DIGITIZATION PROJECTS IN EUROPE
A dutch perspective
TRILCE NAVARRETE
1. Introduction
Digitization, particularly sharing content online, positions heritage institutions as part of the networked information economy. Digitization projects of heritage content at European level were started in the mid 1990s and were driven by the overarching goal of achieving remote connection and exchange of heritage information for the benefit of European citizens. 20 years later, the driven force behind all digital activities remains unchanged, to increase remote access to collections, yet many objects are still to be digitized.
Institutions do not expect to have their entire collections digitized, reported expected coverage represents only about 60%. Digitization in this context refers to a digital reproduction of the object, made by a scan or a digital photograph. Online publishing of a digital catalogue, or inventory,
has proven insufficient to give access to the rich heritage and scientific materials held in libraries across Europe.
Table 1. Collections to be digitized (2012)
Has been
digitized (%)
Needs to be digitized (%)
Number of institutions
Without response
Average Europe 20 57 1951 322
Average
Libraries 12 54 599 130
Average Dutch
libraries 17 51 13 2
Source: ENUMERATE data set 2012.
Data from the European survey ENUMERATE from 2012 shows that the 13 libraries participating in the Netherlands reported a slight higher percentage (17%) of digitized materials than the European library average (12%). This is lower than other sectors: museums and specifically art museums ranked much higher, reporting 31% and 42% respectively for the digitization of their collections.1
Heritage organizations have not fully adopted an active digitization work form. This may be due to limited resources as much as a limited view on the benefits gained. In this paper, the potential benefits of being part of a digital network of heritage information will be highlighted, beginning with a discussion on networks, in section two, supported by evidence from the Dutch experience participating in European projects aiming at increasing remote access to heritage collections, section three, including the last available statistical data from ENUMERATE (2012), presented in section four. The main argument of this paper is that institutions, including libraries, gain important benefits when joining the online information network. These benefits result from pooling resources, from gaining a greater outreach and from strengthening the network through participation.
1. http://www.enumerate.eu/. All data from the survey is available for download from the ENUMERATE website.
2. Networks of information
Network theory explains the mechanisms at play as people connect and build linking systems, including roads (e.g. railroads, highways) and telecommunication systems (e.g. telegraph, telephone, internet). Network theory argues that the “value of connecting to a network depends on the number of other people already connected to it”2. The larger the network is, the larger the benefit received. That is because of positive feedback.
Positive feedback is key to networks because of its magnifying nature: it makes the most popular network grow as users will prefer and choose the largest and strongest network, in turn making the weaker network weakest through negative feedback.
As networks get greater and stronger, they bring additional value to the consumer. A good example is the email: getting an email account became more interesting as more people had email, and the more people that joined the electronic post system reinforced the value of those already using it. Another example is the electricity network: as more people demand electricity services, additional products are more likely to be made available (e.g. different types of electronic household machinery) as producers seek economies of scope (delivering varied and complementary goods). Benefits can be direct, as in the case of email, or indirect, as with electricity3.
Like feedback, networks can bring positive or negative effects to those joining. These effects are called network externalities. They are called externalities because an effect is received without payment or compensation4. An example is the Internet: the consumer seeking information will benefit from a greater selection of content when more producers have joined the medium, publishing their products and services online (incurring the costs). On the contrary, a negative externality, such as a computer virus, will be greater to those in a greater network. In turn, a greater network will solve a virus crisis faster, drawing from a larger pool of resources, than when relying on a reduced number of users.
Network externalities are largely positive.
2. Shapiro and Varian, 1999:174.
3. Economides, 1996:673-679.
4. Shapiro and Varian, 1999:183.
What are the networks emerging from the adoption of computers in Dutch libraries? And what do libraries miss when they abstain from joining? It is important to distinguish between the two kinds of networks present in the Dutch library landscape: the one refers to people and organizations (a social network), forming a network of e.g. information specialists, while the other network involves a physical infrastructure of cables connecting various users through internal networks (e.g. Ethernet) or through the Internet (a global network).
The two networks often work together but may form and grow following different paths. One old example is the canal transportation network of seventeenth century Netherlands, which allowed specialized local artists to deliver their paintings to major capitals using horse-drawn barges. The canal network (physical network) together with the dealers (social network) resulted in an information delivery system that “fostered collective diversity with excellence”5.
