Appendix_B_AMSWG_survey2014
AMSWG Membership Survey, 2014
3.) What Archives Management System (AMS), if any, do you currently use? | ||
|---|---|---|
AT | 76% | 20 |
My institution does not use any AMS | 26% | 6 |
Microsoft Access for accessions |
|
|
About to get a new database with Archives specific module. Now using a hodgepodge of spreadsheets and databases. |
|
|
Omeka |
|
|
We have the AT hosted by NWDA but we aren't currently using it. |
|
|
Access database |
|
|
Star Knowledge Center for Archives (CuadraStar/Lucidea) |
|
|
4.) Does someone other than your institution or parent organization host and manage your AMS?
We use NWDA hosted | 50% | 12 |
No, we manage locally | 50% | 12 |
Old version of PastPerfect on the computer; not sure how much it was used ver 5.0B9 |
|
|
| I manage and have administrative capabilities, our library IT can assist to a point, but we also rely on CuadraStar for managing/troubleshooting tech issues | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
5.) How do you make description available to users?
AMS public interface | 3.4% | 1 |
IR | 31% | 9 |
NWDA research site | 96.6% | 28 |
Paper guides | 37.9% | 11 |
Library cat. | 69% | 20 |
1 | Oct 23, 2014 7:45 AM | Mountain West Digitall Library |
|---|---|---|
2 | Oct 21, 2014 2:14 PM | Will have public interface from database in next 2-3 years |
3 | Oct 21, 2014 9:06 AM | Omeka and online exhibit pages |
4 | Oct 20, 2014 1:49 PM | PDF guides on our public-facing website |
5 | Oct 20, 2014 11:32 AM | XTF |
6 | Oct 20, 2014 9:50 AM | Homegrown systems (html finding aids on local website) |
7 | Oct 13, 2014 2:33 PM | XSLT to html and delivery on our website |
8 | Oct 13, 2014 11:18 AM | html web page |
9 | Oct 13, 2014 10:23 AM | Consortial (statewide) digital archives for selected collections/items |
|
|
6. What kinds of description resources do you make available to users? [check all that apply]
Accession records | 17.2% | 5 |
Finding aids | 100% | 28 |
Digital object descriptions | 65.5% | 19 |
MARC records | 79.3% | 23 |
7. What types of activities does your institution use its AMS for? [check all that apply]
Accessions | 84% | 21 |
Access to content | 32% | 8 |
Authority control | 56% | 14 |
Collections management | 76% | 19 |
Copies and reproduction | 4% | 1 |
Digital object management | 20% | 2 |
EAD creation | 68% | 17 |
Finding aid creation | 68% | 17 |
MARC creation | 44% | 11 |
Reference inquires | 48% | 12 |
User or researcher | 0% | 0 |
Other metadata creation | 8% | 2 |
We have what was necessary during the NWDA Grant in 2010-11 |
|
|
We have an in house database for paper records accessioning, but another system for special project on digital audio/video. |
|
|
Manage Institutional Records (temporary holdings on a set retention schedule) |
|
|
These are options that we would like to have if we had an AMS. |
|
|
Just a note - Authority control is incidental. I'd also LOVE to be able to use my AMS for Public Access to content, but AT doesn't offer that. |
|
|
8. Does your institution use the digital objects module in Archivist's Toolkit to manage or generate digital object metadata?
