MUSETECH Evaluation Criteria by Cluster
Overview
The MUSETECH Model[1] posits that in order for museums to successfully utilize technologies, there are three stakeholder perspectives that must be considered. Throughout all stages of a museum technology project, these perspectives offer views that complement and inform the others in a way that can build institutional synergy. This model also states that there are four primary stages or constituents of a museum technology project. These quartiles contain evaluation criteria per perspective, grouped by thematic categories, which allows for a granular overview of the considerations throughout each stage of the technology project.
Design Quartile
This phase corresponds to the initial phases of the technology project, where the central problem is defined and answered.
D1. Design and product ideation
D1Pa. Design concept
The main goal or concept that is to be achieved with a specific technology idea or application. Cutting edge or novel technologies without an established use may be difficult to fully conceptualize[2].
D1Pb. Integration with exhibit
This criteria is about how well the technology will or can be integrated into the exhibit or other things on display.
D1Pc. Integration with other ICT
This criteria relates to how well the technology integrates with other Information and Communication technologies. Can this technology be used with other on-site, off-site or online technologies used by the institution?
D1Pd. Balance of physical with digital
This criteria relates to the balance between physical and digital elements within an exhibit or display. Certain technologies can "overshadow" a visitors connection with an exhibit or the objects on display[3].
D1Pe. Clear understanding of the fabrication process
This criteria is about the clarity and understanding of the fabrication, installation and deployment process for the technology by Cultural Heritage Professionals.
D1Pf. Level of in-house technical knowledge
This criteria considers whether there is enough in-house technical knowledge to independently manage the project, or if support and consultation will be required by external contractors to fully manage this project.
D1Ma. Level of Innovation and business intelligence
What value does this technology and this specific approach add for your institution?
D1Mb. Brand name, uniqueness, originality
This criterion is about whether the technology used serves the museum's brand and reputation[4].
D1Mc. Integration with other ICT
This criterion evaluates how the new technology or project would integrate into the existing digital framework of the institution.
D1Md. Budget
This criterion is about the financial considerations that may be associated with a technology project, including a cost versus benefit analysis.
D1Me. Staff acceptance
This criterion relates to the staff of the institution and their willingness to adopt and embrace the new technology, or if it will merely be tolerated.
D1Va. Co-design, front-end evaluation and visitor acceptance
This criterion is related to initiatives that include visitors in the early design and evaluation phases[5].
D2. Experience design and narratives
D2Pa. Experience added value
This criterion relates to how the technology mediation relates to the application it is being used it, because different technologies offer different visitor experiences.
D2Pb. Relevance to audience
This criterion relates to the relevancy of the content on display to the intended audience.
D2Pc. Tailored content
This criterion relates to how a Cultural Heritage Professional might tailor the content and narrative to different visitors' profiles.
D2Pd. Attentional balance
This criterion relates to the attentional balance of the technology and physical elements of an exhibit.
D2Pe. Social interaction
This criterion considers the role this technology can have in fostering and facilitating social interaction in real and virtual spaces.
D2Pf. Before and after the visit support
This criterion relates to the potential of the technology linking pre- and post-visit activities.
D2Ma. Interpretive, educational and learning potential
This criterion relates to the interpretive, educational and learning potential that the technology project may provide.
D2Mb. Personalization potential
This criterion relates to the museum's potential for providing personalized content for visitors through a customization, context-awareness or adaptivity mechanism. This is distinct from the "tailored content" provided by Cultural Heritage Professionals.
D2Mc. Public outreach and communication
This criterion relates to the potential of a museum using this technology to connect with their communities[6].
D2Md. Big data potential
This criterion relates to the big data potential provided by some technology solutions that can offer useful insight into visitor preferences.
D2Va. Engagement
This criterion refers to the opportunities offered to visitors to engage them on a physical, emotional, intellectual, social, cognitive or proprioceptive level[7].
D2Vb. Personalization
Personalization of content and narratives for specific visitors should increate engagement.
