swiss_glam_survey_presentation_20130412
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
To what extent are GLAMs ready for Open Data and Crowdsourcing?Results of a Pilot Survey from SwitzerlandBeat Estermann, 12 April 2013
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
2
Recent Trends in the GLAM sector…
Coordinated Digitization Efforts
Single-Point-of-Access
EU: Lund Action Plan for Digitization (2001)
Increased cooperation and coordination among GLAMs:- common catalogues- virtual libraries- coordination of digitization efforts- long-term archiving
Wikimedia Commons, User:Dvortygirl (CC-by-sa)
Source: http://www.europeana.eu/
3
Interactivity / Personnalisation
Web 2.0Source: http://www.facebook.com/Zentralbibliothek.Zuerich
Flickr, User:victuallers2, (CC-by-sa)
4
Linked Open Data
Crowdsourcing / Collaborative Content Creation
Free Licensing / Open Data
Open Data:- machine readable- «freely» re-usable
«Web of Data» / Semantic Web- RDF triples- unique URLs
Crowdsourcing Approaches:- Correction- Classification- Contextualisation- Co-curation- Complementing
collections- Crowdfunding
See: Oomen / Aroyo 2011
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv and http://www.flickr.com/groups/greatwararchive
Source: http://www.wikiarthistory.info (CC-by-sa)
Source: http://www.creativecommons.org
5
Where do Swiss GLAMs stand today with regard to…?
…Digitization?…Exchange of metadata in multilateral cooperations?…Open Data?…Crowdsourcing?…Linked Open Data?
What are the perceived risks and opportunities? (drivers vs. hindering factors)What are the expected benefits? Who are the beneficiaries?
Awareness Evaluation
AdoptionTrialInterest
Innovation Diffusion Model, Everett Rogers, 1962
6
Pilot Study among Swiss GLAMs
GLAMs in Switzerland:
• ca. 600-700 independent GLAMs of national or regional significance
• ca. 1000 independent GLAMs organized in three umbrella organizations
Our sample: memory institutions of national significance in the German-speaking part of Switzerland
• 197 organisations contacted (233 e-mail addresses)
• 72 questionnaires completed (34% of the contacted organisations)
Caveats:
• The sample is rather small (results are not very precise with regard to the entire Swiss GLAM population, large confidence intervals apply)
• Archives are over-represented in the sample (higher response rate); museums and «other institutions» are under-represented; libraries are about average.
7
Innovation Diffusion among Swiss GLAMs: The Overall Picture
A critical mass has been reached.How about the laggards?
Will we see a higher rate of adoption for Open Data than for Crowdsourcing?
Some institutions are starting to think about Linked Data…
8
Digitization and Availability on the Internet
Metadata Reproductions of memory objects
Background in-formation
42%23% 11%
17%37%
32%
Availability on the Internet (in % of institutions, N=71)
"is partly the case""is the case"
60% of institutions make metadata and reproductions at least partly available on the Internet. 40% still don’t!
9
Exchange of Metadata / Cooperation in Networks
61% of the responding GLAMs exchange metadata with other institutions. 39% don’t.
30% do so in the context of bilateral cooperations; 43% in the context of multilateral cooperations.
For 29% the exchange of metadata is part of their core mission. 17% say this is partly the case.
yes no0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
61%
39%
Do you exchange metadata with other institutions?
(in % of institutions; N=72)
in the
conte
xt of
bilate
ral co
opera
tions
in the
conte
xt of
multila
teral
coop
eratio
ns
in ord
er to
fulfill
our c
ore m
ission
in ord
er to
gene
rate r
even
ues
other
purpo
ses
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
15%35% 29% 3%
15%
8% 17%
3%
The exchange of metadata is important for us... (in % of institutions; N=72)
"is partly the case""is the case"
10
Metadata: Need for Improvement
urgent need need in the medium term
no need no answer0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
11%
42%
21%25%
10%
43%
23% 24%
Metadata: Need for improvement? (in % of institutions; N=71)
Quality of metadata (accuracy, completeness, up-to-dateness, clar-ity, availability)Interoperability of metadata (availability in digital format, con-formity with standards)
A bit more than 50% of responding GLAMs perceive a need to improve their metadata.The need to improve metadata quality and the need to improve their interoperability are highly correlated. – Does the envisioned exchange of metadata lead to higher quality requirements?25% of responding GLAMs couldn’t answer this question. – What does this mean?
