|
Dear Mr. McAfee,
I missed the 2003 discussion, but believe
strongly that conservation priorities must be mission driven. In many
libraries, including the music library where I work, use of the materials is in
fact the central mission of the organization, so that use-driven prioritization
makes sense as a strong factor in conservation selection; current use is a good
predictor at least for the near future, and effectively allows patrons a say.
Your particular situation drives home the fact, however, that not all factors
important to a library's mission center on current, or even necessarily future,
use. And indeed, these non-use-based factors must also be accounted for.
That means that the only broadly definable
way to "flush out valuable hidden items" is in the course of a collection
asessment that includes both an understanding of the types and rates of
deterioration to which different formats are prey (which should to be
geared to the local climate, even assuming good HVAC control), and also an
explicit understanding of the mission of the institution, including how it
relates to its material property. This can only be produced by the institution
itself, which is why no broadly approved "best practice" policy can be
used, except insofar as it requires and includes (and ideally provides help
with formulating) a local mission statement.
It's kind of funny -- 15 years ago when I
started here as a student, my boss (Ted Honea) was arguing in favor of
increasing use-driven prioritization in the face of other more proactive but
less patron-base-friendly selection tools. As I remember, part of the
problem with those tools was that they also didn't address the importance of an
institution's local mission in establishing the value of its artefacts.
Perhaps his cause has succeeded beyond its intent!
Alice Carli
Conservator
Sibley Music Library
The
Church History Department (comprising the Church Archives, Church History
Library, and the Museum of Church
History and Art) of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is working on Process Improvement. As part of that effort, I
am working to gather data about Best Practices in Conservation. I am hoping to
start a discussion with this group for the purpose of brainstorming
conservation process improvement.
I
have limited my questions to 3 to make this easier.
Questions:
- In
2003, there was a brief discussion on this list about identifying
conservation needs work. The
consensus seemed to be that prioritization of conservation work should be
use-driven. However, I have found that use-driven priorities often ignore
some of the most valuable items of collecting institutions. For example,
some institutions have items that will only be valuable to the future, are
deteriorating on the shelves, but are being ignored because they are not
being used today. Other institutions collect items that will never be used
by the public because they have been deemed sacred by a particular group.
Has anyone found a truly successful way to find those “hidden” items that
require conservation treatment?
- Measures
of quality should be at least somewhat objective. Yet, I can’t help but
think that there is some subjectivity in judging the quality of conservation
work. How do you determine the quality of your employees or your own work in
an objective way? Is there also
value to subjective
judgement?
- We
are looking at ways to speed up the process of getting items through our lab
and back into the collection. We believe that the biggest bottleneck to this
is the actual treatment time and we don’t want to sacrifice quality for the
sake of quantity. We also believe that there are ways to improve pre- and
post-treatment efficiency. What have you done to streamline the process of
moving work from the “customer” to the bench? And when the treatment is
completed, what have you done to streamline the process of moving work from
the bench back to the “customer”?
Thank
You,
Christopher
McAfee
Senior Conservator
Family and Church History Department
The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 E. North Temple St. Rm.
227E
Salt Lake City, UT 84150-3420
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This
message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the
use of the individual(s) to whom it
is
addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|