Back in 2017 the Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN) embarked on a vendor survey of Collection Management System software capabilities and vendor software packages. In 2018, CHIN received the demonstrations, and in late 2018 all the results were published online:
The review was not meant to be an endorsement of particular packages, more an appraisal of what’s on offer so that museums could take a look at what works best for their needs.
Considering Gaia Resources does quite a lot of work in this space, I decided to take a look at this significant review and see what it might mean for our existing and future customers in the museums space.
First up, this review included the following vendors and packages:
- Axiell (Adlib)
- Gallery Systems (TMS and eMuseum)*
- Keepthinking (Qi)
- Lucidea (Argus)
- Lyrasis (CollectionSpace)
- MINISIS Inc. (MINISIS)
- PastPerfect (PastPerfect 5.0)
- Re:discovery (Proficio)
- SKINsoft (S-Museum)
- Vernon System (Vernon CMS and eHive)
- Whirl-i-Gig (CollectiveAccess)
* Note, only a survey was done for TMS and eMuseum, no product review was performed.
You can read all the detailed reviews and vendors response on the site, but as there is no executive summary (well, none that I could find), I thought I could add something to produce a summary of each vendor evaluation done by CHIN.
From my reading of the review, this was my take home for each of the packages:
Axiell (Adlib)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 15 Feb 2018 |
| Strengths | · Data entry
· Browsing / Searching · Online creation |
| Weaknesses | · Batch editing
· Customisation · Audit trails |
| Overall Comments | Reviewers appeared to say it’s a solid system, but a bit old in design and system architecture. |
Keepthinking (Qi)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 25 January 2018 |
| Strengths | · Web integration
· Media integration · Publishing |
| Weaknesses | · Reporting
· Search · Exhibitions |
| Overall Comments | Web based system seems highly configurable with good publishing features and online access. Easily navigable, with modules logically available. Some concerns over search and loading data. Most reviewers appeared quite positive about the system. |
Lucidea (Argus)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 26 January 2018 |
| Strengths | · Search
· Exhibition · Media management |
| Weaknesses | · Multi-lingual support
· Local terminology lists · Templated records |
| Overall Comments | Overall positive reviews, about the potential for content and metadata management and configuration. Some concerns on the UI and it being a bit cluttered to navigate through. Most reviewers appeared quite positive about the system. |
Lyrasis (CollectionSpace)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 26 January 2018 |
| Strengths | · User permissions
· Cataloguing · Exhibitions |
| Weaknesses | · Audit trail
· Batch editing · Reporting |
| Overall Comments | This product review was a bit unusual in that the individual scores for components were quite low, but the overall comments were less negative. There were some written concerns about relating new content types and the amount of work needed to implement a package like this, but the comments were overall reasonably complimentary. The numerical scores against categories were quite low though, particularly in key areas like audit trails and reporting. |
MINISIS Inc. (MINISIS)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 31 January 2018 |
| Strengths | · Audit trails
· Media management · Multilingual capabilities |
| Weaknesses | · Web publishing
· Batch editing · Browsing |
| Overall Comments | This had mixed reviews, with several reviewers believing the UI was quite dated and the system focused on developers and power users, but some others enjoyed the flexibility and power tools |
PastPerfect (PastPerfect 5.0)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 2 March 2018 |
| Strengths | · Search
· Batch editing · Multilingual capabilities |
| Weaknesses | · Online data entry
· Audit trail · Browsing |
| Overall Comments | Reviewers saw this as an ideal solution for a smaller institution with limited audit requirement and smaller budget, but probably not as suitable for a larger instuition |
Re:discovery (Proficio)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 23 January 2018 |
| Strengths | · Audit trails
· Permissions · Batch editing |
| Weaknesses | · Multilingual capabilities
· Exhibitions · Condition reporting |
| Overall Comments | The reviewers seem to think it is a “good traditional CMS” was the overall sentiment, is a Windows application with good database and search, but not always intuitive into how it functions. |
SKINsoft (S-Museum)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 21 February 2018 |
| Strengths | · Web publishing
· Media management · Reporting |
| Weaknesses | · Import data
· Customise data catalogue pages · Local terminology lists |
| Overall Comments | Overall contained some of the most positive reviews and scores and was positively viewed by the reviewers. |
Vernon System (Vernon CMS)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 14 February 2018 |
| Strengths | · Audit trails
· Import data · Local terminology lists |
| Weaknesses | · Online data entry
· Customisation · Multilingual capabilities |
| Overall Comments | The reviewers seemed to think it was a powerful system, but the interface and layout was a bit dated and based on Windows. Might be hard for smaller institutions to embrace, with some complexity, but offers a lot of power. |
Vernon System (eHive)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 14 February 2018 |
| Strengths | · Media management
· Online data entry · Template records |
| Weaknesses | · Multilingual capabilities
· Customisation · Exhibitions |
| Overall Comments | Ideal for small museums as it offers a web interface and basic collection management, but more built around presenting collections than managing them. |
Whirl-i-Gig (CollectiveAccess)
| Area | Description |
| Review performed | 9 February 2018 |
| Strengths | · Online data entry
· Media management · Audit trails |
| Weaknesses | · Exhibitions
· Condition reports · Generating reports |
| Overall Comments | Reviewers saw the system as highly configurable, flexible and open source, main drawback seen in the effort required to set up for a collection. |
It is clear a lot of work has gone into this review, and I highly recommend checking it out for yourself. Overall, the reviewers seemed to give S-Museum and CollectiveAccess the most positive reviews, but for smaller institutions something else might be more appropriate.
I can only recommend reading all the reviews for yourself and seeing what is the best fit your institution via the link at the start or contact us via email.
Morgan
Comments are closed.