PRESENTATION LAYOUT  SLIDES 2-6: Introduction to WP5  SLIDES 7-8: Task 5.1  SLIDES 9-18: Analysis of the input we have so far to Task 5.1  SLIDES 19-20: Task 5.2  SLIDES 21-24: Analysis of the feedback & issues posted and discussed with interest to Task 5.2  SLIDES 25-26: Task 5.3  SLIDES 27: Discussion on strategic Re-orientation of the project  SLIDES 28-31: Questions from the Ljubjlana preparatory meeting  SLIDES 32-41: Our proposal from Kick-off presentation  SLIDE 42: Final Output of WP5

WP5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES WP Leader Antonia Moropoulou NTUA

Objectives of WP5  5.1 Development of integrated documentation protocols - harmonisation criteria  5.2 Knowledge based decision making procedures - CHIC Guideline  5.3 Strategic planning for implementation and validation of the CHIC Guideline

WP5 RECOMMENDATION AND STRATEGIES RECOMMENDATION AND STRATEGIES Task 5.1 INTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS Task 5.2 KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES- CHIC GUIDELINE Task 5.3 STRATEGIC PLANNING WP5 will be organized in the following tasks

The Aim To develop criteria and a methodology for the creation of a Model System for integrated documentation Implemented through National, E.U. and International Regulations Considering Indicative Parameters of data documentation The established methods will be consolidated and enhanced with the ideas gained in different countries and developed by the existing European standards and codes, according to common criteria, methodology and guidelines.

WPs Workflow WP5 The outcome of WP2, WP3 & WP4 will be the input for WP5 combined with previous NTUA work, experience and expertise in the field WP4 Critical analysis of WP2 & WP3 Methods & Tools (taking into consideration the integrated documentation parameters) WP2 Current documentation systems research results WP3 Current risk assessment systems research results

TASK 5.1 INTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS (L: UL, M: NTUA, UNIBO, IPPT PAN,Z-Z) Deliverable D 5.1 will be: Integrated document protocols and harmonized criteria for IC models They will include presentation and evaluation of the existing documentation protocols in the sector of cultural heritage protection used in EU countries and recommendations for the creation of integrated documentation protocols in the sector of cultural heritage protection.  Presentation & evaluation of the existing documentation protocols in the sector of cultural heritage protection  Suggestion for the creation of integrated documentation protocols, which will provide new documentation procedures, upgrading in data level the current documentation methodologies (WP2), responding to criteria & indicators for risk assessment (WP3), responding to advanced diagnostics & data management (WP4)  Harmonization of existing criteria & indicators of existing European standards for the development of the Identity Card concept Significant feedback of the relevant data will be given by the Network of Researchers, consisting of experts from all over Europe dealing with documentation protocols used for cultural heritage protection.

DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.1 RECOMMENDED DOCUMENTATION DATA LEVEL RISK INDICATORS & CRITERIA DOCUMENTATION METHODOLOGY & TOOLS EXISTING CRITERIA & INDICATORS OF EUROPEAN STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS D3.1: Report on risk indicators and roadmap for future research priorities – Annex A / Identification of needs for future research priorities D4.1: Report on Methods and Tools for data collection and presentation D2.1: Activity Report of Task 2.1 NTUA comments & additions for Mesoscale – Micro scale – Integrated Diagnostic Methodology. It is proposed to develop these issues when addressing future recommendations and strategies in WP5. NTUA additions of Categories / Subcategories additions Professor Alfredo Ronchi: “EU LEGISLATION AND CULTURAL HERITAGE / MEDICI FRAMEWORK OF COOPERATION Nypan Terje: List of Directives reviewed by the working group and now part of the EHLF work. CHIC ID CARD Top Level: Based on the working session in Ravenna Meeting 4.1 New Questionnaire Discussion of : Accessibility / Coding / Methodology/Structure EU-CHIC VIENNA MEETING WP2 WORKSHOP

RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS: 1. The National Archive of Monuments Information System 2. The Acropolis Restoration Service (YSMA) 3. The General Directorate of Museum Restoration and Technical Projects / Directorate of Museum construction 4. Risk Map of Cultural Heritage – the Dodecanese case study: ARCHI-MED INPUT FROM PREVIOUS DELIVERABLES D2.1: Activity Report of Task 2.1 Collection and assessment on current Identity Card directives – Summary of Dataset CHIC ID CARD Top Level. Based on the working session in Ravenna October 12. D3.1: Report on risk indicators and roadmap for future research priorities – Annex A D4.1: Report on Methods and Tools for data collection and presentation Great consideration was given to the New Questionnaire_WP4 sent by WP4 Leaders STUDY OF EXISTING EURPEAN STANDARDS AND CODES Input for the development of Integrated Documentation Protocols Harmonization of criteria & indicators The output of all the above, combined with previous work and experience of NTUA in the field leads to the clarification and integration to the protocols of all necessary data regarding PROTECTION – MANAGEMENT – DECISION MAKING

RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS Presentation of Greek informative systems of documentation The cases of 3 Greek Directorates of the Greek Ministry of Culture: 1.The National Archive of Monuments Information System 2.The Acropolis Restoration Service (YSMA) 3.The General Directorate of Museum Restoration and Technical Projects / Directorate of Museum construction Presentationof Greek informative systems of risk assessment and management Presentation of Greek informative systems of risk assessment and management 1.Risk Map of Cultural Heritage – the Dodecanese case study: ARCHI-MED

Q1.Name of the method Q2 Country Q3 Level of implementation Q5 Number of catalogued elements Q7 Accessibility Q8 Computerized system Q9 Internet accessibility Q10 Authorized person to draw up the form Q11 Database updating Q13 Location Q13 A Brief description of location data Q14 History Q14 A Brief description of history data Q15 Building elements Q15 A Brief description of elements data Q16 State of conservation and restoration activities Q16 ABrief description of conservation data Q17 Survey Q17 A Brief description of survey data Q 18 Legal conditions and constrains Q Brief description of legal conditions data Q19 A Location Q19 B History Q19 C Restoration activities Q19 D State of conservation Q19 E Materials Q19 F Structure Q19 G Surveys Q19 H Risks prevention Q19 I Legal conditions Notes and suggestion Check list editor D2.1 RESULTS: study of protocols for data collection and analysis devoted to the main elements under the concepts of preservation and sustainability of Cultural Heritage, in order to create a complete history of the entire lifetime of the heritage good.

Summary of dataset.

EU-CHIC VIENNA MEETING WP2 WORKSHOP (SKB, LABEIN) Elaboration of 4 sets of questions :  Accessibility:  What is the most appropriate accessibility policy?  Are there different admin and users' profiles?  Is it free?  What's the best interface?  Coding :  Which is the most feasible universal coding?  Which pros and cons have the alternatives?  How to standardize analysis and language?  Methodology :  How must data be inserted and storaged?  Which relations within data and with metadata must be allowed?  Is there a specific methodology or fill-in guidance?  Structure :  What is the most appropriate structure (info hierarchy)?  What is essential, what optional and what is the threshold in terms of time and detail?

