navarrete dutch policy-iccpr2012

Dutch Policy for Digitization

Trilce Navarrete

VII International Conference on Cultural Policy Research ICCPR 2012

Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona

July 9th 2012

Dutch policy for Digitization Trilce Navarrete

2

Dutch policy for digitization

  Introduction: digitizing heritage collections   Dutch museums and policy system

  Historic revision of policy and results   Subsidy schemes and regulations

  Impact on museum institutions

  From vision to action   Achieving efficiency

  Future challenges

  Conclusions


3

Since 1989, museums are part of Cultural Heritage department and of the Directorate Culture and Media managed by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW).

Previously, museums were managed by -Wellbeing, Health and Culture (1982-1994), -Culture, Recreation and Social Work (1965-1982), -Education, Arts and Science (1952-1965).

There is no museum law but there is a Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (1985). The Cultural Heritage Inspectorate ensures its implementation.

The Netherlands

Introduction

Minister of Education, Culture and

Science

State Secretary of Culture

Director General Culture and

Media

Cultural Heritage

Museums Government Service for

Cultural Heritage National Archive

Arts Media, Letters and Libraries

Cultural Heritage Inspectorate


4

There are 810 museums (ICOM definition).

Museums can be divided in - National museums - Municipal museums - Local museums and - Private museums.

Museums are autonomous: -  Staff is not a civil servant -  The government owns (part of) the collections -  The government (may) own the building -  The government provides regular subsidy -  Museums can apply for government grants

The Netherlands

Introduction

51%

24%

21%

21%

12%

52%

22%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

National subsidy

Provincial subsidy

Private grant

Other

Sponsoring

Local government subsidy

Ticket sales

Source

Percentage

Type of income source and average of income out of total


5

The Ministry of Culture publishes a policy on museums every 4 years (linked to the subsidy period) since late 1980s. Additional thematic policy paper may also be published .

Other ministries may have an impact on digitization of heritage (Economic Affairs, Internal Affairs).

Policy milestones

Historic review

1921 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

1969 Subsidy for digitization

Fishing museum

1921 Reorganization

and management

1994 Electronic

Superhighway 2004-2008 CATCH

2007-1014 Images for the Future

2006-2008 Digitization

with a Policy

1990 Delta Plan

★

★

1986-1988 Application of IT in

government 1980 AMI 1988

Museum Automation

1987-1991 PC Museum

1977 New

Museum Policy

1999 Digital Delta

2001-2004 Digital Delta Plan

2003 eCulture

★

★

1994 Metamorfoze ★

2009-2011 CATCH Plus

2008-2010 Innovation of

Cultural Expression


6

Project, policy and outcome

Historic review

Automation of Museum

Information

From policy document

Towards a New Museum Policy

AMI advice: Museum Object Registration to renew museum; Automation to improve efficiency;

Centralized guiding infrastructure; Identified benefits. (1980)

Museum Automation + PC Museum Project

Information services in

government (Internal Affairs)

Museums adopted computers: 1987 = 4%; 1988 = 7%; 1989 = 14%; 1990 = 25% Total SMA grants = 85, total PCMP grants = 124

Delta Plan for the Preservation

of Cultural Heritage

1988 Audit Office Report on state of National

Collections

National ranking of museum collections: A, B, C, D. Basic registration standard established.

Registration quality linked to national subsidy.

Mondriaan Foundation

Institution to manage grants:

Delta Plan, eCulture

Delta Plan subsidy was extended 1995-2000. 1994-present: funding R&D projects (e.g.MusIP). 2001 peak: 40% of grants amount to digitization.

★


7


Historic review

Electronic superhighway

1994 6 ministry

collaboration

Digital Heritage seen as part of the Dutch information society.

DEN to guide R&D mixing heritage and science

Digital Delta Plan

Initiated by Internal Affairs(2001-2004)

Priority: digital access to cultural heritage. Digital heritage part of the information society.

eCulture Response to national ICT

agenda (2003)

Advice: ICT to be integrated in production, distribution, presentation, preservation and (re)

utilization of culture.

