Estimating the time required for cataloguing museum objects
===========================================================
For many museum documentation projects we need to estimate in advance
the amount of staff time that will be needed, both for inputting
existing data into a computerised collections management system and for
creating new catalogue records for previously undocumented objects.
These estimates may be used to justify the cost of a project, to apply
for funds, to allocate staff resources and to decide on priorities.
There seems, though, to be a dearth of reliable data on which to base
such estimates.
I would therefore like to collect data from projects that have already
been completed and to compile some guidelines on which to base future
estimates. If anyone is able to provide figures I'm sure that it would
be of use to many people. Clearly there are several variables and any
collection presents its own problems, but even ranges of time would be
valuable. To make figures comparable, I suggest that they should be
given in the following categories.
A. Input of existing records:
----------------------------
1. Number of inventory-level record cards, with brief information (e.g.
accession number, source, brief description or name, location),
transcribed with minimal checking of the data, entered into a computer
system per person-day ......
2. Number of full record cards, with full information (e.g. above data
plus materials, inscriptions, condition, associated persons,
organisations, places and events) entered into a computer system per
person-day ......
B. Creation of new records:
--------------------------
1. Number of previously undocumented objects recorded at inventory-level
directly into a computer system (or onto cards) per person-day .......
2. Number of previously uncatalogued objects fully catalogued directly
into a computer system (or onto cards) per person-day ......
Please say
(1) what type of objects were involved;
(2) whether authority files for names and subjects were pre-existing or
were created during the project;
(3) whether the staff concerned were curatorial (able to assess and edit
the data) or clerical (primarily doing straight transcription of
existing records);
(4) the multiplier you would use to convert items per day into items per
year.
Any other background information that helps to explain the rates
achieved will be helpful.
If you have data that does not fit into this pattern it would still be
useful, if you can give enough description of the nature of the work to
put the rates achieved into context. If you know of any existing
compilations of data of this kind that would also be very helpful.
I am sending this message to the mailing lists of the [UK] Museum
Computer Group, the Museum Computer Network (MCN) and to the general
list MUSEUM-L. I apologise to people who therefore receive more than
one copy.
I shall send a summary of results to these lists and shall not identify
any individual person or institution that does not wish to be named. If
you don't mind being identified, though, that would make it easier for
others to assess whether their project is comparable with yours.
Many thanks
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/> -----------------
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