D2Vc. Learning, entertainment and edutainment
Edutainment is both instructive and fun, providing both learning and entertainment[8]. Pleasant and positive memories are favored over unpleasant memories[9].
D2Vd. Attentional balance
This criterion relates to how a visitor balances their attention between the physical object and the technology.
D2Ve. Affective impact
This criterion relates to the emotional resonance that a digital resource may invoke from a visitor. A number of studies have highlighted the increasing importance of emotion and affect for learning[10][11].
D2Vf. Social interaction
This criterion considers the role this technology can have in fostering and facilitating social interaction in real and virtual spaces.
Related Criteria: D2Pe
D2Vg. Ability to follow usage on other platforms
This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.
D2Vh. Sense of belonging to a community
This criterion relates to empowering visitors to feel that they are part of a local, regional, national or international community[12].
D3. Interactions, affordances, and interaction metaphors
D3Pa. Quality of Affordances
Affordances are the intrinsic properties of a thing that provide clues about how it can be used[13].
D3Pb. Suitability of interaction metaphors
This criterion is related to the efficacy of an interactive's physical form to communicate it's function.
D3Pc. Interface design
This criterion relates to how clean, clear and comprehensive the interface is, regardless of the form it takes.
This criterion relates to how intuitively and successfully someone can navigate within contents or the physical space being augmented.
D3Pe. Follow-up usage on other platforms
This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.
D3Pf. Multisensoriality
This criterion refers to the inclusion of additional senses beside seeing, reading or hearing.
D3Ma. Follow-up usage on other platforms
This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.
D3Mb. Brand name, uniqueness and originality
This criterion is about how an interactive communicates the brand identity of the museum.
D3Va. Utility, usability and ease of use
This criterion looks at what meaning the visitor can achieve through using the technology interactive. After it has been established to have utility, it is important to ensure that it usable and easy to use.
D3Vb. Intuitiveness, learnability and learning curve
This criterion relates to the initial learning phase associated with the interactive. It is recommended to use familiar affordances and interaction methods that the visitor can learn quickly. The time span a visitor will spend understanding an interactive is very small[14].
D3Vc. Responsiveness
This criterion relates to how responsive the device or application is to the feedback of a user. It can help to provide visual or audio feedback to inform users their input was recognized[15].
This criterion relates to how easily and intuitively a visitor can navigate through the digital interface, as well as physical spaces if used to augment a visit.
D3Ve. Personalization
This criterion refers to how well the content covers the visitors needs, interests and motivations when used through a personalization mechanism.
Related Criteria: D2Pc, D2Mb
D3Vf. Social interaction
This criterion considers the role this technology can have in fostering and facilitating social interaction in real and virtual spaces.
D3Vg. Ability to follow-up usage on other platforms
This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.
D3Vh. Presence of Multisensoriality
This criterion relates to the potential of interactions and engagement that use multiple or different senses that sight and hearing.
D4. Aesthetics, look and feel and visceral qualities
D4Pa. Look and feel
This criterion relates to the physical properties of the technology that make up the look and feel of the final product, such as weight, colors, and materials.
D4Ma. Brand name, uniqueness and originality
This criterion relates to the potential for the aesthetics and intrinsic qualities of the design to overlap with vision and brand of a museum.
D4Va. Look and feel
This criterion relates to the look and feel of the interactive, which might be of great importance to the visitor's overall experience.
Content Quartile
Content can be consumed through a range of medias, platforms, and devices that are used in many different locations. This content needs to be easy to create and update in the future.
