Spreadsheets help archivists create box inventories, track accessions, calculate linear footage, or organize information during a project. For small collections or short-term tasks, spreadsheets may be enough. The problem begins when a spreadsheet stops being a tool and becomes the system that an archives relies on to manage its collections.
Many archives begin with spreadsheets because they offer flexibility and familiarity. An archivist can create one column for a collection number, another for box numbers, another for dates, and another for notes. A second spreadsheet might track accessions, while a third documents locations. Processing notes live in Word documents, and donor correspondence and deeds of gift reside on a shared drive.
Each file serves a purpose, and for a time, this approach works. As the archives grows, however, so does the number of files. The archives accumulates a wealth of information, yet that information remains fragmented.
The Perils of Disconnected Information
Consider a collection that has moved from accessioning to processing, then to digitization. The accession spreadsheet contains the donor’s name and acquisition date. A processing spreadsheet contains box numbers and folder titles. A digitization spreadsheet identifies selected materials and file names. A finding aid holds the collection description.
What happens when information changes? When a box moves to a new shelf, a collection receives additional material, or a folder is added to a series. Each change requires staff to update data across records. When information is scattered across documents, archivists must determine where each update belongs and ensure that related records remain consistent. Over time, these minor changes become difficult to manage.
The Imperative for a Centralized System
A collections management system (CMS) serves as a system of record for collection information. Instead of maintaining separate files for each stage of archival work, an archives connects information about accessions, locations, descriptions, digital objects, donors, restrictions, and activities within one environment.
An accession connects to a collection, which in turn connects to its components and locations. A digital object remains linked to the physical material from which it was created, while a donor record connects to a gift and its documentation. These relationships transform individual entries into a network of connected information that provides a more complete picture of the materials.
Archival Data Is a Management Tool
Reliable data supports decisions. An archives uses its records to understand the volume and location of holdings, identify unprocessed materials, plan digitization projects, evaluate storage needs, document preservation priorities, and develop budgets. This changes the role of collection information, as the data becomes an asset that supports planning.
In one client engagement, I worked with an archives evaluating which collections to prioritize for digitization. The initial discussion focused on identifying historically significant materials, but determining which collections to digitize first required a closer look at the holdings themselves.
Using the CMS, I examined information about the collections’ condition, extent, format, intellectual value, existing metadata, rights, restrictions, and access needs. This information clarified the practical considerations for each collection, including the potential need for additional description, specialized handling, or rights review before digitization could proceed.
Reviewing these details provided a more complete picture of the work involved and helped the archives assess which collections were digitization candidates. The experience showed how a CMS can support decisions beyond collection description by bringing together the information archivists need to develop a realistic digitization plan.
Transforming Files into Infrastructure
Every archives reaches the decision to adopt a CMS at its own pace. A small repository with a limited collection may find that spreadsheets continue to meet its needs. However, the warning signs appear when spreadsheets require more maintenance than the work they support. If staff maintain versions of the same information, search across files to answer questions, struggle to track changes, or lack confidence about which information is current, the archives needs a CMS.
Moving from spreadsheets to a CMS offers an opportunity to rethink how an archives creates, uses, maintains, and shares information. The transition creates an information environment that supports archival work with greater structure and efficiency.
0 Comments