SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force on the Development of Standardized Holdings Counts and Measures for...
-
Upload
nicholas-fleming -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force on the Development of Standardized Holdings Counts and Measures for...
SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force on the Development of Standardized Holdings
Counts and Measures for Archival Repositories
and Special Collections Libraries________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Katy RawdonCoordinator of Technical Services
Special Collections Research [email protected]
@lemurchild#saa15 #s204
What is SAA-ACRL/RBMS JTF-HCM?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Stands for: SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force on the Development of Standardized Holdings Counts and Measures for Archival Repositories and Special Collections Libraries.
• Task force put together jointly by the Society of American Archivists and the Rare Books & Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), which is a division of the American Library Association.
• A second task force was assembled at the same time: SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force on the Development of Standardized Statistical Measures for Public Services in Archival Repositories and Special Collections Libraries.
• A third joint task force has more recently been convened: SAA-ACRL/RBMS Joint Task Force on Primary Source Literacy.
Task Force Membership
_____________________________________________________________________
Officers• Martha O’Hara Conway, Co-Chair, ACRL/RBMS, University of
Michigan• Emily R. Novak Gustainis, Co-Chair, SAA, Harvard University
Membership• Alvan Bregman (ACRL/RBMS), Queen's University, Canada• Adriana Cuervo (SAA), Rutgers University• Rachel D'Agostino (ACRL/RBMS), Library Company of Philadelphia• Lara Friedman-Shedlov (ACRL/RBMS), University of Minnesota• Angela Fritz (SAA), University of Arkansas Libraries• Lisa Miller (SAA rep), Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford
University• Katy Rawdon (ACRL/RBMS), Temple University• Cyndi Shein (SAA), University of Nevada, Las Vegas Libraries
What is the task force doing?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Archivists and librarians are increasingly aware of the importance of assessment, but we lack standardized measures.
• Task Force’s official charge is to “Develop a set of guidelines -- metrics, definitions, and best practices -- for quantifying holdings of archival repositories and special collections libraries, paying particular attention to both the wide range of types and formats of material typically held and the different ways in which collection material is managed and described.” (see SAA microsite for full description).
• Task force is convened for two years through the 2016 SAA Annual Meeting, with an option for one additional year.
Work so far__________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Meet primarily via conference call, and in person at SAA Annual Meeting, RBMS Conference, and ALA Midwinter (approx. 17 meetings to date).
• Reviewed how we count holdings in our own collections, as well as a “landscape review” of existing categories, vocabularies, and ways of counting – also, reasons for counting.
• Posted a call for survey instruments, worksheets, methodologies – and discussed results.
• Discussed (at great length) categories of materials and their definitions – particularly born-digital materials.
Final product__________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Guidelines on how to count and measure various types of materials.
• Definitions of and guidance for assigning materials to different categories.
• Tiered approach: Minimum, Optimum, Added Value.
• Possibly (and possibly later…) provide tools for assisting with counting.
Further resources __________________________________________________________________________________________________
• You’re invited to our meeting! The Holdings Counts and Measures AND the Public Services task forces meet on Friday at 1pm, Convention Center Room 14
• RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage, Fall 2012; 13 (2). Special issue on assessment
• SAA microsites for joint task forces (contain descriptions, announcements, members, minutes):
Task Force on the Development of Standardized Holdings Counts and Measures
Task Force on the Development of Standardized Statistical Measures for Public Services
Task Force on Primary Source Literacy
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tourism Dollars: Evaluating Your Archives' Impact
David Carmicheal
• Georgia Archives• Conducted multiple times• 2002, 2006, 2008
Two surveys
Geneal-ogist76%
Survey 1: Who visits?
Realization
In-state69%
Out-of-state31%
Survey 2:Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
• Provided hard data• Allowed us to extrapolate the economic impact
of archives visitors• Suggested areas of economic development
(reunions)• Encouraged Tourism officials to consider archives• Provided user feedback• Became baseline for future comparison
Benefits
Metrics and Change ManagementFynnette Eaton
Goals of Change Management include: Ensuring normal work continues Building and maintaining momentum Dealing with the human side of change to minimize resistance Managing transition to new way of performing the work
Measuring Success Staff producing the required number of descriptions or
responding to reference requests at the same level while change is being implemented?
Are more staff speaking positively about the changes being discussed?
After the changes have taken place, is the staff as productive as your had predicted?
