 Hello everyone and welcome to Nemo's webinar, Holistic Heritage Assessment Model, Measure the Effects of Museum Activities. My name is Elizabeth and I work for Nemo. As the network for museums in Europe, our main activities are advocating for museums at the EU level, providing training opportunities, providing a platform for museums to exchange and learn from each other, and helping museums to cooperate across borders. For today's webinar, we are trying something a little different, inviting members of the Sophia Project to describe their Holistic Heritage Impact Assessment Model with case study examples of a transnational cultural heritage project. We are looking forward to what can be gleaned from their experiences and hope for a fruitful discussion. So please enter any questions that may come up into the chat and we will save them for a Q&A session at the end. The session will be recorded. To further introduce the model and the rest of the expertise here with us today, I am handing over to Professor of Management and Accounting at the University of Roma Trey, Paola De Martini. Floor is yours. Thank you very much and good morning. Hello, I'm very happy to be here and I welcome all the participants, the attendee to the conference, you are so numerous. My name is Paola De Martini and I bring you greetings from my colleague Michela Marchiori, who is the leader of the Sophia Project Consortiums. My role today is to introduce you to the speakers of this meeting. They are all researchers of the consortium and they belong to units located in different countries here in Europe, as you can see from the picture. What is more interesting is that we tried as a consortium to blend, to merge different and complementary competence and expertise. The first speaker of the meeting will be Mauro Bayoni from Roma Trey University. He's a urban planner, but as the presenter said before, as a Roma Trey unit we have complementary experience and expertise in management and architecture studies. He will introduce the Sophia Project, then the second speaker is Mercedes Jovinazzo, who is the director of InterArts, a not-for-profit private foundation with the international project that supports the design of culture policies all around the world. And Mercedes, we talk about the social platform of the consortium, because it's important to say that we are a social platform and the expertise is not arriving from the member of the consortium, but we have a great audience of stakeholders. They are experts, policymakers, practitioners, managers, with great expertise in the world of cultural heritage. Then it comes Rida Ararif from Edukult. Edukult is an independent European research institute in the field of arts, culture, and Rida, she will talk about the model in more detail. It's interesting to say that we refined and developed the model with an approach, which is a kind of participated research approach, because we tested and refined the model with different case studies. And Elia Vlachu from the European Museum Academy will show you the experience of one of the most interesting case studies of our research project. Of course, from the European Museum Academy, we'll join us and Rick Zipsen, who is the managing director of EMA. And the European Museum Academy is a nonprofit foundation that promotes research on museum at an international level. And he will moderate the debates. What is important to say is that we have a very different and interesting consortium, because we have also other units that are two university and research center. We have the National Technical University of Athens, and also the Institutes of Art, Design, and Technology. Last but not least, the Institute for Development and International Relations in Croatia. So I'm very happy and glad to be here. I hope you can enjoy our presentation. And what's really important is that I want to invite you all to attend our final conference, which will be held virtually in Roma 3. You can find information on our website, on the Sofia Project website. And the conference will be held on the 16th and 17th of December. So thank you very much for being so numerous. I did the floor to the first presenter, who is Mauro Bayoni. Thank you very much. My name is Mauro Bayoni. I'm going to give you some general information about the project, its background, and its main results. And then my colleague will go into the details. Okay. First, this starting point is an Horizon 2020 call started in 2019. As you can see, the call was for a social platform on the impact assessment. So some relevant consideration on that. The first, the European Union is looking for a new approach. Secondly, the, you realize in the assessment as a means to ensure the quality of interventions. And the third fact is that social platform is at the core of the call, because the engagement of the community plays a crucial role. And the collaborative approach is relevant as a part of the open method of coordination framework from the European Union. Then our proposal, our proposal have some challenging goals. The first is to create an holistic impact assessment model, whatever it is, holistic impact assessment model. And then I go and try to explain what it is. Second, to create a platform to gather opinion. And then I give floor to Mercedes-Germinato that will point out the relevance of a social platform of a digital platform to gather people to. And then the third is address the debate. Try to convey a consensus towards the EU action plan. And then this is a quite relevant point because we are trying to deal with the new approach. And so I have in some way to lower your expectation on practical solution. And I hope I will raise your attention and curiosity on new possibilities. And this was our commitment. Then again, this is the life cycle of the SOFIA project. Hope that the slide will show how many things we have done since January 2020 when we started. And as you can see, everything is quite squeezed. And this is exactly how it worked out because we did so many things in a short period of time. And the pandemic made it more complicated than we expected. Just after we started in Rome with the kickoff meeting in January, the pandemic locked out every one of us in his country. And then we have to