Who's Driving? Implementing a Multi-Disciplinary Collection Information System in a Museum

1

Museum Computer Network 2007

Who’s Driving? Implementing a multidisciplinary information system Chuck Patch The Historic New Orleans Collection

2


In The Beginning…

n Three Separate Divisions n Museum n Library n Manuscripts

n Museum is dominant n Largest staff n First to acquire a Collections Management System

The Force of Corporate Culture: In the late 1980’s, The Historic New Orleans Collection was composed of three autonomous divisions: Manuscripts, Curatorial and Library. By far the largest of these divisions was the Curatorial Department and the institution identified itself primarily as a museum, with the library and manuscripts divisions performing ancillary roles. Each division was comprised of a curator and possible assistant curators, a registrar and cataloging and processing staff. Each division had its own reading room and reference staff. The institution maintained three distinct accession numbering schemes and each department was responsible for maintaining its own reference[CWP1] indexes. The first division to automate was Curatorial, which implemented a system in 1986.

3

Original Organizational Structure

Administration

Curatorial Department Library Manuscripts Department

Head Curator Librarian Manuscripts Curator

Registrar

Reference

Assistant Curators / catalogers

Registrar

Cataloger

Reference

Registrar

Cataloger

Reference

Mandate to Unify Collections Access

Shortly after the purchase of the system was approved, a reorganization of the institution created a single Collections Management unit to serve all three divisions. A revamp of the system was immediately undertaken, but nothing could alter the fact that the system was designed for cultural objects and was an uncomfortable fit for the library and manuscripts divisions. Moreover, in its first implementation, the system could only handle the acquisition process for all the divisions, but final cataloging could only be done for Curatorial objects. As a result, library and manuscripts staff discounted the utility of the system and came to regard the data entry required for the acquisition process as a burden, skimping on information they put into the system as much as possible. In the most basic sense, for the library and manuscripts division, the system had only one purpose: the production of the acquisition report. Further complicating the issue, the registrars, while nominally adhering to rules created by the Collections Manager, continued to report to curators in the divisions.

Throughout the late 1980’s and into the mid 1990’s, a variety of fixes and accommodations were attempted to include cataloging records for library and manuscripts materials in the Collection Management System (Quixis.) These included a set of special programs to import Marc Format data from the OCLC bibliographic utility into the Collections Management system and present these records on screen in a libraryfriendly format. A method for creating Manuscript Collection records within the system was also devised, but this system only allowed for the creation of Collection level records. While the creation of manuscript collection group records has continued to the present, the import of MARC format data was abandoned quickly when it was determined that existing records in the system could not be updated from imported MARC records. In the meantime, further staffing and organizational changes were made in an effort to unify the divisions.

4


It Came To Pass…

n Gradual consolidation of divisions into research/public programs n Single Collections Management Office with common registration procedure

n Creation of Research Division n Combines reference functions of three divisions n Consolidates Curatorial, Library, Manuscripts staff

n Creation of Museum Programs n Combines education, public programming, exhibition

The creation of the Williams Research Center consolidated reference services for all divisions and put all reference staff into a single facility. Museum and public programs were split off as a separate division and were housed in a different facility.

5


And Pass…

n Reference staff occupied same space but continued to function as before n Reference staff were specialized in their original areas of expertise

n Only curatorial items had fully cataloged records in an online system

n Cataloging driven by curatorial imperatives, not public interest

n Different accession numbering schemes still applied to materials collected by the non existent divisions

6

Revised Organizational Structure

Curator of Collections

Collections Management Museum Programs Research Center

Registrars Curator of Collections Director of Research Center /Curator of Manuscripts

Cataloger Librarian

Manuscripts Cataloger

Bibliographic Cataloger

Curatorial Department

Manuscripts Department

Library

Registrars absorbed into Collections Management Department A further step toward an integrated processing approach came in 1993 when the registrars in each of the research divisions were put directly under the supervision of the Collections Manager. Prior to this, all registrars were required to adhere to standard procedures set up by the Collections Management Department, but were supervised by the department heads. This arrangement made it difficult for the Collections Manager to implement changes or insist on adherence to standard practices, particularly in cases where (as with the library) those practices, largely incorporating museum procedure, didn’t resemble common practice in their fields.

Inconsistencies in the Organizational Structure For nearly a year after the Williams Research Center opened, the staff organizational structure remained unchanged. In 1997 THNOC restructured its organization. Each of the research divisions disappeared from the organization chart. In place of the former structure, there were now three major divisions within the institution. These were the: Research Center, comprising the postacquisition processing staffs from the former Manuscripts and Library departments, and reference services. Museum Programs, which includes exhibition development, and educational outreach as well as processing for what had formerly been Curatorial Department materials. Collections Management, which now includes all registrars under its direct supervision and Preparatory staff. This new organizational structure was intended to provide a firm definition to the staff reporting. Nonetheless, a number of inconsistencies were embedded in the plan that encouraged most staff to behave as if nothing had changed. These inconsistencies included the following:

