PRESENTATION LAYOUT

1
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

2
WP5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES

• WP Leader
• Antonia MoropoulouNTUA

3
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

4
WP5 will be organized in the following tasks
WP5 RECOMMENDATION AND STRATEGIES
5
The Aim
To develop criteria and a methodology for the
creation of a Model System for integrated
documentation
Considering Indicative Parameters of data
documentation
Implemented through National, E.U. and
International Regulations
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.
6
WPs Workflow
7
TASK 5.1INTEGRATED DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS (L
UL, M NTUA, UNIBO, IPPT PAN,Z-Z)

• 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.

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.
8
DISCUSSION ON TASK DELIVERABLE 5.1
CHIC ID CARD Top Level Based on the working
session in Ravenna Meeting
What is the data level to be included?
Which are the risk indicators to be included?
What are the criteria for risk assessment?
Which categories subcategories the IC CARD should have?
Which are the most appropriate methods tools for data acquisition and documentation?
Which European standards will be considered?
Which are the harmonization criteria to those indicators?
RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS
D2.1 Activity Report of Task 2.1
Discussion of Accessibility / Coding /
Methodology/Structure EU-CHIC VIENNA MEETING WP2
WORKSHOP
D3.1 Report on risk indicators and roadmap for
future research priorities Annex A /
Identification of needs for future research
priorities
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.
D4.1 Report on Methods and Tools for data
collection and presentation
NTUA additions of Categories / Subcategories
additions
4.1 New Questionnaire
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.
9
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
10
RESEARCH ON GREEK DOCUMENTATION PROTOCOLS

• Presentation of Greek informative systems of
  documentation
• The cases of 3 Greek Directorates of the Greek
  Ministry of Culture
• The National Archive of Monuments Information
  System
• The Acropolis Restoration Service (YSMA)
• The General Directorate of Museum Restoration and
  Technical Projects / Directorate of Museum
  construction
• Presentation of Greek informative systems of
  risk assessment and management
• Risk Map of Cultural Heritage the Dodecanese
  case study ARCHI-MED

11

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.
12
Summary of dataset.

13
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?

14
CHIC ID CARD Top Level. Based on the working
session in Ravenna October 12.
Nr. . element name Score Comments
1 Picture, drawing, basic graphic data visual info 26 One piece. Links to more can be given. Format must be defined.
2 Name 26 This field might be broken down into 2 or more. Example official name, local name.
3 Address 26 Includes number, postal code. Country code see next.
4 Country / Nation 26
5 Region 26
6 Geo Location, coordinates 26
7 General 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.
8 Original use 26
9 Current use 26
10 Date / 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.
11 Typology 26 Set of defined typologies must be developed.
12 Link  URL for more information Mentioned in the meeting but not as a specific information element.
13 Cadastre 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.
14 Unique national and European identifier. Not mentioned in the meeting. Can be system generated based on a unique national identifier.
15 Legal 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.
16 Contact person/details, administration name, department etc. 15 This will not be a mandatory field. But in some countries this is already standard information.
17 Ownership type 23 Private, Public (state, municipality), combined?.
18 State 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).
19 Risk (grading) / Hazard potential 17 / 18 Grading system must be developed. Can this be combined with hazard potential?
20 Vulnerability (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.
21 Historic data, data on former interventions etc. 24 Pointer or information on where this can be found. Possible to have a very short prose description?
22 Structural 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.
23 Basic 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.

15

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
D3.1 RESULTS Survey on actual risk assessment
methodologies - identification and analysis of
existing directives for risk assessment related
to monument conservation
16
NTUAs Proposals Additions to D3.1
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.
17
Category of data collection Sub category Additions / 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 documentation Measured plans Realistic 2D depictions Realistic 3D depictions
Historical development Historical 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 impact Long 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 research MTTs RD Thematic research and databases
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).
18
NTUAs Proposals Additions to D4.1
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

19
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
20
DISCUSSION ON TASK DELIVERABLE 5.2
What is the extend of the necessity indices needed for the application?
What are the decision making criteria?
Which are the necessary procedures for a knowledge based decision making support system?
What should the guideline consist of? (assessment of data risk indicators / evaluation of methods and tools / criteria of further past alternations)
How should the system of the guideline application be structured? In what kind of form?
Which software could be used for the application?
Finalize the Criteria for Decision making
NTUAs 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

MULTIPLE-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS / ALGORITHM
FOR NECESSITY INDEXES CALCULATION) KRHTH
Emerging Methodologies for EU-CHIC results
adoption - ITAMs proposal of an IS method
(software), entitled CHOOGLE - Integrating
national CH databases,
21
Feedback Relevant Issues discussed
22
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.

23
Emerging methodologies to assist in practical
adoption of final CHIC results

• 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.
•  
•  

24
AC members questions to be addressed

• 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. Rajcic 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.

25
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.
26
DISCUSSION ON TASK DELIVERABLE 5.3
Which strategies should be designed for further research on protocols?
How can EU Policies be established in relation to EU-CHIC?
Which existing EU Policies could contribute to that? How?
What are the steps needed to be made for the implementation and validation of the guidelines produced?
Which monuments could be used as case studies?
What extend of data are there needed for each case study?
In what way should the project be extended to other assets besides immovable heritage?
27
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.

28
Questions formed in Preparatory Meeting
29
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS OF YOUR WP IN THE
REPORTING PERIOD?

• 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
• NTUAs contribution to WP2, WP3 WP4 (reported
  in Mid Term Report)
• Process of results deriving from previous related
  work packages (WP2, WP3, WP4).

30
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.

31
WHO CAN USE EACH OF THE RESULTS?
The results of WP5 can be used by Governmental
Regional Local Bodies in partners countries as
well as in the ones disseminated to

• 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)

• 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

32
NTUAs Proposal
33
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

• Problems in Methodology
• Incompatible Interventions
• Problems in Regulations
• Problems in the National Codes and Euro codes

Total Quality Control System
should encompass all the criteria of a
ALL DECISION MAKING SYSTEMS REQUIRE QUALITY
CONTROL IN ALL THEIR PROCEDURES
34
Total Quality Control System
Compatibility Serviceability of materials
interventions
Regulations / New requirements from users
Criteria (Quality)
Preservation of authenticity
Quality Control
Methodology (Parameterization)
Historic Documentation
Architectural
Materials and Conservation Interventions
Structural
35

• The criteria of A Total Quality Control System
  are
• 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 (so that the building can accept
  safely the new uses and face the earthquake risk)
• 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

36
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
The archive should be a dynamic one,
incorporating and supplying with information on
the building, during its entire life-time.
37
Decision Making Procedures
38
KNOWLEDGE BASED DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES.
The criteria for ranking the buildings and
prioritize the activities of inspection,
diagnosis intervention are defined by
Necessity Indexes.
39
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 Based on the data
introduced, it is the index which presents the
maximum hazard
40
Integrated Methodology for Decision Making Support
Data Base Documentation, Environmental, Air
Pollution, Degradation Mechanisms,
Inspection report
Check Lists
Ranking Inspection Necessity Index
Check Lists
No
Need for interventions
Yes
No
Need for diagnosis
Ranking Intervention Necessity Index
Yes
Diagnosis (Diagnosis Protocol)
Diagnosis report
Ranking Diagnosis Necessity Index
Ranking Diagnosis Necessity Index
41
Stages for the determination of limits of
necessity indexes
Necessity indexes used for the facilitation of a
decision making procedure
Criteria for decision making
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
42
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