A case study of a project at The Historic New Orleans Collection to integrate the Registration and Cataloging of three collecting divisions: the museum, library and manuscripts division. THNOC co-developed a software system with Minisis Inc. that combined curatorial, bibliographic and archival cataloging processes. However, professional practices did not intersect in the area of subject classification and the institution developed an in-house descriptive hierarchy to provide a tool for federated searches of all holdings.

1. Who’s Driving?
Implementing a multi­disciplinary information system
Chuck Patch
The Historic New Orleans Collection
Museum Computer Network 2007
1

2. In The Beginning…
n Three Separate Divisions
n Museum
n Library
n Manuscripts
n Museum is dominant
n Largest staff
n First to acquire a Collections Management
System
Museum Computer Network 2007
The Force of Corporate Culture:
In the late 1980’s, The Historic New Orleans Collection was composed of three
autonomous divisions: Manuscripts, Curatorial and Library. By far the largest of
these divisions was the Curatorial Department and the institution identified itself
primarily as a museum, with the library and manuscripts divisions performing
ancillary roles. Each division was comprised of a curator and possible assistant
curators, a registrar and cataloging and processing staff. Each division had its own
reading room and reference staff. The institution maintained three distinct accession
numbering schemes and each department was responsible for maintaining its own
reference[CWP1] indexes. The first division to automate was Curatorial, which
implemented a system in 1986.
2

3. Original Organizational Structure
Administration
Curatorial Department Library Manuscripts Department
Head Curator Librarian Manuscripts Curator
Registrar Registrar Registrar
Reference Cataloger Cataloger
Assistant Curators / Reference Reference
catalogers
Mandate to Unify Collections Access
Shortly after the purchase of the system was approved, a reorganization of the institution created a
single Collections Management unit to serve all three divisions. A revamp of the system was
immediately undertaken, but nothing could alter the fact that the system was designed for cultural
objects and was an uncomfortable fit for the library and manuscripts divisions. Moreover, in its first
implementation, the system could only handle the acquisition process for all the divisions, but final
cataloging could only be done for Curatorial objects. As a result, library and manuscripts staff
discounted the utility of the system and came to regard the data entry required for the acquisition
process as a burden, skimping on information they put into the system as much as possible. In the
most basic sense, for the library and manuscripts division, the system had only one purpose: the
production of the acquisition report. Further complicating the issue, the registrars, while nominally
adhering to rules created by the Collections Manager, continued to report to curators in the divisions.
Throughout the late 1980’s and into the mid 1990’s, a variety of fixes and accommodations were
attempted to include cataloging records for library and manuscripts materials in the Collection
Management System (Quixis.) These included a set of special programs to import Marc Format data
from the OCLC bibliographic utility into the Collections Management system and present these
records on screen in a library­friendly format. A method for creating Manuscript Collection records
within the system was also devised, but this system only allowed for the creation of Collection level
records. While the creation of manuscript collection group records has continued to the present, the
import of MARC format data was abandoned quickly when it was determined that existing records in
the system could not be updated from imported MARC records.
In the meantime, further staffing and organizational changes were made in an effort to unify the
divisions.
3

4. It Came To Pass…
n Gradual consolidation of divisions into
research/public programs
n Single Collections Management Office with
common registration procedure
n Creation of Research Division
n Combines reference functions of three divisions
n Consolidates Curatorial, Library, Manuscripts
staff
n Creation of Museum Programs
n Combines education, public programming,
exhibition
Museum Computer Network 2007
The creation of the Williams Research Center consolidated reference services for
all divisions and put all reference staff into a single facility. Museum and public
programs were split off as a separate division and were housed in a different facility.
4

5. And Pass…
n Reference staff occupied same space but
continued to function as before
n Reference staff were specialized in their
original areas of expertise
n Only curatorial items had fully cataloged
records in an online system
n Cataloging driven by curatorial imperatives,
not public interest
n Different accession numbering schemes still
applied to materials collected by the non­
existent divisions
Museum Computer Network 2007
5

