The document discusses the challenges of using a single collection management system (CMS) to manage all collection-related information and assets in a changing environment. While a centralized system provides benefits like avoiding data silos and inconsistencies, it also has limitations in addressing new types of content like digital assets, user-generated content, and intangible heritage. However, the author argues that single CMS approach can still work if the system evolves to manage new processes, which will become core museum activities. There are also benefits to standardization and long-term sustainability from a single point of information management and preservation.

1. The Swiss
Army Knife
Approach
Adrian Kingston
Collection Information Manager, Digital Assets & Development
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa
@adriankingston
MCN, Seattle, November 2012

2. How far can you push a
Collection Management
System
in a changing world

3. Introduction: this talk (the
disclaimer)
+ Not exciting or glamorous (sorry)
+ No pretty pictures (boo)
+ No screen shots (yay)
+ May seem obvious, old fashioned, even slightly
backwards
+ Others have a very different approach (and that’s cool)
+ Good time to be talking about this, & people are
+ See MCG discussion list
+ CollectionsTrust – expanding SPECTRUM, and Revisiting
Collections, and Nick Poole’s vision for new contexts for
musuem information
+ CollectionsTrust CMS software Vendor survey
+ Focussing on the CMS layer
+ Not going to name the system we use

4. Context: me & my team
+ Collections Information Team
+ Background in collections
+ We aren’t curators
+ We aren’t programmers
+ We try to work with, and between, collections staff,
programmers, audience engagement and others
+ We are enablers and translators
+ We take a longer term view, and wider scope

5. Context: Te Papa
+ Not huge by international standards (2-3 million
objects) we’re pretty diverse.
+ Art – Zoology
+ DNA analysis to repatriation
+ Possible impacts on our chosen path for managing
data

6. A central repository for all
collection related
information and assets.
Our experience.

7. What does it do: the usual, objects
Describe and manage physical Collections
+ Art
+ Photography
+ Archives
+ NZ History
+ Pacific Cultures
+ Taonga Maori
+ Entomology
+ Marine mammals
+ Land Mammals
+ Birds
+ Fish
+ Insects
+ Plants
+ Etc

8. Taxon
People
Physical
Physical
Physical
objects
objects
objects
Places
Controlled
Vocabulary

9. What does it do: the usual,
processes
Manage and record collection processes
+ Acquisition
+ Deaccession
+ Lending & borrowing
+ Storage
+ Movements
+ Conservation
+ Damage
+ Tissue sampling
+ Authority control
+ Provenance
+ Taxonomic identification
+ Collection events
+ Species distribution
+ Record arguments

10. Deaccession Loans Conservation
Acquisition
Taxon
People
Physical
Physical
Physical
objects
objects
objects
Places
Controlled
Vocabulary
Receipts,
reports,
Locations
agreements

11. But wait, there’s more

12. Alcohol management

13. Rights management & licencing

14. Exhibition management

15. Born digital collections & digitised
collections

16. Repatriation of koiwi tangata

17. CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model –
Objects, specimens, people, places, subjects,
stories, and the relationships that link them

18. Framework & process for publishing online

19. Rights
Deaccession Loans Conservation Repatriation
management
Exhibition
Acquisition Research Publications Narratives
management
Props
Taxon
Conceptual Crates, forms,
objects frames
People
Physical
Physical Collections
Physical
objects
objects Online
CIDOC CRM objects
Places Exhibition
sites
Controlled
Vocabulary Ourspace
Digital objects
Digital objects
Digital objects
Indigenous Digital Media
description On floor
interactives
Digital Preservation OAI-PMH
Receipts,
reports,
agreements Locations
Movements
Alcohol
*NOT EVEN REMOTELY TO SCALE, OR TO BE CONSIDERED USEFUL
Management

20. That’s a lot of stuff,
and it looks pretty
complex

21. Why centralise?
+ No more lost/duplicated/out-of-synch data (well, less)
+ No data silos
+ Transparency & accountability
+ Improved standards, processes
+ Consistent collection management
+ Consistent collection information management
+ About collections, not format
+ Strong but simple content framework
+ Single focus for data preservation
+ 1 system to support, and sustain
+ 1 system to train in, learn to use
+ Efficient content creation, access & publication
+ Creates appropriate ownership of content creation

22. Why: the “other” reasons
+ Full control. We manage the platform and the
development resource
+ It's what we know how to do
+ Some decisions “more political than technical”: does that
apply to us?

23. Sure, but there’s problems right?
+ Being an advocate for centralisation & standards is not
always welcomed
+ Change is constant, we can’t always react as quickly as we
would like
+ Sometimes workarounds become semi-permanent
+ We’ve developed a fair bit, and people always want MOAR
+ The system use has grown, but the team hasn’t

24. 201

25. Sector changes
+ Acknowledging importance of opening up & letting
go, sharing authority, encouraging re-use
+ Alignment of content creation processes, multiple
channels
+ Access: inside, outside, everywhere
+ New forms of Publishing
+ Linked data
+ New forms of collecting
+ Changing perspectives on collections
+ Stories more important than ever
All great stuff, but it means there is more to manage

26. 5 new (-ish) things
we’re looking at

27. Intangible Heritage
+ No longer just about collecting static, physical objects
+ Similar issues with “collecting contemporary”
+ Most will probably be digital
+ Tech, games, communication, dance, language,
stories, rituals, …
 “Conceptual” description model in place
 Not separate systems for separate formats
 Rights management includes indigenous rights
 Digital description and management
 Similar to born digital art works? Similar to analogue
media?
× Future representation?

