Exploring Cultural Heritage and Value creation - A Case Study of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project by Miriam Lerkenfeld

A case study of dr’s cultural heritage project Exploring cultural heritage and value creation Master Thesis

The IT-University of Copenhagen Master Thesis, August, 2011 Written by: Tobias Golodnoff E-Business 10.07.1973 – tobiasg Miriam Lerkenfeld Smith Digital Design & Communication 14.04.1982 – mlsm Supervisor: Leif Block Rasmussen

Thank you and much respect Authors Statement Leif Block Rasmussen, Supervisor and Associated professor at Department of Informatics, CBS and Ebuss at the ITUniversity of Copenhagen. For being an excellent supervisor, inspriring us. Helping us in right direction, discussing our findings and prioritising us when we needed guidance. Peter Looms, co-supervisor and External associate professor at the ITUniversity of Copenhagen. For the early discussion, and support. Mads Bødker, Adjunkt at Department of Informatics, CBS and Ebuss at the ITUniversity of Copenhagen. And Simeon Keates, Associate Professor at the ITUniversity of Denmark. For inspirational talks. Christina Paludan Sheikh. For helping us with excellent inputs and academic guidance on the thesis. And for being the most wonderful mother and wife! I could not have done it without all your support and trust – I love you! - Tobias At the Danish Broadcasting Corporation. Nicolai Porsbo, former Head of New Media at dr.dk, Merethe Echardt, former vice director og DR Medier and Jonas Iversen, vice director of DR Medier for supporting us while the idea about the thesis was growing and making it possible. The fantastic team at DR who works with the Cultural Heritage Project for being such a wonderful and inspirering group of people and doing an excellent job. And off course our amazing families and beautiful friends…

This thesis is based on a joint effort and an equal partnership. We have delegated responsibilities along the way, but in the writing process, we let the chapters and sections circular between us. Naturally, we follow the IT University examination rules and divides the article as follows: Abstract: Miriam & Tobias. Introducing the thesis and its objectives: Miriam & Tobias: Ontology of the project: Tobias. Scentific aproach and description methods: Miriam. The network in relation to DR’s Cultural Heritage Project: Tobias. The processes of the project: Miriam. An analysis of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project - Part one: From An analysis of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project to Diffusion: Tobias. Part two: From Diffusion to the end of the chapter: Miriam. Conclusions: Miriam & Tobias. Guiding Principles: Miriam & Tobias Thoughts and reflections: Miriam & Tobias The thesis consists of approximately 86 normal pages that is 198,104 characters and 11 figures. This thesis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NCSA 3.0). Read more

Contact information We love talking about the project, getting inspiration and making new connections. Do not hesitate to contact if you need a additioal information or are interested in collaborating. Miriam Lerkenfeld mles@dr.dk, twitter @lerkenfeld Tobias Golodnoff togo@dr.dk, twitter @tgolodnoff Read more at danskkulturarv.dk or dr.dk/kulturarv

Abstract The objective of the research is to give a theoretical understanding of the value created when digitising a cultural heritage. This research is grounded in a case study of the Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s Cultural Heritage Project. The project deals with the digitisation of an analogue radio and television collection of more than 500.000 hours of content, and with the work being done after digitisation ensuring archive content in collaboration with other public cultural institutions and the research community becomes available to the public. The project group is an inter-organisational team combining expertise from many places within the organisation. When establishing a project of this kind, some aspects have significance on the value creation. Findings are, that flexibility is key, and hence, the use of resources within the budget should not be too specific, because it is unpredictable where cost can be cut, or where extra resources will be needed. Also, a scanning process is essential for defining the objectives of future tasks, and focus should not be to solve one problem, but exploring challenges that can be useful for different scenarios. In addition, findings are that collaboration is a good tool for diffusing digitised cultural heritage, and these collaborations should have a variable, decentralised structure, in order to facilitate different needs and objectives. Another emphasis should be put on the openness towards collaboration partners, so shared value can be created and utilised - benefiting not just the organisations, but society in general. Conclusively, the overall goal when digitising the cultural heritage is always to make it accessible for the users. The conclusion leads to four principle guidelines which are: use is value, transparent boxes, open source collective, flexible frameworks, and project economy. Finally, a vision is presented, a society where public service is substituted for public resources, constructing a all-encompassing cultural production system with fluid borders and autonomous projects based on a set of clearly defined objectives.

Keywords Digitisation, Digitising, Digitization, Digitizing, Cultural Heritage, Heritage, Strategy, Innovation, Value, Value creation, Network, Research, Technology, Danish Broadcasting Corporation, DR, DR’s Cultural Heritage Project, Public Service, Data, Information, Knowledge, Knowledge Sharing. Resources, Process, Optimisation, Optimization, Use = Value, Use is Value, Transparent Boxes, Flexible Resources, Open Source Collective,Digitalisering, Kulturarv, DR’s Kulturarvsprojekt, Værdi, Netværk, Strategi, Data, Information, Viden, brug = værdi, brug er lig værdi, Dansk Kulturarv, LARM, Europeana, EUscreen, FIAT/IFTA, Memnon

index 4

Abstract 3 Keywords 3 Introducing the thesis and its objective 9

Ontology of the project 10 Political Background 11

The case – DR’s Cultural Heritage Project 13 The Danish Broadcasting Corporation and the Cultural Heritage Project 13 Historical outline

The DR departments related to the project 14 The objective of the project 14

and Description of Methods 2 0 research & Working questions 21 Working questions Delimitations 22

Critical Realism as a Scientific Approach 22 Case studies – a reflection upon the method 22 Project Design – Switching Between Empirical Data and Theory 23 FigurE 1 – PROJECT DESIGN 23

Theoretical foundation 24 Empirical Data and Role as a Participant Observer 24

Definitions 25

The Networks in The cultural heritage content in DR 16 The Public Service Obligations and Value 19 relation to DR’s Scientific Approach Cultural Heritage The financial framework The archives

Project 26

Value Chain Analysis by Michael Porter 35 Preparation, Inbound logistics 36 No selection in the preparation process 36 Digitisation of the content 36 Securing, Outbound logistics 36 Two copies of the digitised content 36 Collaboration, Marketing & Sales 36 Dissemination, Services 36

FigurE 2 – the network OF DR’S CULTURAL PROJECT 27

Cultural production, digitisation and technical development 29 The Collaboration Dansk Kulturarv 29

Reflection upon the process 36

Memnon 29

The Research-Educational Network 29 The Research Project LARM 29 The Political Global Network 30 The Danish Government & the Danish Ministry of Culture 30

The European Union 30 FIAT/IFTA 30 Changing the Conditions of the Project via the Network – A short study of Copy-Dan and IPR 33 The Interaction Between the Networks 33

The processes of the project 34 The digitization workflow in DR’s Cultural Heritage Project 35 Figure 3 – VALUE CHAIN OF DR’S CULTURAL PROJECT 35

The Overall Process of Digitising, Preserving, Disseminating, and Collaborating 6

An Analysis of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project 38 Max Boisot – Data, Information and Knowledge in the Information-space 39 Figure 4 – THE AGENT-IN-THE-WORLD 39 Data, Information & Knowledge in the Case Study Figure 5 – THE INFORMATION SPACE 40

The Social Learning Curve in Information Space 4 1 Scanning – The metadata project 41 Problem-solving – The Film Pilot 43 Abstraction – archiving for future use 44

Diffusion – The Collaboration of Dansk Kulturarv 44 Absorption – LARM Research Project 45 Impacting – the Creation of the Online Archive Bonanza

Figure 6 – Bonanza’s first month 45

The value of knowledge creation 47 The Market Value of Digitising Cultural Heritage 47 FigurE 7 – THE PARADOX OF VALUE 47 FIGURe: 8: VALUE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE FIGURe: 9: KNOWLEDGE, SOURCE: BOISOT. 48 FIGURe: 10: ACCESS TO AND USE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

for DR’s Cultural Heritage project 52 Thoughts and reflections 55 References 55

The Cultural Production Value 49 Public Service Value of Digital Cultural Heritage in Society 49 The Value and I-space 49

Conclusions 50

Guiding Principles for Exploring the Digitisation of Cultural Heritage and Creating Value 51

A brief introduction to guiding principles 52 FIGURE 11 - STRATEGIC GUIDELINES 52

Guiding principles

Two young boys are kneeling on the rug in front of the TV, while their little sister is examing the program by touching the screen. California, USA, November 23, 1953 Photographer: Ed Clark -Source: Life Magazine September 26, 1960

Introducing the thesis and its objective Copenhagen, August 2011 You are reading the master’s thesis written by Miriam Lerkenfeld and Tobias Golodnoff. It is a study of digitisation and valorisation of the Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s cultural heritage which is the archive containing content dating from 1896 to 2005. We are both employees in DR as well as master’s students at the ITUniversity of Copenhagen. Both of us have been working on DR’s Cultural Heritage Project. Hence it seems like a natural thing to examine the project as a case study and make this the foundation of our thesis, and try to grasp possibilities and challenges at hand. We would also like to dive into the project on a theoretic note; a luxury we don’t have in our day-to-day work. The objective of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project has been and still is maximising the digitisation output of the granted budget of 75 million DKK. Preferably in a manner that supports value creation for the end users. But first and foremost within the traditional value chain of the project, with a focus on creating a margin, which will allow more of the archive to be digitised. Since the project began in 2007, significant results have been accomplished. Some of the accomplishments have been fostering new learning, inspiring the network around the project to optimise workflows and use of their content, but it has also had a role in changing how public service is perceived. One of the key activities is the development new processes and standards for digitisation, dissemination and collaboration that has created value for the institution, but also its collaborators. Additionally, a new way of structuring projects has been developed both in terms of cultural heritage, but

also comme il faut within the Danish Broadcasting Corporation and how the project considers value. This exploration of the term value, we envision to drive to a better understanding of the possibilities of cultural heritage, when meeting the demand in the Public-service contract of 2011-2014: ”DR skal blandt andet af kulturarvmæssige hensyn bevare sine programarkiver. DR skal fremme digitaliseringen af programarkiverne for bl.a. på denne måde at give borgerne adgang til sine programarkiver, dog med de begrænsninger, der følger af lovgivning mv., herunder ophavsretsloven. DR skal aktivt arbejde for i videst muligt omfang at kunne gøre DR’s programarkiver tilgængelige for befolkningen og forskermiljøerne.” - DR’s Public Service-kontrakt for 20112014 In English: “DR must preserve its archives due to cultural heritage considerations. DR shall promote the digitisation of programme archives in order to provide access to the citizens, under the limitations imposed by legislation, etcetera, including copyright laws. DR must work actively to ensure access and availability of the programme archives in its fullest extent for both to the public and research community. “. - DR’s Public Service Contract for 2011 – 2014

First and foremost the essential criteria for justifying investing in new services and solutions is that the project can enrich the existing environment and the public. This is to make sure that the final products that will enrich the users and support an understanding of our shared history and cultural heritage and thereby expand the overall level of knowledge and future success in society. Conclusively, the knowledge we have acquired in our work with the thesis, has given us new ideas regarding how one can ensure a better and less costly production for the prerequisites for future use. This, we hope, will inspire us and others to create more and better products and services for disseminating the valuable archive content. Content DR and others hold, be it in exhibitions, audiovisual programs, research at libraries and in the state’s archives, or in the digital domain, where the content can engage the users in new ways. We sincerely hope you will enjoy reading the report. All the best, Miriam Lerkenfeld & Tobias Golodnoff

There are numerous opportunities in connecting existing collections, new content and technologies, which today have the potential to create synergies and explore a contemporary approach to public service. We are envisioning this and are trying to facilitate value creation as a process with the participation of DR, the users and society.

1 CHApTER

Ontology of the project So, what is the ontology of the study? Fundamentally, it can take many forms, and in this case it is interesting to define cultural heritage’s role in society as well as in DR, and understand its characteristics and purpose. The outcome will be the ability to choose the right tools and methods for analysing the case. Unfolding the ontology also suits the purpose of understanding how the internal organisation will benefit from the digital cultural heritage, which differs from the political, but also how they both are creators and users of a generated value. When we use the term “value” we have an explorative way of using it. Generally, we believe it as a description of an object or phenomenon’s potential for creating or utilising its elementary conditions, but it can also be value in the neoclassical economic sense.

Political Background During the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st there has been an increased political interest in digitising cultural heritage, not only on the national agenda, but also transnationally. Institutions such as the EU have emphasised the significance of cultural heritage in society as well. “If one word should encompass and summarise the vision of the Comité des Sages, it would be “access”. When it comes to our common cultural heritage, there is no bigger challenge; there is no more urgent question than to secure the access of current and future generations to this heritage. Access for the largest population, both European and non-European. And access to one of the richest cultural heritages in the world, a universal common good” - European Commission: 2011: 9 The access to cultural heritage was officially prioritised on the political agenda. Ideologically, it was also becoming a political solution for sustaining national culture and cohesiveness in a globalised world, where local culture was challenged by technology development. A topic theorists like Manuel Castells also discuss: “Research has shown that audiences are more sensitive to content that is specific to their culture (Miller 2007). So, while there is a layer of global culture in all media industries, most cultural products are local rather than global. Indeed, a study by Tubella (2004) has shown decisive importance of television in constructing a national identity under the conditions of cultural domination by another nation (…)” - Castells: 2009:124 The intentions behind political focus on digital cultural heritage were many. However, preservation and accessibility seem to be the dominating objectives. A more general approach

was that cultural heritage was also bridging the gap between different cultural institutions such as libraries, archives, museums, and public services broadcasters, on an international scale-because the materials seem more valuable when they were contextualised by materials from other sources. Naturally, another point was the diffusion of cultural heritage. Since, digitised content is easier to spread, a digitisation of cultural heritage made it geographically independent and multipliable. Therefore, the digitisation was found attractive, because it became feasible to disseminate digitally rather than in its original form. Also, it is a more flexible format for preparing the content to be consumed through future new media channels, which potential and use currently cannot be comprehended. The task of creating cultural products and preserving them seem more relevant than ever. However, the task could not be given solely to a commercial market. The reason is that it such an essential good for a democracy that it should be undertaken by the state. In most countries the digitisation of cultural heritage was made mandatory for cultural institutions, and libraries, archives and public service broadcasters became key players in the process. In 2011, the European Commission formulated some suggestions for the actors that could be drivers in digitising cultural heritage: ”We are of the opinion that the public sector has the primary responsibility for making our cultural heritage accessible and preserving it for future generations. This responsibility for and control over Europe’s heritage cannot be left to one or a few market players, although we strongly encourage the idea of bringing more private investments and companies into the digitisation arena through a fair and balanced partnership” - European Commission: 2011: 4 In Denmark, the digitisation of cultural heritage is significant part of the political agenda. It is the same argument as heard internationally: there is an urgent need for preserving and disseminating the Danish cultural heritage. In 2010 the Minister of Culture stated:

”The Culture Heritage must be alive, and therefore it must digital and our focus is to make the Danish culture history and natural history accessible via/on the internet. A culture heritage that is alive creates a common framework within the society and ensure that coming generations are aware of our history. Without this awareness the common sense of responsibility and the basis to have a varied view of the development of society will crumble.” - Per Stig Møller, The Danish Minister of Culture: April 2010 Because of the importance of cultural heritage, the government set up a committee in 2006, whose purpose was to explore cultural heritage. The final physical product was the report ‘Digitalisering af Kulturarven’ published by the Danish Ministry of Culture in 2009. The report suggested that there should be an increased focus on preserving Danish cultural heritage.

Ministry of Science, in collaboration, prioritised four projects, which in total were supported with 21 million DKK; among the most important projects was the establishment of the Heritage Agency of Denmark in 2002, and a DKK 75 mill grant to the Danish Broadcasting Corporation in 2007. The grant was central for the Danish Broadcasting Corporation because it resulted in the establishment of a project - DR’s Cultural Heritage Project – that was solely dedicated to digitising and disseminating the cultural heritage from the public broadcasters archives.

A national digitisation would serve one purpose. It would secure and preserve the national heritage, and it could also be used in the digital domain to generate national value by enriching the public by making the digital cultural heritage accessible. The rapport outlined three scenarios for future digitisation and development if the assigned budget would be: no funding, DKK 300 or DKK 500 mill over a tenyear period (Digitising of the Cultural Heritage: 2009). Because of the international financial crisis the report was not finished until 2009 and the digitising budged of DKK 300 mill or DKK 500 was not granted. Consequently, the political priority of digitising cultural heritage was on hold, and given this, the use of cultural heritage has yet to be defined both politically and practically. As cultural heritage has and still plays a significant role in society, the Danish government has, since the 1990s, been funding different initiatives with the purpose of supporting the development of a digital cultural heritage. The political wish is still present, and in 2010 smaller grants were allocated to specified projects within the cultural sector. The Ministry of Culture and the

Sony VP-1210 U-Matic videocassette player. Photographer: Grant Hutchinson -Source: Flickr, Open source license

The case – DR’s Cultural Heritage Project DR’s Cultural Heritage Project is an interesting case, because it is the only project among the Danish cultural institutions that receives substantial funding with the single purpose of digitising the Danish cultural heritage. Additionally, the project has a unique structure for a project in a public organisation, because it is politically obliged to collaborate autonomously with external partners outside the traditional organisation of DR. An aspect that makes the project an interesting case is its ability to innovate and its openness toward external partners, that has made the project internationally recognised for fostering sustainable innovation, e.g., processes for digitising and collaborating. By doing this the project has been pushing the external environment both on a national scale, but also on an international scale. The expectation of the project is that it should be creating value for society by making cultural content accessible. This value of cultural heritage is, however, yet to be defined. This is key issue when discussing cultural heritage, because there is no universal concrete description of what the value actually is, instead the general focus has primarily been simply the digitising and dissemination of cultural heritage. However we have an assumption to what the value could be, and what we primarily think of when using it on a broad scale, which will be examined throughout the thesis. The case then serves the purpose of exploring how value is created

when digitising cultural heritage, and subsequently, how this is distributed into organisation and network, thus society. However, the case has a quite complex structure, which requires an in depth description.

The Danish Broadcasting Corporation and the Cultural Heritage Project DR’s Cultural Heritage Project is a part of the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR), which is the home organization of the project. DR is an independent, license-financed public institution, and Denmark’s largest media corporation (dr.dk). The company is organized in seven divisions, which all have different responsibilities from corporate and strategic, to production and supportive. The workforce is dedicated to creating public-service content for the six national TV-channels, the ten radio channels, (where three are FM-based and seven are DAB-channels) and the website www.dr.dk. The website is the largest content website in Denmark, and it is currently undergoing a revitalisation, and it plays a vital role in disseminating digital cultural heritage, a role that will be discussed later on. In the beginning of the 21th century DR was building its new headquarters and re-organising both the spatial locations and organisational set-up. The purpose of creating a new headquarters, DR-Byen (DR-City), was to bring all of DR’s employees in the Copenhagen area together, whereas they formerly had been scattered around town at more than 20 different addresses. In DR-Byen every production facility would be connected and online, and the physical state of the archive would therefore not serve the editorial teams in the same favourable way. Consequently, the relocation of DR also began to impact the need for digitising the program archives in order for DR to become a high-tech media corporation.