Yes | 3.8% | 1 |
No | 96.2% | 25 |
9. Is your institution currently considering switching to a different AMS?
Yes | 76.9% | 20 |
No | 23.1% | 6 |
10. How soon are you considering switching?
0-6 months | 21.1% | 4 |
1 year | 26.3% | 5 |
2 years | 31.6% | 6 |
3-5 years | 21.1% | 4 |
11. Why are you or your institution considering switching?
2 | Oct 24, 2014 1:54 PM | We want to unite processes and hope to start taking eRecords...establish preservation capability. |
|---|---|---|
3 | Oct 24, 2014 8:16 AM | Archivists Toolkit is no longer supported. |
4 | Oct 23, 2014 7:48 AM | Currently we do not have anything other than an accession data base in Access which is on the brink of collapse. We really need to move into a system that does more than track accessions. |
5 | Oct 22, 2014 5:36 PM | We are currently using AT. We can probably support it for another 2-4 years. Some people in our institution are interested in a homegrown system, others are interested in ArchivesSpace. |
6 | Oct 21, 2014 2:15 PM | New database for entire museum collection, including Library, archives and artifacts |
7 | Oct 20, 2014 1:56 PM | To move to a more sustainable, and efficient system for managing and describing archival collections |
8 | Oct 20, 2014 1:53 PM | Only because Archivists Toolkit is no longer supported. |
9 | Oct 20, 2014 1:50 PM | Anticipated need that AT would not be able to provide. |
10 | Oct 20, 2014 1:49 PM | I want to use ArchivesSpace but I want them to work out the kinks first; this is why I want to wait for a while. |
11 | Oct 20, 2014 1:47 PM | Dependent upon what (if any) successor tool NWDA chooses to replace AT. |
12 | Oct 20, 2014 11:36 AM | AT is "end-of-life" software and no updates or further development will be offered. |
13 | Oct 20, 2014 9:54 AM | Presently using AT - we are waiting and hoping for an alternative for a variety of reasons, including sustainability. |
14 | Oct 13, 2014 11:19 AM | NWDA is considering a switch due to the obsolescence of Archivist's Toolkit |
15 | Oct 13, 2014 10:24 AM | CuadraStar is expensive and we are looking to transition to something that meets our needs but costs less. We are also at this time not looking, but understand that the cost of CuadraStar may not be a sustainable cost due to budget cuts. |
16 | Oct 13, 2014 9:59 AM | AT is no longer supported, and we would like to be in the first wave of switching to the next platform. |
17 | Oct 13, 2014 9:51 AM | Because AT is no longer updated. |
18 | Oct 13, 2014 9:39 AM | Because AT is no longer supported. |
19 | Oct 13, 2014 9:32 AM | To go along with NWDA switch. |
12. What systems are under consideration? [check all that apply]
ArchivesSpace | 100% | 16 |
Homegrown | 18.8% | 3 |
Access to Memory (AtoM) | 25% | 4 |
1 | Oct 29, 2014 1:15 PM | I'd prefer ArchivesSpace. Some others in the library are more interested in a homegrown system. |
|---|---|---|
2 | Oct 24, 2014 2:05 PM | Bepress institutional repository |
3 | Oct 24, 2014 1:54 PM | Archivematica |
4 | Oct 24, 2014 8:16 AM | Not sure |
5 | Oct 23, 2014 7:48 AM | We were considering this because currently it seems to be the only option. Our systems people are looking at developing a FilemakerPro set up to take over our accession records. |
6 | Oct 21, 2014 2:15 PM | Proficio Re:Discovery |
7 | Oct 20, 2014 1:50 PM | I am searching some standard and non-standard options here |
8 | Oct 20, 2014 1:47 PM | All of the above, again, through NWDA. |
9 | Oct 20, 2014 9:54 AM | We would prefer a hosted solution that will provide support and cost-savings. |
10 | Oct 13, 2014 10:24 AM | Haven't even started looking |
11 | Oct 13, 2014 9:39 AM | We're waiting to hear back from the NWDA Working Group with best options. |
|
|
13. If you were to switch, what features would you like to see in a new AMS?
Better search feature across accessions and collections | 90% | 18 |
Training tools incorporated into the AMS | 60% | 12 |
Easy batch import/export of accession and resource data | 100% | 20 |
| ||
1 | Oct 24, 2014 2:05 PM | Easier access |
2 | Oct 23, 2014 7:48 AM | We would like to be able to have a system that allows us to build description and repurpose the information for other uses such as MARC records and meta data for digital objects |