Processing Manuals
Center for the History of Medicine
Processing Plans
Templates
Baker Library Special Collections and Archives Processing Plan
Baker Library Special Collections and Archives Processing Worksheet
Center for the History of Medicine
From Schlesinger’s processing manual
Examples
From Schlesinger: Eloise Bittel Cohen papers
From Houghton: Christopher Durang papers, Godfrey Reggio (for Music)
From Graduate School of Design: Kenzo Tange Archive
Processing Priorities Strategies Examples
Simple Ranking
A collection is ranked on basic categories established by the repository, with each category having its own set of criteria. Ranking in each category is typically set as high, medium, or low. ArchivesSpace uses these levels in the Collection Management fields in the Accession Record.
Priority Matrix Model
A priority matrix allows staff to select two factors to evaluate collections and categorize them into groups which can then be used to establish priorities. The priority matrix is depicted as a grid, with the number of columns and rows depending on how finely grained the evaluation will be.
These examples show a simple and complex priority matrix that evaluates the impact processing a collection will have vs. the amount of effort processing that collection will take. On both scales, any collections with higher impact and lower effort are likely to be among the library’s highest priorities.
Overall Numeric Ranking
An overall numeric ranking is established by numerically ranking individual criteria established by the library then calculating the total. Numeric values are assigned according to a predetermined criteria ranking formula, which can be as complex or simple as needed. Using a formula sheet and rating worksheet, each unprocessed collection is rated to determine priorities. The formula sheet should include a description of the criterion and details on how the ratings are applied to the criterion (see Columbia’s Survey Rating Description as an example).
The rating worksheet should include the Collection Name, Collection Description, and Extent, and then list the different criteria (e.g., content, physical condition, time to process, staff needed to process, etc.) with a corresponding scale (e.g., 1-5). After each criterion is evaluated and assigned a number, an overall numerical ranking is calculated. The rating sheet should reflect the institutional priorities and what is most important (or not important) in determining what should be processed first or last.