6. Revised Organizational Structure
Curator of Collections
Collections Management Museum Programs Research Center
Director of Research Center
Registrars Curator of Collections
/Curator of Manuscripts Library
Curatorial Cataloger Librarian
Department
Bibliographic Cataloger
Manuscripts Manuscripts Cataloger
Department
Registrars absorbed into Collections Management Department
A further step toward an integrated processing approach came in 1993 when the registrars in each of the research divisions
were put directly under the supervision of the Collections Manager. Prior to this, all registrars were required to adhere to
standard procedures set up by the Collections Management Department, but were supervised by the department heads. This
arrangement made it difficult for the Collections Manager to implement changes or insist on adherence to standard practices,
particularly in cases where (as with the library) those practices, largely incorporating museum procedure, didn’t resemble
common practice in their fields.
Inconsistencies in the Organizational Structure
For nearly a year after the Williams Research Center opened, the staff organizational structure remained unchanged. In 1997
THNOC restructured its organization. Each of the research divisions disappeared from the organization chart. In place of the
former structure, there were now three major divisions within the institution. These were the:
Research Center, comprising the post­acquisition processing staffs from the former Manuscripts and Library departments,
and reference services.
Museum Programs, which includes exhibition development, and educational outreach as well as processing for what had
formerly been Curatorial Department materials.
Collections Management, which now includes all registrars under its direct supervision and Preparatory staff.
This new organizational structure was intended to provide a firm definition to the staff reporting. Nonetheless, a number of
inconsistencies were embedded in the plan that encouraged most staff to behave as if nothing had changed. These
inconsistencies included the following:
Job Functions that are not congruent with Chain of Command
In a number of cases, the supervisory structure doesn’t correspond with the network of associations the position is part of.
For example:
The Head of Processing (who is also the Head Librarian) reports to the Director of the Williams Research Center. Also
reporting to the Director of the WRC are the Processors, Project Personnel and Manuscripts Cataloger. A “Processing Team”
is also defined, but the members of this team also report to the Director of the WRC and, interestingly, this team does not
appear to include the Head of Processing. The only staff listed as reporting to the Head of Processing is the Library
Cataloger and “Volunteers” ­­ a staff position that appears in numerous places on the organizational chart. Thus, according
to THNOC’s own description, the Head of Processing has no staff and is not the team leader. Instead, direct supervision of
all processing staff is the responsibility of the Director of the WRC
While all registrars report to the Senior Registrars of the Collections Management Department, the Catalogers report to
individual, head curators. The head curators, all of whom have double titles (Director of the Williams Research Center /
Manuscripts Curator; Head Librarian / Head of Processing; Director of Museum Programs / Head of Curatorial) directly
supervise individual catalogers, volunteers and project personnel.
The Curators and the catalogers, project personnel and volunteers they supervise are split into different formal divisions. The
catalogers and curators for Manuscripts and the Library are all members of the Williams Research Center, while the Head of
Curatorial and the Curatorial Cataloger are members of the Museum Programs Division.
“Phantom” Departments [CLICK]
The current reporting structure does away with the formal departmental structure of the older THNOC, while maintaining
much of the supervisory structure. THNOC continues to have positions for Curators of Manuscripts and Curatorial, as well as
a Librarian and all of these positions have workers involved in processing materials who report directly to them, most notably,
the catalogers. Nonetheless, there are no formally defined Curatorial, Manuscripts or Library Departments. This arrangement 6
effectively moves almost all responsibility for processing to the curatorial level, including technical decision making.

