"OpenGLAM" in Practice - Presentation at the IRSPM 2016 Conference in Hong Kong, April 2016.

1. OpenGLAM in Practice – How Heritage Institutions Appropriate
the Notion of Openness
Beat Estermann, 14 April 2016 – IRSPM, Hong Kong
▶ Bern University of Applied Sciences | E-Government Institute
Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Center. Photo by Sarah Stierch, CC BY-SA 4.0 (Wikimedia Commons)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.

2. Early Adopters
13.5%
Shareofinstitutions(%)
Innovators
2.5%
Early Majority
34%
Late Majority
34%
Laggards
16%
Research Questions
Where do heritage institutions stand with regard to…
…Open Data?
…Linked Data / Semantic Web?
…Digitization
…Open Content?
…Engaging Audiences on the Internet
…Collaborative Content Creation
What are the perceived risks and opportunities? (drivers vs. hindering factors)
What are the expected benefits?
What are the differences between different types of heritage institutions?
International comparisons: In what ways does the situation vary in the different countries?
Awareness Evaluation AdoptionTrialInterest
Innovation Diffusion Model,
Everett Rogers, 1962

3. Positioning of the practices covered with regard to the
«Open Government Implementation Model»
Source: Lee and Kwak 2011: «Open Government Implementation Model»

4. Bulgaria, Brazil, Finland, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Ukraine, all institution types combined, N = 1030.
Cases with «stagnation» / «discontinuance» have been ignored.
Proportionofinstitutions(%)
Innovators
2.5%
Early Majority
34%
Late Majority
34%
Early Adopters
13.5%
Laggards
16%
Collaborative content creation
Social media
Open content
Digitization
Linked data
Open data
Advanced implementation
Adoption
Trial
Evaluation
Interest
No interest
Everett Roger’s Diffusion of
Innovation Model
Diffusion of Innovative Practices among Heritage Institutions

5. ▶ What are the links and mutual influences between the various Internet-
related practices? Is there a typical path institutions follow when adopting the
practices under consideration?
▶ Which context factors at the country level influence the adoption of the
various practices?
▶ To what extent do attitudes with regard to the different practices change as
heritage institutions transit through the various stages of the innovation
adoption process?
Focus of the conference paper

6. Factors influencing the adoption of Internet-related practices

7. Country-level variables
macro-levelmeso-
  

8. ▶ Calculated as part of the UN E-Government Survey
▶ Three Sub-Indexes:
▶ E-Information Sharing: Use of online services to facilitate provision of
information by governments to citizens
▶ E-Consultation: Interaction with stakeholders
▶ E-Decision Making: Engagement in decision-making processes
E-Participation Index

9. ▶ All Internet-related practices are self-reinforcing:
higher adoption levels translate into higher scores on perceived importance
and desirability
▶ Small differences, but no dramatic effects in attitudes across adoption
stages
▶ Attitude changes are slow; in some cases, crucial attitude changes
seem to lag behind changes of practice (e.g. with regard to «open
content»)
▶ Institutions are heading for a win-win situation, based on more
‘openness’ towards and participation by users:
▶ improved visibility and perceived relevance of institutions
▶ improved access to external working power and expertise
▶ improved interactions and relationship with users
▶ networking and community building among target audiences and heritage
institutions
▶ increased sense of public ownership and responsibility among users
Observed changes in attitudes

10. ▶ Contact Details:
• Beat Estermann
E-mail: beat.estermann@bfh.ch
Phone: +41 31 848 34 38
▶ Project Portal:
• http://survey.openglam.ch
Thank you for your attention!