Glasgow Museums are seven years into such a task. The end data is, er, em, well
that is not firmly inked in yet. (If it ever is finishable. There is always
some data enhancement, object classification scheme, etc, to be done). Our
approach was to glean basic record data through a "rapid data entry" programme.
This enabled us to capture the core information, enough to identify the object
and any legal status information. We left out any exhibition histories,
bibliographies, full physical descriptions, detailed measurements, display label
text, that sort of thing. This programme of initial data entry took
approximately 1 year of planning, then 3 years of actual keying in.
We used 4 methods to get the data onto our databases. (I say databases because
we had to use different software. Most records were entered on a DOS database,
Symantec's Q&A and then batched in to our mini-computer based collections
management system Quixis. We also had to export data from external sources
which were entered on Dbase III. While time consuming on my part, it was easier
for the data entry staff as Quixis was not designed for rapid data entry, and
couldn't be used outside of our museum)
Methods of data entry we used:
1. Salaried staff (on 3 year contracts), based in the Documentation office
2. Short term contracted in staff, based in another part of the building
3. Contracted out staff (to an ex-member of staff in their own home)
4. Data entry company
There is no doubt in my mind that these are listed in order of effectiveness.
Having staff in the same room makes life much easier. Communication is the most
important factor. The data manager is able to give information on data
standards, solve unforeseen problems, etc. The data entry staff benefit because
they feel part of the project. You can also monitor their work better!
Unfortunatly, due to council wide cuts, these posts were lost for 18 months and
very little data entry was done in this period.
Contracting in staff involves just as much initial training as for permanent,
which is lost to the institution when they leave, but you can get a lot of work
done. We contracted two people for 5 months (which was extended when we found
more money) and because of office space restrictions had to put them in a
basement office on their own. Lucky (for us), unlucky (for them) the two people
didn't get on very well, and so didn't spend much time chatting, and instead
were able to get on with a fair amount of work.
Contracting out to ex-members of staff was quite a labour intensive job on our
part, as there was so much setting up beforehand, and during. Because we
weren't prepared to let the registers leave our buildings in case anything
happened to them, meant we had to photocopy them. Data entry rules were drawn
up, but inevitably things are not foreseen, and so a lot of phonecalls were made
each Monday to sort out problems. In the end we had to get the person in for a
few days to go over things that couldn't be done over the phone. The good thing
was that once the records were done, they were in good shape for batching to the
main database and didn't require any further editing.
We did give a data entry company a lot of Natural History registers to input.
Again these had to be photocopied. Because there was a complete lack of
understanding of the type of data by the company, who are more used to entering
names and addresses, etc, we had to explain everything. This took a lot of time
and meant having to write explanations of the data content that we wouldn't have
done with our staff. For example, where we would have asked a relevant curator
to give some background for his area, explain what "Stratigraphy" meant, etc, we
had to write all this down for the company's staff.
They did do a lot of records over a number of months (25,000 in 4 months
approximately) but on their return I had to then convert them into our database.
We also did have to do a lot of editing after, in order to tidy up the data to
our standards.
In summary, I wouldn't contract out work, unless you have vast amounts of data
laid out in similar style, and are confident that the company can cope. As for
scanning, we couldn't pursue this this as our data was in too many different
styles, layouts, feintness of the ink, etc. A good team of in-house people, not
necessarily with museum backgrounds, but with good accurate typing (touch
typists only!) and a thorough manner is my recommendation.
PS - If the hoary old chestnut of curators entering data comes up I would be
very sceptical of what they can achieve. Generally speaking, we found that the
best use of curators is to be involved in discussions on data standards and then
verifying the data entered, (on-screen or on printouts which can then be entered
by documentation staff). The enthusiastic, PC literate curators were able to be
given more involvement, but you to be on your toes to keep your data standards
intact!
========================================================
Norman Ferguson
Asst Collections Manager (Documentation)
Glasgow Museums
Art Gallery & Museum
Kelvingrove
Glasgow G3 8AG
Tel: 0141 287 2641
Fax: 0141 287 2690
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 20 May 1999 09:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Restrospective Conversion
The V&A is hoping to embark on a major retrospective conversion project
encompassing over 1 million manual records. These records currently exist in a
range of formats ranging from handwritten ledgers to printed catalogues.
I am interested in hearing from anyone who has experience in this type of
project relating to museum objects (as opposed to library holdings). I would
particularly like to know if anyone can suggest any companies that specialise in
keyboarding and or scannning structured information.
Many thanks,
Christina Brown
Documentation Officer
Records & Collections Services
Victoria & Albert Museum
Tel: + 44 171 938 9635
Fax: + 44 171 938 8652
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
