Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
See Best Practices for Decision Pages and Tags for groups
Legend:
Status
titlenot started
Status
colourYellow
titleIN PROGRESS
Status
colourRed
titleSTALLED
Status
colourGreen
titledecided
Page Properties

Status

Status
colourYellow
titleIn progress

Description

In seeking to…

Standardize

to standardize how we report common statistics (to the extent possible); and

Build

build centralized statistics reports, generated at the Network Zone

How should the UC Libraries handle counts for two groups of items

  1. items previously represented by “Manuscript Units” in UCOP statistics, and

  2. items currently with Manuscript” as the value for "Physical Items"."Bibliographic Details"."Resource Type"

value “Manuscript” in annual statistics? Used for campus

in submissions for the UCL/UCOP annuals stats only (which is also used to submit data to our insurer)? For for risk management) as well as other, third-party reporting requirements bodies like ARL, ACRL, etc.?

Decision summary

  1. Exclude Special Collections materials that duplicate separately-maintained statistics about Manuscript Units from Alma Analytics based annual statistic reports. 2. Re-label “Manuscript” resource type to reduce confusion.

Owning group

AASAP Team sils-aasa-l@listserv.ucop.edu

Approver

Consulted

AASAP Team members consulted locally, including their local special collections colleagues

Heads of Special Collections (HOSC)

Informed

Leadership Group

Decision-making process

Team members gathered information from campus experts individually and as a group via HOSC.

Some campuses reviewed data from Alma, e.g., list of titles by location with Resource Type = Manuscript.

Priority

Target decision date

Date decided

[type // to add Date]

Recommendation

...

Recommendations

  1. Exclude “Manuscript Unit” Special Collections & Archives materials from Analytics-based annual statistic reports. Instead, Special Collections on each campus will report their own counts of materials for risk-management and other purposes. Special Collections experts on each campus are responsible for defining how to exclude records that would duplicate their non-Alma counts.

  2. Re-label “Manuscript” resource-type items using clearer terms, to distinguish them from Special Collections materials. Examples include “Manuscripts, non-SCA” or “Non-MU Unpublished Manuscript” or “Non-MU Unpublished (formerly Manuscript - Physical).” More descriptive language for relevant MARC codes is at: loc.gov > MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data and oclc.org > Bibliographic Formats and Standards

Impact

Stakeholder group

Impact

UC Libraries

Determinations around what and how we report are for the most part managed/owned by the UC Libraries (i.e., shared ownership).

CDL

CDL analysts, who are responsible for building report queries at the Network Zone according to templates agreed upon by the UC Libraries, must exclude items based a variety of parameters – likely resource type and location (specific to campus special collections), and any another group of query parameters identified by campus partners.

Special Collections on every campus

SC on every campus will have to keep and report their own statistics to third parties.

UCOP

Likely, this specifically pertains to our Risk Management Office, who reports holdings information to our insurer, for compliance purposes.

Reasoning

Background

At this time, archival or manuscript collections are not effectively represented by counts of Alma item records with bibliographic resource type “Manuscript.” Therefore, Special Collections and Archives materials should continue to be submitted based on data that is stored outside of Alma, such as spreadsheets or other local data repositories.

Background

In comparing data from previous submissions to the proposed method of counting by category, there are two concerns that arise for “manuscript” category items.

  1. “Manuscript” as value for Resource Type means something different from “Manuscript” in the Special Collections context.

    1. “Manuscript Units” are categories of Special Collections and Archives materials. For UCOP statistics in the past, they have included three subcategories:

      1. Personal manuscripts

      2. UC archival manuscripts

      3. Other archival materials

    2. In contrast, the “Manuscript”

...

    1. value is derived from values in the MARC Leader and 008. (See Alma User Interface - General Information > Searching in Alma). Correctly catalogued items with this Resource Type include unpublished dissertations and other materials that frequently do not correspond to the kinds of materials that are counted as “Manuscript Units” by Special Collections and Archives experts.

  1. “Manuscript Unit” materials do not have corresponding item records in Alma. Subcategories from previous UCOP submissions, like “Personal manuscript units”, generally do not have item-level records in Alma that can be neatly counted by filtering by location, MARC field, or other values in existing physical item records. In addition, most MUs have no corresponding record in Alma at all.

