This document discusses business model innovation in archives. It summarizes two case studies: 1) The National Archive of the Netherlands joined Flickr Commons, uploading 400 photos. This increased audience and user participation through tagging. It led to over 1 million views. 2) The Rijks Museum addressed the "Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid" where yellow copies online made visitors doubt the original. Open metadata was investigated, finding demand-driven and supply-driven approaches. Risks and rewards of open data were workshopped. All data will be CC0 licensed from 2012 onward.

1. Business Model Innovation
Policies and practices in Archives
Harry Verwayen
July, Budapest SUN Course

2. 1. What is a Business Model?

3. “A business model is the logic of
an organisation to create value”
See: Osterwalter & co, Business Model Generation

4. Why is this relevant to policy
makers in archives?

5. The Business Model Canvas
See: http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/

6. Value Proposition
Activities Relationship
Resources
Stakeholders
Partners Channels
Costs Benefits
‘The business model describes the logic of our organization to create and deliver value’

7. 2. Case study:
Nationaal Archief joins Flickr the Commons

8. The archive sector
aims to preserve
our heritage and
make it broadly
accessible

9. Digitization is a
powerful tool to
reach those goals
and create added
value. But how does
this affect our
business model?

10. We picked up the canvas and got to work

11. Here is the result...

12. The project made 400 photo’s of the
National Archive available on Flickr- The
Commons

13. Why?

14. Why? Reach a larger
audience

15. Why? Reach a larger
audience
create user-
participation

16. Why? Reach a larger
audience
create user-
participation
(through social tagging)

17. Here’s how this
mapped out on the
canvas:

18. The ‘old’ model looked something like
this

19. The ‘old’ model looked something like
this

20. The ‘old’ model looked something like
this

21. The ‘old’ model looked something like
this

22. The ‘old’ model looked something like
this

23. The ‘old’ model looked something like
this

24. The ‘old’ model looked something like
this

25. Cost structure is
clear. Value creation
is subsidized

26. In the new model things had
drastically changed

27. Open Content
In the new model things had
drastically changed

28. Open Content
In the new model things had
drastically changed

29. Open Content
Platform
In the new model things had
drastically changed

30. Internet
Open Content
Platform
In the new model things had
drastically changed

31. Technology
driven
Internet
Open Content
Platform
In the new model things had
drastically changed

32. Technology
driven
Internet
Open Content
Platform
In the new model things had
drastically changed

33. Technology
driven
Internet
Open Content
Platform
In the new model things had
drastically changed

34. Technology
driven
Internet
social tagging
Open Content
Platform
In the new model things had
drastically changed

35. Results: >1 million page views
Results: >2000 comments
Results: >14000 tags
http://beeldenvoordetoekomst.nl/nl/news/evaluatie-pilot-nationaal-archief-joins-flickr-commons

37. the experiment shows that
photo’s on flickr were viewed
160 times as much as on our
own site...

39. After evaluating the success, NA
integrated flickr into it’s regular activities.
It published recently it gets 5000 visits on
Flickr daily.

40. You see the point?

41. 3. Let’s watch a short film
watch the film here: http://vimeo.com/36752317

42. 4. Case study 2:
The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid

43. The Rijks Museum found out that yellow copies of
Vermeer’s Milkmaid became so persistent on the
web that visitors started to believe the original was a
fake...
See: White Paper, The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid on
pro.europeana.eu

44. At Europeana we used this as a case study to
investigate the risks and benefits of pushing for
openly licensed metadata in the cultural heritage
sector
See: White Paper, The Problem of the Yellow Milkmaid on
pro.europeana.eu

45. We started our investigation with ‘real people’ in mind:
End User

46. We started our investigation with ‘real people’ in mind:
End User

47. Who have many different ways to access our material...
Access to Cultural Heritage
End User

48. We looked at these as different spheres in a universe...
Public
Private
(Europe) TEL
books
Europeana
Athena
Europeana Travel search
scholar
APEnet
Access to Cultural Heritage
(Netherlands)
national
Royal Library Community
archive
End User
sound & vision wikipedia
Public
(France)
(national)
Commons
culture.fr
bibliothéque
nacionale

49. Each with their own characteristics

50. Each with their own characteristics
d
Publicly funde ro p e
l Agenda for Eu
Support Digita
ophy
Op en Data Philos
TEL
Europeana
Athena Europeana Travel
APEnet

51. Which dictate the ‘logic of value creation’ (or business model)
d el
M o
e ss
in
B us
T he

52. We found that ours had very much been ‘supply driven’

53. We found that ours had very much been ‘supply driven’

54. As we had aggregated millions of objects and made them
available through one specific interface
b rary
ch LI
l Dut
Roy a
TE
L
APENET
National Archive
2008-2011
e
vr
L ou
rchief
Drents a

55. As we had aggregated millions of objects and made them
available through one specific interface
b rary
ch LI
l Dut
Roy a
ea na
Euro p CC
TE
L
-B
D Y -N
ig
ita C
l
APENET
National Archive
2008-2011
e
vr
L ou
rchief
Drents a

56. While this had been an essential pre-requisite for access and
distribution....

57. It did not allow for re-distribution through Linked Open
Data...

58. Fast growing sites such as History Pin

59. Or even Wikipedia!

60. We felt we needed to change our perspective

61. We felt we needed to change our perspective

62. We felt we needed to change our perspective

63. To the demand side

64. It became clear that aggregation was still neccessary...

65. It became clear that aggregation was still neccessary...

66. But the portal setup didn’t cater to the needs of wildly
differing customer segments...

67. Who have their own workflows and preferences for accessing
information

69. The key to this was changing the licensing framework

71. But how does this affect the business model of our partner institutions???

72. What do you do?

73. We organised a series of
workshop, this one with an
emphasis on the risks &
rewards of opening up
metadata

79. Here is what we found out:

82. All participants perceived 3 risks and 3 rewards of opening up data as most
important:

83. All participants perceived 3 risks and 3 rewards of opening up data as most
important:

84. All participants perceived 3 risks and 3 rewards of opening up data as most
important:

85. Creation of metadata can be found in 3 different places their business
models

86. 1. Metadata as a key activity

87. Basically...

88. Metadata is created as part of the mission of the institution to
make the material more accessible...

93. In this model, benefits quickly outweigh the
risks

94. 2. Metadata as a key resource

97. Metadata is considered an asset used to improve the value of the
objects

101. Initially, risks seem to outweigh rewards...

102. But strong case studies, technical developments and different
performance indicators would alter this equation...

103. 3. Metadata as a core value proposition

104. This one is the most difficult....

105. Metadata in this case is created as a value proposition by
itself...

108. Directly generating revenue for the
institution

109. Very few institutions make money this way,
and over time, benefits will outweigh the
risks

110. Very few institutions make money this way,
and over time, benefits will outweigh the
risks

111. What was the result of this excercise?

112. from september 1 2012 all europeana
data will be released with CC0 license

113. But we are not quite there yet...

114. We still need strong case studies that show the value of
opening up data, better metrics to measure success in a
distributed online environment and technical developments
for identification and tracking. But above all, we need daring
policy makers and cultural professionals who are willing to
take a risk for the benefit of culture and society!

115. How about you?

116. What kind of innovation do you have in
mind?
Value Proposition
Activities Relationship
Resources
Stakeholders
Partners Channels
Costs Benefits

117. Thank you
Harry Verwayen
harry.verwayen@kb.nl

118. But strong case studies, technical developments and different
performance indicators would alter this equation...

121. Value Proposition
Activities Relationship
Resources
Stakeholders
Partners Channels
Costs Benefits
‘The business model describes the logic of our organization to create value’