deal with it. We met again in Dublin on September and we were hoping we were out of this nightmare, but it's not the case. And so if I can say we put the pandemic under a different light, we learn how to bring people together, how to build a community without propensity, without being together as we are now from so many different countries, as I say in the chat. And this is our commitment. Just to underline on the middle of our process, of our path, we had the case study analysis. And then after me, Ilya, will present you the Blue Med case. And that was, I think, the tone of our process. The case study analysis boosts the project and we learn a lot from that experience. And then our approach. We started having some references. We have a long and well paved road behind us. The first reference is this study, a cultural heritage account for Europe. A study of 2015. I think that all of you will probably know is a very well-famous research. And what's the focus? The focus is that the cultural intervention have impact in so many areas, in different areas, in different sectors. And we can say in some way that the quality of intervention lies in the potential of these many, many diverse areas of impact. And we try to make a little step forward, looking especially with a specific attention to the overlapping between this sector. So not only a multi-sectoral assessment, a multi-domain framework, but across the main approach, looking at the interdependencies. This is the specific way Sofia approached to this thing. Second reference, ECOMOS. ECOMOS did a great step forward, not only from protection, not only protection, but acting, paying attention to the benefits of cultural intervention. And our approach is focused on trying to put those principles into practice through assessment. This is why we focus our work on an assessment model. And the second question, the second thing that I want to point out is that assessment is not only related to a sort of exposed verify of what has been done, but this is a process that has due to the whole life cycle of any initiative, from the beginning to its conclusion and then to its legacy. This is why it was important to look at impact 8 and 18 on Liverpool. Because this is one of the most relevant initiatives in this sense. They had assessment from the beginning to the end and then 10 years after the conclusion of the first round of Liverpool as a European capital of culture. And we asked to Beatriz Garcia that was committed in the initiative and then in the research on the initiative to share with us their experience and we learned a lot from her about what does it mean holistic and what does it mean to assess. Assess is not only taking a measure and holistic can be explained. Eric who will who will take the word in the in the conclusion warn us always holistic is a so ambitious word holistic is everything. We have we try to explain in which way we can be holistic with a consideration of domains of people and time. And this is why our model is a three axis and a three axis model. So in in few words let me sum up new approach means a focus on cross domain interdependencies, a focus on assessment as a process and a focus on time and people. People means different needs of promoter, funders, beneficiaries, audience and managers and time is focusing on key moments exactly ongoing exposed and we can use the model as a reference for all of these relevant moments. I'm going to conclude. Of course at the core of the project is the model and then I give floor to Rita Arifes she will go into into detail and explain what does it mean people domain time okay. But then we consider Sophia as a step as a step on a path and then we have to we had in mind from the beginning how to go on after the conclusion of the project. And so we we did a great effort and I have to thanks to all the partners for the effort to to pay so many deliverables so many outputs in three direction. A toolkit and some reports to try to understand how to implement the model, how to adapt it and to refine it in the following years. A digital platform we say to spread the voice to enlarge the debate to gather the community around the assessment. And then beyond the model as you can imagine we have to deal with complexity and a model and assessment model is just a little piece of a complex puzzle and we and we have to to consider how many other things should be done from the european side having in mind the open method of coordination and so the european units can do a lot with in the field of policies and in the field of research. And I think that's all okay the general informations are are finished and I give the the words to Mercedes Jovinazzo from our interest and I thank you very much for the attention. Bye. Good morning everyone. Thank you Mauro. Thank you so so much for for this introduction. Mauro has delved into the HIA of the acronym of SOFIA the holistic impact assessment model and I will relate more to the SOP of our acronym the social platform. This is a social platform indeed a social platform funded within the H2020 program but it is a coordination and support action and this is something I think that we have to underline it is about providing measures accompanying measures such as standardization, dissemination, networking, awareness raising, policy making etc. So we have been yes working on the development of the model but we have also been working on the setting up of this social platform to accompany our work. Now beware when we say social platform we do not mean a social digital platform we're not talking about anything of those instruments that we all know and which help us to communicate. No we're talking rather about a community of practice by that we mean a group of people that comes together because they have a shared interest a shared aim and they want to work together towards that interest for that interest excuse me or towards that aim it means that they are both providers of knowledge but also learners and that they have a shared basis for communication within the community everybody is unequal and SOFIA has applied this concept of the community of practice to bring together a group of people professionals like those of you that are listening to us today people in the academia