1. An Archival Update Robin L. Dale
26 October 2010
HBCU Library Alliance 4th Membership Meeting
Looking Back, Moving Forward: HBCU Libraries Using Digital Technologies To Reach, Teach and Connect

2. “Reach, Teach, and Connect” for Archives
Challenges for Archival Collections
New(ish) Tools & Systems for Archival Collection Management
Trends, emerging practices and processes
According to a 1998 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) survey of special collections libraries, about 28 percent of manuscript collections are unprocessed, while 36 percent of graphic materials and 37 percent of audio materials have not been processed (Pantich 2001). Furthermore, the survey found that “the most frequent type of available access is through card catalog records or manual finding aids,” which suggests that researchers often must be physically present at special collections and archives to know what they hold (Pantich 2001, 8).
Studies have shown that between 25 percent and 30 percent of researchers have not been able to use collections because they have not been processed (Greene and Meissner 2005, 211). As a result, stakeholders such as researchers and donors become frustrated. Indeed, in a much discussed article, Greene and Meissner report that “at 51% of repositories, researchers, donors, and/or resource allocators had become upset because of backlogs”
Reducing archival backlogs fundamentally requires adopting
more-efficient means of processing collections, but software
can contribute to that efficiency and make it easier for archives to provide online access to archival descriptions. At many archives, information is scattered across several different digital and physical systems, resulting in duplication of effort and difficulty in locating needed information. For instance, one archive uses a hodgepodge of methods to manage its collections, including paper accession records; an Access database for collection-level status information; lists and databases
for tracking statistics; hundreds of EAD finding aids; hundreds of paper control folders providing collection-level information, some of which is duplicated in Word files or in XML finding aids; and item-level descriptions of objects to be digitized in Excel spreadsheets
In addition to the inefficiencies of using multiple systems to manage common data, Prom et al. (2007, ) notes a correlation between using EAD and other descriptive standards with larger backlogs and slower processing speeds. (EAD is an XML-based standard for representing archival finding aids, which describe archival collections.) Some institutions simply lack the ability to produce EAD finding aids or MARC catalog records. As Prom et al. suggest, “Until creating
an on-line finding aid and sharing it with appropriate content aggregators is as easy as using a word processor, the archival profession is unlikely to significantly improve access to the totality of records and papers stored in a repository”

3. Challenges for Archival Collections
Finding Aids are valuable, but often at varying levels
Finding aid creation was not necessarily integrated with any processing “tool”
Collection information not fully integrated into ILS
Access to digitized materials often not integrated with descriptive material
finding aid, collection record, ILS record
Archivists want a tool that is;
Integrated
Supports importing of Legacy data
Enables ease of exporting data
Provides web publishing capabilities
Simple, yet powerful
Rigorous, standards based
Provides Collections management features
Portable
Aids in setting priorities for processing

4. New(ish) Tools & Systems for Archival Collection Management
Both web-based & client/server
Open Source and proprietary
Differing technical skills & support req’d
Different functionality
Open Source options include
Archivists’ Toolkit
Archon
ICA AtoM
ArchivesSpace (upcoming)

5. Archivists’ Toolkit Client-server Current functionality
Intended for “in-house processing” [archivists & librarians]
accessioning and describing archival materials
establishing names and subjects associated with archival materials (donors too)
managing locations for the materials
exporting EAD finding aids, MARCXML records, and METS, MODS and Dublin Core records
Future functionality desires
Support repository user/resource use information
appraisal for archival materials
expressing and managing rights information
interoperability with user authentication systems
Development ended September 2009

6. Archon Web-based Current functionality Development ended April 2010
Intended for “back office” and public use [general public, archivists & librarians]
Create standards-compliant collection descriptions and full finding aids using web forms
Track locations for containers or groups of containers.
Edit descriptive information directly from an enhanced public interface by clicking the edit icon: .
Export MARC and EAD records (for importation to other systems).
List unprocessed collections
Upload digital objects/electronic records or link archival descriptions to external URLs
Public interface simultaneously search descriptions of archival materials, electronic records, and digital objects
Development ended April 2010

7. ICA AtoM
International Council on Archives Access to Memory – web-based
Not as fully featured as AT or Archon
International standards compliant
Controlled vocabularies built in
Generates EAD finding aids
Supports OAI harvesting
Can include digital images
Being tested to be integrated with a digital repository

8. ArchivesSpace: the future?
Mellon-funded project for a “next generation archives management tool (
Incorporate the best features of Archivists’ Toolkit and Archon
Considerations for best of “back office” and end user functionality
Consideration for system that will include digital images for users
Strong commitment to importing 100% of info from legacy Archivists’ Toolkit and Archon data

9. Trends, Emerging Practices
Rapid Capture: Mass Digitization of Special Collections
In-house approaches
Outsourcing solutions
Hardware (scanners, cameras, and related materials handling and lighting equipment)
Staffing (shifts and other factors that contribute to scale)
Actual throughput
Streamlining Photography & Scanning
Scan-on-demand workflow in reading rooms
Integration of patron-initiated scans with large-scale digitization and digital library workflow
Recommendations for minimum levels of scanning and metadata
Policies for hand-held cameras in reading rooms
Report: Capture and Release: Digital Cameras in the Reading Room (

10. Continuing Trends & Processes
More Product, Less Process (MPLP or the Greene-Meissner approach)
Integrated systems, fewer “Silos”
“Hidden Collections” – work to expose, describe, leverage, utilize archival collections
Collaborative approaches to make archives available in affordable, effective ways
Slight paraphrase of meeting theme: Using Archival Collections and Digital Technologies To Reach, Teach and Connect

11. Questions? Thank you! Robin L. Dale Robin.Dale@LYRASIS.org
(404)