Baseline Audit from a System Perspective using MIT’s
Drupal TRAC Tool
Courtney C. Mumma, MAS/MLIS Artefactual @archivematica @accesstomemory
SAA2015 - Cleveland August 2015
Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC) checklist is an auditing tool to assess the reliability,
commitment and readiness of institutions to assume long-term preservation responsibilities, as
described by the OAIS ISO 14721:2012 standard
Internal TRAC review in Drupal➢ Frame for iterative review + internal and external audit○ V.1.0 @ ICPSR - 2007 TRAC○ V.2.0 @ MIT - 2012 ISO 16363
incorporated➢ Download from Artefactual website:○ www.archivematica.org/wiki/Internal_aud
it_tool○ populated with Archivematica data
➢ Staff-only action items and notes
➢ Audit login with notes field for peer/external audit support
➢ Incremental, cumulative ratings and results
➢ Revision tracking➢ Natural language
question field
Accumulate results
RolesStakeholders➢ Senior management
➢ Coordination group
➢ Operations group
➢ Information technology
➢ Administration: Finance or HR
➢ Acquisitions
➢ Preservation
➢ Dissemination
➢ Rights management
➢ External advisory group
Assign responsibilities
Thanks! Questions and more info: ➢ Dr. Nancy McGovern & Matt Bernhardt
➢ Archivematica discussion list:○ groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/
archivematica
➢ Internal review questions unrelated to tool: NDSA Standards and Practices Working Group○ digitalpreservation.gov/ndsa/
working_groups/standards.html
© 2015 Grant Thornton LLP | All rights reserved
Information Governance Assessment Tools
Elizabeth W. Adkins
Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting Presentation
August 20, 2015
© 2015 Grant Thornton LLP | All rights reserved
Generally Accepted Recordkeeping PrinciplesAKA "The Principles" – Issued by ARMA International http://www.arma.org/r2/generally-accepted-br-recordkeeping-principles
ACCOUNTABILITY Senior leader held accountable for information governance
INTEGRITY Reasonable and suitable guarantee of authenticity and reliability of information
PROTECTION Reasonable level of protection for personal or other sensitive information
COMPLIANCE Comply with applicable laws and other binding authorities, as well as internal policies
AVAILABILITY Ensure timely, efficient, and accurate retrieval of information
RETENTION Retain information for an appropriate time, based on legal, regulatory, & business analysis
DISPOSITION Disposition of information in accordance with policies, applicable laws, & regulations
TRANSPARENCY Document policies, processes and activities in a manner that is easily available & understood
© 2015 Grant Thornton LLP | All rights reserved
Information Economics Process Assessment Issued by Compliance, Governance & Oversight Councilhttps://www.cgoc.com/files/CGOC_Information_Economics_Process_Assessment_Kit.pdf
• Assess 18 information lifecycle processes for Legal (6 processes), RIM (1 process), Business (2 processes), Privacy (2 processes), and IT (4 processes)
• Assess each process against four levels of maturity:o Level 1: Ad hoc, inconsistento Level 2: Silo'ed, manualo Level 3: Silo'ed, consistent & instrumentedo Level 4: Integrated, instrumented enterprise
processes
© 2015 Grant Thornton LLP | All rights reserved
Comparing Assessment ToolsARMA's Next Level IG Assessment vs. CGOC's Information Economics Process Assessment
ARMA CGOC
• Issued by professional association
• Driven primarily from RIM perspective
• $4,995 to $5,995 for 12-18 month license
• 66 questions covering the 8 principles
• Lots of professional jargon in the questions
• Hosted tool permits benchmarking, raises security concerns
• Issued by forum sponsored by IBM
• Reflects input from IT, RIM, and Legal professionals
• Free to registered site users
• 18 processes to be rated, on a scale of 1 to 4
• Simple, easy to use
• Manually generate a risk heat map and process score card
Measure Up: Assessment Tools and Techniques
from the Field How to Assess Your Archives
Using Digital Preservation Capability Metrics
Lori Ashley – Tournesol Consulting
Digital Preservation Assessment Options
• Digital Preservation Capability Self-Assessment and DPCMM• http://www.DigitalOk.org/• http://www.securelyrooted.com/dpcmm
• European Ladder • http://trusteddigitalrepository.eu/
• Data Seal of Approval• http://datasealofapproval.org/en/
• ISO 16363• http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/652x0m1.pdf
http://www.iso16363.org/ • TRAC (Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification)
• http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/trac_0.pdf• Self-audit against ISO 16363 (e.g., Nestor Seal for Trustworthy
Digital Archives)• http://www.langzeitarchivierung.de/Subsites/nestor/EN/nestor-Siege
l/siegel_node.html
Digital Preservation Capability Maturity Model© (DPCMM)
How DPCMM Works
• 15 Key Process Areas (KPAs) from Digital Preservation Policy to Access
• 5 Capability Levels from Nominal to Optimal
• Combined into an easy-to-use scorecard
DPCMM v2.7• Framework for assessing and benchmarking digital
preservation capability across governance, policy, processes and systems
• Draws together requirements ISO 14721 and ISO 16363
• Helps to establish priorities and communicate requirements to stakeholders
• Road tested and proven at organizations worldwide – including US State and Territorial Archives (CoSA) and ICA
DPCMM v2.7 White Paper: http://www.securelyrooted.com/dpcmm/
Register for the DPC Self-Assessment: http://www.DigitalOK.org/
Features Common to Maturity Models1. Commitment to perform2. Ability to perform3. Activities performed4. Measurement and analysis5. Verifying implementation
Build and Sustain Capabilities
Level 1
L
evel 2
L
evel 3
Level 4
Level 5
Robust Measurement & Analysis
Digital Preservation Infrastructure
Digital Preservation Services
Preservation Repository
The views expressed herein are those of the author and should not be attributed to the IMF, its Executive Board, or its management.
Information Governance at the IMF: possible solution
AUGUST, 2015
Salvador Barragan
Definition of Information Governance The establishment of enterprise wide policies and procedures and the execution and enforcement of these to control and manage information as an enterprise resource.
Why is Information Governance Important at the IMF: some key areasDiscover information not used and secure highly sensitive information
Control classification and declassification of all content
Apply retention and disposition to content regardless of location
Implementation of a Information Policy Hub as a way to address Information Governance
The Archives and Records Management section (ARM) launched a proof of concept in February (2015) to evaluate and prove the validity of a Information Policy Hub. The Three key areas that were addressed:
Data Map – Inventory of the repositories (SharePoint, File Shares and Exchange)
Categorization of content
Applying retention, deposition & declassification policies
Data MappingDashboard with different reports
Dashboard with different reports
Categorization of contentCategorized documents based on the training text or training documents
Automatic clusters in 2D visual display
Apply Policies
Policy rules: Delete with review
Items awaiting for review
Apply Policies
Policy rules: Put Hold
Policy executed and content locked
Results and Next StepsProof of Concept was successful it proved the validity of the Information Policy Hub for unstructured content. However, we did not test how well it would do for structured content. (It did capture the metadata for each object).
Move from a proof of concept to full implementation
Test Structured content data bases