QRator Museum of Brands Share Academy Symposium 10/04/2013


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • undertaking a collaborative project between Two academic departments (UCLDH and CASA), and The Museum of Brands.
  • UCL Overview
  • Overview MOB -Brand heritage collection showing 150 years consumer culturecharity, independent museum ‘self-funding’ through admissions, corporate events, retail and publishing
  • Before we talk about the Project at the Museum of Brands. Here is a bit of context about the pre-cursor project in the Grant Museum of Zoology at UCL.
  • www.talesofthings.com
  • Installation - need to stop people getting out of Qrator and stealing ipads – unsupervised tunnel- Secure mounts also prevents our access to ipads- visitors determined to tamper, good knowledge of ipads- ergonomics -Grant Museum too high, MOB too low. Future for equipment- robustness testing. hoping three years minimum without spend - MOB has to let batteries run down each night as we can’t access off switch on ipads- monitor damage or theft
  • Evaluation - overview exit surveyVisitor Exit Surveys were administered to random visitors from 15 February to 21 March. The survey was composed of five questions - made up of multiple choice and open-ended - asking visitors about their individual interactions (or lack thereof), positive and negative aspects of their experiences, and any improvements or comments. The surveys collected responses from 64 anonymous visitors with 234 responses to the five questions. This provided a rich dataset for the analysis of visitor experiences and interactions.While only 17% of respondents stated that they made a comment, over half (52%) read the information: either the question(21%) or the comments (31%).  
  • Visitors to the Museum of Brands – 1 month evaluation period. The evaluation period is one of two busiest times of the year for student groups Feb is often MOB busiest month of the year – overcrowded at times.MOB visitor demographic Slide suggestion: pie chart of visitors during evaluation period. Adult Individual1764Child Individual83OAP Individual325Family108Other concession Individual20Student Individual 428Student Group1468Key Stage 2 Group186Early Years Group39Adult Group173Child Group250OAP Group39Corporate events382Non-payers179Total5444
  • Evaluation ObservationsFrom 13 February to 21 March, 9 observation sessions were conducted totaling16 hours. The average time for each session was 107 minutes. The total number of visitor groups observed using the iPads is 54, Referring to number of group/individual interactions. In total, 85 (35 males and 50 females) visitors were recorded interacting with the QRator iPads.
  • Data from the six QRator iPads was collected by archiving contributions from 13th Feb to 24th March 2013. Each individual visitor contribution was simultaneously uploaded to the ‘ToTeM’ master database on the Tales of Things website, followed by the QRator website pulling the data about each current question from the master database and integrates these comments within QRator online. These comments were then aggregated together based on the current questions originally asked by the museum. This resulted in a corpus of 271 visitor contributions, totalling 2,288 words and 854 unique words, providing a rich dataset for the analysis of visitor experience. Monitoring visitor comments- Staff time approx 10 mins every other day or more after large school group- some post moderation - policy to delete only nonsense. Foreign languages more likely to be deleted
  • Subjective. Visitor contributions were categorized qualitatively using open coded content analysis where each comment was read and categorized. The visitor contributions were read sentence-by-sentence and coded in order to identify recurring behaviours and how they might relate to one another. Despite the simplistic categorisation it is possible to see how visitors are relating to and interpreting their museum experience. The largest proportion of the comments about the museum (38%) with many of the visitor comments focusing on opinions of the museum as a whole. This raises the question of whether a digital technology used in this way promotes of an opportunity for visitors to make meaning from their whole experience, rather than engage with the exhibit specific content and interpret the exhibitions themselves. 32% of visitor comments fell into the category of on topic; triggered predominately by the QRator interface and questions posed by the museum curator, suggesting that visitors are inspired to share their own experiences, thus co-constructing a public multiple interpretation of museum objects.
  • When focusing further it is possible to see that some of the current questions produce higher levels of on topic comments than others. Show or Hide – the disgraced celebrity in current news question. Associating questions with provocative current events more likely to provoke a response.
  • QRator Museum of Brands Share Academy Symposium 10/04/2013

    1. 1. at the Museum of Brands
    2. 2. UCL Centre for Digital HumanitiesUCL Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis
    3. 3. ProcessesHow the Project Started • Share Academy funding • QRator wanting to expand project reach • Made connection through LMG Share Academy Event
    4. 4. ProcessesGetting Internal Museum Agreement • Limited visitor interaction • Access to UCL expertise • High quality equipment
    5. 5. ProcessesDeciding on content • Grant Museum advice • Brand, Consumer and Museum questions • Visitors introduced topics
    6. 6. Technology
    7. 7. Technology
    8. 8. TechnologyTales of Things Movie in here
    9. 9. Technology
    10. 10. Technology
    11. 11. Technology
    12. 12. Technology
    13. 13. PracticalitiesInstallation • Security • Ergonomics • Accessibility • Sustainability of Equipment
    14. 14. PracticalitiesEvaluation: Exit Survey Made a comment 9% 17% 5% Read the text information provided by the museum Read other peoples comments 17% 21% Thought about the question asked by the museum Dont know 31% Other
    15. 15. Practicalities Non-payers OAP Group Corporate events Child Adult Group Group Early Years GroupKey Stage 2 Group Adult Individual Student Group OAP Child Individual Individual Student Individual Family Other concession Individual
    16. 16. PracticalitiesEvaluation: Observations 2% 4% Manipulate 35% No physical interaction Attempted 59% Other
    17. 17. Practicalitiesvisitor contributions total number of visitor contributions for each current question Show or Hide 70 Plain Truth 56 Brand Britain 48 Conserve or Display 33 Brands 33 Shoppers Choice 31
    18. 18. visitor contributions noise On Topic 30% 32% On museum 38%
    19. 19. visitor contributions Category breakdowns from each of the six QRator iPads 45 40 39 35 30 27 25 25 Axis Title 20 noise 20 18 18 17 17 On museum 15 On Topic 13 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 7 5 5 4 0 Brands Shoppers Choice Conserve or Display Brand Britain Show or Hide Plain Truth Axis Title
    20. 20. PracticalitiesQR codes vs photography policy • QRator QR code • No signal • Conflict with policy
    21. 21. PracticalitiesMarketing • Museum Newsletters • Social Media • Museum Website
    22. 22. Recommendations• make sure scope and scale are SMART• Internal advocacy• Clear Communication process between collaborative partners• Build in Evaluation• Incremental change• Take risks• Don’t forget dissemination and marketing
    23. 23. Next Steps• Future content opportunities• Blueprint for Other Museums• Future collaboration together
    24. 24. Questions• Anna Terry• anna@museumofbrands.com• Claire Ross• claire.ross@ucl.ac.uk• Steve Gray• steven.gray@ucl.ac.uk