Case Study: Implementing A Functional Records Management System At Upper
Canada Village
Bill Manning is the Records Management
Supervisor at the National Museum of Science & Technology Corporation in
Ottawa. He also performs volunteer work at a number of other museums, assisting
with records management, archiving, collections management and historical
research
Nov
25, 2000
Introduction
The Archival Approach to Records Management
An Operational Filing System for a Living History Museum
An Evolving Institution
Automated Indexing
Conclusions
Notes
Upper Canada Village is a living
historical museum along the St. Lawrence River near Morrisburg, Ontario, that
interprets life in an Ontario waterfront community during the 1860's. It is
operated by the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, an agency of the Government of
Ontario; essentially the provincial equivalent of a Federal Crown Corporation.
Curator Sophie Drakich, apart from other functions associated with her
position, is responsible for Collections Management, the Library, the Archives,
the Reference Centre, and Records Management. Active records are the
responsibility of the departments that created them, and there are no resources
available to centralize this function. It recently became clear, however, that
older records were taking up considerable space in the offices of managers who
often did not know exactly what documents they, or their predecessors, had
accumulated. A request was made for them to box and forward to a central
location all records under their control that they considered to be inactive.(1) The result was a flood of almost 50 boxes of varying
sizes, filled with files, binders index cards, books, photographs,
architectural drawings and loose papers, with no accompanying listings or
finding aids of any description - all crammed into a small room the size of a
large walk-in closet.
An inspection of the contents of the
boxes revealed no surprises. The files had been created and maintained by
managers working for Upper Canada Village or the St. Lawrence Parks Commission;
the dates ranging from the late 1950's to the late 1990's. To anyone who has
ever created a records management system from scratch, it is always striking
how similar the pattern of documentation is from one institution to another:
the housekeeping material almost always contains essentially the same subjects,
and since museums conduct similar activities, their operational records tend to
follow predictable patterns as well. Much of the material was filed by subject
(although sometimes idiosyncratic, vague or overlapping), with the usual mix of
files organized by source or chronology, or some combination of the above.
Again, to anyone who has ever managed such a project, the methodology will be
familiar: number the boxes, list the contents, obtain the retention &
disposition schedules(2) where they exist, and try to
dispose of as much material as possible. In this case, it meant returning to
the St. Lawrence Parks Commission any records that did not pertain specifically
to Upper Canada Village, returning to the Curator any historical, artifact,
library, archival or other non-records management materials. It was important
to identify any routine housekeeping or transitory materials, especially
financial and duplicate personnel records and apply existing schedules to them.
This reduced the scope of the project to a manageable volume of records, and
from that it was possible to calculate the amount of shelving or drawer space
that would be required to maintain them.
This project, however, presented three
unique challenges. First, I was asked to retain the records exactly as I had
received them. Clearly, a departure from normal records management procedures
would be called for. The second hurdle followed from the fact that this was a
living historical museum, and as we will see below, the unique nature of the
programme required some flexibility in the way the materials would be
organized. Thirdly, some of the sites had been called by different names or
served different functions at different times during the four decades that the
institution has been in existence. Since the objective of the exercise was to
compile an accurate record of the use of each site, their evolution over time
would have to be taken into account.