| Cluster | Perspective | Evaluation Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| C1. Content Creation | Cultural Heritage Professional | C1Pa. Utility, usability and ease of use |
| C1Pb. Learnability and learning curve | ||
| C1Pc. Personalization and adaptation | ||
| C1Pd. Multilingualism | ||
| C1Pe. Community support | ||
| C1Pf. Technology knowledge and support in the house | ||
| C1Pg. Interoperability | ||
| Museum | C1Ma. Continuity of usage | |
| C1Mb. Logging | ||
| Visitor | C1Va. Perceived content quality | |
| C1Vb. Visitor-created content, creation and curation | ||
| C2. Content Maintenance | Cultural Heritage Professional | C2Pa. Ability to make changes in-house |
| C2Pb. Potential for documenting and archiving | ||
| Museum | C2Ma. Staff acceptance | |
| C2Mb. Interoperability and modularity | ||
| Visitor | C2Va. Personalization | |
| C2Vb. Social interaction and sharing | ||
| C2Vc. Continuity of usage |
C1. Content creation
C1Pa. Utility, usability and ease of use
This criterion relates to the utility, usability and ease of use for content creation within the new technology project.
C1Pb. Learnability and learning curve
This criterion relates to how quickly a cultural heritage professional can master the content creation system for the new technology project.
C1Pc. Personalization and adaptation
This criterion relates to mechanisms or approaches that allow content to be adapted to different visitors' profiles.
C1Pd. Multilingualism
This criterion relates to the technology projects ability to utilize learning resources in multiple languages.
C1Pe. Community support
This criterion relates to support provided by communities both inside and outside of the institution itself.
C1Pf. Technology knowledge and support in the house
More cutting edge or complex technologies may require contracting specialists or training staff. It is important to identify everything that is required to manage the content creation process.
C1Pg. Interoperability
This criterion relates to the technologies ability to work across different systems or applications.
C1Ma. Continuity of usage
This criterion relates to the interoperability of the technology, but also has the added dimension of time. Can the content be accessed at different times, such as before, during or after a visit?
C1Mb. Logging
This criterion relates to the technology's capabilities for creating data useful for analytic purposes, such as gleaning visitor patterns.
C1Va. Perceived content quality
Content created for an audience is synthesized by the visitor through a unique process that ascribes personal meaning, resulting in them judging it as more or less relevant.
C1Vb. Visitor-created content, creation and curation
This criterion relates to the visitor's available to create and curate content through the interactive.
C2. Content maintenance
C2Pa. Ability to make changes in-house
This criterion relates to the potential for cultural heritage professionals to update the content within the interactive without needing to involve an outside contractor.
C2Pb. Potential for documenting and archiving
This criterion relates to the potential for cultural heritage professionals to archive, document and preserve content that is created for this system.
C2Ma. Staff acceptance
For any content creation and management system to succeed, it needs to be accepted by the professionals who will be using it the most.
C2Mb. Interoperability and modularity
Interoperability is important from the museum perspective and also includes modularity, which provides the option of re-using resources.
C2Va. Personalization
Content is personalized is cater more specifically to a unique visitors' profile.
C2Vb. Social interaction and sharing
This criterion is about monitoring social interaction and engagement across different digital communication channels such as social media during and after a visit.
C2Vc. Continuity of usage
This criterion is about catering to the different times and ways someone may visit a museum or their resources.
Compliance Quartile
| Cluster | Perspective | Evaluation Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| MP1. Health, Safety and Accessibility | Cultural Heritage Professional | MP1Pa. Accessibility |
| MP1Pb. Appropriateness | ||
| MP1Pc. Safety | ||
| Museum | MP1Ma. Safety | |
| MP1Mb. Emergency management | ||
| MP1Mc. Disposal and recycling | ||
| MP1Md. Hygiene, cleaning and maintenance | ||
| Visitor | MP1Va. Accessibility | |
| MP1Vb. Appropriateness | ||
| MP1Vc. Safety | ||
| MP2. Logging and Monitoring | Cultural Heritage Professional | MP2Pa. Logging and monitoring |
| Museum | MP2Ma. Log storage, access, privacy and analytics | |
| Visitor | MP2Va. Personalization | |
| MP2Vb. Legal compliance | ||
| MP3. Ethics and Legal Issues | Cultural Heritage Professional | MP3Pa. Protecting audiences |
| MP3Pb. Data gathering and protection | ||
| Museum | MP3Ma. Other legal issues | |
| Visitor | MP3Va. Trust and confidence in museum |
MP1. Health, safety and accessibility
MP1Pa. Accessibility
This criterion relates to the accommodations provided to visitors to increase their access to your project.
