Collections Management in Canadian Museums: 2016 Results

Survey methodology and results

POR sent an initial email introducing the CMS survey to 1411 client organizations for whom CHIN had a valid email address. This was followed by an invitation from POR to respond to the survey. The survey was available from May 25 to June 29, 2016. CHIN received 236 responses for a participation rate of 17%, which is slightly higher than the average response rate of 10–15% for external surveys. The responses yield information which will be very useful in planning CHIN’s resources.

The survey contained 18 questions of a general nature about the responding museum and its collections, the state of its documentation and digitization, and standards used in documenting the collections. Key results reveal that:

• 82% of respondents use an automated system to document their collections;
• 74% of those systems have been in place for three or more years;
• 26% of respondents plan to purchase a new CMS in the next three years; and
• the most widely used object classification system is Nomenclature and/or the Parks Canada Visual Dictionary.

The survey questions are included in Appendix A. Please note that because some questions were broken down into multiple potential responses, there are more than 18 questions listed in the results. For several questions, respondents could choose to write in a response under an “Other” option. These responses were then grouped into categories for ease of reporting.

Size of collections

Respondents were asked to indicate the size of their collections, ranging from less than 1000 to more than 3,000,000 objects.

Figure 1. Number of items in collections

The majority of respondents were from smaller institutions. In fact, the three smallest institution categories combined make up 82% of the 233 respondents:

• 1000–9999 objects (34%);
• 10,000–49,999 objects (33%); and
• Fewer than 1000 objects (14%)

Digitized collections

The next series of questions related to electronic documentation of museum collections.

Figure 2. Institutions with digital collection records in an automated system

While 82% of respondents responded that they use some sort of electronic system for recording their collections, the remainder have no electronic system.

Figure 3. Software used to manage collections

The most commonly used systems were:

• FileMaker, MS Access or Excel (34%);
• PastPerfect (22%); and
• Collections Virtuelles (10%)

A number of software products were used by only one respondent each (totalling 16 of the responses). They include Adlib, Alpha, Argus, Canadian Forces Artefact Management System, Drupal, EmbARK, Info-Muse, MIMS, Mobydoc, Nomenclature, SNBase, TRIM, ResourceMate, Yukon Museums DB and Zoological Information Management System. Although there is a wide range of software in use, 66% of respondents are users of the three largest categories.

Figure 4. Length of time the software has been in use

Anecdotally, it is known that software in museums tends to be used for several years and is not always kept up to the current version. The survey results confirm this fact:

• 74% of respondents reported that their software had been in use for more than three years;
• 20% had been using their software for one to three years; and
• Only 7% of were using a system for less than a year.

Software that is older and has not been updated can pose a risk for museums.

Figure 5. Plans to acquire a new collections management system

Slightly more than one-quarter of respondents are planning to purchase a new collections management system in the next three years.

In a cross-tabulation looking at the use of a system (Q4) compared to plans to purchase a system (Q6), 25% of respondents with an electronic software system (46 out of 186) plan to acquire a new one while 33% respondents without any software for managing their collections (13 out of 40) plan to acquire one.

Figure 6: Importance of specific aspects of collections management

In terms of important aspects of collections management:

• 96% of respondents said that managing collections documentation and materials was either very important or somewhat important;
• 88% said that increasing awareness and visibility of collections was either very important or somewhat important;
• 88% said that providing research to collections information internally and providing internal access for reuse of content were either very or somewhat important; and
• 88% responded that providing research access to collections externally and providing broad access to collection images were either very or somewhat important.

The next highest areas of concern were managing movement of collections (77%) and managing intellectual property rights (73%).

For this question, respondents could choose an “Other” category and write in a response. Additional responses included: managing conservation information, public and educational online content, and looking for public comments for additional information. Some institutions also noted the lack of resources to properly document their collections electronically.

In a cross-tabulation of Q1 and Q8a, the largest percentage of institutions that have records available for internal use only are those with between 50,000–149,999 (10 out of 12 or 83%) and 150,000–349,999 records (5 out of 6 or 83%). Images for internal use also are highest in these groups. The 50,000–149,999 category is also the highest percentage of respondents that have future plans to add more images (11 out of 12 or 92%). However, the categories with the bigger collection sizes have fewer respondents than those of smaller institutions. A good proportion of the categories with smaller collection sizes also have records available internally: 72% of respondents in the 1000–9999 objects category (59 out of 81) and 65% of respondents in the 10,000 – 49,999 object category (49 out of 75).

