Appearance
When applying More Product, Less Process (MPLP) goes wrong, the symptom is almost always one of three things: collections that are fast to process but unusable, preservation work that crept back to full re-housing, or a backlog that refuses to shrink. The root cause is treating MPLP as a rule ("never refolder, always describe at series level") rather than what Greene and Meissner actually argued in 2005 — a risk-based allocation of scarce effort. Fix the diagnosis and the fixes follow.
Why is my MPLP collection still unusable?
This is the number-one complaint, and it is rarely a processing-speed problem. It is an intellectual-control problem. MPLP reduces physical granularity, not intellectual control. If you collapsed everything to one undifferentiated series with a two-line scope note, you saved time and destroyed usability.
The fix: invest the time you saved on item-level work into a sharp series structure and substantive scope-and-content notes.
text
WRONG (too thin):
Series 1. Records, 1948-1981. 14 boxes. Correspondence and papers.
BETTER (same effort budget, far more usable):
Series 1. Subject files, 1948-1981. 14 boxes, arranged alphabetically.
Working files on water-rights litigation, dam construction
objections, and ratepayer correspondence. Heaviest coverage
1961-1969. Includes legal opinions from Hartley & Crewe.The second costs maybe ten extra minutes per series and makes the difference between findable and lost.
Why has my "minimal" processing turned into full re-housing?
Classic scope creep. A processor opens a box, sees rusting staples and acidic folders, and starts a full conservation pass — and the linear-feet-per-hour rate collapses. MPLP does not forbid preservation; it forbids reflexive preservation.
Apply a triage rule instead:
- Remove fasteners only where corrosion is actively staining or perforating paper.
- Refolder only acidic enclosures in direct contact with high-value material.
- Leave stable items in stable enclosures untouched.
- Photocopy and discard only items in active chemical decay (thermal fax, some carbons).
Document the rule in your processing plan so every processor makes the same call.
How fast should MPLP actually be?
If you cannot state your processing rate, you cannot tell whether MPLP is working. Track it.
| Approach | Typical rate (per hour) | Description level |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional item-level | 0.5–1 linear ft | Item / file |
| MPLP bulk | 4–8 linear ft | Series / box |
| Hybrid (selective detail) | 2–4 linear ft | Series + selected file |
These are rough industry figures, not targets to hit blindly — a dense legal collection will be slower than a uniform run of meeting minutes. The point is to measure and compare against your own baseline. A backlog that is not shrinking month over month is the real failure signal.
Why are researchers struggling to find specific documents?
Because MPLP deliberately trades retrieval precision for coverage. A researcher who expects an item index will be frustrated when the finding aid stops at box level. This is a communication problem, not a processing error.
Mitigations that cost little:
- State the level of description plainly in the finding aid scope note.
- Provide a box-and-folder list even when you skip item description.
- Note where dense item-level detail does exist, so users know it is uneven.
- Offer a "minimally processed — contact us" flag for reference staff to set expectations.
When should you break the MPLP default and add detail?
Drop below series level deliberately, against named criteria:
- High research demand — the most-requested series earns a file list.
- High monetary or evidential value — item-level for the founder's correspondence, not the photocopied newsletters.
- High preservation risk — fragile or decaying items get described and stabilised as a pair.
- Privacy / access — material needing redaction must be located precisely, which means more granular description.
Write these criteria into the processing plan up front. Ad hoc "this looks interesting" decisions are how budgets evaporate.
A quick diagnostic checklist
When an MPLP collection feels wrong, walk this list:
- Is there a clear series structure, or did everything flatten to one heap?
- Do scope notes convey content, dates, and gaps — or just repeat the title?
- Did preservation work stay triaged, or did it become full re-housing?
- Is the processing rate measured and improving?
- Does the finding aid tell users the level of detail to expect?
- Were detail-level exceptions made against written criteria?
Key Takeaways
- MPLP allocates effort by risk and demand; it is not a blanket ban on detail or preservation.
- The top failure mode is unusable collections — fix it with strong series structure and real scope notes, not more item-listing.
- Triage preservation: intervene where decay is active, leave stable material alone.
- Measure linear feet per hour and backlog size, or you cannot tell if MPLP is working.
- Tell researchers the level of description they should expect to avoid retrieval frustration.
- Break the default and add detail only against pre-written, named criteria.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does More Product, Less Process actually mean?
It is the approach from Greene and Meissner's 2005 article that prioritises getting collections accessible quickly by describing at a higher level and doing less item-level preservation work. The goal is to reduce backlogs by accepting 'good enough' rather than 'perfect' processing.
Does MPLP mean I should never refolder or remove fasteners?
No. MPLP says do preservation work selectively where the risk is real, not reflexively across everything. Remove rusting staples from acidic letters at risk, but leave stable paper clips in stable files alone.
Why is my MPLP collection still hard to use after processing?
Usually because the arrangement was flattened without a clear series structure, or the scope notes are too thin to convey content. MPLP reduces granularity, not intellectual control — a good series-level scope note is non-negotiable.
Is item-level description ever allowed under MPLP?
Yes, selectively. Drop to item level for high-value, high-risk, or high-demand material, and stay at series or file level for the bulk. MPLP is about allocating effort, not banning detail.
How do I measure whether MPLP is working?
Track processing rate in cubic feet or linear metres per hour and backlog size over time. A healthy MPLP programme moves several linear feet per hour for bulk material and steadily shrinks the unprocessed backlog.
Does MPLP conflict with DACS or ISAD(G)?
No. Both standards explicitly support multilevel description and do not mandate item-level detail. MPLP is a strategy for applying these standards efficiently, not a departure from them.