Historical outline At the same time, digitisation of the national heritage was was debated intensely in the Ministry of Culture. All the larger cultural institutions, the Heritage Agency of Denmark and the Ministry Of Culture were keen on using new technology to preserve the collections and to enrich the Danes with access to the cultural heritage. But despite the national focus on digital cultural heritage and the need for a digitisation of the broadcast archives, DR--together with TV2 and the State and University Library - lost an earlier agreed upon budget post of DKK 80 mill, when the Media Agreement of 2011-2014 was decided. (Mediepolitisk aftale 2011-2014). In 2005, while DR continued the work of obtaining funding to digitise the archives, there was still a wish for optimising the digital production facilities and making better use of the content. The wish for a digitisation of the archives had increased with the establishment of DR-Byen’s digital production system, even though the cultural institutions did not receive additional funding for digitising in the first round. A workgroup in DR produced the internal report called ‘Plan for Digitalisering af DR’s Kulturarv’ (Plan for the Digitisation of DR’s Cultural Heritage) in august 2005. The report analysed and seized the challenge of digitalising the content of DR’s physical archives. One of the conclusions was that DR’s archives were challenged, and that they would deteriorate if nothing was done to preserve it, and a substantial part would be lost by 2015. It also estimated that the total cost of digitising the whole archive would be DKK 284 mill.

(Internal Memo DR ØU: Appendix 1: 01.11.2007). Finally, in 2007, the political negotiations resulted in a DKK 75 mill funding for DR to digitalise its archive. The money was given as a one-time funding in order for DR to start the digitisation and preservation process. The ministerial aspiration was to secure funds from the fiscal budget, through the yearly-agreed Finanslov (the national budget), hoping the Ministry of Culture could secure new funds for a series of activities. The funds should be used for a national mass digitisation of cultural heritage. In relation to the grant of DKK 75 mill, the government decided to constitute DR’s obligations in terms of cultural heritage in the Media Agreement for 2007-2010. It was considered a necessity to digitise Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s entire archive. However, the funding received only covered 25% of the expected economic needs, primarily to ensure that the most perishable parts of the archive were not lost. A more concrete prerequisite was that DR should also increase its offerings to the public by developing new concepts and programmes; and by doing this, increase its market share. It was also articulated that there was a need for a functioning archive with userfriendly interface and the possibility of self-service when requesting more popular content (Internal Memo DR ØU: Appendix 1: 01.11.2007). In sum, it was the focus on the digitisation of the part of the archive that contained programmes along with the creation of specific products like programmes, services, etc. In conclusion, this became the commission for DR’s Cultural Heritage Project.

DR articulated that the main objective of the Cultural Heritage Project was to ensure DR’s archive content against crumbling in order to make use of them in future productions. Furthermore, the need for making the cultural heritage accessible was also touched upon, constituting the need for pilot projects such as www.danskkulturarv.dk.

The DR departments related to the project DR JPS - Jura, Politik & Strategi

DR Bånd & Film

DR TU Innovation

Carriers and Film

Innovation and Development

Law, Policy & Strategy

DR Bånd & Film (B&F) is organized as a part of the A&R. It has existed for more than fifty years and helps produce and run programs on modern technical equipment. The department is highly specialized and acts as the digitising unit and consultant in the digitisation of the archive. At the beginning of the DR’s Cultural Heritage project the department normally handled digitisation tasks on demand, but during the early years of the project they have participated and shared knowledge within the field which has changed the digitisation process to facilitate a much more industrialized process.

DR’s Cultural Heritage Project has, since its start, been working closely with DR’s departments of technical development and innovation. The department’s focus is on on technologysupported innovation in the digitisation process, and the external cooperation within the project.

DR JPS is the department of DR’s legal, policy, and strategy advisers which, as part of the General Director’s staff, is concerned with strategy within DR. The department supports the project primarily in two areas: communication with the Ministry of Culture, where the department oversees and handles the legal framework; and legal counselling, when the project is involved in dissemination and collaboration projects. The department handled the negotiation of Arkivpakke 1&2, which are used as the legal foundation for creating online access to the content and broadcasting it in TV or radio. This will be explained further, when organisation Copy-Dan is described.

DR Arkiv & Research Archive and Research DR Arkiv & Research (A&R) consists of DR’s archives and library. The department operates the library, and “owns” the physical program archive of all the historic DR productions. Employees have access to everything from TV-programs, radio broadcasts, sound-effects and photographs, as well as books, newspapers, journals and magazines. A&R does research in DR’s collection for internal use, and facilitates the people working in the production. Furthermore, A&R sells its services to people outside DR. In terms of the Cultural Heritage project, A&R specifically process the preparation and transportation of tapes to the external partner Memnon as well as random testing and quality assurance of digital files. They participate and share knowledge in the development of optimised metadata workflows and are responsible for the practical part of handling the files in the Mediearkivet (media archive).

DR TU IT Infrastruktur / Produktionsystemer Infrastructure and Production systems The departments of Infrastructure and Production Systems has collaborated with the project and put a great deal of effort into securing the preservation and usability once the digital content has been produced. Infrastructure has led the expansion of the filing capacity, in order to prepare the Mediearkiv for the extensive amount of new data files which is constantly expanding. And the Production systems department has worked on securing the interest of DR’s original archivemetadata in order to ensure that the data files are organized correctly in one place with the correct metadata. Both tasks have been finalised with success.

This is work in progress, so to ensure optimum use of resources, both in digitising & preserving, but also mediation, TU Innovation has lead and developed the Culture Heritage Archive Open System called CHAOS. The platform uses open-source principles about contributing communities, and DR’s Cultural Heritage Project has contracted with a number of external partners, primarily from the cultural community and they are all contributing in developing the system. The common use, ensure low cost operation and further development of the system’s core.

The objective of the project Today, DR’s Cultural Heritage Project is a digitising and innovation project whose purpose it is to digitise the Danish cultural heritage, in this case the Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s programme archive, and actively to make the archive content available for the public and research community. Key objective is to give the public access to the cultural heritage by: • •

Digitising DR’s TV and radio broadcasts and to work actively to create visible value for the public Avoid the selection of the archive and work to secure and digitise all the unique archive, so DR’s share of the overall safeguarding of the heritage for the future is secured

The project is inter-organisational, where colleagues from different areas of DR are working together in order to digitise and disseminate the cultural heritage. The project is in contact with every element of the process from carriers, the metadata or descriptions of the content, the digitisation, storage and distribution technologies, intellectual property rights, as well as managing and disseminating the content. It is a unique constellation in DR because it spans the entire value chain from handling the earlier hard-to-use content through the digitalisation process, to production of new content, which is seen or used by new users. The success criteria of the project is now determined by the management to be the project’s ability to take full advantage of the funding, being digitising as much content as possible at a DR specified and authorised file quality. Furthermore, collaborating with other national cultural archives to increase the synergy between the collections, and by thus adding value for the users, was a criterion of success. This is what is referred to as ‘use equals value’, meaning that the users utilisation of the content is the value. One could even argue that the digitisation is the means to that end.

This ideology was, and is, still shared by DR and the political establishment, but now also formulated in Public Service agreement for 2011-2014. It states that: “DR must preserve its programme archives for reasons of cultural heritage. DR must promote the digitising of its program archives and in this way make them accessible to the public, observing/respecting the legal limitations in force, e.g. the interlectual property rights law. DR must work activeily to make DR’s program archives widely available to the public and research environment.” - DK’s Public Service Contract 20112014: 15 This means that DR is now obliged to not only the digitisation and preservation of archives but DR must also has to engage actively in the dissemination of the digital content – creating value for the public and the research environment. The obligation does not demand full access, but acknowledges that the dissemination has to be viewed within the legal framework DR operates under. The reasoning for not specifying full access is that the project has some challenges in terms of intellectual property rights, which result in some legal restrictions of how the project can use the content. Furthermore, DR’s Cultural Heritage has made it an objective to act on and exploit the newest knowledge and technologies that support a maximisation of the outcome. Insights are mostly gathered through the engagement in external collaborations and networks with other broadcasters and audiovisual archives, which are faced with similar challenges in relation to digitisation, technological and market development. In reality this has resulted in a clear focus on documenting and communicating new insight and knowledge in the field of digitisation, technology development, and cultural heritage.

Another set of 1/2â&#x20AC;? video tape reels containing high school industrial arts course material from the early 1980s. These tapes were part of a large collection of instructional videos obtained from the Calgary Catholic Board of Education as they were purging outdated media formats. Photographer: Grant Hutchinson -Source: Flickr, Open source license

The financial framework In DR, the process of digitisation and dissemination has been running since the funds were granted in 2007. It was decided in the earlier stages that the objective for the project should be to: • •

Maximise the output of the digitisation Collaborate with external, mainly cultural, partners to create value for DR’s users

To secure a successful project process, a set of rules for the use of the funds was decided by the board of directors of DR in 2007. These rules have led to a division of the budget in three areas: 1. Administration 9 % 2. Digitisation & Preservation 79 % 3. Dissemination and Collaboration 12 % A budget structure and financial allocation was accepted by the Ministry of Culture. The three areas all cover different sets of tasks and objectives.

Administration tasks

The administration budget is used by the project management team to ensure that the funds spent on the other budget posts are in line with the given set of rules and the project agreement with the Ministry of Culture. In addition to the managerial task, the administration work also covers the needed research and documentation tasks.

Digitisation & Preservation tasks

The digitisation budget holds the largest sum of money. It covers the complex task of digitalising or converting the content from the physical carriers to the needed digital file formats, and afterwards preserving them. The budget also covers some technical hardware and development, because there has been a need for expanding the storage in order for DR to handle the new tasks related to preserving the archive material digitally.

Dissemination and Collaboration tasks

The costs of disseminating and collaborating are established in order to work across the cultural sector. The goal is to create additional value when combining the content from DR with other collections of art, pictures or books, etcetera, in order to give better access to and contextualisation of cultural heritage. Furthermore, the collaboration helps enrich the content by provided new or better metadata, along with the development of a new media assets management that supports online archiving and crossorganisational collaboration. The EU has emphasised this matter in a digitisation report stating that: “Cultural institutions add considerable amounts of information to digitised objects (metadata), describing for example the author, the provenance and age of the work, giving contextual information, as well as technical information on the formats used and characteristics allowing search engines to locate the object. This metadata is essential to provide the user with a useful background to the work, and also to allow search-engines such as Europeana to locate the digitised objects relevant in the context of a specific search.” -European Commission: 2011: 33

Project Costs, Not Running Cost

The overall project budget has been approved by the Ministry of Culture and is handled under another regulation than DR’s overall four years financial agreement. This means that funding does not have to be spent within a yearly given timeframe – giving the project a flexibility that is crucial for optimising the spending related to the digitisation work. As a result of this flexible economy the project is not allowed to hold fixed cost, so if activities require a running investment, it must be approved by the board of directors and then the cost is transferred to other areas in the DR organisation. To illustrate: what is considered a project cost and running cost in the project, the storage cost

was calculated in 2007. It was decided that the project would cover the cost of the first LTO data-tape to store the digital content, because an expansion of DR’s main system Mediearkivet was not expected or covered in any of the approved budgets in DR. The cost of running Mediearkivet: updating software and exchanging hardware and the LTO-tapes when they become obsolete is covered in DR’s technical yearly budget.

The cultural heritage content in DR Part of the digitization task is an ongoing examination of the content, in order to ensure that as much of the unique radio, television and film materials are being preserved as possible. The collections is believed to hold about 478,000 hours of radio, 68,000 hours of TV and 17,500 hours of film. Film was used in the early years as the broadcast medium and was used as the primary part of content in the news production up to the mid-eighties. The archive volume is believed to be 563,500 hours in total. It does not hold a complete collection of what DR has broadcasted since its establishment in 1925. The volume is estimated and holds some uncertainty, because metadata or descriptions from DR’s archive do not contain the information about the duration for many of the collections. The volume has been estimated by counting the 35-kilometers of shelves of materials, grouping them into sub-collections and then--based on comprehensive sampling--calculating the expected duration of each group of materials. An error of five minutes per carrier for the television part would change the collection with around 5600 hours, or just over eight percent of its volume.

Another source of error is doubles, where the same content is saved on two or more carriers. Experts have estimated that in the radio archive, there is significant overlap in parts of the radio collection that is both stored on 1/4-inch reel tape from the production archive and on DAT tape from broadcast archive.

The archives Digitalisation and preservation of DR’s archive content have always been with the purpose of enriching the public. Some parts of the content DR’s Cultural Heritage Project aims to digitise have been outside the reach of the public for a long period of time. Content, which has been stored in aged physical formats, is therefore only consumable for a small exclusive group of manufacturers. Today, technology has changed our production capabilities and enabled a previously unthinkable degree of dissemination and usability. Because of the technology, DR is now able to exploit the cultural heritage in a new extensive degree. The importance of making cultural heritage accessible has previously been highlighted. This has since been an essential part of the political argument that the content should be activated. The archive is a series of produced programs and production materials that can be divided into smaller subcollections from various departments and external sources. One of the collections is ‘Politikens Film’-journals; they were showed in the cinemas as a form of news from the world before television became the news media. The most complete collection is the television news, which is more or less complete. It consists of 16mm films with all the content pieces from the mid-fifties to the mid-eighties. DR does not have a copy of the anchorman introducing the news, because the actual broadcast was not recorded, but from 1984 and on the production flow changed and a copy of the aired news broadcast are from this time on stored on U-Matic; a digital videotape.

The news archive was considered to be of great importance because archival footage traditionally was and still is extremely valuable for the news production team.

FOrmats within the DR ARCHIVe U-Matic HB LB SP

1.800 Hours

1.275 Hours

1”C digital beta

1”B

DVC pro

betacam 13.500 Hours

10.880 HOURS

32.639 HOURS

Source: DR’s Culteral Heritage project & the legacy report 17

5.400 Hours

3.319 HOURS

Typical American family gathered around TV, which displays John F. Kennedyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s face, to watch debate between Kennedy & Richard Nixon during presidential election. -Source: Life Magazine September 26, 1960

The Public Service Obligations and Value When analysing the objective of the project, it is important to emphasize the context that DR operates in. The importance of making cultural heritage accessible has previously been highlighted, but currently an essential part of the political argument is that the content should be activated and used by the public. As previously touched upon, the role as a public service broadcaster, as well as a producer of culture have been widely discussed. Nevertheless, use is crucial, as Castell argues: “Moreover, the range of investment of these global multimedia business networks increases with new possibilities of interactive, multi-modal communication, particularly the Internet and wireless communication networks. In this case, the programming of the networks is less about content than about format. The Internet only becomes profitable if people use it, and people would use it less if it lost its fundamental features: interactivity and unfettered communication, regardless of how surveilled it is.” - Castells: 2009: 421 In Denmark the political framework for public service broadcasting is articulated in the law ‘Radio- og Fjernsynsloven’ and Medieforliget, which is negotiated between DR and the politicians every fourth year. Nicholas Garnhams analysis of public service in the article ‘Public Service versus the market’ sets a clear outline of the reality DR manoeuvres in. “For the truth is that while the public regulation of broadcasting has been

legitimised in terms of frequency scarcity, its justification lies in its superiority to the market as a means of providing all citizens, whatever their wealth or geographical location, equal access to a wide range of high quality entertainment, information and education, and as a means of ensuring that the aim of the programme producer is the satisfaction of a range of audience tastes rather than only those tastes that show the largest profit.” - Garnham: 1986:12-13 Hence, in order to be successful as a public service broadcaster, DR has to balance its obligations as a public service institution set by the politicians, with the user demands and market mechanisms. DR Cultural Heritage Project inherits this challenging foundation, and furthermore there are added complexities by its obligation to collaborate with external projects and partners with different sets of objectives. However, the common goal is still to supply society with quality information that increases the knowledge of the population, and this separates public service from commercial approach to the market. As Goodman argues: “This emphasis on quality and excellence connects public service media to the notion of “merit goods.” Often used in connection with the performing and fine arts, merit goods refer to products that the market would not produce but should be made available because they do people good.” - Goodman: 2004: 26 This creates a natural question about the foundation of the Cultural Heritage Project: is cultural heritage merit goods? The answer is in this case, yes. Given that cultural heritage is knowledge about society, it is not a scarcity good, one can share it without having less. The cultural heritage can therefore have value for everyone in the society, what prevents it from being shared will in this case be the availability or accessibility. Cultural heritage is an abstract phenomenon that makes it difficult to grasp, hence, also to commercialise. This creates an interesting issue,

because cultural heritage today has become a general public concern, however, the definition, of what it actually is, are numerous. One way the Danish Government defines its importance is as being essential for the value of giving citizens a cultural foundation and a national identity in a globalised world.

It is only a tool for measuring something abstract, and it will only be approximation in order to explain the reality of cultural heritage that cannot fully be grasped. Historically the definition of value has always been difficult to calculate when the objects analysed did not fit into neoclassical economic way of describing the world.

“Regeringen vil fortsat arbejde for at styrke og udvikle det frie danske kulturliv i de kommende år. Det gælder såvel i forhold til at udvikle kunstens internationalisering og kunstens rolle som formidler af danske demokratiske værdier som i forhold til at sikre kendskabet til kulturarven og den værdi, som ligger i at virke på et stærkt kulturelt fundament. Kulturarven har væsentlig betydning for danskernes identitetsfølelse i en globaliseret verden, og kunst og kultur får i disse år en stigende betydning. Regeringen vil derfor fortsætte arbejdet med formidling af den danske kulturarv nationalt og internationalt.” - Mulighedernes samfund, Regeringsgrundlag 2007

Manuel Castells is trying to defy this traditional thinking about value:

In political terms, this means that identity and culture has value, especially when we are discussing democratic value. Also, this value is considered to be proportionally important with increased globalisation, thus, the need for disseminating cultural heritage should not only be national, but also international.

Max Boisot argues that the notions of “in the beginning was the market” do not convincingly answer many of society’s questions because information and data are not free commodities in society. He argues, the ability in agents to create a codification and abstraction and thereby transform and create knowledge from data and information is at the core of value creation. When this has happened he argues can a diffusion of knowledge happen which would be a market vaporization of a product or a service. A process that’s happening in what he defines as the Information Space. (Boisot et al: 2007)

The goal of DR’s Heritage Project is to create value by distributing the Danish cultural heritage. But, how is the public service value constructed? A good way to observe value is to assume that value is flows of information in society that the public translates into knowledge by consuming it. One cannot measure the value or the consumption, but it can be assumed that the information is accessible and disseminated in order to be used. When digitising the cultural heritage the technology makes us able to measure the use of the available content, thus making us able to determine value by measuring the use. Hence, there is an interesting and close relationship between cultural heritage, value and use.

public cultural institutions operate within. Value is therefore a cornerstone in digitising the cultural heritage, represented by the phrase “Use equals value”. The phrase establishes a strong dedication to ensuring that the users are the ones benefiting from the value. This mindset is key throughout the process, from digitisation to the actual consuming of the cultural heritage.

