Mellon Collections Collaborative Re-granting Program, Phase II.
A proposal to:
Unite archival collection management across repositories using
the “Archivists’ Toolkit”.
March 8, 2007
Principal contacts:
Stephen Yearl
Systems and Digital Resources Archivist
Manuscripts and Archives
stephen.yearl@yale.edu
432-7675
Martha Lund Smalley
Special Collections Librarian and Curator, Day Missions Collection
Divinity library
martha.smalley@yale.edu
432-5289
Introductory Overview
The Archivists Toolkit (AT) is an open source database application licensed under the Education
Community License 1.0 that provides a simple but robust tool for managing many of the most
common activities undertaken in the archival enterprise, such as accessioning, description, donor
tracking, name and subject authority work, and location management. Developed under funding
from the Mellon Foundation jointly by the University of California San Diego, New York
University and the Five Colleges Consortium, and currently at version 1.0 (made available in
December, 2006), it is stated to be in guaranteed support until 2011.
Whereas there has long been a robust industry for bibliographic management systems that
librarians have made use of from the very smallest personal libraries through to major national
libraries, archivists have not typically enjoyed the benefits of such systems. Yale, and most other
archival repositories (including peer institutions such as Dartmouth, Harvard and Princeton)1,
have relied on a hodgepodge of home-grown systems, or none at all. This has meant that valuable
information concerning the lifecycle of management of archival materials has been locked in
proprietary, disjointed, and amateur-designed systems often using consumer-grade database
technologies.2
Following upon a meeting of the University Library’s Special Collections subcommittee meeting
where an overview of the AT’s functionality was presented to diverse repository curators, a
number of the units engaged in archival work at Yale have expressed a desire to further
investigate and potentially implement the application. The presentation was based on Manuscripts
and Archives ongoing evaluation of the AT and its current experience in installing, configuring,
and migrating data from many heterogeneous locally created systems to the AT’s underlying
database.
We propose to leverage the Andrew W. Mellon foundation's initial investment in the Archivists’
Toolkit, and Manuscripts and Archives current work and experience with it, by creating at four
repositories3 a model implementation of the Archivist's Toolkit, analyzing our archival
management practices and workflows, critiquing the Archivist's Toolkit, producing common
documentation and an implementation guide. From these deliverables and successful
implementation of the toolkit in the four core participating repositories we plan to enter a second
phase, using shared experience to reach out to other repositories that do not have the resources to
commit to join us in phase I. Potential users who have expressed an interest include: the Art
Gallery, the Peabody Archives, the Medical Historical Library, and a small number of archivists
at the Beinecke Manuscript and Rare Book Library.
1
From a recent (January 2007) ad hoc survey of peer institutions by Yearl.
The sole exception to this has been the success of (Encoded Archival Description) EAD, a structured
language used in the inter-repository exchange of finding aids, guides to processed collections. The
Archivists’ toolkit, allows for the import and export of EAD, further increasing its appeal.
3
The Arts Library, Divinity Library, Manuscripts and Archives, and the Irving S. Gilmore Music Library
2
Significance to the Yale Special Collections Community
Currently, with the exception of Manuscripts and Archives, the four participating repositories
have no system in place for the very fundamental archival process of accessioning (acquisition)
and donor tracking. By the end of the project all four (and hopefully several others, vid. inf. plan
of work, phase II) will use the same system and terminology to enhance understanding of each
other’s collections, and to provide faster and more consistent access to collection information,
and the possibility of—from one location—getting an overview of the special collections
holdings across diverse repositories. Manuscripts and Archives implementation of the AT will
result in the consolidation of numerous databases, centralizing collection information and
reducing ongoing systems maintenance for these un-integrated databases.
Centralizing collection and other archival information additionally leads to increased security, a
principal concern for the Library in recent years, as potentially sensitive information will no
longer be scattered across databases, electronic office files, and often, paper logs.
The coordination of this collaboration, developing commonly-accepted specifications and
guidelines, will require time and effort. In the past, this is the kind of situation where repositories
with more technical staff may have gone ahead and implemented an application with reference
only to their own internal needs, thus leaving smaller repositories to fend for themselves. We
believe that this is an unacceptable situation and consider the Collections Collaborative regranting program to present an opportunity for various Yale repositories to work together and
develop an implementation that will benefit the entire system.
Plan of Work
Project Team and assumed roles
Stephen Yearl, Systems and Digital Resource Archivist, Manuscripts and Archives


30% time commitment
Principal investigator, technical liaison responsible for configuration of the AT to each
repository’s needs, migration of legacy data (where appropriate), systems support, liaison
with the AT developer community, production of additional functionality not present in
the current AT release, analysis of existing workflows in each repository, documentation.
Project Coordinator, To be hired
 1/3 time C-level C&T
 Project management, facilitate communication, user support and documentation, primary
contact for phase II—roll out to other interested repositories, repository workflow
analysis
Martha Lund Smalley, Special Collections Librarian and Curator of Day Missions Collection,
Divinity Library
Richard Boursy, Archivist, Irving S. Gilmore Music Library
Kendall Crilly, Andrew Mellon Librarian, Irving S. Gilmore Music Library
Jae Rossman, Special Collections Librarian, Arts Library

5% time commitment each

repository workflow analysis, use of the Archivists’ Toolkit, repository needs
requirements, critique of the AT, assist in producing a Yale implementation guide, gap
analysis of repository needs versus AT functionality
Work Plan
We propose to work in two phases.
Phase I (April through September, 2007):
During phase I, the Project Coordinator will implement the AT for each repository. With help
from the Coordinator and PI, project participants will become familiar with the functionality and
use of the Archivist’s Toolkit and identify work-flows, information-flows and processes that the
AT will help them better manage. Concurrently participants will identify functional gaps in the
AT where it does not meet local or general needs and present this to the PI, who will identify a
course of action for filling these needs. This may be reporting back to the AT developer
community, working with IT staff to resolve these needs, or writing custom applications where
appropriate. Specifically this will result in deliverable 7, a ‘transition plan’ outlining, in
consultation with ILTS, a route from project to production status with centralized support.
At the end of phase I (estimated at mid-September 2007) the project team shall have produced the
following (non-exhaustive or exclusive list of) deliverables:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A working installation of the AT
List of local customizations to the AT
General implementation guide, for use and revision in Phase II.
An evaluation/critique of the AT
Gap analysis between current and desired functionality of the AT, and a ‘wish’ list
moving forward
6. Custom applications or extensions to AT functionality (I would insert a footnote here and
in a couple of sentences, discuss the “rights” issue as a possible example of this)
7. A ‘transition plan’ indicating how central 'ownership’, support and maintenance of the
service might be provided for by ILTS, and/or a local user community
Deliverables 4 and 5 will be presented to the AT development team as a ‘request for
functionality’ for subsequently released versions of the Archivists’ Toolkit. Updates on progress
through phase I will additionally be communicated back to the Yale special collections
community.
Phase II (September 2007 through April 2008):
Building on successes and documentation achieved and created during phase I, we aim at
introducing a package of materials and support services that will permit other campus repositories
to implement the AT in their own environment. Some staff at the Beinecke Rare Book and
Manuscript Library has already expressed provisional interest, as have members of the Art
Gallery, Medical Historical Library, and the Peabody Archives.
Required Resources and Budget

1 database server to house MySQL Relational Database Management System

$1,500

1 year systems premium support for server prior

$4,250

honorarium to visiting member of core AT development or management team to present
the AT to interested parties

$1,000


Project Coordinator, 5 hours per week for 40 weeks (200 hours)

TOTAL: $21,750
$15,000