The Archival Approach to Records Management
Records
Management and Archiving are closely related fields, but there are some very
basic differences. Records Management normally requires that when a file is
received from the originator, its contents are classified, paper-by-paper,
according to subject, into a filing system where the files are grouped into
blocks of related subjects in a hierarchical arrangement. Filing by source is
to be avoided, and the arrangement of individual documents within the file
folders is by strict chronology. Typically, a listing of subjects is maintained
that includes descriptions of the types of documents that can be filed under
each block, and a series of index cards (or screens) is maintained, one for
each file. In archiving, the two rules governing the arrangement of
newly-acquired material are to respect provenance and to maintain original
order. In this discipline, source does matter. Since the archivist has no
control over the content of the files, and cannot change it, file listings are
compiled into finding aids, files are numbered sequentially, and the contents
of record groups or individual files are described using the Rules for Archival
Description (RAD). Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. A
Subject Block File Classification System allows for all records on a given
subject to be located in one place for ease of retrieval, and lends itself well
to systematic life-cycle management. It is very labour-intensive however, since
acquired material must be classified into it one document at a time, and new
file folders and indexes are constantly being created and updated as the system
evolves. Since Archivists do not alter the arrangement of the materials they
acquire, more material can be processed more quickly by fewer people at less
cost, but for retrieval and scheduling, one is at the mercy of the original
arrangement. Narrative descriptions help to narrow the focus for the
researcher, but the onus is on him or her to make informed decisions on where
to search for specific documents. Access and scheduling decisions on specific
documents often involve a detailed review of entire files.(3)
Since there was no system to organize
the records at Upper Canada Village, one had to be developed. Given the diverse
nature of the materials, and the ground rules I had to operate under, the best
way to proceed was to combine some of the best elements of both records
management and archiving. The first step was to develop the upper levels of a
subject file system, including the standard "housekeeping" blocks
according to Government Common Administrative Schedules. Developing operational
or program blocks did not at first appear to be problematic, since museum
activities are well delineated by the International Council of Museums (ICOM)
and tend to be very similar from one institution to the next. The trick was to
keep it simple, going down only to the block and in some cases the primary
level, and to write customized block and primary descriptions based on
established museological and records management standards. In general, files
that had been compiled logically by subject could be numbered and simply
inserted under the appropriate block or primary in the listing, and a history
card filled out. For file titles that consisted of the name of a person, a
(fiscal) year, or a term like "miscellaneous," a more "archival"
approach was adopted. It was necessary to review each file, assign it to a
block according to predominating subject, and write a brief description of the
contents of the file using RAD principles, noting any material that, if
separated, would have been filed in another block, and taking special care to
note any significant documents. This summary would be added to the history card
for the benefit of the researcher.
An
Operational Filing System for a Living History Museum
It should come as no surprise that
operational filing systems for museums tend to resemble each other more often
than not. Most museums have similar programs: they host events, present
interpretation programs, conduct (historical) research, develop exhibitions,
collect and manage objects, conserve, restore, loan, preserve, advise, publish,
engage in commercial activities and educate. The basic block structure would
normally be expected to reflect these essential programmes. At Upper Canada
Village, however, each building is an exhibition (containing props,
restorations and reproductions as well as artifacts)(4), has a history (in terms of its ownership, use and the
activities that would have been performed at its original site), is itself an
artifact (that was acquired and relocated to its present site) and is host to
an interpretation activity (based on a historical analysis of the original use
of the building and the activity).
Products produced as part of the
interpretation program (bread, brooms, etc.) are often sold as part of the
Village’s Commercial Operations. Since it is a building, it is subject to many
of the same Facilities Management activities as if it were an office building
(In fact, parts of some of them are used as offices and for such functions as
Collections Storage). Since it is an artifact, where do you draw the line
between artifact restoration and facilities maintenance and repair? Since it is
very difficult to separate the above aspects of managing historic buildings in
a living museum, and given that the originators of the files generally made no
effort to do so in any case, it was necessary to recognize that there was no
point in making the attempt in designing the filing system. This made the
necessity to apply the "KISS" principle (Keep It Simple, Silly!) even
more critical. One historical building or activity - one subject block entry,
under which files could be placed, numbered sequentially, listed and shelved.
The objective of the project was to
group the file names under subject headings that represented the name assigned
to each site, so that a history of each one could be compiled. This should be
fairly simple, since a map, with a listing and description of each building and
its activities, is available in the Visitors’ Guide & Brochure. It turned
out to be a little more complicated than anticipated, as I was confronted with
many file names that were simply not recognizable in terms of the current site
plan.
