection of items to digitize, and the type/quantity of metadata required for digital objects, are likely to require
item-level processing of all or part of the collection.
Impact on staff, still reviewing new approaches.
In process.
Increased knowledge of our collections but again, item-level digitizing is time consuming and labor intensive, and can
interfere with collections processing.
Increased requests for item-level control and description of digital assets.
Increased usage of our collections due to online access helps to determine which collections to digitize based on usage.
Increases use of collection but also requires resources.
Introduces a new element to decision making about processing, in some cases better access for users.
It takes a great deal of time by department personnel to scan, create appropriate metadata, and place materials online
but the result is increased visibility and access. Within the last year our Digital Library Services department has provided
more support for departmental digitization projects than in the past and this has really helped move projects forward.
Large and looming. We have 30 hours of Newsfilm digitized, 32 hours of interview footage, and 850 Peabody programs
digitized. This has affected us on every level from preservation to metadata creation. It has certainly improved access to
the collections and has increased use of the collections.

Help

88 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
collection data, including records management data (retention, disposition, etc.).
We have chosen not to use these software packages.
We have just started using Archivists’ Toolkit for collection level records.
We have no plans at this time to use archival management software.
We use Archivists’ Toolkit for accessions only.
When we make processing decisions, this is not important in our decision making.
Working toward.
Impact of digitization projects N=65
A couple of major digitization projects have greatly influences the level of processing. These digitization projects have
driven detailed description and processing work.
Access and use of photographic materials for research and publication use.
Decisions for digitizing are determined by a number of factors: unique collections that we wish to highlight research
value to the campus and other users size of collection condition of collection available funding (internally or
externally), etc.
Digital projects are made available on the scarab Internet sites via link and on the UM Digital Library site. These
products are primarily serial publications specific to the campus or the university system. We use an introductory
paragraph or two that resembles a collection description from an inventory and then digital publications issues can be
either keyword searched or browsed by the date and or issue number.
Digital projects drive item-level description which often impacts processing decisions.
Digitization does push us to a more refined level of description, even though it need not necessarily do so. We do shoot
for the most detail we can deliver and we will be tested by our first truly mass digitization project, which begins next
week, but thus far our meso-level projects have been possible at more or less the item level.
Digitization has had some impact on user requests for copies and it has increased demand for other materials to be
digitized. We have received compliments on digitized material which suggests an impact on collection reputation.
Digitization has meant that all or parts of our collection must be treated at the item level.
Digitization has resulted in increased demand for the use of the originals, and high demand for copies of digital
surrogates.
Digitization is currently not a part of processing unless as a preservation measure Digital objects are managed in
contentDM and any digitized items are not integrated into the finding aid except at the collection level with a link to
the digital content in contentDM/the Louisiana Digital Library. However, reflecting the trend to minimal processing,
digitization projects are increasingly considering and in some cases employing non-item level description—either folder
level or group level (within a folder but not at the item level).
Digitization of collection material slows its processing, but has not affected decision making on the level of processing.
Digitization of collections does not impact the processing but does, at times, impact the EAD markup.
Digitization projects drive descriptive policy (more granular metadata) than the other way around.

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

90 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
More processing work: item-level description not previously done management of digital objects file versions.
Need to make sure that finding aid descriptions are detailed enough to reuse as metadata. Link images to finding aids
after the finding aid is completely tagged and the images have been loaded to contentDM.
No impact yet.
None. (2 responses)
Often requires more detailed description at the item level but this work is performed by staff in our digital library which
means their workload will impact decisions for this level.
On occasion drives the processing decisions and increases the visibility of a collection.
Pilot project digitizing 22 linear foot manuscript collection running 2008–2010, impact assessed upon completion of
project.
Put it up and they will come.
RBSC: requires accurate data set more detail in description.
Requires more item-level processing while we’re moving away from more detailed access, digitization is pulling us back
in this direction.
Significant impact.
The few digitization projects we’ve completed have increased use exponentially. We digitized 6,000–7,000 wax
cylinders with an IMLS grant and anyone can listen or download. There have been several million hits on the cylinder
Web site and access to some of the rarer items has resulted in major new directions for research in historical sound
recordings.
The Library’s pilot digitization projects have demonstrated the usefulness of repurposing metadata. The projects have
also raised the need for more effective content management, especially for cross collection searching and linking to
digital content.
The opportunity to add a collection to a list of digitization projects has a major impact on which collections get what
level of processing.
Things must be processed to the item level.
This conflicts with MPLP because especially for photos they really need item-level description to be useful to and
locatable by patrons.
This has a tremendous amount of impact. Obviously, it’s what our researchers want. It brings exposure to the archives
and gets users interested.
To be determined pilot projects just underway.
Top priority.
Useful for reference but inherent expectation that everything can and will be available electronically.
We are only digitizing from processed collections.
We digitize only processed collections, so decisions about what to digitize and what to process must be coordinated. In
general, we are digitizing collections in order to provide better access to important collections, and these are collections
that also have a high priority for processing. Digitization as we have done it so far requires item-level description—

Previous Page Next Page

Page 7Survey Results click to expand contents

Page 123Representative Documents click to expand contents

Page 125Job Description of Processing Decision Maker click to expand contents

Page 129Job Descriptions of Processing Staff click to expand contents

Page 133Processing Policy click to expand contents

Page 137Processing Procedures Manuals click to expand contents

Page 143Processing Worksheets click to expand contents

Page 151Procedures for Prioritizing Processing click to expand contents

Page 155Collecting Processing Statistics click to expand contents

Page 159Sample Statistics Reports click to expand contents

Page 163Selected Resources click to expand contents

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

All section downloads (PDF) click to expand contents

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

loading

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources

SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) resources