7. Museum Computer Network 2007
Catalogers seeking direction?
7

8. The Big Box
A Whole Bunch
of things
25 Letters 246 Photos 32 Books
To Manuscripts To Curatorial
Dept Dept. To Library
Museum Computer Network 2007
Approaches to the problem:
The Big Box
Things happen. We had three departments and we knew that certain things held in each of the
collections either weren’t described in any finding aid at all, or were mentioned so cursorily, they
would never be found.
Because the “disappearance” of information tended to happen most often in the context of the
acquisition of a large collection of items by one or another of the departments, we came up with what
came to be called the “Big Box” scenario, as in: “A big box arrives; it contains 25 letters, 246
photographs and 32 books…”
Two things seemed to happen in the big box scenario that weren’t very logical. If the box had
something that interested curators in each of the divisions, it was unpacked and separated into
different accessions – artificial accessions, really, since the box came from one place and really
represented a single transaction. So in our hypothetical situation, the letters become a manuscripts
accession, the photos go to Curatorial and the books are accessioned into the library. All groups are,
in our case given numbers in separate numbering schemes. The other thing that happened was that
the entire box was taken by one of the departments and the portions that didn’t interest the curators
wound up in the paper accession files with virtually no descriptive documentation, and not much of a
trail to get back to it if someone ever thought it was interesting enough to describe.
The big box seemed the most appropriate point to attack a plethora of problems, which at first looked
mostly technical, then largely procedural and ultimately seems a symbiotic combination of procedure,
software and intent, not necessarily in that order.
8

9. Changes at the level of intake
n Subtle and not so subtle
n Replaced the term “department” with
“descriptive focus”:
n Visual
n Archives
n Bibliographic
n (more as time went by)
n Switched to a single accession numbering
system
n Streamlined acquisition to “bare bones” to
speed up generation of fundamental docs
Museum Computer Network 2007
The most dramatic change was the switch to a single numbering system, which
necessitated the creation of methods to handle old vs. new acquisitions. However,
the move enormously simplified record handling and auditing issues.
In less earth shaking moves, we expunged the word “department” from our
communications concerning the project.
Finally, we attempted to move the cataloging / processing of collections
downstream from the registrar’s office and made the acquisitions and registration
module in our design a bare­bones system that captured only the most essential
information and could generate receipts and records with only a few minutes of
work.
9

10. Museum Computer Network 2007
The system we co­developed with Minisis Inc. allowed a registrar, ideally operating
on the instructions of a curator or processing manager (a position that didn’t exist
when we designed the system) to generate records in special cataloging modules
for bibliographic or archival records. We called this “descriptive focus”. Everything
gets a record in the Collections Management portion by default. Eventually we
developed several other descriptive foci that designated special handling situations.
10

11. Fully featured cataloging modules for each
discipline
n Collections management
n EVERYTHING gets a CM record
n 3DO/Image records live here
n Field specific and general help files, as well as
pick­lists support:
§ CCO
§ CDWA
§ AAT
Museum Computer Network 2007
11

12. Collections Management 3 DO/Image Module
Museum Computer Network 2007
The Collections Management module (what we designate as the 3DO/image
module) is used for all objects that come into the institution. Help screens and data
entry constraints implement CCO and CDWA.
12

13. Bibliographic Module
n Marc format
import/export/edit
n Multiple
download source
options
n Support for
bibliographic
formats and
standards
n Links at item
level to CM
module
Museum Computer Network 2007
The bibliographic module is a full library system. We don’t use the circulation
system but we are using the serials module. It links seamlessly to OCLC’s online
system and can import MARC format data. An internal MARC database allows us to
store the record as pure MARC, but in order for it to link up to other portions of the
system (such as the registration and CMS) the records are imported to a simpler
record format. The copy level information for any title hyperlinks to its corresponding
CMS, item­level record.
13

14. Manuscripts module
n Import/export
of EAD
n Support for
n APPM
n RAD
n Links at item
level to CM
module
Museum Computer Network 2007
The archival module implements the APPM and RAD standards, supports import
and export of EAD data and links at the item level to the CMS.
14

15. Museum Computer Network 2007
But how do we get the catalogers/curators/reference folks to adopt the system?
15

16. Why won’t they just use it?
n We moved the implementation of standards
downstream from the registrars, but..
n Catalogers worked for the curators
n Curators weren’t especially concerned about
interoperability, repurposing, and..
n PUBLIC ACCESS
Museum Computer Network 2007
16

