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 [email protected] [email protected] ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