Job Functions that are not congruent with Chain of Command In a number of cases, the supervisory structure doesn’t correspond with the network of associations the position is part of. For example: The Head of Processing (who is also the Head Librarian) reports to the Director of the Williams Research Center. Also reporting to the Director of the WRC are the Processors, Project Personnel and Manuscripts Cataloger. A “Processing Team” is also defined, but the members of this team also report to the Director of the WRC and, interestingly, this team does not appear to include the Head of Processing. The only staff listed as reporting to the Head of Processing is the Library Cataloger and “Volunteers” a staff position that appears in numerous places on the organizational chart. Thus, according to THNOC’s own description, the Head of Processing has no staff and is not the team leader. Instead, direct supervision of all processing staff is the responsibility of the Director of the WRC While all registrars report to the Senior Registrars of the Collections Management Department, the Catalogers report to individual, head curators. The head curators, all of whom have double titles (Director of the Williams Research Center / Manuscripts Curator; Head Librarian / Head of Processing; Director of Museum Programs / Head of Curatorial) directly supervise individual catalogers, volunteers and project personnel. The Curators and the catalogers, project personnel and volunteers they supervise are split into different formal divisions. The catalogers and curators for Manuscripts and the Library are all members of the Williams Research Center, while the Head of Curatorial and the Curatorial Cataloger are members of the Museum Programs Division.

“Phantom” Departments [CLICK] The current reporting structure does away with the formal departmental structure of the older THNOC, while maintaining much of the supervisory structure. THNOC continues to have positions for Curators of Manuscripts and Curatorial, as well as a Librarian and all of these positions have workers involved in processing materials who report directly to them, most notably, the catalogers. Nonetheless, there are no formally defined Curatorial, Manuscripts or Library Departments. This arrangement effectively moves almost all responsibility for processing to the curatorial level, including technical decision making.

7


Catalogers seeking direction?

8


The Big Box

A Whole Bunch of things

25 Letters 246 Photos 32 Books

To Manuscripts Dept

To Curatorial Dept. To Library

Approaches to the problem: The Big Box Things happen. We had three departments and we knew that certain things held in each of the collections either weren’t described in any finding aid at all, or were mentioned so cursorily, they would never be found. Because the “disappearance” of information tended to happen most often in the context of the acquisition of a large collection of items by one or another of the departments, we came up with what came to be called the “Big Box” scenario, as in: “A big box arrives; it contains 25 letters, 246 photographs and 32 books…”

Two things seemed to happen in the big box scenario that weren’t very logical. If the box had something that interested curators in each of the divisions, it was unpacked and separated into different accessions – artificial accessions, really, since the box came from one place and really represented a single transaction. So in our hypothetical situation, the letters become a manuscripts accession, the photos go to Curatorial and the books are accessioned into the library. All groups are, in our case given numbers in separate numbering schemes. The other thing that happened was that the entire box was taken by one of the departments and the portions that didn’t interest the curators wound up in the paper accession files with virtually no descriptive documentation, and not much of a trail to get back to it if someone ever thought it was interesting enough to describe. The big box seemed the most appropriate point to attack a plethora of problems, which at first looked mostly technical, then largely procedural and ultimately seems a symbiotic combination of procedure, software and intent, not necessarily in that order.

9


Changes at the level of intake

n Subtle and not so subtle n Replaced the term “department” with “descriptive focus”: n Visual n Archives n Bibliographic n (more as time went by)

n Switched to a single accession numbering system

n Streamlined acquisition to “bare bones” to speed up generation of fundamental docs

The most dramatic change was the switch to a single numbering system, which necessitated the creation of methods to handle old vs. new acquisitions. However, the move enormously simplified record handling and auditing issues.

In less earth shaking moves, we expunged the word “department” from our communications concerning the project.

Finally, we attempted to move the cataloging / processing of collections downstream from the registrar’s office and made the acquisitions and registration module in our design a barebones system that captured only the most essential information and could generate receipts and records with only a few minutes of work.

10


The system we codeveloped with Minisis Inc. allowed a registrar, ideally operating on the instructions of a curator or processing manager (a position that didn’t exist when we designed the system) to generate records in special cataloging modules for bibliographic or archival records. We called this “descriptive focus”. Everything gets a record in the Collections Management portion by default. Eventually we developed several other descriptive foci that designated special handling situations.

11


Fully featured cataloging modules for each discipline

n Collections management n EVERYTHING gets a CM record n 3DO/Image records live here

n Field specific and general help files, as well as picklists support: § CCO § CDWA § AAT

12


Collections Management 3 DO/Image Module

The Collections Management module (what we designate as the 3DO/image module) is used for all objects that come into the institution. Help screens and data entry constraints implement CCO and CDWA.

13


Bibliographic Module

n Marc format import/export/edit

n Multiple download source options

n Support for bibliographic formats and standards

n Links at item level to CM module

The bibliographic module is a full library system. We don’t use the circulation system but we are using the serials module. It links seamlessly to OCLC’s online system and can import MARC format data. An internal MARC database allows us to store the record as pure MARC, but in order for it to link up to other portions of the system (such as the registration and CMS) the records are imported to a simpler record format. The copy level information for any title hyperlinks to its corresponding CMS, itemlevel record.