Few institutions responded that they have records and images available on their websites. However, of the 12 institutions in the 50,000–149,000 objects category, 50% reported having records and images on their sites with the same percentage reporting they have plans to add more images.

Very few institutions make their images available on social media sites.

There was an open-ended option to this series of questions that allowed institutions to list other channels on which they posted collections records and images. Several responses to the question on other channels included information about posting images to specific social media channels, which may be because there was some confusion about the wording of the social media question. Other responses in the “Other access channels” category included Google Art, blogs and provincial collections as well as specialized networks.

Figure 7. Contribution to Artefacts Canada

More than two-thirds of respondents (70%) are not contributing to Artefacts Canada. Reasons in the survey are indicated below, with the highest proportion of the standard responses saying that they are waiting until digital images are available to share, followed by difficulty exporting data from a CMS.

Figure 8. Reasons for not contributing to Artefacts Canada

Data can be contributed to Artefacts Canada without images, as these records still have value for museum professionals carrying out research on Canadian collections, so this need not be a deterrent to contribution. Difficulty in exporting data from a collections management system is of concern, particularly as data export for migration is a key component in digital preservation.

Breaking down the “Other” category provides additional information. Responses were grouped by similarity of responses such as “lack of time” or “not aware of the possibility.” Almost two thirds of the respondents cited time and/or money issues. The next highest grouping was for those who were unaware of the possibility of contributing (20%).

Figure 9. Other reasons for not contributing to Artefacts Canada

Digital preservation

Figure 10. Digital preservation policies and plans

Less than one quarter of the respondents (22%) have a digital preservation policy and plan in place. Those who responded that they had a digital preservation policy and plan were presented with an open-ended question about what resources were used to guide the policy or plan.

For those who responded to this follow-up question, the most frequent resource (10 of 33 responses) used for policy guidance was provincial museum or archival associations. This was followed by institutions responding that their plan was for technical backup of the systems (9 of 33).

Institutions requiring guidance in setting up digital preservation plans can refer to CHIN’s Digital Preservation resources.

Object classification

The following figures illustrate the responses to the questions on object classifications used and how they are used. Figures 11, 12 and 13 provide the responses for those institutions that are using Parks Canada’s Descriptive and Visual Dictionary of Objects, Chenhall Revised Nomenclature or Nomenclature 3.0 or 4.0. These are the most widely used systems for object classification in responding institutions. For these questions, it was possible to choose more than option, as the classification systems could be used with different types of modifications, as specified in the question.

Figure 11. Managing collections with the Parks Canada object classification system

Figure 12. Managing collections with the Chenhall Revised Nomenclature object classification system

Figure 13. Managing collections with the Nomenclature 3.0 or 4.0 object classification system

Figure 14. Managing collections with the Info-Muse object classification system

Over three quarters of the respondents to questions 16 through 18 are using a version of Nomenclature or Parks Canada classification systems, either as is or in combination with modifications or added local terms, while 23% are using Info-Muse.

Figure 15. Managing collections with an internally developed object classification system

Over half of the respondents to this question are using internally developed systems, while 44% responded that they do not have an internally developed system. It was possible for respondents to answer that they used one of the classification systems in questions 16 through 18 and also that they used an internally developed system.

Additional classification systems mentioned in “Other” responses included Library of Congress, Rules for Archival Description and a number of specialized terminologies (e.g. Natural History, Maritime History).

Terminology standardization

The following questions indicate the level of standardization for various types of information in collections management systems.

Figure 16. Method of standardizing terminology for object naming

Figure 17. Method of standardizing terminology for geographic names

As seen in the responses to the previous questions regarding classification systems, Parks Canada Classification System and Nomenclature are widely used in object naming, making up 59% of responses for this category. Only 18% of respondents did not use a vocabulary standard for object naming.

For geographic names, on the other hand, 42% use a local vocabulary, while 39% use no vocabulary standard.

Figure 18. Method of standardizing terminology for artist/creator names

Figure 19. Method of standardizing terminology for materials/medium/support/technique

Figure 20. Method of standardizing terminology for culture

For artist names, the option of “No vocabulary standard used” was the most widely chosen response at 43%, followed by use of a local vocabulary at 37%. For materials/medium/support/techniques, the “No vocabulary standard” response (39%) was followed by a local vocabulary (28%). For culture, almost half did not use a standard (48%), while over four in ten applied a local vocabulary.