CHIC ID CARD Top Level. Based on the working session in Ravenna October 12. Nr.. element name Score Comments 1Picture, drawing, basic graphic data… visual info 26 One piece. Links to more can be given. Format must be defined. 2Name 26 This field might be broken down into 2 or more. Example: official name, local name. 3Address 26 Includes number, postal code. Country code: see next. 4Country / Nation 26 5Region 26 6Geo Location, coordinates 26 7General description of the object (prose). 26 Everyone agrees on this. But how this short description is to be made depends on different subject interests. A guideline should be developed. In a computer system a limit must be set to the number of words / positions allowed. 8Original use 26 9Current use 26 10Date / year of construction (of the oldest parts) 26 Needs some possibility to inform about additions etc. over time. This could be done in the general description. Also possible to have a free text field added to write some very short info on developments over time. 11Typology 26 Set of defined typologies must be developed. 12Link ; URL for more informationMentioned in the meeting but not as a specific information element. 13Cadastre id.This was not mentioned in the meeting, but will often be tied to the unique id or the identification of the property in the national property register. 14Unique national and European identifier.Not mentioned in the meeting. Can be system generated based on a unique national identifier. 15Legal regulation (status) 26 Protected according to…… Type protection. Needs to be defined more precisely on a European level. The national legislation is always the basis. 16Contact person/details, administration name, department etc.… 15 This will not be a mandatory field. But in some countries this is already standard information. 17Ownership type 23 Private, Public (state, municipality), combined?. 18State of conservation/Maintenance condition 26 A grade expressed by a number (0 – 3). Ref CEN standard on Condition survey of immovable heritage (protected and historic buildings, sites and constructions). 19Risk (grading) / Hazard potential 17 / 18 Grading system must be developed. Can this be combined with hazard potential? 20Vulnerability (importance, value, etc.?). 14 With this participants meant an indicator for how important the monument etc. is and the importance to intervene if damage develops? This is a very tricky indicator to have – at least at the top level, it needs some guidelines but seems problematic at this level. 21Historic data, data on former interventions etc. 24 Pointer or information on where this can be found. Possible to have a very short prose description? 22Structural type similar to another info element. 26 It was unclear if this information element concurred with typology (see 11). If not it needs some further elaboration? If it is the same it needs to be incorporated into Typologies. 23Basic construction material 26 The notes from the meeting read ‘Basic materials’. I have assumed we are talking construction materials. Notes:  Top score is 26; i.e. all participants agreed.  All this top level information should be public and this may need some clarification with national regulations and rules on public protection of individuals.  The number of objects (structures, sites) will be above 1 million on a European level. If we include immovable heritage in historic zones, protected urban environments as well as other valuable immovable heritage, we assess we are speaking of close to 2-3 million. This is a substantial number to manage. 3 colours reflect 3 ‘chapters’ or ‘sections’ of the ID card.

D3.1 RESULTS: Survey on actual risk assessment methodologies - identification and analysis of existing directives for risk assessment related to monument conservation General information about informative systems for risk assessment and management related to Immovable Cultural Heritage Name Country Responsible institution Level of implementation Access Updating Reference to catalogue (census) Risk assessment methodology Factors of danger Static-structural domain Environment domain Weather/Climate domain Anthropic domain Vulnerability Legal constrains Risk mathematical model/algorithm Possibility to realize database queries Data downloadable

On Risk indicators: The hazards identified are focusing mainly on the Macroscale of the risk assessment problem. However, the risk of damage associated with monuments is also a function of various other factors such as the conservation state of the materials (i.e. not only the static/structural aspects of the building), the importance and distribution of cultural heritage, the impact factor of the hazards present, various socioeconomic parameters etc. Since the materials’ state of conservation depends on their physicochemical and physicomechanical parameters and the materials’ behavior in a corrosive environment is not generalized, the risk assessment should be dealt in the direction of revealing the specific active decay mechanism with an integrated decay study both in Mesoscale [type of decay (morphology)] and Microscale [kinetics of the phenomenon (decay rate) and thermodynamics of the phenomenon (susceptibility to decay)] level, through a Standardized Diagnostic Study Methodology. NTUA’s Proposals & Additions to D3.1

D4.1 RESULTS: Survey on identification of MTTs for data collection and presentation of the most effective MTTs in relation to the Cultural Heritage Identity Card (CHIC). Category of data collectionSub categoryAdditions / variations depending on IS General description:Architecture type Building elements Materials Building techniques Decoration (Greece) Ownership & Legal Status (Greece, Slovenia, Spain) Electromechanical elements (Greece) Movable objects (Italy) Context and landscape (Malta) Dating (Poland) Legal protection status (Slovenia) Geographic situation:Historic buildings and monuments Linear structures Protected areas Archaeological sites and monuments Historic buildings and monuments - individual item - complex item (Italy) Archaeological sites - Individual item - complex item (Italy) Surveying and documentationMeasured plans Realistic 2D depictions Realistic 3D depictions Historical developmentHistorical resources research Archaeology Dating methods Construction history Conservation activities Art history Conservation Activities (Greece) Material condition and structural health assessment Maintenance inspections Diagnostic surveys Outer effects impactLong term environmental effects Environmental change Anthropic impact and improper use Disasters - Floods Disasters - Landslides Disasters – Wind, storms and hurricanes Disasters – Earthquakes and tsunamis Disasters – Fire Disasters – others Dangers- coastal dynamics Disasters – avalanches Disasters – vulcanoes Environment-air – erosion index Environment-air – blackening index Anthropic – dynamics of demographic density Anthropic – pressure of tourism Anthropic – liability to theft (all Italy) Vulnerability and risk management Preventive care Mitigations Monitoring Management, Exploitation & Maintenance Planning Preservation plans Exploitation Accessibility assessment (Greece) Maintenance inspections (Slovenia) Scientific researchMTTs R&D Thematic research and databases