Clearly I needed to do some more
research. I discovered that the original concept called for the Village to be
sub-divided into a number of "sectors," each interpreting a different
time period in the history of the region, ranging from a pre-settlement
"Indian Encampment" to the time of Confederation. A number of ideas,
buildings and interpretive activities were considered, and reconsidered, until
it was decided to interpret a complete settlement from the 1860's. Even after
the Village opened, some vestiges of the original plan lingered on, and changes
in name and function occurred from time to time. To complete the project, I
would not only have to know what was currently on the site, but have a good
idea of what had been there, or even what had been merely considered long
enough to generate paper, from the initial planning in the late 1950's to the
present.
Two brief examples should illustrate
this point. The Robertson Home was referred to in earlier guides and
correspondence as the French-Robertson Home, since it was occupied by both
these prominent local families at different times at its original site. Several
years ago it was decided to change the nomenclature to Robertson, since this
family occupied the building during the period under interpretation. To further
complicate identification, early records routinely referred to the Maple Grove
building, since this was the name of its original location. I quickly
appreciated that any reference to the Ash House could safely be filed with the
Robertson House, since the ash house on this property is the only so-named
structure to ever exist at UCV, but any reference to the "Stable" had
to be treated with caution since several sites in the Village include a similar
out-building (sometimes called a stable, but often a Drive-shed, Barn or
Carriage House - while they are not exactly the same thing, the terms are
sometimes used interchangeably).
There is currently a group of buildings
referred to as the Loucks’ Farm, named after a prosperous family of United
Empire Loyalist descent who might have occupied the buildings during the
1860's.
The problem is that they didn’t occupy
all these buildings; the Locks Farm is a grouping of buildings such as a family
might have occupied according to UCV’s interpretive plan for that site. Each
building had its distinct origin, and the interpretive plan has been changed
periodically over the years. The whole site was officially called the Loyalist
Farm a few years ago until it was decided to identify it with one particular
family. This is not to be confused with the Loyalist’s Shanty, intended to
depict an original Loyalist dwelling from the initial period of Loyalist
settlement in the 1780's and 1790's (also called the Pioneer Shanty, or
Clearing. This is not to be confused with what was at one time called the
Settler’s Log House, which later became the Hired Man’s Home on the Loucks
Farm; also referred to as the Charlottenburg House after the area from which
it, or at least many of the parts used in its restoration, were obtained. In
earlier files, the Main (or Loucks, Loyalist) Barn is synonymous with the
Schoharie Barn (named for the architectural style) or Schoharie Barns (pl.),
perhaps to include the second barn on the site, which at various times has been
a Museum of Agriculture, a Museum of Agriculture and Vehicles, the Vehicle
Barn, and today the Transportation Museum. It was also called the Kirkwood Barn
in early records (perhaps for the original owner). The Sheep Pen was once the
Poultry Shed. There is, and has been, only one Smokehouse, so we are on solid
ground there. Any records that relate to the care of farm animals during the
period under interpretation can fairly safely be associated with this site or
with the Loucks’ poorer neighbours who live in the nearby Tenant Farm with its
Log Barn. References to "the barn" beg the question: "which
one?" since there are several in the Village. These are just two of about
two dozen buildings or groupings of buildings currently in the Village.
Although
not planned in the immediate future, it is recommended that the information on
the history cards be automated at the earliest opportunity. As seen above, this
system contains not only file titles that reflect activities and interpreted
sites within the Village, but alternative nomenclature since several terms are
often possible in referring to the same historic building. Main subject titles
are accompanied by primary or block descriptions, but where necessary there are
also RAD narrative descriptions to aid in retrieval where the file title alone
does not give sufficient information to the researcher. If a series of screens
were arranged numerically in WordPerfect or a similar program with "word
search" capability, using the same arrangement of fields as is found on
the history cards, it would only be necessary for the researcher to enter the
appropriate key word, and the system would identify all the places where it
appears, whether in a file subject or as part of one of the meta data.(5)
There
is an expression in the legal profession to the effect that "exceptional
cases make poor precedent." The exercise at Upper Canada Village is not,
strictly speaking, Records Management, since no attempt was made to provide for
the systematic capture and life-cycle management of records while they are
still active. It is not Archiving either, since the files and documents are
still technically semi-active or dormant Records Management materials which
have yet to be designated "historical." The foregoing discussion is
therefore of limited utility as a study of how one would develop a records
management program for a cultural institution, but it is sometimes helpful to
examine the exception to the rule because it helps us to better understand more
"normal" situations.
