Anda di halaman 1dari 10

RiskManagementforDigitalCulturalHeritageInformationin Malaysia

ZuraidahAbdManaf1,AlizaIsmail1,NoorMaslianaRazlan1,AzizahAbdManaf2andRusni Daruis2 1 FacultyofInformationMangement,UniversitiTeknologiMARA,ShahAlam,Malaysia 2 AdvancedInformaticsSchool(AIS),UniversitiTeknologiMalaysia,KualaLumpur, Malaysia
Abstract: A crucial component of the nations Keconomy envisions the availability of digital content exchange or content infrastructure. The idea of providing and presenting information via electronic means and formats truly fascinates managers of information agencies worldwide. This phenomenon obviously affects the thinking and perception of the managers and administrators of libraries, museums, archives and galleries. Presently, cultural institutions are actively connecting their collections to these emerging knowledge networks. They are creating innovative network services based on the digital surrogates of their current collections in a rich, interactive digital environment. A recent study has been made on the digitisation of cultural heritage resources in cultural institutions in Malaysia, namely the National Library, NationalArchives,NationalMuseumandtheNationalArtGallery.Thefourinstitutionsarecurrentlyveryactiveinbuilding their digital content and exploring initiatives to deliver the information, however the extent of sustainability of those resources in unknown. The aim of this paper is investigates the digital preservation strategies that are adopted by Malaysian cultural institutions. A multiple case studies approach is used to examine the potential risks to digital cultural resources in four (4) selected Malaysian cultural institutions. Data is collected through structured interviews with information professionals who are involved in digitisation works in the selected cultural institutions. Findings reveal that digital cultural heritage resources in Malaysia is at risk in terms of digitisation policies, selection criteria, cost, staffing, technology, storage, metadata management and copyright. This study is very significant to professionals who are involved inarchivingthe digital culturalheritageasit can beaguideformanagingrisksin preservingvaluabledigital resources.The resultofthisstudycanbeapracticaltoolformanagingrisksnot onlyfordigitalculturalheritagebutalsotoalldocuments in digital format. It also provides an insight to other researchers to seriously investigate other risks of digital cultural resourcesbesidestherisksthathavebeenidentifiedinthisstudy. Keywords:digitalresources,riskmanagement,culturalheritageresources,Malaysia,digitization

1. Introduction
Lynch (2002) states that, it is becoming increasingly important to archive the valuable cultural heritage of history each year. In Malaysia, there are a number of institutions that taking care of the national cultural heritage such as National Archives of Malaysia, National Library of Malaysia, National Museum of Malaysia, National Art Gallery, National Heritage Department, National Heritage Registers, Malacca Museum Corporation and so forth. Besides the government bodies, there are also private institutions involved in preserving Malaysian cultural heritage which are Heritage of Malaysia Trust, Penang Heritage Trust, Perak Heritage Society, Sarawak Heritage Society, Society Atelier Sarawak, ArtsEd Penang and Melaka Heritage Society. In this information communication technology (ICT) age, the natural cultural heritages have been transformed to digital format so that the resources can be exploited and shared throughout a worldwide network in a secure and cost effective manner. This situation is supported by Zuraidah (2006) in her study when she states that in order to remain competitive, every organisation must find new and creative ways to stayinthegameintodaysfastchanginginformationandcommunicationstechnology(ICT)era. Mostnationalculturalheritageinstitutionsareseeingamovefromthehegemonyofthephysicalrecordtothe hegemony of the digital object. Basically, digitisation converts materials from formats that can be read by people (analogue) to a format that can be read only by machines (digital). In addition, digitisation makes the cultural heritage accessible since the openness of the internet causes cultural heritage to be available to a wider audience. Digital resources also enhance the efficiency of scientific research which are sophisticated searchandretrieval tools and interoperability of collections. Digitisation also plays an important role in

