Mark Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote in article
<[log in to unmask]>...
>
> One really cannot compare using a standard MS Access template, flat file
> database, with the exhibition tracking, conservation status, photograph
> reproduction ordering modules, loan modules and registrar reporting,
> which can essentially automate much of the Registrar's office,
> Curatorial, Exhibition design, Photography order processing, Collections
> research etc.

As both a Collections Manager and an Information Systems Manager (dual
appointment at our museum by design) and someone who has played with Access
since it was still called Cirrus (beta-), I have to take issue with this.

Access is NOT a flat file database.  It is fully relational and can be
configured very easily to include all of the modules cited if you want to
take the time to set them up.

I agree that this does require time (and some experience with relational
databases helps, but often experience as a user is just as good when using
Access).

However, it gives you the advantage of being able to tailor the database to
the way you already work (i.e., to reflect a paper system that is proven
through time and in which administration and staff have confidence).  This
not only minimizes the training required for staff to use the new system,
but also cuts the (expensive) customization required of some of the
dedicated systems to get out the report that your Board/Director/Senior
Curator just cannot live without.

The biggest complaint that I hear from colleagues implementing computerized
collections management software systems is that they are being forced to
"lose information", make significant (and often unwelcome)
changes/compromises in the way they work and/or have to learn complex
systems just to use one or two screens of information.  (Many also complain
about having to look at many screens to enter/obtain information that they
used to get on a single card or ledger page, but that problem does not
apply to all dedicated systems.)

The answer, of course, is that every museum has different needs, financial
and staff resources and "tastes".  Whether a dedicated system, open
relational database or a combination of the two will work for your museum
depends on what the particular needs and resources of your museum are.  Any
of these can work for you.  It is just a question of sitting down and
deciding in advance what are the minimum requirements you have, what things
you would like to have in addition to those minima, and --- in some cases
--- what you will need ten or fifteen years down the road.

You need to do this BEFORE you start looking at software.  Then you can
better evaluate your options.  For many museums --- particularly smaller
museums making the transition from outdated paper systems or perhaps
accessing for the first time --- Access may be a perfect option because it
is so flexible and allows changes to the structure of the database so
easily without losing data.  (Thus, if you suddenly realize you need
additional fields or linked tables, it is really easy to add them.)  Since
it allows almost unlimited export in so many formats, it is also an
excellent choice for the museum not really sure where it is going, but
needing to get a good handle on its collections.  (The biggest complaints
that I have heard from museums installing new dedicated systems or moving
from older ones relate to data conversion and the difficulties of exporting
from systems with proprietary file layouts.)

E. L. WImett
Patriots Point Naval & Maritime Museum