Post on 17-Jul-2020
Faster access to archival collections in NSLA libraries by National & State Libraries Australasia ©2010, is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. All written text in this document is available for re-use under the terms of this Creative Commons licence. All rights are reserved for any text that has been referenced with appropriate attribution, which should not be copied, adapted, redistributed, or otherwise used without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Re-imagining Libraries Project 8: Description and
Cataloguing Faster access to archival
collections in NSLA libraries
Project report
Marie-Louise Ayres
National Library of Australia October 2010
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
1 of 45
Table of Contents
1 Purpose 4
2 Executive summary 4
3 Recommendations 7
Human resources 7
Infrastructure 8
‘One library’ 8
Rapid access to collections 8
Optimising use of scarce resources 8
Backlogs 9
Beyond local discoverability 9
New challenges 9
4 Background 10
4.1 Surveys and response rates 10
5 Findings on archival context 11
5.1 Organisational structure 11
5.2 Staff 12
5.3 Volunteers and student workers 13
5.4 Collection size 13
5.5 Collection growth 14
5.5.1 Acquisition opportunities 14
5.5.2 Receipts 14
5.6 Percentage of staff time devoted to individual collection activities 15
5.7 Ratio of staff to collection growth 17
5.7.1 Staff required to achieve equilibrium 17
5.8 Arrearages 18
5.8.1 Accessioning arrearages 18
5.8.2 Arrangement and description arrearages 18
5.9 Approach to description 19
5.10 Descriptive standards 20
5.11 Access points 20
5.12 Encoding standards 21
5.13 Collection management systems 21
5.14 Digitising archival material 22
5.15 Born‐digital archives 23
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
2 of 45
5.16 Online access to collections 23
5.16.1 Catalogue records 23
5.16.2 Records on Libraries Australia/Trove 24
5.16.3 Finding aids 25
5.17 Physical infrastructure 25
5.18 Discoverability of new collections and additions to collections 26
5.19 Ways of handling additions to collections 26
5.20 Processing policies 27
5.21 Access to unprocessed collections 27
6 Findings on archival practice and performance 28
6.1 Supplier requirements 28
6.2 Accessioning practice 30
6.2.1 Note on access conditions 32
6.2.2 Assigning processing priorities 32
6.3 Arrangement and description practice 33
6.3.1 Arrangement 33
6.3.2 Description 34
6.3.3 Preservation actions 35
6.4 Processing performance 36
6.5 Accessioning performance 37
6.6 Factors affecting accessioning performance 38
6.7 Arrangement and description performance 38
6.8 Factors affecting arrangement and description productivity 39
6.9 Recent changes to processing archival collections 40
6.10 Blue sky 41
6.11 The real world 42
6.11.1 Worries 43
6.11.2 Things that would help 43
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
3 of 45
1 Purpose
This work package aimed to identify the key issues that impact on the timeliness and
effectiveness of providing end user access to NSLA’s archival (Manuscripts1) collections. The
work package was designed to deliver NSLA wide information on archival processing
practices and performance, and a set of recommendations that NSLA’s collections managers
can use to improve performance. The agreed deliverables were:
▪ NSLA wide comparative data on all aspects of archival processing – from pre‐acquisition to
full processing – to assist collection managers to review current practice and performance.
▪ A common framework for assessing archival processing practice and performance.
The agreed list of products was:
▪ A survey of archival processing practices and performance in NSLA libraries.
▪ Analysis of the results of the survey.
▪ Recommendations for reducing the time required from receipt to accessibility of archival
collections.
▪ A workshop to discuss recommendations
▪ Agreed procedures and approaches for implementing recommendations.
▪ Evaluation reports 6 and 12 months after completion of project on progress with
implementation of recommendations
This document documents the findings of two surveys conducted to determine the context in
which archival processing occurs in NSLA libraries, and to document current practice and
performance. It delivers all but the final two products of the work package.
2 Executive summary
In recent years, the international library community has increasingly turned its attention to
how to expose ‘hidden’ collections, and how to maximise access to the very ‘long tail’ of rare
and unique collections. The OCLC Research Libraries Group is currently conducting a suite of
projects aimed at analysing current practice, the aim of which is to ‘achieve economies and
efficiencies that permit the unique materials in libraries, archives and museums to be
effectively described, properly disclosed, successfully discovered and appropriately
delivered’i.
The work leading to this report has been conducted in the context of, and in consultation with
those working on the RLG projects. Where international comparisons are available, they have
been included in the report analysis.
The most striking overall impression arising from the surveys and analysis of their results is
the relative lack of standardisation of practice and performance across the NSLA libraries.
Areas where context, practice and performance vary markedly include:
1 Pictorial and oral history collections were specifically excluded from this work package.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
4 of 45
▪ Nomenclature. ‘To accession’ has significantly different meanings across the NSLA
libraries. For some, ‘to accession’ means initial registration of collections, often invisible to
the end users. For others, ‘to accession’ means to describe receipts to the point of usability,
but not to describe contents below the summary level, i.e. not to arrange and describe. For
others, ‘to accession’ means to fully process the collection, down to description at the item
(i.e. volume or file) level.
▪ Organisational structure. NSLA libraries are split 50/50 on organisation by format and by
function. This means that the experience of archival management staff is very different
across the NSLA libraries. Remaining alert to those differences, and working actively to
mitigate against the disadvantages of each model should allow archival staff working in
different organisational structures to communicate more effectively at the national level.
▪ Collection growth. Some NSLA libraries are experiencing very significant growth in
acquisition offers and receipts (whether measured in numbers of metres); others are in a
more static phase.
▪ Staff to growth ratios. There seems to be a weak relationship between collection growth
and workload on the one hand, and availability of staffing resources on the other. While
this obviously reflects the constrained resourcing environments in which all libraries exist,
it also suggests that NSLA libraries are unable or unwilling to shift resources to strained
special collections areas.
▪ Systems infrastructure. Some libraries use specialist archival management systems; some
use a combination of library management and archival management systems; others do the
best they can with a library management system and standard office software. Most have
to patch together work in various systems, resulting in duplication of data, churn, and
inevitable asynchonicity of data sources.
▪ Physical infrastructure. Processing large archival collections takes space and equipment.
Some libraries have good facilities for efficiently handling large collections. Others
effectively force staff to work on small subsets of collections at their desk, packing up
whenever their opportunity to work on the collection is over.
▪ Processing policies. Some libraries retain policies that assume that all archival collections
will be fully arranged and described to the same level (despite large and rapidly growing
backlogs). Some libraries have shifted to more nuanced processing policies which see even
very large collections deemed out of scope for processing beyond the collection level
record. Several libraries are feeling their way towards a ‘fit for purpose’ processing
environment.
▪ Accessioning practice. The only common elements across the NSLA libraries for what
constitutes ‘completed’ accessioning are labelling and shelving the receipt. This speaks
volumes for the variety of practice and variety of capacity to provide the fastest possible
access to archives in NSLA custody.
▪ Arrangement and description practice. There is significant variation in both physical and
descriptive practices for collections being ‘fully’ processed. On the other hand, the survey
results showed that NSLA libraries are less bogged down in the kinds of ‘processing’ that
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
5 of 45
inhibits delivery of product than a large sample of US libraries surveyed in 2005. NSLA
libraries appear to be more efficient than their US counterparts.
▪ Content and encoding standards. While most libraries conform to the AACR2 content
standard for summary records, there is no common content standard or approach for
deeper description of the contents of archives. MARC is not used by all libraries to
describe archival collections; EAD is used by only a few libraries to encode finding aids.
▪ Online discoverability. Some libraries create brief records for new collections on their
OPACs almost immediately after receipt. Some libraries do not expose any descriptions of
new collections until accessioning (according to local definitions) is complete.
▪ Discoverability in federated environments. Only some Australian libraries contribute all
records for archival collections to Libraries Australia/Trove. Given that discoverability
through Trove (and through OCLC) significantly enhances visibility of collections, many
archives in NSLA custody are much less discoverable than they could be.
There are, of course, ‘common’ features across the NSLA community. Many of these give
great cause for optimism. Archival management staff are highly educated and highly
committed to their work. Great strides have been made in the last 10 years in increasing the
percentage of collections catalogued, of catalogue records available online, and of finding aids
available online. A number of NSLA libraries are in the throes of major reengineering of their
archival management workflows, and have taken to heart the lessons of the international
archival literature of the last 5 years. Most libraries recognise that they must change their
culture and practices – and rapidly increase throughput – if they are to meet researcher needs
in a static or diminishing resourcing environment. Most respondents put a high premium on
redeveloping workflows, and most libraries are investing more in archival management
systems than has been the case in the past.
Other ‘common’ features are more worrying. NSLA libraries have very poor information on
processing performance; most cannot even begin to estimate how long core and repeatable
activities (such as arrangement and description) should take. Archival collection management
work is severely under‐measured, making it difficult for senior managers to decide whether
the programs in their library are efficient, inefficient, or vary between those points.
Backlogs of unaccessioned or poorly described material are very significant, and remain
stubbornly high even where policies and practices have changed. Significant quantities of
unique archival material in NSLA custody are completely invisible to potential researchers.
Very large numbers of useful finding aids are still not available online, making the contents of
collections less discoverable, and tying library staff to a ‘mediator’ role for researchers
wanting further information.
Most libraries are very concerned at their inability to effectively manage born digital archives,
and very few libraries have any but the most limited capacity to digitise parts of their archival
collections.
These differences – and commonalities – mean there is significant scope for working towards
‘one library’ standardisation where this is feasible and useful, and great scope for illuminating
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
6 of 45
aspects of archival context, practice and performance that are impeding rapid access to
archival collections.
The time seems to be ‘ripe’ for tackling these issues within the NSLA archival community: a
good body of international literature exists to provide context to our efforts; new systems
options make streamlined collection management more possible; and generational change
within NSLA libraries is encouraging new ways of thinking about collections. More archival
staff are thinking, as this Project 8 participant did:
Our processes are too often focused on what we want and can do, not what our clients
want, and inflict delays on clients who want to access collections quickly2.
With sufficient direction and leadership from the NSLA CEOs, changing our practices and
performances to get archives into the hands of researchers as soon as possible after they are
transferred to our libraries is both possible and necessary.
3 Recommendations
1. That all NSLA CEOs consider the following recommendations, and indicate within 3
months as to whether they agree broadly to each of the recommendations, and nominating
their top priorities for action. This collaborative approach to prioritising work will then be
used to develop a specific work plan.
2. That NSLA considers providing funding (of approximately $30,000 to support a 12 week
project) to support production of the following next‐stage deliverables, to be returned to
CEOs for endorsement on completion:
a) Library‐specific versions of the report, showing each CEO where their library sits in
relation to other NSLA libraries across the various report elements.
b) Best practice guide to providing rapid access to recent receipts.
c) Best practice guide to arrangement and description for collections requiring further
description.
d) Guidelines for donors preparing their personal digital archives for transfer to NSLA
libraries.