11
Metadata: What needs to be improved?
accu
racy
comple
tenes
s
up-to
-daten
ess
clarity
avail
abilit
y
digitiz
ation
confo
rmity
with
curre
nt ex
chan
ge fo
rmats
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
9%
51%
16%30%
40% 42%26%
60%
33%
40%
37% 23% 26%
28%
Metadata: What needs to be improved? (in % of institutions; N=43)
"is partly the case""is the case"
The main challenges: completeness, availability, digitization
12
Open Data Readiness
for charitable projects, such as Wikipedia, which also permit
commercial use
for users who are intending to commercially exploit them
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
7% 1%
32%
7%
21%
51%
The memory objects are available on the Internet... (in % of institutions; N=68)
not accessible for freeaccessible at no charge (but you are not allowed to modify them)"freely" accessible
Between 1% and 7% of responding GLAMs make scans/photographs of their memory objects «freely» available on the Internet. Over half of them make them available on the Internet, but with restrictions. 40% don’t make them available at all. Over 50% of the GLAMs which make their memory objects available on the Internet do not understand that you cannot make works available for Wikipedia and simultaneously prevent their modification and/or their commercial use!
13
Desirability and Importance of Open Data
-10 to -8
-8 to -6 -6 to -4 -4 to -2 -2 to 0 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 100%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0%1%
6% 6%7%
36%
25%
11%
6%3%
Desirability of Open Data (in % of institutions, N=71)
very impor-tant
important neither, nor unimportant no answer0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1%8% 7% 3%
21%31%
8% 14%
6%
Importance / Desirability of Open Data (in % of institutions; N=71)
risks prevail opportunities prevail
For over 80% of responding GLAMs the opportunities outweigh the risks of Open Data.
Over 50% think Open Data is an important issue; almost all of these believe that the opportunities outweigh the risks.
14
Open Data / “Free” Licensing of Content
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
59%76%
60%29%
7%
69%40%
21%19%
23%
26%
9%
20%
34%
1%
Conditions under which they would make memory objects freely accessible on the Internet (in % der Institutionen; N=70)
"is partly the case""is the case"
Most GLAMs wouldn’t readily agree to «freely» license their content – even in the absence of third party rights: they would like to prevent the commercial use at no charge as well as the modification of works.
15
Crowdsourcing
Wikipedia Wikimedia Commons
Flickr Commons
others0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
11% 4%
14%
3%6% 1%
Are any of your staff members engaging in projects which support open data or collaborative projects on the Internet? (in % of institutions; N=71)
in their spare timeas part of their professional ac-tivity
11% of responding GLAMs have staff members who contribute to Wikipedia as part of their professional activity.
10% of responding GLAMs say that online volunteering plays partly an important role for them.
Interestingly, no correlation was found between the two variables.
16
Desirability and Importance of Crowdsourcing
-10 to -8
-8 to -6 -6 to -4 -4 to -2 -2 to 0 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 100%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
4%
15%19%
11%
43%
3% 3% 1%
Desirability of Crowdsourcing (in % of institutions; N=69)
very impor-tant
important neither, nor unimportant no answer0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%
10%
25%14%
29%
16%
3%
1% 1%
Importance / Desirability of Crowdsourcing (in % of institutions; N=69)
risks prevail opportunities prevail
For over 90% of the responding GLAMs the risks of Crowdsourcing are at least as great as the opportunities. For half of them the risks clearly prevail.
Among GLAMs which think that Crowdsourcing is an important issue, the risk perception is equally high.
17
Linked Data / Semantic Web
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6%
23%
Is „Linked Data“ / „Semantic Web“ an issue for your institution?
(in % of institutions; N=71)
Yes, it is an issue, but we haven't planned any projects yet
Yes, we have already planned projects in this area
29% of responding GLAMs say that Linked Data is an issue for them. None of them has a running project.
