Augmenting Italian Cultural Heritage with Virtual and Digital Technologies: the final outcomes of Project CHANGES' Spoke 4

Introduction

• The work situates digital cultural heritage within its relations to the heritage environment and provenance, contrasting it with institutional processes that shape tangible and intangible objects.Spoke 4’s primary goal was to compare digital cultural heritage’s impact with current views of tangible and intangible heritage.Source: Introduction · p. 4
• The research asks how to harmonise value creation for digital and tangible or intangible heritage, and how to preserve, exploit, and make heritage accessible to visitors.The questions include the visitor experience of cultural heritage.Source: Introduction · p. 4
• Spoke 4 tested approaches across Italian museums and art collections to develop pilot studies and practices adaptable to institutions with similar characteristics.The case studies were organised around six museum and collection types, A–F.Source: Introduction · p. 4
• Core case studies were co-designed with cultural heritage institutions and supported through Cascade Calls to implement research and augment heritage valorisation.The studies addressed links between initial and final cultural knowledge conveyed by digital objects and the heritage represented in museum narratives.Source: Introduction · p. 5
• The project combined knowledge graphs, web environments, XR, games, 2D/3D models, digitisation tools, AI, and location-based technologies.Cooperation with institutions also produced workflow guidance and open tools and data intended for reuse by other national institutions.Source: Introduction · p. 5

Project organisation and evaluation methodology

• The preparation phase co-designed research settings with institutions, while execution aimed to complete a technology showcase, publish FAIR and Open Science guidance, and deliver prototypes and monitoring tools.Five work packages covered coordination and data, cultural and technological contexts, pilot studies, and involvement and exploitation.Source: Project organisation and evaluation… · pp. 6–7

Analysis of the case studies

• A shared analytical matrix compares cases by typology, technology, institutional alignment, staff familiarisation, organisational embedding, and evaluation readiness.It supports within- and cross-typology comparisons while distinguishing core from research cases to avoid inappropriate comparisons across different maturity and scope.Source: Analysis of the case studies · pp. 8–9, Table 1 · p. 9

Tracking involvement and exploitation

• The exploitation assessment paired QNC measures of engagement scale and distribution with QLC’s qualitative assessment of community response and user testing.Reuse and re-adoption could not be fully measured within the project timeframe, so user testing served as an early proxy rather than a measure of actual reuse.Source: Tracking involvement and exploitation · pp. 9–10
• User testing tracked usability, experience quality, and endorsement with reference instruments where applicable, adapting tools to context-specific needs and user profiles.Observed UX values were treated as baselines for future benchmarks, not as scores against uniform project thresholds.Source: Tracking involvement and exploitation · pp. 10–11
• Core case studies applied a consistent workflow for translating heritage objects into digital dissemination solutions and included preliminary assessment of potential audience impact.The workflow choices covered content selection, interpretation, digital mediation, and audience targeting; qualitative indicators supplied early evidence about interaction with cultural content.Source: Tracking involvement and exploitation · p. 11

Stakeholders identification

• The CultureInDialogue workshop used the quadruple helix model to map stakeholder issues and influence, then develop tailored involvement strategies.It involved 23 active participants from Spoke 4 institutions, in addition to organisers and moderators.Source: Stakeholders identification · pp. 12–13
• The workshop’s stakeholder mapping and engagement strategy were synthesised in a table assessing stakeholders’ current engagement with Spoke 4 activities.The accompanying figure clusters stakeholders by relevance, alignment with project goals, influence, and involvement.Source: Stakeholders identification · p. 13, Table 2 · p. 14, Figure 1 · p. 14
• The mapping identified 20 academic, 19 government, and 11 industry stakeholders.Workshop discussions prioritised strategic stakeholders not already participating in Spoke 4 activities.Source: Stakeholders identification · pp. 13, 15
• Stakeholders were clustered by cultural-heritage relevance and alignment with project goals, then positioned by influence and involvement to guide targeted strategies.The resulting framework also supports participation monitoring through KPIs and optimisation of collaboration, dissemination, and sustainability.Source: Stakeholders identification · p. 15

Pilot case study

• The pilot used the Ulisse Aldrovandi exhibition as a sandbox for acquisition, processing, optimisation, metadata and online presentation workflows, modelling six galleries with more than 300 objects.Its digital twin connected 3D and multimedia assets in an online environment accessible on computers, mobile devices and VR headsets.Source: Pilot case study · pp. 15–16