researchers professors phd students whatever people that work for museums or cultural organizations people that are in the public administration remit and people that are for instance in the sector of the international governmental organizations and for instance also networks we have gleaned from their knowledge we have made to participate in our community of practice and they have taken up the challenge as Maura has said two years a very let's say systematic approach time is not in this case a benefit for us it plays against us so we have had to pull in the members of this community of practice slowly but systematically and make them partake actively of everything that we were doing very very quickly this means that we the consortium has been at the explaining end but we recognize and acknowledge the extraordinary level of participation of the members of our community of practice who have taken up this challenge of helping us bring forward what Maura has explained the holistic impact assessment model but also the other outputs of the project this work has been supported of course but by sorry a collaborative digital platform we have of course worked with digital instruments also a Maura has said we met recently in a blend physically but had not met previously over almost a year and a half and therefore we have heavily relied on a collaborative digital platform that has been our repository of information and documentation archive we are let's we are very conscious of the fact and this is the last element that I would like to put forward that our project is finite in time but that our task possibly does not end there not even possibly hopefully does not end there what our community of practice also means and we're looking towards you to maybe become interested in the work that Sofia has carried out what our work has meant is putting forward a model policy recommendations options for operational programs but also a research agenda and we think that the ownership of the model but also of these other project outputs by our community is what will ensure its legacy in the future we need that professionals in the sector in the heritage sector consider that the holistic impact assessment model is relevant to the work they do start applying it start advocating for its interest for its need for the sector and we hope that this is what in political terms will enable us to continue in the future because it is of course an age 2020 funded project it is about research and innovation it is about a coordination and support action but it is above all about providing the sector with a set of tools that might be useful and there's nothing more important than to own these tools and fight if you allow me the term for their relevance and their implementation one last thing let's remember that the project had as its underlying scope the idea that there is a need to engage citizens when we talk about interventions in cultural heritage citizens do not have to be disengaged on the contrary because otherwise they neither do they own whatever process is being put in place so the underlying lake motif of our project is also about empowering citizens to be part of the decision making processes when it comes to interventions in cultural heritage and of course what best than to use a model such as that of Sofia it is therefore an issue of political engagement of empowerment of citizens and professionals and we hope that webinars such as this help in disseminating the message if you allow me the term and that professionals like you that are listening to us want to become engaged in the use of such a model thank you very much for your attention and the floor to the next speaker partner in the consortium thank you very very much and have a nice day all right hello everyone I hope you can hear me I will begin by telling you that I'm very happy to present the Sofia model to you today this holistic heritage impact assessment model has come into being after a very intensive and collaborative process and we have arrived at a model finally that we as a consortium are very proud to present to you today all right so the model aims at contributing to the reflection on impact assessments and quality of interventions in the European historic environment and cultural heritage it facilitates a more in-depth analysis on what impacts have been produced and how and for whom and with what externalities the initial literature review that was conducted showed that sustainability and resilience are overarching concepts that should be considered in assessing the impact of interventions in cultural heritage requiring a multi-time and multi-dimensional frame analysis as part of the assessment and there is growing consensus in the field now that cultural heritage can support sustainable development in many different ways and across various dimensions but in order to do that and not only be sustainable itself interventions also need to have the capability to absorb disturbances and change so they need to be resilient so in the Sofia model these two concepts really lie at the heart of the assessment process they highlight the role that cultural heritage can play in the interconnected world of today and justify the need for a holistic heritage impact assessment model in the first place this also means that the model not only highlights the various dimensions and forms of impact that cultural heritage interventions could have but it also it's putting emphasis on the necessity of understanding these multiple dimensions and their connections with each other the multiple areas of impact and their interconnectedness are the main structure of assessing cultural heritage as part of our model but these are accompanied by two other important aspects the time factor and the human factor these are essential because the contribution of cultural heritage to sustainable development and its resilience to change will always depend on the perspective one is taking and the point in time at which the assessment is is taking place the first one that I will talk about is the people's access that aims to give a voice to the stakeholders that are part of the assessment process this includes everyone including those that are engaged in decision making and it also