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
3	Oct 20, 2014 1:56 PM	Integrated management of digital materials
4	Oct 20, 2014 11:36 AM	Better support for managing digital objects; integrated search system (backend to frontend);
5	Oct 20, 2014 9:54 AM	Ability to control access to different repository instances at and across the institutional level.
6	Oct 13, 2014 11:19 AM	especially the import/export of data
7	Oct 13, 2014 9:59 AM	Instant publication records, especially accession records!
8	Oct 13, 2014 9:51 AM	ability to quickly add up numbers: linear feet of entire holdings, l.f. of processed, l.f. of accessions, and any other statistics to track growth

14. What do you like about your current AMS?

Allows multiple functions	78.9%	15
Easy to use	68.4%	13
Interfaces with consortial systems	36.8%	7
1	Oct 24, 2014 4:56 PM	Our previous librarian left last September. Currently, we will probably get started up to run in the next few months and contacting Jodi for training.
2	Oct 23, 2014 8:02 AM	Nothing
3	Oct 21, 2014 2:19 PM	No current AMS-just a bunch of databases
4	Oct 20, 2014 3:42 PM	Provides IT support
5	Oct 20, 2014 2:07 PM	If we had an AWS these options would be appreciated.
6	Oct 20, 2014 11:54 AM	Hosted at NWDA
7	Oct 20, 2014 9:56 AM	Potential ability to interface with back-end SQL database.
8	Oct 13, 2014 9:41 AM	We're not completely in love with AT

15. What is your institution's ARTSTOR/JSTOR/Carnegie classification category?

Very small	13%	3
Small	43.5%	10
Medium	8.7%	2
Large	30.4%	7
Very Large	4.3%	1

16. Who is responsible for the technical requirements (installation, updates, maintenance, etc.) for your AMS? [check all that apply]

NWDA	46.2%	12
You or someone in immediate department	53.8%	14
Library systems staff	50%	13
Greater institutional staff	7.7%	2
Someone outside your ORG	3.8%	1

17. According to NWDA's calculations to date, implementing any other AMS besides Archivists' Toolkit will results in increased costs. How would your institution react to increased costs for AMS services, knowing that they are to be proposed and decided in time for the FY16 budget season (e.g. by 2014 December 31), and knowing that any decisions will be informed by member feedback?

Some increased cost would be acceptable	83.3%	20
No increased cost would be acceptable	16.7%	4
	New entry 11/10 Via email	Yes, within limits.
1	Oct 29, 2014 1:18 PM	I've had a discussion with the head of my department and a small increase shouldn't be a problem.
2	Oct 24, 2014 4:57 PM	Not sure at this point. I wish I could explain but it would take too long.
3	Oct 23, 2014 8:02 AM	If we choose archives space would there be two costs – one to AS and one to NWDA
4	Oct 22, 2014 5:43 PM	During a meeting with our dean last spring (now, former dean) it was indicated that a minor increase would be fine.
5	Oct 21, 2014 2:20 PM	Acceptable, but we wouldn't use an NWDA hosted AMS, as we will use our institution's system.
6	Oct 20, 2014 3:47 PM	In the current budget landscape I am already having to defend the cost vs benefits of membership in NWDA. I'm not sure that an increase in budget for another AMS would be approved.
7	Oct 20, 2014 2:07 PM	It depends on the AMS that is chosen and whether it fits the needs of our institution.
8	Oct 20, 2014 1:53 PM	Impossible to ballpark without some figures.
9	Oct 20, 2014 1:51 PM	I don't think AS is really a viable option, yet though, so I think we should wait.
10	Oct 20, 2014 1:51 PM	It's difficult to say. We are still waiting on our institution to let us know about our FY15 budget. It was presented in the summer, but financial aid costs are higher than projected and we may need to give money back from our budget - as we did last year. With that in mind, any increase is hard to fathom.
11	Oct 20, 2014 12:00 PM	Unknown at this point. It depends on which system is chosen and whether our institution decides to go with that choice or another direction. There is some feeling among my colleagues that ArchivesSpace is a more acceptable and standard archival management system than, say, ICA-AtoM.
12	Oct 20, 2014 9:59 AM	More information needed before WWU could commit to increased fees.
13	Oct 16, 2014 9:53 AM	I'm not positive which of the above applies. I would have to check with Admin. I'm guessing "some" increased cost would be acceptable.
14	Oct 13, 2014 11:23 AM	But this might impact the hours of current personnel working in the Institutional Archives which has already affected by recent budget cuts.
15	Oct 13, 2014 10:28 AM	Our participation in NWDA will be evaluated next year even if the cost doesn't increase. Trying to participate more with adding finding aids but timing hasn't worked to get other staff trained and only 1 staff person has been trained to add finding aids, and their position has become much more administrative. Lack of participation makes it hard to justify cost of NWDA though do try to stress to administration benefits of participation (especially user studies conducted by NWDA).
16	Oct 13, 2014 10:03 AM	Some, but NOT DRASTIC cost increase, is expected
17	Oct 13, 2014 9:47 AM	Within reason, labor costs of moving to a new system are expected however, great expense for the institution for new software etc. would be a problem.

18. At present, hosting and supporting Archivist's Toolkit costs approximately $13,000 a year, which is spread equally across all NWDA members' fees (e.g. $325/ year/member). How would your institution like to see increased costs handled?

Spread equally across all program members	48%	12
Charged only to institutions that use the AMS service	20%	5
Charged according to institution size as with JSTOR/ARTSTOR	32%	8
	New entry 11/10 via email	My colleagues see the benefits of being able to partially subsidize the participation of other repositories who might not be able to participate otherwise. In other words, the fee could be proportional to usage as long as it wasn't cost prohibitive.
1	Oct 29, 2014 1:18 PM	I think our institution would support this, though I have not confirmed with our dean.
2	Oct 22, 2014 5:43 PM	Without a number on the increase, I can't get a firm answer from Administration. I think the general feeling is that we should support the consortial effort by spreading it across members.
3	Oct 20, 2014 1:58 PM	Maybe charges for institutions that use the hosted installation could be greater than the ones that do maintenance and upkeep themselves?
4	Oct 20, 2014 1:53 PM	I could both the first and second options being appropriate.
5	Oct 20, 2014 1:51 PM	Charged in accordance with use and size seems appropriate.
6	Oct 20, 2014 12:00 PM	I cannot answer this without further consultation.
7	Oct 20, 2014 9:59 AM	As Alliance members, we have questions about the continuation of a separate fee structure supporting NWDA. What will this money support?
8	Oct 13, 2014 11:23 AM	Not adverse to sharing equally but being a significantly smaller institution means having a significantly smaller (or non-existent) budget.
9	Oct 13, 2014 10:03 AM	Making this a core service that everyone supports would be a good idea because it would encourage even the smallest institutions to get an instance and start creating publicly accessible archival descriptions. All would benefit from greater usage.