3. That NSLA CEOs consider whether activities and reporting against the specific
recommendations should be conducted within the NSLA Project 8 group, or within a
Heritage Collections NSLA sub‐group.
Specific recommendations arising from analysis of the survey results are grouped into several
categories below.
Human resources
4. Note the modesty of resources devoted to archival collection management, the rapidly
escalating workload in most libraries, and consider increasing archival collection
2 Kevin Marsh, State Library of Western Australia
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
7 of 45
management resources, especially in the light of international work on the importance of
prioritising description of unique and rare collections.
5. Consider the benefits and drawbacks of the two main organisational models, and develop
clear strategies to minimise the disadvantages of whichever model is in place for the
library.
Infrastructure
6. Invest in new or existing archival collection management systems – and in the integration
of these systems with other corporate systems – as this has a significant benefit on
processing productivity
7. Invest in physical infrastructure available for processing large and often unwieldy
collections, as this has a significant benefit on processing productivity.
‘One library’
8. Standardise use of key (but differently understood terms), especially ‘accession’ and
‘arrangement and description’.
9. Create clear and publicly available statements on which content and encoding standards
each library follows for description of archival collections, and the degree of compliance.
10. Undertake further research on the consequences of the lack of a uniform approach or
content standard, in the Trove and federated discovery environment, and how to minimise
these consequencesii.
Rapid access to collections
11. Shift staffing resources and skills to pre‐transfer activities, e.g. appraisal and donor liaison.
The quality of pre‐transfer actions by suppliers and libraries has a major impact on the
quality and timeliness of collection description.
12. Require most donors to provide archival collections boxed and listed, so that every receipt
is usable soon after transfer. For those libraries paying for valuations, require valuers to
supply detailed lists in re‐usable form (e.g. spreadsheet or table)
13. Create visible online records for new receipts as soon as possible after receipt, while
awaiting completion of initial accessioning.
14. Create the best possible collection level record as soon as possible after receipt, as further
description may be years or decades away, or be declared permanently out of scope.
15. Allow researchers to use ‘unprocessed’ collections, unless there are very pressing reasons
to deny access.
Optimising use of scarce resources
16. Adopt common policies on which collections are in scope for full processing, and which
should be considered fully processed on production of a good collection level record.
17. Adopt common policy on assigning processing priorities to archival collections (both
retrospectively and at point of receipt), and recording these in machine readable records.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
8 of 45
18. Stop referring to collections as ‘processed’ or ‘unprocessed’. Develop common vocabulary
to recognise different levels of archival processing.
19. Analyse tasks associated with initial accessioning. Plan to reduce churn, and to develop
reliable resourcing models for the accessioning workflow.
20. Set a performance benchmark for full arrangement and description of at least 80 metres per
year per full‐time processing archivist (the most efficient processing model). For libraries
which cannot assign staff to full‐time A&D activity, set a performance benchmark of no
more than an average of 2 hours per archives box, or 12 hours per linear metre processed.
21. Mandate use of detailed project plans and reports for all arrangement and description
projects. This will progressively support accurate predictions on the time and resources
required to arrange and describe large archival collections, and will hold processing staff
accountable to reasonable performance benchmarks. Insist that time spent on processing is
both planned and recorded.
Backlogs
22. Consider redefining existing backlogs by assigning processing priorities and considering
lower priority collections as fully processed on production of a good collection level record.
23. Develop plans for managing backlogs. Prioritise audit of completely uncontrolled material,
followed by creation of collection level records from available brief accession records,
followed by expansion of collection level records. Delay deeper levels of description until
all collections are ‘unhidden’, at least at this basic level.
24. Distinguish between legacy backlogs (which will require special projects to tackle), and
current accrual backlogs. The latter indicate a mismatch between collection growth,
available resources, and the library’s processing policies and practices. If resources cannot
be increased, consider changing collection development policies, processing policies and
practices to avoid the paralysis and hopelessness that can ensue when staff feel they have
no control over mounting backlogs.
Beyond local discoverability
25. Prioritise addition of collection level records to Libraries Australia, and ensure that they are
correctly coded to maximise discovery within Trove.
26. Standardise the representation of additions to archival collections in MARC records, at the
local and federated discovery (Trove and OCLC) levels.
27. Invest in access to the rich intellectual content of lists and finding aids by using the models
outlined in the Project 8 Lists project undertaken by Linda Newbown in 2010.
New challenges
28. Develop joint guidelines for suppliers of born‐digital records, maximising preparation and
description of records before transfer to the library. These guidelines will be useful
regardless of whether individual libraries are in a position to preserve, manage and
provide access to this material in the near or medium terms.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
9 of 45
4 Background
4.1 Surveys and response rates
Two surveys on archival processing were conducted in March and April 2010, using Survey
Monkey as the data gathering platform:
▪ A 97 question survey on the context in which archival processing occurs within NSLA
libraries.
▪ A 49 question survey on archival processing practice and performance.
Respondents were asked to limit their responses to management of personal papers and
organisational records; other original formats including pictorial collections, oral histories, and
the institution’s own records were excluded from the survey. As several libraries handle all
original materials within a single team, extrapolating data on the specified formats was a
challenge for some. A number of statistics are therefore approximate; these have been noted.
Both surveys included mandatory, optional and contingent (i.e. responses were only required
if a ‘yes’ response was made to an earlier question) questions. Many questions gave
participants the opportunity to add qualitative comments to their quantitative answers. The
survey instruments are at Attachment A.
Nine libraries are participants in the Project 8 group: the National Libraries of Australia and
New Zealand; the State Libraries of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western
Australia, South Australia and Tasmania; and the ACT Library Service.
All 9 libraries completed the first survey on archival processing. 58 of the 97 questions were
answered by all 9 libraries. Of the 39 questions which at least one institution skipped, around
2/3 were contingent questions where a full response rate was not expected.
8 of 9 libraries completed the second survey on archival processing practice and performance.
31 of the 49 questions were answered by all 8 completing libraries. Of the 18 questions which
at least one institution skipped, most related to complex performance measurement. Further
commentary on the difficulty of measuring archival processing performance is provided later
in this report.
After initial analysis of the survey answers, each library was asked to provide further and/or
clarifying data on a varying number of issues. Responses were received as emails and are
incorporated into this report.
Most participating libraries provided extensive textual comments in addition to qualitative
data. These comments were extremely illuminating and the respondents are thanked for their
willingness to provide this level of analysis.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
10 of 45
5 Findings on archival context
5.1 Organisational structure
Of the libraries answering this question, 50% are organised primarily by format, and 50% are
organised primarily by function. As expected, the larger libraries (the National Libraries of
Australia and New Zealand, the State Library of New South Wales and the State Library of
Victoria) are organised by format; the smaller libraries are organised by function.
Those organised by format nominated a number of strengths and weaknesses of their existing
structure. None of these will be surprising to those who have debated the relative merits of
the approaches.
Libraries organised primarily by format nominated the following strengths:
Committed and deeply knowledgeable staff
Significant expertise on the needs of specific formats
Staff work on collections from beginning to end; lifecycle understanding of records
Awareness of the consequences of decisions made, especially entering into
commitments that will require significant resources
Consistent approach that supports descriptive work reflecting the creation, provenance
and use of records
Smooth and effective flows of information through the collection’s lifecycle within the
library
And weaknesses:
Loss of key staff can mean severe loss of knowledge
Tendency to silo mentality where processes, procedures and workflows get out of step
with those for published materials
Tendency for policies and processes to be underdocumented, especially in comparison
with other areas of the library
Staff are inevitably fragmented across a large range of duties and responsibilities, rather
than focusing on just one activity
Difficulty in securing paraprofessional or lower level support for lower level activities
Tendency to ‘split’ collections along format lines, disturbing archival integrity
Libraries organised primarily by function nominated the following strengths:
Potential to integrate workflows and align descriptive practice across published and
unpublished formats
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
11 of 45
Staff are very knowledgeable about the processes required for their part of the workflow
and develop strong ‘ownership’ and a sense of pride in their part of the process
Potential to reduce duplication of work (although this was seen by others as a weakness
of this model)
And weaknesses:
‘Backroom’ staff never get to enjoy seeing collections being used; ‘front room’ staff miss
detailed knowledge of the collections, and lack insight into what is required to make
collections accessible.
‘Single point’ sensitivities, i.e. only one person may know how a particular process is
carried out – a particular difficulty in planning for succession
Tendency for staff not to trust others undertaking functions at different points in the workflow
Potential for significant communication difficulties, with different expectations,
interpretations, schedules, priorities and processes
‘The left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing’
Significant delays caused by the need for frequent cross‐team liaison
Possibility for imbalance of resources across the library
Stages in the workflow may not be clearly defined and understood, leading to ‘churn’
The same thing can be done many times by different teams
Significant travel of collection items through the library building as it moves from team
to team
5.2 Staff
Four libraries reported that their archival management staffing has decreased in the last 5
years; four reported that their staffing has stayed the same in the last 5 years; only 1 library
reported an increase in archival management staffing in this period.
Five libraries expect their staffing to remain static for the next 5 years; 1 expects an increase; 1
expects a decrease; 2 respondents did not know what to expect.
Six libraries require library or archival qualifications for some archival management positions;
2 require professional qualifications for all archival management positions; 1 library does not
require professional qualifications.
Predictably, archival staff are well qualified. The respondents reported the highest
qualification level for a total of 75 staff working full time or part time in archival collection
management. Of these:
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
12 of 45
2 had no post Year 12 qualifications
2 had TAFE qualifications in fields other than librarianship or archives
11 had undergraduate degrees in fields other than librarianship or archives
9 had postgraduate degrees in fields other than librarianship or archives
9 had TAFE qualifications in librarianship or archives
10 had undergraduate degrees in librarianship or archives
32 had postgraduate degrees in librarianship or archives
This means that 82% of staff working in archives have at least an undergraduate degree. 22
staff (29%) do not hold qualifications in librarianship or archives. By far the most common
highest qualification (42%) for staff working in archival management is a postgraduate degree
in librarianship or archives.
5.3 Volunteers and student workers
Most libraries have significant numbers of volunteers working in their archival areas. The
exception is the National Library of New Zealand which has no volunteers, the result of an
active policy decision.
Numbers of volunteers vary from 0‐16. Volunteer work is spread fairly evenly across
production of transcripts, preservation rehousing, listing of collection components, and
biographical research. Institutions with high numbers of volunteers are primarily those with
large transcript programs (which require little supervision). Institutions with lower numbers
of volunteers are those focusing on biographical research, rehousing and component listing
(all of which require significant supervision).