takes into account the needs and perceptions of the stakeholders this is achieved through the inclusion of the people's perspective in the multi-domain grid which we will move to in a minute the consortium also recognizes the important role that time plays in the assessment which is why the time access is included over here it takes into account at what stage of the intervention the assessment is taking place whether it is ex ante during or exposed as the goal behind the assessment would vary accordingly and then finally we have the multi-domain access which represents six themes that need to be considered when assessing a cultural heritage intervention the themes that are derived as part of this are identity of place protection work and prosperity quality of life social capital and governance and education creativity and innovation these six themes have been identified during the course of the project's research and really form the core areas of impact these are further expanded into 28 sub themes four to five per theme through which the user of the model can explore these areas of impact in more depth we will look at three of these sub themes in a minute because of a shortage of time today but before we do that there's a few elements to note here which are common among all the sub themes in the grid the sub theme consists of a short description firstly and notes specific issues that are being addressed through that sub theme it also includes indicators which are you know which is quantitative information as well as qualitative information which is explored in further detail in the people's perspective actually which gives a voice to those stakeholders this is something that the people's access which I mentioned earlier on the interconnectedness between the themes is highlighted through cross cutting issues so these are themes that are linked to the sub theme in question and it also has counter effects so these are aspects of an intervention which would counter the impact of the sub theme in question so these three access coupled with the cross cutting issues and in many times the counter effects as well this is what essentially captures the holistic nature of the model and I'd like to show you some examples now of what I mean all right so we'll begin by looking at the protection theme which is largely looking at protection of the environment from natural and human related risks it recognizes the importance of strategizing against environmental disasters as well as against slower shifts that can develop over time into irreversible damage it also considers the human related factors that burden existing imbalances and they create additional ones as well so we're looking within this at the green management and development sub theme in order for interventions to fulfill their role as an enabler for environmental sustainability it's important that a move towards their sustainable management is encouraged and enabled so this sub theme explores the efficiency of various levels of management related to the particular intervention and that's responsible for its economic as well as environmental sustainability possible quantitative indicators here include the number of and percentage of funding for projects promoting green circular or local economic practices or for example the number of agreements with local partners for sourcing tangible or other resources and then the people's perspective that I mentioned is incorporated here through a list of questions such as the level of people's willingness to engage in green greener economic practices quality of life here which is one of the one of the themes it becomes a cross cutting issue because sustainable practices through the intervention would have a direct impact on the living conditions of people on the other hand work in prosperity is a counter effect because green practices act or related to an intervention could affect employment opportunities and people's spending behavior the next theme that we look at is education creativity and innovation the overall question of what people learn from and within the context of cultural heritage both material and immaterial is a very complex and manifold question and it needs to be divided into several sub issues and that's what this theme addresses within this we are looking at the sub theme of education which is developed to recognize the potential of cultural heritage to play a role in the education of audiences but also provide learning opportunities through both formal and informal means the sub theme explores the this diversity not only in terms of the educational offer the outreach activities planned and you know the learning opportunities but also in terms of the target groups and the narratives that are being explored through these planned activities in order to analyze whether the educational role is being fulfilled analysis of its demographic targeting is needed and it's explored through the quantitative indicators that you see over here under this sub theme the people's perspective examines this in a bit more detail it asks important questions about the accessibility of educational material and outreach activities in terms of languages age groups groups of society the quality of these offers is assessed through exploration of the skills that are being imparted and the level of critical analysis that they are encouraging enhanced educational opportunities is cross cutting towards many other Sophia themes it could contribute positively to work in prosperity by providing training and employment prospects diversity in the demographic groups being targeted provides a possibility to promote and practice inclusive access through the intervention and so it contributes to social capital and governance and an inclusive identity of place note that there is no counter effect of education here and I want to just take a minute to speak about how the model is designed to be used in a way that allows for a lot of flexibility in its application and all the points that I've mentioned here such as the questions in the people's perspective as well as the quantitative indicators these are to serve as guiding questions with room for these indicators to be expanded upon as and when needed we will quickly look at one