1. My Resource for Excellence. Canadian Heritage Information Network Creation of the Collections Management Software Review (CMSR) Heather Dunn, CHIN

2. Presentation Summary  CHIN and its mandate  What is the CHIN Collections Management Software Review?  Why did CHIN undertake this project?  How was the Review conducted?  Evaluation team  Tools  Process  Publication

3. National Centre of Excellence for Museums of the Department of Canadian Heritage, created in 1972 Develops and provides skill development Products and services for heritage professionals Supports the development, presentation and marketing of digital innovative technologies

4. CHIN – 1972-2010  1972 – The National Inventory Program  1982 – Canadian Heritage Information Network  1995 – First Corporate / Professional Web site  1999 – Artefacts Canada National Database  2001 – Virtual Museum of Canada  2009 – Redesign of Web sites, 3 portals:  The Corporate site  www.chin.gc.ca www.chin.gc.ca  The Professional Exchange  www.pro.rcip-chin.gc.ca www.pro.rcip-chin.gc.ca  The Virtual Museum of Canada  www.virtualmuseum.ca www.virtualmuseum.ca

5. Active Network of Heritage Institutions  More than 1,400 not-for-profit heritage member institutions of all sizes and disciplines, from across Canada  Over 35 years of experience  National and international partnerships

6. What Is the Collections Management Software Review (CMSR)?  A series of CHIN publications which evaluated collections management software products for museums  Four editions, published between 1996 and 2003

7. What Is the CMSR (continued)?  Assessed the suitability of specific software to museum discipline, collections size, museum functions, and hardware and software environment  Analyzed vendor reliability, support requirements, customization possibilities, and costs  Ensured that the software met CHIN and international standards, and allowed for importing and exporting data

8. Why Did CHIN Undertake the CMSR Project?  In 1995, CHIN began assisting museums with the transition of their collections data from the CHIN mainframe to in- house collections management systems  The CMSR was created to assist museums with the transition by helping them select appropriate software  The transition was accomplished by 1998  Today, museums maintain their own collections management data in-house, and periodically upload data to the Canadian national database, now called "Artefacts Canada"

9. Editions of the Review  CHIN published four editions of the Review:  Edition 1 (1996) reviewed 11 software products  Edition 2 (1997) reviewed 16 software products  Edition 3 (2000) reviewed 18 software products  Edition 4 (2003) reviewed 16 software products

11. My Resource for Excellence.

14. Product Reports – excerpt

22. How Was the Review Produced?  Creation of the Criteria Checklist  Request for Information  Evaluation Team  Demonstrations/Evaluations  Publication

23. Creation of the Criteria Checklist  A list of over 500 functions that can be performed by a collections management system. For example:  Does the system allow the user to record the person who moved an object or specimen lot? Demonstrate.  Is it possible for external pre-built thesaural files to be integrated into the software? Demonstrate.  The Checklist was a key tool in the creation of the Review— it was the basis for comparison used to assess and rate each function performed by the various software packages

24. Requesting Information from Software Vendors  An request for product information was sent to over 40 Collections Management Software Vendors internationally  The request:  outlined the parameters for the evaluation  asked the vendor for pertinent information such as vendor product description, product costs, etc.  included the Criteria Checklist to be completed by the vendor  Responding software vendors indicated which functions within the Checklist they could perform, and were scheduled to demonstrate those functions that they claimed to support.

25. The Evaluation Team  The Evaluation Team for the Reviews consisted of:  4 CHIN staff members (3 for some Editions) that were dedicated full-time to the Review  Approximately 20 museum professionals volunteering as reviewers  The volunteer team members were generally from Canadian or U.S. museums that were looking for software  To find volunteer evaluators, CHIN notified the museum community of the opportunity to evaluate collections management software  Respondents included registrars, curators and collections managers. All had background in collections management, but represented wide variety of museum sizes and disciplines.

26. Product Demonstrations  Each software vendor that had responded to the Request for Information was scheduled to demonstrate their software  For the earlier Editions:  Demo at the CHIN office  A 2-day demo of all the Checklist items the vendor supported  Approximately 20 evaluators, from Canadian museums – some local, many remote  For later Editions:  Evaluations were “taken to the community” – demos in conjunction with U.S and Canadian museum conferences (e.g., AAM, CMA, etc.)  A 1-day demo of selected criteria (169 of 500)  List of criteria selected for evaluation not shared with the vendor in advance

27. Evaluation  The Evaluation Team followed the Criteria Checklist, requesting the vendor to demonstrate only the functions they could support  For each function demonstrated, team members provided:  Scores (e.g., Good, Fair, Poor, or Does not Perform, with the addition of “+” or “-” for more accuracy)  Comments to each demonstrated criteria  A narrative overall evaluation of the software  The scores were converted to numeric values, averaged and summarized for the “Software Review”  Detailed average scores and comments were made available within “Product Profiles”, one for each software product

28. Publication  Software Review and Criteria Checklist were made freely available on the CHIN Web site; printed versions sold  Criteria Checklist was also available in a “customizable” version online that allowed museums to select the criteria that they required from the Checklist, and produce a custom report detailing which software products met their selected criteria and how they performed  “Product Profiles” (detailed reports on individual software products) were given to CHIN member museums on request, but sold to others

29. Why Did Software Vendors Participate?  CHIN did not pay vendors to participate or cover their demonstration costs  Vendors saw this as an opportunity to market their software  Vendors that were included in the first editions of the Review had a head start in an emerging market in Canada  CHIN received requests from vendors wanting to participate in subsequent reviews

30. Influence on the Software Market  “CHIN Accreditation” – achieved if the software imports/exports data in a format that was compatible with Canada’s national collections inventories  Software products marketed as “CHIN-Accredited”  As a result, many vendors developed an import/export function specifically for the Canadian market, based on CHIN data fields

31. How Museums Used the Review and Related Products  Museums used the Review to shortlist software products  The museum then requested the more detailed “Product Profiles” for their shortlisted systems  The museum requested an in-house demonstration from the vendors of those products that met their criteria  Museums downloaded and modified the Criteria Checklist and used it to score/rate products during their own demos to perform their own evaluation of the systems  Museums used the online Software Selection course to guide them through the software selection process  Positive reviews from museums and from evaluators

32. Collections Management Software in Canada  A very wide variety of software is used in Canada. CHIN does not endorse any particular software. However, the predominant software packages are:  For small museums:  Virtual Collections (GCI Inc.)  PastPerfect  For medium to large museums:  Mimsy (Willoughby/Selago)  The Museum System (Gallery Systems)  KE-EMu

33. How Long Did It Take?  About 9 months per Edition  For the 4 th Edition:  January 2003 – RFI sent out to vendors  February 2003 – Responses received  April to June 2003 – Software Evaluations took place at various locations  July-September 2003 – Results were compiled  Published in late Fall of 2003

34. Future?  Plans to update the Criteria Checklist in 2010- 2011  Update to reflect new functionality of today’s software products

35. Thank You! Heather Dunn Heritage Information Analyst Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN) Department of Canadian Heritage Government of Canada heather.dunn@pch.gc.ca