MP1Pb. Appropriateness
This criterion covers the appropriateness of the technology and content for the professionals it is being used by.
MP1Pc. Safety
This criterion refers to the cultural heritage professional's safety while engaged with the museum technology experience.
MP1Ma. Safety
Safety issues can raise corporate and institutional accountability concerns.
MP1Mb. Emergency management
This criterion relates to any procedures that would be required to handle emergencies related to the interactive.
MP1Mc. Disposal and recycling
This criterion relates to the disposal and recycling of technology components used by the project.
MP1Md. Hygiene, cleaning and maintenance
This criterion relates to cleaning and hygiene maintenance that would be required by the interactive, such as single-use protective covers or disinfecting procedures.
MP1Va. Accessibility
Accessibility is a complex interplay between the three perspectives, and this one covers the accommodations made directly to visitors by the interactive.
MP1Vb. Appropriateness
This criterion covers the appropriateness of the technology and content for the visitors it is being used by.
MP1Vc. Safety
This criterion refers to the visitor safety while engaged with the museum technology experience.
MP2. Logging and monitoring
MP2Pa. Logging and monitoring
When logging, monitoring, recording, analyzing or sharing data related to a visitor, there needs to be strict rules regarding legal and ethical guidelines.
MP2Ma. Log storage, access, privacy and analytics
There is a shared ethical responsibility between the museum as an institution and the professionals that access and use visitor data for analytics purposes.
MP2Va. Personalization
The visitor needs to be made aware when data is collected about them for personalization purposes.
MP2Vb. Legal compliance
The visitor should be reassured about the legal compliance regarding their personal data.
MP3. Ethics and legal issues
MP3Pa. Protecting audiences
Cultural heritage professionals protect audiences by acting as advocates for the visitors of an institution.
MP3Pb. Data gathering and protection
Data that is collected for analytic and audience research purposes must be handled with the utmost care and in complete compliance with relevant regulations.
MP3Ma. Other legal issues
This criterion relates to other legal concerns surrounding the project, such as intellectual property, copyright, licensing and data protection laws.
MP3Va. Trust and confidence in museum
This criteria relates to the effect on a visitors' trust and confidence in the museum as a result of the above mentioned issues.
Operation Quartile
O1. Deployment and setting-up
O1Pa. Ease of use for installation
This criterion covers the ease of installation and deploying the museum technology project. Is the process manageable by current staff, or will it require additional outside contractors?
O1Pb. Distance monitoring
This criterion relates to the cultural heritage professional's ability to remotely monitor the status of the technology elements, giving them insight into hardware or software failures so they know when it is necessary to intervene.
O1Pc. Workflow
This criterion relates to the effect of the technology project on the cultural heritage professional's daily operational workflow. Will this project add too much additional work and become difficult to maintain?
O1Pd. In-house technical knowledge
This criterion examines whether the in-house museum staff has the technical experience to setup and troubleshoot the project.
O1Pe. Additional staff training
This criterion examines any specialized training that may be required by in-house staff to be able to manage the project's setup and deployment.
O1Ma. Set-up and start up parameters
This criterion examines the parameters surrounding the set-up and start-up of the project, such as the number of devices needed and the difficulty of the set-up process.
O1Mb. Modularity and interoperability
This criterion is about considering the possibility of reusing and repurposing existing hardware that may be available to the museum.
O1Mc. Staff and front-desk training
This criterion examines if any additional training will be required to allow staff and front desk personnel to manage the new technology.
O1Md. Distribution, recovery and guarantee
This criterion examines how the technology will be distributed for use, as well as the process to guarantee the return and recovery of the technology after its use.
O1Va. Visitor experience quality and customer care
This criterion covers the overall perceived quality of the experience by the visitor as relating to customer care and a hassle-free experience.
O1Vb. Visitor-owned devices
This criterion explores the visitor's ability to use their own personal devices, such as cell phones and laptops, to access the content during and after their visit.