17. Who are we doing this for?
“Internal” vs.. “External” Orientation
The Public
Museums: Libraries:
Internal Orientation External Orientation
Mediated Unmediated
Presentation Public Access
Museum Computer Network 2007
Public Access vs. mediated Presentation
Perhaps the most fundamental difference in approach between libraries and
museums, is in their relationship to the public. The mission of the library is to
provide access to its holdings by the public. By definition this assumes that
information is extracted by the patron and not a curator. In contrast, in a typical
museum information about the collections is dispensed pedagogically via exhibits,
publications, public lectures and symposia. The only people accessing the database
without programmatic guidance are museum staff.
In terms of information system design, the library assumes a public access system
providing largely unmediated access to information about its holdings. The Museum,
on the other hand, operates on the implicit assumption that information on
collections will be accessed primarily by staff members in the process of putting
together mediated presentations of museum holdings for the public.
In the former case, the system emphasis will be on “discovery;” the ability to locate
relevant material within the database. In the latter case, the emphasis will be on
depth of description and unique physical attributes: curatorial staff, for the most part,
knows what is in the collection and how to find it within the database. What they
need from the database is accurate ownership information, dimensions and
thorough descriptions.
17

18. Reference Themes
§ Reference Code : ISAD(G)
§ e.g. HNOC Mss205 1.1
§ Repeatable
§ Works for virtual and real collections
§ Makes Collecting Policy Explicit
§ Provides appropriate control to curators
§ Facilitates hierarchical description
§ Compatible with EAD
Museum Computer Network 2007
Reference Codes
How do you reconcile these differences? The first step is to realize that because
they begin from opposite viewpoints, it can be possible to support both. Indeed, the
problem turns out not to be that you can’t describe something in a museum/object­
centric sort of way and as part of collection with essential internal relationships. The
problem turns out to be far more pedestrian – how do you allocate resources and
set up processes to accommodate multiple viewpoints?
The approach we’ve decided to take is to assign all new items, collections, etc.
coming into the institution a “reference code.” This is a concept borrowed from the
archival world, and is spelled out in the ISAD(G) standards. Essentially, it is a
naming and classification method for assigning identities to repositories. But the
classification system is designed to be hierarchical and thus allows for the
enumeration of collections within an institution and the breakout of those collections
into subparts
Among it’s advantages is that it allows us to classify incoming materials in a logical
and consistent way prior to cataloging.
18

19. Reference Theme Committee
n Composed of curatorial, library and archives
catalogers, supervisory level reference services and
collections management personnel – and curators
n Mandate to create 12 hierarchies that describe all of
our holdings
n Multiple hierarchies could be applied to a single
record
n Top level to be assigned by curator at time of
acquisition consideration
n Lower levels to be assigned by catalogers
Museum Computer Network 2007
A committee was formed to come up with an internal classification system that
would describe our holdings. It was not intended to supplant any professionally
accepted standards but to create what amounted to the first explicit description of
our collecting policies. It was purposely made with only 12 major hierarchies so that
it could easily be used by curators and then fleshed out by catalogers. Multiple
hierarchies could be assigned to any item.
19

20. Top Level
n Architecture and Urban Development
n Fine and Decorative Arts
n Literary Arts
n Music and Performing Arts
n Commerce, Industry and Agriculture
n Geography and Land Tenure
n Historical Eras
n Military History
n Politics, Government and Law
n Science and Technology
n Social History
n Local Life and Customs
Museum Computer Network 2007
20

21. Museum Computer Network 2007
Screen showing implementation of collection themes. These themes are assigned
to all items and provide the unifying vocabulary for all holdings regardless of type.
Users can search on these and drill down to the items in the curatorial, bibliographic
or archival databases and then use discipline specific vocabularies to narrow their
search.
21

22. Web Interface
Museum Computer Network 2007
The system when implemented on the web will first offer the user the cross—
collection search option
22

23. Museum Computer Network 2007
Results will come back indicating the type of material
23

24. A department is born
n 2007 : the Processing Department is created,
putting all catalogers under one supervisor:
the Assistant Director of the Research Center
n He creates the Processing Committee,
composed of representatives of all areas in
the museum to analyze and reform
processing procedures
n First reading assignment: 1999 RFI for a new
system
Museum Computer Network 2007
The experience of the Themes Committee was the first cross­”departmental” group
to deal with classification and description issues. It’s success has led to the creation
of a processing division which finally takes cataloging control away from the
curators and makes it an independent process with feedback from the reference
division.
24

25. And everyone lived happily forever
Museum Computer Network 2007
Photos by chuck patch
www.flickr.com/photos/chuckp
25