 Within category "Surveying and documentation" we suggest including the subcategory Visual Observations  Category “Outer effects impacts” could be renamed into "Environmental Factors"so that it would be more extensive, including the whole environment (ground, suroundings,flora, fauna etc..), not just climate effects  Category "Historical development" could be renamed to "Historical documentation" ommiting the Conservation activities  The subcategory "Improper use" could not be under “Outer effects impacts” but there should be added an new Category "Uses" including all the past and the current use of the building / monument  We suggest a new Category "Interventions" containing all the information of the building / monument, with subcategories as Construction phases, Conservation activities and Conservation Interventions  In the category „Management Exploitation & Maintenance Planning“ we could use as MTTs links to a GIS database regarding the management plans and the maintennce schedules  Under the category "Material condition and structural assessment" we would suggest including the subcategories "Phenomena and decay mechanisms", "Building areas and Sampling", "Analytical techniques testing"  Category “Outer effects impacts” could be renamed into "Environmental Factors"so that it would be more extensive, including the whole environment (ground, suroundings,flora, fauna etc..), not just climate effects  Under the category „Vulnerability and Risk Management“ we would suggest including the subcategory „Expert Decision Making System“ using as MTTs Inspection Indicators, Diagnosis Indicators and Intervention Indicators On methods and Tools: Suggestion of new categories  General info  Architectural Documentation  Interventions  Ownership and Legal Status & proposals for changes to the main categories and sub-categories NTUA’s Proposals & Additions to D4.1

TASK 5.2 KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES AND “EU CHIC” GUIDELINE (L: NTUA, M: UL, IIT, Z-Z, UNIBO, LABEIN)  The integrated documentation protocols developed in Task 5.1 will be complemented dynamically, according the necessity of performing inspection, diagnosis and intervention works, leading to knowledge based decision making procedures.  Significant feedback of the relevant data will be given by the Advisory Network, consisting of representatives of national authorities established in European countries, dealing with cultural heritage protection.  After compiling all the information, the EU CHIC guideline about recommendations on how to evaluate & use the IC models to monuments & sets of historic buildings will be produced. Deliverable D 5.2 will be: EU CHIC Identity Card Guideline This guideline will contain:  The assessment of the data collection that should be undertaken, including risk indicators. This part of the document will be created in a form of specific kind of combination of questionnaires and data sheet, including harmonization of criteria and indicators of existing European standards for the development of the Identity Card concept  The evaluation of the most usable tools and methods to collect and store the data and the criteria to select the most appropriate in every case  The criteria to be considered regarding further and past alternation of assets. This guideline will be written in English and translated in languages of all CHIC partners: Arabic, Croatian, Czech, Flemish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Polish, Slovenian and Spanish

DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.2 NECESSITY INDEXES EXTEND: - Inspection - Diagnosis - Intervention Works KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES CHIC GUIDELINE - HOW TO EVALUATE & USE IC MODELS DEPENDING ON -building type -end-users -circumstances DECISION MAKING MODEL: -Datasheet? -Database? -Multiple criteria analysis? Finalize the Criteria for Decision making NTUA’s Integrated Methodology for Decision Making Support with certain foreseen procedures Criteria for IC models assessment including: The assessment of data collection that should be undertaken, including risk indicators, harmonization criteria and European standards indicators: (questionnaires and data sheets? ) The evaluation of the most practical tools and methods to collect and store data and the criteria to select the most appropriate case specific material The criteria to be considered regarding previous and future asset alterations Emerging Methodologies for EU-CHIC results adoption - ITAM’s proposal of an IS method (software), entitled “CHOOGLE - Integrating national CH databases”, MULTIPLE-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS / ALGORITHM FOR NECESSITY INDEXES CALCULATION) KRHTH

Feedback & Relevant Issues discussed

Presentation from ITAM  The Czech partner presented their proposal “CHOOGLE – integrating national cultural heritage basis” and the Coordinator considered that it was in line with the stated EU-CHIC objectives as it offered a possible upper-level solution for the project implementation.  One of the biggest advantages of the CHOOGLE system could be in creating comparable databases for the maintenance of cultural heritage objects.  ITAM– is there sufficient interest amongst EU-CHIC partners to further develop the CHOOGLE database, and to approach, as a first step, a demonstration to show that it is possible to join multiple databases and extract specific relevant data (such as that required for the EHL label). A conclusion was reached that the consortia supports such a step towards a demonstration, but the coordinator said that he cannot redistribute the project finances in support of this. Therefore, ITAM would need to individually take on the responsibilities and cost to further develop the system to demonstrate it, although the EU-CHIC project will acknowledge its development, and help to promote and sell it.