The archival approach to records
management is not a substitute for a more "conventional" records
management system, but it can be a viable compromise where staff and resources
are limited or non-existent, and in dealing with materials of a
quasi-historical nature where preserving the provenance and original order of
the documents is important. There is a sacrifice to be made in that the
researcher cannot count on finding all the records pertaining to a given topic
in one place, and life-cycle management is more complex, but such a system can
be implemented quickly and inexpensively. (6)
The "less is more" simplicity
of the Historic Buildings operational filing system is not recommended where a
more detailed breakdown of activities and programmes is possible (although it
is not advisable to deviate too far in the other direction either). Given the
special needs of a complex integrated operation like Upper Canada Village, it
appeared to be the best of the available alternatives.
Finally, it is always important to be
aware that programmes invariably evolve over time. A good filing system not
only reflects the current functions of the institution, but is flexible enough
that it can facilitate retrieval of information on past operations that are no
longer in place, or have changed significantly over time.
|
the
request for records went out to managers not only at Upper Canada Village
(UCV), but its parent agency The St. Lawrence Parks Commission (SLPC), whose
head office is nearby, and which administers the Crysler Battlefield Memorial
Park, the Upper Canada Golf Course, The United Empire Loyalist Museum at
Adolphustown, Old Fort Henry in Kingston, a Wildlife Sanctuary, and numerous
beaches and campsites between Cornwall and Kingston. Much of the material
related to the agency as a whole, or to the other sites. It was necessary
that these be identified, separated from the documents that pertained to UCV,
and forwarded to the SLPC. |
|
|
|
|
|
for
Administrative records, the authority is the Government Common Administrative
Schedules for Government of Ontario Schedule 1 agencies. To date, no
operational retention & disposition schedule has been approved for The
St. Lawrence Parks Commission or any of its component agencies. |
|
|
|
|
|
files
compiled by others must be handled with caution. Managers often do not easily
make the same distinctions among different types of records that trained
Records Management people do. For example, a working file submitted by a
Curator containing unique documents pertaining to the acquisition of an
important artifact may contain a copy of his or her travel advance claim,
complete with a receipt for parking from the trip to visit the donor to pick
it up. A manager’s working file on the development of a storyline for an
exhibition might contain a copy of a contract for the person who was hired to
assist with the research. While these types of documents are linked in the
minds of the compilers, their record and archival values, from a Records
Management perspective, are very different, and would never be filed together
in a subject block file classification system. |
|
|
|
|
|
Historic
houses also present challenges from a Collections Management
perspective. "The registrar will be confronted by four classes of
objects on the historic site: (1) material that was acquired by previous
owners and that has remained on the site, either above or below ground, into
the period of operation as a museum; (2) material allegedly from the site and
returned to it for use by the museum; (3) material acquired by the museum for
display at the site when research suggests objects like these would have been
used at the building during the time being interpreted by the museum; and (4)
"nonartifacts" or reproductions for use in period rooms or craft
demonstrations." (Taylor, D., "Registration in a Historic House
Museum," Museum Registration Methods, 3rd ed., rev., American
Association of Museums, Washington, 1979, p. 253. |
|
|
|
|
|
In
contemporary archival terminology, "meta data" is information that
describes the indexing. This can include the block and primary descriptions
in traditional subject-based filing systems, or RAD descriptions in
functional (see n. 6 below) records management and archival systems. |
|
|
|
|
|
Interestingly,
the National Archives of Canada has shifted its emphasis away from subject
based systems toward a "functional" approach, which is more
concerned with preserving records in the order in which they were compiled.
The organization of the records, in turn, follows the business process of the
originating institution. The new Multi-Institutional Disposition Authorities
(MIDA) reflect this approach, in contrast to the General Records Disposal
Schedules (GRDS) that they superceded, which attempted to impose a more
arbitrary, rigid breakdown by subject. |
|