“The old question of industrial society – indeed, the cornerstone of classical political economy – namely, “what is value?,” has no definite answer in the global network society. Value is what is processed in every predominant network at every time in every space according to the hierarchy programmed in the network by the actors upon the network. Capitalism has not disappeared. Indeed, it is more pervasive than ever. But it is not, against a common ideological perception, the only game in the global town.” - Castells: 2009: 29

This brings us closer to the value of cultural heritage. Larger actors in networks adjacent to DR’s Cultural Heritage project are acknowledging the value of the archives and cultural heritage, making room for definition of value based on other criteria than economics. The abstract value of cultural heritage is the reason that today it is being prioritised in the political budgets and the different framework agreements, which the

2 CHApTER

Scientific Approach and Description of Methods

research & Working questions The objective of this thesis is to give a theoretical understanding of the value created when digitising cultural heritage, but also the more pragmatic aspects such as how one can facilitate innovation and change the conditions of a project by interacting with different adjacent networks. In fact, the final product will be conclusions on the value creation and utilisation and a set of strategic guidelines that is developed for the thesis, but can be used as general guidelines that are for digitising cultural heritage. Furthermore, we present reflections upon how value is created for the Danish Broadcasting Corporation and in society. When discussing digital cultural heritage the key focus will be the digitised audiovisual content from DR’s archives dating 2005 and back to 1896, since this was the physical object that resulted in the grant of DKK 75 mill to DR. The grant was only given because the archive was and still is considered to be highly valuable, not only for DR, but for society.

Project exploit the digitisation of Cultural Heritage so digitisation creates value within the organisation and in society? We have chosen the word ‘how’ in order to create explorative approach, where an explanation of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project could be given with the purpose of connecting previous events to the current phenomenon, and through this examine the case. The approach of asking how is one of the preferred methods for case studies. As Yin explains: “In contrast, “how” and “why” questions are more explanatory and likely to lead to the use of case studies, histories, and experiments as the preferred research methods. This is because such questions deal with operational links needing to be traced over time, rather than mere frequencies and incidence.” -Yin:2009:9 When we observe the operational links in the project, the different players in the research question should be explained. We have chosen to highlight three key players; the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR), DR’s Cultural Heritage Project, and Society. We will not explore the question ‘why’, however, because the Danish Broadcasting Corporation and the Danish government have already defined this, and answer to ‘why’ is already handled in prerequisites that initiated the project.

Focusing on the added value that DR’s Cultural Heritage Project is creating, the processes in the project and the network seems like key elements in the analysis. Also, we try to explain how generated value can and should be distributed in the organisation, the network, and society. In this case the relation between value and knowledge is established, but also a modulation of value; meaning is not only value in the terms of neoclassical economics. The case study is based on the research question:

DR’s Cultural Heritage Project, in this also referred to as ‘the project’, which is a small organisation within DR, responsible for the actual processes and activities. If you compare DRs organisation to the project, DR is the established organisation that sets the framework for digitising cultural heritage by initiating the project. However, the two players are quite different, one being a major media corporation and bureaucracy with many objectives, the other the project itself, a temporary project with concrete goals – to digitise and disseminate the archive content within DR.

How can the Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s Cultural Heritage

Another aspect or type of player is the society. The society will in this case be

defined as different networks around the project, that relates to both local and global actors. Their interactions, fusions and environments create society. The networks and society are able to create and absorb value within a given context, hence always been dynamic entities that change over time. It should be emphasised that there is a relationship between the digital cultural heritage and the society, because they are related and influence each other. This means that society and culture is made of processes, which are constantly changing and affecting each other. An assumption--which is the foundation of the project--given that work within the project has the ability to change society. Additionally, we want to emphasise ‘the value of communication’ as a hypothesis, leaning towards a Castells argument that is: “The common culture of the global network society is a culture of protocols of communication enabling communication between different cultures on the basis not of shared values but of the sharing of the value of communication.” - Castells: 2009: 38

Working questions 1. What is DR’s Cultural Heritage Project? This is a brief description of the case and the foundation for establishing the project in 2007, which have already been presented 2. Which networks is the project involved in, and what are the characteristics of the key players? 3. What activities is the project involved in, and how are they creating value? Through a value chain analysis we will try to describe the different workflows, the production and output of the Cultural Heritage Project 4. How are data, information, and knowledge constructed in the different networks, and how does this effect what Boisot calls the information-space? This is an analysis of the knowledge and value of the project, how is it created and how can we explore the process of sharing and absorbing value. 5. What are the guiding principle for creating and sharing value, when digitising cultural heritage?

The hypothesis puts great importance in the value of being able to communicate by establishing common codes for interacting. However, creating shared value is not a necessary goal. In relation to cultural heritage this is quite important, because it gives an objective to diffuse cultural heritage with an emphasis on communication, and not the establishment of a shared value that could be viewed in this case as nationalism or cultural domination. Instead the digital technology opens towards sharing culture, between the masses but also between the subcultures, thus not making any selection in which content is more important than the other. Based on the research question, the case’s entities should be explored, making room for sub-questions. The function of these is to explore the research question by answering the sub-questions, subsequently the subquestions cover.

Boundaries Additionally, we need delimitations to establish the field in which we are operating, constituting some natural borders. Despite the fact, we are operating with an open system, grasping everything is an impossible task. Since it is a socio-economic field we are operating in, all the knowledge we can obtain is contextual, the goal is then to strive toward ‘justified true belief’, because the absolute truth cannot be reached (Jespersen: 2004: 160). Therefore, we are using the limitation to examine the field and come closer to an understanding of the reality, but the conclusion will be limited by it being based on “all other things being equal”-principle. In fact, this means the thesis will not give a description of all agents related to the case. Neither will we be dealing with the political and legal environment, although areas such as Intellectual Property Rights and political priorities (IPR) are briefly touched upon. In relation to the agents the interactions between them will only be described, if the interaction serves a considerable emphasis for the case study. The interactions between the public, DR and the project will be quite superficial. The public and its demands and ways of influencing the project are only briefly discussed beause it would require large analysis and quantitative research to understand the relation. This is something the department of DR Medieforskning is working with on a regular basis with significant resources and thus covering this sufficiently. Additionally, the project has not explored the user interaction in a substantial way, making it hard for the case to explore the interaction between the project as a public service object and the users being the Danes. Although, the goal of the project is to focus more on the users being the public in the future, it is still quite new in this field. Should an analysis be made, the product Bonanza initiated by DR’s Cultural Heritage Project would probably be more interesting. Bonanza is now part of DR’s online offerings and

no longer a part of the project activities. The project therefore contributes to the concept development and strategy, but other departments are responsible for the actual design and dissemination. However, the project still has a consultant role and feels ownership of the actual products it has participated in developing. Following the discussion of the interaction between the users and DR is the public service definition. The thesis will not analyse the public service term, but it is used as a reference and a framework for the decisions in the project. Lastly, the analysis is focusing on the processes and network, which doesn’t give us the opportunity to describe human resources and lead management in detail even though they are influencing the project on a daily basis. Instead we focus on the team’s results, making their work the key in our analysis.

Critical Realism as a Scientific Approach This thesis is based in critical realism, which is a philosophy of science that prioritizes ontology (i.e. the study of being or existence) over epistemology (i.e. study of the way knowledge is obtained) in the sense that, for critical realists, the way the world is should guide the way knowledge of it can be obtained (Fleetwood: 2007). In this case we are operating with an open system, which is constantly changing. Given this dynamic nature, the ontology will change over time, and therefore the conclusion today will not be the same, if we decided to make a similar

analysis tomorrow (Jespersen: 2004). A condition that will shape our work process, because our thesis is written over time, at some point we have to decide on a reality, which has already changed as soon as we try to describe in on paper. Although, time is changing the reality, the outcome will still have value tomorrow, much will be the same and the results of our analyses and guiding principles should still have guiding value and provide insights. Critical realism describes that reality consists of three domains – the empirical domain, the actual domain, and the real domain (Jespersen: 2004:148-149). On the empirical domain data is experienced, and all the data is accessible for the observer. The two other levels exist independently of the observer, the second being the actual domain containing events and experience, and finally, the third being the real domain where these events and experiences are supplemented by mechanisms. Both the actual and the real domain existst independently of the observer, hence the observer cannot grasp them (Jespersen: 2007: 148). Consequently, we can only aim for grasping how the world is taken to be. The critical realism is useful when we can observe an anomaly or something unexpected: in this case the funding for digitising from the politicians are observable in the empirical domain. However, the mechanism and events on the other domains are far more interesting to observe. It is not the actual funding that is interesting to analyse, it is the relationships being made and the mechanisms that shape the outcome of the political prioritisation. Key is that the perception of reality decides the method that should be used to grasp reality. In this case we are looking at a trans-disciplinary field, which affects the approach to acquiring new knowledge. The approach we are using is quite pragmatic, because we have been working on the project ourselves, the real expert insight will be firsthand experience. Interpreted by us as both informants and researchers. To balance the pragmatic approach more qualitative data is needed from other sources, and in this thesis this will

primarily be research documents from Danish and European institutions, but also more political and legislative texts such as the media agreements. The purpose of using the documents combined with practical work is to try to grasp the causal relationships between the digital cultural heritage, the networks around it and the value that is being created.

Case studies – a reflection upon the method The case study purpose is not to control behavioural, events etc. the objective is to examine contemporary events. This prioritisation of ‘what is’ fit into the philosophy of the critical realism (Yin:2009:8). Still, we want to elaborate why the case study approach has been taken, and the arguments for taken this approach. A definition of the case study is therefore needed, and we have decided to use Schramm definition: “The essence of a case study, the central tendency among all types of case study, is that it tries to illuminate a decision or a set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result.” - Schramm, 1971, quoted by Yin: 2009: 17 So far, many have studied the cultural heritages impact on society, digitisation and value creation, and a study combining the areas have also been explored. On the other hand an analysis of the individual projects handling everything from digitisation to dissemination have rarely been examined in detail. DR Cultural Heritage has within the last couple of years experienced an increasing interest for the project, because it made results that previously haven’t been seen. This made us strive towards a case study that could give insights to other projects, although: “The challenge of a case study is to obtain knowledge that is useful and not merely interesting. Who says information obtained from a few cases has been any bearing on any other

cases? Does it have bearing on any other cases?” - Olivier: 2009: 98 Olivier makes an argument that a case study is in danger of becoming too specified, making it hard to draw conclusions valid in other scenarios. For that reason the thesis is focusing on how a digitisation can create added value, putting an emphasis on the process and not the specific project. Hopefully, the product of the thesis will be knowledge, hence, useful research that can be applied to practical work. In our case study five components in designing the research have, for that reason, been key: Taking an approach inspired by Robert Yin case study design and methods. These components are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

a study’s questions its propositions, if any its unit(s) of analysis the logic linking the data to the propositions 5. the criteria for interpreting the findings (Yin: 2009: 27) The study’s question has already been presented, as well as the propositions described in the introductory chapter. The units we are analysing are primarily a limited part of the network around project, the value chain activities and process and finally the areas where the project can create value. The logic linking the proposition will be to use different models for collecting and explaining the various data, but also to look for patterns, in order to give some guidelines for how an ideal process could be. We are operating in a trans-disciplinary field with financial, sociological and abstract linkages creating difficulties for grasping the actual value of transactions and assets. Finally, we will have some criteria for interpreting the findings. In this case these will be finding and highlighting activities and principles for the project to operate after. Based on the findings these should give reason to assume that they create added value for a given organisation and/or society.

Project Design – Switching Between Empirical Data and Theory In order to obtain valid knowledge different approaches can be made that are either inductive, deductive or as this case study adductive. Induction as a method begins with studying empirical data, whereas the deduction starts with approaching the theory. In this case study the chosen scientific approach is to use adduction, which gives us the flexibility of shifting between empirical data and theory, creating a method where empirical data and theory constantly are weighting each other. This is good tool in examining the case. Because the field we are observing is both complex and dynamic switching between the theory and empirical data helps us obtain new understandings and knowledge. The project will explore the three domains of critical realism in order to understand how one can exploit the Digital Cultural Heritage to create value in society. First, on an empirical domain, we will try and describe the outline of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project. In this case we can define the empirical data as being physical artefacts before they are contextualised or conceptualised. Specific data is, among others, the tapes in the archive from before 2005. No matter how it is articulated, these are a physical phenomenon and possible to observe. The data varies, the dynamic characteristics of the cultural heritage has makes it hard to handle as big data with a lot of common characteristics, and the constant increase of the volume poses new technological challenges for the institutions responsible for the digital preservation. The empirical domain is described by using documents such as the Public Service-contract and first hand knowledge about the project, internal memos as well as some descriptions from other sources. On the actual domain, we will try and cover the basic events and behaviours.

The description of the actual domain will be the relation between the project and the rest of the internal network in DR, but also between the project and external actors. This will be a very basic mapping of the networks adjacent to the project, which serves the purpose of grasping patterns, and increasing focus on digitising cultural heritage or technology changing the groundwork of the media industry and give an idea of the context in which the project operates.

development of guiding principles for creating value, when digitising cultural heritage, will be inspired by David Oliver and Johan Roos’ method of making the former.

Furthermore a Value Chain is being used to map the activities of the project, consequently, this won’t be an in-depth analysis, but more a description of the process from taking the tapes off the shelves to disseminate the content.

FigurE 1 – PROJECT DESIGN Source: Golodnoff & Lerkenfeld

Finally, we are exploring the real domain in our analysis. Boisot’s distinction between; data, information, and knowledge will be used, in order to understand how knowledge is created in the Information-space (I-space). The I-space is the conceptual framework where organisations, institutions, and cultures can be transformed by new information and communication technologies. The centre of this will be the digitisation of the cultural heritage, and the value creation by switching between the different elements; data, information, and knowledge. Looking at Boisot’s theory, one could argue, that it has the same levels as the critical realism. The different levels of experiencing the study subject can be looked upon as what Boisot describes as data, information and knowledge. Through the data we collect, we put together information about the case, and finally we hope to be able to attain new knowledge about the cultural heritage project. Although, Boisot does not examine how personal creativity is related to creating knowledge or the sociological aspects, his theory is still a good way for us to grasp the phenomenon and its value, which is the objective of this case study. Conclusively, we will sum up the most important discoveries in our analysis and use them to create a guiding principle, which can be used when trying to create value in the process of digitising cultural heritage. The

In theory, the process has been more iterative as shown in figure 1, however, the structure of the report needed to create a natural order when presenting

the project, but also when trying to grasp the reality we are analysing. The objective of the design is then to be able to identify patterns, in this case patterns creating value, but also to get a sense of how the value is distributed within the surrounding networks and creates new events and experiences. Hopefully, this will create a single, but significant case study.

”Sometimes a single case study is enough to be significant. A study of a single case of how a criminal broke into a hitherto trusted cipher is enough to impact on future computing practice. A single-case study is also sufficient to prove a theory of the form X sometimes works or X cause Y.” – Olivier: 2009: 103

Descriptive

Network description

Value chain description

EMPIRICAL DOMAIN

CASTELLS, PORTER

ACTUAL DOMAIN

BOISOT, CASTELLS, A.O.

REAL DOMAIN

BOISOT, CASTELLS, A.O.

study & Analysis

conclusions & Guiding principles

Thoughs & Reflections

Theoretical foundation In trying to understand and answering the research question we are using different theories. The value chain analysis made by Michael Porter explores competitive advantages when optimising activities in the value chains. Porter’s theory is used to understand the basics of the most costly part of the project digitisation workflow. We consider Porter to be a part of the neoclassical economical paradigm, a framework that we are trying to argue against in this thesis, that value is not only scarcity and utilisation. However, we will use Porter’s theory, not to analyse competitive advantages, but to get a method for structuring the description of the project activities. Our other theoretical framework, which is the foundation of the analysis, is based in a different paradigm. Our arguments place us in a paradigm with a broader definition of value and value creation; given that we do not classify value as equal to an increase in income, for instance consider knowledge to have value. The theories are however not in our specific research field, but they share the same perspective as us. Value has more numerous forms, and can be measured from other approaches such as social and psychological. We argue that Castell, Boisot, Oliver, and Roos agree that value is not just in a neoclassical sense, it something more abstract than that.

Empirical Data and Role as a Participant Observer The study has used many different sources in order to describe the case. The case being DR’s Cultural Heritage Project and the many projects, collaborators and networks it engages in. The empirical data that are used in the case study include: Media political agreements for 20072011 & 2011-2014. The overall

governing agreement between the government and the public-service institutions within the media sector in Denmark. In the 2007-2011 agreement the funding for the beginning of digitisation of DR’s archives is given. Along with the outline of the political wish that has become part of DR’s Cultural Heritage Projects objectives. In the agreement for 2011-2014 it is stated that the content of the archives should be made available in the widest possible way. DR’s Public service-kontrakt for 20112014. The contract is based upon the Mediepolitisk aftale for 2011-2014 and specifies DR’s public service objectives during this period. In this agreement the accessibility of the archives for the users is stressed and it is stated that DR is to work actively in order to secure this. Internal memos in DR regarding the strategy, the principles, objectives, focus and progress of the project. Classified internal documents, that have been presented to the Financial Board and the Board of Directors in order to discuss project details and get authorisation for dispositions. Official documents from a variety of relevant source as EU, and EU funded project as Presto Space & Presto center, Europeana and EuScreen. And FIAT/IFTA. Lectures and presentations from various national and international conferences. Participant observation. Both analysts are part of the project management team and have, as part of their professional role in DR’s Cultural Heritage Project, engaged in the work within most of the projects in the case study. One of the key sources of information in this case study is the participant observations. As a participatory observer, one participates or engages with the field of study and becomes part of the field. This gives the observer access to otherwise unavailable information and knowledge about the focus of study (Yin: 2009: 112).

However, in this case, the role as an observer is not a complete term for our method. As employees, we have participated in many of the core discussions about the strategies for the project, deliverables or contractual matters. These issues, decisions, and elements have affected the field of study and development within the project, making it hard to argue the case that we have been taking the role of an observer with the purpose of doing research. This challenges the role of the researcher because, some might argue that it is problematic both be part of the field study and maintain ability to perform a good social science practice. Additionally, it can be problematic for us to be critical when examining the field of study, a fact that we are aware of. Trade-offs between opportunities and problems one must consider because in some circumstances this method can be the only way of gaining access to the needed case study material. - Yin: 2009: 113 In short, the danger of being informants ourselves is the risk of being too influenced, and hence not objective enough. Nonetheless, being a participant observer has great advantages. As Olivier explains: “The roles a researcher plays during a case study may range from that of a participant observer to totally unobtrusive observer. The benefit of being a participant observer is that it allows you to gather information that would not otherwise be possible.” - Olivier: 2009: 101 Furthermore, we are using information based on others’ interpretation of data, which could be somewhat problematic. It can be beneficial if the interpreter holds greater knowledge for the interpretation. On the other hand it can be difficult to get the most relevant interpretation of the data, seen in terms of the research, for our particular field of study. For this reason we have chosen sources that are either experts within the field or represent public organisations, institutions, business etc. When selecting the theories, the goal has not been to find the one that suited

the case the best, but the theories that highlighted relevant aspects of the case and forced us to think in different ways than we would do in our daily work. We envision that the conclusions can be used for future work, where new empirical studies can be made for acquiring insights into the aspects found to be crucial.

