Digital transformation of cultural institutions: a statistical analysis of Italian and Campania GLAMs

  • Massimo Guarino
  • Maria Anna Di Palma
  • Tullio Menini
  • Michele GalloEmail author


Digitalization is playing a prominent role in cultural economics reshaping GLAM organizations toward a more relevant income generation. However achieving a higher level of digitalization requires careful management and resource planning. To this end, the concept of digital maturity provides a useful description of an organization current level of digitalization, allowing for a more effective digital transformation process. The literature concerning business studies and information technology developed highly detailed surveys to assess digital maturity levels within organizations, the so-called digital maturity models. Nevertheless, while many of them are manufacturing-based, very few are wide-spectrum models allowing for a generic assessment of digital maturity. This paper provides a preliminary descriptive analysis on the aptitude of Italian and Campania GLAMs for deploying digital facilities and services, thus suggesting the need to elaborate a specific digital maturity model for GLAM organizations.


Cultural heritage Digitalization Digital maturity Rasch model 



The authors are grateful to Ms Violetta Simonacci for revising the original text. Comments and suggestions by anonymous reviewers have greatly improved an early version of the paper. This work has financially supported by funds of POR CAMPANIA FSE 2014IT055FOPO20.


  1. Alfandari, A.: How digital can help museums to reach new audiences. In: Proctor, N., Cherry, R. (eds.) Museums and the Web Asia 2014. Museums and the Web, Silver Spring (2014)Google Scholar
  2. Bagdadli, S.: Il museo come azienda. Management e organizzazione al servizio della cultura. ed. ETAS Libri, Bologna (1997)Google Scholar
  3. Bertacchini, E., Morando, F.: The future of museums in the digital age: new models for access to and use of digital collections. Int. J. Arts Manag. 15(2), 60–72 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. Bharadwaj, A.: A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Q., 24(1), 169–196 (2000). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carcary, M., Doherty, E., Conway, G.: A dynamic capability approach to digital transformation: a focus on key foundational themes. In: The European Conference on Information Systems Management, Academic Conferences International Limited, vol. 20 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. Chanias, S., Hess, T.: Understanding digital transformation strategy formation: insights from Europe’s automotive industry. In: PACIS, pp. 296 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. Crosby, P.: Quality is Free. McGraw-Hill, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  8. David, P.A.: Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. Am. Econ. Rev. 75, 332–337 (1985)Google Scholar
  9. De Carolis, A., Macchi, M., Negri, E., and Terzi, S.: A maturity model for assessing the digital readiness of manufacturing companies. In: IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  10. Deming, W.E.: Out of crisis, centre for advanced engineering study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  11. Erol, S., Schumacher, A., Sihn, W.: Strategic guidance towards industry 4.0—a three-stage process model. In: International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing, vol. 9, pp. 495–501 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. Kulpa, M.K., Johnson, K.A.: Interpreting the CMMI (R): A Process Improvement Approach. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guarino, M., Di Palma M.A., Gallo, M.: GLAM organizations’ digital maturity indicator: a statistical approach for Campania museums. Second International Conference on Data Science and Social Research, University of Milan “Bicocca” and University of Milan “IULM”, 2–4 February, 2019, Milan (2019)Google Scholar
  14. Government of South Australia G., Australia K.: Digital transformation toolkit available at: (2019)
  15. Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  16. Ippolito, J.: Accommodating the unpredictable: the variable media questionnaire. Permanence through change: the variable media approach, pp. 47–53. Guggenheim Museum Publications (2003)Google Scholar
  17. Juran, J.M.: Juran on Planning for Quality. Collier MacMillan, Springfield (1988)Google Scholar
  18. Kane, G.C., Palmer, D., Nguyen-Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., Buckley, N.: Achieving Digital Maturity: Adapting your company to a changing world” MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press (2017).
  19. Katz, M.L., Shapiro, C.: Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am. Econ. Rev. 75(3), 424–440 (1985)Google Scholar
  20. Li, Y.C., Liew, A.W.C., Su, W.P.: The digital museum: challenges and solution. In: 2012 8th International Conference on Information Science and Digital Content Technology (ICIDT2012), IEEE, vol. 3, pp. 646–649 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. Linacre, J.M., Wright, B.: Winsteps. (2000).
  22. Lynch, C.: Digital collections, digital libraries & the digitization of cultural heritage information. Microform Imaging Rev. 31(4), 131–145 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Middleton, V.T.: New visions for independent museums in the UK. Association of Independent Museums, Chichester (1990)Google Scholar
  24. Minghetti, V., Moretti, A., Micelli, S.: Reengineering the museum’s role in the tourism value chain: towards an it business model. Inf. Technol. Tour. 4(2), 131–143 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mok, M.M., Wright, B.D.: Overview of rasch model families. In Introduction to Rasch Measurement: Theory, Models and Applications, pp. 1–24 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. Parry, R.: Recoding the museum: digital heritage and the technologies of change. Routledge, London (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peacock, D., Brownbill, J.: Audiences, visitors, users: reconceptualising users of museum online content and services. In: Museums and the Web. Citeseer, pp. 11–14 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M.: What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. In: ECIS (2011)Google Scholar
  29. Rasch, G.: Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Paedogogiske Institut (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)(1960)Google Scholar
  30. Shapiro, C., Carl, S., Varian, H.R.: Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business Press, Brighton (1998)Google Scholar
  31. Simonacci, V., Gallo, M.: Statistical tools for student evaluation of academic educational quality. Qual. Quant. (2016). Google Scholar
  32. Soren, B.J.: Canadian heritage information network: best practices in creating quality online experiences for museum users. Museum Manag. Curatorship 20(2), 131–148 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Throsby, D., Bakhshi, H.: Culture of innovation: an economic analysis of innovation in arts and cultural organisations. NESTA Research Report (2010)Google Scholar
  34. United Nation World Tourism Organization: Yearly report (2018).
  35. Wendler, R.: The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(12), 1317–1339 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright, B.: Reliability and separation. Rasch Meas. Trans. 9(4), 472 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human and Social SciencesUniversity of Naples “L’Orientale”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations