1.
A case study of dr’s cultural heritage project Exploring cultural heritage and value creation Master ThesisThe IT-University of CopenhagenMaster Thesis, August, 2011Written by:Tobias GolodnoffE-Business10.07.1973 – tobiasgMiriam Lerkenfeld SmithDigital Design & Communication14.04.1982 – mlsmSupervisor: Leif Block Rasmussen

2.
Thank you and much respect Authors StatementLeif Block Rasmussen, Supervisor and This thesis is based on a joint effortAssociated professor at Department of and an equal partnership. We haveInformatics, CBS and Ebuss at the IT- delegated responsibilities along theUniversity of Copenhagen. way, but in the writing process, weFor being an excellent supervisor, let the chapters and sections circularinspriring us. Helping us in right between us. Naturally, we follow thedirection, discussing our findings IT University examination rules andand prioritising us when we needed divides the article as follows:guidance. Abstract: Miriam & Tobias. IntroducingPeter Looms, co-supervisor and the thesis and its objectives: Miriam &External associate professor at the IT- Tobias: Ontology of the project: Tobias.University of Copenhagen. For the early Scentific aproach and descriptiondiscussion, and support. methods: Miriam. The network inMads Bødker, Adjunkt at Department of relation to DR’s Cultural HeritageInformatics, CBS and Ebuss at the IT- Project: Tobias. The processes of theUniversity of Copenhagen. And Simeon project: Miriam. An analysis of DR’sKeates, Associate Professor at the IT- Cultural Heritage Project - Part one:University of Denmark. For inspirational From An analysis of DR’s Culturaltalks. Heritage Project to Diffusion: Tobias. Part two: From Diffusion to the endChristina Paludan Sheikh. For helping of the chapter: Miriam. Conclusions:us with excellent inputs and academic Miriam & Tobias. Guiding Principles:guidance on the thesis. And for being Miriam & Tobiasthe most wonderful mother and wife! I Thoughts and reflections: Miriam &could not have done it without all your Tobiassupport and trust – I love you! - Tobias The thesis consists of approximatelyAt the Danish Broadcasting 86 normal pages that is 198,104Corporation. Nicolai Porsbo, former characters and 11 figures.Head of New Media at dr.dk, MeretheEchardt, former vice director og DR This thesis is licensed under a CreativeMedier and Jonas Iversen, vice director Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-of DR Medier for supporting us while ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-the idea about the thesis was growing SA 3.0). Read moreand making it possible.The fantastic team at DR who workswith the Cultural Heritage Project forbeing such a wonderful and inspirering Contact informationgroup of people and doing an excellent We love talking about the project,job. getting inspiration and making new connections. Do not hesitate to contactAnd off course our amazing families if you need a additioal information orand beautiful friends… 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/kulturarv2

3.
AbstractThe objective of the research is to give a theoretical understanding of the valuecreated when digitising a cultural heritage.This research is grounded in a case study of the Danish BroadcastingCorporation’s Cultural Heritage Project. The project deals with the digitisationof an analogue radio and television collection of more than 500.000 hours ofcontent, and with the work being done after digitisation ensuring archive contentin collaboration with other public cultural institutions and the research communitybecomes available to the public. The project group is an inter-organisational teamcombining expertise from many places within the organisation.When establishing a project of this kind, some aspects have significance on thevalue creation. Findings are, that flexibility is key, and hence, the use of resourceswithin the budget should not be too specific, because it is unpredictable wherecost can be cut, or where extra resources will be needed. Also, a scanning processis essential for defining the objectives of future tasks, and focus should not beto solve one problem, but exploring challenges that can be useful for differentscenarios.In addition, findings are that collaboration is a good tool for diffusing digitisedcultural heritage, and these collaborations should have a variable, decentralisedstructure, in order to facilitate different needs and objectives. Another emphasisshould be put on the openness towards collaboration partners, so shared valuecan be created and utilised - benefiting not just the organisations, but societyin general. Conclusively, the overall goal when digitising the cultural heritage isalways to make it accessible for the users. The conclusion leads to four principleguidelines 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 publicresources, constructing a all-encompassing cultural production system with fluidborders and autonomous projects based on a set of clearly defined objectives.KeywordsDigitisation, Digitising, Digitization, Digitizing, Cultural Heritage, Heritage,Strategy, Innovation, Value, Value creation, Network, Research, Technology,Danish Broadcasting Corporation, DR, DR’s Cultural Heritage Project, PublicService, Data, Information, Knowledge, Knowledge Sharing. Resources, Process,Optimisation, Optimization, Use = Value, Use is Value, Transparent Boxes,Flexible Resources, Open Source Collective,Digitalisering, Kulturarv, DR’sKulturarvsprojekt, Værdi, Netværk, Strategi, Data, Information, Viden, brug = værdi,brug er lig værdi, Dansk Kulturarv, LARM, Europeana, EUscreen, FIAT/IFTA,Memnon 3

4.
index4

5.
Abstract 3Keywords 3Introducing the thesis and its objective 9 and Description ofOntology of the Methods questions 21 20project 10 11 research & Working Working questions 21 Delimitations 22Political Background Criticala reflection upon the method 22 Case studies – Realism as a Scientific Approach 22The case – DR’s Cultural Heritage Project 13The Danish Broadcasting Corporation and the Cultural Heritage Project 13 Project Design – Switching Between Empirical Data and Theory 23 FigurE 1 – PROJECT DESIGN 23 Theoretical foundation 24Historical outline 13 Empirical Data and Role as a Participant Observer 24The DR departments related to the project Definitions 2514objective of the project 14TheThe financial framework 16The cultural heritage content in DR 16 The Networks inThe Public Service Obligations and Value 19 relation to DR’sThe archives 16Scientific Approach Cultural Heritage 5

