Drafting the Processing Plan

To develop a successful processing plan, it will be important processor to understand the Bentley's different processing levels. These levels, defined in more detail on this site's Processing Levels page (public link), outline the ways that a processor can take to make archival material accessible to researchers. They were developed in recognition that not all collections (or series) deserve or even require the same degree of time and detail. The levels are thus in accordance with minimal processing philosophies and strategies (e.g., Mark Greene and Dennis Meissner's minimal processing article (public link), which emphasize efficient and thoughtful approaches to facilitate access to collections.

When deciding on the appropriate processing level(s) to use for their project, the processor will need to consider topics that include (but are not limited to):

• The relative importance or value of material: If the material documents a new collecting priority of the Bentley or uplifts voices of community members that have been historically undermined or silenced (for example), Level 2 processing may be more appropriate than Level 1 processing. Additionally, if Aeon data reveals that similar material has been frequently requested, it would be sensible to describe that material so that patrons and Bentley staff can more easily locate relevant material and answer researchers' questions.

• The inherent properties of the material: Some materials' qualities lend themselves to being processed at particular levels. For example, the descriptive folders comprising a Topical Files grouping may have more access points than a chronological Correspondence Files grouping. As such, the Topical Files may be described at Level 2 while the Correspondence Files series may be described at Level 1.

• Potential access requirements: Material that is restricted, particularly for long periods of time, may be more appropriately described at a more efficient processing level (e.g., Level 1). However, if the processing project includes restricted and non-restricted material, then a more granular processing level (e.g. Level 2) will be necessary to ensure that open material is not inappropriately restricted.

• Available time and resources. For example, material that must be processed by a certain date, or which require tremendous resources, may initially be processed at a more efficient level (e.g., Level 1). After this initial processing, the material—particularly its description—may then appropriately enhanced (e.g. to Level 2) at a later date.

• Additional information passed along by the processor's supervisor or field archivists.

It is important to note that processors can employ multiple processing levels during a single project. For example, a homogeneous group of correspondence or newsletters may be arranged and described at Level 1, while records of committee work may require Level 2 processing. This may even occur within the same intellectual grouping, although processors should—per Greene and Meissner—try to process material at the same level.  

Above all else, though, processors should process flexibly, thoughtfully, conscientiously, and with the understanding that archival processing is never quite finished.

Footnote 1: For smaller collections (e.g., one foot or less), the processor should consult with their supervisor to determine if a processing plan is necessary.