Digitizing with a Policy

Profess. Digital work process

2006-2008: Information plan before implementation.

Evaluation to take place later this year.

★


8


Historic review

Images for the Future 2007-2014 €154 million.

Emergency preservation of AV. Development of best practice.

CATCH 2004-2011 18 projects.

R&D heritage and IT collaboration.

Metamorfoze 1997-now Emergency preservation of paper

collections. Development of best practice.

Support to advisory

organizations 1969-now VISDOC, MARDOC, IMC, SIMIN, DEN.

★

★


9

Operational impact

Impact on museum institutions can be seen in:

•  Choice of software > linked to discount arrangements.

•  Use of standards > by using the preferred software.

•  Object valuation system.

•  Preference of application of technology (websites / infrastructure).

•  Balance between core activities: collect, preserve, communicate, exhibit, research.

• Increased professionalism: (digital) registration, information plan (sustainability), measure of online use (web stats), access, accountability (budget post).

Historic review


10

Apparent trends

Identified (recurrent) issues:

•  Subsidy to build up the infrastructure has long term effect / long term benefits. Project base grants can support R&D –but it must be part of greater vision to add to infrastructure.

•  Subsidy to showcase results are important but represent ‘the cherry on top of the ice cream’.

•  Process is not linear. All the learning moments are necessary to advance.

•  Dissemination of knowledge remains an issue: how to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’?

Historic review


11

From vision to action

How can government subsidy increase efficiency?

There are a number of changing variables: including quality and quantity

Achieving efficiency

Changes in:

(1)  Technology

(2) Work process (people and information)

(3) Use of technology

Influence:

(A) Who has access (inside/outside)

(B)  What is accessed (partial information)

(C) How to access it (touch screen/iPhone)

(D) What context for access (use/reuse)


12


How can government subsidy increase efficiency?

Devising the best tools/mechanisms (i.e. grants, subsidy schemes) requires continuous reinvention to best respond to the changing landscape.

Channeling resources to achieve a goal is one thing; sharing the lessons learnt is another. Adoption of digital technology depends on knowledge.

And use of resources is not fully understood: not all digital activities are accounted for, a harmonized reporting methodology is yet to be applied, museums have different needs (digital divide).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

registration

automation

digitization

documentation

on-line access

Reported level of digitization in museums (2007)


13


Levels of awareness of adopting computers in the work process:

•  1980s: Attention to selection of technology (digital/paper).

•  1990s: Mass adoption of digital environment (registration of collections).

•  2001: Discussion of quality vs. quantity, certain objects favored (2D objects)

•  2007: Adoption of standards, inclusion of digital post in general budget, online visits.

•  2009: Sustainability, born digital and archeological data (3D / 4D).

•  2012: Harmonization of work practice, open data.

Framework to account for born digitals and (re)use still ongoing.

Achieving efficiency


14 Achieving efficiency

NUMERIC results (2008):

Dutch museums average yearly expenditure on digital activities

€ 792,918

or 5% of annual budget


15


Institutions struggle to balance:

Challenge


16

The future and the challenges

Our adoption of digital technologies continues, we are just starting !

Evidence base policy making requires data: new frameworks for data gathering and analysis are being developed (ex. Enumerate). Institutions are harmonizing information reporting of activities and resources.

Performance indicators require to develop an elaborated measure of access (not only clicks and time spent but measure re-use!).

The new measure is use and reuse !

The Dutch government supports digital heritage as part of the information economy: the new challenge is to support repositioning heritage content in an open data context.

The future


17

Conclusions

We have already invested much in acquiring, preserving, researching and digitizing the objects (all input).

The greater the use the greater the benefit(ROI).

Conclusions


18

Thank you !

Questions ?

[email protected]

The end

navarrete dutch policy-iccpr2012

Economy & Finance