See also the recording available at https: //vimeo. com/174716383. ABSTRACT. A collection management system (CMS) enables collection managers to do their jobs more efficiently and with more impactful results. In this case study, the Chicago Academy of Sciences / Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum (CAS/PNNM) shares its experience choosing between four CMS options: EMu, Specify, Arctos, and CollectionSpace. Each was evaluated on its functionality – including its ability to accurately represent our diverse collections and to enable efficient workflows – its provision for data discoverability, and its feasibility for implementation. Because the technical specificities of software inherently have a short lifespan, this case study offers evaluation through a broader framework of information science that should continue to be relevant even as the CMS options evolve. INTRODUCTION however, the implementation process is significantly streamlined as the interface layout and functionality have already been established. This means we would be able to progress immediately into preparing our data for migration and learning to use the new software. In addition, our IT staff wouldn’t be overburdened with the installation and implementation process, nor with future CMS technical needs. There are many solutions for museums to manage their collections data and ultimately, one size does not fit all. It is crucial for each institution to thoroughly consider the scope of their collection and what they want from a CMS. For CAS/PNNM, our collections represent a wide range of disciplines, and we wanted to maintain and expand on the connections bridging them. We determined that for our situation, Arctos would provide the easiest path to getting quality, standardized data into a relational database for all of our collections, and to making this data accessible both in-house and online. REFERENCES Canadian Heritage Information Network. 2012. Collections management software criteria checklist. http: //www. rcip-chin. gc. ca/carrefour-du-savoir-knowledge-exchange/criteresgestioncollectionsₘanagementchecklist-eng. jsp (10 April2015). Carpinone, E. C. 2010. Museum collections management systems: One size does not fit all (unpublished master’s thesis). Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey. Coetzer, W. , O. Gon, M. Hamer, F. Parker-Allie. 2012. A new era for specimen databases and biodiversity informationmanagement in South Africa. Biodiversity Informatics (8): 1-11. iDigBio. 2011. Biological collections databases, tools, and data publication portals. https: //www. idigbio. org/content/biological-collections-databases (10 April 2015). Lathrop, S. , S. L. McDaniel, N. Richey. 2010. Exposing ourselves: A case study in collection management softwareimplementation. The Southeastern Librarian 58 (1): 3-8. Sully, P. 2006. Inventory, access, interpretation: The evolution of museum collection management software (unpublishedmaster’s thesis). John F. Kennedy University, Pleasant Hill, California.
Krimmel et al. (Wed,) studied this question.