Efficient Processing

In the Archival Processing unit we subscribe to an efficient processing model, a method of archival processing that is rooted in the recommendations first introduced by Mark A. Greene and Dennis Meissner in their 2005 article “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,”1 and expanded upon by Daniel A. Santamaria in his 2015 book, Extensible Processing for Archives and Special Collections: Reducing Processing Backlogs,2 and in the University of California’s Guidelines for Efficient Archival Processing in the University of California Libraries.3 Efficient processing aims to expedite access to collection materials to users and take minimal time and steps to preserve and describe materials to promote use. Gaining basic physical and intellectual control also results in promoting a wider body of material to users, as well as investing an appropriate amount of time and resources to each collection. The idea of identifying a “golden minimum”4 of archival processing means performing the minimal amount of work in order to open the collection to researchers, resisting the temptation to handle materials at the item level, and assessing the appropriateness of work beyond this level of processing. “Good enough”5 processing can also equal quality processing. The archivist’s proficiency in collection analysis and decision making will lead them to determining what level of processing meets the “golden minimum” standard.

  1. Mark Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” The American Archivist 68, no. 2 (September 1, 2005): 208–63, doi:10.17723/aarc.68.2.c741823776k65863. ↩

  2. Daniel A. Santamaria, Extensible Processing for Archives and Special Collections: Reducing Processing Backlogs (Chicago: Neal-Schuman, an imprint of the American Library Association, 2015). ↩

  3. Kate Dundon et al., Guidelines for Efficient Archival Processing in the University of California Libraries (Version 4), May 1, 2020, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4b81g01z. ↩

  4. This concept was first introduced by Greene and Meissner within the context of their widely referenced article that is often colloquially referred to as “MPLP.” In defining the “golden minimum” they ask, “What is the least we can do to get the job done in a way that is adequate to user needs, now and in the future?” Mark Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing,” The American Archivist 68, no. 2 (September 1, 2005): 240, doi:10.17723/aarc.68.2.c741823776k65863. ↩

  5. Greene and Meissner suggest “that a sign of professional maturity would be for us to own up to the limitations we work under and accept that the golden minimum recommended here (or doing ‘good enough’ rather than insisting on perfection) is all we can realistically accomplish.” Ibid (255). ↩