ZuraidahAbdManafetal. preservingculturalheritageovertime.Byprovidingonlineaccesstodigitisedmaterialsforresearchersandthe general public the originals are protected from use. Subsequently digitisation is also part of the preservation policy (Zuraidah, 2006). Many institutions, including those who are mentioned above, have been creating or collecting digital information produced in a wide variety of standard and proprietary formats, including ASCII, common image formats, word processing, spreadsheet, and database documents. Each of these formats continuestoevolve,becomingmorecomplexasrevisedsoftwareversionsaddnewfeaturesorfunctionality. According to JICC (2006), digital preservation is the series of actions and interventions required to ensure continued and reliable access to authentic digital objects for as long as they are deemed to be of value. In the last 2 decades, digital technology has enabled people to create, use, and be enriched by information in ways that were unthinkablea generation ago. The need to preserve digital assets is only a few decades old, but it is growing and becoming more pressing by the day (Levi, 2008). She adds that the stakes are high. Libraries, museums, universities, research centres, and other institutions that have long taken role in preserving the collective knowledge and cultural heritage can no longer ignore the digital preservation challenge. While today's digital preservation systems will almost certainly be improved, institutions around the world are moving forward with good, welldesigned plans. The libraries, museums and archives serve not only to safeguard those resources, but also to provide evidence of one type or another of the works provenance, whichgoestowardsestablishingtheauthenticityofthatwork.

2. Researchbackground
2.1 Problemstatement
As organisations rely more and more on digital technology to produce, process, store, communicate, and use information in their activities, the quantity of records being created in electronic form have increased exponentially. The technological challenge is compounded by the continuing extension of information technology, making the cultural heritage information increasingly more diverse and complex (Lim, Ramaiah & Pitt, 2003). Besides that, in Betts (1999) case study, he asserts that digital cultural heritage information is at risk of disappearing of becoming inaccessible because of the deterioration of storage media such as magnetic tapes. Other concerns include everchanging data formats and the fact that software and hardware become obsolete quickly. The greatest challenge to electronic record keeping is the evolution of technology (Coombs, 1999). Therefore, in order to preserve this information, institutions must manage collections in a consistent and decisive manner. It is important to decide what should be preserved, in what priority, and with what techniques. Hence, they most often overlook the issue of sustainability of their materials that have been digitised. It is found that findings from previous research revealed that there are many issues involved in the management of digitisation of cultural heritage resources in the country. In addition, there are a number of risks related issues that might be faced by cultural institutions if their digital files are not being managed accordingly.ZuraidahandAliza(2009)describeintheirfindingsthatamongtherisksrelatedissuesthatwould be faced by cultural institutions if their digital resources are not managed accordingly would include availability and accessibility of information; authenticity and integrity of information; longterm storage of information;andinformationdisasterrecoveryissues.

2.2 Researchobjectives
The aim of this study is to identify the potential risks in preserving Malaysian digital cultural heritage information that are practiced by several cultural institutions in Malaysia. In addition, this research attempted toinvestigatethesustainabilityfactorsadoptedbytheinstitutionstowardsthedigitisedmaterials.

3. Methodology
This research uses multiple case studies at four (4) public cultural institutions in Malaysia. According to Zach (2006), the case study method, and in particular the multiplecase studies design, offers researchers a proven tool for achieving a deep understanding of a specific phenomenon, for example, the practices of digitisation and handling digital preservation of cultural heritage information in their institutions. The case study tends to provide in depth information and intimate details about the particular case being studied. The multiple case study approach was selected since this method offered distinct advantages to this research as it helped the

ZuraidahAbdManafetal. researchertolookathowcontemporaryeventstakingplaceprovidedsignificantcontributionstotheresearch questions. Moreover, the rationale for multiple case designs derived from the fact that the study involved an inquiry focusing on what are the potential risks before and after digitization process was being carried out in the sample institutions. Yin (2004) has justified the use of case study as a research strategy when the research questions are descriptive or explanatory. As the nature of the research questions is indeed descriptive and explanatory,thiscasestudyapproachisseenasthemostviablemethodtoemploy.Inadditiontothisthecase study is employed to gain an indepth understanding of the situation. Yin (2004) notes that the case study method helps the researcher to get close (i.e. indepth and first hand) understanding of the situation so that directobservationsanddatacollectioncouldbedoneintheirnaturalsettings. The data were collected through interviews, which were then transcribed, coded and analysed. The analysis methods used were descriptive and comparative analysis. For the purpose of this article, only comparative analysis is discussed. The research was done by developing a rough working framework based on the existing literature and pilot interviews. The emerging model and evidence was toggled back and forth throughout the datagatheringandwriting. The population of this study is the information professionals consisting of librarians, archivists, curators, or Information Technology (IT) officers from the government institutions that keep cultural heritage resources in Malaysia.Purposivesamplingisusedinthisstudywhereonlyfour(4)mainculturalheritageinstitutions(CHIs) in Malaysia are selected. The four selected cases were chosen because they are the main cultural institution under Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture of Malaysia which have been involved in digitisation projects since 2000. The four selected cases are CASE A refers to a leading library organization in Malaysia; CASE B is the main archives organization in Malaysia, CASE C is the national heritage institution is to collectandpreservesignificantmuseumscollectionsandCASEDisastatutorybodysetuptoprovideservices invisualartexhibition,preservationanddevelopmentinMalaysia. The research unit of analysis are information professionals who are dealing with digitisation of cultural heritageresourcesintheirorganisations.