Figure 21. Method of standardizing terminology for time periods

For time periods, 46% of respondents do not use a vocabulary standard, while 39% use a local vocabulary. These results indicate that the most standardized type of information is for object name. For other data types, only in geographic standards did a local vocabulary outnumber no vocabulary standard used in responses, perhaps not surprisingly, as local vocabularies may include regionally specific terms.

In Q27 respondents were provided with an open space to list other vocabularies used. There were several responses mentioning additional specialized vocabularies such as for coins or stamps. Also, some mentioned that they have standards incorporated into their CMS. Some respondents in the “Other” responses pointed out that natural history standards were not part of the potential responses as the options were more relevant to humanities collections.

An additional open question asked respondents for input on the anticipated future needs for controlled vocabularies. The most frequent responses to Q28 related to the need for guidance and/or developing internal guidelines, as well as overall work on collections documentation (38%). This was followed by 28% of respondents who identified no anticipated need or no change from current practices. There were some specialized needs identified, including terminology related to new technologies and born-digital art. Most responses focused on the time and resources required in order to standardize the vocabulary in their collections.

Collections

1. How many items are in your institution’s collections?

• Less than 1000 objects
• 1000 – 9999 objects
• 10,000 – 49,999 objects
• 50,000 – 149,999 objects
• 150,000 – 349,999 objects
• 350,000 – 699,999 objects
• 700,000 – 1,4999,999 objects
• 1,500,000 – 2,999,999 objects
• 3,000,000 objects or more
• Not applicable

2. Does your institution have digital collection records in an automated collections management system, spreadsheet or other system?

• Yes
• No

If no skip to Question 6

3. What software does your institution use for managing collections?

Product Name:

4. What version of the software does your institution currently use?

5. How long has it been in use? (Check one)

• Less than one year
• 1 – 3 years
• More than 3 years

6. Is your institution planning on acquiring a new collections management system or other software to manage its collections in the next three years?

• Yes
• No

7. How important are each of the following aspects of collections management to your institutions?

Others

Please specify:

8a. How many of your institution’s objects have digital records in the following channels?

8b. Please provide any other access channels that are not listed above.

9a. Does your institution currently contribute to Artefacts Canada?

• Yes
• No (Go to Q9b)

9b. Why is your institution not contributing to Artefacts Canada?

• Difficulty exporting data from collections management system
• Artefacts Canada’s contribution process is difficult
• Difficulty in correcting information in Artefacts Canada
• Copyright concerns
• Duplication of effort
• Concern about data quality
• Waiting until digital images are available to share
• Lack of support from institution’s senior management
• Reluctance to share some collections data online
• Other (please specify)

10a. Does your institution have a digital preservation policy and plan in place?

• Yes
• No

10b. What digital preservation resources have guided the policy or plan? (please specify)

Standards

11a. What object classification system does your institution use to manage its collections? Select all that apply.

11b. Please provide any additional classification systems that your institution uses to manage its collections that are not listed above.

12. Howdoes your organization standardize the terminology in its object records (e.g. controlled vocabulary or authority lists)?

Note: A controlled vocabulary is an organized arrangement of words and phrases used to index content and/or to retrieve content through browsing or searching.

Authority lists (also called authority files) are lists of terms that can be used by a museum to control the terms or variants that are used in their collections documentation.

13. What are your institution’s anticipated future needs for controlled vocabularies?

14. Data Entry Rules

What content standards (data entry rules) are in use at your institution? (Select all that apply)

Basic profile information

15. In which province or territory is your institution located?

• Alberta
• British Columbia
• Manitoba
• New Brunswick
• Newfoundland and Labrador
• Northwest Territories
• Nova Scotia
• Nunavut
• Ontario
• Prince Edward Island
• Quebec
• Saskatchewan
• Yukon

16. What type of internet access does your institution have? (Check one)

• No internet access
• Dial-up
• High speed (broadband)

17. How would you classify your institution’s primary collections? (Please check the one phrase that best describes your collections)

• Art
• History
• Archaeology
• Natural History/Natural Science
• Science & Technology
• Other (please specify)

Do you have archival/library material?

18. What is your institution’s current annual operating budget? Please provide your best estimate. (Check one)

• 0 – 4,999
• 5,000 – 24,999
• 25,000 – 49,999
• 50,000 – 99,999
• 100,000 – 199,999
• 200,000 – 399,999
• 400,000 - 699,999
• 700,000 – 999,999
• 1,000,000 – 1,499,999
• 1,500,000 – 1,999,999
• 2,000,000 – 2,999,999
• 3,000,000 – 3,999,999
• 4,000,000 and over
• Don’t know