Revisiting Backlog Processing with MPLP
•
0 gefällt mir•556 views
In August 2014, I was hired by the Reuther Library at Wayne State University to process 1700 linear feet of American Federation of Teachers records in 18 months. At the outset, I was concerned about some of the common complaints people have about the More Product, Less Process method, but I have found them to be manageable. Included in this poster are explanations of some of the issues I have encountered and how I have dealt with them. Overall, I have found MPLP to be very effective and I am on track to finish this project on time.
![Revisiting
Backlog
Processing
with
MPLP
More
Product,
Less
Process
and
the
American
Federation
of
Teachers
Backlog
Project
Stefanie
Caloia,
AFT
Project
Archivist,
Wayne
State
University
Reflect
Adapt
Process
Processing
1700
Linear
Feet
in
18
months
Methods
Outcomes
(so
far)
Space
Weeding
was
not
done
at
single
page
level.
Large
groupings
of
duplicate
material,
government
and
other
unannotated
publications,
large
groups
of
newspaper
clippings,
and
binder
clips
were
removed.
Folders
shifted
and
boxes
condensed
where
possible.
91
LF
of
space
saved
so
far.
Reference:
Greene,
Mark
A.
and
Dennis
Meissner.
“More
Product,
Less
Process:
Revamping
Traditional
Archival
Processing”
American
Archivist,
vol.
68
(
Fall/Winter
2005):
208-‐263.
Contact:
Stefanie
Caloia,
AFT
Project
Archivist
Walter
P.
Reuther
Library
of
Labor
and
Urban
Affairs,
Wayne
State
University
SCaloia@wayne.edu
!
Challenges
Sensitive
material
Having
a
thorough
understanding
of
a
collection
allows
sensitive
items
to
be
identi]ied.
Project
archivists
need
time
to
get
up
to
speed
on
this
but
talking
with
senior
members
of
staff
or
reading
literature
on
similar
collections
can
help.
Skimming
documents
to
locate
information
can
work
quickly
once
the
archivist
is
more
familiar
with
the
documents.
Conclusions
Ongoing
Challenges
Access
Description
was
added
to
make
up
for
less-‐
detailed
arrangement.
For
example,
an
explanation
of
why
items
are
arranged
a
certain
way
that
may
not
be
immediately
obvious
to
researchers
but
can
help
them
navigate
records.
More
description
on
scope
and
content,
less
in
administrative
histories.
Preservation
Quickly
]lipping
through
folder
contents
can
reveal
major
problems
that
need
addressing.
The
biggest
problems
with
these
collections
are
acidic
and
thermal
paper.
Some
preservation
photocopying
was
completed.
Refoldering
Some
folders
always
need
to
be
replaced,
such
as
hanging
]ile
folders.
Processed
8
Collections/980
LF
in
12
months
12
months/980
LF
=
~
2.15
hours/LF
Researchers
are
already
using
processed
collections
–
sometimes
asking
for
them
before
they
are
complete.
Space
Pressure
to
downsize
collections
for
ever-‐present
space
concerns
requires
time
consuming
item-‐level
review
Preservation
Thermal
paper,
news
print,
and
other
acidic
or
fragile
material
need
attention
Access
Minimal
arrangement
and
description
may
make
navigating
the
collections
dif]icult
and
limit
researcher
access
Sensitive
Material
Collections
contain
grievance
]iles,
personnel
]iles,
and
other
sensitive
information
that
requires
review
and
removal
Greene
&
Meissner’s
More
Product,
Less
Process
Process
according
to
needs
of
the
collection,
and
determine
“the
Golden
Minimum”
Average
linear
foot
should
take
4
hours
to
process
The
Reuther
Library’s
Processing
Guidelines
Level
I
–
Folder-‐level
arrangement
–
closest
to
traditional
processing
Level
II
–
Series-‐level
arrangement,
minimal
description
Level
III
–
Box
level
–
no
arrangement,
just
inventory
Levels
II
&
III
expected
to
take
1-‐2
hours/linear
foot;
Level
I:
4hrs/LF
15
Collections
from
the
American
Federation
of
Teachers
national
of]ice
and
local
af]iliates
Processing
at
various
levels
(see
Methods)
based
on
collection
and
researcher
needs
Collections
range
from
well
organized
with
box
inventories
to
unfoldered
documents
with
no
inventories
Accessions
from
1970s-‐2000s;
records
from
1916-‐2005
1700LF/18
months
=
~1.7
hours/LF
Project
runs
August
2014-‐February
2016](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/caloiasaaposter-150825131808-lva1-app6891/85/revisiting-backlog-processing-with-mplp-1-320.jpg)
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (13)
Ähnlich wie Revisiting Backlog Processing with MPLP
Ähnlich wie Revisiting Backlog Processing with MPLP (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Revisiting Backlog Processing with MPLP
- 1. Revisiting Backlog Processing with MPLP More Product, Less Process and the American Federation of Teachers Backlog Project Stefanie Caloia, AFT Project Archivist, Wayne State University Reflect Adapt Process Processing 1700 Linear Feet in 18 months Methods Outcomes (so far) Space Weeding was not done at single page level. Large groupings of duplicate material, government and other unannotated publications, large groups of newspaper clippings, and binder clips were removed. Folders shifted and boxes condensed where possible. 91 LF of space saved so far. Reference: Greene, Mark A. and Dennis Meissner. “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing” American Archivist, vol. 68 ( Fall/Winter 2005): 208-‐263. Contact: Stefanie Caloia, AFT Project Archivist Walter P. Reuther Library of Labor and Urban Affairs, Wayne State University SCaloia@wayne.edu ! Challenges Sensitive material Having a thorough understanding of a collection allows sensitive items to be identi]ied. Project archivists need time to get up to speed on this but talking with senior members of staff or reading literature on similar collections can help. Skimming documents to locate information can work quickly once the archivist is more familiar with the documents. Conclusions Ongoing Challenges Access Description was added to make up for less-‐ detailed arrangement. For example, an explanation of why items are arranged a certain way that may not be immediately obvious to researchers but can help them navigate records. More description on scope and content, less in administrative histories. Preservation Quickly ]lipping through folder contents can reveal major problems that need addressing. The biggest problems with these collections are acidic and thermal paper. Some preservation photocopying was completed. Refoldering Some folders always need to be replaced, such as hanging ]ile folders. Processed 8 Collections/980 LF in 12 months 12 months/980 LF = ~ 2.15 hours/LF Researchers are already using processed collections – sometimes asking for them before they are complete. Space Pressure to downsize collections for ever-‐present space concerns requires time consuming item-‐level review Preservation Thermal paper, news print, and other acidic or fragile material need attention Access Minimal arrangement and description may make navigating the collections dif]icult and limit researcher access Sensitive Material Collections contain grievance ]iles, personnel ]iles, and other sensitive information that requires review and removal Greene & Meissner’s More Product, Less Process Process according to needs of the collection, and determine “the Golden Minimum” Average linear foot should take 4 hours to process The Reuther Library’s Processing Guidelines Level I – Folder-‐level arrangement – closest to traditional processing Level II – Series-‐level arrangement, minimal description Level III – Box level – no arrangement, just inventory Levels II & III expected to take 1-‐2 hours/linear foot; Level I: 4hrs/LF 15 Collections from the American Federation of Teachers national of]ice and local af]iliates Processing at various levels (see Methods) based on collection and researcher needs Collections range from well organized with box inventories to unfoldered documents with no inventories Accessions from 1970s-‐2000s; records from 1916-‐2005 1700LF/18 months = ~1.7 hours/LF Project runs August 2014-‐February 2016