4. Findingsanddiscussion
4.1 Potentialrisks
Thefindingsrevealedthatthepotentialrisksinthedigitizationofculturalheritageliesintheselectioncriteria, digitisationpolicy,cost,staffing,technology,storage,metadataandcopyrightissues. 4.1.1 Selectioncriteria According to Puglia (1999), items selected for digital collections should fit into the scope, purpose, and audience of the project itself as stated on the project description form. The findings found that most of the cultural institutions select materials to be digitised based on these criteria (arranged by the most preferred criteria): Culturalvalue Historicalvalue Materialsthatallowcopyrightaccess Materialsthathavedigitisationproceduresandstandard Frequentlyusedbyusers Helpthemtosavespacewithoutconsideringthevalueofresources Educationalandresearchpurpose

Majorityoftheculturalinstitutionsselectmaterialstobedigitisedwhichhaveculturalandhistoricalvalueand materials that allow copyright access. These WIU Libraries Digitization Policies Committee (2009) and Dasar Pendigitalan Koleksi Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia (2010) support these findings where both of the policies highlight cultural and historical value are the most essential resources need to be digitised. As cultural

ZuraidahAbdManafetal. institutions, all of the cases in this study select the right materials to be digitised since the selection of materialsarebasedonthemainfunctionoftheirorganisations. Hirtle, Hudson and Kenyon (2009) believed that copyright is an important issue to be considered in doing digitisation projects. It is found that all the respondents prefer to choose materials that are copyright free sincetheyarenotboundedwithCopyrightAct.However,asculturalinstitutions,theycannotlimitselectionto materialsthatareonlyfreefromcopyrightsincetherearealotofresourcesouttherewhicharevaluableeven thoughtheyarecopyrighted.Theriskofvaluablematerialsnotbeingdigitisedispresentsincethemajorityof the cultural institutions only prefer to choose materials that are copyright free to avoid problems in term of copyrightwithoutconsideringthevaluableofcopyrightedmaterials. Thefindingsreportthatonlytwoofthecasesprefertodigitisematerialsthathavedigitisationproceduresand standard. Another two cultural institutions do not consider this criterion because for them, they do not need specific standard and procedures in digitising the materials as their procedures are very simple. Nevertheless, these two cultural institutions should be aware that choosing the materials that already have digitisation procedures and standard will minimise risk of accessibility of the digital resources later. The findings shows that our digital cultural information is risky since the cultural institutions do not really prefer to choose materialswiththatdonothavethedigitisationproceduresandstandard. Furthermore,notallthecasesdeemtodigitisematerialsthatarefrequentlyusedbyusers.Prioritiseforhighly demand of resources by users should be the main criterion since as an information institution, clients should be the first priority. As stated in WIU Libraries Digitization Policies Committee (2009), items known to have high use should be given high priority, as should items known to have a high potential for use once they are digitised.Forexample,itemswithaspecificallyidentifiedandinterestedaudience.Ifculturalheritagedoesnot provide resources based on users information needs, it shows that the institution does not want to excel as a successfulinformationcentre. Culturalinstitutionsinthisstudyareexposedtoriskinselectingtherightmaterialstobedigitisedwheresome of the cases have a preference for materials that only can save the space without considering the value of the resources. International digitisation Policy such as Dasar Pendigitalan Koleksi Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia (2010)andWIU Libraries Digitization Policies Committee(2009)donothighlight this as thepreferred criterion since the most important element to consider is the value of the resources and not the size of them. Not all the cases consider the educational and research purpose even though it is an important that need to be thought about. The cultural heritage institutions might think that their core business is more to historical and cultural,sothatiswhyeducationalandresearcharenotthepriority. 4.1.2 Digitisationpolicy Morethanhalfofthecasesinthisstudydonothaveastandarddigitisationpolicy.OnlyCASEAhasdeveloped their digitisation policy and it was published in July 2010 namely Dasar Pendigitalan Koleksi, Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia (2010). It is a complete digitisation policy and was developed based on the best practices of international organisation which are involved in digitisation projects earlier. The best practices are such as NationalLibraryofAustraliaandNISO. TheothercasesinthisstudyexceptCASEAdonothaveadigitisationpolicy.However,CASEBisindeveloping of their digitisation policy and it is estimated to be published in 2014. The ongoing process of digitisation policies shows that CASE B is aware pertain to the importance of having a digitisation policy. However, the othertwo(2)culturalinstitutionsdonothaveanysinceforthemtheirdigitisationprocessarenotcomplicated as others. The result indicates that not all cultural institutions in Malaysia have systematic and procedures in digitising their resources. This is one of the risks for the digital resources since they are not produced in a proper way and this will affect the longterm accessibility of the resources. The findings reveal that even though CASE B does nothave a digitisationpolicy, they are able to minimise risks by following guidelines from NISO and NARA. According to CASE B, they choose to follow the international guideline because they want their digital resources fulfilled the international standard requirement so that the resources can be accessed internallyandexternally.