Benefits of being part of a network of information emerge from three main elements. First, institutions participating can pool resources so that a richer result is gained from the individual effort. Resources can include know-how, financing, technology, and the collections themselves. Second, joining resources leads to a greater outreach. This is because each institution brings their user base to the network, which may result in a larger geographic coverage, in multilingual presentations, or in richer contextualization of collections. Institutions also gain interoperability as different systems are adjusted to connect. Third, participation strengthens the network giving additional value to the participants while magnifying available resources and outreach. This can be seen in the leveraging power grouped institutions may gain when dealing with issues of technology (e.g.
standards) or legal aspects (e.g. copyright). Ultimately, the greatest benefit goes to the consumer, who enjoys an improved service thanks to a richer information base.
For users, the origin of the content ceases to be relevant as access to information becomes the central goal. This realization is not always visible in heritage institutions, one example are museums often not being able to
5. De Marchi and Van Miegroet, 2004:95. For a study on the art market, and networks of painting production and consumption, see de Marchi and Van Miegroet (2004) and Montias (1991).
properly integrate their museum and library collections, fragmenting user search environments.6
Table 2. Benefits brought by participating in an social network Benefits Area of impact
Joint resources
Know how (policy, best practice, solutions, legal aspects) Complementary collections result in value added
Finances to enable actions, to reap benefit from past investment
Technology and access to specialized processes and infrastructure
Richer result from individual effort
Greater outreach
Multilingual presentation
Larger geographic coverage and representation Increase interoperability
Richer collection contextualization Access to a greater market Strengthen
the network
Greater benefit to greater openness
Leveraging power (legal aspects, technical aspects, standards) Benefit to institution and to the network
Improved service to costumers Source : own.
Dutch libraries have benefited from being part of a national network, which began adopting computers since the late 1960s. A Project for Integrated Catalogue Automation, known as PICA, was created as initiative of the National Library and a group of university libraries. PICA was officially formed in 1976, supporting the library community with the use of a Netherlands Central Catalogue (NCC) and the inter-library loan system. Libraries continue to pool resources (through yearly membership fees as well as sharing collections) and PICA has grown to become part of
6. Navarrete and Mackenzie Owen (2011) argue that heritage institutions should strive to create single cultural information systems, re-integrating collections information managed by their various departments (e.g. library and object collections inside a museum).
a worldwide network, the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)7. Dutch libraries have mostly benefited from being part of the European network to pool resources, to gain greater outreach and to further strengthen the international library network, as will be discussed on the following sections.
3. European digitization projects overview
Dutch libraries have been part of the European network of heritage institutions that use computers to improve work practice and increase access to collections. This section presents the European Commission as a funding and policy development agency supporting the dynamic expansion of a European heritage information network.
The European Commission has four-year research periods, or Framework Programs (FPs). The total budget for research has increased on average by 0.6 percent, with a noticeable increase during the FP7, almost a 2 percent increase8.
Table 3. Overview of European Framework Programs (1984-2020)
Framework Program Years Total in € million
FP 1 1984‐1987 3,270.60
FP 2 1987‐1991 5,357
FP 3 1990‐1994 6,552
FP 4 1994‐1998 13,121
FP 5 1998‐2002 15,871
FP 6 2002‐2006 19,256
FP 7 2007‐2013 55,806
Horizon 2020 2014‐2020 79,271
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCLC_PICA.
8. http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm?pg=budget. All data from this section has been gathered from the CORDIS portal (http://cordis.europa.eu), otherwise noted.
The EU established the First Framework Program for Community research, development and demonstration in 1984 (FP1). One of the programs funded was RACE (1985-1986) to contribute technical cooperation in telecommunications technologies. This was followed by RACE 1 (1987-1992) to introduce Integrated Broadband Communication Networks, part of PF2. The RACE 2 program (1991-1994) implemented the Integrated Broadband Communications technology and integrated a broadband network using open standards, during FP3. Heritage institutions participated in these programs with exploratory projects to present and exchange multimedia information using digital technology.
This period represented the set up of a technological joint approach, which led to experimentation of standards.
A second period can be characterized for the consolidation and advancement of the established technological approach. In 1994, the so- called Bangemann report identified mobile communication as a pillar of the information society. The network was to be made through public and private partnerships. The FP4 was launched the same year to implement Research and Technological Development (RTD) programs, to promote cooperation and to stimulate research in the field. At this time, one important line of programs was established to contribute to the economic exploitation of Europe’s heritage and scientific content. Since 1995, the Information Society became part of the international agenda and funds have been made available for projects participating in content production to support economic growth.
