‘More product, less process’: method, madness or practice?

Abstract

This article aims to assess the applicability of Greene and Meissner's ‘More product, less process’ (MPLP) in a UK context, primarily in relation to description. This US methodology responds to the bulk of twentieth-century collections and large backlogs, by outlining a ‘minimal’ approach to arrangement and description and calling for better processing metrics. The article begins by presenting the rationale, findings and recommendations of MPLP before turning to a UK perspective. The article proceeds to conduct a review of UK theory and standards in relation to arrangement and description, assess the impetus for electronic collection-level initiatives and analyse regional responses to cataloguing backlogs. Finally, the study gauges the professional reception of MPLP and its impact on the user, using data gathered from interviews with UK practitioners. These concerns are balanced with a need to adopt a fluid view of what constitutes best practice. The study concludes that although the UK is yet to establish standards for processing metrics, MPLP is not contrary to UK theory and practice and does not represent the level of change implied by the authors and other commentators. Instead, MPLP is valuable in re-framing discussion surrounding description, scoring a line between the realistic and ideal.

Keywords::

• MPLP
• arrangement
• description
• processing

Acknowledgements

The author expresses her gratitude to those individuals who participated as interviewees: Kevin Bolton, Alexandra Eveleigh, Richard Ovenden, Joanna Rae and Bill Stockting. She is also grateful to Justine Winstanley-Brown for her input on the application of MPLP at York. These people have aided a better understanding of the application and reception of MPLP in a UK context. Thanks are also due to Alexandra Buchanan of the University of Liverpool for her encouragement and invaluable editorial contributions. She is also indebted to the independent reviewers, who aided the focus and rigour of this piece.

Notes

^1.Strom, “Texas-Sized Progress,” 111.

^2. It is recognized that there is more than one definition of ‘backlog’, but for current purposes, it is defined by Greene and Meissner simply as ‘inaccessible material’.

^3.Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process,” 208–63. ‘Processing’, often used in the US to describe what the UK would refer to as ‘description’, is defined more broadly by Greene and Meissner as ‘arrangement, description and cataloguing’ and will be used throughout to signify all of the actions carried out upon a collection to enable use in accordance with the SAA's holistic definition: ‘the arrangement, description and housing of archival materials for storage and use’. In the UK, ‘cataloguing’ is also used frequently in practice to denote descriptive output and is used here.

^4. Society of American Archivists. “Implementing More Product, Less Process”. Accessed July 11, 2011. http://www2.archivists.org/prof-education/course-catalog/implementing-%E2%80%9Cmore-product-less-process%E2%80%9D.

^5. Historical Manuscripts Commission. “Survey of Archive Cataloguing Problems, England and Wales,” 2002. Accessed April 5, 2011. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110202090829/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cataloguing_problems.pdf.

^6.Prom, “Optimum Access?,” 147.

^7. The interview data represents the views of archivists and therefore while user implications are considered, a thorough UK study would need to be undertaken with users and finding aids in order to fairly and accurately assess MPLP's user-centric aims.

^8. It should be noted here that MPLP uses terminology from the international standard on archival description, ISAD(G), to which the majority of UK archivists adhere.

^9.Ness, “Much Ado about Paper Clips,” 132.

^10. Since conducting this study, MPLP has been applied specifically to a NCGS-funded project to catalogue York's civic archive (entitled ‘York: A City Making History’). This suggests that MPLP principles have started to affect UK practice and the results of this initiative will be of interest; nevertheless, it was not felt that waiting for the results of this initiative would merit further delaying the publication of the present research. However, the project team's rationale for MPLP is discussed under ‘Impact on the User’.

^11. Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process,” 209–11.

^12. Ibid., 234.

^13. Ibid., 229–35.

^14. Ibid., 253.

^15. The preservation agenda is potentially challenged by MPLP. The UK literature review in this respect was commensurate with Greene and Meissner's findings, revealing an uncertainty about the value/place of item-level measures in the context of collection and series-level description, but this is worthy of a separate study informed by views of conservators.