Definitions VALUE Value is a term used to describe,

understand and access how, when, and why something is contributing positively to a given thing, product, individual, situation, process, society etc. We use the term in an explorative way, analysing both the asset within an object or henomenon which has the potential of creating or utilising elementary conditions, but it can also be value in a neoclassical economic sense, measure in quantitative definitions such as price, ratings, etc.

USE The term is being applied to describe

two kinds of use. One type of use is when DR or its collaborators are using content in order to create new products and services or knowledge that can lead to development of new product or service. Products and service could be objects such as radioand tv-programmes, online services, applications or exhibitions, and other installations displaying content. The other is when DR’s users are using the content. This can be either through the viewing of broadcast offerings, or online. It can be through DR’s productions or in collaboration with other partners. It can be more or less interactive. Through broadcast offerings, in exhibitions on locations, on demand, or in more interactive ways as Bonanza’s voting system or the LARMprojects, tagging and metadata applying features.

Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s users Users are the payers of the media-

license fee. In Denmark, more or less everyone is obliged to pay the fee, because it is mandatory if a citizen has a household with either a television, a radio, a computer, or a device that can access the internet such as a smart phone.

CULTURAL HERITAGE Cultural heritage is the (national)

legacy of physical and digital artefacts and intangible attributes of a group of people or a society, which are inherited through the society constant reproduction. A very concrete definition of cultural heritage has been made by the Ministry of Culture in 2009: “Kulturarv kan være et flygtig begreb, men kulturarven er også helt fysisk og konkret, i form a arkiver, bogsamlinger, pladesamlinger, kunstsamlinger, filmsamlinger, museumssamlinger og meget mere. Kulturarven er således ikke blot fysisk til stede, men har som helt konkret fysisk materialer et overvældende omfang.” - Digitalisering af Kulturarven: 2009: 7 Which translated means: “The cultural heritage can be an elusive concept, but cultural heritage is also very physical and concrete, in form of archives, libraries, record collections, art collections, movie collections, museum collections, and more. Our cultural heritage is not only physically present, it also as a very concrete and physically overwhelming scale” In DR, all materials of the programme archive, which have been broadcasted prior to 2005 and are unique and are considered DR’s part of the Cultural Heritage. After 2005 materials have to be selected by the archive or an editor to be preserved. The selection criteria are cultural value, uniqueness, etc. in relation to DR’s own re-use of the materials on their own platforms. The national obligation for preserving the (new) audio-visual cultural heritage - Statens Mediesamling – has, since 1987, been a part of The State and University Library’s responsibility.

Public service Public services is a term we use when

addressing the service provided to the citizens by the government, either directly through the public sector or by financing private provision of services. We address public services as television, museums, libraries, schools etc. Organisations and services secure a given level of access and availability to a good that the state defines as being necessary for society to give access to. Hence, the reason for making public service is to ensure equality and a broader spectrum of offerings than a commercial market would do, due to lack of financial possibilities in serving the areas.

Media agreements Are the agreement made by the

government and DR, TV2 and other Media enterprises who specifies the deliverables within the sector. It is made every four years . In Danish it referred to as: Mediepolitisk aftale.

DR’s Public service kontrakt DR’s Public service kontrakt The contract that specifies DR’s deliverables in regards to the Media Agreement.

Content

Content is any audio-visual materials; programs, shows, music, raw footage, or sounds. Content is considered either non-digital or digital. The digitised non-digital content is a part of DR’s Cultural Heritage collection, given this is the only content it is responsible for digitising and preserving.

Carrier Is used as a common description of

the videotapes, audiotapes or other physical “containers” for content. Carriers contain content that one can watch, use, or digitise. A carrier could be a: DAT, Betacam and a U-MATIC, in general, it is tapes or cassettes.

Digitisation Division Digitisation is the process of converting Division describes what in DR is known the content from the carriers into a file-based format that can be handled by the digital archives, so that it can be stored on a server. This process, used by DR’s Cultural Heritage Project, is often referred to as retro-digitisation, which means the digitisation of analogue content. DR and the project have, since the beginning, defined digitisation as a synonym for retrodigitisation, and/or digital conversion. Although, some of the content consists of digital files, these will originally have been produced in a format that the current production system cannot recognise or handle technically. DR’s Cultural Heritage Project is therefore obliged to push the retrodigitisation as well as converting digitalised material into usable formats.

Items Primarily used as synonym for the

as a “Direktør område” It is the largest unit type within DR. DR holds seven of these. The Directors of these are all part of the Board of Directors. A Division has typically between 400-450 employees.

Internal Memo

Used as a broad term in this thesis covering internal and classified documents that are presented in this thesis. Primarily from memos presented to the Financial Board on the meetings of Economic Affairs (ØU) or for the Board of Directors (DM). The purpose of the memos is to get authorisation of objectives and or focus areas. The internal documents are only displayed as quotes in this thesis. Should one wish to see the documents, authors can be asked for permission.

DR’s Cultural Project. Can also be an organisational structure related to solving often smaller defined objectives.

Project Primarily used as synonym for the

DR’s Cultural Project. Can also be an organisational structure related to solving often smaller defined objectives.

Department A type of organisational construct in

the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, typically between 6 and 80 people.

Unit An organisational term used to define a team, workgroup or alike.

3 CHApTER

The Networks in relation to DRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cultural Heritage Project

After describing the internal process of the project, the external network is relevant, because not only does it create the framework of the project, it also produces and obtains value in relation to DR’s Cultural Heritage Project. It also serves the purpose to clarify relations between actors, and give an understanding of the project’s large network. It is evident that network influences the project, but the network is also subject to change due to activities initiated by the project. Castells highlights the connection between the different networks as an important aspect in understanding the domain the project operates within. “Global financial networks and global multimedia networks are intimately networked, and this particular network holds extraordinary network power, networking power, and network-making power. Because this meta-network of finance and media is itself dependent on other major networks, such as the political network, the cultural production network (which encompasses all kinds of cultural artifacts, not just communication products), the military network, the global criminal network, and the decisive global network of production and application of science, technology, and knowledge management.” - Castells: 2009: 426 The internal structures of the networks are central; nevertheless, the interaction between the different networks is just as significant. As Castells argues, the domains in which the networks are operating have different power-structures that are constantly changing the conditions under which the project exists. When mapping the most influential actors in the network, three key networks can be identified: • • •

The cultural production, digitization & technology network The political, global network The research-educational network

The first network, cultural production digitisation & technology development, is oriented towards the media and

market, subsequently, the network has a vast impact on local culture. Castell argues; “Although capital and production are globalized, the content of media is customized to local cultures and to the diversity of segmented audiences. So, in ways that are typical of other industries, globalization and diversification work hand in hand. In fact, the two processes are intertwined: only global networks can master the resources of global media production, but their ability to conquer market shares depends on the adaptation of their content to the taste of local audiences. Capital is global; identities are local or national.” - Castells: 2009: 72 Overall, there is some predominant global structure, however, the local and national cultures are shaping the identity of the population and are therefore of great importance for sustaining the cohesiveness in society. One reason for this is that population is responsible for electing governments, and this makes an essential connection between the cultural production institutions and politics. The essential connection is created through continuous events, for instance situations such as elections, where the public chooses their representatives for the society as a whole.

FigurE 2 – the network OF DR’S CULTURAL PROJECT Source: Golodnoff & Lerkenfeld

The political, global network

The researcheducational network The cultural production, digitization & technology network

The research-educational network has the same ability to embrace both the local and global networks, and it also plays a vital role in creating knowledge and creating value for society. Unlike, the cultural production challenges with legal restrictions, the output is knowledge that, per definition is less tangible than, for instance TVprogrammes or digital service, thus more difficult to commercialise. The last network, representing a more political domain, is interesting because it centrally regulates the two other networks. Although, the political network operates with a national economy, they are highly integrated in trans-national institutions such as the European Union.

Television broadcast on election night. New York, NY, US -Source: Life Magazine November 1952. Photo taken by Al Fenn.

Cultural production, digitisation and technical development The cultural production, digitisation and technical development network consists of public cultural institutions, the internal divisions in the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, as well as private companies working with digitisation, media and technology. In general, the nodes in the network are characterized by being in the spectrum between public regulations and the rapid changing markets with commercial actors. Hence, there is a fine balance between servicing user needs and wants, using new technologies and achieving the goals set by the politicians and organization, which means that public broadcasters are challenged continuously in satisfying all. The key-players in this network are some Danish cultural institutions represented by the collaboration Dansk Kulturarv and the digitisation firm Memnon.

The Collaboration Dansk Kulturarv Dansk Kulturarv (DKA) is a national collaboration between the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, The Danish Film Institute, The National Museum, The Royal Library, The Danish State Archives, National Gallery of Denmark, The State and University Library and The Heritage Agency of Denmark. A part of the obligation of DR’s Cultural

Heritage Project has been to support domestic cultural cooperation and ensure that the value of the individual collections is optimised for public use. The collaboration is organised around the network, Danish Cultural Heritage, and also the domain www. danskkulturarv.dk. DR owns the domain and runs the project secretariat for the co-operation.

Memnon Memnon is a Belgian company that digitises physical formats, so content can be preserved and become available on digital platforms. Memnon collaborates with a wide range of archive-owners; among those are cultural institutions, libraries, universities, record companies and private collectors. The company has developed various software tools to support the digitisation and digital processes, and today it is one of the leading digitisation companies in Europe. In 2008 Memnon won the request for proposal (RFP) issued by DR. The company has been responsible for the digitisation of all DAT-tapes in DR’s collection, which is approximately 362,000 hours radiobroadcast from 1989 to 2005. The digitisation started in 2008 and was completed in the summer of 2011.

The ResearchEducational Network The research-educational network is like the other networks regulated by politics and the primary funding for the activities in this network is from the government through different public institutions. In the report ‘Beneficial Commercialisation of the Public Research for Society’ research by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation emphasises that one of the main objectives is that Denmark shall be among the best to translate new research findings and knowledge from research and education to new technologies, processes, products and services (’Bedre kommercialisering af offentlig forskning til gavn for samfundet’: 2006). The research is interesting because it can contribute to the development of the society with a commercial agenda. Thus, it is interesting, but also an obligation for a public service institution such as the Danish Broadcasting Corporation to transfer value to the research and educational field (Medieaftalen 2011-2014). Currently, the key collaboration between DR and the Research-Educational network is driven through one research project called LARM.

The Research Project LARM The Danish Research and Education institutions that are collaborating with DR’s Cultural Heritage project is predominantly represented through the research project LARM. The vision of LARM is to build an infrastructure for research on one million hours of radio. The project is a collaboration between

The University of Copenhagen, Roskilde University, The University of Southern Denmark, Aalborg University, The Royal School of Library and Information Science, The State and University Library, The Danish Research Network, Kolding School of Design, The Museum of Media, and The Danish Broadcasting Corporation. In the beginning of 2010 the consortium received a grant of DKK 25 mill from the national fund of research infrastructures. Within three years LARM will build a new technical infrastructure for research, which will give researchers access to more than one million hours of radio from the archives of the State Library – a significant portion of these will be radioprogram, aired by DR, saved on the DAT carriers which just recently were digitalised through the special funds in DR’s Cultural Heritage Project.Through LARM, DR will get access to additional metadata from the scientists, develop the technical platform together with the State and University Library further and understand the needs of research environment better. The unifications of the collections from DR and the State Library have created a unique online research archive, which is the only one of its kind. The project creates value for DR by giving scientists access to DRcontent; the organization is stimulating the development of a new field of research and has its archive enriched by the content getting new metadata. Furthermore, DR obtains value in terms of newly developed interaction techniques and funding for a technical system to handle the digital archive content. This is why Porter emphasises shared value as a way to increase the value of all involved partners, as he argues: “If all companies individually pursued shared value connected to their particular business, society’s overall interest would be served. And companies would acquire legitimacy in the eyes of the communities in which they operated, which would allow democracy to work as a governments set policies that fostered and supported business.” - Porter & Kramer: 2011: 17

The Political Global Network The political network is interesting because it enforces regulations and sets goals for the project, but also funds different activities. The political network consists of both national and international actors. The national actors are represented by the Danish Government, but the Danish Ministry of Culture and the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation are also connected to the project. On an international scale three collaborations are key; two in relation to the European Union – EUscreen and Europeana – but, also the cooperation between international broadcasters called FIAT/IFTA.

The Danish Government & the Danish Ministry of Culture The foundation of the project is, as previously mentioned, the allocation of DKK 75 mill to DR from the Danish Minstry of Culture. Therefore the project has been placed under the Ministry of Culture’s leadership and this is legislatively established in the MediaAgreement 2007-2010 (Medieforlig 2007-2010). The project management refers to DR on a daily basis but the outline and goals of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project are given by the ministry. The Danish Ministry of Culture is responsible for a number of policy areas: creative arts, music, theatre, film, libraries, archives, museums, protection and preservation of buildings and monuments, archaeology and higher

education, and training in the areas of art and culture. Furthermore, its responsibilities include popular culture, intellectual property rights, radio and TV, sport and international cultural cooperation, which include the EU and the Nordic Council of Ministers (kum. dk). The ministry operates in the same areas as the project, and this makes it a natural actor in changing some factors that are influencing the project.

institutions like BBC, The Swedish Royal Library and Utrecht University (euscreen.eu).

FIAT/IFTA

The purpose is to exchange experiences and jointly develop a platform by bringing together up to 30,000 materials by those involved in archives. The materials are partly exposed on a freely accessible portal on the domain www.euscreen.eu.

Besides the Danish Ministry of Culture, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation also operates in the domain, because of the ministry’s responsibility for research, information technology (IT), innovation, telecommunications, university educations and internationalisation of education and training in Denmark (vtu.dk). Funding from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has been allocated to the project; however, the main source of income is from the Ministry of Culture.

DR is involved in the project as a content partner, and the reasoning behind entering an international project was to obtain insight and to create actual added value in the following areas:

Fédération Internationale des Archives de Télévision / The International Federation of Television Archives (FIAT/IFTA) represents more than 250 members. Among its members are television archives, multimedia and audiovisual archives and libraries, and all those engaged in the preservation and exploitation of moving image and recorded-sound materials and associated documentation (fiatifta.org).

The European Union The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states, which are located primarily in Europe. The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws, which apply in all member states. The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmentally made decisions negotiated by the member states (wikipedia.org). Important institutions of the EU include the European Commission, but the key actors for the project are currently the collaboration-projects EUscreen and Europeana.

EUscreen DR’s Heritage Project is currently involved in a European project called EUscreen, an international ‘best practice’ project with 26 partners from Europe. The project is funded within the eContentplus-program of the European Commission and runs as a three-year project, which began in October 2009. The network consists of archives, broadcasters, and educational

• • • • • •

Technical enabling of dissemination of cultural heritage Re-usable technical infrastructures Re-usable digital content creation of English metadata Experience with the standard Open Archive Initiative (OAI) Insights into user interaction with cultural heritage Collaboration to participate in a European best-practice network

Europeana Through Euscreen, the cultural heritage project is involved in a high level EUproject called Europeana, which was funded by European Commission in 2008. The goal of the project is to make Europe’s cultural and scientific heritage accessible to the public (europeana.eu). Europeana is considered to be a European cultural heritage prestige project that EU has invested threedigit million Euros in; resulting in the establishment of different projects aggregating cultural content, among these is the project EUscreen. The mission is to make www.europeana.eu a platform for cultural heritage content, where it will become possible to search more than ten million materials from 1500 cultural institutions throughout Europe (The New Renaissance: 2011).

Some of FIAT/IFTA’ s main objectives is to provide a forum for exchange of knowledge and experience between its members, to promote the study of any topic relevant to the development and use of audiovisual archives and to establish international standards on key issues regarding all aspects of audiovisual media archive management (fiatifta.org). In 2011 FIAT/IFTA, DR among others launched a pilot project that should investigate the feasibility of using technology to give the broadcasters access to each other’s content. The pilot is using DR’s system CHAOS for the project, and the collaboration enriches the project by giving the knowledge about how the system can be improved when collaborating. Besides DR, Belgian VRT and RTBF, Austrian ORF, Dutch B & G and Arab MBC (Al Arabiya) are a part of the pilot that will run until September 2011. In September it will be decided if FIAT/ IFTA should push trans-national archive sharing even further.

Alberto Manzi, TV Instructor on Educational program for illiterates, in studio of Italian network. Rome, Italy. February 1961 Photographer: David Lees. -Source: Life Magazine

From the studio intercom. From TrĂ¸ndelagsutstillingen 1930. Photo credit: Municipal Archives of Trondheim

Changing the Conditions of the Project via the Network – A short study of Copy-Dan and IPR Copy-Dan is an association, which manages copyrights for a number of rights holders. Rights management is to collect and distribute fees for use of intellectual property rights under the licenses (wikipedia.org).In the period up to 2008, the Ministry of Culture paid great attention to the talks between the DR and Copy-Dan to ensure that the digitised materials in DR’s archives could be used in the future. In late 2007 DR and Copy-Dan reached an agreement on an expanded license, so that DR could include content streaming, which it was previously prohibited from doing (Copy-Dan Årsrapport: 2009). Concretely, DR pays Copy-Dan an annual sum for streaming the content, and in return DR is obliged to report data back to Copy-Dan. Copy-Dan then distributes the money between the rights holders. The solution is quite unique, because it turns the established process of rights clearing upside down. The solution is known as ‘The Extended Licensing Model’.Earlier DR used a lot of resources on finding the individual rights-holders in order to pay them. The previous process had a negative impact on the use of archival content, because it became costly to clear the rights compared to the actual use of the content. The new model consists of two parts - a financial element and reporting aspect. Now, DR pays a yearly a nondisclosed lump sum. The lump sum makes it possible to use most parts of the archive, if DR reports back the metadata related to the content along with the statistics of the actual usage. Copy-Dan then has the responsibility of distributing the funds, and of keeping and updated register of rights-holders. This model generates, an earlier not possible, income to the right-holders by lowering of the broadcasters transaction costs.

Although the agreement only covers streaming content on the domains www.dr.dk and www.danskkulturarv.dk, and the materials have to be subject to DR’s editorial control and responsibility, it has still has given DR the possibility to publish materials that previously was considered almost impossible to use due to lack of rights or missing information about the right-holders. The extended license model is a Nordic invention, which is furthest developed in Denmark. It has increased the value of public service organizations’ archives and works as an inspiration for other countries. This means what other broadcasters are trying to get it implemented in their local legislation. European Broadcast Union (EBU) is currently cooperating with DR and other Nordic broadcasters to inspire the European Commission and its member states to implement this model in the rest of the European Union. It is assessed that the Nordic model can simplified the complex IPR-legislation and create a unified solution across Europe with the goal of enhancing the opportunities for European cultural heritage and increase transnational collaborations. As Castells explains: “Other institutional and cultural contexts appear more prone to direct government control of the media. Indeed, this is the case for most countries in the world. Governments tend to combine various strategies: political control over public media (often the most influential); government pressure on media owners; legislation empowering government control over all forms of communication; (…) This is critical in the attempts to control Internet-based communication in countries in which the state is the dominant instance of society.” - Castells: 2009: 267 Consequently, the network of public broadcasters has to focus on getting the government to change the restraints for making the digitised content accessible for the user, because they are setting the framework by controlling in terms of legislation and specified prioritisation when giving funding to the public service broadcasters.