...

Example: Irvine

Of 4,060 Manuscript Units reported, most do not have corresponding Alma records. Based on a query that looks for finding aid URLs, there are only ~700 Alma item records that correspond to reported MUs. Example:

Irvine’s overall counts:

  • Manuscript Units reported to UCOP in 2021-2022: ~4,000

  • Item count for Resource Type “Manuscript”: >12,500.

  • Item count for Resource Type “Manuscript” in Special Collections and Archives locations: ~1,300.

View file
name2022-2023 Manuscript Resource Type Irvine.xlsx

2021-2022 UCOP Table 3 Other Library Materials

UCB

UCD

UCI

UCLA

UCM

UCR

UCSB

UCSC

UCSD

UCSF

Total

Personal manuscripts

58,802

19,172

2,193

89,229

91

17,526

42,303

5,354

9,679

4,742

249,091

UC archival manuscripts

9,079

6,437

1,599

40,997

555

8,818

3,131

1,045

2,667

2,102

76,430

Other archival materials

27,484

16,227

268

90,193

0

1,570

18,354

2,643

1,353

615

158,707

Total

95,365

41,836

4,060

220,419

646

27,914

63,788

9,042

13,699

7,459

484,228

...

Overall concerns identified by Special Collections & Archives experts

There are two additional ways that a count of items based on bibliographic resource type with current Alma data fail to provide useful information about Special Collections materials.

  1. Overall measurement issues. Counts of items item records in Special Collections locations across the system are wholly inadequate.

    • Item records do not exist at all for some materials This is true at Bancroft Library and other Special Collections units in the UC Libraries.

    • Online Archive of California records are not accurately represented in Alma. At UC Irvine, for example, Alma does not have item records that correspond to representations there.

    • Item records do not correspond to meaningful, standard archival measurements that are in use nationally and internationally. ARL, for example, asks for Manuscript Units.

    • Item records for containers are flawed measurements, because they canrepresent vastly different quantities and types of materials - from a single piece of paper to a large container with thousands of documents.

    • Inaccurately coded records are an issue. For example, Berkeley Bancroft Technical Services notes that many Alma items for Special Collection manuscripts are currently miscoded coded as type “book.”

    • Resource type at the bibliographic level does not provide meaningful information. Manuscripts and archival materials are sometimes coded as “collections,” and sometimes as “manuscripts.” Still images can be both “pictures” and “other,” due to coding as projected vs. non-projected graphics. On many campuses, counts of items with resource type “Manuscript” mostly show individually-catalogued theses and dissertations.

  2. Risk management issues. Counts of items cannot provide an accurate or useful picture of the value of materials for insurance purposes.

    • For UCOP stats, HOSC has provided MU measurements because the insurance unit values table describes manuscripts as "Personal Manuscripts," "UC Archival Manuscripts," and "Other Manuscripts" -- all this translates, to HOSC since at least the last decade+, as archival/manuscript collections, not individual manuscripts. https://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Unit_value_2021.pdf.

    • For some materials, there is an existing distinction between UC archival collections and personal papers or other collected manuscripts that is recorded at the item level—not at the bibliographic level. Valuations have in the past been tied to this information, so any changes to tracking it should be in coordination with UCOP Risk Management.

Options Considered [remove if not needed]

...

...

Option 2

...

Description

...

Pros

...

Cons

Dependencies

Questions to consider

In the future, is it possible to create and efficiently maintain Alma records that provide more useful data about SCA materials?

Action Log

Action/Point Person

Expected Completion Date

Notes

Status

Gather feedback from local campus Special Collections colleagues Later March

Team members gathered feedback via poll, meetings, and email. Responses to the “Useful Data Elements Poll” question “Would it be acceptable for the sake of the UCOP stats to count manuscripts…” are at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KeesYLZE4X-1dbHh8Fg2KGmSB7kBdvVJ5C81-8ZhKHY/edit#gid=0

Complete

Gather feedback from Heads of Special Collections as a group

Ellen and Danielle attended a monthly HOSC Zoom meeting, then shared their feedback with the Team via Zoom meeting on 24 April 2023.

Complete