6.
Project 26FigurE 2 – the network OF DR’S CULTURAL PROJECT 27 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 36Cultural production, digitisation and Two copies of the digitised content 36 Collaboration, Marketing & Sales 36technicalDansk Kulturarv 29 29 development Dissemination, Services 36The Collaboration Reflection upon the process 36 An Analysis of DR’sMemnon 29The Research-Educational Network 29The Research Project LARM 29The Politicalthe Danish Ministry of Culture 30 Global Network 30The Danish Government &The European Union 30FIAT/IFTA 30 Cultural Heritage Project 38 andChanging the Conditions of the Project via the Network – A short study of Copy-Dan and IPR 33The Interaction Between the Networks 33The processes of Max Boisot – Data, Informationthe project 34 Cultural Knowledge in the Information-space 39 Figure 4 – THE AGENT-IN-THE-WORLD 39 Data, Information & Knowledge in the Case Study 40 Figure 5 – THE INFORMATION SPACE 40The digitization workflow in DR’s The Social Learning Curve in InformationHeritage Project PROJECT 35Figure 3 – VALUE CHAIN OF DR’S CULTURAL 35 Space The1metadata project 41 Scanning – 4The Overall Process of Digitising, Preserving, Disseminating, and Collaborating 35 Problem-solving – The Film Pilot 43 Abstraction – archiving for future use 446

7.
for DR’s CulturalDiffusion – The Collaboration of Dansk Kulturarv 44Absorption – LARM Research Project 45Impacting – the Creation of the Online Archive Bonanza 45Figure 6 – Bonanza’s first month 45The value of knowledge creation 47The Market Value of Digitising CulturalHeritage 47VALUE 47FigurE 7 – THE PARADOX OF Heritage project 52 Thoughts and reflections 55FIGURe: 8: VALUE OF CULTURAL HERITAGEFIGURe: 9: KNOWLEDGE, SOURCE: BOISOT. 48 References 55FIGURe: 10: ACCESS TO AND USE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE 48The Cultural Production Value 49Public Service Value of Digital CulturalHeritage in Society 49The Value and I-space 49Conclusions 50Guiding Principles for Exploring the Digitisation of Cultural Heritage and Creating Value 51A brief introduction to guiding principles 52 11 - STRATEGIC GUIDELINES 52FIGUREGuiding principles 7

8.
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, 19608

9.
Introducing the thesis and its objectiveCopenhagen, August 2011 also comme il faut within the Danish First and foremost the essential criteria Broadcasting Corporation and how the for justifying investing in new servicesYou are reading the master’s thesis project considers value. and solutions is that the project canwritten by Miriam Lerkenfeld and Tobias This exploration of the term value, enrich the existing environment and theGolodnoff. It is a study of digitisation we envision to drive to a better public. This is to make sure that the finaland valorisation of the Danish understanding of the possibilities of products that will enrich the users andBroadcasting Corporation’s cultural cultural heritage, when meeting the support an understanding of our sharedheritage which is the archive containing demand in the Public-service contract history and cultural heritage and therebycontent dating from 1896 to 2005. of 2011-2014: expand the overall level of knowledge and future success in society.We are both employees in DR as ”DR skal blandt andet afwell as master’s students at the IT- kulturarvmæssige hensyn bevare Conclusively, the knowledge we haveUniversity of Copenhagen. Both of us sine programarkiver. DR skal fremme acquired in our work with the thesis,have been working on DR’s Cultural digitaliseringen af programarkiverne for has given us new ideas regarding howHeritage Project. Hence it seems like bl.a. på denne måde at give borgerne one can ensure a better and less costlya natural thing to examine the project adgang til sine programarkiver, production for the prerequisites foras a case study and make this the dog med de begrænsninger, der future use. This, we hope, will inspirefoundation of our thesis, and try to følger af lovgivning mv., herunder us and others to create more and bettergrasp possibilities and challenges at ophavsretsloven. DR skal aktivt arbejde products and services for disseminatinghand. We would also like to dive into for i videst muligt omfang at kunne gøre the valuable archive content. Contentthe project on a theoretic note; a luxury DR’s programarkiver tilgængelige for DR and others hold, be it in exhibitions,we don’t have in our day-to-day work. befolkningen og forskermiljøerne.” audiovisual programs, research at - DR’s Public Service-kontrakt for 2011- libraries and in the state’s archives, orThe objective of DR’s Cultural Heritage 2014 in the digital domain, where the contentProject has been and still is maximising can engage the users in new ways.the digitisation output of the granted In English:budget of 75 million DKK. Preferably in “DR must preserve its archives duea manner that supports value creation to cultural heritage considerations. We sincerely hope you will enjoyfor the end users. But first and foremost DR shall promote the digitisation reading the report.within the traditional value chain of of programme archives in order tothe project, with a focus on creating provide access to the citizens, under All the best,a margin, which will allow more of the the limitations imposed by legislation, Miriam Lerkenfeld & Tobias Golodnoffarchive to be digitised. etcetera, including copyright laws. DR must work actively to ensure accessSince the project began in 2007, and availability of the programmesignificant results have been archives in its fullest extent for both toaccomplished. Some of the the public and research community. “.accomplishments have been fostering - DR’s Public Service Contract for 2011new learning, inspiring the network – 2014around the project to optimiseworkflows and use of their content, There are numerous opportunities inbut it has also had a role in changing connecting existing collections, newhow public service is perceived. One content and technologies, which todayof the key activities is the development have the potential to create synergiesnew processes and standards for and explore a contemporary approachdigitisation, dissemination and to public service. We are envisioningcollaboration that has created value for this and are trying to facilitate valuethe institution, but also its collaborators. creation as a process with theAdditionally, a new way of structuring participation of DR, the users andprojects has been developed both society.in terms of cultural heritage, but 9