Models for supervising volunteers vary. Those libraries with low supervision projects such as
transcripts tend to have one experienced staff member supervising a number of volunteers;
those with high supervision projects tend to allocate one experienced staff member to each
volunteer.
Many retrospective projects (such as finding aid conversion, and arrangement and description
itself) undertaken in US libraries rely on cheap student labour (in the order of US$8‐10 dollars
per hour. Students workers are almost absent in NSLA libraries (at the NLA, the minimum
payment for student workers is around A$28 per hour), except for occasional blocks of
rehousing work.
5.4 Collection size
Reported archival collection holdings in the NSLA libraries vary from 1000 linear metres to
12000 linear metres. A total of more than 57,000 linear metres of archival collections are in
NSLA custody, of which 33,000 metres or nearly 60% are held by the two National Libraries
and the State Library of New South Wales.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
13 of 45
Five respondents were moderately confident that the figure they provided was accurate; two
were certain; two were somewhat confident. At least one collection size was initially under‐
reported, as only the ‘processed’ collection was counted; this was subsequently corrected.
Most respondents used a range of methods to calculate the size of their collection. The
National Library of New Zealand had an ‘iron‐clad’ count, as it has just relocated its entire
collection. For most respondents, the size given was what was considered a reasonable
‘compromise’ between the number of occupied shelf metres, historic records of receipt sizes,
and the sizes of processed and unprocessed collections recorded in various collection
management systems.
5.5 Collection growth
5.5.1 Acquisition opportunities
The number of acquisition opportunities (direct offers, proactive collecting, auctions and
catalogues) varies considerably between the libraries. One library reported less than 25
opportunities per annum; 1 reported 50‐100; 2 reported 100‐200; 3 reported 200‐300; 1 reported
300‐400.
Interestingly, the number of opportunities does not bear a direct relationship to the current
collection size. For example, the National Library of Australia holds 12,000 metres and dealt
with just under 400 opportunities last year (and on current figures is likely to deal with at least
600 opportunities in 2010); the National Library of New Zealand holds 10,000 metres and
deals with 100‐200 opportunities per year; and the State Library of Western Australia holds
4400 metres and deals with 200‐300 opportunities per year.
All libraries were either moderately, very or absolutely certain about the number of
opportunities they deal with each year. Most libraries record these in spreadsheets; some use
their collection management systems to record offers; one library currently uses Reftracker to
record opportunities and actions on them.
Eight of the nine libraries report that more than 75% of their opportunities are ‘reactive’, and
one library reported that 50‐75% of opportunities are reactive i.e. an approach is made to the
library by a potential donor or third party. There is clearly little scope for proactive collecting
within the NSLA community.
Seven of the nine libraries reported that their acquisition opportunities had risen to some
extent (3 libraries) or significantly (4 libraries) in the last 5 years. One library reported the
same number of opportunities; one reported a decrease to some extent.
5.5.2 Receipts
Respondents were asked to report on the number of accessions (receipts) received each year,
and the accompanying metrage.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
14 of 45
One library reported 10‐25 accessions per annum; 1 reported 50‐100 accessions; 2 reported 100‐
150 accessions; 1 reported 150‐200; 2 reported 200‐250; and 2 reported more than 250
accessions per annum. This means that four of the respondents are handling more than 200
accessions per annum; 7 are handling more than 100 accessions per annum.
In terms of metrage, the spread was somewhat wider. Two institutions reported receiving less
than 50 metres per annum; two 50‐100 metres per annum; two 150‐200 metres per annum; one
200‐250 metres per annum; one 250‐300 metres per annum; and one 350‐400 metres per
annum.
Closer analysis revealed that the average metres per accession varied considerably, from .37
metres to 1.5 metres. Five of the nine institutions had an average accession size of more than
.9 metres (6 standard archives boxes).
Many libraries reported that improved appraisal means that while the number of annual
receipts is often growing considerably, annual metrage growth is not increasing at the same
rate. Given that there is a ‘base’ time required to complete work on an accession – regardless
of size – this means that institutions should take into account both the number of accessions
and the metrage when examining collection growth.
The number of opportunities did not necessarily bear a strong correlation to the number of
accessions actually received, with some institutions declining almost half of all offers, and
others rejecting few offers.
5.6 Percentage of staff time devoted to individual collection activities
The survey asked a number of questions about the fte devoted to specific collection activities,
and then separately asked respondents to try to quantify (using percentages) how their
collection management resources were deployed.
The fte figures need to be treated with some skepticism, as at least two libraries interpreted fte
as positions (or individuals) rather than as a figure that might be spread across multiple
individuals, and a comparison of these figures with the percentage figures reported below
suggests significant discrepancies across the two approaches. Nevertheless, the findings are
included here, as they will help libraries to ‘situate’ themselves in the spectrum.
2 libraries report that they have 3 or more fte engaged in developing collections (i.e. selection,
appraisal, donor liaison, transfer etc); 4 report that have 1‐2 fte devoted to this activity; 3
report less than 1 fte for this activity. Several libraries have field unit or officers, who
generally work across more than one format, and who liaise with format specifialists at the
library.
As expected, pre‐acquisition work (appraisal and liaison) tends to be undertaken by higher
level staff, at the senior librarian level (of equivalent) or above.
Of the 8 libraries who reported fte devoted to accessioning work, 1 reported that it has 3‐5 fte
devoted to this activity (the actual figure was 3.2 fte); 3 reported that they have 2‐3 fte for this
work; 3 reported 1‐2 fte, and 1 reported less than 1 fte.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
15 of 45
2 libraries reported that they have 3 fte devoted to creating collection level (catalogue records);
1 reported 2 fte for this activity; and 3 libraries each reported 1 or less than 1 fte for this
activity. This ‘count’ would certainly have considerable overlap with the accessioning work
described above.
2 libraries report that they have 3‐5 fte devoted to full arrangement and description (i.e.
component level description); 4 report that they have 2 fte for A&D; 1 reports 1 fte; and 2
report less than 1 fte for this activity. 1 library does not undertake any arrangement and
description.
Of libraries undertaking some full arrangement and description, 2 report that 1 fte
undertaking this activity is funded by off‐budget funds; and 1 reports that less than 1 fte is
funded by off‐budget funds. 6 libraries report that they have no off‐budget funded
arrangement and description activity.
As noted in the section on digitisation, 6 libraries report that less than 1 fte is devoted to any
activities supporting digitisation; 3 report that 1‐5 fte are so devoted. However, qualitative
comments suggest that, for these last 3 libraries, the actual fte is at the lowest end of the 1‐5
scale.
All 9 libraries report that less than 1 fte is devoted to managing born digital records. In most
cases, most time appears to be expended primarily by digital preservation staff, rather than
collection management staff.
Of the 8 libraries who attempted to provide percentage breakdowns of where their archival
management staff resources are deployed, most allocated some time to most selectable
categories.
The ranges provided are so broad, and some figures are so incomprehensible (it seems
impossible, for example, that only 1% of time could be devoted to supervision in a multi
person environment) that it is possible that the only firm conclusion that can be drawn from
these responses is that most – if not all – libraries find it extremely difficult to conceptualise
archival management activities as ‘discrete’ functions and to estimate the resources devoted to
the task.
Across the responses (which total just over 100% for reasons which are a mystery to the report
author), the breakdown was:
Arrangement and description: 22.63% (range 3% to 60%)
Cataloguing: 17.29% (3% to 30%)
Accessioning: 16.88% (5% to 40%)
Collection development: 12.63% (5% to 20%)
Stacks management (Note that some libraries appear to have misinterpreted this question; it
was not intended to cover retrievals and returns for readers): 11.86% (3% to 35%)
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
16 of 45
Staff supervision: 7.57% (1% to 20%)
Digitisation: 6.83% (1% to 20%)
Other tasks: 4.17% (1% to 7%)
Other management tasks (unspecified): 4.14% (0% to 10%)
Born‐digital management: 3% (0% to 15%)
5.7 Ratio of staff to collection growth
As can be expected given the difficulties most respondents had in determining where their
archival management resources are deployed, most respondents also had considerable
difficulty determining the exact fte devoted to archival management activities. This is because
some libraries have the same staff working across manuscripts, pictorial and oral history
collections; this survey was concerned only with the manuscripts component. Other libraries
(especially those organised by format) found it difficult to separate out staff time devoted to
archival management activities from other activities such as reading room duties, reference,
and public programs activities.
Nevertheless, closer questioning of respondents yielded figures that seem sound enough for
the purposes of this survey (one library was unable to provide a breakdown for personal
papers and institutional records). Specialist preservation activities were excluded, as was
digitisation capture of material.
Staffing devoted to archival collection management (excluding reading room services,
collection delivery, reference, copy services, public programs activities) is modest in all
institutions; the highest total available is approximately 6 fte. This fte is available to 5
institutions –with collection growths ranging from less than 100 to 400 metres per annum. The
lowest fte was less than 1 fte for collection growth of less than 50 metres per annum.
Even with significant caveats, the survey responses demonstrate that NSLA libraries have
strikingly different ratios of staff to collection growth. The ratios appear to range from a high
of 1 fte to each 66 metres received to a low of 1 fte to each 16 metres received.
5.7.1 Staff required to achieve equilibrium
A late question in the ‘Practice and performance’ survey (in other words, a question separated
from those seeking information on current staffing) asked respondents to imagine an ideal
staffing scenario which allowed the archival unit to keep up to date with acquisition
opportunities (i.e. no significant delays in response), complete all accessioning within one
month of receipt, create summary catalogue records within one month of receipt, arrange and
describe all collections their own institution deems as ‘in scope’ for arrangement and
description (i.e. no increase in the institutional processing backlog), participate in digitisation
selection decisions and deal with born‐digital materials.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
17 of 45
There were no knee‐jerk answers to this question. Respondents gave detailed break‐downs of
the additional resources they would need in each of the different workflow components, then
added these together. Interestingly, despite differences in the sizes of archival programs, and
the current staff‐collection growth ratios, 7 or the 8 libraries said they would need to double
their staff to maintain currency. 1 library (with fewer arrearage worries than most) nominated
an increase of 25‐30% in staffing would be required.
Respondents nominated a number of capabilities (in addition to traditional archival skills
which were seen by all as important) that would be required or need to be strengthened in this
‘ideal’ situation: project planning; donor liaison; appraisal (especially for contemporary and
born‐digital content); dealing with non‐digital electronic material; dealing with born‐digital
material; change ‘readiness’ to refocus effort.