^16. Interview with Alexandra Eveleigh, University College London, 28 June 2011.

^17.Bearman, Archival Methods, 28–9.

^18. For Bearman, labour-intensive processing is not due to overly detailed arrangement and description per se, but passivity at the acquisition stage. He advocates automatically capturing more contextual information when archives are acquired to strengthen provenance and continuity. Ibid., 31–2.

^19.Yakel, “Archival Representation,” 22.

^20. Cook's item and piece descriptors are equivalent to the ‘file’ and ‘item’ levels in ISAD(G). Cook, The Management of Information from Archives, 104.

^21. Ibid., 113.

^22. Ibid., 102.

^23. Ibid., 140–2.

^24. Ibid., 232.

^25.Procter and Cook, Manual of Archival Description, 21–2.

^26.Williams, Managing Archives, 101.

^27. Ibid., 73.

^28. The National Archives. “Standard for Record Repositories,” 2004. Accessed August 7, 2011. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/standard2005.pdf.

^29. National Council on Archives. “PSQG Standard for Access to Archives,” 2008. Accessed August 8, 2011. http://www.nca.org.uk/materials/access_standard_2008.pdf.

^30. The National Archives. “Archive Service Accreditation Guidance,” 2013. Accessed July 11, 2013. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/archives/archive-service-accreditation-guidance-june-2013-v2_.pdf.

^31. Interview with Alexandra Eveleigh, University College London, 28 June 2011.

^32. West Yorkshire Archive Service. “Cataloguing Strategy 2007–2009” Accessed July 28, 2011. http://www.wyjs.org.uk/documents/archives/K2.2.2A.pdf. Additional elements of the strategy take into account a staff restructure, the more active co-ordination of collections work across the districts and the challenges and opportunities proffered by the digital environment in terms of born digital material and harnessing user participation effectively.

^33. Interview with Alexandra Eveleigh, University College London, 28 June 2011.

^34. Interview with Joanna Rae, British Antarctic Survey, 29 June 2011.

^35. Interview with Bill Stockting, The British Library, 20 July 2011.

^36. Ibid.

^37. Ibid.

^38. Interview with Bill Stockting, The British Library, 20 July 2011.

^39. Interview with Richard Ovenden, Bodleian Library, 30 June 2011.

^40. UKOLN and the National Council on Archives. “Full Disclosure: Releasing the Value of Library and Archive Collections,” 1999. Accessed April 5, 2011. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/lic/fulldisclosure/report.pdf.

^41. It is not within the scope of this study to compare and contrast each of these resources.

^42.Cosgrave, “The AIM25 Project,” 173.

^43. JISC. Circular 4/01: Developing the Archives Hub: Further Call for Collection-Level Content. Accessed April 5, 2011. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/funding_calls/2001/11/circular_4_01.aspx. Of the 24,131 descriptions on the Hub, 19,488 are collection level only, and 4643 have components. Bethan Ruddock: email of 8 September 2011 to the author.

^44.Chapman. “Collection-level Descriptions,” 151.

^45. JISC. “Circular 4/01: Developing the Archives Hub: Further Call for Collection-Level Content.” Accessed April 5, 2011. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/funding_calls/2001/11/circular_4_01.aspx.

^46. Cosgrave. “The AIM25 Project,” 171–2. These concerns reflect many of those of MPLP critics, but to inverse the argument to say that collections are best left completely uncatalogued until more resources are available will ensure that collections remain an expensive waste of space and neglect the opportunities proffered by increased demand and exposure.

^47. The National Archives. “A2A-Guidelines for Collection-Level Description,” 2002. Accessed April 5, 2011. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cat_guide_colln.pdf. It is worth noting here the guidelines' equation of ‘multi-level description’ and item-level description. This contributes to a detailed mindset, since it is possible to have description at more than one level and not include the item-level.