last sub theme I'll talk about the quality of life theme now the third theme is part of our model on a very basic level and intervention can improve the quality of life by providing employment either directly or indirectly but more significantly it can provide opportunities for social connections it can give meaning to natural and built into our natural and built environment and it can provide connections to our past and our ancestors on the other hand cultural heritage interventions that over emphasize the short term economic benefits deriving from for example tourism can severely impact the quality of life of the local resident so these can include issues such as you know increased noise pollution traffic security and safety concerns and gentrification isn't the problem as well and these themes explore this theme explores this and other factors as well including living conditions which is the sub theme that we are looking at over here the management of and all the activities surrounding the intervention may result in economic and social effects including changing people's income levels and the availability of and access to services such as waste collection transport shops even recreational facilities such as you know parks and public spaces so the people's perspective is important here to understand the social impacts and looks and so it looks for data that reflects their impressions regarding their well-being in relation to the intervention under assessment both short term and long term so bringing in the time factor here while an important quantitative indicator is the cost of living during or and you know after the intervention or before the intervention and this can give an overview of its economic impact on the surrounding community now work in prosperity and social capital and governance form cross-cutting issues here because healthy economic activities related to the intervention may lead to enhanced living conditions and social cohesion having a similar effect on a community could be the improved offer of educational activities so education creativity and innovation here becomes another cross-cutting issue and although you know increased tourism activity would generate economic activity it would also need to be monitored to ensure that over tourism and gentrification does not take place um changes in social and living conditions would also impact the identity of place which together with work in prosperity and protection become counter effects for this sub theme so to conclude the Sophia model can be considered to be a conceptual model with the ambition to inspire its application while not prescribing any recipes the model is not ready for use as is but it's designed for maximum flexibility in tailoring the assessment while considering some contextual factors that are unique to each individual case these include contextual factors related to the intervention so this would include politics and history of the intervention the relationship with the stakeholders the social context it also considers the context of the assessment process itself this would include questions of the the reasons or the motivation behind an assessment what particular criteria are under consideration the resources that are available to conduct the process and so on I will conclude here and we can hand over to Elia from European Museums Academy now thank you everyone I am Elia Vlaho I'm a museologist and I'm going to present one of the 12 case studies that have been selected in order to assess the Sophia draft model my case study was the Interag Mediterranean Project Blumed Plant Test Coordinator Underwater Museums Diving Parks and Knowledge Awareness Centers a project involving 14 partners from five Mediterranean countries and aiming to open up to the public seven underwater museums and four knowledge awareness centers the project aims to develop a multidisciplinary approach to promote innovation in the diving industry to attract people who choose diving tourism to introduce the wider public to underwater natural and cultural heritage and to set up an underwater natural and cultural roots in the Mediterranean the main interest of Blumed in relation to Sophia was it's a multifaced holistic approach Blumed takes into consideration various cultural environmental socioeconomic parameters also included in the Sophia model so Sophia met Blumed through a series of meetings focus group discussions interviews and visitor and stakeholder surveys and finally the conclusions were represented in an international conference held online in May 21 we approached the Blumed project following the three axes with the objective not to evaluate Blumed per se but to assess the model as to its relevance and applicability in against a real finished EU funded project to this purpose we created a very simple matrix including two parameters relevance high medium low or no relevance measuring how relevant is each criteria proposed by the Sophia model for this particular case and applicability or application measuring if the relevant criteria can or has already been applied and if so at which stage of the project it was first applied for this reason the second category offered also an insight to the time perspective of the holistic impact model so we will now present some examples of from each category starting with the social capital and governance one of the most important aspects of Blumed is that it gave access to cultural heritage sites till then inaccessible to the wider public in two ways by opening up for the first time to the public of divers underwater archeological sites and by implementing knowledge and awareness centers allowing non-divers and the people with disabilities to dry visit the underwater museums our second domain is identity of place the project aimed at increasing the visibility and the reputation of the selected case studies us it's the first time that these sites open up to visitors media coverage it was huge and the trend should be easy to assess it is also interesting to note that the project has already won several awards and best practice recognitions here is an example of no direct relevance to the project peace and safety on the other hand in the field of innovation Blumed produced the innovative ICT