5.8 Arrearages
Arrearages (backlogs) vary widely across the NSLA libraries. For the purposes of this survey,
libraries were asked to report on the quantum of receipts for which accessioning had not been
completed, and the quantum of collection material meeting the individual library’s definition
of requiring full arrangement and description and still awaiting that work. Definitions of
‘completed’ accessioning and policies on which collections require arrangement and
description vary widely (see below), so the figures reported in this section need to be treated
with care.
5.8.1 Accessioning arrearages
2 libraries reported no backlog of receipts awaiting initial accessioning; 1 reported only 3
receipts awaiting initial accessioning; 1 reported 10; 1 reported 50; 1 reported 75 (but all these
receipts are physically controlled and ‘registered’) and 1 had 120 receipts awaiting initial
accessioning. 1 library has 175 metres of material which is controlled, in some cases has lists,
and is available to users (mediated through expert staff), but does not yet have an online
catalogue record. 1 library could not estimate its accessioning backlog. Both these libraries
have current projects to address control, description and discoverability of these materials.
Because of the different understandings of what constitutes completed accessioning, it is
difficult to quantify the amount of material which has not been accessioned to the point of
basic usability and discoverability. However, taking all reported accessioning backlogs into
account, it seems likely that around 1000 metres of archival records in NSLA custody – around
2% of the total NSLA collection – falls into these categories.
This is significantly less than the reported percentages of collections lacking online records,
suggesting that many receipts may be controlled and described to the point of usability – but
only discoverable through staff mediation.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
18 of 45
5.8.2 Arrangement and description arrearages
Arrangement and description arrearages also varied considerably. Libraries were asked to
state their A&D backlog, the percentage of their collection this represented, and the number of
full‐time archivist years they estimated would be required to clear this backlog.
Three libraries were unable to answer this question. Of those who could answer, not all were
able to answer all of these parts of the question, especially the last part on years required to
clear the backlog. As the National Library of Australia is the only institution with ‘firm’
figures on how many metres per year a full‐time processing archivist can arrange and describe
– 80 metres – this figure has been used to estimate person years required to clear backlogs.
1 library reported its A&D backlog as 1646 (this library excludes all lower priority collections
from its A&D scope) metres, or about 15% of their total collection. Using the NLA average
processing figure, this suggests that 20 full‐time processing archivist years would be required
to clear this backlog.
1 library reported its A&D backlog as 962 metres, of nearly 22% of its total collection. Using
the NLA average processing figure, this suggests that 12 full‐time processing archivist years
would be required to clear this backlog.
1 library reported its A&D backlog as 650 metres, of nearly 11% of its total collection. Using
the NLA average processing figure, this suggests that 8 full‐time processing archivist years
would be required to clear this backlog.
1 library reported its A&D backlog as 350 metres, or about 5% of their total collection. Using
the NLA average processing figure, this suggests that 3.5 to 4 full‐time processing archivist
years would be required to clear this backlog.
1 library reported its A&D backlog as 140 metres, or about 14% of its total collection. Using
the NLA average processing figure, this suggests that 1.75‐2 full‐time processing archivist
years would be required to clear this backlog.
1 library reported its A&D backlog as 50 metres, or about 0.5% of its total collection. Using the
NLA average processing figure, this suggests that .75 full‐time processing archivist years
would be required to clear this backlog.
This means that for the 6 NSLA libraries who were able to answer the question, backlogs
ranged from 0.5% of the total collection to 22% of the total collection. A total of around 45 full‐
time processing archivist years would be required to fully clear the arrangement and
description backlog in these libraries.
5.9 Approach to description
There are significant differences in approaches to describing archival collections.
▪ Some libraries (e.g. National Library of Australia, State Library of Victoria ) create
summary catalogue records and separate finding aids to describe the contents of large
collections. These libraries face challenges in keeping their summary records and finding
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
19 of 45
aids ‘in sync’. Where finding aids are created, there are significant differences in which
summary elements are included in finding aids. It is easier for these libraries to contribute
summary records to Libraries Australia/Trove.
▪ Some libraries (e.g. State Library of New South Wales, State Library of Tasmania, National
Library of New Zealand) create multi‐level non‐MARC records (i.e. there is no distinction
between the summary and component description). These libraries have more flexibility
and can gradually deepen existing description. However, it is harder for these libraries to
contribute to Trove or other federated discovery services.
▪ Some libraries (e.g. State Library of South Australia) combine both approaches, with some
archival collections described in multi‐level MARC records, and some described with a
summary MARC record and a separate finding aid.
5.10 Descriptive standards
These differences in approach reflect the fact that there is no national descriptive standard for
archives in NSLA libraries (or indeed in Australian archives as a whole). The State Library of
Tasmania uses the Australian Series Systemiii. Most libraries conform to AACR2. Some
libraries feel they are closest to the Canadian Council on Archives’ Rules for Archival
Descriptioniv (RAD, not to be confused with RDA, or Resource Description and Access) which
has more of an ‘archival’ flavour, while others feel they have been influenced more by the
American Society of Archivists’ Describing Archives: A Content Standardv (DACS, not to be
confused with the Australian Series System: Describing Archives in Contextvi), which is very
closely aligned with AACR2, and has more of a ‘library’ flavour.
While the various content standards are essentially implementations of ISAAD (G), the
American DACS is more strongly aligned with institutions which use MARC for summary
records and EAD for separate finding aids; the Canadian RAD is more strongly aligned with
institutions which use multi‐level description. The use of varying content standards therefore
has major implications for both collection management workflows, and for discovery in
federated systems.
This issue could certainly be discussed and teased out more within the NSLA community. Each
institution could also conduct an internal audit to determine to what extent they meet the main
content standards, and the over-arching ISAAD (G) standard.
5.11 Access points
All libraries except the State Library of Tasmania use Library of Congress Subject Headings.
Many also use additional published thesauri, including the Australian Pictorial, Art and
Architecture, AIATSIS and Maori thesauri, and the Western Australian Gazetteer. Only the
National Library of Australia uses the Register of Australian Archives and Manuscripts
Occupations thesaurus, suggesting its utility is seen as low. The National Library of Australia
also uses a set of broad subject headings for collection management purposes (see Appendix
B).
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
20 of 45
All libraries except the State libraries of Tasmania and Queensland, and the National Library
of New Zealand (for obvious reasons) use Libraries Australia name authorities. The National
Library of Australia, and the state libraries of Queensland, New South Wales, Western
Australia and Victoria also use Library of Congress Subject Headings.
5.12 Encoding standards
As would be expected from the different approaches to description, encoding standards vary
across the NSLA libraries. 8 of the libraries use MARC21 for collection level records (or can
output to MARC for this purpose); 1 uses Dublin Core. Five libraries use or can output to
EAD if required. However, even those libraries who have authored finding aids in EAD have
encoded only a minority of finding aids using the standard (there have been no major
retrospective conversion projects). The three libraries who have been authoring new finding
aids in EAD since the standard’s introduction to Australian in 2002 are all now investigating
or implementing Archivists Toolkit, which can output finding aids in EAD if required.
5.13 Collection management systems
NSLA libraries use a range of collection management systems to manage archival lifecycles.
Most struggle with inadequate systems, or inadequate connections between corporate
systems, requiring time‐consuming workarounds.
6 libraries use a database to manage and track collection opportunities. Of these, 3 libraries
use a system which interfaces with or is a part of their collection management system. Of
these, the National Library of New Zealand’s Tapuhi system appears to be the only one
providing satisfactory support. 2 libraries use Reftracker to track and manage enquiries;
Reftracker does not currently interface with their collection management systems. 2 libraries
use Excel spreadsheets to record offers; 1 uses a handwritten offers book.
5 libraries use archival management systems to describe and manage accessions. 4 libraries
use library management systems for this purpose. 1 uses standard Office software, and 2
create accession records in hard copy. Given that 9 libraries responded to this survey, this
means that at 3 libraries are using more than one system to describe and manage accessions.
6 libraries use library management systems to create collection level records. 4 libraries use
archival management systems to create collection level records. Again, this suggests that 1
library is using more than one system to describe and manage collection level records.
Of the 8 libraries creating finding aids or component level metadata, 5 use archival
management systems to do so; 1 uses its library management system, and 4 libraries
(including the library using its library management system) create finding aids in Word or
Excel. Production of finding aids is clearly not consistently supported across the libraries.
Four archival management systems are currently in use among NSLA libraries. Two libraries
use Archivists Toolkit (and another is investigating it); one uses a 5 level ‘boutique’ content
management system; two use their own customised collection management systems. These
last (National Library of New Zealand and State Library of Tasmania) report the highest levels
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
21 of 45
of satisfaction with their current workflow support, although the National Library of New
Zealand reports that its Tapuhi has not been redeveloped for many years and is not user
friendly.
Several libraries use a combination of their library management systems and archival
management systems for different collection management purposes. Interfaces between these
systems are few and ‘clunky’.
2 libraries are very satisfied with their current collection management systems, 4 are
somewhat satisfied; 1 is neutral; 1 is somewhat dissatisfied; and 1 is very dissatisfied. Several
libraries reported that they had been very dissatisfied but are feeling more satisfied with
recent implementations of Archivists Toolkit. The following dissatisfactions were recorded:
▪ Lack of integration between systems
▪ Patched together methods of managing the full collection lifecycle
▪ Need to update description in 3 different systems
▪ Flat database structure precluding all collection management activities from being properly
linked
▪ Lack of technical support for customised system
▪ Teething issues with Archivists Toolkit
▪ Lack of user friendly interface for staff or patrons
▪ Inability to produce finding aids as anything but text
▪ Lack of effective publication pathway for finding aids.
5.14 Digitising archival material
All NSLA libraries have digitised at least some of their archival collections. Of these, 6 report
that they have completed one or more projects and 1 reports that is has an active and ongoing
digitisation program. 5 report that they only digitise when specific purposes funding is
available.
Archival management staff are involved in a range of digitisation activities.
All libraries report that staff are involved in selection of material (including preservation and
rights assessments); 8 report that staff create catalogue or component level metadata to
support digitisation; 5 undertake quality control; 4 project manage digitisation projects; and 2
manage interfaces between collection management systems and digital asset management
systems. Only 1 library reports that archival management staff actually produce digital
images (through scanning or photography).
While the survey did not ask respondents to quantify their archival digitisation programs, it is
clear from qualitative answers that digitisation of archival material (as distinct from pictorial,
film or oral history material) is a very selective and small scale affair across the NSLA
libraries.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
22 of 45
5.15 Born-digital archives
As expected, this is an area where there is great need, but little capability. All 9 libraries
reported that they hold born‐digital material, on a range of physical format carriers.
However, only 4 of the 9 libraries have a program to manage and preserve born‐digital
material.
Of those 4 libraries, 2 reported that management of these collections is principally undertaken
by archival staff, with assistance from digital preservation staff if required; the other 2 report
that management is principally undertaken by digital preservation staff with assistance from
archival staff.