Core case studies

• Nine co-designed core studies received over €2.5 million and spanned museum types, including Egyptian Museum interactive stories, CSAC tactile exhibits and literary-park virtual platforms.The core cases were implemented with institutions and companies, with participating organisations also providing co-funding.Source: Core case studies · pp. 16–19
• The core projects also addressed scientific digitisation, historic displays, widespread museality and access to visible and hidden collections through adaptable digital platforms.Examples include semantically enriched 3D models at Ferrara, a multi-level system at the Capellini Museum, and digital libraries and virtual exhibitions for smaller institutions.Source: Core case studies · pp. 18–20

Research case studies

• Ten additional research case studies, mapped to Types B–F but not Type A, were designed and implemented by Spoke 4 researchers without Cascade Call support.They covered studies including Palazzo Poggi, the Galleria Estense, Villa del Casale, SPAFE, MOCIV and the Panizzi Library.Source: Research case studies · pp. 20–21

• Results are organised into workflows, tools and prototypes; cross-case meta-analysis; and quantitative and qualitative assessment of usability, engagement and dissemination.Source: Results · p. 21

Workflows, tools and prototypes

• Workflows covered open digital libraries and repositories, accessible interaction, VR reconstruction, AR-enhanced visits, phygital experiences and curator-led interactive storytelling.ATON was the primary open-source framework used in most case studies for Web3D/WebXR applications; the Egyptian Museum also used LLM-based narrative generation tools.Source: Workflows, tools and prototypes · p. 22

Data management and documentation

• A collaborative Data Management Plan aligned project data and software with FAIR and Open Science principles, while multidisciplinary expertise supported shared workflows for FAIR-compliant 3D heritage.The team included digitisation, metadata, curatorial, legal and web-infrastructure expertise.Source: Data management and documentation · pp. 23–24

Technical standpoint

• Because a 3D model is an interpreted creative artefact rather than a 1:1 copy, the workflow preserves RAW, RAWp, DCHO and purpose-optimised DCHOo versions.Metadata records the physical object’s historical biography and the digital asset’s technical biography; the pilot pipeline targeted credible, reliable Web3D models.Source: Technical standpoint · pp. 24–25

Museum types, technologies and their configurations

• Museum typology strongly relates to technology configuration, with recurring technology families serving different roles according to institutional context, spatial constraints and organisational needs.Table 3 synthesises the cross-case patterns and relationships among museum types, technological roles and implementation strategies.Source: Museum types, technologies and their… · p. 26, Table 3 · p. 26
• Types A–C use, respectively, immersive narrative pipelines, scientifically rigorous documentation and research tools, and interoperable curatorial ecosystems for distributed collections.Type A prioritises programmable branching narratives; Type B balances rigour with accessibility; Type C emphasises metadata, modularity and open-source sustainability.Source: Museum types, technologies and their… · pp. 26–27
• Types D–F favour, respectively, lightweight territorial access, digital twins for conservation and decision support, and reconfigurable infrastructures with access controls and editorial oversight.Type F’s heterogeneous collections and sensitive materials bring additional ethical, legal and governance constraints.Source: Museum types, technologies and their… · p. 27

Familiarisation with technologies

• Familiarisation varies with staff autonomy, system complexity and institutional role, using co-creation, operational enablement or scaled training to support implementation.Co-creation is prevalent in Types A, B, C and F; operational enablement is particularly evident in Type D, while Type E uses training replicated from expert users to wider staff.Source: Familiarisation with technologies · pp. 27–28

Maturity of case studies

• Core cases test adoption, governance and sustainability in operational contexts, whereas research cases contribute methodological innovation and proof-of-concept development along an implementation continuum.The authors therefore caution against evaluating the two categories by the same criteria.Source: Maturity of case studies · p. 28

Experimentation and evaluation

• Experimentation was predominantly positive for engagement, perceived value and recommendation, but heterogeneous designs and stages make outcomes unsuitable as directly comparable performance metrics.Evaluation ranged from Type A testing in temporary settings to extensive Type F visitor sampling and web analytics; cross-case experimentation could not be systematically compared.Source: Experimentation and evaluation · p. 29

Emerging issues

• Recurring sustainability challenges include dependence on metadata quality, expert availability and infrastructure resources, alongside governance and ethical or legal constraints on data publication and reuse.The analysis treats these as structural gaps affecting scalability and long-term impact across museum types, rather than isolated shortcomings.Source: Emerging issues · pp. 29–30

Evaluation and monitoring

• A configurable dashboard tracked and filtered activities by case study and partner; monitoring covered exploitation, dissemination, and user assessment, with 550 users participating in testing.The monitoring indicators also addressed reusability, national scaling of narratives and prototypes, and the impact of digital dissemination.Source: Usability assessment, user engagement,… · pp. 30–32