10.
1CHApTER 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.10

11.
Political was that cultural heritage was also ”The Culture Heritage must be alive, Ministry of Science, in collaboration, bridging the gap between different and therefore it must digital and our prioritised four projects, which in total cultural institutions such as libraries, focus is to make the Danish culture were supported with 21 million DKK; archives, museums, and public services history and natural history accessible among the most important projectsBackground broadcasters, on an international scale- via/on the internet. A culture heritage was the establishment of the Heritage -because the materials seem more that is alive creates a common Agency of Denmark in 2002, and a DKK valuable when they were contextualised framework within the society and 75 mill grant to the Danish Broadcasting by materials from other sources. ensure that coming generations are Corporation in 2007. aware of our history. Without thisDuring the end of the 20th century and Naturally, another point was the awareness the common sense of The grant was central for the Danishthe beginning of the 21st there has diffusion of cultural heritage. Since, responsibility and the basis to have Broadcasting Corporation becausebeen an increased political interest in digitised content is easier to spread, a a varied view of the development of it resulted in the establishment of adigitising cultural heritage, not only on digitisation of cultural heritage made society will crumble.” project - DR’s Cultural Heritage Projectthe national agenda, but also trans- it geographically independent and - Per Stig Møller, The Danish Minister of – that was solely dedicated to digitisingnationally. Institutions such as the EU multipliable. Therefore, the digitisation Culture: April 2010 and disseminating the cultural heritagehave emphasised the significance of was found attractive, because it from the public broadcasters archives.cultural heritage in society as well. became feasible to disseminate digitally Because of the importance of cultural rather than in its original form. Also, it heritage, the government set up a“If one word should encompass and is a more flexible format for preparing committee in 2006, whose purposesummarise the vision of the Comité des the content to be consumed through was to explore cultural heritage. TheSages, it would be “access”. When it future new media channels, which final physical product was the reportcomes to our common cultural heritage, potential and use currently cannot be ‘Digitalisering af Kulturarven’ publishedthere is no bigger challenge; there comprehended. by the Danish Ministry of Culture inis no more urgent question than to 2009. The report suggested that theresecure the access of current and future The task of creating cultural products should be an increased focus ongenerations to this heritage. Access for and preserving them seem more preserving Danish cultural heritage.the largest population, both European relevant than ever. However, theand non-European. And access to one task could not be given solely to a A national digitisation would serve oneof the richest cultural heritages in the commercial market. The reason is that it purpose. It would secure and preserveworld, a universal common good” such an essential good for a democracy the national heritage, and it could- European Commission: 2011: 9 that it should be undertaken by the also be used in the digital domain to state. In most countries the digitisation generate national value by enrichingThe access to cultural heritage was of cultural heritage was made the public by making the digital culturalofficially prioritised on the political mandatory for cultural institutions, and heritage accessible. The rapportagenda. Ideologically, it was also libraries, archives and public service outlined three scenarios for futurebecoming a political solution for broadcasters became key players in digitisation and development if thesustaining national culture and the process. In 2011, the European assigned budget would be: no funding,cohesiveness in a globalised world, Commission formulated some DKK 300 or DKK 500 mill over a ten-where local culture was challenged suggestions for the actors that could be year period (Digitising of the Culturalby technology development. A topic drivers in digitising cultural heritage: Heritage: 2009).theorists like Manuel Castells alsodiscuss: ”We are of the opinion that the public Because of the international financial sector has the primary responsibility for crisis the report was not finished until “Research has shown that audiences making our cultural heritage accessible 2009 and the digitising budged of DKKare more sensitive to content that is and preserving it for future generations. 300 mill or DKK 500 was not granted.specific to their culture (Miller 2007). This responsibility for and control over Consequently, the political prioritySo, while there is a layer of global Europe’s heritage cannot be left to of digitising cultural heritage was onculture in all media industries, most one or a few market players, although hold, and given this, the use of culturalcultural products are local rather than we strongly encourage the idea of heritage has yet to be defined bothglobal. Indeed, a study by Tubella bringing more private investments and politically and practically.(2004) has shown decisive importance companies into the digitisation arenaof television in constructing a national through a fair and balanced partnership” As cultural heritage has and still playsidentity under the conditions of cultural - European Commission: 2011: 4 a significant role in society, the Danishdomination by another nation (…)” government has, since the 1990s, been- Castells: 2009:124 In Denmark, the digitisation of cultural funding different initiatives with the heritage is significant part of the political purpose of supporting the developmentThe intentions behind political focus agenda. It is the same argument as of a digital cultural heritage. Theon digital cultural heritage were heard internationally: there is an urgent political wish is still present, and inmany. However, preservation and need for preserving and disseminating 2010 smaller grants were allocated toaccessibility seem to be the dominating the Danish cultural heritage. In 2010 the specified projects within the culturalobjectives. A more general approach Minister of Culture stated: sector. The Ministry of Culture and the 11

12.
Sony VP-1210 U-Matic videocassette player. Photographer: Grant Hutchinson -Source: Flickr, Open source license12

13.
The case – when digitising cultural heritage, and (Internal Memo DR ØU: Appendix 1: subsequently, how this is distributed Historical outline 01.11.2007). into organisation and network, thus society. However, the case has a quite Finally, in 2007, the politicalDR’s Cultural complex structure, which requires an in At the same time, digitisation of the negotiations resulted in a DKK 75 mill depth description. national heritage was was debated funding for DR to digitalise its archive. intensely in the Ministry of Culture. The money was given as a one-time All the larger cultural institutions, the funding in order for DR to start theHeritage Heritage Agency of Denmark and digitisation and preservation process. The Danish Broadcasting the Ministry Of Culture were keen on The ministerial aspiration was to secure using new technology to preserve the funds from the fiscal budget, through Corporation and the collections and to enrich the Danes the yearly-agreed Finanslov (theProject with access to the cultural heritage. But national budget), hoping the Ministry of Cultural Heritage Project despite the national focus on digital Culture could secure new funds for a cultural heritage and the need for a series of activities. The funds should be digitisation of the broadcast archives, used for a national mass digitisation of DR’s Cultural Heritage Project is a part DR--together with TV2 and the State cultural heritage.DR’s Cultural Heritage Project is an of the Danish Broadcasting Corporation and University Library - lost an earlierinteresting case, because it is the only (DR), which is the home organization agreed upon budget post of DKK 80 In relation to the grant of DKK 75 mill,project among the Danish cultural of the project. DR is an independent, mill, when the Media Agreement of the government decided to constituteinstitutions that receives substantial license-financed public institution, and 2011-2014 was decided. (Mediepolitisk DR’s obligations in terms of culturalfunding with the single purpose of Denmark’s largest media corporation aftale 2011-2014). heritage in the Media Agreementdigitising the Danish cultural heritage. (dr.dk). The company is organized in for 2007-2010. It was consideredAdditionally, the project has a unique seven divisions, which all have different In 2005, while DR continued the a necessity to digitise Danishstructure for a project in a public responsibilities from corporate and work of obtaining funding to digitise Broadcasting Corporation’s entireorganisation, because it is politically strategic, to production and supportive. the archives, there was still a wish archive. However, the funding receivedobliged to collaborate autonomously for optimising the digital production only covered 25% of the expectedwith external partners outside the The workforce is dedicated to creating facilities and making better use of the economic needs, primarily to ensuretraditional organisation of DR. public-service content for the six content. The wish for a digitisation of that the most perishable parts of the national TV-channels, the ten radio the archives had increased with the archive were not lost.An aspect that makes the project an channels, (where three are FM-based establishment of DR-Byen’s digitalinteresting case is its ability to innovate and seven are DAB-channels) and the production system, even though the A more concrete prerequisite was thatand its openness toward external website www.dr.dk. The website is the cultural institutions did not receive DR should also increase its offerings topartners, that has made the project largest content website in Denmark, additional funding for digitising in the the public by developing new conceptsinternationally recognised for fostering and it is currently undergoing a first round. and programmes; and by doing this,sustainable innovation, e.g., processes revitalisation, and it plays a vital role in increase its market share. It was alsofor digitising and collaborating. By doing disseminating digital cultural heritage, a A workgroup in DR produced the articulated that there was a needthis the project has been pushing the role that will be discussed later on. internal report called ‘Plan for for a functioning archive with user-external environment both on a national Digitalisering af DR’s Kulturarv’ (Plan friendly interface and the possibilityscale, but also on an international In the beginning of the 21th century DR for the Digitisation of DR’s Cultural of self-service when requesting morescale. was building its new headquarters and Heritage) in august 2005. The report popular content (Internal Memo DR re-organising both the spatial locations analysed and seized the challenge of ØU: Appendix 1: 01.11.2007). In sum,The expectation of the project is that and organisational set-up. digitalising the content of DR’s physical it was the focus on the digitisation ofit should be creating value for society archives. One of the conclusions was the part of the archive that containedby making cultural content accessible. The purpose of creating a new that DR’s archives were challenged, programmes along with the creationThis value of cultural heritage is, headquarters, DR-Byen (DR-City), and that they would deteriorate if of specific products like programmes,however, yet to be defined. This is was to bring all of DR’s employees nothing was done to preserve it, and a services, etc. In conclusion, thiskey issue when discussing cultural in the Copenhagen area together, substantial part would be lost by 2015. became the commission for DR’sheritage, because there is no universal whereas they formerly had been It also estimated that the total cost of Cultural Heritage Project.concrete description of what the value scattered around town at more than 20 digitising the whole archive would beactually is, instead the general focus different addresses. In DR-Byen every DKK 284 mill.has primarily been simply the digitising production facility would be connectedand dissemination of cultural heritage. and online, and the physical state of the DR articulated that the main objectiveHowever we have an assumption to archive would therefore not serve the of the Cultural Heritage Project was towhat the value could be, and what we editorial teams in the same favourable ensure DR’s archive content againstprimarily think of when using it on a way. Consequently, the relocation of crumbling in order to make use of thembroad scale, which will be examined DR also began to impact the need for in future productions. Furthermore, thethroughout the thesis. digitising the program archives in order need for making the cultural heritage for DR to become a high-tech media accessible was also touched upon,The case then serves the purpose corporation. constituting the need for pilot projectsof exploring how value is created such as www.danskkulturarv.dk. 13

14.
The DR departments related tothe projectDR JPS - Jura, Politik & DR Bånd & Film DR TU Innovation This ideology was, and is, still sharedStrategi The objective of the project by DR and the political establishment, Carriers and Film Innovation and Development but now also formulated in Public Service agreement for 2011-2014. ItLaw, Policy & Strategy DR Bånd & Film (B&F) is organized DR’s Cultural Heritage Project has, states that: as a part of the A&R. It has existed for since its start, been working closely Today, DR’s Cultural Heritage ProjectDR JPS is the department of DR’s legal, more than fifty years and helps produce with DR’s departments of technical is a digitising and innovation project “DR must preserve its programmepolicy, and strategy advisers which, and run programs on modern technical development and innovation. The whose purpose it is to digitise the archives for reasons of culturalas part of the General Director’s staff, equipment. The department is highly department’s focus is on on technology- Danish cultural heritage, in this case heritage. DR must promote theis concerned with strategy within DR. specialized and acts as the digitising supported innovation in the digitisation the Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s digitising of its program archives and inThe department supports the project unit and consultant in the digitisation process, and the external cooperation programme archive, and actively to this way make them accessible to theprimarily in two areas: communication of the archive. At the beginning of within the project. make the archive content available for public, observing/respecting the legalwith the Ministry of Culture, where the the DR’s Cultural Heritage project the public and research community. Key limitations in force, e.g. the interlectualdepartment oversees and handles the the department normally handled This is work in progress, so to ensure objective is to give the public access to property rights law. DR must worklegal framework; and legal counselling, digitisation tasks on demand, but during optimum use of resources, both the cultural heritage by: activeily to make DR’s programwhen the project is involved in the early years of the project they have in digitising & preserving, but also archives widely available to the publicdissemination and collaboration participated and shared knowledge mediation, TU Innovation has lead and • Digitising DR’s TV and radio and research environment.”projects. within the field which has changed the developed the Culture Heritage Archive broadcasts and to work actively - DK’s Public Service Contract 2011- digitisation process to facilitate a much Open System called CHAOS. The to create visible value for the 2014: 15The department handled the negotiation more industrialized process. platform uses open-source principles publicof Arkivpakke 1&2, which are used as about contributing communities, and • Avoid the selection of the This means that DR is now obligedthe legal foundation for creating online DR’s Cultural Heritage Project has archive and work to secure and to not only the digitisation andaccess to the content and broadcasting contracted with a number of external digitise all the unique archive, preservation of archives but DR mustit in TV or radio. This will be explained partners, primarily from the cultural so DR’s share of the overall also has to engage actively in thefurther, when organisation Copy-Dan isdescribed. DR TU IT Infrastruktur / community and they are all contributing in developing the system. The common safeguarding of the heritage for the future is secured dissemination of the digital content – creating value for the public and the Produktionsystemer use, ensure low cost operation and further development of the system’s The project is inter-organisational, research environment. The obligation does not demand full access, but Infrastructure and Production core. where colleagues from different areas acknowledges that the dissemination systems of DR are working together in order to has to be viewed within the legalDR Arkiv & Research digitise and disseminate the cultural framework DR operates under. The The departments of Infrastructure and heritage. The project is in contact with reasoning for not specifying full access Production Systems has collaborated every element of the process from is that the project has some challengesArchive and Research with the project and put a great deal of carriers, the metadata or descriptions of in terms of intellectual property rights, effort into securing the preservation and the content, the digitisation, storage and which result in some legal restrictions ofDR Arkiv & Research (A&R) consists usability once the digital content has distribution technologies, intellectual how the project can use the content.of DR’s archives and library. The been produced. property rights, as well as managingdepartment operates the library, and and disseminating the content. It is a Furthermore, DR’s Cultural Heritage“owns” the physical program archive Infrastructure has led the expansion of unique constellation in DR because has made it an objective to act onof all the historic DR productions. the filing capacity, in order to prepare it spans the entire value chain from and exploit the newest knowledgeEmployees have access to everything the Mediearkiv for the extensive amount handling the earlier hard-to-use content and technologies that support afrom TV-programs, radio broadcasts, of new data files which is constantly through the digitalisation process, to maximisation of the outcome. Insightssound-effects and photographs, as well expanding. And the Production systems production of new content, which is are mostly gathered through theas books, newspapers, journals and department has worked on securing seen or used by new users. engagement in external collaborationsmagazines. A&R does research in DR’s the interest of DR’s original archive- and networks with other broadcasterscollection for internal use, and facilitates metadata in order to ensure that the The success criteria of the project is and audiovisual archives, which arethe people working in the production. data files are organized correctly in one now determined by the management faced with similar challenges in relationFurthermore, A&R sells its services to place with the correct metadata. Both to be the project’s ability to take full to digitisation, technological and marketpeople outside DR. tasks have been finalised with success. advantage of the funding, being development. In reality this has resulted digitising as much content as possible in a clear focus on documentingIn terms of the Cultural Heritage at a DR specified and authorised file and communicating new insight andproject, A&R specifically process the quality. Furthermore, collaborating knowledge in the field of digitisation,preparation and transportation of with other national cultural archives technology development, and culturaltapes to the external partner Memnon to increase the synergy between heritage.as well as random testing and quality the collections, and by thus addingassurance of digital files. value for the users, was a criterion ofThey participate and share knowledge success. This is what is referred to asin the development of optimised ‘use equals value’, meaning that themetadata workflows and are users utilisation of the content is theresponsible for the practical part of value. One could even argue that thehandling the files in the Mediearkivet digitisation is the means to that end.(media archive).14

15.
Another set of 1/2” 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 license15

16.
Dissemination and Collaboration was calculated in 2007. It was decided Another source of error is doubles, The news archive was consideredThe financial framework that the project would cover the cost where the same content is saved on to be of great importance because tasks of the first LTO data-tape to store the two or more carriers. Experts have archival footage traditionally was and The costs of disseminating and digital content, because an expansion estimated that in the radio archive, still is extremely valuable for the newsIn DR, the process of digitisation and collaborating are established in order of DR’s main system Mediearkivet was there is significant overlap in parts production team.dissemination has been running since to work across the cultural sector. not expected or covered in any of the of the radio collection that is boththe funds were granted in 2007. It was The goal is to create additional value approved budgets in DR. The cost of stored on 1/4-inch reel tape from thedecided in the earlier stages that the when combining the content from DR running Mediearkivet: updating software production archive and on DAT tapeobjective for the project should be to: with other collections of art, pictures and exchanging hardware and the from broadcast archive. or books, etcetera, in order to give LTO-tapes when they become obsolete • Maximise the output of the better access to and contextualisation is covered in DR’s technical yearly digitisation of cultural heritage. Furthermore, the budget. • Collaborate with external, collaboration helps enrich the content The archives mainly cultural, partners to by provided new or better metadata, The cultural create value for DR’s users along with the development of a new media assets management that Digitalisation and preservation ofTo secure a successful project process, supports online archiving and cross- DR’s archive content have alwaysa set of rules for the use of the funds organisational collaboration. The been with the purpose of enriching heritagewas decided by the board of directors EU has emphasised this matter in a the public. Some parts of the contentof DR in 2007. These rules have led to digitisation report stating that: DR’s Cultural Heritage Project aims toa division of the budget in three areas: digitise have been outside the reach “Cultural institutions add considerable of the public for a long period of time. content in DR 1. Administration 9 % amounts of information to digitised Content, which has been stored in 2. Digitisation & Preservation 79 % objects (metadata), describing for aged physical formats, is therefore only 3. Dissemination and example the author, the provenance consumable for a small exclusive group Collaboration 12 % and age of the work, giving contextual of manufacturers. Today, technology information, as well as technical has changed our production capabilitiesA budget structure and financial information on the formats used and Part of the digitization task is an and enabled a previously unthinkableallocation was accepted by the Ministry characteristics allowing search engines ongoing examination of the content, degree of dissemination and usability.of Culture. The three areas all cover to locate the object. This metadata is in order to ensure that as much of Because of the technology, DR is nowdifferent sets of tasks and objectives. essential to provide the user with a the unique radio, television and film able to exploit the cultural heritage in a useful background to the work, and materials are being preserved as new extensive degree. also to allow search-engines such possible. The collections is believedAdministration tasks as Europeana to locate the digitised to hold about 478,000 hours of radio, The importance of making culturalThe administration budget is used by objects relevant in the context of a 68,000 hours of TV and 17,500 hours of heritage accessible has previously beenthe project management team to ensure specific search.” film. Film was used in the early years as highlighted. This has since been anthat the funds spent on the other budget -European Commission: 2011: 33 the broadcast medium and was used as essential part of the political argumentposts are in line with the given set of the primary part of content in the news that the content should be activated.rules and the project agreement with production up to the mid-eighties.the Ministry of Culture. In addition to The archive is a series of producedthe managerial task, the administration Project Costs, Not Running Cost The archive volume is believed to be programs and production materialswork also covers the needed research The overall project budget has been 563,500 hours in total. It does not hold that can be divided into smaller sub-and documentation tasks. approved by the Ministry of Culture and a complete collection of what DR has collections from various departments is handled under another regulation broadcasted since its establishment and external sources. One of the than DR’s overall four years financial in 1925. The volume is estimated collections is ‘Politikens Film’-journals;Digitisation & Preservation tasks agreement. This means that funding and holds some uncertainty, because they were showed in the cinemas asThe digitisation budget holds the largest does not have to be spent within a metadata or descriptions from DR’s a form of news from the world beforesum of money. It covers the complex yearly given timeframe – giving the archive do not contain the information television became the news media.task of digitalising or converting the project a flexibility that is crucial for about the duration for many of thecontent from the physical carriers to optimising the spending related to the collections. The most complete collection is thethe needed digital file formats, and digitisation work. television news, which is more or lessafterwards preserving them. The volume has been estimated by complete. It consists of 16mm films As a result of this flexible economy counting the 35-kilometers of shelves with all the content pieces from theThe budget also covers some technical the project is not allowed to hold fixed of materials, grouping them into mid-fifties to the mid-eighties. DR doeshardware and development, because cost, so if activities require a running sub-collections and then--based on not have a copy of the anchormanthere has been a need for expanding investment, it must be approved by comprehensive sampling--calculating introducing the news, because thethe storage in order for DR to handle the board of directors and then the the expected duration of each group actual broadcast was not recorded,the new tasks related to preserving the cost is transferred to other areas in the of materials. An error of five minutes but from 1984 and on the productionarchive material digitally. DR organisation. To illustrate: what is per carrier for the television part would flow changed and a copy of the aired considered a project cost and running change the collection with around 5600 news broadcast are from this time on cost in the project, the storage cost hours, or just over eight percent of its stored on U-Matic; a digital videotape. volume.16

17.
FOrmats within the DR ARCHIVeU-Matic HB LB SP 1D1.800 Hours 1.275 Hours1”C digital beta 1”B DVC probetacam13.500 Hours 10.880 HOURS 5.400 Hours 3.319 HOURS32.639 HOURSSource: DR’s Culteral Heritage project & the legacy report17

18.
Typical American family gathered around TV, which displays John F. Kennedy’s face, to watch debate between Kennedy & Richard Nixon during presidential election. -Source: Life Magazine September 26, 196018

19.
The Public legitimised in terms of frequency because cultural heritage today has It is only a tool for measuring public cultural institutions operate scarcity, its justification lies in its become a general public concern, something abstract, and it will only within. Value is therefore a cornerstone superiority to the market as a means however, the definition, of what it be approximation in order to explain in digitising the cultural heritage, of providing all citizens, whatever actually is, are numerous. One way the reality of cultural heritage that represented by the phrase “Use equalsService their wealth or geographical location, the Danish Government defines its cannot fully be grasped. Historically value”. The phrase establishes a strong equal access to a wide range of high importance is as being essential for the definition of value has always been dedication to ensuring that the users quality entertainment, information and the value of giving citizens a cultural difficult to calculate when the objects are the ones benefiting from the value. education, and as a means of ensuring foundation and a national identity in a analysed did not fit into neoclassical This mindset is key throughout theObligations that the aim of the programme producer globalised world. economic way of describing the world. process, from digitisation to the actual is the satisfaction of a range of consuming of the cultural heritage. audience tastes rather than only those “Regeringen vil fortsat arbejde for Manuel Castells is trying to defy this tastes that show the largest profit.” at styrke og udvikle det frie danske traditional thinking about value:and Value - Garnham: 1986:12-13 kulturliv i de kommende år. Det gælder såvel i forhold til at udvikle kunstens “The old question of industrial Hence, in order to be successful as internationalisering og kunstens rolle society – indeed, the cornerstone of a public service broadcaster, DR has som formidler af danske demokratiske classical political economy – namely, to balance its obligations as a public værdier som i forhold til at sikre “what is value?,” has no definiteWhen analysing the objective of the service institution set by the politicians, kendskabet til kulturarven og den answer in the global network society.project, it is important to emphasize with the user demands and market værdi, som ligger i at virke på et stærkt Value is what is processed in everythe context that DR operates in. The mechanisms. DR Cultural Heritage kulturelt fundament. Kulturarven har predominant network at every time inimportance of making cultural heritage Project inherits this challenging væsentlig betydning for danskernes every space according to the hierarchyaccessible has previously been foundation, and furthermore there are identitetsfølelse i en globaliseret programmed in the network by thehighlighted, but currently an essential added complexities by its obligation verden, og kunst og kultur får i disse år actors upon the network. Capitalismpart of the political argument is that the to collaborate with external projects en stigende betydning. Regeringen vil has not disappeared. Indeed, it iscontent should be activated and used and partners with different sets of derfor fortsætte arbejdet med formidling more pervasive than ever. But it isby the public. As previously touched objectives. However, the common af den danske kulturarv nationalt og not, against a common ideologicalupon, the role as a public service goal is still to supply society with internationalt.” perception, the only game in the globalbroadcaster, as well as a producer of quality information that increases the - Mulighedernes samfund, town.”culture have been widely discussed. knowledge of the population, and Regeringsgrundlag 2007 - Castells: 2009: 29Nevertheless, use is crucial, as Castell this separates public service fromargues: commercial approach to the market. As In political terms, this means that Max Boisot argues that the notions Goodman argues: identity and culture has value, of “in the beginning was the market”“Moreover, the range of investment especially when we are discussing do not convincingly answer many ofof these global multimedia business “This emphasis on quality and democratic value. Also, this value society’s questions because informationnetworks increases with new excellence connects public service is considered to be proportionally and data are not free commodities inpossibilities of interactive, multi-modal media to the notion of “merit goods.” important with increased globalisation, society. He argues, the ability in agentscommunication, particularly the Internet Often used in connection with the thus, the need for disseminating cultural to create a codification and abstractionand wireless communication networks. performing and fine arts, merit goods heritage should not only be national, and thereby transform and createIn this case, the programming of refer to products that the market would but also international. knowledge from data and informationthe networks is less about content not produce but should be made is at the core of value creation. Whenthan about format. The Internet only available because they do people The goal of DR’s Heritage Project is to this has happened he argues can abecomes profitable if people use it, good.” create value by distributing the Danish diffusion of knowledge happen whichand people would use it less if it lost its - Goodman: 2004: 26 cultural heritage. But, how is the public would be a market vaporization of afundamental features: interactivity and service value constructed? A good product or a service. A process that’sunfettered communication, regardless This creates a natural question about way to observe value is to assume happening in what he defines as theof how surveilled it is.” the foundation of the Cultural Heritage that value is flows of information in Information Space. (Boisot et al: 2007)- Castells: 2009: 421 Project: is cultural heritage merit society that the public translates into goods? The answer is in this case, knowledge by consuming it. One This brings us closer to the value ofIn Denmark the political framework yes. Given that cultural heritage is cannot measure the value or the cultural heritage. Larger actors infor public service broadcasting is knowledge about society, it is not a consumption, but it can be assumed networks adjacent to DR’s Culturalarticulated in the law ‘Radio- og scarcity good, one can share it without that the information is accessible and Heritage project are acknowledgingFjernsynsloven’ and Medieforliget, having less. disseminated in order to be used. the value of the archives and culturalwhich is negotiated between DR When digitising the cultural heritage the heritage, making room for definitionand the politicians every fourth year. The cultural heritage can therefore have technology makes us able to measure of value based on other criteria thanNicholas Garnhams analysis of public value for everyone in the society, what the use of the available content, thus economics. The abstract value ofservice in the article ‘Public Service prevents it from being shared will in this making us able to determine value by cultural heritage is the reason thatversus the market’ sets a clear outline case be the availability or accessibility. measuring the use. Hence, there is today it is being prioritised in theof the reality DR manoeuvres in. Cultural heritage is an abstract an interesting and close relationship political budgets and the different phenomenon that makes it difficult to between cultural heritage, value and framework agreements, which the“For the truth is that while the public grasp, hence, also to commercialise. use.regulation of broadcasting has been This creates an interesting issue, 19