Of the 4 libraries, all are able to migrate material from physical format carriers to a mass
storage system; 3 are able to arrange and describe material; 3 are able to provide access to
material; 2 are able to integrate description of born‐digital with description of physical
materials; and 2 are able to convert proprietary file formats to non‐proprietary formats.
No libraries are able to preserve databases.
5.16 Online access to collections
The survey asked respondents to provide information on the degree of online discoverability
of their archival collections, and the extent to which this has changed over the last decade.
5.16.1 Catalogue records
Libraries were asked to answer a range of questions – from slightly different stances – on the
cataloguing status of their collections. Close attention to the detailed responses reveals that
there are some logical inconsistencies in these answers, indicating the difficulties which some
libraries had in answering these questions. However, taken together, the answers provide a
fairly solid picture of the online discoverability of archival collections in NSLA custody.
Libraries were asked to provide information on what percentage of their archival collections
were described with an online record 10 years ago, and to compare this with the current
situation. 7 libraries were able to provide answers on their situation 10 years ago; all 9 were
able to respond for the current situation.
Most libraries were moderately or very confident, or certain about their answers to these
questions.
In 2000, 1 library had online catalogue records for 98% of its collection; 1 had records for 95%;
1 had records for 60%; 1 had records for 40%; 1 had records for 32% and 1 had online records
for just 5% of their collections.
In 2010, 5 libraries have online catalogue records for 100% of their collections; 1 has online
records for 99% of its collection; 1 has records for 90%; 1 has records for 80%; and 1 has online
records for 30% of its collection.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
23 of 45
This increase in online catalogue records for archival collections is a very pleasing result.
Researchers are much, much more able to discover collections in the online environment than was
the case 10 years ago.
Libraries were also asked to provide information on what percentage of their archival
collections is described with various kinds of records. 8 libraries answered this question.
1 library reported that 20% of its collection has no record of any kind; 2 libraries reported that
1% and 70% respectively of their collections have only card catalogue records; and 2 libraries
reported that 49% and 10% respectively of their collections are described only on their local
catalogues.
6 libraries reported that they have records on Libraries Australia. Of these:
1 library reported that 80% of its collections have a Level 1 record; 1 reported 50% with a Level
1 record; 1 reported 19%; 2 reported 15% and 1 reported 5%.
1 library reported that 75% of its collections have a Level 2 record; 1 reported 25; and 2
reported 10%.
1 library reported that 95% of its collections have a Level 3 record; 1 reported 90%, 1 reported
81%; 1 reported 75% and 1 reported 5%.
Across the NSLA libraries, 3% have no catalogue record of any kind; 12% have a card catalogue
entry only; 12% have a local system record only; 22% are described in a Level 1 record on
Libraries Australia; 20% are described in a Level 2 record on Libraries Australia; and 57% are
described in a Level 3 record on Libraries Australia. Because of the variability of answers, these
statistics actually add up to more than 100%.
Nevertheless, when the National Library of New Zealand is removed from this equation, it is still
clear that a very high percentage of all archival collections are represented – with at least a Level 1
record – on Libraries Australia.
5.16.2 Records on Libraries Australia/Trove
However, these figures belie the variation between libraries. When libraries were asked
whether and to what extent they currently contribute their records to Libraries Australia, it
became clear that coverage is very uneven.
3 libraries contribute all their archival records to Libraries Australia; 1 contributes most; 1
contributes some records; and 4 contribute no records to Libraries Australia.
The National Library of New Zealand, of course, has no need to contribute to Libraries
Australia. Of the 3 other NSLA libraries which do not currently contribute to Libraries
Australia, 2 describe their archives in multi‐component metadata, rather than with summary
catalogue records and separate finding aids.
Libraries that contributed to Libraries Australia were also asked whether their records
included the correct leader codes to ensure that their records form part of the archives ‘island’
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
24 of 45
in Trove. Of the 5 libraries contributing to Libraries Australia, 4 include the correct leader
code. 1 does not but is considering a batch change to its records to include this data.
As is already known to the archival community, a very significant proportion of archival collections
held in Australian NSLA libraries are not discoverable through Trove. This is a major concern,
especially as contributing to Trove also means contributing (painlessly) to OCLC, and is the easiest
way to maximise Google indexing of records.
5.16.3 Finding aids
The last decade has seen a significant increase in the percentage of finding aids (or component
level metadata) available online.
In 2000, only the two national libraries had any finding aids available online; the National
Library had 50% of its finding aids online; the National Library of New Zealand had 60% of
finding aids available online.
By 2010, an average of 56% of NSLA finding aids are available online – ranging from 5% at
some libraries to 90% in others. However, for some institutions, all or most finding aids
available online are not searchable, i.e. they are images of hard copy finding aids, or their
format makes searching difficult.
Libraries were also asked whether the percentage of large collections described in an online
finding aid had increased or decreased in the same period. For those libraries who had no
finding aids available online 10 years ago, increases were obviously very substantial.
For the 2 libraries (NLA and NLNZ) who had 50% and 60% of finding aids available online 10
years ago, there were not necessarily big increases in the percentage of large collections
described in an online finding aid. The National Library of Australia reported that its
percentage had fallen by 25% or less (the result of an increasing backlog of collections with no
finding aid). By contrast, the National Library of New Zealand – which has a minimal
processing backlog – reported that the number of large collections described with online
component level metadata has increased by 25% or less in the last 10 years.
For those libraries which have searchable online finding aids and who answered a question on
format, 2 libraries have 100% of their online finding aids/component level description
available as multi‐level non‐MARC records; 2 have 100% finding aids in HTML; 1 has 90% in
Word/PDF, 5% HTML, and 5% EAD, and 1 has 70% HTML and 30% EAD.
This confirms that online finding aids/deeper description are not standardised across the
NSLA libraries; it would be impossible to offer ‘federated’ indexed searching across the NSLA
archival collection.
5.17 Physical infrastructure
Physical infrastructure (sorting shelves, large worktables etc.) available for archival processing
work varies considerably between the respondents. Some libraries – the National Library of
Australia, the National Library of New Zealand, and the State Library of Victoria – report that
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
25 of 45
their physical infrastructure is very satisfactory. These institutions also placed a high value on
the importance of good physical infrastructure to achieving efficiency.
Other libraries have extremely limited space and/or equipment available for processing
activities, with staff effectively forced to try to deal with very large collections at their desks.
5.18 Discoverability of new collections and additions to collections
The time at which a summary record is created and viewable on the online catalogue for new
collections or accessions varies between libraries. 5 libraries create a visible summary record
on receipt; 2 create a record when accessioning is complete; 1 creates a record only when the
collection or accession is regarded as ‘fully processed’.
This is an area which could be standardised, with all NSLA libraries aiming to include at least a
very brief summary record in their online catalogues, pending completion of accessioning and
further arrangement and description.
5.19 Ways of handling additions to collections
Library management systems are not particularly good at handling continuing resources such
as archives received as multiple accessions. Given that most NSLA libraries work within LMS
environments, a range of ‘workarounds’ are in place.
1 library creates a note in the bibliographic record; adds a holdings statement; adds the
accession information to existing finding aids where these exist; and adds receipt information
to Archivists Toolkit.
1 library creates detailed descriptions of the addition in Archivists Toolkit, then adds this
information as detailed notes to the bibliographic record, and individual holdings for each
processed and unprocessed accession. Finding aids are only amended if and when accessions
are fully processed.
1 library creates a note in the bibliographic record; adds new items to the holdings statement;
updates existing finding aids where these exist; and manages parent‐child relationships in the
local catalogue.
1 library uses the MARC 541 field to capture coded data on each new accession: donor, date of
receipt, description of the records, file numbers and additional remarks. These 541 fields are
suppressed from view.
1 library acknowledges that its processes are in flux, following a change of collection
management system. Small additions are simply added as a note; where the collection has
been itemised an item record is added.
1 library adds child records for each addition to the collection and links these as time allows.
1 library (with an integrated archival system) either records additions as separate ‘further
records’ or fully integrates the collection level description on completion of A&D work.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
26 of 45
Standardisation of practice in this area – especially from Australian libraries working in a Trove
environment – would be of significant benefit to researchers. Further discussion is required to
discuss the aims of describing additions in systems (discoverability by researchers, collection
management purposes for libraries), and how these are best met. Improved understanding of
Trove limits (e.g. lack of support for navigation between parent-child records, no inclusion of
Institution Specific Data) would help Australian libraries to make the best decisions in an imperfect
world.
5.20 Processing policies
Given the significant processing backlogs in NSLA libraries, the survey asked respondents to
say whether their library has a policy on processing large collections, and what this is. It also
asked whether there were local definitions of ‘fully processed’.
5 libraries reported that their library’s policy is to fully process all large archival collections
3 libraries reported that their library’s policy is to fully process only high priority large
archival collections.
However, for many respondents this ‘split’ did not adequately describe their position. The
policies of a number of libraries are clearly out of step with actual practice; outdated policies
that see all material as in scope for full processing have resulted in growing backlogs and
unattainable goals. With no firm definitions of ‘fully processed’, it is difficult to see how
backlogs can be adequately quantified.
Similarly, definitions of ‘fully processed’ varied considerably and are not always in step with
stated library policy; in many cases there is no firm definition. At the highest end, one library
deems collections to be fully processed only if a full level record group description plus
description of every item (box, folder, volume) has been entered into the catalogue; one
considers collections fully processed only if (at least) series headings and subject access points
for the series are assigned; some libraries deem collections fully processed if there is a good
collection level description plus box listing; one library regards high priority collections as
fully processed only after full arrangement and description, but medium and low priority
collections as fully processed on production of a good collection level catalogue record; one
library regards all but the very highest priority collections as fully processed when initial
accessioning is complete.
Without common definitions of ‘large’ collections and common processing policies, it is impossible
to accurately compare the quantity of material that might require further processing in NSLA
libraries.
5.21 Access to unprocessed collections
Although libraries had varying definitions of ‘unprocessed’, most respondents understood
what this means in practice and were therefore able to answer a question about their library’s
policy on allowing researchers to access unprocessed collections.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
27 of 45
No libraries always allow access to unprocessed collections; 3 usually do; 4 sometimes do; 1
never does.
For those who never or only sometimes allow readers to access these collections, the most
common concerns are privacy and confidentiality, security and preservation. The least likely
concerns are inadequate description.
In one case a respondent said that readers would not be aware of unprocessed collections as
they are not described at all on the library’s catalogue until accessioning is complete.
Standardised practice across the NSLA libraries – to allow researchers to discover and access
unprocessed collections unless there are pressing reasons to deny access – would significantly
increase researcher access to our collections.