tools for the diving industry as well as interesting ICT applications for the knowledge and awareness centers and the virtual museum moreover within the framework of the project many of the findings of the underwater archaeological sites have been digitized while the ICT tools at the service of underwater archaeology and monitoring of the heritage are constantly evolving work and prosperity local communities depend heavily on tourism thus the project could have a serious impact on the tourism economy so the relevant indicators of the model could be used in order to assess a possible impact in the future in the domain of protection Blumed has developed innovative tools in order to monitor and protect the underwater sites against all human related risks as for the people perspective Blumed consortium adopted from the beginning a multi-stakeholder approach apart from the project's 14 partners including national regional and local authorities universities private ICT companies and specialized diving centers the following target groups have been identified overall the model has been assessed as interesting and useful all six domains were considered as relevant as for the sub themes 17 have been assessed as a highly relevant seven medium and only four irrelevant all stakeholders have found the model interesting to use and thinking that the final version should offer different versatile modules easy to adapt by each stakeholder also main stakeholders are interested in the time marks in order to plan future projects building upon Blumed in conclusion using the holistic impact assessment model against a real case study has proved to be a very useful exercise for assessing the strengths weaknesses and opportunities offered by the model the remarks from the various case studies have been gathered and processed in order to refine the model that you have seen during Rifa's presentation and give it the form that we are going to use in the future thank you for your attention thank you so much to all of our speakers I mean we got quite a lot of help and some interesting examples brought forward um Henrik so so happy to be sharing the stage with you now um thank you yeah to continue the discussion bring in some questions from the chat um what do you think about also bringing our speakers on stage in case there are direct questions for them absolutely that's most welcome absolutely excellent so um if our speakers would like to turn on their cameras and mics um and I will get around to enabling you if that's not yet possible excellent okay so um while this is in process though I actually had um a question if uh if you all don't mind if I start with a question of my own um Rita thank you so much for your presentation going into depth with um you know some of these themes and uh I was wondering actually and of course this is um you know anyone can also jump in but it was inspired by your contribution Rita um I I just noticed um these six themes that you're presenting immediately I had to think of the 2030 SDGs and I was wondering what if any um inspiration or blueprint this may have provided either for one specific theme or all of them you know collectively cohesively um and then secondarily if you think that um you know for museums that are looking to um adhere to the 2030 sustainable development goals is your model um a good approach to reaching that individually absolutely thank you for that question um the SDGs were um a huge part of our research and consideration when developing the model especially for the UNESCO 2030 you know agenda for culture um so yes um the SDGs if you know for those who are familiar with the SDGs we'll see a reflection of them in our in our model in our themes in especially in our sub themes and the way that we develop the indicators especially the people's perspective and the quantitative as well um and I cannot pinpoint to one or the other and say that we considered it's more here than there um the definitely um feature throughout the model um the SDGs are also um a big point of reference in the um you know in the uh in the D2.3 they're deliverable where the model is available online so you can see that uh reference to them over there as well um when it comes to um you know uh museums using the model to achieve the SDGs absolutely um again because they feature so much in the indicators um and the model itself is designed we're still we're about to um you know release the toolkit which really gives practical information on how to use this model and the flexibility that I talked about so how do you actually do that um so that is coming up in a couple of weeks um but museums um projects within museums maybe for example if you're talking about an exhibition let's say that a museum has organized um this model can certainly be used at different stages of that intervention within the context of museums um I don't know if Henrik has um something to add over here about museums and the use of the model well yes I um thank thank you for the word um um I would say that um maybe our presentation from Rita and from from um from Elia the concrete project presentation gives an impression that this is very very complex it is complex let's be fair and honest about that but it can be used on huge projects with a political angle but it could also be used on very practical and much smaller project but you have to select of course the perspectives you bring in to be active in each uh on on a real realistic level and we also have to say that a project like the blue med well these 12 projects we went through uh and analytically we assessed them through four or five months um I know very few projects of very very few museums we have four or five months to evaluate or assess the impact of of a specific uh exhibition uh and I that that's a very very few museums in Europe or worldwide who can afford that so we have to be realistic in that the model can be used on a very high level and very complex level but also on a very concrete and very small project level absolutely that's great and I love your honesty there about you know let's let's be realistic about the complexity of this because um I'm always a bit suspicious when someone has a complex problem and gives a simplistic answer so that's I appreciate