The Interaction Between the Networks Since, the project is a part of a media corporation and a public service institution, it has multiple networks affecting it. These different networks have different goals and are rooted in larger more international agendas that are affecting the project indirectly. As Castells argues, these networks are closely linked, and posses great power. To sum up the importance of the network for the project, the flexible structure is essential. The reason for this is that because a large bureaucratic organisation’s ability to handle constantly changing interest and values is impracticable, making a more autonomic project structure more beneficial. Since the project is between different networks it becomes a switch that connects different networks. By nature the project is created as a mutual project between a political network and a cultural production network, and later this has expanded into other networks. This fusion between the political domain and the media is also a theme Castells discusses. “Thus, media politics is not just politics in general, and it is not the politics of the media: it is the dynamic interface between political networks and media networks. I call the management of this interface between two or more networks, network switching. The control of this switching capacity defines a fundamental form of power in the network society: switching power. I call the holders of switching power, switchers.” - Castells: 2009: 423 One might argue that the project becomes a switch because it exists on the border of different networks. This gives the project power to change the terms that the national public service institutions operate under by cooperating with international partners and through this it becomes easier to change national legislation. It will

be elaborated underneath when we discuss some of the keynotes in the political-global network. This also explains the paradox in the project: on one hand, it is shaped and established by a political network in cooperation with a cultural productive network that operates on a national scale; on the other hand, the project is part of an international network, where it is constantly expanding by entering different collaborations with global actors that operate under different legislations and rule-sets. In order to maximize the use of its networks, the value must be documented to a national network, althought its actual value has the greatest potential when you can collaborate on a larger scale. As relations are another way of understanding power, meaning it is not only the government that changes the legislation and terms of the project. Instead it is the relations between different actors in a network that give the actual power to change the framework. Examining the project with Castells network-mindset, some characteristics should be emphasized. First of all, the project: • • •

Has a natural ability to cooperate Works with public and private organizations Is a switch

Basically, increasing globalisation is altering the premises of the project, that being either political change of the conditions for cultural production being public service. But, also the more market related conditions are changing areas such as digitisation, media, and technical development, and thus constantly changing the project’s conditions for value creation. A natural step forward is then to examine the activities that are creating value.

4 CHApTER

The processes of the project

The digitization workflow in DR’s Cultural Heritage Project The value creating activities, hence, a model for describing these is needed. Michael Porter’s model Value Chain Analysis can enable an understanding of the value creating processes in DR’s Cultural Heritage Project. The overall objective of a value chain description is to understand the production process and products that create sustainable competitive advantages and have as high a profit margin as possible. However, Porter’s

traditional way of using the value chain seems to be a bit out of date and commercial when applying it directly to this case study. Instead this description takes the value chain activities and translates them into new categories that are applicable to DR’s Cultural Heritage Project. However, the purpose is still to describe how the project creates value through a process involving different actors.

Dissemination & Collaboration – getting the digital content to users via different media channels such as TV and the internet or collaborations with other players

The processes are not an isolated value creation within DR, it is an open system where different actors from the networks can add external value or obtain it. A visualisation of this particular process is illustrated in figure 3. Because we have simplified the process it is relevant to desribe the different parts in the detail required to understand the value in each step of the process.

The Overall Process of Digitising, Preserving, Disseminating, and Collaborating In order to understand and ensure cost-reductions and efficient workflow the Cultural Heritage Project spends a great deal of resources in understanding various aspects of the production and workflow process. The value chain can be divided into two processes that correspond to the original outline of the project namely: •

•

The supporting activities should be mentioned briefly. These, in particular, are a part of the general operations in the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, and not a part of this study’s ontology. Although, they still play an interlinked role and support the primary activities, they are quite similar to other large organisations, and not so relevant at this time in value creation within the project. Instead the focus is put on preparation, digitisation, preservation, collaboration, and dissemination.

Digitisation & Preservation – dealing with the process of taking analogue tapes and creating digital content

ACTIVITIES DIGITISATION

PRESERVATION

According to Michael E. Porter, the value chain can be regarded as the framework in which a company can analyse and understand its value propositions. The value chain holds insights that can secure a company’s financial value and profitability in the marketplace. “The value a company creates is measured by the amount that buyers are willing to pay for a product or service. A business is profitable if the value of it creates exceeds the cost of performing the value activities.” - Porter & Miller: 1985: 150 The value chain defines and categorizes the organizations generic work. The primary activities are the value adding activities, where the product or service during the practical and, or, physical work are enriched the by new and added value in the creation process. The supporting activities are other company inputs and infrastructure that allows the value adding events in the primary activities to take place (Porter & Miller: 1985).

Figure 3 – VALUE CHAIN OF DR’S CULTURAL PROJECT Source: INSPIRED BY PORTER GOLODNOFF & LERKENFELD

PREPARATION

Value Chain Analysis by Michael Porter

COLLABORATION

DISSEMINATION

Linkages management is often a powerful source of competitive advantages, which is a way of enhancing and controlling added value. Analysing the interdependent activities, which are connected by linkages, can help enhance and control the value. Linkage is when the performances or design of one activity affects the efficiency of other activities. Thereby, linkage creates a trade-off, which should be optimised accordingly to the decided strategy (Porter & Miller: 1985).

Preparation, Inbound logistics The process begins with the lending of the actual archival content from DR. There are some logistics related to the preparation of the digitisation process. It is the physical tasks of: • • •

•

Organising the archive collections for digitisation Registering the tapes within the different formats Applying barcodes, if this is needed. The barcodes are used to keep track of content and carriers, and support an efficient digitisation and quality control of the procedures A tendering process, if external help is needed, e.g., system development, hardware or external digitisation of an specific collection of a given format Packaging tapes and handling the shipping process, if carriers are to be digitalised at external facilities by other vendors. Also, picked up carriers at external locations for internal digitisation

A good example of a digitisation procedure is the preparation of DATtapes, where every tape is manually registered and a barcode is applied, before the tapes are packed in boxes and shipped to an external vendor.

No selection in the preparation process From the beginning, the strategy has been to digitise all the unique content in the program archive, thus, DR does not support any selection within the different parts or format groups of the archive. Since all of the content in DR’s collection is valued, the sequence in which the digitisation is conducted is by selecting the most endangered formats and organising them into easy and workable collections. Programs or materials that are archived twice on

different carriers are only digitalized once and from the best source format possible. The budget also covers some technical development, because there has been a need for expanding the storage in order for DR to handle the new tasks related to preserving the archive material digitally.

Digitisation of the content The tasks related to the actual digitisation are considered the “operations” of the value chain if you use Porter’s definitions. Normally, a company would produce the products in this stage, but the products here, are actual digital files. These are considered to be product or the files can also be a part of future products and services. These future products and services are developed when the files are combined with other content, editorial work and/or technological services. Depending on the actual format, many different tasks are part of the operations in the value chain. In order to maximise the output the, project focuses on developing and supporting an industrialised digitisation processes.

was chosen to perform the actual digitisation, focus is always on DR’s demands and needs, when it comes to quality of the output and the process of delivering and receiving the carriers and content files. The department Bånd & Film solely handles the internal digitisation process, that use the digitisation of the television content. The department has, in collaboration with DR’s Cultural Heritage project, developed a new workflow process that has changed best practice and is price competitive in the market plance. A digitisation schedule rotates a number of internal knowledge workers in a production plan that ensures maximum efficiency and a high output.

Securing, Outbound logistics The securing phase includes all tasks regarding the handling of the digital content once the files have been produced. In Porters value chain, the tasks are considered as the outbound logistics. This task covers: •

The actual digitisation process covers the following tasks: •

•

The digitisation of the content on the carriers. Two formats are transcoded from the archive content - one for preservation and a lowresolution copy for dissemination and collaboration Quality and content control, examining if the content has usable quality, and actually contains the content that the attached metadata describes, data collection during the process, if possible. For instance enriching the content during the digitisation process without additional or excessive costs; a good examples is screen dumps for thumbnails.

With regard to the DAT-digitisation project where an external vendor

•

Ingesting files to the DR’s production archive (Mediearkivet) and the Cultural Heritage Media Assets Management system (i.e., hard drives from the external vendor or internally from DR’s own servers and systems), Quality control of files and assigned metadata, when the files are stored in there respective systems

Depending upon the chosen digitisation process the handling of the ingest process varies, currently this function has been undertaken by both Memnon and DR Bånd & Film. The external digitised content can be ingested from either hard drives or data tapes. The internally digitalised content is transferred through the internal network. Basically, the overall process is the same, however, different departments carry out each of the processes.

Two copies of the digitised content The digitisation includes the production of two digital copies for each item: one for preservation and future broadcast production, and one for collaborating with external partners.

Mediearkivet The digital copy for preservation and broadcast production is stored in DR digital production archive, The Media Archive; television items are stored in DVCPRO 50, whereas radio-items are stored in Broadcasts 16-bit PCM Audio.

CHAOS The external collaboration requires another format; because of this, it is stored in the format H264 5MB for television and MP3 for radio.

Collaboration, Marketing & Sales In Innovation Economist Michael Porters terminology, marketing and sales normally focus on developed product, but this being cultural heritage, focus is on creating the prerequisites for future use. The use and dissemination of DR’s cultural heritage content is driven through a series of collaborations, both internally and externally, nationally and internationally. The collaborations are, for a large part organised in a network of cultural institutions, called Dansk Kulturarv, which all are subsidised by the Danish Ministry of Culture. The work is based on institution’s separate editorial focus, strategy and contract with the Danish Ministry of Culture. The institutions and Ministry of Culture but also the Agency of Cultural Heritage have agreed on some deliverables requiring both editorial and technical development, these are:

• • •

An editorial network for sharing ideas and inspiration Work groups for new collaborations and projects Knowledge sharing

Activities related to DKA are performed in the collaboration phase, and these always support the individual institution’s needs, and in this case, the Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s.

orientated optimisation perspective. Secondly, it is engaged in the value creation in the broader national sense. To exemplify some of the activities that have created value for society or DR, the following three activities can be used: •

Dissemination, Services

•

In order to activate the value of embedded information and knowledge in the project as well as in DR, pilot projects are initiated: in short these are products and services for targeted endusers, and these are developed with internal and external partners.

•

The strategically objective is to use DR’s Cultural Heritage Projects position to develop and test new engaging services, where the user interactions and participation creates new insight. This has the potential to become new added value in the different collections. Experience, which can create a foundation of knowledge and secure better services and products in the future.

Reflection upon the process The activities within the framework of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project have been described by using Michael E. Porter’s value chain model. The value chain can be viewed as supporting two objectives in the project. First it deals with the objective of maximising the activities in the beginning of the project from a market-

Product and/or service development in the collaborative network Dansk Kulturarv for the domain www. danskkulturarv.dk creating value for the user New programs and or metadata in DR’s collection through strategic co-productions as the Bjørn Nørgaard project creating value for the cultural production in DR New users as the collaboration with the LARM consortium where DR’s digitalized collection of radio since 1989 has been made available for the entire research environment in Denmark creating value through increasing knowledge about and in society

However, DR’s Cultural Heritage Project does not have the ability to create financial value in the traditional market sense, but it can optimise and create financial room, or profit margins for more digitisation and/or better processes in digitisation and project portfolio, which is considered as value in the project and by DR’s overall management in accordance with the original mandate of digitalising as much as possible for the given financial framework. Yet, the value chain management, and the fine-tuning of the underlining processes, are regarded as part of the core task in the project. The work has proven not only to enhance productivity due to shared and understood agreements and transparency in both tasks and financial structure, but also to generate unforeseen innovation. Both also play a vital part in realising the potential and value of the project, because the development of a strong and clear transaction-process between the phases - preparation, digitisation, and securing – creates a more industrialised process, where less resources are spent.

T.V. Quiz Show, Roundup. 1957 Photographer: James Burke -Source: Life Magazine

5 CHApTER

An Analysis of DRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cultural Heritage Project

Max Boisot – Data, Information and Knowledge in the Informationspace To give a brief introduction to Boisot, one of his basic assumptions is that in order to understand the world, a given agent must filter incoming stimuli that are external data. He argues for a conversion of data to information and then to knowledge, through what he defines as perceptual and conceptual filters. In sum, the information occurs when an agent tries to identify and categorise data based on its previous knowledge, is it in a good condition, is it large, and what is the content? Questions in which the observer is dependent on prior knowledge of the reality, meaning that: “(…) information is an extraction from data that, by modifying the relevant probability distributions, has a capacity to perform useful work on an agent’s knowledge base.” - Boisot: 2007: 20 Data is converted to information by passing the agent’s present perceptual filter based on the agent’s previous

experiences that primarily are very local and full of details. The outcome is also filtered through a conceptual filter making the recorded data into more general information based on beliefs, the agent’s environment and experiences. This process is the core of the knowledge creating process within the agent as illustrated in figure 4. (Boisot: 2007: 20). The filters transform knowledge that is either tacit or abstract-symbolic to something that is articulated and therefore can be shared between individuals. As Boisot states: “The first type of knowledge is embodied and hard to articulate and the second type is abstract-symbolic. In human evolution, the first type of knowledge preceded the second type, and, on any pragmatic definition of knowledge, it still incorporates most of what we mean by the term. We take codification and abstraction as the two data-processing activities that facilitate the articulation of embodied knowledge first in a narrative form and then later in an abstract-symbolic form. We then develop the I-Space as a conceptual framework that relates the articulation of knowledge—its codification and abstraction—to the sharing of

knowledge—its diffusion in a population of agents.” - Boisot: 2007: 11 Consequently, Boisot defines three overall categories of knowledge that is embodied knowledge, abstract symbolic knowledge, or narrative knowledge •

• •

Embodied knowledge is often referred to as tacit knowledge and is very difficult to articulate. It is concrete, experimental, and tangible expressed in situated physical behaviour. Narrative knowledge mediates between the fully embodied and fully abstract symbolic knowledge. Abstract symbolic knowledge is primary representational, mental, non-situational and disconnected from behaviour. (Boisot: 2007: 115)

Since all agents have cognitive limitations the process of acquiring knowledge is created by extracting information from data through codification and abstraction. •

Codification is a process where

•

categories are created in order to describe the information in clear and relevant distinctions of states that can be acted upon. Codification and classification are made to reduce the cost of processing the data of experience. Abstraction allows one to focus on what is relevant and reduces the number of categories that needs to be analysed when classifying a phenomena. This allows for a reduction in data processing cost. (Boisot: 2007: 118)

distributing the knowledge to other agents (Boisot: 2007: 123).

The knowledge types can be defined by the cost of extracting information from data and converting it into knowledge. The process where the resource cost is measured in time, space, and energy. Transferring knowledge from the different types of knowledge has different costs allocated to it. The embodied knowledge can in some cases, or to some extent be so hard to articulate that the possibility of codifying and abstraction becomes impossible or the cost becomes too high in regards to the value of

Figure 4 – THE AGENT-IN-THE-WORLD Source: boisot

AGENT

EXPECTATIONS STIMULI

DATA

INFORMATION

WORLD

AGENT KNOWLEDGE STORED MENTAL MODELS

ACTIONS

PERCEPTUAL FILTERS

CONCEPTUAL FILTERS

VALUES

This requires an introduction to Boisot’s use of data, information and knowledge in relation to changing and agent knowledge base and behaviour. In short: • • • •

Data characterised by being perceptible by the senses and are describable in space, time, and energy. Information is the meaning agents can try to extract from the significant regularities who resides in data. Knowledge is an agent expectations who are modified by the arrival of new information. Data will be observable in the empirical domain, being the case studies represented in the I-space, and information will be seen as a part of the actual domain representing insight to how the different examples are interrelated and are a part of a value creating process.

In this analysis, knowledge will be a part of the real domain, being

The objective is to facilitate an improvement of search tools in DR and in the external collaborations and enhance the usability of the archive by making it possible to research across numerous databases of different formats and with various metadata. It requires a critical mass of digitised content, so the users actually perceive it as they can move freely between the different collections (Digitalisering af Kulturarven: 2009).

Data, Information & Knowledge in the Case Study

Knowledge can, in this case, be linked to the different departments in DR – and because of that the aggregation of knowledge and the sharing hereof becomes essential for the organisation.

Initially, the government has seen the digitisation of data in a broader perspective, being analogue produced materials predominantly from the national cultural institutions. The data in a broad perspective is therefore cultural artefacts in different categories, i.e., moving pictures, text (books, newspapers, journals), archive, sound, etc., but also catalogues, directories and museum artefacts were considered to be cultural heritage (Danish Ministry of Culture: 2009: 4). Unfortunately, a large part of the cultural heritage is unique and fragile, and until now it has been difficult to provide general public access to the materials (Fælles Arv til Fælles Brug: 2009).

To understand the new task and acquire the needed knowledge regarding the process and workflows within the objective of industrialised digitisation, DR needed to collect, organise, and develop a lot of different new knowledge. Knowledge that was in different places - physical, geographical, and cognitive- and both internal and external. The overall objective was to create a plan for the digitisation of the most endangered formats, which DR could act upon in order to have the top management authorise the digitisation start.

The information in DR can be defined as the process of making the data available for use by adding new systems and categories to the content, so that digital content not only becomes accessible, but also identifiable and searchable. This process is a part the objective of the metadata-project Theoretically, the content would be converted into usable information instead of being a huge collection of unknown analogue data. But, even though the exact sum and the content of the data was unknown, it has, since the beginning of the project, always been considered to be a collection of high value, and thus a great asset for DR. Nevertheless, the task of standardising and creating sufficient metadata was, and still is, quite demanding for the Danish Broadcasting Corporation.

Figure 5 – THE INFORMATION SPACE Source: Boisot

CODIFIED

4 3

CODIFIED

As Critical Realism operates in three domains, Boisot’s distinction between the three terms--data, information, and knowledge--are used as a method to describe different domains in which the project operates. This gives a framework for developing a method of understanding the domains interdependent relations, but it also provides the context for a discussion of the various forms of value within the project as they appear in the different phases.

impossible for an agent to grasp in its real form. However, it is a way to approach the underlying structures, mechanisms, relations, events, behaviour, and experiences existing in the actual domain. In concrete, the outcome of the interpretation of reality will be the development of a set of principal guidelines as a solution to how to exploit the value when digitising cultural heritage.

6 Abstract

UNCODIFIED

In this analysis, the project is examined using Boisot’s theoretical framework. First Boisot is presented in brief, followed by a discussion of data, information, and knowledge in relation to the project. Then a couple of examples of how knowledge is created in an information-space is presented with examples that illustrate Boisot’s different phases when knowledge is developed. This is a part of the description of a value-creating and -utilising process that happens via a Social Learning Cycle-curve (SLC) within a conceptual framework known as the Information-space.

