There is a clear need for a cultural heritage knowledge design, as a range of operational knowledge curation research is being conducted by knowledge provider organisations (chapter 1) and there is significant interest in this research by the participants. Currently, the main approach by providers for providing access to knowledge resources is signposting. Signposting refers to having a website hosting their core resources that is supplemented by signposting to other websites’ knowledge resources. Signposting is seen by participants as less-resource heavy, and less intrusive to the work of other provider organisations. It even creates informal alliances by support organisations signposting to each other’s websites and knowledge resources. Signposting does seem to have potential applications in linking well to stable content and services, but not so well for fast changing knowledge resources. Signposting is ineffective if the links are broken, and when the content is not fit for purpose or out of date. ‘Signposting, … is not perceived as a problem, but obviously isn't an efficient way’ (Participant P12). Signposting creates an endless maze, making search ineffective as users often are going round in circles or hitting dead ends of broken links.

​

Instead of an endless search, for participating users it would be ‘ideal to have A platform for sharing information’ (Participant U8).

‘Ideally for me it will be a single portal … which people could access without cost, but which is dynamic and able to be kept up to date, but also that you are able to alert users when things are updated … Understand the provenance of things as well, because it's again having that through a body which is respected … enables you to be more confident about it.’ (Participant U2)

​

Trustworthy provenance helps users to select more authoritative and up-to-date knowledge resources. That brings a focus on the role of such trustworthy provider organisations:

‘Sort of a one stop shop, … where you can access information, people, links and links off to other organisations. However, I don't want to take away the work that organisations like the Collections Trust have done because they have done a remarkable amount of work.’ (Participant U3)

So, bringing people's experience and cultural heritage ecosystem-wide resources together, would benefit the professional development of everyone in the ecosystem (Participant P17). But not harming the prospects of support organisations must be a key principle for such a knowledge design. A single portal provision after all will have cost implications, so existing provision and partnerships need to be explored (Participant U2).

​

Just as user organisations have limited capacity, provider organisations have limited capacity and would like to provide better training and access to resources, but there is no clear solution on how to achieve it.

‘…there was a lot of frustration … there are a lot of best practise reports that are published and then disappear from websites after three or four years … And I think there is a benefit in holding … stores of information. But I'm not clear on the best way to do that.’ (Participant U2)

​

Provider participants raised the need for a more strategic approach for mapping the needs and gaps across the sectors, a systematic approach to the management of knowledge resources. ‘Yes, I probably do think there is duplication. Is it avoidable? … I think there is an opportunity for a more systemic approach to content planning’ (Participant P17). Cultural protection policy provides the opportunity for such a systemic approach. ‘Often you will identify yourself as having a very specific role that it's museum, or it's archive, or it's library, or etcetera, and you forget that there's a wider infrastructure that could support you’ (Participant P19). There is a clear need to think of operational knowledge curation more joined-up; ‘agreeing a singularity of approach to things that are universally raised as challenges’ (Participant P17).

​

‘It's the most collaborative sector I've ever worked in. But it's possibly the one that needs to collaborate most as well, because there are limited [financial] resources.’ (Participant P17)

​

Participants propose that the sectors’ support ought to join forces within an agreed big picture strategy to enhance the uniqueness of each organisation and benefit everyone in these sectors, not compete for limited resources just to deliver short-lived quick wins. ‘It's about balancing out the need of the organisation to retain that unique aspect, but equally the sharing of knowledge to the benefit ultimately of all’ (Participant P17). An example of joint up partnership is resource holding:

‘Arts Council administer accreditation, but Collections Trust are the go-to for all the areas of accreditation, they hold resources and link to other resources for every area of accreditation.’ (Participant P19)

​

Additionally, user and provider participants are increasingly exploring the role of AI in creating, searching, and signposting to knowledge resources, as mentioned in the previous technology theme and is further explored in the AI feature (Chapter 7). The urge for the use of AI does highlight the lack of knowing what resources exist or are needed. The participants ask for mapping of what knowledge resources exist, and to understand what is needed. ‘If there was a public mapping of what [knowledge resource] there is so that we can actually see and identify it, that would enormously help’ (Participant P15). Such mapping would help to ‘uplift the tools we've already got, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel’ (Participant P23c). However, as existing resources are continually changing, having an up-to-date map or directory of resources needs a process to administer their metadata so it can be managed as a knowledge resources collection (Participant P16a). Furthermore, managing what exists does not necessarily cover what the cultural heritage users need:

 ‘I would like to see the sector come together and do a strategic review of all the stuff that we produce, starting from an analysis of need rather than analysis of what we've got.’ (Participant P4)

​

Mapping existing and needed knowledge resources requires an agreed framework of users and their operations, effectively defining cultural heritage as an ecosystem with boundaries, structure, and purpose. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, and expanded upon in Chapter 7, the boundaries of the cultural heritage ecosystem, or its culture, heritage, arts, or historic environment sectors, are not defined. Furthermore, for mapping operations to be possible, the framework needs individual building blocks of operations, not general terms such as 'digital' (Participants P16a and P16b) which is about using computers and the internet; ‘it's very, very, very damaging having digital as a top-level organisational category’ (Participant P16b).

​

Focusing on the need then, provider participants point out that the sectors need quality knowledge artefacts, graded training, in-person support, and effective networking. Support organisations should not be churning out knowledge artefacts but instead develop a suite of items under a specific umbrella (Participant P5b). The knowledge artefacts need to be of high quality, up-to-date, practical, and easy to use. Information resources need to have access to human support and be a package with training and effective networking (Participant P18). Information resources need to be graded, from a quick orientation, to continued professional development (CPD) accreditation, so people can dip their toes initially and then explore deeper to professional accreditation (Participant P7b). These resources need to be provided in a variety of media. Training needs to be part of continued development, not occasional and unconnected courses, and to include an extensive training package for volunteers.

​

The support organisations need a supportive infrastructure too, for example training resources on how to develop great resources for engaging learning (Participant P22). The provision of ‘best practise … should be evolving all the time, should be improving’ (Participant P19). Support should be aiming for quality, perhaps providing fewer knowledge artefacts, but more complete packages of knowledge artefacts, training, and networking, a combination of quality knowledge stocks and flows.

​

The participant suggestions on a knowledge design can be summarised in four areas: A knowledge design needs:

1. a strategic umbrella structure to provide leadership, specific expertise, and include key support organisations to head each operation;

2. a cultural heritage system-wide open access repository bringing information resources, training, specialist support, and networking together;

3. practical and user-friendly resources that are easy to find;

4. training to be developed from basic introduction to CPD accreditation, and include train-the-experts/trainers support.