Dissemination

• 51 publications and 12 national and international conferences exceeded initial targets, while digital channels, newsletters, and institutional platforms sustained visibility and engagement.The article reports that these quantitative and qualitative results exceeded expectations.Source: Usability assessment, user engagement,… · p. 30

Stakeholder engagement

• CultureInDialogue brought together 27 representatives from three of four quadruple-helix sectors and mapped stakeholders across Government, Academia, Civil Society, and Industry.The mapping identified 19 Government, 20 Academic, 19 Civil Society, and 11 Industry stakeholders.Source: Usability assessment, user engagement,… · p. 30
• Spoke 4 established structured collaboration with the TICHE Foundation and carried out B2B engagement between case-core managers and potentially interested companies.The article describes CHANGES as an additional strategic professional network.Source: Usability assessment, user engagement,… · pp. 30–31

User evaluation coverage

• 60% of core case studies conducted structured user testing; usability, user experience, and recommendation were assessed in 50%, 40%, and 30% of testing activities, respectively.These percentages describe monitoring coverage across different evaluation practices.Source: Usability assessment, user engagement,… · p. 31, Table 4 · p. 31

User evaluation results

• The average SUS score was 57.06 across two evaluation instances in two case studies with 32 respondents, below the 68 threshold and indicating usability needs refinement.The authors identify interaction clarity, efficiency, and ease of use as aspects that could be strengthened.Source: Usability assessment, user engagement,… · p. 32
• The average UEQ-S score was 1.26 across eight evaluation instances in three case studies with 330 respondents, and the average NPS was 53.41 across ten instances in three case studies with 524 respondents.The article characterizes both scores as positive.Source: Usability assessment, user engagement,… · p. 32

Evaluation methods

• When standard SUS, UEQ-S, and NPS instruments were not adopted, case studies used context-specific alternatives, including perceived usefulness for tools supporting professional workflows.The article identifies museum professionals and digital curators as contexts where a tool’s added value for expert workflows is a central evaluation criterion.Source: Usability assessment, user engagement,… · p. 32

Discussions and conclusions

• The Aldrovandi pilot frames digitisation as an open, reproducible scientific pathway rather than a technical operation, offering a shareable model while the workflow is explicitly not universal or rigid.Source: Discussions and conclusions · pp. 32–33
• Museum typology shapes technological choices, organisational strategies, training models, and sustainability pathways, while successful implementation depends on alignment with institutional context and capacity.Source: Discussions and conclusions · p. 33
• Cross-case analysis identifies shared gaps in sustainability, metadata quality, capacity building, governance, and infrastructural autonomy, alongside research needs in interoperability, AI, user evaluation, and inclusion.Source: Discussions and conclusions · p. 33
• Spoke 4’s engagement, exploitation, and dissemination objectives were fully achieved and often exceeded across stakeholder engagement, scientific dissemination, and communication and outreach.Source: Discussions and conclusions · p. 33
• Future work calls for stable, interoperable infrastructures, stronger metadata and semantic standards, structured professional training, clear governance, and longitudinal, inclusive user-experience evaluation.Source: Discussions and conclusions · pp. 33–34
• The follow-on HERITAS project aims to bring Spoke 4 technologies to TRL 8, moving prototypes toward pre-commercial, scalable solutions.Source: Discussions and conclusions · p. 34
• Spoke 4’s largest legacy is described as a decentralised, multidisciplinary human infrastructure built through nationwide institutional and company involvement, enabled by exceptional research funding.Source: Discussions and conclusions · p. 34

Appendix 1: Spoke 4’s Deliverables

• The appendix table lists 18 deliverables and gives each title, work package, version, publication date, and Zenodo DOI URL.Source: Appendix 1: Spoke 4’s Deliverables · p. 40
• Listed early outputs include a coordination guide, data-management plans, cultural and technological context meta-analyses, preliminary pilot-study analysis, and an involvement and exploitation strategy.Source: Appendix 1: Spoke 4’s Deliverables · p. 40
• The deliverables include guidelines and best practices for technology-aided narratives for museums and art collections.Source: Appendix 1: Spoke 4’s Deliverables · p. 40
• A separate entry records implementation of the guidelines and best practices through prototypes.Source: Appendix 1: Spoke 4’s Deliverables · p. 40
• The appendix lists pilot-study implementation deliverables for museum Types A, B, and C.Source: Appendix 1: Spoke 4’s Deliverables · p. 40
• It also lists pilot-study implementation deliverables for Types D and E.Source: Appendix 1: Spoke 4’s Deliverables · p. 40