In message <[log in to unmask]> on Mon, 11
Dec 2000, J Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote
>Does anyone have a handy formula - or even just a rule of thumb - for
>quantifying cataloguing backlogs in terms of person years of work?
This is an important and interesting question and I am glad that Janet
has raised it again. I asked the same thing on this list and on the
ARCHIVES-L mailing list in 1996, suggesting a formula as an Aunt Sally
for people to knock down or improve, but got only two responses:
(a) the times allowed by my formula are too short
(b) "I generally figure two days of staff time per cubic foot to
arrange and describe a collection. For easier collections I
sometimes break the time down into professional and
paraprofessional duties and charge accordingly.
Add perhaps a day per cubic foot if the collection is
particularly difficult--not in folders, requires preservation
work, difficult subject, etc. Subtract perhaps 1/2 day per foot
if the collection is in very good condition--labeled folders and
needs only refoldering and reboxing.
Add time for computer cataloging if you do that."
It would be really useful to have some figures from actual cataloguing
projects that would serve as guidance for future planning. What I
suggested then was as follows:
>Many people are making bids for funding for archival projects, and I
>wonder whether anyone has tried to develop a formula or rule of thumb to
>decide how much staff time it is reasonable to ask for to catalogue a
>given collection.
>
>I have been able to gather a small amount of raw data from a few
>specific projects, for number of items catalogued and time taken.
>Allowing 220 working days per year and 6 actively working hours per day,
>gives a range of 10 to 30 minutes per item. (I'm surprised that the
>range is not wider).
>
>If we take this as a starting point, we can then consider the effect of
>factors such as:
>
>Complexity of material: "C"
>>From simple letters with clear handwriting and routine subjects, to
>complex, illegible, philosophical or technical manuscripts.
>
>Depth of cataloguing or listing: "D"
>Information recorded about each item might range from the name of the
>writer and the date to a digest of the content with many name and
>subject index terms.
>
>System used: "S"
>Free text descriptions or structured records. Availability of authority
>files for name, place and subject access points. Ease of use.
>
>If we give each of these three factors a rating as follows
>
>Easy 0 minutes
>Moderate 5 minutes
>Difficult 10 minutes
>
>We might then estimate the overall time to be allowed per item as
>
> 10 + C + D + S minutes
>
>This gives a range from 10 minutes per item for the simplest material to
>40 minutes per item for complex material, thoroughly catalogued in a
>difficult system.
>
>I assume that preparing higher level records, for groups and series,
>will be included in these times, though separate allowance might have to
>be made for these if there are a lot of them in relation to the number
>of lowest level records.
>
>Of course this is a simplistic approach, but I am just suggesting it as
>something to consider and build on. Does anyone have ideas for refining
>it, by adjusting the numbers, adding other factors, or combining them in
>a different way? It would be particularly interesting if anyone else has
>data from projects they have completed which they could plug into this
>model to see how well it fits, and if not why not.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Leonard Will
--
Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)20 8372 0094
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
|