28. Digital Assets & Preservation
+ Preservation not yet a big consideration for DAMS *
+ Digital collection items should be managed by the collection
system
+ In some cases digitised collections (e.g. obsolete video) may
become collection items
+ This is oversimplified, but…
 Basic DAM functionality, item description
 Single authoritative source, clear relationships
 Object info is kept on object, image info kept with image
 Repositories, layers of access
 Conservation module for preservation actions
× Open Archival Information System OAIS model- SIPs, AIPs &
DIPs
× Integrated tools for fixity, format validation and analysis
Though this may be chaging See http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/10/dams-vs-lams-its-on/
× Needs refinement for more efficient workflows

29. Narrative
+ Museums aren’t just a repository of objects, we’re a
generator of knowledge, stories etc.
+ Our stories and theirs
 Our stories - Been doing this for a while now, easy and
efficient publishing
 Research and stories are managed in relation to the other
information
× The more we use it, the more we want
× Very template driven
× Not very flexible in terms of layout
× Need to learn from other forms of tech
× Their stories - need ingest from web

30. User generated/contributed content
+ Co-created, user generated, user contributed
+ Comments, downloads, stories, dis/likes, new works,
images, video
+ Could be used to collect low- or high-tech interaction
+ Users expect to interact more, shouldn’t we put effort
into preserving that
 Conceptual framework allows for stories, digital object
 Rights management
× Ingest from web
× User expectation and museum literacy
× Our expectation, what is useful/important?

31. Object “use”
+ Already record that collections have been used in
exhibitions, loans etc., but what about all the other uses?
+ Need to surface this to management, but I think more
importantly, to the rest of staff, particularly curators
 Google analytics, Addthis, social media tools
 Include ease of use indicators, eg open licences,
images, quality of data
× Need to pull it all together, and keep a history
× Use as targets, need to change how/what we measure
to be useful

32. Should we continue with a
single system, or should we
look at other systems & tools
to address the new issues

33. A few alternatives
+ Digital Asset Management Systems
+ Customer Relationship Management
+ Wordpress
+ Disqus
+ Access database (hehe)
+ Drupal
+ Someone else’s system
+ SharePoint
+ Develop new from scratch in xyz
+ Facebook
+ Plus many, many more

34. And there’s problems for single
system
+ Blurring boundaries with traditional museum business and
standard business, e.g. EDRMS
+ Where does the “museum” start and stop? HR? Finance?
Payroll?
+ Huge, complex systems difficult to maintain
+ Collection Management Systems are not sexy
+ Lots of work has gone into these other dedicated systems
+ A multi-system approach linked with persistent identifiers
and a discovery layer can work

35. Other ways of putting it
+ Eggs - Basket
+ Jack of all trades. Master of none.
+ Swiss army knife: everything you need, except for
when you need a crowbar. Or glue. Or a clock. Or …
+ When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like
a nail*
*thanks Mia!

36. However, I (personally) believe:
+ These new concepts will soon become core museum activities
+ Siloed system ownership can turn political, multiple gate keepers
+ Linked data becoming more important, easier to build natively first?
+ Museums need to think about long term & sustainability of
information
+ Multiple systems can be difficult to integrate
+ Some institutions don’t have the resource to manage/integrate
multiple systems
+ Things to learn from other forms of tech though, e.g. modular
approach
+ We need the vendors, but we need to drive them
+ As an sector we should be moving in the same direction
+ Need standards and guidelines for new processes

37. An aside: roles and responsibilities
+ Where do vendors fit? Are they evil? We pay for
developments, vendor resells them, but sector benefits
+ Open source vs vendors? No different in this argument
+ Technology isn’t necessarily the problem, sometimes is
a change of understanding, roles, and processes
+ Required skills are changing, possibility not as fast as
the tech
+ Confusion over “expertise” required
+ Need to get some digital ownership back to curators,
educators etc.

38. Though I’ve been
known
to be wrong before

39. Summary
+ I don’t have a concrete answer
+ Collections Systems can’t do everything, but need to evolve to do
as much as possible to work with collections & audiences in the
digital age
+ These new processes will soon become core museum activities
+ There’s a huge variety of new types of content we’re going to have
to manage
+ Efficiency, sustainability are key issues
+ Single point of information management means single point for
preservation & access
+ Really easy to not see Collection Systems as glamorous, and use
new flash tools instead
+ Need standards and guidelines for new processes
+ As an sector we should be moving in the same direction

40. Conclusion:

41. Is continuing to push a
single system approach,
expecting more from a
CMS, still a good idea?

42. Yeah, maybe.