The same previously sketched two stages can be identified in the field of libraries. The Libraries Program was launched in 1990, marking the start of a series of programs focused first on computerized bibliographics, library networking and interconnection systems, innovative library services, and technology-based library products and tools. A second program, part of FP3 and running from 1994 through 1998, served to consolidate and integrate the results. Three action lines were set: network- oriented internal library systems, telematic systems for library cooperation and networking, and library services for access to networked information resources9. Museums, and all other heritage institutions, greatly benefited from advancements in the library network.
9. http://cordis.europa.eu/libraries/en/intro.html.
By 2000, it was clear that several issues hindered the exchange of information among heritage institutions: partners did not equally understand technical requirements (different levels of know-how), content was used only once (no further exploitation), there was no sustainability considerations (future access was not ensured), content holders were not fully aware and convinced of the benefits brought by giving access (limited proactive activity), and generally projects worked in isolation (not building from previous efforts). Efforts were redirected to identify best practice for content creation, the use of standards, legal requirements and an overall framework to guide future projects10.
The European Library was launched in 2001 aiming at developing a multilingual distributed digital library (during FP5), as well as at increasing the National Libraries potential as actors in the knowledge society (during FP6). The first portal was published in 2005 (Erreur ! Référence de lien hypertexte non valide.).
The Information Society Technologies Program (IST) was first established during FP5 but continued in FP6 to improve the integration and coordination of projects. IST intended to enhance added value to information, increase competitiveness and support the realization of socio- economic needs. Heritage information was part of the valorization efforts.
A complementary program for the Information Society was formed, the Multiannual Community program, to stimulate the development, access, use and exploitation of European digital content on the global networks, improving quality and best practice, reinforcing cooperation and promoting linguistic diversity in the Information Society. This program, better known as eContent (2001-2005) and followed by eContent Plus (2005-2008), was responsible for much of the production and dissemination of digital heritage content11. Projects, and programs, lasted several years, often going across FPs.
During the Dutch presidency of the European Commission in 2004, a document was drafted that would have great implications for future
10. EMII, the European Museum Information Institute, was responsible for developing such framework for the museum sector (http://cordis.europa.eu).
11. MINERVA and MINERVA EC were funded by the eContent programs, responsible for funding Europeana (http://cordis.europa.eu/ist/digicult/
minervaplus.htm).
digitization projects. The document stated a clear goal: citizens were to have unrestricted, sustainable and reliable digital access to Europe’s cultural and scientific knowledge, sharing of these knowledge would contribute to establishing the knowledge economy12.
In 2005, the i2010 policy framework for the information society and media launched a European information society for growth and employment (2005-2010). It aimed at joining various policy initiatives into one strategy to establish a single European information space (including a single market for the digital economy), to reinforce innovation and investment in ICT research (to boost the economy), and to promote inclusion, public services and quality of life. The Commission recognized that digitization was “instrumental […] to exploit Europe’s rich cultural and scientific resources […] and for keeping the past and the present alive for the future”13. Digitization was key in the creation of educational resources, cultural tourism, new markets, as well as for conservation and preservation of heritage. The Commission also identified considerable investment towards digitization but its fragmentation jeopardized access and economic sustainability. EU coordination was desired to reduced costs, share know-how, increase the use of standards and build on each other’s work. Libraries and digitization of collections had a key role in this process.
Core to all programs was supporting access to heritage materials and supply of heritage information for European citizens. The Commission identified connectivity with growth and information exchange with economic stimulation, and placed heritage institutions as key providers of quality content.
From the desire of building a single European information space, the European Digital Library Network was launched in 2008 (beta) as the portal to join collections across sectors (libraries, archives, museums, audiovisual) from all European institutions. The portal of online heritage collections will be better known as Europeana.
At the end of 2012, Europeana reported giving access to 29 million objects, from 2,200 institutions in 36 countries. The Netherlands ranked
12. OCW, 2004.
13. http://cordis.europa.eu/ist/ka3/digicult/home.html.
third as data provider (9%) after France (10.8%) and Germany (15%), and ranked fifth as data consumer. From the 29 million objects, about 20 million are made available as open metadata (texts, images, videos and sounds are licensed under the Public Domain Dedication CC0) of which 2.4 million are made available as Linked Data (online publication technique to maximize re-use through connectedness). Europeana has further grown in partner collaboration to reach 789 networked members in 201314. Europeana is housed at the Dutch National Library in The Hague.
