Do Museums and Archives with a CMS also Need a DAM?

We work with many museums and archives that rely on our Qi Collections Management System (CMS) to organise and maintain their collection records. Many wonder if a separate Digital Asset Management (DAM) system is necessary. While DAMs are designed for managing large digital media collections, a modern CMS like Qi can often meet the institution's needs without the added complexity or expense of a DAM.

A CMS is primarily designed to manage collection or archival records, which includes the metadata, provenance, conservation history, location tracking, and other essential information tied to physical objects or documents. However, the functionality of modern CMS platforms has evolved significantly. Most contemporary systems can now handle a wide range of digital assets beyond basic metadata, such as high-resolution images, videos and audio files, 3D scans, and digitised documents. These assets are often crucial to enhancing the understanding and interpretation of the physical collection or archival materials.

For example, high-quality images or 3D scans can provide digital access to objects that are fragile or not easily displayed. Videos and audio recordings might capture oral histories, lectures, or exhibition footage, providing context or enriching the visitor experience. Digitised documents, such as letters, manuscripts, or rare publications, can be linked directly to their physical counterparts, allowing researchers and the public to access these resources digitally without handling the originals.

These digital assets are not separate from the collection but are directly tied to the objects or other records within the institution's collection and activities. A CMS should generally be capable of managing both the collection records and these associated digital assets, as well as objects that are born digitally, together in a unified system. This integrated approach allows for better organisation, easy retrieval of information, and a comprehensive view of both the physical and digital aspects of the collection.

A robust CMS should be equipped to perform many of the functions typically associated with a DAM, eliminating the need for a separate system in many cases. Key CMS capabilities should include:

• Storing digital media (images, videos, audio files, documents) that can be linked to any record in the database.
• Metadata management for digital assets, including tags, descriptions, file formats, and resolution details.
• Search and retrieval functionalities for quickly locating digital assets as well as their related collection records.
• Automated file conversion to generate standard image, document and multimedia files out of proprietary and obsolete source formats (e.g. Windows Media Player videos to MPEG4).
• Thumbnail generation to provide different sizes and resolution of digital media files (e.g. high-resolution and web-ready images).
• Access control to restrict access to sensitive or licensed media files.

I would argue that if an institution’s digital assets are primarily tied to its collections or archives, a modern CMS equipped with the capabilities mentioned above can efficiently manage both the physical and digital records as well as the digital assets. In such cases, adding a DAMS may introduce unnecessary complexity, requiring additional management and potentially leading to higher costs without delivering substantial additional benefits. This is particularly true if the institution isn't handling a large volume of digital assets that are unrelated to its core collections, such as marketing materials or exhibition content.

By relying on a single, unified system—where the CMS manages both the collection records and the associated digital media—museums and archives can simplify their workflows. This approach streamlines day-to-day operations, making it easier for staff to access and update both object metadata and digital assets within one platform. Avoiding the need for a separate DAM also reduces the overhead of maintaining and coordinating between two distinct systems, which can lead to duplicated efforts, fragmented data, or inefficiencies.

In essence, by sticking with a capable CMS, institutions can achieve the same level of digital asset management without the complexity of integrating, learning, and supporting an additional system. This consolidated approach promotes efficiency, improves system usability for staff, and keeps operational costs lower while still ensuring robust digital asset management for collections and archives.

In some situations, adding a DAM to complement a CMS makes sense: 

• Large volumes of non-collection assets: If an institution manages a lot of multimedia content beyond its collection—like promotional materials, exhibition designs, or educational content—a DAM offers better tools to manage these separately.
• Advanced rights and usage management: For institutions that frequently license or distribute digital content, a DAM provides robust tools for managing permissions, copyrights, and usage tracking.
• Complex media workflows: If multiple departments (e.g., marketing, education, curation) need access to different media versions for various uses, a DAM’s enhanced version control and collaboration tools can streamline processes.
• High-volume multimedia production: Institutions producing substantial multimedia content for exhibitions or online platforms may benefit from a DAM’s capacity to manage large volumes of complex digital assets.

When considering the addition of a DAM alongside your CMS, it is crucial to ensure that both systems offer robust, well-documented APIs that are actively supported and used. Seamless integration between the CMS and DAM is essential for efficient workflows and data consistency. Ideally, opt for a DAM that your CMS already integrates with, as this reduces the complexity of implementation and ensures a smoother, more reliable connection between systems.

At Keepthinking, we’ve developed a standardised framework that leverages our API to facilitate smooth integrations with DAMs. This framework ensures that data flows efficiently between systems, reducing redundancy and optimising asset management. Currently, we have established integrations between our Qi CMS and the following DAMs:

• NetX
• Orange Logic
• Luna Imaging
• Adobe Experience Manager
• ResourceSpace
• OpenAsset

We are constantly at work to add new ones.

In most cases, museums and archives find that a well-equipped CMS can manage both their collections and digital assets effectively, without needing a DAM. A CMS with strong DAM-like features, such as file conversion, thumbnailing, and media organisation, can provide an all-in-one solution, reducing complexity and cost. However, for institutions with extensive multimedia needs that go beyond collection management, an integrated DAM may be worth considering. By carefully evaluating their digital asset requirements, museums and archives can determine whether a CMS alone will meet their needs or if a DAM would add significant value to their operations.

© 2024 Cristiano Bianchi