^48. North West Museums Libraries and Archives Council. “Logjam: An Audit of Uncatalogued Collections in the North West,” 2004. Accessed April 3, 2011. http://www.northwestarchives.org.uk/Logjam.pdf.

^49. Ibid.

^50. East Midlands Regional Archives Council and East Midlands Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. “EMCAT: East Midlands Cataloguing Project,” 2006. Accessed August 20, 2011. research.mla.gov.uk/evidence/documents/EMCAT%20Report.doc.

^51. The National Archives. “Self-Assessment Questionnaire,” 2010. Accessed August 20, 2011]. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/self-assessment-questionnaire-2010.xls.

^52. The National Archives. “Self-Assessment Questionnaire: Guidance Notes for Completion,” 2010. Accessed August 20, 2011. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/self-assessment-guidance-note-2010.pdf. To gain the highest score of 6, 80% of collections must be fully catalogued to at least the mandatory elements of ISAD(G) and not more than 5% completely unlisted. These two categories are the main indicators for scoring, with the less clear second category drafted in additionally for scores of 4 and below – interestingly, the third category, box-listed material/collection-level descriptions only, is not factored into the scoring guide at all, potentially undermining the gateway initiatives.

^53.Abraham, Balzarini and Frantilla, “What is Backlog is Prologue,” 31–44. Another study pointed to objections to quantifying cost on theoretical grounds, with the idealist view that value is the only factor in decision-making, as well as fear of what will be found: ‘if archivists are afraid that they will be shocked by what they will find…they are probably right…our own experience has provided us with more surprises or even shocks than validation.’ Eriksen and Shuster, “Beneficial Shocks,” 40–1.

^54. Methven also laments that traditional indicators tend to say more about quantity and efficiency rather than professional effectiveness and service objectives. Methven, “Performance Measurement and Standards,” 79–82.

^55. National Council on Archives. “PSQG Performance Indicators Working Party, Towards Generic and Universal PIs for Archives,” 2003. Accessed August 25, 2011. http://www.nca.org.uk/materials/performance_measures.pdf.

^56. Interview with Bill Stockting, British Library, 20 July 2011.

^57. Interview with Kevin Bolton, Greater Manchester Record Office, 22 June 2011.

^58. North West Museums Libraries and Archives Council. “Logjam: An Audit of Uncatalogued Collections in the North West,” 2004. Accessed April 3, 2011. http://www.northwestarchives.org.uk/Logjam.pdf.

^59. Ibid.

^60. Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process,” 255.

^61. Interview with Richard Ovenden, Bodleian Library, 30 June 2011.

^62. Interview with Bill Stockting, British Library, 20 July 2011.

^63. Interview with Kevin Bolton, Greater Manchester Record Office, 22 June 2011.

^64. Interview with Joanna Rae, British Antarctic Survey, 29 June 2011.

^65.Weideman, “Accessioning as Processing,” 275.

^66. Ibid., 276–7.

^67. Interview with Alexandra Eveleigh, University College London, 28 June 2011.

^68. Interview with Kevin Bolton, Greater Manchester Record Office, 22 June 2011.

^69. North West Museums Libraries and Archives Council. “Logjam: An Audit of Uncatalogued Collections in the North West,” 2004. Accessed April 3, 2011. http://www.northwestarchives.org.uk/Logjam.pdf.

^70. It is beyond the scope of this study to delineate a risk management framework. However, one would need to be integrated with the mission of the service, which includes access. A major part of any framework will be deciding whether MPLP poses ‘acceptable’ risks to particular collections, taking into account a service's ability to mitigate them. Little has been written on risk management in the archival domain, other than in relation to preservation (Bulow, “Collection Management,” 65–78). The British Library has an established framework, which is based upon the government's publication for risk management: HM Treasury. “The Orange Book: Management of Risk – Principles and Concepts,” 2004. Accessed August 27, 2011. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/orange_book.pdf.

^71.McCrea, “Getting More for Less,” 284–5.

