More on “More Product, Less Process” – A library is many things

As promised in an earlier entry, I would seek out different perspectives and responses to the paradigm shifting article “More Product, Less Process” and offer my reflections.

More Product, Less Process: Why It Matters to Archivists, Librarians, and Researchers a video from the ALCTS webinar series.

[youtube id=”YqftrBsHAl8″ align=”center”]

A presentation by Dennis Meissner, one of the authors of the original paper, largely duplicates the methodology and findings of the paper but is still and engaging and interesting example. It is less formal and less technical, but just as compelling in an audiovisual format. Meissner uses this quote from Winston Churchill to again set the tone of this presentation and mode:

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results

Again, Meissner largely covers the same ground as the article, especially in the first half of the recording. However, one topic – that of digitization – is new to this recording and makes this resource quite valuable. Meissner sees digitization as a huge opportunity and advocates that it be done to an “adequate” level in line with the general MPLP approach. People want the content much more than they want the metadata and practices must be aligned to user needs. He runs through many examples where the MPLP approach is applied to digital scans, collections of images, and born-digital material and frequently uses the words “adequate” and “sufficient” to describe this work. By far my favorite moment of this, and perhaps any library related webinar is when he says (around 41:45)

This PDF based solution is, from a more tradition digitization point of view, crude as hell.

But, he continues, this “crude as hell” approach works perfectly in some contexts and facilitates large scan digitization at a very low cost. According to MPLP, this is not cutting corners, just an appropriate treatment of an archival collection.

What’s Your Product? Assessing the suitability of a More Product, Less Process methodology for processing audiovisual collections. By Joshua Ranger, senior consultant for audiovisual preservation solutions.

This short articles tries to apply the principles of MPLP to audiovisual collections but mainly argues its shortcomings by pointing out the differences between manuscript and audiovisual collections. One key contribution is that he redefines the “product” in terms of findability, access/usability, and sustainability. These concerns looks radically different for audiovisual collections and his points are well taken. Another point, not directly related to the MPLP model, was striking:

Without the ability to playback an original format or to move that content to a new format that is not at risk of poor condition and/or obsolescence issues, an audiovisual collection is effectively meaningless. (page 3)

Many other points – like that traditional metrics like cubic feet can’t apply, that stake holders expect item level metadata, and that collection level descriptions simply aren’t adequate – make this a worthy and intriguing read.

More Product, Less Process: A Flexible by Sasha Griffin

This short, 10 page article details the way different archives have implemented the general MPLP approach and how they have responded and it is a very interesting resource and invites furhter discovery. In short, Griffin covers articles published by the following institutions that in some way respond to the principles of MPLP

Yale University’s Christine Weideman published an article about their attempt to address a backlog and the MPLP approach played in challenging current practices.
Donna McCrea, at the University of Montana at Missoula, used MPLP to challenge convention and improve efficiency for their collection
The Penn State Special Collections found that item level description was necessary for the Kenneth Burke papers and therefore challenged a precept of the MPLP approach (more on this later).
A few other voices that questioned whether the MPLP approach could be applied to personal papers and/or whether this was the end of “traditional” archival practices.

In response to these responses, Griffin summarizes by pointing out again that the MPLP approach is intentionally flexible and meant to allow the needs of users guide the process. Item level description isn’t ruled out by the MPLP (nor is pulling staples, it would seem) but that level of processing should only be done to meet the needs firstly of the users and secondly of the collection. The MPLP doesn’t claim to be a one-size-fits-all approach and therefore is hard to reject outright.