During the last 20 years, the European Commission has invested in forming and developing networks to support information exchange across the region. Networks have been physical (to develop the broadband infrastructure) as well as social (through projects and supporting experts).
The network has been made to give unrestricted, sustainable and reliable access to cultural and scientific knowledge, and libraries have been at the core of these efforts, more recently publishing joint collections through Europeana.
The overview presented in this section has identified the FPs key characteristics: in the early 1990s, FPs supported the establishment of an interoperable connection (broadband internet) and projects experimented with networks. FPs of the late 1990s were characterized by placing heritage information as part of the Information Society, and as such supporting heritage information networks to enhance the economy. In the early 2000s, digital heritage information required coordination and harmonization, and the FPs focused on adding value by repositioning content in new contexts. Heritage content was placed in an information market for reuse in the FPs of the late part of the 2000s, and an increased number of private-public collaborations to interconnect data emerged.
4. Evidence from Dutch libraries
Dutch libraries are part of the European network of heritage information, and as such have participated in the various efforts to increase access to collections through a linked network of information.
The current state of Dutch libraries can be sketched from the 2012
14. http://pro.europeana.eu/web/guest/about/facts-figures.
ENUMERATE survey: a total of 2,500 heritage institutions responded the survey from 29 countries, of which 599 were libraries (30 national libraries, 160 higher education libraries and 409 special libraries). 13 Dutch libraries responded to the survey, 7 of which were higher education libraries and 6 special libraries. The National library did not participate in the survey. The table below shows the relation between total surveys and libraries (per type) that participated in the ENUMERATE survey.
Table 4. Overview participating libraries per type in ENUMERATE survey
Netherlands Europe
Total institutions 141 1,951
Total libraries 13 599
‐ National Library 0 30
‐ Higher education libraries 7 160
‐ Special libraries 6 409
Dutch libraries allocated an average of 7 percent of their total budget to digital activities in 2012, compared to 8 percent of all European libraries (33 libraries reported other years).
Table 5 shows the evident linkage between a greater share of staff allocated to digital activities when a greater budget is allocated to digital activities (correlation coefficient 0.99). Data shows that a larger staff allocated to digital activities is linked to a larger share of collections being published online (correlation coefficient 0.99). Further, institutions reporting a greater number of staff linked to digital activities are more likely to have digitized a larger share of their collections (correlation coefficient 0.45). This suggests that a higher number of staff involved in digital activities and a higher publication of collections reflects an institutional commitment towards digital activities.
Dutch libraries report a much higher adoption of a digitization policy, including digitization strategy, measurement and sustainability, than the European average. This suggests that Dutch libraries have an institutional awareness to plan and guide digital activities.
Table 5. Budget allocation to digital activities in earmarked Euros and staff and process indicators (in percentage) in Dutch libraries
Digitization budget (as % of total) Number of library institutions Average allocated FTE towards digital activities Average % FTE towards digital activities Coverage of digitized collections (%) % of digital objects accessible online Institutions that measure digital use (%)
< 1% 5 1 2 25 26 100
1.1‐5% 3 15 8 12 58 66
> 5% 2 8.2 100 7.5 15 50
Not Known 3 5 3 15 10 66
Total 13 6 100 17 31 77
Source: based on ENUMERATE data set v3.
Note: data is not weighted by the size of collections or budget or number of employees. FTE = Full Time Equivalent.
Table 6. Adoption of institutional policy for digital collections (in percentage)
European libraries
N=599 (in %)
Dutch libraries N=13 (in %)
Digitization strategy 38.8 76
Policy on the use of digital collections 26 46
Measurement of the digital access 46 77
Digital preservation strategy 34 77
ENUMERATE was launched to support evidence based policy making within a European network of heritage information. Data from Dutch libraries shows the relevant role of resource availability, both as budget as in human availability, to ensure access to collections. Dutch libraries have a higher percentage of collections digitized and have developed strategic documents to guide digital activities than the European average.
How has the network made an impact on individual Dutch libraries?