^72. Ibid., 287–8.

^73. Interview with Alexandra Eveleigh, University College London, 28 June 2011.

^74. Interview with Joanna Rae, British Antarctic Survey, 29 June 2011.

^75. Columbia University Libraries Blogs. “Tweezers and Shovels: On the Use of MPLP.” Accessed April 2, 2011. https://blogs.cul.columbia.edu/schapiro/2009/03/09/more-product-less-process-mplp/.

^76. Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process,” 209.

^77. Interview with Bill Stockting, The British Library, 20 July 2011.

^78. McFarland. “Minimal Processing as Management Strategy,” Society of American Archivists Conference, 2008. http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/lonearr/resources.asp.

^79. Interview with Richard Ovenden, Bodleian Library, 30 June 2011.

^80. Santamaria, “Archives Next, Guest blog.” Accessed August 25, 2011. http://www.archivesnext.com/?p = 332. Elizabeth Yakel has gone as far as to say that archivists create political statements by selecting information and access points for inclusion in finding aids. Yakel, “Archival Representation,” 20.

^81. It is important to note that HLF is more focused on outreach initiatives and the outcomes of cataloguing.

^82. Alternative approaches, however, are not outlined. The Pilgrim Trust. “National Cataloguing Grants Scheme: Five Year Review 2006–2011,” 2011. Accessed August 25, 2011. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/pilgrim-trust-review.pdf.

^83. The project will produce an online finding aid, thus increasing the archive's online presence dramatically. Justine Winstanley-Brown: email of 29 April 2013 to the author.

^84. Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process,” 212. An issue with this broad-brush comment is that many archives have not developed sophisticated systems for ascertaining what the needs of their users are in respect of finding aids (Greene and Meissner's study aside) and their expectations of access to collections. The PSQG Survey of Visitors to UK Archives collects ratings of catalogues and finding aids according to basic indicators of ‘Very Good, Good, Adequate’ and so on, but does not publish anything more meaningful qualifying them.

^85.Gorzalski, “Minimal Processing,” 196.

^86. Interview with Richard Ovenden, Bodleian Library, 30 June 2011.

^87.Cook, “Viewing the World Upside Down,” 23–34.

^88. Ibid., 126–7.

^89. Ibid., 131.

^90.Sabre and Hamburger, “A Case for Item-Level Indexing,” 244.

^91. Weideman, “Accessioning as Processing,” 282–3.

^92. Van Ness, “Much Ado about Paper Clips,” 141.

^93. The LEADERS (2001–2004) project is an important exception, which aimed to analyse user needs as a pre-requisite to improving remote finding aids and integrating imaging technology. Its report on user-testing dealt more with the particular challenges faced when navigating an online search environment, although it discovered that the level of description users find useful does, in part, depend on the type of archival material in question. See Anna Sexton, “Report on User Testing of LEADERS Demonstrator Application,” 2004. Accessed May 23, 2013. http://leaders.sourceforge.net/documentation/userreport.html.

^94.Duff and Fox, “You're a Guide rather than an Expert,” 141.

^95. Ibid., 145.

^96.Cox, “Maximal Processing, or, Archivist on a Pale Horse,” 141.

^97.Yakel, “Hidden Collections in Archives and Libraries,” 95–9.

^98. Interview with Alexandra Eveleigh, University College London, 28 June 2011.

^99.Crowe and Spilman, “MPLP @ 5,” 119.

^100. Interview with Alexandra Eveleigh, University College London, 28 June 2011.

^101. One US repository warns potential users that they should not expect cataloguing down to item-level nor a consistent level of detail. Yale University Library, Archives and Manuscripts. “Using Archives and Manuscripts: A Tutorial.” Accessed August 20, 2011. http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/tutorial/tutorial.htm.

^102. Justine Winstanley-Brown: email of 29 April 2013 to the author.

^103. Justine Winstanley-Brown: email of 7 May 2013 to the author.

^104. Ibid.