Musedata in 2016

2016 is gearing up to be a significant year for musedata. At Dexibit, we wanted to understand the current state of how cultural venues are managing their data, and what the year might hold for advances in this field.

Although the survey has only been opened for a short time, this data story provides a preview snapshot of the initial survey results so far.

As more responses are received, Dexibit will publish its official analysis report on the state of musedata in 2016 – advance feedback is welcome using the comments below or contact us

To explore the data, touch or hover over a chart.

This survey opened 12 February 2016 and is still available for comment. 



Preview survey results

Who participated?

Half of respondents identified as a museum, the remainder were comprised of galleries, public art or festivals; zoos or aquariums; parks or gardens; observatories; science centres or cultural centres. The survey has not yet received responses from libraries or performing arts venues.

[visualizer id=”10668″]

A clear majority of respondents were of medium size, with annual visitation numbers of between 10,000 to 100,000.

[visualizer id=”10672″]

What is the current state of musedata?

Reports generated from ticketing solutions were the standout most common current method of data collection and report support. This was followed by analytics from digital solutions, then equally membership reporting and visitor surveys. A very small number of venues reported innovative tooling, including dashboards, WiFi and visualization tools.

[visualizer id=”10677″]

Measuring a total duration of elapsed time as the speed of data, the majority of respondents wait from 1 month up to 1 year for data to reach decision makers. Only 2 venues had access to real time data.

[visualizer id=”10679″]

Measuring the total effort as the efficiency of data, the majority of respondents spent from 1 month up to 1 year in administering and reporting data annually. Only 2 venues reported less than 1 week of work on these activities.

[visualizer id=”10686″]

The total average for self assessment of data aspects was 2.38 out of 5. Efficiency scored the lowest at 1.95 and integrity the highest at 2.89.

[visualizer id=”10690″]

Where to from here?

The three top challenges cited in data driven insight were creating awareness, getting industry standards and finding a suitable solution.

[visualizer id=”10692″]

On average, respondents felt they were very likely to take actions towards data driven insight in 2016, rating this probability 4 out of 5.

[visualizer id=”10694″]