6 Findings on archival practice and performance
The next part of this report documents findings on archival practice and performance from the
8 NSLA libraries who responded. As most questions asked libraries to report on the
frequency of actions on archival collections, and on available performance data, this section of
the report is very detailed. A number of these questions asked libraries to report on whether
they always, usually, sometimes, seldom or never undertook certain actions. In the sections
that follow, bold indicates the highest number of respondents for each question.
6.1 Supplier requirements
In recent years, some NSLA libraries have redirected resources to try to improve the condition
and description of collections before they reach the library, or before they are permanently
accepted into the collection. The survey asked a series of questions about pre‐acquisition
activities. While all libraries indicated that they are actively investigating the possibility of
moving towards more ‘offsite preparation and donor engagement’, the extent to which this
has actually occurred varies considerably.
1 library always physically appraises prior to transfer; 1 usually does; 6 sometimes do.
2 always appraise by email or phone prior to transfer; 2 usually do; 4 sometimes do.
2 libraries usually require suppliers to pack collections into the library’s archives boxes prior
to transfer; 4 sometimes do; 2 never do.
2 usually require suppliers to provide a box list of contents prior to or at the time of transfer; 4
sometimes do; 1 seldom does; 1 never does.
1 library usually requires suppliers to use a library supplied template to create the box list; 3
sometimes do; 2 seldom do; 2 never do.
2 libraries usually use their own staff to pack collections onsite; 2 sometimes do; 4 seldom do.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
28 of 45
2 libraries use their own staff to list collections onsite; 2 sometimes do; 2 seldom do; 2 never
do.
1 library usually requires valuers to provide a detailed contents list, using a template; 2
sometimes do; 1 seldom does; 4 never do.
The survey results indicate that a number of libraries have considerable room to move if they
wish to move towards receiving ‘shelf‐ready archives’. This may include incremental change,
e.g. if the library requires a box list, it is a small extra step to ask the supplier to use an
approved template; if library staff pack collections onsite, it is a small extra step to
simultaneously list the collection.
The survey recognised that such intensive pre‐acquisition work is not always warranted for
smaller collections. The results suggested that most libraries do not have a ‘benchmark’ for
when this work is warranted. If more NSLA libraries move towards the ‘shelf‐ready archives’
paradigm, setting a benchmark (even a flexible one) may be useful. Those libraries who did
indicate a notional benchmark suggested that collections larger than 3‐5 boxes benefit from
pre‐acquisition activity.
Only one library estimated a percentage of collections where the requirement to box and list
was waived (<10%). However, 4 libraries indicated the conditions that would lead them to
waive the requirement. All agreed that old age, illness, stature of the donor and
political/strategic considerations were important; 3 libraries indicated that sometimes the
requirement is waived because it is ‘just too hard’. The exception argued that good
communication skills, persistence, and a willingness to compromise mean that enforcing the
requirement is never just ‘too hard’. This library indicated that suppliers respond well to the
‘value proposition’ that they are adding detail which archival staff would never be able to
know.
The number of collections received boxed and listed by suppliers varied greatly between
libraries, as would be expected by the different approaches taken. One library received more
than 100 collections boxed and listed by suppliers in the previous year; 1 received 50‐100
collections; 1 received 20‐50; 4 received less than 10; 1 received none. The benefits to
researchers of having instantly (if briefly) listed collections is obvious. However, it should be
noted that the benefits are much greater in libraries which lack sufficient resources to
undertake arrangement and description on a regular basis.
Similarly, the number of collections boxed and listed onsite by library staff varied
considerably. Two libraries reported more than 50 collections handled in this way; 1 indicated
20‐50 collections; 1 indicated 10‐20 collections; two reported less than 10 collections; 2 reported
that no collections were boxed and listed onsite by library staff.
Onsite packing and listing (where undertaken) has mostly been done by higher level
professional staff. However, some libraries indicated that they have had considerable success
with using lower level staff for this task.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
29 of 45
The survey results suggested that few libraries have policies or guidelines in this area. For
those libraries that do not or only rarely require suppliers to supply collections boxed and
listed, the factors governing this choice were (in descending order of importance): fear of
losing individual collections; fear of a generalised backlash against the library or archival unit;
fear that such a policy requires too much liaison work; or that the policy is not supported at
the library. Only one library indicated that they felt that this work is the province of the
archivist, not the supplier. Similarly, only one library indicated that such a policy had not
been considered.
Two libraries responded to a question about the number of collections they felt they had ‘lost’
because of the requirement for suppliers to supply boxed and listed. One library indicated
none; one library indicated that it knew of two low value collections actually ‘lost’, but also
noted that there may be others where the library did not hear back from the donor after
outlining its requirements.
Standardisation in this area may be of considerable benefit to NSLA libraries.
Standardisation of policies – if not of actual practice – may be of considerable benefit to NSLA
libraries. If all libraries require most suppliers to supply material boxed and listed, this will gradually
become a ‘norm’ that suppliers expect and comply with.
6.2 Accessioning practice
The survey recognised that the definition of ‘completed’ accessioning may vary greatly
between institutions, and have varied considerably over time with changes in processing and
access policies. For example, the tasks required in an environment where a large proportion
of all new receipts will be considered not just fully accessioned, but fully ‘processed’ on
production of a good catalogue record will be much more extensive than an environment in
which all receipts are considered in scope for full arrangement and description (and where
resources to do so may reasonably be expected to be available).
The survey results confirmed that the tasks that must be undertaken before accessioning is
considered ‘complete’ vary considerably between the libraries. In fact, the only tasks that all
libraries always do is to label and shelve accessions!
6 libraries always assign a unique accession number; 1 usually assigns; 1 never assigns.
2 libraries always register receipts in a manual, Word or Excel register; 1 seldom does; 5 never
do.
6 libraries always register receipts in a library or archival management system; 1 usually does;
1 never does (NB Anecdotal evidence suggests that at least one library retains a manual
register even though receipts are registered in a system).
7 always record the size of the accession; 1 usually does.
5 always describe the contents of the accession (although description levels presumably vary);
2 usually do; 1 sometimes does.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
30 of 45
Only 1 library always creates a box level list at point of receipt if one is not supplied; 2 usually
do, 1 sometimes; 1 seldom; and 3 never.
4 always assign a processing priority at point of receipt; 3 sometimes do; 1 seldom does.
3 always assign a broad subject heading on receipt; 2 usually do; 1 seldom does; 2 never do.
2 always record the presence of born‐digital material in a separate register or database; 4
usually do; 1 seldom does; 1 never does.
2 always record the presence of audio‐visual material in a separate register or database; 5
usually do; 1 never does.
1 always records the physical condition of the accession; 2 usually do; 3 sometimes do; 2
seldom do.
4 always rebox or rehouse material if required; 2 usually do; 2 sometimes do.
All libraries always label accessions.
All libraries shelve accessions in permanent or semi‐permanent locations.
6 libraries always acknowledge receipt; 2 usually do.
6 regard accessioning as complete only if any required valuation processes are complete; 1
sometimes does; 1 seldom does.
2 always finalise access conditions with suppliers; 6 usually do (see note below on when rights
agreements are made with suppliers).
7 create a brief record in their online catalogue at point of receipt; 1 usually does. NB. There
is a slight discrepancy between answers reported for this question, and for those asking when
an online record is first created. Nevertheless, this is a pleasing result, and should mean that
almost all new receipts should be quickly discoverable – even at the most basic level – at all
NSLA libraries. This was not always the case.
3 create a full record in their online catalogue as soon as possible after receipt; 2 usually do; 1
seldom does; 2 never do. Again, this is a pleasing result; 5 of the 8 respondents create rich
records for their new accessions soon after receipt. This was not always the case.
4 always register access conditions in their online catalogue; 1 usually does; 1 sometimes does;
1 seldom does; 1 never does.
2 always register access conditions and rights holders in a rights management system; 1
sometimes does; 1 seldom does; 4 never do (because they do not have rights management
systems).
5 always file documentation relating to the accession on paper or electronic files; 2 usually
does; 1 sometimes does.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
31 of 45
The survey did not ask whether libraries have an accessioning worksheet listing tasks that
must be completed, when they are done and ‘signing off’ on completed accessioning. Nor did
it ask who – if anybody – undertakes quality control of the accessioning process. Similarly, it
did not ask whether the systems used to manage archival collections provide support for
workflow tracking and reporting. For example, the National Library of Australia’s
implementation of Archivists Toolkit delineates a number of stages in the workflow – from
registration to completion – and reports can be run to determine where each accession is in the
workflow chain.
These workflow management issues would be a fruitful source of discussion for the NSLA libraries.
6.2.1 Note on access conditions
Finalising access conditions with suppliers can be a time‐consuming task, and greatly affect
the actual and elapsed time taken to complete an accessioning process. The survey found that
the point at which access agreements are completed varies considerably between and within
institutions. This seems to ‘fit’ with the complex nature of the relationships that exist between
suppliers and archival management staff, and to indicate that individual judgements are made
as to when is the best time to finalise these agreements.
As in previous comparative sections, bold indicates the highest number of respondents for
each question.
6 sometimes complete agreements during accessioning; 1 seldom does; 1 never does.
4 sometimes complete after accessioning is complete; 1 seldom does; 1 never does.
4 sometimes complete agreements after a summary catalogue record is complete; 3 seldom do;
1 never does.
Only 1 library always completes agreements after full arrangement and description; 1 usually
does; 3 sometimes do; 3 seldom do.
1 usually completes agreements at the point of need (when requested by researchers); 4
sometimes do; 1 seldom does; 2 never do.
6.2.2 Assigning processing priorities
Whether and how processing priorities are assigned to new receipts varies considerably across
the NSLA libraries.
6 libraries assign processing priorities at point of or soon after receipt; 2 do not (but 1 is in the
process of developing guidelines for doing so).
Those that assign priorities generally use a 1‐3 model (High, Medium, Low); 1 library has a 1‐5
model (that for practical purposes collapses into 3).
At least 2 libraries record these priorities within bibliographic records, allowing accurate
reporting on the collections (and quantities) in each processing priority. The addition of broad
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
32 of 45
subject headings by the National Library of Australia supports accurate reports on the
quantity of material that requires processing across the spectrum of subject areas.
One common issue for priority models is the nexus between research value and the actual
need for deeper description. For example, some very high research value collections can be
adequately described with a collection level record and a supplier list. It may be difficult for
staff assigning priorities to know whether to assign based on value or on the need for further
description.
1 library noted that any priorities set are very ‘fluid’, and that assigned priorities are not
always used when deciding what to work on next.
Given that most libraries are – or are about to – assigning processing priorities, and that the
models are very similar, there may be some value in standardising further in this are; standardising
inclusion of processing priorities in similar fields in bibliographic records, and considering how to
provide advice to staff assigning processing priorities.