18
Recapitulation
Metadata available on the Internet
Photos/scans of memory object available on the Internet
Exchange of metadata takes place and is important
Open Data is important
Open Data is desirable
Readiness to make data available for Wikipedia
Readiness to make data available for commercial use
Crowdsourcing is important
Crowdsourcing is desirable
Importance of online-volunteer work
Professional engagement in Wikipedia
Linked Data is an issue
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
59%
60%
43%
53%
81%
7%
1%
38%
7%
10%
11%
29%
Different dynamics for Open Data and Crowdsourcing
60% of responding GLAMs are technically ready for Open Data.
19
Open Data: Opportunities
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
53%65%
29%50%
11%
68%53%
67% 58%36%
3%
24%14%
22%
26%
19%
18%
21%
19%21%
33%
Why do we need Open Data from the point of view of your institution? (in % of institutions; N=72)
"is partly the case""is the case"
Main target groups: research and education, private individuals, cultural institutions
Main opportunities: better visibility and accessibility of holdings; better visibility of the institutions; better networking among GLAMs.
20
Open Data: Risks
Time e
ffort a
nd ex
pens
e for
mak
ing th
em av
ailab
le
The us
e of th
e data
cann
ot be
contr
olled
Copyri
ght in
fringe
ments
Infrin
gemen
ts of
data
protec
tion r
egula
tions
Divulga
tion o
f clas
sified
infor
mation
Increa
sed t
ime e
ffort i
n orde
r to re
spon
d to e
nquir
ies
Loss
of re
venu
es0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
66%34% 32% 28% 18% 25%
3%
20%
34% 34%23%
17%34%
11%
What are the risks of open data for your institution? (in % of institutions; N=71)
"is partly the case""is the case"
Major risk: extra time effort and expensesConsiderable risks: loss of control, copyright, data protection, secrecy infringements
Almost no risk: Loss of revenues
21
Crowdsourcing: Opportunities
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
6% 1% 4% 11% 3%24% 24% 21% 20%
14% 21%
What are the opportunities of crowdsourcing for your institution? (in % of institutions; N=71)
"is partly the case""is the case"
Crowdsourcing is most likely to be employed for classification tasks.
22
Crowdsourcing: Risks
Unfores
eeab
le res
ults
Consid
erable
time/e
ffort n
eede
d for
prepa
ration
and f
ollow
-up
Difficu
lties i
n esti
mating
the t
ime-e
ffort
No gua
rantee
conc
erning
long
-term
data
mainten
ance
Low le
vel o
f plan
ning r
eliab
ility
Fears
amon
g emplo
yees
(job l
oss,
chan
ging r
oles a
nd ta
sks)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
35% 42% 35% 38% 30%6%
26%30% 35% 28% 30%
17%
What are the risks of crowdsourcing from your point of view? (in % of institutions; N=69)
"is partly the case""is the case"
All the enumerated risks are rated about the same, except for fears among employees which seem to play a minor role.
23
Economic Considerations
• Extra time effort and expenses are seen as the greatest risks/shortcomings of Open Data and Crowdsourcing.
• Expected losses of revenue play virtually no role. The revenues of the responding GLAMs are composed as follows:
- 71%: institutional funding (public funds)- 8%: institutional funding (private funds)- 7%: donations and sponsoring- 6%: revenues from commercial activities
(entrance fees: 3%; lending fees: 1%; sale of image rights: < 0.5%; other: 1%)
- 2%: project funding (public or private)- 6%: other revenues
• While the responding GLAMs may perceive at least some efficiency gains related to Open Data, they do not perceive any potential economies associated to Crowdsourcing (yet).
24
Outlook / Next Steps
• Contact GLAMs that have indicated an interest in receiving further information
• Promote the study among GLAMs and political actors in Switzerland
• Orient GLAM outreach activities in the light of the findings
• Evaluate the demand for follow-up studies:- Study with a larger sample in Switzerland- Longitudinal study in Switzerland
(e.g. similar survey in 2014 to measure the changes)- International benchmark study
Please contact me if you are interested!
25
Contact Information and Affiliations
Beat EstermannE-mail: [email protected]: +41 31 848 34 38
Affiliations:
Research Associate, Bern University of Applied Sciences
Member of opendata.ch (Swiss Chapter of the Open Knowledge Foundation)
Member of Digitale Allmend (Swiss Chapter of CreativeCommons)
Member of Wikimedia CH’s GLAM working group
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.