20.
2CHApTER Scientific Approach and Description of Methods20

21.
research Project exploit the digitisation of defined as different networks around Cultural Heritage so digitisation the project, that relates to both local Working questions creates value within the organisation and global actors. Their interactions, and in society? fusions and environments create 1. What is DR’s Cultural Heritage& Working society. The networks and society are Project? This is a brief description We have chosen the word ‘how’ in able to create and absorb value within of the case and the foundation for order to create explorative approach, a given context, hence always been establishing the project in 2007, where an explanation of DR’s Cultural dynamic entities that change over time. which have already been presentedquestions Heritage Project could be given with It should be emphasised that there is a 2. Which networks is the project the purpose of connecting previous relationship between the digital cultural involved in, and what are the events to the current phenomenon, and heritage and the society, because they characteristics of the key players? through this examine the case. The are related and influence each other. 3. What activities is the project approach of asking how is one of the involved in, and how are theyThe objective of this thesis is to give preferred methods for case studies. As This means that society and culture creating value? Through a valuea theoretical understanding of the Yin explains: is made of processes, which are chain analysis we will try tovalue created when digitising cultural constantly changing and affecting each describe the different workflows,heritage, but also the more pragmatic “In contrast, “how” and “why” questions other. An assumption--which is the the production and output of theaspects such as how one can facilitate are more explanatory and likely to lead foundation of the project--given that Cultural Heritage Projectinnovation and change the conditions to the use of case studies, histories, work within the project has the ability to 4. How are data, information, andof a project by interacting with different and experiments as the preferred change society. Additionally, we want to knowledge constructed in theadjacent networks. research methods. This is because emphasise ‘the value of communication’ different networks, and how does such questions deal with operational as a hypothesis, leaning towards a this effect what Boisot calls theIn fact, the final product will be links needing to be traced over time, Castells argument that is: information-space? This is anconclusions on the value creation rather than mere frequencies and analysis of the knowledge andand utilisation and a set of strategic incidence.” “The common culture of the global value of the project, how is itguidelines that is developed for the -Yin:2009:9 network society is a culture of created and how can we explorethesis, but can be used as general protocols of communication enabling the process of sharing andguidelines that are for digitising When we observe the operational communication between different absorbing value.cultural heritage. Furthermore, we links in the project, the different cultures on the basis not of shared 5. What are the guiding principle forpresent reflections upon how value is players in the research question values but of the sharing of the value of creating and sharing value, whencreated for the Danish Broadcasting should be explained. We have chosen communication.” digitising cultural heritage?Corporation and in society. to highlight three key players; the - Castells: 2009: 38 Danish Broadcasting CorporationWhen discussing digital cultural (DR), DR’s Cultural Heritage Project, The hypothesis puts great importanceheritage the key focus will be the and Society. We will not explore the in the value of being able todigitised audiovisual content from DR’s question ‘why’, however, because the communicate by establishing commonarchives dating 2005 and back to 1896, Danish Broadcasting Corporation and codes for interacting. However, creatingsince this was the physical object that the Danish government have already shared value is not a necessary goal.resulted in the grant of DKK 75 mill to defined this, and answer to ‘why’ is In relation to cultural heritage this isDR. The grant was only given because already handled in prerequisites that quite important, because it gives anthe archive was and still is considered initiated the project. objective to diffuse cultural heritageto be highly valuable, not only for DR, with an emphasis on communication,but for society. DR’s Cultural Heritage Project, in this and not the establishment of a shared also referred to as ‘the project’, which value that could be viewed in this caseFocusing on the added value that DR’s is a small organisation within DR, as nationalism or cultural domination.Cultural Heritage Project is creating, responsible for the actual processes Instead the digital technology opensthe processes in the project and the and activities. If you compare DRs towards sharing culture, betweennetwork seems like key elements in organisation to the project, DR is the the masses but also between thethe analysis. Also, we try to explain established organisation that sets the subcultures, thus not making anyhow generated value can and should framework for digitising cultural heritage selection in which content is morebe distributed in the organisation, the by initiating the project. However, the important than the other.network, and society. In this case the two players are quite different, onerelation between value and knowledge being a major media corporation and Based on the research question, theis established, but also a modulation of bureaucracy with many objectives, the case’s entities should be explored,value; meaning is not only value in the other the project itself, a temporary making room for sub-questions. Theterms of neoclassical economics. The project with concrete goals – to digitise function of these is to explore thecase study is based on the research and disseminate the archive content research question by answering thequestion: within DR. sub-questions, subsequently the sub- questions cover.How can the Danish Broadcasting Another aspect or type of player is theCorporation’s Cultural Heritage society. The society will in this case be 21