ZuraidahAbdManafetal. A studyconductedbyMayesti, Rachman, and Yayan(2011) also reports that Centre of QuranicStudies Library does not have written policy on digitisation and digital preservation. However, the digitisation and digital preservation activities have been doneby referring to aStandard Operating Procedurewhichcontains a list of tasks and timeline that must be done by librarians. Chowdhury and Chowdhury (2003) explain that the digitisation and digital preservation policies or strategies must be developed since the institution today is managingdigitalcollections. Besides that, as reported by Zuraidah (2006) in her study found that one of the institutions realised the importance of proper policies to guide the course of action for the achievement of their digitisation initiative goals. The policies that are relevant in digitisation are selection policy, access policy, content management policy, intellectual propertypolicy andpreservation policy. For those institutions thatadmitted nothaving any policy,theyhadtheintentiontodevelopitintheimmediatefuture.Aproperpolicyguidelineconsistingofthe principles and strategies of digitisation are vital to support the organisations goals and objectives (Zuraidah, 2006). 4.1.3 Cost As stated in the findings, all of the cultural institutions are not allocated with specialised budget for digitisation. This condition is one of the barriers for Malaysian cultural institutions to excel and provide good digitalcollections.ThisresultissupportedbyastudyfromShariful(2011)inBangladeshwhereintheresearch paper states that financial constraint is one of the major barriers for library digitisation in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, very few libraries have separated budget for library digitization, so it is very hard for the libraries toundertakeanysortofdigitisationprojectduetolackofbudget. Majority of the cases in this study are given oneoff budget if there is any projects that need them to digitise their collections. For instance, CASE B, which have been given large amount of budget for digitisation to support Economic Transformation Program (ETP) in 2010. Nevertheless, if the cultural institutions only get oneoff budget for digitisation, this situation will limit them to digitise their collections since such the special projects should have their certain target, for instances, project given to CASE B should digitise two (2) billion collectionsonly.Accordingtothefindings,mostoftheculturalinstitutionsdonototheralternativebudgetfor digitisation instead of budget from ministries. It is found that only CASE A has an alternative budget which is calledTrustAccount.ThisshowsthatonlyCASEAhasefforttominimiserisksintermofbudgetforemergency cases. It is very important for an organisation to measure the Return of Investment (ROI) after they invest for a certain huge budget, for instance in digitisation projects. In basic terms, according to Kaufman and Watstein (2008), ROI is just that: the income or value received as a result of an amount invested in an asset. In this study, most of cultural institutions measure the ROI by providing and sending the statistics of the digital collections usage, borrowed and bought by clients. This is an effective way for the institutions to reduce risks by investing money for unbeneficial projects. Most of the cultural institutions in this study could not afford to hire staffs special for digitisation works. They only hire temporary and contract staffs when they have digitisation projects. According to Hazen, Horrell and MerrillOldham (1998), labour expenses, for instance, oftenreflectonlyaproratedpriceperpagethatoverlookstherealcostofafulltimeemployee. 4.1.4 Staffing Findings stated that majority of the cultural institutions hire staffs based on academic achievement and experiences. These two (2) criteria are very important since staffs that have suitable academic qualification andatleastminimalexperienceiscapabletoproducequalityofworks.However,Zuraidah(2006)explainsthat thehuman factor is equally important as an assetand resource to organisation.Without knowledge, skills and the right attitude of the professionals, the initiatives will go nowhere and eventually collapse. Therefore, the findings reveal that in term of selecting staffs, the cultural institutions are not exposed to risks since they recruit them based on their abilities on qualification and experiences. The result reports that the staffs in cultural institutions are lack of training in digitisation works. Only one of the institutions takes training as an importantpartfortheirstaffs,whereastheotherculturalinstitutionsmorefocusonlyonattendingconference and symposium. It is good exposure for the staffs by attending conference and symposium. However, hands ontrainingismoreeffectiveforthemtogiveclearerviewofdoingdigitisationprocessinanonrisk.Itisabad condition to one of the cultural institutions where they do not give formal training to the staffs because their