Data available from a small network of 13 university libraries and the National Library shows an increase in access to digital collections:
electronic journals have an average growth rate of 110% while searches in the database (Web of Science) have a 23% growth rate. Adjusting the use of resources per capita, the number of articles viewed in Science Direct grew with a 53% average in the last 6 years. On the other hand, physical loans have decreased by 26% in the same period15.
Table 7. Access to collections in Dutch academic libraries 2006-2011
Source: Benchmarking summary 2006-2011
These 13 university libraries and the National Library are part of a much larger global network of scientific collections that has increasingly become digital, with publishers as key players and with user access granted generally via university licensing. Access limitations due to costs of rights clearance and licenses are significant but fall outside of the scope of this paper. Sufficient is to say that a project that started in the late 1960s, PICA, continues to grow while improving service to users through a broader digital collection base.
15. Summary Benchmarking 2006-2011 (http://www.ukb.nl/benchmarking).
Science Direct (Elsevier)
Springer Wiley
Blackwell JSTOR
Oxford University
Press
Web of Science (searches) 2006 441.003 60.099 107.715 128.099 128.099 236.309 2007 478.996 86.036 138.775 197.195 197.195 289.121 2008 610.107 103.825 129.170 181.903 181.903 288.506 2009 713.431 115.149 144.237 167.676 167.676 330.536 2010 740.143 125.228 189.900 206.224 206.224 309.149 2011 793.272 165.413 257.464 229.066 229.066 289.661
5. A digital heritage information network
Dutch libraries started exploring application of computers in the 1960s and developed a national digital network to exchange collections in the 1970s. In the 1990s, the European Commission started funding programs to support the development of an information network, initially establishing a physical infrastructure that would later enable the social networks required to support online access to collections, and later funding projects that aimed at improving exchange of remote heritage information.
The European funding promoted the formation and development of networks, more recently through the Europeana portal. Being the preferred network, Europeana is expected to continue to grow and to receive positive feedback as more institutions and more collections join.
Europeana, as other European funded projects did in the past, has brought three main benefits to institutions joining: the pooling of resources to advance efforts, an increase in outreach and therefore access to collections, and the further development of a heritage information network. The main benefactor is the user, as collections are increasingly being made accessible in an unrestricted, sustainable and reliable online environment.
The use of open formats (open linked data) for the publication of collections online further supports the repositioning of content in multiple environments. This allows data to be reused by other networks and, through positive feedback, expand the Europeana network. For individual libraries, having access to a large network represents having access to resources that would otherwise not be available, including the knowhow, funding and technology. Collections are also placed within a larger network, expanding possible contextualization during access. The extent to which individual libraries are able to reap benefits from the network are not clear from the ENUMERATE data, as the statistics have only began to be gathered. Future surveys will provide data to show libraries change in time. Data available from the smaller network of 13 university libraries does show an increase in access of materials across the network.
Dutch libraries rank comparable to the European library average on digital production and allocation of resources but have a significantly higher presence of policy documents guiding those activities. Dutch
libraries reported a correlation between having a higher allocated budget and having staff contributing to the digital activities. Further, the higher the staff allocated to digital activities, the higher the collections being made available online. Having more staff and a larger publication of collections reflects an institutional commitment to advance access to heritage information.
Much work has been done in the development of a European network of heritage information. The current ENUMERATE data available indicates collections are being positioned online with the aim of giving unrestricted, sustainable and reliable access to collections. Future data gathering may provide evidence on the benefits of digitization, expanding our understanding on the specific benefits brought by digital heritage information networks.
References
De Marchi N. and van Miegroet H. (2004). The history of art markets’ in Ginscburgh. Vicktor and David Throsby (eds.) Handboook of the Economics of Art and Culture. Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 69-122.
Economides N. (1996). The Economics of Networks. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 14(1996):673-699.
Montias J.M. (1991). Works of art in seventeenth-century Amsterdam: An analysis of subjects and attributions. Freedberg, D., de Vries, J. (eds.) Art in History. History in Art. Studies in seventeenth-century Dutch Culture. Getty Center. Santa Monica. p. 331-372.
Navarrete T. and Mackenzie Owen J. (2011) Museum libraries: how digitization can enhance the value of the museum. Palabra Clave (La Plata), vol. 1, nº 1, p. 12-20.
OCW (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap) (2004) Strategies for a European area of digital cultural resources. Towards a Continuum of digital heritage. Conference Report, 15-16 September 2004. The Hague: OCW.
Shapiro C. and Varian H. (1999) Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