14


Manuscripts module

n Import/export of EAD

n Support for n APPM n RAD

n Links at item level to CM module

The archival module implements the APPM and RAD standards, supports import and export of EAD data and links at the item level to the CMS.

15


But how do we get the catalogers/curators/reference folks to adopt the system?

16


Why won’t they just use it?

n We moved the implementation of standards downstream from the registrars, but..

n Catalogers worked for the curators n Curators weren’t especially concerned about interoperability, repurposing, and..

n PUBLIC ACCESS

17


“Internal” vs.. “External” Orientation

Libraries: External Orientation

Unmediated Public Access

Museums: Internal Orientation

Mediated Presentation

Who are we doing this for?

The Public

Public Access vs. mediated Presentation Perhaps the most fundamental difference in approach between libraries and museums, is in their relationship to the public. The mission of the library is to provide access to its holdings by the public. By definition this assumes that information is extracted by the patron and not a curator. In contrast, in a typical museum information about the collections is dispensed pedagogically via exhibits, publications, public lectures and symposia. The only people accessing the database without programmatic guidance are museum staff. In terms of information system design, the library assumes a public access system providing largely unmediated access to information about its holdings. The Museum, on the other hand, operates on the implicit assumption that information on collections will be accessed primarily by staff members in the process of putting together mediated presentations of museum holdings for the public. In the former case, the system emphasis will be on “discovery;” the ability to locate relevant material within the database. In the latter case, the emphasis will be on depth of description and unique physical attributes: curatorial staff, for the most part, knows what is in the collection and how to find it within the database. What they need from the database is accurate ownership information, dimensions and thorough descriptions.

18


Reference Themes

§ Reference Code : ISAD(G) § e.g. HNOC Mss205 1.1 § Repeatable § Works for virtual and real collections § Makes Collecting Policy Explicit § Provides appropriate control to curators § Facilitates hierarchical description § Compatible with EAD

Reference Codes How do you reconcile these differences? The first step is to realize that because they begin from opposite viewpoints, it can be possible to support both. Indeed, the problem turns out not to be that you can’t describe something in a museum/object centric sort of way and as part of collection with essential internal relationships. The problem turns out to be far more pedestrian – how do you allocate resources and set up processes to accommodate multiple viewpoints? The approach we’ve decided to take is to assign all new items, collections, etc. coming into the institution a “reference code.” This is a concept borrowed from the archival world, and is spelled out in the ISAD(G) standards. Essentially, it is a naming and classification method for assigning identities to repositories. But the classification system is designed to be hierarchical and thus allows for the enumeration of collections within an institution and the breakout of those collections into subparts

Among it’s advantages is that it allows us to classify incoming materials in a logical and consistent way prior to cataloging.

19


Reference Theme Committee

n Composed of curatorial, library and archives catalogers, supervisory level reference services and collections management personnel – and curators

n Mandate to create 12 hierarchies that describe all of our holdings

n Multiple hierarchies could be applied to a single record

n Top level to be assigned by curator at time of acquisition consideration

n Lower levels to be assigned by catalogers

A committee was formed to come up with an internal classification system that would describe our holdings. It was not intended to supplant any professionally accepted standards but to create what amounted to the first explicit description of our collecting policies. It was purposely made with only 12 major hierarchies so that it could easily be used by curators and then fleshed out by catalogers. Multiple hierarchies could be assigned to any item.

20


Top Level

n Architecture and Urban Development n Fine and Decorative Arts n Literary Arts n Music and Performing Arts n Commerce, Industry and Agriculture n Geography and Land Tenure n Historical Eras n Military History n Politics, Government and Law n Science and Technology n Social History n Local Life and Customs

21


Screen showing implementation of collection themes. These themes are assigned to all items and provide the unifying vocabulary for all holdings regardless of type. Users can search on these and drill down to the items in the curatorial, bibliographic or archival databases and then use discipline specific vocabularies to narrow their search.

22


Web Interface

The system when implemented on the web will first offer the user the cross— collection search option

23


Results will come back indicating the type of material

24


A department is born

n 2007 : the Processing Department is created, putting all catalogers under one supervisor: the Assistant Director of the Research Center

n He creates the Processing Committee, composed of representatives of all areas in the museum to analyze and reform processing procedures n First reading assignment: 1999 RFI for a new system

The experience of the Themes Committee was the first cross”departmental” group to deal with classification and description issues. It’s success has led to the creation of a processing division which finally takes cataloging control away from the curators and makes it an independent process with feedback from the reference division.

25


And everyone lived happily forever

Photos by chuck patch www.flickr.com/photos/chuckp

Who's Driving? Implementing a Multi-Disciplinary Collection Information System in a Museum

Education

Transcript of Who's Driving? Implementing a Multi-Disciplinary Collection Information System in a Museum