O2. Robustness and maintenance
O2Pa. Environmental constraints
This criterion examines different environmental conditions, such as humidity or ambient light, and considers how they may affect the interactive when in those conditions.
O2Pb. Robustness
This criterion examines the robustness of the technological elements, such as hardware, software and algorithms. The nature of the technology project will create a different list of considerations when discussing robustness.
O2Pc. Maintenance required
O2Pd. Updating and replacing
O2Ma. Storage cost
O2Mb. Level of maintenance
O2Mc. Loss, deterioration, theft and replacement
O2Md. Reusing and disposing
O2Va. Robustness
O2Vb. Responsiveness
O2Vc. Stability
O2Vd. Speed and speed of recovery
O3. Power and energy
O3Pa. Day to day running and maintenance
O3Pb. Stability
O3Ma. Interventions in the exhibit space
O3Va. Prevent feelings of failure and frustration
O4. Costs
O4Pa. Workforce, time and additional staff
O4Ma. Financial costs and investments
O4Mb. Running costs
O4Va. Costs (value for money and time)
O5. Additional Resources
O5Pa. Instructions and how-to guides
O5Ma. Adopting, financing and sponsoring
O5Va. Uptake
References
- ↑ https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3297717
- ↑ Areti Damala and Nenad Stojanovic. 2012. Tailoring the Adaptive Augmented Reality (A2R) museum visit: Identifying Cultural Heritage professionals' motivations and needs. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality - Arts, Media, and Humanities (ISMAR-AMH). Atlanta, USA, IEEE, 71-80.
- ↑ Merel Van der Vaart and Areti Damala. 2015. Through the Loupe: Visitor Engagement With a Primarily Text-Based Handheld AR Application. In Proceedings of the IEEE Digital Heritage 2015 Conference, vol. 2, 535-544. doi: 10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2015.7419574
- ↑ Jane Finnis. 2017. Let’s Get Real 5: What’s the Brand? Culture24
- ↑ Susie Ironside. 2013. Glasgow Museums. In Museum Practice 15.01.2013, Museums Association: London. Retrieved from: https://www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice/youth-panels/15012013-glasgowmuseums
- ↑ Elena Not and Daniella Petrelli. 2018. Blending customisation, context-awareness and adaptivity for personalised tangible interaction in cultural heritage. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 114 (2018): 3-19.
- ↑ Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi and Kim Hermanson. 1999. Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn. The educational role of the museum, Routledge: London, 146–160.
- ↑ Isabelle Astic, Coline Aunis, Areti Damala, and Eric Gressier-Soudan. 2011. A ubiquitous mobile edutainement application for learning science through play. In Museums and the Web 2011 Proceedings. Retrieved from: https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/a_ubiquitous_mobile_edutainment_application_fo. html
- ↑ John Falk and Lynn Dierking. 2018. Learning from museums. Rowman & Littlefield.
- ↑ Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Merel van der Vaart, Dick van Dijk, and Ian Ruthven. 2016a. The Loupe: Tangible Augmented Reality for Learning to Look at Ancient Greek Art. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. 16, 5 (2016), 73–85.
- ↑ Sara Perry, Maria Economou, Hilary Young, Maria Roussou, and Laia Pujol-Tost. 2017. Moving beyond the virtual museum: Engaging visitors emotionally. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM), IEEE, 1-8. doi:10.1109/VSMM.2017.8346276
- ↑ Luigina Ciolfi, Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Laura Maye, and Monika Lechner. 2018. Cultural Heritage Communities: Technologies and Challenges. Routledge.
- ↑ Donald Norman. 1999. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6(3), 38-43.
- ↑ Eva Hornecker. 2008. “I don’t understand it either, but it is cool”-visitor interactions with a multi-touch table in a museum." In 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal interactive human computer systems, IEEE, 113-121.
- ↑ Judy Diamond. 1991. Prototyping interactive exhibits on rocks and minerals. Curator: The Museum Journal, 34(1), 5-17.