22.
no longer a part of the project activities. analysis tomorrow (Jespersen: 2004). primarily be research documents from cases? Does it have bearing on anyBoundaries The project therefore contributes to the A condition that will shape our work Danish and European institutions, but other cases?” concept development and strategy, but process, because our thesis is written also more political and legislative texts - Olivier: 2009: 98 other departments are responsible for over time, at some point we have to such as the media agreements.Additionally, we need delimitations the actual design and dissemination. decide on a reality, which has already Olivier makes an argument that ato establish the field in which we However, the project still has a changed as soon as we try to describe The purpose of using the documents case study is in danger of becomingare operating, constituting some consultant role and feels ownership of in on paper. Although, time is changing combined with practical work is to too specified, making it hard to drawnatural borders. Despite the fact, we the actual products it has participated in the reality, the outcome will still have try to grasp the causal relationships conclusions valid in other scenarios.are operating with an open system, developing. value tomorrow, much will be the same between the digital cultural heritage, the For that reason the thesis is focusinggrasping everything is an impossible and the results of our analyses and networks around it and the value that is on how a digitisation can create addedtask. Since it is a socio-economic field Following the discussion of the guiding principles should still have being created. value, putting an emphasis on thewe are operating in, all the knowledge interaction between the users and DR guiding value and provide insights. process and not the specific project.we can obtain is contextual, the goal is the public service definition. The Hopefully, the product of the thesis willis then to strive toward ‘justified true thesis will not analyse the public service Critical realism describes that reality Case studies – a reflection be knowledge, hence, useful researchbelief’, because the absolute truth term, but it is used as a reference and consists of three domains – the that can be applied to practical work.cannot be reached (Jespersen: 2004: a framework for the decisions in the empirical domain, the actual domain, upon the method In our case study five components160). Therefore, we are using the project. and the real domain (Jespersen: in designing the research have, forlimitation to examine the field and come 2004:148-149). On the empirical that reason, been key: Taking ancloser to an understanding of the reality, Lastly, the analysis is focusing on domain data is experienced, and all the The case study purpose is not to control approach inspired by Robert Yin casebut the conclusion will be limited by it the processes and network, which data is accessible for the observer. The behavioural, events etc. the objective study design and methods. Thesebeing based on “all other things being doesn’t give us the opportunity to two other levels exist independently is to examine contemporary events. components are:equal”-principle. describe human resources and lead of the observer, the second being the This prioritisation of ‘what is’ fit into management in detail even though they actual domain containing events and the philosophy of the critical realism 1. a study’s questionsIn fact, this means the thesis will not are influencing the project on a daily experience, and finally, the third being (Yin:2009:8). Still, we want to elaborate 2. its propositions, if anygive a description of all agents related basis. Instead we focus on the team’s the real domain where these events why the case study approach has been 3. its unit(s) of analysisto the case. Neither will we be dealing results, making their work the key in our and experiences are supplemented by taken, and the arguments for taken 4. the logic linking the data to thewith the political and legal environment, analysis. mechanisms. Both the actual and the this approach. A definition of the case propositionsalthough areas such as Intellectual real domain existst independently of the study is therefore needed, and we have 5. the criteria for interpreting theProperty Rights and political priorities observer, hence the observer cannot decided to use Schramm definition: findings Critical(IPR) are briefly touched upon. In grasp them (Jespersen: 2007: 148). (Yin: 2009: 27)relation to the agents the interactions Consequently, we can only aim for “The essence of a case study, thebetween them will only be described, grasping how the world is taken to be. central tendency among all types of The study’s question has already beenif the interaction serves a considerable case study, is that it tries to illuminate presented, as well as the propositions Realism asemphasis for the case study. The critical realism is useful when we a decision or a set of decisions: why described in the introductory chapter. can observe an anomaly or something they were taken, how they were The units we are analysing are primarilyThe interactions between the public, unexpected: in this case the funding implemented, and with what result.” a limited part of the network aroundDR and the project will be quite for digitising from the politicians are - Schramm, 1971, quoted by Yin: 2009: project, the value chain activities and a Scientificsuperficial. The public and its demands observable in the empirical domain. 17 process and finally the areas whereand ways of influencing the project are However, the mechanism and events the project can create value. Theonly briefly discussed beause it would on the other domains are far more So far, many have studied the logic linking the proposition will berequire large analysis and quantitative interesting to observe. It is not the cultural heritages impact on society, to use different models for collecting Approachresearch to understand the relation. actual funding that is interesting to digitisation and value creation, and a and explaining the various data, butThis is something the department of analyse, it is the relationships being study combining the areas have also also to look for patterns, in order toDR Medieforskning is working with on a made and the mechanisms that been explored. On the other hand give some guidelines for how an idealregular basis with significant resources shape the outcome of the political an analysis of the individual projects process could be. We are operating inand thus covering this sufficiently. prioritisation. handling everything from digitisation a trans-disciplinary field with financial, This thesis is based in critical realism, to dissemination have rarely been sociological and abstract linkagesAdditionally, the project has not which is a philosophy of science that Key is that the perception of reality examined in detail. DR Cultural creating difficulties for grasping theexplored the user interaction in a prioritizes ontology (i.e. the study of decides the method that should be Heritage has within the last couple actual value of transactions and assets.substantial way, making it hard for being or existence) over epistemology used to grasp reality. In this case we of years experienced an increasingthe case to explore the interaction (i.e. study of the way knowledge is are looking at a trans-disciplinary field, interest for the project, because it made Finally, we will have some criteria forbetween the project as a public service obtained) in the sense that, for critical which affects the approach to acquiring results that previously haven’t been interpreting the findings. In this caseobject and the users being the Danes. realists, the way the world is should new knowledge. The approach we seen. This made us strive towards a these will be finding and highlightingAlthough, the goal of the project is guide the way knowledge of it can be are using is quite pragmatic, because case study that could give insights to activities and principles for the projectto focus more on the users being the obtained (Fleetwood: 2007). In this we have been working on the project other projects, although: to operate after. Based on the findingspublic in the future, it is still quite new case we are operating with an open ourselves, the real expert insight will these should give reason to assumein this field. Should an analysis be system, which is constantly changing. be firsthand experience. Interpreted by “The challenge of a case study is to that they create added value for a givenmade, the product Bonanza initiated by Given this dynamic nature, the ontology us as both informants and researchers. obtain knowledge that is useful and organisation and/or society.DR’s Cultural Heritage Project would will change over time, and therefore To balance the pragmatic approach not merely interesting. Who saysprobably be more interesting. Bonanza the conclusion today will not be the more qualitative data is needed from information obtained from a few casesis now part of DR’s online offerings and same, if we decided to make a similar other sources, and in this thesis this will has been any bearing on any other22