ZuraidahAbdManafetal. management always change staffs to digitise collections from time to time. This situation contributes bad impact to the digitised materials since the staff cannot develop the skills that will lead them to produce and better and quality digitised collections. Shariful (2011) states in his research paper that skilled manpower is must for the library digitisation activities, without that it will be the untouched dream all the time for the libraries of Bangladesh. For the digitisation process libraries need smart, intelligent personnel with adequate technical and ICT knowledge, whereas, the picture is totally different in researchers country, which is Bangladesh.Most of the libraries do not have that kind ofpersonnel; few libraries havethatkind ofpersonnel butverysmallinnumbers. Not all the cultural institutions have visits to other organisation which are advance in digitisation to look at their digitisation process. Only one of the cases occasionally visits the best practices to learn from them. Community Mental Health Oakland Country Authority (2011) defines best practice as a compilation of evidence based practice, promising practices, emerging practice, valuebased practice, and practicebased evidence. As such, the adoption and implementation of best practices appears to have reached epidemic proportion (Sanwal, 2008; Todero, 2002; Argyris, 2000). The allure of a best practice is the leaders belief that there is truly one best practice and that implementing another organisations successful practices is a sort of magic bullet (Sanwal, 2008). There, findings show that only two of the cultural institutions taken visit to best practice organisation as consideration in cutting risks of having inappropriate digital cultural heritage information. In general, knowledge management can be defined as the achievement of the organization's goals by making the knowledge factor productive (Beijerse, 2000). It is the systematic management of knowledgerelated activities, practices, programs and policies within the enterprise (Wiig, 2000). Knowledge management activities aim to effectively apply an organization's knowledge to create new knowledge to achieve and maintain competitive advantage (Alavi & Leidner,2001; Mason & Pauleen, 2003). In this study, findings reveal that all of cultural institutions practice the concept of knowledge management, especially after they have attended courses. They apply the sharing of knowledge in a special meeting to share the new knowledge and skills from the courses, workshop or training. One of the cases, which are CASE A, has a special channel for practising knowledge management which is by sharing their knowledge and ideas in a knowledge bank database. 4.1.5 Technology Zuraidah(2006)assertsinherstudythatdigitisationisacostlyexerciserequiringhighinvestmentusuallyfrom publicfunds.Therearesignificantriskstotheseinvestmentsduetotheadoptionofinappropriatetechnologies and standards. This can result in creating resources which are quickly obsolete and unusable or which require the investment to be repeated within a short time frame. In addition, Lusenet (2002) states that basically there are three ways in which digital materials become inaccessible which are degradation of the media on which they are stored, obsolescence of software making it impossible to read digital files and introduction of new computer systems and peripherals that cannot handle older materials. A digital resources management system a multilayer architecture to support the service and management in digital library or institution based on Linux and other open source software. Agood system should function as: a platform for developing DL like applications; provide a information model to organize digital objects; store different types of digital data; support efficient access to these data by index and navigation; support loading of data resources and creation of meta data; and support interoperability through OAI, Z39.50 (Zhou, 2004). Findings report that only one of thecaseshasnotaspecialisedsystemtomanagethedigitalcollections.Thisfindingshowsthatthree(3)ofthe institutionsawarethesignificantofhavingadigitalresourcesmanagementsystem.Anotherculturalinstitution is going to have a system in 2014 and now the system is still in developing process. In term of linkage and interaction between other institutions, only CASE A has agreement to share the collections with other institutions. Even though the digital collections only can be accessed via intranet, they allow outside institutions to access their digital contents and the process of cooperation need to follow their rules and regulations to avoid risks. Other cases in this study are not allowed outsiders to access their digital contents. Theoutsidersshouldcomephysicallytotheirinstitutionsforaccessingtheresources. 4.1.6 Storage All of the cultural institutions store their digital resources in house. They are could not afford to keep the digital collections in service providers servers. This is a risk for the cultural institution since they do not have