that um I don't know I'm I'm wondering I think it's really interesting too as well when you mention you know being able to apply this to you know a large institution that has the time or even a smaller project within an institution it sounds extremely flexible um on on the website when you're reviewing the model itself um it does are there also tips um as to how to you know apply this model to either uh larger undertakings or smaller or is it relatively intuitively you know something that you can adjust for the size of the project well I think that if you if you look through the 12th cases the study cases we used they were very they were very different there were a very concrete museum project and there were a larger project on EU level and there were projects which were should we say urban development project so they were they differed a lot and then you can be inspired from see how it was used and of course when we talk to one another about the different cases we also of course observe that in some in some assessments in a specific project you can go very very deep in some of some of the uh the aspects some of the perspectives we use and in other projects you can go uh it was uh about other areas where you can go deep so so it um the nature of each project or each intervention in cultural heritage will inspire you to decide the what what can you use from from the uh uh Sophia model absolutely excellent um so I would like to uh invite anyone else in the chat if they would like to contribute some more questions here um although I I know that uh we did have a question from Margarita a bit earlier um asking uh during one of the presentations whether parts of this model could perhaps be used to test ideas while preparing for an application so you know relatively in advance to you know implementing the project but actually in these earlier stages is that something that um you would recommend I think that um it was a Mauro who mentioned that the our our ambition has been that the model can be used very early when you plan a project and throughout the project and when the project is over and when you saw the the interesting and very fascinating work with the Liverpool as cultural capital 10 years after you can look back on on it and see see the the the long-term effects so you can use it both in planning and and and afterwards there is actually now a project in northern sweden where colleagues archaeological archaeological colleagues are looking at how to plan excavations by using this model this would be a very interesting and and hopefully a positive planning tool for the local authorities and the museums when working together on planning excavations so we'll see how that's right we'll know we'll know next summer yeah certainly I mean and and that also sounds very interesting because I mean I would assume this is not their first excavation project so perhaps seeing the difference of you know using this model ahead of time um versus in the past having not really being able to see the the results and the deliverables of that I think that's really interesting exactly and that's that's that's part of the process which I think Mercedes also mentioned when talk about the the social platform and this is an a never-ending process this model this model will have to be developed further in the coming years that is why it is so important that people who are interested in in assessment modeling and how to use them and implement them in concrete process share their ideas and their experiences with one another that is what we invite to that is very important because we were first inspired from the ICOMAS document and document from the Council of Europe and the European Commission from 2015 and and 2020 but there will be new political ideas and new political aspirations in the coming 10 years so if this model should survive and be relevant in the coming years we hit we we we who work with this needs needs to stick together and inspire one another and share our experiences absolutely yeah well I mean as a network for European museums we cannot agree more that transparency and sharing our experiences and our learnings and our mistakes and our challenges this is this is so important this is how we grow as a sector this is how we continue to do better and continue to reach our very big goals um yes so with that um I think I would offer the floor um for any any final contributions from the speaker um from the speakers before we go ahead and close for the day and maybe maybe Paula should mention once again our conference in Rome please yes of course this was my last ideas and I really thank you it was a very exciting day for us very important audience and so we all wait for you at the last conference of the Sofia project and please have a look on our website so you can arrive to the last conference with a lot of questions and answers we hope to provide you today are the 16th of December in the afternoon it's a kind of pre-conference with new trends on the cultural heritage field and then on the 17th we have presentation and debate and of course many stakeholders will participate to our debate on the Sofia project model so we we hope to have a kind of long discussion with you and I totally agree with Henrik saying that this is a kind of dynamic model and we need to refine it to test it to deploy it with your help and of course we are also interested in knowing there are cultural organizations interesting in experimenting using our model so please contact us and we are very keen to work on it to proceed on our research we wanted our common efforts we are talking about the collective efforts of many many experts in the field could be spread and could be have some good results good impacts that's the new words impacts not only talking blah blah blah but results thank you very much thank you very much from the leader from the leader of the consortium Michela Marchiori who delegated me I'm only one of the member of the Roma 13 I want to underline that thank you yes thank you so much to all the speakers here thank you to the Sofia consortium in general it was really a pleasure to hear so much about your impact model and wishing you the best with your with your upcoming conference thank you thank you so much bye bye