navarrete acei2014

Use of Indicators to Improve Digital Heritage ConsumptionTrilce Navarrete

ACEI

25 June 2014

Digital Heritage Indicators 2

Today How to measure digital heritage activities to improve consumption? The case of the Netherlands

1. Why do we need new indicators?

2. Current practice

Museums at national level

Missing indicators

3. Ideal data sets

Proposal for metrics and evaluation: What and how to measure?

4. Policy implications



Cultural indicators have supported decision-making in the use of resources allocation in heritage, since the 1970s. There has been a significant investment in digital technology within the heritage field, since the 1980s.

Indicators for digital heritage activities have changed, new metrics are being established in response to new technologies and their applications.

Decisions on what to measure (using what data and how) is defined by policy.

Data on digital heritage activities has focused on production and increasingly on distribution. What about consumption?

A new data collection framework is of essence to understand consumption.



Focus has gone from building networks > producing digital content > coordinate efforts > participate in information market > wide evaluation > social impact. This is evident from the historic data sets available.


2. Current practice

The EU funded NUMERIC (2008) and ENUMERATE (2012, 2013) to define the current state of digitization: production, costs and distribution of collection information from LAMs.

Surveys have refined their approach and have expanded questions to include:-Scope of dissemination (online publication)-Monitor consumer behavior-Inclusion of sustainability in information policy

Despite some methodological changes (definitions, pool of participants) and project-based approach (multiple managers, one-time financing), much can be said about digital collection information.

The Netherlands has produced national reports that include digital activities. MusIP (2008) produced the first national overview (at collection level) and ICT use in Museums (2002, 2008) had a broad population.


Digital collection information EU

ENUMERATE 2013


Digital collection information: museums

Based on NUMERIC and ENUMERATE:

2008 2012

% collections digitized NDL 32 41

EU 23 28

% collections available online NDL 31 25

EU 5 29

% museums with a digitization plan NDL - 55

EU 26 39

% digitization staff of total staff NDL - 11

EU - 6



Based on NUMERIC and ENUMERATE:

2008 2012 2013

% collections digitized NDL 32 41 36

EU 23 28 24

% collections available online NDL 31 25 33

EU 5 29 34

% museums with a digitization plan NDL - 55 21

EU 26 39 30

% digitization staff of total staff NDL - 11 10

EU - 6 4



Distribution channels (based ENUMERATE):


What is digitization?


Consumption enabler

“Many users might not be able to express information needs for a cultural heritage artifact in a query” Stiller, 2012.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam


3. Ideal data sets

Institutions have experimented with metrics to understand use (consumption), which does not have to be restricted to content in the institution’s website.

Ex.1: The Amsterdam Museum has completed basic digitization of ca. 90,000 objects, of which 60% have an image. All collection information is available online as open data. Digitization is guided by an information policy with an annual budget of €50,000.

Ex.2: The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam digitizes 25,000 objects per year (since 2011), high-resolution and contextual metadata, with an annual budget of ca. €470,000. An information policy guides selection process and overall performance. Collections information is published on institutional website (of which 111,000 objects as open data).


3. Ideal data sets

Ex.3: The Amsterdam City Archive digitizes 15,000 objects per week (1.5 million per year), low-resolution and limited metadata, with an annual budget of ca. €200,000 (of which ca. €130,000 are paid for by consumers). Selection is made with an information policy and by digitization on demand. Collection information (11m scans online) is fully available (on-site for free).

In 2013:

22,455 orders(963 users)

11,430 paid orders(329 users)

823,020 scans viewed(50% extern IP address)

900,000 website visits(300,000 image bank)


3. Ideal data sets

Performance is multidimensional and can be informed by:

•Resources: collections, budget, policy, FTEs•Services: digital activities, level of engagement•Access: to information

= Structure= Process= Result

ResourcesResources ServicesServices

AccessAccess

efficiency effectiveness

productivity


3. Ideal data sets

• Resources: • Collections = 100% basic / 80% image• Budget = 3% annual (FTEs 10%)• Policy = yes (incl. earmarked budget, sustainability plan)

• Services: • Digital activities = 100% own website, aggregators, 50% content sites• Level of engagement = open linked data 60%

• Access:• 400% increase users • 200% increase content used


Ideal progression

Resource allocation towards digitization becomes efficient when use (and reuse) increases in time.

Digital collection information growth

Contextualization / linked open data

Distribution

% objects

Onsite Remote: Own website Aggregator Content sites


Ideal progression




Distribution

% objects




The Ministry of Culture wants to support, guide and evaluate the digital heritage infrastructure. Information and ICT are seen as agents of change: Emerging indicators may include:

1.The digital collection• Diversity in content• Quality of content (data, metadata, image, links, standards, open data)• Sustainability (constructing a digital infrastructure)

2.The network• Hub growth (constituents linked/consumers)• Imbed of results (for policy development)• Communication (informing the public about results and activities)

3.Social change• New uses, new user groups (B2B, B2C), new services• User studies



Mechanisms to support data gathering, reporting and dissemination of results and best practice can reduce effort redundancy.

Incentives (and clarity on benefits) to gather and report data at institutional level can increase participation.

Long-term goals of the heritage information network involve more than scanning (or data entry):

• To improve access to heritage information to all user groups• To reduce information inequalities so that all heritage forms and perspectives are represented• To enhance user experience, supporting access / adoption / reuse of heritage information• To work efficiently, given the available resources


Challenges and opportunities

Digital heritage data for analysis is manually gathered, irregularly, with no assigned institution responsible for reporting. Automated data gathering methods would facilitate analysis (the “big data” approach).

Harmonization of relevant methods are being developed at EU level. Locally (at institutional level) policy development requires detailed data –not always standardized. Effectiveness is dependent on institutional goals.

Definitions on digital heritage consumption and metrics for its measurement will continue to change as consumer behavior / technology change.

It is about giving access to heritage information while stimulating life long learning in an engaged critical society.


Thank you !

Questions ?

[email protected]

navarrete acei2014

Education