Concrete UNDIFFUSED

DIFFUSED

The Social Learning Curve in Information Space In order to understand the process of knowledge created from data and information Boisot has developed the Social Learning Curve in Information Space. A conceptual framework where the evolution of new knowledge is described. In the Information Space the data is represented in a three dimensional space. The dimension data is organised/categorized under is: • • •

Concrete or Abstract Uncodified or Codified Undiffused or Diffused

In this space the development of new knowledge would ideally follow the depicted Social Learning Curve. The evolution of new knowledge would happen trough a data transformation in six phases: 1. Scanning: A process where opportunities and threats are identified with data patterns which provides insight. A process, which can provide codification and abstraction for which tempo is dependent on the fields complexity; also known as the codification and abstraction of the objectified field. 2. Problem-solving: A process where the uncertainty is lowered through the structuring of the codification and

5. 6.

abstraction from the scanning process, but it is also a process of conflict because earlier codification can be challenged by new insights. Abstraction: A process where the new codification and abstraction are generalized in order to focus in the essential parts of the problem. Are often done in conjunction with the Problem-solving process. Diffusion: A process where the new knowledge is shared with the target group who can understand it due to the codification of the knowledge. Target groups with the same contextual knowledge as the agents do not need codification as others do. Absorption: A process where new knowledge is absorbed by practical application and learning-by-doing. Impacting: A process where abstract knowledge is embedded in concrete praxis in products, the organization, behaviour, etc.; is often done in conjunction with Absorption. (Boisot: 1998: 60)

A given project does not need to follow the ideal SLC-curve, but it would follow a curve, where the process to some extent is present. Ideally however, a project would follow the ideal curve in order to maximize the production and impact of new knowledge and value. To understand the conceptual framework 6 projects are presented, which have been or are part of the DR’s Cultural Heritage project. These cases will help us understand the important phases in the SLC-curve and illustrate how different tasks need different approaches. The cases then serve as empirical data that helps to describe the empirical domain.

Scanning - The metadata project An example of a project, where scanning played a key role in creating knowledge, in this case in the work

process, was DR’s Metadata Project. The focus of the project was to reconstruct and homogenise DR’s metadata based on earlier descriptions of the productions in the archive. Before 2007, the metadata was organized in a number of different tools. The principal one was an online search-tool, which combined more than thirty different databases with archivist produced descriptions of the content. Additional search-tools were a number of paper-based archives with puns-cards, programme guides from newspapers and original contracts. The search-tools were mainly used by the archivists when they did research and guided people from production divisions, so the content in the archive could be utilised. Consequently, datasets had to be merged in order to correspond with the forthcoming digitisation project, and make secure the needed knowledge within the area of content, carriers and metadata was available when the project was moving to the next phase. The main objective was then to create a dataset, which had the needed codification and abstraction level so it could be more widely diffused and also get the ability to serve multiple purposes for different parts of the organisation. Because of this, the datasets from earlier databases had to be combined and serve new needs: •

•

Easier for the production people to search DR’s archive, and in time also to use it once it had been digitised in one and the same system as Mediearkivet. Secure digitised content could be stored in Mediearkivet. As a production archive ingestion of digital files could not happen before certified metadata in relation to a given item was present. Create a tool to control and guide the digitisation of the cultural heritage for the project managers and archivists.

In relation to the last need it should be mentioned that the outcome was the creation of a “digitisation list” that now is used to find unique content in the

archive and choose the right carrier to digitise from. This was necessary because some of the content could be stored on more than one type of carrier, and DR wanted to avoid digitising items twice, since it would be a waste of money, furthermore two copies of the same item would be considered a deterioration of the data quality in Mediearkivet.

which only the personnel in Arkiv and Research was trained for.

In order to gather the needed knowledge, a group of specialists from DR was gathered, and the group had to combine, share and organise their individual knowledge, data and information to create new knowledge and then articulate it. Creating a crossorganisational work group was crucial, since a lot of the knowledge was disbursed in different departments, but also embodied and tacit.

One could argue that unless all workers can search the content without intensive training, the objective of creating a functioning archive with userfriendly interface and the possibility of self-service is not fulfilled.

The working group consisted of members from the following departments: Arkiv & Research, Bånd & Film, TU Innovation, TU production systems and DR’s Cultural Heritage project. All the participants in the working group had a different but complex knowledge of the archive and the problem at hand, which made for a workgroup of highly skilled people. People whose common interest in the field but with different knowledge helped solve the task. But in order to solve the task it was crucial that they understood each other and each of the others individual concerns, hence striving towards an abstraction and codification all of them could make use of. In DR, many departments had different interpretations of, how the content should be organised and utilised. For instance the archivists had historically been responsible for the categorisation of DR’s archive content, and consequently, they held great control of the information, but also possessed high knowledge about the archive.

Also, editorial insights in the prior productions and content of the archive require some embedded knowledge in the organisation. And the ability to create new and attractive content and services based on the archive material such as was crucial.

It took more than twelve months to secure the objectives. In this period the most important work of the group was to research the complex field and the development of a needed codification and abstraction to use a foundation for DR’s Cultural Heritage Project. The most debated and analysed single question was how to organise the earlier and different datasets to match the newer metadata format that had very strict rules embedded in the software and thesaurus in Mediearkivet. Hence, this particular question required a intensive scanning-phase before it could go into the problem-solving. This question also made the project a costly affair, but the new knowledge created gave DR the ability to continue the process and in many ways it became a cornerstone in the development. Additionally, the resources invested in the scanning process was profitable in a long perspective, and the future success was an optimised use of the archive materials both in terms of the digitisation, but also in general for DR.

The abstraction and codification of the archive had as a thumb rule primarily been codified by Arkiv & Research. It should be emphasised that the archivists also possessed great knowledge of how to use the system. A reason for this was that it required prerequisites for searching the archive,

BASF Beta Video Cassettes Photographer: Grant Hutchinson -Source: Flickr, Open source license

Problem-solving - The Film Pilot The pilot project was initiated in 2010 with the purpose to digitise and secure DR’s large collection of 16 mm film. The collection was estimated to have a volume of 28,000 hours equal to a digitisation cost of approximately DKK 100 mill. The actual work of digitisation encompasses many different processes, and the film pilot is an interesting example of the process of problem solving. DR’s Cultural Heritage project needed to examine the process of digitising 16mm film, so that it could challenge the existing prices in the commercial market. In general the technologies often depend on the carrier format, the age of the carrier or content and the machinery and process for converting the content to the needed production format. Because of this the objectives in the film pilot was twofold: • •

First a thorough analysis of the content in the archive and its physical state would be conducted. Secondly a market test of a recent development in technology would be tested. A new film scanner seemed to provide a new valuable way of digitalising 16 mm film had emerged, but no broadcast archive had tested it so far.

In order to fully explore the market development, an external consulting firm with knowledge of film digitisation from the commercial market was hired. The firm worked with a team of internal experts from the department of Arkiv & Research in order to answer the questions regarding the collection. The actual digitisation of the film was examined through a collaboration between the consulting firm and the department Bånd & Film along an external partner who had developed one of the new scanners on the market. The scanner, which was going to be tested, was a data scanner that used a technology that DR did not have

any experience with. DR primarily used scanners of the type telecine. Telecine scanners playback the content while copying it and saves it as a file, whereas the new scanner copies every frame of the film one by one and then compiles them into a complete film. The pilot project did an extensive sampling of content and found that the 16 mm film collection was in a good condition, considering that some of the content dates as far back as 1896. The collection was estimated to have a volume of 17,500 hours instead of 28,000 hours. The analysis showed that the collection could be divided into fourteen sub-collections with different characteristics, in conditions, length, colour casts etc. The samplings, hundred hours in total, were digitised on the data scanner. During the digitisation various optimisation processes in the manual workflow and postproduction of the digital files was tested with the goal of reaching the best possible solution for digitising 16mm. The result of the film pilot was quite promising. It showed that the new technology had potential for optimising the digitisation and workflow, because it was possible to explore the field and find an abstraction and codification that could be utilised to generate value within DR as well as in the market place. The result was initiation of a second pilot with a new objective to test whether an internal process could be developed where the manual and digital workflow when digitising the 4,500-hour collection of news could be changed. This was due to an abstraction, if altering some basics in the process could optimise the digitisation of 16mm film, the digitisation of other collections could have the same potential. The pilot project is an example of the benefits new knowledge possesses if a company can create a good problemsolving process on top of successful codification and abstraction process. The process often challenged by internal value sets which already are in place with prior codified beliefs where individuals do not see the potential in the new, but rather the risk of the unknown. This is a common

challenge in organisations because there is a risk aversion in many firms’ knowledge management processes where the focus is on exploitation rather than exploration. When working with innovation and the creation of new knowledge Boisot suggests that a more balanced approach with more explorative and entrepreneurial projects will lead to new knowledge in the organisations. In order to succeed, one has to go through the phase of both scanning and problem-solving. The way DR’s Cultural Heritage Project deals with the risk and the uncertainty of being explorative is to lower the hazard by testing within an open, but small, targeted pilot, where the use of external and internal knowledge and inputs were combined to create value. In neoclassical terms, an additional value was also created, given that the digitisation of the 4,500 hours of 16mm film initially was estimated to cost DKK 60 mill. However, by the end of the pilot, the cost came to only DKK 10 mill because of the use of new technology and development of the process. Not only did the film pilot give new knowledge about how DR could develop better methods for digitising, it also resulted in a savings of DKK 50 mill. As Boisot elaborates: “Through empirical testing and replication the outcomes can be replicated and a probability distribution assigned, thus creating socially justifiable probabilities. The challenge for the agent is to recognize the potential for creating value from some subset of probabilities by making riskadjusted investments, which create the potential for normal profits. The kind of replicable empirical knowledge available in probable worlds allows for the application of a socially derived discount rate; it thus has an objective net present value. Framed in terms of action, an agent will probably get what it pays for. Much scientific knowledge is of this type, not indubitable, but, on account of systematically recorded repetitions and replicated tests, highly corroborated and hence, highly probable.” - Boisot: 2007: 153

insights; such as that innovating the digitisation process can lower market prices and increase quality of the outcome. Furthermore, that if the market cannot deliver a satisfactory solution, it is also a reasonable possibility to internalise the digitisation. This creates a justifiable probability that the project can guide itself when it is faced with digitising other formats. For that reason the result is replicable, because it can be applied to multiple future scenarios and this gives the project potential for creating added value and fewer resources on the empirical testing is spent than the first time a digitisation pilot was made. At this point in time, the second part of the film pilot project is expected to reach its conclusion in October 2011 and the results so far have been promising. It is too early to say whether the new knowledge will lead to a reduction in digitisation cost in the estimated area of saving more than 80 %, but the work has already established new and valuable knowledge for DR and their partner FIAT/IFTA and other players in the international network of archive holders. Furthermore, external commercial vendors in the market of digitisation and potential partners show an increasing interest in collaborating and sharing knowledge with DR.

The empirical testing, in this case the film pilot, has given the project crucial

Abstraction – archiving for future use In the process of abstraction in the SLC, the codification and abstraction of the knowledge reaches a level, where it is generalized and ordered in such a way that it becomes possible to focus on solving a category of similar tasks instead of focusing on one problem. This can be exemplified in regards to DR’s Cultural Heritage project when looking at the two systems where the digitised content is stored and used in future productions. The internal production system, Mediearkivet and the additional developed system, the Cultural Heritage Archive Open System, CHAOS, can be seen as a result of a codification and abstraction process happening in DR during 2008 and 2009. As: “Both codification and abstraction involve selecting from alternatives— from noisy data-sets in the case of codification; from competing categories in the case of abstraction. Where managers constitute an organization’s dominant coalition, their codification and abstraction choices will shape its epistemic practices, its goals, its rules, its routines, and through all these, its dominant logic.” - Boisot: 2007: 99 Given this, Mediearkivet is developed through a codification and abstraction process based on the needs of the people producing broadcasting, whereas CHAOS is based on making the digitised archive content accessible through newer platforms, being the internet and mobile phones, and adding content from external collaborators and users. The reasoning for the abstraction and codification process that happened in terms of creating Mediearkivet differs from the one for CHAOS, and a short description of the different logics is therefore needed. It is relevant because a significant part of the project has been the collaboration between digitising and adding existing files to Mediearkivet as well as building CHAOS.

Mediearkivet is a centralised system, which is used to store DR’s production, and support the production department in their production of new content. It is the online platform available for the staff in DR, which makes them able to work on the same content from different workstations. Mediearkivet has been developed specifically for DR, and consequently it is unfeasible for the system to work with a rapid changing technology. When storing new files in Mediearkivet, it is important to divide the programmes into small components, so it is feasible to re-use these in future programmes. One can describe this as a codification and abstraction process, where specific clips are being prepared for usage in other contexts, and a more general contextualisation besides the actual programme, is needed. Besides being able to run productions, it is also transmedial, which makes it possible to extract sound from a video clip, and use it in radio broadcast or on the Internet. The foundation of Mediearkivet is the structure of the different components, so it is highly searchable and can be used in infinite combinations. This is done by a thesaurus, which can extract and combine different metadata in an intelligent manner. The stored format for preservation and broadcast production is for television items DVCPRO 50, whereas radio-items are stored in Broadcasts 16-bit PCM Audio. Files are storage redundant and in different locations for security reasons. With regard to the retro digitisation of the Cultural Heritage materials, the content is most often archived from the copy of the broadcasted program making it impossible or financially unfeasible to divide the programs into smaller components within the project budget. Because Mediearkivet was not viable for working with external partners and collaborating, along with integrating open source technology, CHAOS was developed. The objective was to create new value by collaborating with national cultural institutions; hence a tool for sharing content fostered the development of a new Media Asset Management system. The system

had to be able to handle content from partners outside of DR. Additionally, the system was developed on the principles of open source in a community with external partners among those were the LARM consortium, the National Gallery of Denmark and FIAT/IFTA, and apart from these, also function within the collaboration, Dansk Kulturarv. The open source format forced the system to store the files in a different format, being H264 5 MB copy of the digitised files. This format was chosen to integrate and develop synergies with the external partners’ collections without putting restrains on DR’s internal production system, Mediearkivet. Restrains were, in this, case, caused by the internal system, but rules and procedures are, in general, based on previous schemes or models, which can be obstacle when sharing. Boisot argues that: ”How far we are aligned in our information-extraction strategies will depend on how far our respective expectations are shaped by conventions, that is, socially shared encoding rules and contextualizing procedures, or by idiosyncratic circumstances— codes and contexts that are not widely shared. The act of extracting information from data constitutes an interpretation of the data. It involves an assignment of the data to existing categories according to some set of pre-established schemas or models that shape expectations. For this to be possible, such schemas or models must already exist in some form or other.” - Boisot: 2007: 29 The reasoning for developing and maintaining CHAOS was to create a new system with a completely different infrastructure and architectural design. In Boisot’s point of view CHAOS becomes a facilitator for serving a broader and more conventional established idea of how technology and internal systems should be configured, when making archive content accessible for the users. Accordingly, the features of the system can be viewed as a result of a successful abstraction process based on the result of different modes of scanning

and problem-solving processes in the SLC in the Information-space with the purpose of being able to connect to the internal systems of potential collaborators. Prior learning from the international community, technical development and the metadata project in DR have led to the development of a system with flexible metadata structure. The structure in CHAOS can handle numerous types and designs of metadata and thesauruses. Instead of organizing within a predefined structure, the massive data or metadata-set is indexed using SolR open sourced search engine.

Diffusion - The Collaboration of Dansk Kulturarv Accordingly, the collaboration Dansk Kulturarv has evolved over the years toward active engagement and participation from the different institutions. The example of Dansk Kulturarv illustrates, how the process of diffusion is a way to start the capitalization of the organisational or project-based knowledge. Since its beginning, DR’s Cultural Heritage project has had an obligation to collaborate with the public institutions in the cultural sector with the goal of sharing knowledge. In addition, the collaboration should facilitate the process of creating and increasing the value of national cultural heritage, and by this, the value for the users, i.e. eller namely the public. In the fall of 2010, DR wanted to utilise the results of the digitisation project and massive collection of digital content. Throughout the years the project had developed an understanding of its collaborating partners and although substantial funding from the government was not dedicated to the sector, the institutions continuously digitised their collections. The digitised content, however, was created and used in more individual ways according to individual institution’s strategies and contract agreements with the Ministry of Culture, National Agencies and/or other

financiers such as private funds. The earlier vehicle for the collaboration, the website www.danskkulturarv. dk, quickly lost its stamina, since the responsibility and tasks were not officially nor politically divided between the institutions. Although, DR financed and developed the website in 2007, in cooperation with a few other cultural institutions, it was not successful in driving the interests for the process of digitising the national cultural heritage. In 2008 and 2009 the content of the website was primarily a window for showcasing outdated shared dissemination projects, about previous visions for the digitisation of national cultural heritage. The missing activity and development of the site was most likely the reason for the website’s lack of success, and the use is today quite low. In 2009, when the previously mentioned national report about the Danish cultural heritage was finally published, it failed to raise the needed governmental support for digitisation. The result was that the cultural institutions in the collaboration had to favour other priorities, and neglected the collaboration. On the theoretical level, in terms of Boisot, the support or possibility for the needed codification and abstraction in order to engage in collaborative sharing environment for diffusing the cultural heritage were not available. This resulted in a long period of low activity within the collaboration. An explanation of the fatigueness Dansk Kulturarv had for a period of time could be the managerial approach that is dominant, when public institutions are entering collaborative projects outside the organisation, hindering flexibility and exploration. “Simply put, an entrepreneur will act sooner, and on the basis of more shaky experiential data than a manager will. Our arguments, if accepted, have both theoretical and practical implications. Our institutions and their governance structures are strongly biased in favour of managerial epistemologies, often at the expense of entrepreneurial ones. Managerial epistemologies are conservative, something which makes sense under conditions of stability.

When innovation is called for, however, it makes less sense. We need to be aware of our options.” - Boisot: 2007: 216 The conclusion is that a developing a project such as Dansk Kulturarv creates an experimental sharing-environment to foster an innovative take on the Danish cultural heritage. Thus, the partners should reject the daily, conservative managerial approach and instead enter the collaboration on a foundation of decentralisation and flexibility and serve multiple purposes while supporting the individual needs of the organisation. In reality, however, this period of low activity helped the partners involved discover that Dansk Kulturarv should resume the dialogue and begin to collaborate on a more entrepreneurial foundation. This has resulted in a new foundation that makes sense according to the institutions’ individual strategies for it-development, digitisation, exhibitions, and dissemination purposes etc. Consequently, in the winter of 2010, DR’s Cultural Heritage project proposed a plan for revitalizing the collaboration. A plan, that invited them to participate in a virtual organizational structure, where the network to some extent was opened to collaborators within the cultural sector. The Directors from the cultural institutions immediately supported the plan, and at this time the collaboration is being prioritised and a new phase of actively engaging the members seems to be running. The revitalisation plan is based on DR’s strategy for activating the collections, creating synergies and user value, by encompassing knowledge about the partners’ operations and priorities. The goal today is to create a selfsustaining network, which works together in different dissemination projects based on need and wants from the participants. One can say the plan operates on three levels: •

An editorial forum, where the individual organisations outline their strategic objectives and create a shared and common understanding of priorities and future needs.

