94 · Survey Results: Survey Questions And Responses
If yes, please briefly describe the evaluation tools and procedures. N=36
Accessions database used to track processing productivity by calculating l.f. processed.
All descriptions are reviewed by the unit head (University Archives, Historical Collections and Labor Archives, and Rare
Books and Manuscripts) and the Processing Coordinator before going to the Special Collections Cataloging Team for
cataloging.
All staff review the fining aids to ensure they are following the template and general processing rules.
Although it varies by collection, we have others in the department read and comment on plans and products such
feedback can be used to revise for improvement.
Annual reports.
Checklists, wikis.
Collection processing is supervised and reviewed by librarians.
Curator holds monthly or infrequent meetings with processing staff to gauge progress or investigate bottlenecks. No
quotas or micromanagement, however.
Develop a processing work plan, as well as a review of the finding aid before it goes live.
Editing by supervisor, and editing by Webmaster before uploading.
Excel spreadsheet simple tally of what each archivist/student/intern processes.
Finding aids are reviewed by Department Head and Metadata by the head of Metadata Services.
More qualitative than quantitative, finding aids are evaluated and edited by the director.
No formal evaluation in place we respond to patron questions and comments and make revisions/corrections
accordingly.
Online reference statistics reflect effectiveness of collection descriptions. A new “tracking” spreadsheet will be used to
generate reports so productivity can be reviewed.
Our Workflows staff reviews all finding aids for DACS compliance and EAD Best Practice compliance.
Processing records, processing activity logs, and work completed logs.
Procedures in the sense of work plans and activity reports. We are moving toward project management software, but
this is not as yet fully implemented.
Processing activities initiate with a discussion with archivist or associate archivist, activities are reviewed and discussed
during the project, and the final product is reviewed by archivist and or assistant archivist.
Processing begins with a written proposal of organization and description that is approved by the Assistant Head and
Head of the Preparation Section and by the manuscript historian or specialist responsible for the collection’s subject
area. The proposal continues to serve as the point of discussion during periodic reviews of the project, which culminate
in the circulation of a preliminary draft of the finding aid to the Assistant Head of the Preparation Section, followed by
an editing draft that circulates through the head of the section, the manuscript historian/subject specialist, the division’s
Reading Room, and the cataloger.
Processing form is completed for each collection and submitted to the supervisor of the processor.
If yes, please briefly describe the evaluation tools and procedures. N=36
Accessions database used to track processing productivity by calculating l.f. processed.
All descriptions are reviewed by the unit head (University Archives, Historical Collections and Labor Archives, and Rare
Books and Manuscripts) and the Processing Coordinator before going to the Special Collections Cataloging Team for
cataloging.
All staff review the fining aids to ensure they are following the template and general processing rules.
Although it varies by collection, we have others in the department read and comment on plans and products such
feedback can be used to revise for improvement.
Annual reports.
Checklists, wikis.
Collection processing is supervised and reviewed by librarians.
Curator holds monthly or infrequent meetings with processing staff to gauge progress or investigate bottlenecks. No
quotas or micromanagement, however.
Develop a processing work plan, as well as a review of the finding aid before it goes live.
Editing by supervisor, and editing by Webmaster before uploading.
Excel spreadsheet simple tally of what each archivist/student/intern processes.
Finding aids are reviewed by Department Head and Metadata by the head of Metadata Services.
More qualitative than quantitative, finding aids are evaluated and edited by the director.
No formal evaluation in place we respond to patron questions and comments and make revisions/corrections
accordingly.
Online reference statistics reflect effectiveness of collection descriptions. A new “tracking” spreadsheet will be used to
generate reports so productivity can be reviewed.
Our Workflows staff reviews all finding aids for DACS compliance and EAD Best Practice compliance.
Processing records, processing activity logs, and work completed logs.
Procedures in the sense of work plans and activity reports. We are moving toward project management software, but
this is not as yet fully implemented.
Processing activities initiate with a discussion with archivist or associate archivist, activities are reviewed and discussed
during the project, and the final product is reviewed by archivist and or assistant archivist.
Processing begins with a written proposal of organization and description that is approved by the Assistant Head and
Head of the Preparation Section and by the manuscript historian or specialist responsible for the collection’s subject
area. The proposal continues to serve as the point of discussion during periodic reviews of the project, which culminate
in the circulation of a preliminary draft of the finding aid to the Assistant Head of the Preparation Section, followed by
an editing draft that circulates through the head of the section, the manuscript historian/subject specialist, the division’s
Reading Room, and the cataloger.
Processing form is completed for each collection and submitted to the supervisor of the processor.