ZuraidahAbdManafetal. other backup server outside the institutions if there is anything happened to their building and existence servers.Thefindingalsorevealsthatdigitalresourcesinoneoftheinstitutionshavebeencrackedduetothere was no firewall installed in the server. Firewalls are the cornerstones of corporate intranet security. Once a firewall is acquired, a security or systems administrator has to configure and manage it to realize an appropriatesecuritypolicyfortheparticularneedsofthecompany. 4.1.7 Scalability According to Mayesti, Rachman, and Yayan (2011), the computer storage capacity will determine how many dataandfilescouldbestoredinside.Findingsofthisstudyfoundthatonlystorageinoneculturalinstitutionis not scalable. Other storages in another three (3) institutions are scalable. However, a research that has been done in Indonesia also found that their capacity of storage is also not enough. Mayesti, Rachman and Yayan (2011) report that if the storage has only small capacity, the digital files that could be stored will be limited. Webb (2003) explains that the virus attack has become a crucial problem in the digital preservation. Viruses maycausedamagetheintegrityofdigitalcollections(filecorrupt).Kahn(2004)statedthatthebestprotection to solve computer problems (which has been caused by virus) can be done by installing antivirus software at eachcomputer andnetworks. The findingsreveal that most of cultural institutions inthis study are concerned aboutantivirusandalwaysupdateitfromtimetotime. 4.1.8 Metadata The role of metadata in ensuring longterm access and management is analyzed, described, and commented upon by other researchers, including Alemneh et al. (2002). Maintaining usable and sustainable digital collections necessitates maintaining highquality metadata about those digital objects. The two aspects of cultural institutions data quality are the quality of the data in the objects themselves, and the quality of the metadata associated with the objects (Diallo, 2011). Diallo (2011) adds that because poor metadata quality can result in ambiguity, poor recall and inconsistent search results, the existence of robust quality assurance mechanisms is a necessary feature of wellfunctioning cultural institutions which provide digital collections. In order for end users to benefit fully from the development of digital libraries, responsible and viable service providersneedtoaddressmetadataqualityissues.Lowqualitymetadatacanrenderaninformationinstitution almostunusable,whilehighmetadataqualitycanleadtohigherusersatisfactionandincreaseduse(Stvilia1et al., n. d.). A quality metadata also can be measured by metadata scheme that an organisation is using. The finding of this study reveals that one of the cultural institutions has a metadata scheme. However, the metadata scheme that is used is not user friendly in term of managing metadata of their digital resources as theschemeismoresuitableforprofitmakingorganisation,andnotfornonprofitorganisationsuchascultural institutions. This situation contributes risks for the digital resources since it will lead to loss of data and other consequences. If compared to other institutions, the risk that they have is much minimum rather than other culturalinstitutionswhichdonothavemetadatascheme. All ofcases inthis study includethe descriptive metadata for theirdigital resources.As stated in Chapter Two, descriptivemetadataencompassarangeofinformationfrombasicelementssuchastitleandsubjecttomore advanced elements such as geographic or temporal coverage and relationships (UMDM, 2011). There are three(3)oftheculturalinstitutionsincludethetechnicalmetadatafortheirdigitalresources.AccordingtoIBM (2011), technical metadata is data about the processes, the tool sets, the repositories, the physical layers of data under the covers. It covers data about runtimes, performance averages, table structures, indexes, constraints; data about relationships, sources and targets, uptime, system failure ratios, system resource utilisation ratios, performance numbers. However, findings shows that most of cultural institutions do not consider the technical metadata is important for them. In term of putting IPR, only one of the cases does not include it. Besides that, not all the cultural institutions consider that history metadata is an important part to be included. According to Atlassian Confluence (2011), history is of importance to the present because the current situation for metadata management within the institutions, and some of the challenges to be faced in thefuture,reflectpaststrategies. In addition, IPR is an important element of metadata that need to be considered by cultural institutions. Most of the institutions are aware about the important of putting element of this. Since all of the cases are not allowed outsiders to access their digital resources, they automatically they do not open the resources to be integrated.Themetadataelementsalsodonotprovidemultilanguageandmultinationalnetwork.