•

A number of ad-hoc working groups that coordinate specific projects within the framework of cooperation. Purely established and driven by individual organisational needs or wishes in order to secure financial funds are covered by the participants themselves. An informal knowledgesharing network between the participants about ongoing efforts within the institutions.

The editorial forum is hold together by series of meetings organised around both technical issues and thematic wishes. For example, the year 2014 will mark the 150 year anniversary of the wars for the Duchesses of Schleswig and Holstein with the armies of Prussia and Austria in 1864. This event makes it relevant for different institutions to use others institutions content related to the theme. The potential of bringing artefacts from different Danish cultural institutions together in a digital domain and enrich the users with experiences is a new take on cultural heritage in Denmark. Boisot explains this way of collaborating and sharing: “The epistemic heterogeneity that characterizes agents in general, when viewed from the perspective of evolutionary epistemology, is a source of intelligence and of strategic opportunity. Applying this point at the level of the knowledge-based firmly has the effect of shifting the emphasis from a concern with knowledge sharing— an activity that facilitates decentralization based on the commonality of knowledge—to one focused on distributed processing—an activity that facilitates self-organization based on knowledge differences (Tsoukas 1996).” - Boisot: 2007: 216 In other words, the differences between the collaborators are an advantage, and a source of intelligence and possibilities. The knowledge and value of one cultural institution makes the total amount of knowledge and value grow. In addition, the shift from being concerned about knowledgesharing to focusing on distributing the processes between the institutions. This creates room for the representatives in Dansk Kulturarv to self-organise and

capitalise on the knowledge in relation to the framework set for the individual institution. DR’s Cultural Heritage Project has a continued responsibility for driving forward the collaboration on these levels. Developing a website where the knowledge and projects can be disseminated or distributed and thereby securing the products of the collaborative diffusion process, where both collaborators meet and understand the potential of the collection, and users are enriched by contextualisation and dissemination projects based on knowledge, and work within the entire cultural sector.

Absorption – LARM Research Project The research consortium LARM clearly illustrates some very interesting examples of the absorption process that can take place once the codification and abstraction are diffused. The objective with LARM is, among others, to develop an infrastructure for one million hours of radio for research purposes and needed services to facilitate the new interdisciplinary research area. User driven innovation is one of the key elements in this. The interfaces and infrastructure are based on researchers’ needs and are developed in close collaboration with designers and technicians. The applications are tested on a series of cases where radio broadcasts are analysed from a variety of perspectives. DR has the responsibility of managing the development process of CHAOS in collaboration with technicians from The State and University Library which is going to receive the copy of DR’s DAT digitisation project in order to give access to the Danish research environment. DR’s technical team from the TU Innovation are responsible for developing the front-end services for the researchers. This i a complex task where various humanistic research

teams, designers from Kolding School of Design and DR’s developers are trying to absorb the codified and abstract information from the collections with the involved knowledge in order to develop new and shared knowledge. Processes where practical applications for exploring cultural heritage are tested and discussed. While discussing sound search, a study was conducted where the user would work in a three dimensional installation where the radio content was displayed as trees, and there length and position displayed on the walls of the installation as a product of their metadata, while the content of the files was played back as part of the installations sound-scape. These learning-by-doing techniques are key components in the project. The project has created many insights while absorbing the results of the practical applications. Currently one of the new discussions in the project is related to research data. Who are responsible for the future preservation of these? Data and knowledge, which helps codify and abstract the cultural heritage for better diffusion and understanding. Questions, not foreseen before engaging in the practical issues of the LARM project. An issue potent enough that two of the research partners have asked DR to use part of their funding within the LARM project to develop something that can be used in facilitating this new discussion and create new knowledge which might lead to a new impacting that can help change the field. change the field.

Impacting – the Creation of the Online Archive Bonanza A website and archive service which has provided the most successful access to DR’s content so far, as well as in the SLC terms, illustrates the process of impacting, resulting in knowledge being embedded in agents through a product. Over time this this particular product has changed user-behaviour and their practice of consuming DR’s services. In 2007 DR’s Cultural Heritage Project developed the concept of Bonanza. Bonanza

instantly became a smash hit as DR’s first big online commitment to heritage materials. This success attracted considerable national and international interest. The concept was to involve users in a dialogue with DR and each other about what materials to digitise within DR first. The conclusions were that the users loved the dialogue and access to the archive materials, hence the use created value. Basically, the users got to choose ten programmes, series or shows from a hundred different pre-selected items. Each item was illustrated by a short snippet. In total a thousand snippets were online as part of the launch process in ten different categories, released one by one over a period of twelve weeks. More than 100,000 voted. The ten items, which received the most votes in each category, were then digitised and made available the following week in a high resolution and full-length edition viewable by a full-screen player. Bonanza was a great success, not only did the Danes watch more than seven million programmes or excerpts from programmes within the first six months, but in 2009 the concept was honoured

by FIAT / IFTA (The International Federation of Television Archives) as the winner of the best online archive project. The price is distributed every year at international conference for broadcast archives. Bonanza received the prize because of its innovative approach to communication and digitisation of archive content. Today, the website is still considered a success within DR given its more than 65,000 monthly users. The site has a broad user group and attracts all ages, but surprisingly, 55 percent of users are between 12-39 years old, with a small bias of the 20-39 year olds. On each visit the average user spends more than 16 minutes on viewing archive content, a visit duration that is quite high when looking at other websites on the Internet. In theoretical terms, the ability to discover and/or rediscover the content of earlier times has become a part of regular users media consumption, hence increasing the diffusion. The knowledge that is absorbed through Bonanza is changing habits for media consumption of when users are looking at DR’s services.

Figure 6 – Bonanza’s first month Source: dr.dk Visits

viewings

Average

every week

from jan. 16th to feb 7th 2008

per user

82.000 1.9mio 7 clip 45

View during a college football game. USA, October 1958 Photographer: George Silk -Source: Life Magazine

In the analysis of the framework of knowledge, creation is understood through the projects within DR’s Cultural Heritage Project. As already illustrated, there are different processes constituting the ideal Social Learning Cycle, which is where new knowledge is developed through a transformation of unstructured data to new behaviors and praxis within the agents; be it the organization or the individual. Following the exemplification of the different phases in the SLC, the notion of an ideal SLC for the entire project is explored and sought illustrated. This leads to a discussion of the different kinds of values that are influencing the project. Finally, an argument for the complex term “value” is presented. This will be divided in to three different types of value; organizational value in production; organisational value in public service production including diffusion/dissemination; followed by a more general public service value in society. The values, however, do not necessarily correlate due to different agendas. With regard to the cases already presented in the SLC, the I-Space creates new knowledge that is related

The Market Value of Digitising Cultural Heritage The project of digitising the content of the Cultural Heritage can be measured in regular financial terms. The finances can be seen as a value chain margin or profit, but in DR it is seen as financial possibility to digitise and preserve of DR’s content. A good example of this type of value is the digitisation of DR’s DAT-collection. In order to digitise the DAT-tapes a EUtender was issued in 2008. DR did not have the competences or the hardware to complete the world’s largest DATdigitisation project within a price range

In order to ensure a feasible price, and a price within the budget constraints, a number of discussions took place within in 2007. One particular subject was, how DR could benefit from market vendors’ knowledge and secure the needed industrialised process. The industrialised process was needed in order to obtain an estimated “real” market price. Whereas the market price for much smaller digitisation projects previously had been around EUR 50 per hour, DR only had the budget for paying a price less than one tenth of that. The solution was to create a transparent box, a term used within the project for describing an outsourcing process. In contrast to a black box, the transparent box is a method, where the project and the collaboration partner define a future collaboration through a clear, shared understanding of some given tasks for a specified project. The transparent box therefore becomes an outsourcing of a specific part of the value chain, but still assuring that the labour division and responsibility is welldefined. The benefits of making it a very transparent process is to ensure that trust can be built within the partnership. Furthermore, it allows the individual partners to develop the most optimised processes without DR interfering. In the EU-tender regarding the DAT-digitisation, DR gave as much information as possible, such as information about the collection, tape brands, condition of archive and usage, expected volume and pre-known issues. A set of fixed demands was given and these had to be met by any potential vendor in the bidding. For example, the file formats and quality was fixed, and a set of criteria related to the transportation was designed in order to avoid endangering larger volumes of the collection at the same time. Ultimately, a maximum price for every hour digitised was given; in this particular case around 3.5 EUR, which was substantially far from the market price of 50 EUR. In return vendors were engaged in DR’s procedures, opening up for sharing the existing

processes and digitisation techniques in the organisation. This was done to capitalize on market knowledge. The vendors were then asked to propose a number of solutions and ideas that was to be debated in a personal forum with the project management. And finally, after this longer procedure, DR chose the vendor for digitising the DATcollection. One Belgium vendor - Memnon invented an industrialised process, where one operator, after a slow preparation phase, became able to control forty DAT-recorders, and software, which would automate the quality assurance process to a large extent. Memnon was one of the world’s leading companies within the restoration and digitisation of sound, and because of their previous experience, the workflow was well designed. They presented a trustworthy case and offered a price of just EUR 3.03 per hour, a price that was significantly lower than any other of the bids. To summarize, the transparent box is a balance between defining tasks and not having too strict borders for the exploration. Still, in cases, where the linkages between the tasks are very interdependent, it is important to allow the vendor to discuss the borders of input and outcome to fully exploit the limits of potential. In the DAT-case, Memnon argued that DR should apply barcodes, while registering the tapes prior to shipment; a task not anticipated by DR. In return Memnon would raise the security profile and check the data in the digitisation process, making sure the tapes were registered correctly on the tape as well as combined with the right metadata-XML. Furthermore, it would allow Memnon to scan and trace the carrier throughout the entire digitisation process. This was key, if and when problems arose, for instance if Memnon had to re-digitise. An error occurred in 2010, where DR’s quality control detected issues with a specific tape. The system could then identify the actual recorder, which had failed because of issues with a tone head, and 140 tapes had to be checked. Without the tracing system the potential

failed tapes could not have been identified. The close collaboration with Memnon and the transparent box strategy have given the project crucial insights to the process of digitising. Hence newer collaborations have traces of the first proof of concept. In the film pilot, a similar idea for digitising has been used. However, during the evaluation process the external vendor was reluctant to lower prices in the market. Instead DR decided to continue to test, hence moving from outsourcing to internalising. Internalising seems to be less expensive, than waiting for the market to develop the needed knowledge. Because the industrialised processes are not absorbed, hence impacting the industry, the project cannot push the market that digitises film. Consequently, this particular network will not create maximum value for the archive holders of film, unless DR or other innovators decide to share the knowledge, and therefore lower the prices. However, the goal of the project is to share the process through the

international network FIAT/IFTA, thus, giving more broadcasters the ability to digitise film more economically. In summary, DR’s Cultural Heritage Project has created a flexible organisational structure, based on both explorative and exploitative working principles. This means that DR’s digitisation results creates new knowledge and develops workflows, which will lower the price for digitisation. In 2014 the given funding will have digitised and preserved more than 80% of DR’s archive for the grant of DKK 75 mill. Furthermore, it is estimated that the project has lowered the cost of digitising the entire archive from DKK 284 mill, estimated in 2005 (Internal Memo, DR DM: 08.2005), to under DKK 150 mill estimated today.

FigurE 7 – THE PARADOX OF VALUE Source Boisot CODIFIED V-MAX

CODIFIED

Upon examination of the phases in the Social Learning Cycle illustrated by different cases, the empirical domain has been described. A natural step forward is to grasp the actual domain, constituting events and experiences. Here, the actual series of events is examined with the purpose of understanding the processes of how value is created and utilised, but also to aid in understanding the real domain, where mechanisms are activated, thus, influencing the two other domains.

The value of a goods can be defined by measuring the utility and scarcity of the goods. The goods utility is defined by the level codification and abstraction and its scarcity in the diffusion. The value distribution in I-Space is illustrated figure 7, where the maximum value and the minimum value are depicted as V-Max and V-Min. This fits with the traditional understanding of value in the market.It can be viewed and analysed, as well as improved through the creation of related new knowledge from the projects within the project, which can continue the optimisation of the over all value chain.

that was compatible with the market price.

Abstract

UNCODIFIED

The value of knowledge creation

to the value creation. Fulfilling the objectives in one part of the SLC lays the foundation for fulfilling the next part. Some of the processes are eventcorrelated in such a manner that they are regarded to work in tandem (Boisot: 1998: 61).

V-MIN

DIFFUSED

Concrete UNDIFFUSED

THE VALUE FROM CODIFIED AND DIFFUSED TO DIGITAL AND ACCESSIBLE FIGURe: 8: VALUE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE, SOURCE: INSPIRED BY BOISOT, GOLODNOFF & LERKENFELD. FIGURe: 9: KNOWLEDGE, SOURCE: BOISOT. FIGURe: 10: ACCESS TO AND USE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE, SOURCE: GOLODNOFF & LERKENFELD

CODIFIED

CPV

ACCESSIBLE USE = Value

MV CODIFIED

DIFFUSION ABSORPTION

abstract

UNCODIFIED

PSV

Concrete UNDIFFUSED

value of Cultural heritage 48

PROBLEM-SOLVING

DIFFUSED

SCANNING

UNCODIFIED

Decreasing scarcity

UNDIFFUSED

knowledge

DIFFUSED

No access

access to and use of Cultural heritage

DIGITISED

The Cultural Production Value Public Service Value of Digital Cultural Heritage in Society

synergies are created while solving the primary objectives within the different partnerships; the new feature can be distributed back to the existing and coming members of the technology collective.

The value in terms of cultural production is created like the value in neoclassical economics, however the objective is not to create a financial surplus for the participants and/or collaborators in the process. Instead the surplus relates to production of valuable products and or services that supports diffusion of goods; that is public service. The values of these productions are measured in numbers of collaborations, products and users. Each of which, contribute to the diffusion and support of knowledge absorption in different ways.

For instance, CHAOS was created to handle other cultural institutions’ archive collections, in order to secure distribution and dissemination. DR developed the basic functionalities, such as the handling of media files from the digitised content. CHAOS quickly showed potential for collaborating, and the system evolved into an open source collective. The technology collective supports different needs, while being financed by all the members, and concrete features are being developed based on each member’s individual needs. Recently the largest development has been within the area of handling radio and sound files. This project is initiated by a large grant from the National Programme for Research Infrastructure. A part of the grant also covers the development of CHAOS to handle a new online service for user-generated metadata and tagging, which the researchers of LARM needed to study the content. The grant was a way of sharing the cost of the infrastructure, to secure the needed tools for the research environment, thus benefiting society. In this way,

The use and knowledge of technology have always been part of the Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s foundation. Looking at Boisot ‘s culture-space (C-space) can give some insights to, how tacit competencies can be accessed through cultural heritage digitisation; ultimately making it accessible although it posses some abstract value as an asset. In short; “The C-Space is a conceptual framework which focuses on the structuring and flow of information within and between organisations. It consists of two dimensions: codification, the extent to which information can be compressed and expressed on paper - simple text is typically more codified than images and quantitative information is more codified than discourse - and diffusion, the extent to which information is shared by a given population of agents. This population can consist of either employees or firms.” - Griffits, Boisot a.o: 1998: 531

The process of scanning, problemsolving, diffusion, and absorption can be viewed as an additional layer of the function as illustrated in figure 9. When looking at the technical development and public service broadcasting, one can argue that culture is consumed when agents are moving around the coordinates within the figure. The movement is interesting because it can explain how technology and content is constantly changing in the minds of the agent. If one looks at traditional broadcasting, being television and radio, the absorptions of the new digital platforms are changing the consumption patterns. The understanding of technology in DR has traditionally been considered as more than a tool for production. For example, previously, part of the internal education in becoming a radiooperator in DR, was learning how to build a radio console. The technology and its functionalities were part of the product of public service. Today, technology is, for many workers, only considered a tool, or a black box that conveys the public service product. The Internet and new media are changing in society, technology is pervasive and multifunctional, and most people are able to consume content through different technologies and or devices. Hence, people’s attitude toward media and public service are changing by moving around in an infinite process. Castells elaborates the change in a more detailed way, saying that: “Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, broadcast evolved along a trajectory that emphasized continuity in the form of communication, while increasing the diversity of delivery platforms and the concentration of media ownership. Broadcasting and the print press remained, by and large, mass media. By contrast, computer networking and telecommunications rapidly exploited the potential of digitisation and open source software to generate new forms of local/global interactive communication, often initiated by the users of the networks.” - Castells: 2009: 58 The many platforms are altering the production and broadcast of public service, and often the users, not

large organisations such as DR, drive this development. The result is that “television remains a mass communication medium from the perspective of the transmitter, but it is often a personal communication medium from the point of view of the receiver”, (Castells: 2009: 60); hence, the demand and the structure of broadcasting are contradicting each other. The political opinion is that digitising cultural heritage creates knowledge that is very valuable, but not suited for commercialisation, and thus remains a public service. The neoclassical approach with transaction costs and utilising scarcity-logics therefore seems unfeasible, when the value for - and knowledge in - society is created. The reason for this is that neoclassical economics reduces users’ value and commercialises access. Boisot argues, that: “Knowledge itself is not subject to the natural scarcities of physical objects (Arrow 1962; Parker 1978). If you have the candy then I cannot have the same candy. If you have the knowledge, by contrast, then if you transfer it to me you still have the knowledge. Where knowledge can be readily transferred from one party to another in this way, it escapes the condition of natural scarcity that forms the physical basis of our current understanding of property rights; namely, that a physical object cannot be in two places at the same time. Consumption of a “knowledge good” under certain circumstances, is thus non-antagonistic (Grant 1996). Since the main purpose of property rights is to establish an acceptable procedure for the allocation of resources under conditions of natural scarcity and of rivalry—they entitle the owner of a good to exclude others from the consumption of that good where this would diminish the utility that he or she would derive from it—why, some have argued, do we need property rights for knowledge goods where these lack natural scarcity?” - Boisot: 2007: 172 Since, the knowledge and value of a digital cultural heritage per se is not a scarcity good, making the content available for the public seems like a natural step – and hence it also emphasised in the latest media

agreement for 2011-2014 (see quote from the introduction). The public access and use of DR’s content is today quite restricted. However, if a theoretical discussion is risen, the diffusion, absorption and impact of cultural heritage depends on the availability of the content. Looking at the C-space the importance of digitisation and accessibility can be explained. The X-axis represents the diffusion, but should instead be viewed as accessibility, whereas the Y-axis represents the digitisation, being the more content that is digitised, the more cultural heritage is codified and then easier to diffuse. Because of this, there is a proportional increase and the more digitised material DR gives access to, the more likely it is to be diffused, illustrated in figure 10. Diffusion is also equal to use, supporting the mantra in the project - use equals value. For value to be realized, it must support DR’s mission to bring together, challenge, and inform the public. In the short term, the focus is digitising the content, but in a longer perspective the project should also work on making all the digitised content available on digital platforms for the public, particularly for it to be used fulfilling the new, and transformed user-needs. Simultaneously with the digitisation of new cultural heritage, the right access to the materials should provide users with important insights which enhance their interpersonal understanding through the process of absorption. One can assume that the more codified knowledge is, the more diffused it is in a given network. This can be related to digitisation of cultural heritage, meaning the more digital content that is created, the more available it can become to the public, and benefit society. Nevertheless, the curve is affected by other factors such as IPR, and as a result of the curve can be pushed down or up depending on how the global and local networks change the legislation of intellectual property rights. If one takes the argument that the archive and digitisation is funded by the public through the media-license fee, and consequently belongs to the public, demands that the digital archive should be accessible for everyone. It is also in connection with users the materials should be enriched and developed to create a future cultural heritage.

