Forgot password? | Forgot username? | Register

Recording objects rejected by the acuiaisitons committee

Recording objects rejected by the acuiaisitons committee

Hello.

Has anyone got a clever solution to Accession Lots transition from planning tool (what's going before the acquisitions committee) to record of how/where/when/from whom etc an object was acquired?

We are using Accession Lots for both phases of the acquisition process, but not sure how to record in a simple, logical way that a work went to council but was then rejected. If we remove the rejected work from the Accession Lot, we lose that record of what went to council.

Love to hear your thoughts,

Mark

Mark Bradley – Assistant Registrar, Documentation (EMu)
National Gallery of Australia

Mark Bradley
Assistant Registrar (EMu Guy)
useravatar
Offline
147 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Recording objects rejected by the acuiaisitons committee

Hi Mark,
We've implemented a process to track offers of material in the Accession Lots module prior to their approval/rejection by the Committee. We based the approach on the general workflow used by the Loans Module - using a Lot Processing Status field that easily identifies the record throughout the approval process. (Offer Pending / Declined / Accessioned / Offer Withdrawn).

Adding a new Lot Processing Status field meant we had to sub-class the Accession Lots Module. So we also took the opportunity to add other useful processing fields like Gift Agreement Sent (Y/N); Gift Agreement Signed (Y/N); Quantity and Location Comments. The Lot Processing Status field was used in combination with another field (Acquisition Identifier) that allowed the curator handling the offer to provide an additional layer of detail (eg; ready for submission to the committee, pending further assessment of material etc).

These fields are used to provide monthly reports about offers that need to be followed up as a priority. Another benefit is that we are now keeping records of the material we are not collecting – which is likely to be very useful in the longer term in an organisational context.

The major benefit of this system has been to design the Acquisition Proposal Submission Document as an EMu Report (the detailed proposal for the committee) – thus forcing the complete information known about the material to go directly into the Accession Lot record in the first instance, (rather than relying on someone to summarise and transfer the information into the record after its been acquired or attaching a separate word document which contains the detail – it centralises the detailed info in the Accession Lot records where users are expecting to find it. (We even had to extend a number of field lengths to support the extensive descriptions that were being added!)

Cheers,
Rowena

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Recording objects rejected by the acuiaisitons committee

Hi Rowena, sorry for the delayed reply. This issue has come up again, so I came back here to revisit.

How do you handle an Accession Lot containing say four objects, of which three are accepted and one rejected?

Or if a lot comes in and then one or two of the lot objects are postponed to a later council meeting?

Mark

Mark Bradley – Assistant Registrar, Documentation (EMu)
National Gallery of Australia

Mark Bradley
Assistant Registrar (EMu Guy)
useravatar
Offline
147 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.
There are 0 guests and 0 other users also viewing this topic

Board Info

Board Stats
 
Total Topics:
599
Total Polls:
0
Total Posts:
1362
Posts this week:
4
User Info
 
Total Users:
812
Newest User:
Vilasack
Members Online:
3
Guests Online:
238