ZuraidahAbdManafetal. 4.1.9 Copyright Copyright assessments play a defining role in digitising projects and must be addressed early in the selection process. Therefore, a watermarking technique is to insert copyright information into digital images that the ownerships can be declared. A watermarking technique is to prevent digital images that belong to rightful owners from being illegally commercialised or used, and it can verify the intellectual property right (Lee, Lin, Su & Lin, 2008). The findings reveal that most of cultural institutions embedded visible watermarking but only one of the institution embedded invisible watermarking. Invisible watermarking is more effective than visible watermarking as even though digital watermarking cannot by itself prevent copying, modification, and re distribution of documents, if encryption and copy protection file, watermarking allows the document to be tracedbacktoitsrightfulownerandtothepointofunauthoriseduse(Su,Hartung&Girod,1998).

4.2 Sustainabilityfactorsadopted
In considering the suitability of particular digital formats for the purposes of preserving digital information as anauthenticresourceforfuturegenerations,itisusefultoarticulateimportantfactorsthataffectchoices.The sustainability factors that are taken as important consideration planned by Library of Congress are very systematic. The factors that are considered by them are applied in this study which consists of disclosure, adoption, transparency, selfdocumentation, external dependencies, impact of patents, and technical protection mechanisms. The findings show that Malaysian cultural institutions do not take the sustainability factors seriously. However, they are aware of the importance of technical protection mechanisms factor. Sustainability in the institutions maybe the factors have been applied by them without their awareness since the processes are in embedded in their routines processes. Besides that, they are not familiar with these specificfactors.

5. Conclusion
Digital collections are rapidly becoming an integral facet of any type of institutions around the globe. The volume and heterogeneity of digital resources grows daily, presenting challenges across cultural heritage institutionsandotherrepositoriesofdigitalresources.Itisreportedinfindingthatintermofselectingcriteria and storage, the digital cultural information in Malaysia are somewhat saved from hazardous risks. Selecting criteriathatareconsideredbyalltheculturalinstitutionsaretotallybaseontheirculturalandhistoricalvalues oftheresources.ItcanbeconcludedthatdigitalculturalinformationinMalaysiaisexposedtoriskssincemost of the cultural institutions producing the digital resources are not managing digitization projects according to standarddigitisationpolicy.Digitisationofresourcesisdonebasedontheirgeneralskillsandknowledge.Apart from that, the lack of skilled workers who produce the digital product is another risk which could not be ignored. This is a hazardous situation since digitisation process is extremely complex, difficult in manner and needhighlyqualifiedandexperiencedprofessionaltodothejobefficiently.Moreover,inappropriatemetadata management of digital contents is another risk of Malaysian digital cultural resources management. The metadataassociatedwithdigitalobjectscouldaffecttheaccesstoandusabilityofitemsinthecollection.The process of digitisation in the cultural institutions do not take sustainability factors as important consideration due to the lack of understanding among them towards these factors. Therefore, the management of digitisationprocess ofthe cultural information inMalaysia will notbe in an excellent condition until the issues of the followings are resolved. One of the major issues is allocated budgets for digitization projects. Projects with sufficient budget will cover the installation of quality digital resources management system, recruiting sufficient number of skilled and knowledgeable staffs, having enough and sophisticated facilities, having a systematicandefficientmetadataschemeandembeddedbothvisibleandinvisiblewatermarkingtothedigital resources. In a nut shell, the requirement of a framework that show the potential risks that might be exposed to thedigitalcultural information is reallynecessary for cultural institutions so that they alwaysaware on it to avoiddeteriorationofthevaluableinformationsources.

Alavi,M.andLeidner,D.E.(2001).Knowledgemanagementandknowledgemanagementsystems:conceptualfoundations andresearchissues.MISQuarterly,25(1),10736. Alemneh,D.G.(2002).Metadataqualityassessment:aphasedapproachtoensuring Aliza,I.(2010).AssessingthepracticeoftrustedelectronicrecordsmanagementinMalaysiangovernmentcontrolled companies.PhDDissertation. Argyris,C.(2000).Flawedadviceandthemanagementtrap.NewYork:Oxford.