The Value and I-space The three kinds of values can be placed in a single I-Space that illustrates the different drivers in the value creation. The market value is generated in the first part of the project’s value chain. The process starts with the scanning and problem-solving, and it ends the abstraction with delivering digitised content to both the Mediearkiv and CHAOS. The content that is created is the basis for future value exploitation for DR. The process is illustrated as the green curve in figure 9. The financial value is gathered through innovation and optimisations are represented as market value (MV). The value of the cultural production is the process from abstraction to diffusion, either through DR’s traditional broadcast channels and offerings, or through the collaborations such as Dansk Kulturarv (illustrated in red). Here the value is measured as cultural production value (CPV), which is defined by the framework set in the public service agreement. In the case of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project this is measured in the amount of collaborations, products, and users on equal terms with the commercial market, however, there are different criteria for quality, content, and dissemination. The public service value of the digital cultural heritage for society is created by availability and access for the public. The measurement of this is a very complex, and will not be fully examined here, although it is key in the process of embedding knowledge in society. The public service value is situated in the blue area and covers the process of diffusion, absorption and impacting.

6 CHApTER

Conclusions

In the theory of new knowledge development, it is shown that the knowledge is created through the agents ability to codify and abstract meaning within the movement in the SLC. We argue that given this, the users ability to engage and work with the content will increase/enhance the diffusion, absorption, and impacting process and in the I-Space and accelerate the knowledge production; hence creating more value; a challenge which will need to be solved in the IPR and technical fields--not the editorial field. Knowledge is often produced when cultural heritage becomes searchable, viewable, and usable. This often happens through a shared infrastructure or standardized processes and/or a set of easily usable guidelines - mainly, in the interaction between the cultural heritage and the users. Another part of the knowledge creation is the linking of content and new metadata in the digital domain. Given that generating new metadata is equally important to preserving the cultural heritage through digitisation. This is due to the fact that part of the cultural heritage content do not have sufficient metadata, and or new metadata constituted use who potentially increases future use. New metadata are a codification and abstraction process that creates the possibility for diffusion and absorption and impacting, within a broader community. “(…) a key factor for productivity growth in this knowledge-intensive, networked economy is innovation, or the capacity to recombine factors of production in a more efficient way, and/or produce higher value added in the process or in product. Innovators depend on cultural creativity, on institutional openness to entrepreneurship, on labor autonomy in the labor process, and on the appropriate kind of financing for this innovation-driven economy.” - Castells: 2009: 33 When the project worked on digitisation of material a number of process innovations were created and these can be seen as knowledge developments. In this case knowledge, be it knowledge about the archive, the content, the

organisation, technology, or other, it becomes a dynamic process. A process where pre-established knowledge and the new collected data and information creates a new knowledge that changes the knowledge source of the involved agent; this is an on-going process where one’s knowledge and actions continuously are evaluated and generate input that challenges the status quo of the process in order to make the most of the work, based on data and information. Six insights can be found from the examples of the individual phases within the SLC, they are: • •

•

Insight 1 - Putting resources and time into scanning is fruitful for the future process Insight 2 - Problem-solving should be approached as a trial and error process, making the abstraction that the project does not solve one problem, instead it comes up with a solution applicable to more than one scenario. Insight 3 - Abstraction and codification should always leave room for some flexibility, especially when fashioning different schemes. Insight 4 - Diffusion and collaboration require a flexible and decentralised structure; making room for initiatives and improvisation in order to merge with the external objective. Insight 5 - Absorption should happen in a broader perspective, meaning not just in the organisation, but that the related networks should also be targets for absorbing by practical application in order to have value-exchanges between different knowledge-holders. Insight 6 - Access and interaction fosters impact. By making attractive content accessible, larger groups of users are mobilised.

A key in the success seems to be the establishment of an attractive independent project structure. However, the understanding of synergies between the different networks and partners is crucial, because it can create shared value. Castells has an explanation

of synergy as being successful when merging networks, but it is crucial not to integrate the property horizontally. “The key is synergy. Synergy is based on the compatibility of the merging networks. Production merges, not property. Networked organisations appear to be more successful business models in contemporary multi-media conglomerates than horizontal property integrations.” - Castells: 2009: 83 Following the ideas of Castells, a flexible and collaborating project can turn out to be extremely valuable, and focus should then be on establishing a clear division of labour and describing the different areas of responsibility, and then supporting an open collaboration. On the other hand, this increases the need for coordinating and communication, which can be obtained by making the right abstraction and codification, as some of the examples showed. An emphasis should also be made on the optimisation of workflows and value-chain management based by the organisational knowledge and previous innovations.

Guiding Principles for Exploring the Digitisation of Cultural Heritage and Creating Value How can the new acquired knowledge be transformed into daily use, so the value creation for society and DR is ensured when digitising cultural heritage? An approach is to create guiding principles, inspired by David Oliver & Johan Roos. The essence is that: “Guiding principles call to mind deeper narratives shared within a management team which, when invoked, provide access to far richer guidance on effective courses of action. Such narratives helped managers we observed keep track of and consolidate their experiences, making them available both at the time and in the future.”

- Oliver & Roos: 2005: 908 The objective of the guiding principle is in this case to create narratives for understanding the mechanisms and experiences in the project, thus make them a tool for decision-making when digitising cultural heritage. Ideally, this will be a method for creating and sustaining value, and will hopefully be beneficial for other agents faced with the same challenges. However, the guiding principles match DR’s Cultural Heritage project, because they are based on discoveries and narratives developed through the description and analysis of the project. The knowledge constructed in the thesis then serves the framework of the narratives, so the decisionmaking becomes easier, sincere, and spontaneous. Furthermore, using too many resources or crucial time when facing choices is avoided. As Oliver and Roos explain: “Guiding principles are fundamental justifications for rules and judgements (Kessels 2001) that differ from norms (e.g. Harrison 1987) or interpretive schemes (e.g. Bartunek 1984), in that they embed self-referential storylines to which team members feel emotionally attached (Oliver and Roos 2003) (see Table 1 for an illustration of how each guiding principle was applied).” - (Oliver & Roos: 2005: 908) Based on the observations from examining the case and analysing the knowledge- and value creation four guiding principles can be identified: • • • •

Use is value Transparent boxes Open source collective Flexible resources

The different guiding principles will be explained, focusing on the guiding principle itself, the heuristic guidance, emotional mandate, followed by one of two articulations within the abstraction.

A brief introduction to guiding principles The researchers David Oliver and Johan Roos have, in an organisational case study, developed a method for understanding decision making in highvelocity environments. Their research shows that organisations’ decisionmaking processes often are based on some guiding principles which play a key role, when an agent is faced with choices. These principles should, from Oliver and Roos’ perspective, be understood as a kind of heuristic reasoning or rule of thumb--within the organisation or business unit--which the agent can refer when making a choice. Key in heuristic reasoning is that they are developed and articulated by the agents within the organisation, and also represent values, norms, knowledge, and experiences that is embedded in the individual, hence the guiding principles have emotional content. In the studied companies, the managers and team members appeared to make frequent decisions based on a shared and often articulated understanding of the objectives and/ or the environment. These shared understandings set a mental framework or concept, which were not based on orders or other organisational templates. Instead they provided an explicit probability decision-making guideline. Thus, Oliver and Roos argue that guiding principles is a good method for governing the developing and/or controlling of the units path and work in high velocity environments. The findings in their empirical study can be divided into three:

• • •

• Heuristic reasoning. • Narrative mode. • Emotional content.

Each of them affects the other. The members of the organisations will then base their decision-making on shared heuristic reasoning. A heuristic reasoning that draws upon some organisational narratives, where important values or key elements were expressed in stories. Hence, narratives become a part of the organisational environment and embedded in the workers as emotional content. The emotional content, Oliver and Roos describe its not just a state of feeling god or bad, but include delight, motivation, serenity, anger, sadness, fear, and other more complex feelings. The process between them being dynamic, and when the heuristic reasoning, narrative mode and emotional content affect each other, they create the basis for second level concept: Guiding Principles. (Oliver & Roos: 2005).

FIGURE 11 - STRATEGIC GUIDELINES Source oliver & Roos

second-order concept

Guiding proiinciples

#1 HEURISTIC REASONING #2 Narrative #3 Emotionel Mode content

3 findings

Guiding principles for DR’s Cultural Heritage project

Guiding principle 1: Use is value

Guiding principle 2: Transparent boxes

Guiding principle 3: Open Source Collective

Guiding principle 4: Flexible resources

Heuristic guidance

Emotional content:

Facilitating an open organisation where bureaucracy and different goals do not restrict valuable collaboration.

Emotional content:

Always keep a focus on the users and make sure similar tasks are only performed once, but can be used N amount of times. Re-defining a new public service, the project is not only working with new technology, but also adding value to the traditional broadcasting. Strive to challenge the lack of innovative thinking in terms of using new technology.

Emotional content: The team feels a personal responsibility for the user interaction and utilises the potential of the archive. The team wants to be drivers for changing existing restrictions that are inhibiting the possibilities of creating value for the users, so they are a part of creating access by developing concepts and change the framework if necessary.

Articulation: “To ensure this work, DR is focused on sesuring the materials so they are and continue to be used - by DR and DR’s users; the Danes.” Internal memo, DR DM. Appendix 1: 10.09.2010 “DR Cultural Heritage Project is working from the thesis that “Use equals value” and therefore sees Dissemination & Collaboration as an important activity in line with the digitisation and preservation.” - Internal memo, DR DM. Appendix 1: 10.09.2010

Principle for outsourcing, hence optimising different processes. Key is understanding the process and therefore also control of the price level. Optimising in transparent boxes should benefit partners or industries.

The management of the project defines an input and outcome of a project, and then collaborates with external partners to optimise the process in a given box. If there is the potential of creating a better process, both partners acquire value by, for example, a lowering cost.

Articulation: “The major focus on cost reduction through the digitisation of very extensive collections also means that styles are analysed and offered for external digitisation, where there is money to spare. An example of this is the DR DAT tape collection that represents the world’s largest DAT.” - dr.dk/kulturarv

A sense of sharing is key, creating shared value. Synergies can be created by fusion, for instance merging collections with other cultural institutions.

Emotional content: The organisation is trained to expect partners to collaborate. Because of this, trust is a important key in cooperating, making the staff prepared to establish, personal and long relationships with new potential partners. The team feels they have a mandate to invite new partners, spirit is based on 1+1 = 3.

Articulation: “DR must work actively to ensure access and availability of the programme archives, in its fullest extent--for both the public and the research community.” - Mediepolitisk aftale 2011-2014 “The purpose of this collaboration is to ensure the overall national cultural heritage through the exploitation of synergy affects across collections and institutions so that the common knowledge can benefit all in the cooperation of goods and materials from the different institutions could be disseminated through their interaction for the benefit and happiness of the Danes and Denmark.” - Internal memo, DR DM. Appendix 1: 10.09.2010

Flexible project economy. Manpower, funding, and resources can always be found for projects with potential. Support the belief of dynamic, agile organisation, changing along with the different stages of the project

People that work on the project are always flexible in terms of their tasks and involvement. Furthermore, they are not fixated on sustaining such things as estimated cost, if the reality changes.

Articulation: Resources are not bound to fiscal years or specific activities, staff and financial funding is fluid, and resources are going where they are needed. Internal memo, DR DM. Appendix 1: 10.09.2010 “DR Cultural Heritage Project is working from the thesis that “Use equals value” and therefore sees Dissemination & Collaboration as an important activity in line with the digitisation and preservation.” - Internal memo, DR DM. Appendix 1: 10.09.2010

Full frame of movie audience wearing special 3D glasses to view the film Bwana Devil which was shot with new natural vision 3 dimensional technology. USA, 1952. Photo by J. R. Eyerman Source: Life Magazine

Thoughts and reflections New insights and learning from the theoretical reflections have created a momentum, and pushed us to probe the way we think about public service and project organisations. Public service is a vision â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an idea about how to develop the good society where things such as education, knowledge, and access to cultural heritage are considered public benefits, just as clean water and minimum wages. We believe that the cultural sectors have potential to something even greater if a mandate is given. The challenges are, among other things, embedded in the way we define ownership, organisational borders, and control finances. In the digital domain, we see a massive potential for creating new use, which can make the cultural heritage grow. One of the foundations could be what we define as open source collectives. Sharing, collaborating, and giving responsibility is key when utilising the valuable cultural heritage. While sharing in collectives, the political agenda should emphasise and prioritise the need for engaging the users. Users are key, and should therefore be drivers for a new approach to cultural heritage, but also cultural production.

be fluid. In reality, this would result in a network, where the people working would include the public in cultural production; where researchers and scientists can move freely between the public service institutions and thereby create more and better products and services, thus more knowledge and value.

society. If use is value, we are instantly prioritising the users. The framework should not be based on former, obsolete prerequisites. Thus, we should move from public service to public resources.

For instance a public servant could be hired at The National Gallery of Art, but periodically be located at DR to prepare an exhibition, an interactive feature and documentary. In addition to the dynamic workplaces, the way we approach ownership and rights in terms of public collections should be changed. Everyone could prosper from a fluid cultural heritage collection; the institutions, the users, and--if handled appropriately--the rights owners. It seems evident that collaborations could offer insights, knowledge, and services, but also add value within the area of technology. Since technology is changing rapidly, the experts are not a fixed or mastered by a specific work force. Consequently, public service institutions cannot attract and sustain the best technicians and developers on the market. Instead the solution should be to create transparent boxes, defining an input and output in relation to a need and find the best people or organisation in the market to optimise the process within the box.

The Danish Broadcasting Corporation, its fellow public service institutions, and the public should always inspire and enrich each other. The goal is to develop one collection, and, along with it, a common cultural heritage, in order to produce new and better public service products.

Consequently, public service institutions should concentrate on content, thus, still have an understanding of what the technology could and should do, when outsourcing the actual production of it. Open modules for external integrations, user input and design could foster innovation within the fields of dissemination, product development, and service. Some products or services could also have general open access, so the users could develop their own products and services, supporting the idea of a remix- and participatory culture.

We call for a new society - a society where public service becomes public resources. An idea we want to push to the extreme. Resources are no longer bound to one institution, but to the dynamic society. Hence they should

Basically, technology does not hinder or restrict development, as such things as intellectual property rights, control, centralisation and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;procedure as usualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; restrict development. Changing these circumstances, would improve

References 56

Boisot, M. H. (1999). Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fælles Arv til Fælles Brug (2009) http://www.danskkulturarv.dk/pdf/DKA_folder.pdf

Boisot M. & Canals A. (2003). Data, information and knowledge: have we got it right? UOC.

Mediepolitisk aftale 2007-2010 & 2011-2014 http://kum.dk/kulturpolitik/medier/medieaftalen/

Boisot a.o. (2007). Explorations in Information Space, Knowledge, Agents and Organisations. Oxford University Press.

Per Stig Møller, Minister of Cultur: April 2010. http://kum.dk/nyheder-og-presse/pressemeddelelser/2010/maj/21-mio-kr-tildigitalisering-af-danmarks-kulturarv/

Castells M. (2009). Commnication Power. Oxford University Press. Fleetwood S. (2007). A Note on Critical Realism in Organisational and Management Studies. Manuscript, University of Strathclyde, workandsociety.org. Garnham, N. (1986). Public service versus the market. Screen, 24 (1): 6-27. Goodman E. P. (2004) Media Policy out of the Box: Content Abundance, Attention Scarcity, and the Failures of Digital Markets. The Berkeley Electronic Press. Griffits a.o. (1998). Strategies for managing knowledge assets: a tale of two companies. Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd. Jespersen J. (2004). Kritisk realisme, article in: Videnskabsteori i Samfundsvidenskaberne, på tværs af fagkulturer og paradigmer. Roskilde Universitetsforlag. Oliver D. & Roos J. (2005), Decision-Making in High-Velocity Environments: The Importance of Guiding Principles. Organization Studies. SAGE

DR Internal Memos, classified: Internal Memo, DR: Legacy: 08.2005: The original plan for the digitisation of DR’s archive Internal Memo, DR ØU: Appendix 1: 01.11.2007: First memo about the launch of first tenders for the Cultural Heritage Project Internal memo, DR DM: 10.09.2010: Status of Digitisation, and new strategy for expanding the collaboration strategy. Internal memo, DR DM. Appendix 1: 10.09.2010: Status of Digitisation, and new strategy for expanding the collaboration strategy, explained in details. Presentations from DR’s Cultural Heritage Project

Olivier M. S. (2009). Information Technology Research, A practical guide for computer science and informatics.

DR & Memnon at Presto Center conference 15.03.2010: Building Workflows For Digitisation and Digital Preservation http://www.prestocentre.eu/

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review.

24.05.2011: Presentation EBU, European Broadcast Union event: UNLOCKING THE ARCHIVE, Lessons learned: USE=VALUE

Porter M. E. & Miller V. E. (1985). How Information Gives You a Competitive Advantages. Harvard Business Review.

24.06.2011: Lecture at FRAME, Future for Restoration of Audiovisual Memory in Europe: DR’s CULTURAL HERITAGE PROJECT http://www.ina-sup.com/en/about-ina-sup/frame-future-restoration-audiovisualmemory-europe

Yin R. K. (2009). Case Study Research, Design and Methods. SAGE. References, other Bedre kommercialisering af offentlig forskning til gavn for samfundet (2006) http://vtu.dk/publikationer/2006/bedre-kommercialisering-af-offentlig-forskning/ Copy-Dan Årsrapport (2009) Digitalisering af Kulturarven (2009). http://www.kum.dk/Servicemenu/Publikationer/2009/Digitalisering-af-kulturarven/ DR’s Public Service Contract for 2011 – 2014 and DR’s Public service-kontrakt for 2011-2014 http://kum.dk/Documents/Kulturpolitik/medier/DR/public_servicekontrakt.PDF European Commission (2011) The New Renaissance. http://ec.europa.eu/ information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/reflection_group/final-reportcdS3.pdf

12:07:2011:DR at internal strategy seminar in ORF, Österreichischer Rundfunk: Strategy and Results in DR Websites www.dr.dk www.kum.dk www.vtu.dk Thank you to the two typography artists; Andy Mangold who created Pompadour and Morris Fuller Benton the creator of League Gothic. Thank god for websites like ‘‘Lost Type and ‘The League of Moveble Types’ that make our written work even better!