As discussed at the AC meeting on 31 January, participants emphasized the importance of compatibility in all databases emerging from EC financed projects. They also raised the issue of open access, the integration of different systems across Europe, and the challenge of how to link them on a common meta-data basis. In principle participants support the proposal that the EU-CHIC identity card could be a product of the project, yet there were several that would have to be addressed:  EU-CHIC should develop with a standard level of minimum common information.  The database should offer added value (e.g. will it directly serve the EHL).  The database should be formed so that it can become a direct tool for supporting the EHL.  The database will have to be a kind of specialized database in a group of cultural heritage projects, yet be compatible with all others.  The IT system should enable an interrogation of a large number of different datasets to reveal relevant criteria and information required for the consideration of an award of a EHL label (so called labeling criteria). Possible label criteria are listed as the importance for EU history, for EU identity, for tourism, and for sustainability development. (Other aspects may need to be added pending further investigation.  The database should be founded on established standards of documentation and monitoring, and should incorporate risk assessments (integrated risk management) according to modern standards. Emerging methodologies to assist in practical adoption of final CHIC results

 Why should a relevant authority use a tool/system?  What is its added value in comparison to other already existed methods?  How to motivate potential end-users to adopt it?  Mrs. Rajčić recalled that the EC wants all databases that were, and will be, developed in the frame of EU projects to be compatible with each other. AC members also noted that such a tool should be focused on one area of EU-CHIC; such as risk assessment for example, and should incorporate all relevant standards about cultural heritage objects, or even develop a new standard on meta data information, which should also be linked with CEN TC 356 endeavours.  Any new standard should encompass what each documentation system should have as mandatory and not mandatory information fields. From this perspective, EU-CHIC could innovatively develop a basis for standardisation work on that specific aspect, and this would represent an important significant step forward. AC members questions to be addressed

TASK 5.3 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION OF “EU CHIC” (L: NTUA, M: UL, SKB, Z-Z, ITAM, FRAUNH., IIT, UNIBO, IPPT, LABEIN) The developed Guideline needs to be further validated. Directives should be developed for:  Further research in order to finalize the recommendations for the creation of integrated documentation protocols & the development of knowledge based decision making procedures in the sector of cultural heritage protection  Strategies for implementing EU CHIC model in EU policies & standard bodies  Implementation of EU-CHIC results through demonstration projects, comparative studies, benchmarking of the guideline  The extension of the proposal to other assets not covered within the project topics: movable, archaeological, intangible & underwater heritage At the end of this task, the final conference will be organized to present the outcomes of the EU-CHIC project to widen community of experts & other stakeholders engaged in the heritage safeguarding. Deliverable D 5.3 will be: Strategic planning for EU CHIC guideline implementation The strategies for further research on recommendations for integrated documentation protocols and knowledge based decision making procedures and strategies for implementation and validation of the developed recommendations will be elaborated in this deliverable. Recommendations for the development of EU policies in this area will be considered. The strategic plan will be based on analysis of case studies of typical heritage buildings and/or sites delivered by all project partners.

DISCUSSION ON TASK & DELIVERABLE 5.3 FURTHER RESEARCH STRATEGIES FOR PROTOCOLS RECCOMENDATIONS ESTABLISHMENT OF EU POLICIES RELEVANT TO CHIC STRATEGIES FOR GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTATION & VALIDATION THROUGH: - Projects - Studies - Benchmarking CASE STUDIES ON GREEK & PARTNERS’ MONUMENTS EXTENSION TO OTHER ASSETS: Movable / Archaeological / Intangible / Underwater

