Are Memory Institutions Ready for Open Data and Crowdsourcing?Results of a Pilot Survey from Switzerland

Beat Estermann, 5 August 2013 – OpenSym/WikiSym, Hong Kong

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 / Personalisation

Web 2.0

Source: 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 / Content:- «freely» re-usable- machine readable

«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 cooperation; 43% in the context of multilateral cooperation.

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 th

e co

ntex

t of b

ilate

ral c

oope

ratio

ns

in th

e co

ntex

t of m

ultila

tera

l coo

pera

tions

in or

der t

o fu

lfill o

ur c

ore

miss

ion

in or

der t

o ge

nera

te re

venu

es

othe

r pur

pose

s0%

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)

Ca. 50% of GLAMs perceive a need to improve their metadata.

The needs to improve metadata quality and 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

com

plete

ness

up-to

-dat

enes

s

clarit

y

avail

abilit

y

digitiz

ation

conf

orm

ity w

ith c

urre

nt e

xcha

nge

form

ats

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 free

accessible 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 heritage 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 heritage 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 10

0%

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 time

as 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 10

0%

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

effo

rt an

d ex

pens

e fo

r mak

ing th

em a

vaila

ble

The u

se o

f the

dat

a ca

nnot

be

cont

rolle

d

Copyr

ight i

nfrin

gem

ents

Infri

ngem

ents

of d

ata

prot

ectio

n re

gulat

ions

Divulga

tion

of c

lassif

ied in

form

ation

Incr

ease

d tim

e ef

fort

in or

der t

o re

spon

d to

enq

uiries

Loss

of r

even

ues

0%

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

Unfor

esee

able

resu

lts

Consid

erab

le tim

e/ef

fort

need

ed fo

r pre

para

tion

and

follo

w-up

Difficu

lties

in es

timat

ing th

e tim

e-ef

fort

No gu

aran

tee

conc

ernin

g lon

g-te

rm d

ata

main

tena

nce

Low le

vel o

f plan

ning

relia

bility

Fears

am

ong

emplo

yees

(job

loss

, cha

nging

roles

and

task

s)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 sale of image rights is evaluated at < 0.5 % of overall revenues

• Lending fees at 1% of overall 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

• Promote the study among GLAMs and political actors in Switzerland

• Orient GLAM outreach activities in the light of the findings

• Promote “free” licensing at a large scale, cf. OpenGLAM Principles

• Foster mutual learning in the area of Crowdsourcing and (Linked) Open Data (OpenGLAM Network); make sure that benefits are achieved and documented; improve coordination along the supply-chain

• Examine ways to improve digitization coverage

• 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 studyPlease contact me if you are interested!

25

Thanks for Your Attention!

Full study report:

English: http://tinyurl.com/SwissGLAMsurvey

Deutsch: http://tinyurl.com/GLAMStudie

Contact details:

Beat EstermannE-mail: beat.estermann@bfh.chPhone: +41 31 848 34 38

Affiliations:

Research Associate, E-Government Institute, Bern University of Applied SciencesMember of opendata.ch (Swiss Chapter of the Open Knowledge Foundation)Member of Digitale Allmend (Swiss Chapter of CreativeCommons)Member of Wikimedia CH

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.