6.3 Arrangement and description practice
This part of the survey closely followed the survey conducted by Greene and Meissnervii in
2006. This survey divided A&D practice questions – for material being fully arranged and
described – into 3 sub‐categories: arrangement; preservation oriented action on the collection;
description. Note that this section of the survey only applies to collections being fully
arranged and described (not to the kinds of quick packing and listing described in the section
on accessioning above).
6.3.1 Arrangement
As with other parts of this survey, archival arrangement practice varies considerably across
the libraries. The most ‘common’ arrangement practices are that all libraries always or usually
arrange material at the series level, and that 6 of the 8 libraries always or usually arrange at
the folder level.
3 libraries always arrange material at the series level; 5 usually do.
1 library always arranges material at the sub‐series level; 2 usually do; 3 sometimes do; 1
seldom does; 1 never does.
2 libraries always arrange material at the folder level; 4 usually do; 1 sometimes does; 1 never
does.
No libraries always arrange material within folders; 1 usually does; 3 sometimes do; 2 seldom
do; 2 never do.
2 always weed duplicates; 3 usually do; 2 sometimes do; 1 never does;
2 always weed material of little or no historical value at the item level; 3 usually do; 1
sometimes does; 1 seldom does; 1 never does.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
33 of 45
These findings suggest that NSLA archivists are less likely than Greene and Meissner respondents
to: always or usually arrange material at the sub-series level; arrange material within folders; weed
duplicates; and weed material of little or no historical value. There are no actions which NSLA
libraries are more likely to always or usually undertake. There is already less ‘process’ in this area
than in the Greene and Meissner sample.
6.3.2 Description
1 library always requires processing staff to produce a project plan, including estimates for the
time required to complete discrete tasks; 1 usually does; 1 sometimes does; 1 seldom does; 4
never do.
Similarly, 1 library always requires processing staff to produce an end of project report,
including lessons learned, and discrepancies between the anticipated and actual time
required; 1 sometimes does; 6 never do.
This suggests that most libraries do not control the time required for processing archival
collections, nor hold staff accountable for their performance.
The level of description for collections being fully arranged and described varies considerably
between institutions.
4 libraries always create a biographical or administrative history note; 3 usually do; 1
sometimes does.
6 libraries always include a provenance note; 1 usually does; 1 sometimes does.
4 libraries always include an arrangement note; 2 usually do; 1 sometimes does; 1 seldom
does.
5 libraries always create a collection level scope and content note; 3 usually do.
1 library usually creates series level scope and contents notes; 3 usually do; 1 sometimes does;
2 seldom do; 1 never does.
1 library usually creates sub‐series scope and content notes; 2 sometimes do; 3 seldom do; 2
never do.
2 libraries usually create folder level scope and content notes; 2 sometimes do; 2 seldom do; 2
never do.
1 library usually describes at box level; 5 sometimes do; 1 seldom does; 1 never does.
1 library always creates item level lists or descriptions; 2 usually do; 2 sometimes do; 3 seldom
do.
NB. The question above lacked clarity. For most archivists, ‘item’ equals folder or file, rather than
an individual document within that file.
1 library usually creates correspondence indexes; 4 seldom do; 3 never do.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
34 of 45
1 library seldom creates subjects indexes; 7 never do.
5 libraries always include subject headings in their finding aids; 1 usually does; 2 never do.
4 libraries always include name authority headings in their finding aids; 2 usually do; 2 never
do.
These findings suggest that NSLA archivists are as likely as the Greene and Meissner sample to
create collection level, series level and folder level descriptions. Most of the actions in the NSLA
survey (e.g. correspondence indexes) were not included in the Greene and Meissner survey.
6.3.3 Preservation actions
6 always rebox into archival boxes; 1 usually does (1 library did not answer this question)
2 always refolder into archival folders; 3 usually do; 1 sometimes does; 1 seldom does; 1 never
does.
2 always remove metal paper clips; 3 usually do; 2 sometimes do; 1 seldom does.
1 always removes staples; 1 usually does; 1 sometimes does; 4 seldom do; 1 never does.
No libraries always enclose newspaper clippings in inert enclosures; 2 usually do; 3 sometimes
do; 3 seldom do.
No libraries always photocopy newspaper clippings; 1 sometimes does; 7 seldom do.
No libraries always photocopy carbons and thermal faxes; 3 usually do; 2 sometimes do; 3
seldom do.
1 library always places torn documents in inert enclosures; 4 usually do; 2 sometimes do; 1
seldom does.
2 libraries always encapsulate brittle, torn or valuable documents; 1 usually does; 3 sometimes
do; 2 never do.
No libraries always mend torn documents; 1 usually does; 4 sometimes do; 2 seldom do; 1
never does.
No libraries always deacidify brittle paper; 2 sometimes do; 2 seldom do; 1 never does.
1 library usually replaces intrinisically valuable documents with photocopies; 2 sometimes do;
1 seldom does; 4 never do.
No libraries always store photographs separately from the rest of the collection; 4 usually do; 3
sometimes do; 1 never does.
3 libraries always store photographs in inert enclosures; 1 usually does; 3 sometimes do; 1
seldom does.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
35 of 45
No libraries always interleave scrapbooks or albums with pH neutral paper; 3 sometimes do; 4
seldom do; 1 never does.
No libraries always microfilm physical format material; 4 sometimes do; 1 seldom does; 3
never do.
No libraries always migrate analogue AV material to preservation digital formats; 2 usually
do; 2 sometimes do; 1 seldom does; 3 never do.
No libraries always make use copies of all AV material; 2 usually do; 1 sometimes does; 2
seldom do; 3 never do.
1 library always makes a use copy of AV material on demand; 1 usually does; 3 sometimes do;
2 seldom do; 1 never does.
2 always migrate born‐digital material to preservation formats (see note below); 2 sometimes
do; 2 seldom do; 2 never do.
NB Given that migration to preservation formats is in its infancy, even in the largest archival
institutions, it should be assumed that those who responded positively to this question actually
meant the born-digital material is migrated from physical carriers to safer storage, rather than to
preservation formats.
No libraries make use copies of all born‐digital material; 4 sometimes do; 2 seldom do; 2 never
do.
1 library always makes use copies of born‐digital material on demand; 2 sometimes do; 3
seldom do; 2 never do.
These findings suggest that NSLA archivists are less likely than the Greene and Meissner
respondents to always or usually: remove metal paper clips and staples; separate newspaper
cuttings; photocopy newspaper clippings; photocopy carbons or thermal faxes; mend torn
documents; replace intrinsically valuable documents with photocopies; interleave scrapbooks with
pH neutral papers; make use copies of AV material on demand. There are no actions which NSLA
libraries are more likely to always or usually undertake. There is already less ‘process’ in this area
than in the Greene and Meissner sample.
Overall, the findings on which tasks are actually undertaken during arrangement and description
suggest considerable variety of practice within the NSLA libraries, but also suggest that NSLA
archivists are already engaged in less ‘process’ of the kinds that Greene and Meissner suggested
were significantly slowing archival processing.
6.4 Processing performance
This survey essentially replicated the findings of Greene and Meissner who found that
archivists and archival managers were unable to answer fundamental questions about what
they thought performance should be, and what it actually is.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
36 of 45
Most of the NSLA respondents could give no clear answer as to how long it should take to
complete initial accessioning of collections; none could give a clear answer on how long it
actually does take. Most could give no clear answer as to how long it should take to fully
arrange and describe collections; only one could give a clear answer on how long it actually
does take.
Part of this uncertainty can be attributed to some of the definitional issues described above.
What does accessioning mean? What activities does it include?
However, even allowing for these varying definitions and nomenclatures, it is clear that
managers of archival collections do not have the information required to set and measure
against internal or external performance benchmarks for these crucial – and time‐consuming –
aspects of archival collection management.
6.5 Accessioning performance
Estimates for the minimum time required to accession a straightforward receipt such as a
single letter or volume ranged from 30 minutes to 3 hours. Estimates for the average time
accessioning receipts (large and small, simple and complex) should take ranged from 30
minutes to 10 hours. Estimates for the average time institutions think is actually taken to
accession receipts (large and small, simple and complex) ranged from 30 minutes to 15 hours.
However, it should be noted that the enormous differences reported here are in line with the
wide variation in local processing policies, definitions, accessioning practices, and the size of
average receipts; there is no sense in which apples are being compared with apples in this part
of the survey.
Any meaningful study of accessioning performance within an individual library would
require clear definition of what is and is not in scope, and what aspects of local processing
policy affect the scope of the task. Any attempt to compare accessioning performance across
the NSLA libraries would be significantly hampered by widely divergent policy and practice.
On the other hand, most NSLA libraries are only ‘somewhat confident’ about the time this
activity actually takes, and most reported ‘mixed’ satisfaction with efficiency of accessioning
workflows. Given that accessioning is a time‐consuming activity repeated – in some cases –
hundreds of times per annum and using a significant proportion of all archival collection
management resources, further costing of this activity (at least at the institutional level) may
be warranted.
The survey did not ask any questions about quality control of accessioning work, so it is not
known whether QA is done by the accessioner, other staff at the same level, or staff at a higher
level.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
37 of 45
6.6 Factors affecting accessioning performance
The survey asked respondents to ‘weight’ a number of factors that may affect accessioning
productivity. Again, there was variation among the responses. The highest weighting was
given to pre‐acquisition work undertaken by the library.
5 libraries regarded pre‐acquisition work undertaken by the library (e.g. appraisal, staff
boxing and listing) as essential; 3 as very important.
2 libraries regarded pre‐acquisition work by donors (e.g. boxing and listing) as essential; 1 as
very important; 4 as important; 1 as not very important.
2 libraries regarded suitable physical infrastructure as essential; 2 as very important; 4 as
important.
3 libraries regarded suitable systems infrastructure as essential; 4 as very important; 1 as
important.
3 libraries regarded workflows that minimise repetition (e.g. data rekeying) as essential; 4 as
very important; 1 as important.
3 libraries regarded staff competency, aptitude and experience as essential; 4 as very
important; 1 as important.
6.7 Arrangement and description performance
Most libraries found it almost impossible to say how many hours a linear metre of material
should take to arrange and describe, or to say how many metres a full‐time processing
archivist (with few or no other responsibilities, working on large 20th century collections)
should be able to arrange and describe. This is partly because there are very few full‐time
processing archivists working in NSLA libraries. Most fit some arrangement and description
work among other collection management or reader services activities. This in itself means
that – for most NSLA libraries – arrangement and description is an inherently inefficient stop‐
start affair.
The survey respondents’ suggestions for performance per linear metre varied from 5‐36 hours;
the proposed metres per annum varied from 30‐80. This variation is in itself demonstrates
how poorly performance is understood or managed.