STRATEGIC RE-ORIENTATION OF THE PROJECT A broad discussion on a strategic re-orientation of the project occurred. In this, it was noted that a series of significant activities on the emergence of the European Cultural Heritage Label (EHL) initiative were currently progressing within the European Commission and AC members suggested that such a reorientation could be to beneficially direct the project activities and efforts to the potential usage of the EU-CHIC systems as a tool for supporting the future implementation of the ECHL.  It was suggested that this new approach should mean involving the European Commission and linking the project to the European Cultural Heritage Label (ECHL) project process, along with the emerging EU Tourism Strategy, and with sustainability initiatives in emerging European politics.  EU-CHIC should identify relevant on-going political EU/EC initiatives and make use of them where mutual benefits could be achieved. For example, EU-CHIC and European Cultural Heritage Heads Forum links could be readily established via meta data, and from this perspective, what EU-CHIC is trying to accomplish could appear to the ECHL as being very attractive, highly relevant, applicable and economically justified, creating a win-win situation for all parties.  Further, it was suggested that EU-CHIC should try to address and motivate the European Cultural Heritage Heads Forum – ECHHF (there was a meeting on 26 and 27 May, 2011 in Amsterdam, NL). The aim might be to contextualise the EU-CHIC project under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty; the DG Research Joint Programme Initiative (JPI); and the potential benefits that could feed into the standardization CEN/TC 346 work, to promote the uptake and benefits of EU-CHIC at national levels.  Projects partners should also investigate future options to include EU-CHIC within the on-going JPI process, and be further motivated to identify relevant contact persons that could be contacted directly, and sent hard copies of the emerging material. For example, if direct contacts with Ministries are not feasible an approach via regional cultural heritage institutes is also possible. Other potential strategic targets are EC Eurostat and the EC Tourism Strategy.

Questions formed in Preparatory Meeting

Even though the WP5 starts at month 18, the preparation has already begun, through:  Research on information systems (IS) of documentation, risk assessment and management of Greece and the countries that NTUA had untertaken  NTUA’s contribution to WP2, WP3 & WP4 (reported in Mid Term Report)  Process of results deriving from previous related work packages (WP2, WP3, WP4). WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS OF YOUR WP IN THE REPORTING PERIOD?

HOW CAN THESE RESULTS BE USED? The adaptation of the WP5 results would lead to the increase of knowledge on the heritage across Europe, the support the development of sustainable maintenance, preservation and revitalization of historic sites and monuments through the development of guidelines for the assessment and use of efficient and user-friendly systems for the identification of parameters to characterize the heritage building and their possible alterations during its entire lifetime, using the concept of Identity Card. The concept of the Identity Card of monuments will allow proper management, conservation and maintenance strategies. In order to inform the research community of these important results and help end users adopte them an Awareness and Dissemination Plan containing different kind of activities is prepared and deployed along the project and beyond. All Project Partners, the Advisory Committee, the Advisory Network will establish, maintain and develop cooperative links with local authorities and stakeholders responsible for safeguarding the cultural heritage, encouraging them to adopt the EU-CHIC methodologies in local conservation schemes. Implementation of the generated knowledge will help in decision making procedures, disseminating a common sense of responsibilities and preservation of cultural heritage. It will also be a place for discussion about the transfer of EU CHIC philosophy & methods to real practice of heritage protection through the channels opened by the Advisory network, ERA Heritage network, ECTP FACH, Europa Nostra, ICOMOS, COST, EUREKA etc. The results of WP5 are expected to be the base for further research and practical use in the participating countries and other ones.

WHO CAN USE EACH OF THE RESULTS?  Ministries of Culture / Relevant Directorates – Ephorates  Museums  Local Bodies as Stakeholders of specific monuments or historic city centers  Related NGOs  Research Institutes & Universities for education and research in monuments’ protection  Laboratories and technical assistant bodies to conservation  Scientific community  Owners and managers of Cultural Heritage buildings  Restoration enterprises (specially SMEs)  Construction & Consultants’ offices in the field of conservation – restoration of historic buildings and monuments  Architects and other prescription/specifying bodies  National Technology Platforms  Industry on building materials and interventions techniques  European and International Associations of networks related to Cultural Heritage,  Organisation of World Heritage Cities, WHIN, WCMC, World Monuments Fund-World Monuments Watch, IDCBS,  FACH of the European Construction Technology Platform,  ERANET  Standardization Committees, especially CEN/TC 346.  Meta-Management / Meta-users: creation of sites & databases for the extraction of necessity indices of inspection – diagnosis – intervention works, for the evaluation –monitoring and maintenance  Strategic planning & Policy making in National / European / International level (measures, rules, laws, guidelines etc) The results of WP5 can be used by Governmental – Regional & Local Bodies in partners’ countries as well as in the ones disseminated to:

NTUA’s Proposal

Proposed Methodology for Integrated Documentation Protocols At present there is no existing common procedures nor an established methodology for collecting, organizing and presenting data that could be used as a background for decision making in the selection of refurbishment strategies because of: Integrated Documentation Protocols should encompass all the criteria of a ALL DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS REQUIRE QUALITY CONTROL IN ALL THEIR PROCEDURES  Problems in Methodology  Incompatible Interventions  Problems in Regulations  Problems in the National Codes and Euro codes Total Quality Control System

Methodology (Parameterization) Criteria (Quality) Regulations / New requirements from users Compatibility – Serviceability of materials & interventions Quality Control Architectural Structural Historic Documentation Preservation of authenticity Materials and Conservation Interventions

The criteria of A Total Quality Control System are deontology of international conventions  Observance of the deontology of international conventions that demand the preservation and presentation of historic, sentimental virtues and the architecture of monuments, while preserving the authentic materials, forms and structures.  Serviceability of the conservation interventions and restorations  Serviceability of the conservation interventions and restorations (so that the building can accept safely the new uses and face the earthquake risk)  Compatibility  Compatibility of the materials and conservation interventions with authentic materials, the building and its environment  Sustainability  Increase of lifetime  Protection of the environment and energy savings  Minimization of environmental impact on the monument

The archive should be a dynamic one, incorporating and supplying with information on the building, during its entire life-time. The vital stage is the creation of an archive for every building including all the existing data concerning -Special building documentation -Materials and building's structure in general -Environmental factors -Air pollution-Degradation mechanisms -Diagnosis techniques and methods -Intervention works

Decision Making Procedures INTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS (IDENTITY CARD MODELS) ARE THE TOOL THAT ACCORDING TO THE NECESSITY OF PERFORMING: INSPECTION - DIAGNOSIS - INTERVENTION WORKS LEAD TO

KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. DOCUMENTATIONMONITORINGINSPECTIONDIAGNOSIS INTERVENTION STUDY INTERVENTION WORKS INTERVENTION WORKS ASSESSMENT The criteria for ranking the buildings and prioritize the activities of inspection, diagnosis & intervention are defined by Necessity Indexes.

Necessity indexes – Criteria for decision making  Inspection necessity index. It originates from the need of tactical inspection of buildings in order to assess their condition  Diagnosis necessity index. It uses information deriving from diagnostic and intervention studies  Intervention necessity index. It is developed based on information deriving from diagnostic studies, inspection bulletins, environmental studies Index of maximum hazard: Index of maximum hazard: Based on the data introduced, it is the index which presents the maximum hazard

Integrated Methodology for Decision Making Support Ranking Intervention Necessity Index Study for Interventions (Specifications) Interventions Works Assessment Surveys and Monitoring Inspection (manuals, check lists) Diagnosis (Diagnosis Protocol) Interventions Works Inspection report No Yes Diagnosis report Yes No Diagnosis (Diagnosis Protocol) Data Base Documentation, Environmental, Air Pollution, Degradation Mechanisms, … Need for intervention s Need for diagnosis Ranking Diagnosis Necessity Index Check Lists Ranking Inspection Necessity Index Ranking Diagnosis Necessity Index

Stages for the determination of limits of necessity indexes Criteria for decision making Necessity indexes used for the facilitation of a decision making procedure Physical, chemical, mechanical parameters, indicative of the building materials’ state Quantification of parameters Determination of critical limits of parameters separating the range of values into zones of different hazard degree

Final Output of WP5 A Guideline establishing :  the Identity Card concept to the European Cultural Heritage  the minimum criteria of the data collection to be undertaken, the most recommendable systems for data storage, the criteria regarding further or past alternation to be considered  the harmonization of existing criteria & indicators of existing European standards for the development of the Identity Card concept A part of the guideline will be a model of data collection and presentation in form of data sheets – demonstrated by the selected cases of heritage buildings