AtlassianConfluence(2011).Abriefhistoryofmetadata(intheABS).RetrievedDecember1,2011,from: Betts,M.(1999).Businessworryaboutlongtermdatalosses.Computerworld,33(38),2224. Chowdhury,G.GandChowdhury,Sudatta.(2003).Introductiontodigitallibraries.London:FacetPublishing. CommunityMentalHealthOaklandCountryAuthority.(2011).Definitionbestpractice.RetrievedDecember15,2011from: Coombs,P.(1999).Thecrisisinelectronicgovernmentrecordkeeping:astrategyforlongtermstorage.LibraryComputing, 18(3),196202. PerpustakaanNegaraMalaysia(2010).DasarpendigitalankoleksiPerpustakaanNegaraMalaysia.RetrievedOctober1, 2011from: Hazen,D.,Horrell,J.,andMerillOldham(1998).Selectingresearchcollectionsfordigitisation.Washington:Councilon LibraryandInformationResources. Hirtle,P.B.,Hudson,E.&Kenyon,A.T.(2009).Copyrightandculturalinstitutions:guidelinesfordigitizationforU.S. libraries,archives,andmuseums.Ithaca,NewYork:CornellUniversityLibrary. JICC(2006).Digitalpreservationbriefingpaper.RetrievedDecember5,2011from: Kahn,M.B.(2004).Protectingyourlibrarysdigitalsources:theessentialguidetoplanningandpreservation.Retrieved from: Kaufman,P.&Watstein,S.B.(2008).Libraryvalue(returnoninvestment,ROI)andthechallengeofplacingavalueon publicservices.ReferenceServicesReview.36(3),226231.Retrievedfrom: Levi,Y.(2008).Digitalpreservation:anevergrowingchallenge.InformationToday,25(8),2222.RetrievedDecember6, 2011,from: Lim,S.L.,Ramaiah,C.K.,&Pitt,K.W.(2003).Problemsinthepreservationofelectronicrecords.LibraryReview,52(3), 117125.RetrievedFebruary14,2011from: Lusenet, CommissiononPreservationandAccess. Lynch,C.(2002).Digitalcollections,digitallibrariesandthedigitizationofculturalheritageinformation.Microformand ImagingReview,31(4),131145.RetrievedJanuary19,2011from: MalaysiaVacationGuide(2011).Malaysianationalheritage.RetrievedFebruary6,2011from: Mason,D.&Pauleen,D.J.(2003).Perceptionsofknowledgemanagement:aqualitativeanalysis.JournalofKnowledge Management,7(4),3848. Puglia,S.(1999).Thecostsofdigitalimagingprojects.RLGDigiNews3,2023. Sanwal,A.(2008).Themythofbestpractices.TheJournalofCorporateAccountingandFinance. SharifulI.(2011).Towarddigitization:problemsandprospectsforthelibrariesofBangladesh.PaperpresentedinWorld CongressMuslimLibrariansandInformationScientists2011.Gombak,KualaLumpur:InternationalIslamicUniversity Malaysia. Su,J.K.,Hartung,F.&Girod,B.(1998).Digitalwatermarkingoftext,image,andvideodocuments.Comput&Graphics,22 (6),687695. Todero,J.B.(2002).Changefortherightreason:Whatisabestpractice?Community&JuniorCollegeLibraries,11(1). UMDM(2011).UniversityofMarylandDescriptiveMetadata.RetrievedDecember1,2011from: Webb,C.(2003).Guidelinesforthepreservationofdigitalheritage.Retrievedfrom Wiig,K.M.(2000).Knowledgemanagement:anemergingdisciplinerootedinalonghistory,inDespres,C.andChauvel,D. (Eds),KnowledgeHorizons:ThePresentandthePromiseofKnowledgeManagement,ButterworthHeinemann, Boston,MA,426. WIULibrariesDigitizationPoliciesCommittee(2009).WIUlibrariesdigitizationpoliciesrecommendations.Retrieved December1,2011from: Yin,R.K.(2004).Applicationsofcasestudyresearch.USA:SagePublicationsInc. Zach,L.(2006).Usingamultiplecasestudiesdesigntoinvestigatetheinformationseekingbehavioursofarts administrators.LibraryTrends,55(1),421. Zhou,L.(2004).Adigitalresourcemanagementsystembasedonopensourcesystems.GelatoMeeting.Tsinghua University. Zuraidah,A.M.&AlizaI.(2009).Malaysianculturalheritageatrisk?Acasestudyofdigitisationprojects.LibraryReview,59 (2),107116.RetrievedJanuary21,2011from: Zuraidah,A.M.(2006).ThestateofdigitisationinitiativesbyculturalinstitutionsinMalaysia.LibraryReview,56(1),4560. RetrievedJanuary21,2011from:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.