It should be noted that only one library was able to accurately identify hours per metre and
metres per year. Ironically, the National Library of Australia’s current resourcing situation –
in which full arrangement and description is only possible by utilising trust and other off‐
budget funds – means that it has very accurate figures for full‐time processing archivist
performance over the last 4 financial years. Proposing a project for trust funding – including
giving a firm estimate of how much work will be achieved in a given period, and knowing
that the outcome must be reported on – is a wonderful way of concentrating the mind on this
issue!
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
38 of 45
An average of 80 metres per year has been achieved in each of the last 4 years by dedicated
processing archivists. It should be noted that all collections thus processed are ‘highest’
priority; they include personal papers of Prime Ministers; leading writers; artists; composers; a
single very large (and very complex) aviation collection; and a single very large records of a
literary agency. Performance varied from 60 metres per year (for primarily literary collections
where significant work was required to integrate accessions into previous A&D work, and
where very messy previous access conditions had to be corrected) through to 115 metres in a
year in which the records of the literary agency comprised nearly half.
Using NLA salaries and oncosts, this means the cost per metre processed is just under $900
per linear metre. NLA archivists also report on the actual hours spent processing (i.e.
excluding tea breaks, recreation leave, sick leave, team meeting attendance, corporate meeting
attendance, training, occasional Reading Room duties, A&D extras such as converting old
finding aids, and preparing material for digitisation, and other ‘extras’ such as being required
to assist at a display or write an article on the collections processed etc). They reported an
average of 12 hours expended per metre processed. At an average salary per hour of $50, or
$600 per metre of *actual* processing time, this suggests full‐time processors spend around 2/3
of their time actually processing collections.
Of the nine responding libraries, only one library requires processing archivists to produce a
processing plan for each collection being arranged and described.
Greene and Meissner concluded that ‘a competent processing archivist ought to be able to arrange
and describe large twentieth century archival materials at an average rate of four hours per cubic
foot’ and the ‘processing 400 feet per [full-time] processor per year is not a theoretical goal; it is
achievable’.
Linear metres can be converted to the US centric cubic foot:
Libraries using NAA type 1 boxes: 1 linear metre = 3.2 cubic feet
Libraries using type A boxes (14 cm): 1 linear metre = 3.8 cubic feet.
The National Library of Australia uses type A boxes. This means that full-time processing
archivists at the NLA have processed an average of just over 300 cubic feet per annum. Inclusion
of more straightforward organisational records took this to 437 cubic feet in a single year. These
figures were achieved with a high degree of processing relative to the Greene and Meissner
suggestions; collections were arranged in series, within series, refoldered, described at the folder
level, paperclips were removed; many photographs were separately housed; and finding aids
included almost all possible elements. This suggests that 400 cubic feet per annum or just over
100 linear metres per annum would indeed be possible if all Green and Meissner ‘more product,
less process’ suggestions were followed for all collections.
6.8 Factors affecting arrangement and description productivity
The survey asked respondents to ‘weight’ a number of factors that may affect arrangement
and description productivity. Again, there was variation among the responses. However, all
libraries agreed that staff competence, attitude and experience are essential to productivity.
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
39 of 45
The next most highly weighted factors were the ability to undertake processing as full time
occupation, and the availability of suitable systems infrastructure.
1 library regarded pre‐acquisition activity undertaken by the library (e.g. appraisal, staff
boxing and listing) as essential; 4 regarded this as very important; 1 as important.
1 library regarded pre‐acquisition activity by the donor as essential; 2 as very important; 5 as
important.
3 libraries regarded the standard of initial accessioning as essential; 1 as very important; 4 as
important.
4 regarded suitable physical infrastructure as essential; 2 as very important; 2 as important.
4 regarded suitable systems infrastructure as essential; 4 as very important.
2 regarded project planning as essential; 2 as very important; 3 as important; 1 as not very
important.
All libraries regarded staff competence, attitude and experience as essential.
1 regarded the ability to undertake processing activity as a full‐time occupation as essential; 6
as very important; 1 as important.
Quality control of finding aids is undertaken at different levels. 3 libraries reported that QA is
undertaken by staff at the same level as the processor; 5 libraries reported that QA is
undertaken by more senior staff.
6.9 Recent changes to processing archival collections
The survey also asked respondents to outline any recent (last 3 years) changes in their
processing policies and practices. Although archival areas are often characterised as resistant
to change, it is clear that considerable change has occurred within the NSLA archival
community. On the positive side, examples range across technical, professional, resource
allocation and organisational structure areas:
Implementation of Archivists’ Toolkit to manage accessioning and finding aid
production (2 libraries).
Merging of legacy databases with mainstream LMS (2 libraries).
More resources devoted to appraisal and other pre‐acquisition activities (several
libraries).
Requirement for donor lists (1 library with others considering).
Assignment of processing priorities at point of receipt (two libraries).
Move to varying levels of processing, rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach (several
libraries).
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
40 of 45
Project planning for A&D projects (1 library).
Merger of ‘library’ archives with State Records Office, resulting in more dedicated time
for processing.
Review of policies and procedures (most libraries).
Increased emphasis on standards (several libraries)
Successful use of lower level staff for accessioning (1 library)
On the negative side, staffing and organisational issues were mentioned:
Loss of experienced staff through retirement
Reduction of FTE available for work.
Effects of organisational restructure; more work required on securing effective policies,
practice and performance.
One library also noted (and no doubt others might have if pressed), that there is a much
greater intake of electronic records in recent years.
6.10 Blue sky
After being asked to reflect on recent changes, respondents were also asked to ‘blue sky’ about
what they would do to improve archival collection management workflows in the ‘ideal’
world of being able to close the archival doors to address these issues.
While the inevitable ‘clear the backlog’ responses were present, they did not dominate. Blue
sky desires included: total re‐engineering of workflows; projects to scope descriptive work
required; projects to use available information to improve access to collections; improving
control of collections through use of locations and barcoding; improving physical preservation
of collections; scoping and developing workflows to convert non paper based material to safe
digital formats.
Develop minimum standards of description on a national basis
Scope and develop programs for tackling existing backlog (several libraries)
Clear backlogs (several libraries)
Complete stocktake to find collections that have never been accessioned
Improve training, especially in standards and guidelines, appraisal and valuations
More time to select items for digitisation
More arrangement and description (which allows staff to engage deeply with content)`
Require box lists for incoming material to enable the quick creation of catalogue records
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
41 of 45
Implement 856 links to series and special lists, transcripts and translations
Streamline workflows that involve other areas of the library (e.g. in digitisation)
Improve processes for scoping, managing and preserving non paper based formats:
tapes, film, digital (several libraries)
Create an electronic record for every collection.
Improve physical infrastructure for accessioning and A&D
Process collections that have some sort of list on file
Decide what can be de‐accessioned
Physically rehouse entire collection (long term project)
Improve description of collections with only basic description
Improve description of high value collections with poor description
Master our backlogs while keeping on top of incoming material
Review all processes, targeting backlogs
Re‐engineer workflows to deliver collections to readers much more quickly
Utilise expert content knowledge (not necessarily librarians)
Get the front end right and capitalise on donor contribution and engagement
Import legacy data into At and other archival management systems
Physical survey of collection to record and add location information for every collection
Fast track new guidelines for A&D and rehousing
Convert pre‐accession records (very brief legacy data) to collection level catalogue records
Barcode all collection material
Identify collections which do not have finding aids and should have; scope project to
create finding aids
Develop workflows for born‐digital material
6.11 The real world
The survey finished by asking all respondents to return to the real world and list their top
three ‘worries’, and the three things they thought would help most. Respondents were asked
to assume that there was no magic wand to improve staffing, so ‘not enough staff’ was not
regarded as a valid answer (See 5.7.1 above about required staffing levels)
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
42 of 45
6.11.1 Worries
Lack of proactive collection development
How to manage born digital records
How to manage other electronic format material
Too many transfers awaiting processing
Lack of resources to undertake arrangement and description work
Inadequate physical infrastructure
Expectations from other areas of the library
Inadequate storage space (temporary problem for some; permanent for others)
Competing demands for time of collection management staff; collection management
always loses out
How to develop a pragmatic approach to the backlog
How to manage the cultural change needed to support new processes
Low level of detail in finding aids
Inability to undertake retrospective description improvement
‘Institutionalised’ backlogs: a mindset that says backlogs are a way of life and why fight
it
Mismatch between increasing volume of material received, but static throughput using
old processes
Delays inflicted on clients who want to access collections quickly
Our processes are too often focused on what we want and can do, not what our clients
want
Lack of trust in systems, resulting in time‐wasting manual duplication and checking
6.11.2 Things that would help
Full integration of archival management systems with other library systems
A system that allows production of finding aids with just one tool (not several unrelated
ones)
Increased interoperability between systems
Project time to fully scope backlog and develop streamlined processes that utilise scarce
staff time effectively
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
43 of 45
Upgraded collection management system
Focus on improving systems rather than retaining manual processes
‘Ring fencing’ of A&D from demand driven acquisition and reference work
Investigating opportunities for resource sharing with other parts of the library (without
endless restructures)
Barcoding the collection to improve collection control
Improved training for staff
More (and better) volunteers
Ability to publish all finding aids – in many formats – online and in ways that allow a
range of Web 2.0 navigation and interaction
Adequate physical infrastructure and work areas
Good box lists with incoming material
Library endorsement of archival processing as a vital part of the library’s work
Institutional understanding of the core activities of archival collection management
areas
Manual of policies and standards
Putting our energies where they belong
Eliminate ad hoc decision making – develop processes that work even in exceptional
circumstances
Endnotes
i OCLC 2009, ‘Mobilising unique resources’, accessed online 24 August 2010, at:
http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/mum.htm
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
44 of 45
ii OCLC is also conducting a study on the contents of more than 1 million MARC records describing archival
collections. The project brief notes that MARC records for archives are less consistent than those for other
kinds of materials, and aims to recommend practices that would enhance discovery of archival collections.
OCLC 2009, ‘’Analyze archival description practice’, accessed online 25 August 2010 at:
http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/holdings/default.htm
iii 2008, Describing archives in context: a guide to Australasian practice, Australian Society of Archivists.
iv 2008, Rules for archival description, accessed online 19 August 2010, at:
http://www.cdncouncilarchives.ca/archdesrules.html
v 2004, Describing Archives: A Content Standard, Society of American Archivists.
vi 2008, Describing archives in context: a guide to Australasian practice, Australian Society of Archivists.
vii Greene, Mark A and Meissner, Dennis, 2005, ‘More product, less process: pragmatically revamping
traditional processing approaches to deal with late 20th century collections’, American Archivist 68:208‐263
Re-imagining Libraries: Description and Cataloguing
45 of 45