How to measure the impact of a multimedia solution in a museum or cultural space

Installation is not the end of the project

After months of planning, development and installation, it is common for a museum or cultural space team to consider an interactive multimedia project complete the moment the solution starts operating. In practice, this is precisely when an equally important phase begins: understanding whether the solution is genuinely fulfilling the objective it was created for.

Measuring the impact of a multimedia solution in a museum or cultural space is not just a matter of counting how many people used it. It is necessary to understand how visitors interact with the solution, whether they explore the content, whether it contributes to their understanding of the space's narrative, and whether the experience remains relevant and operational over time.

To do this, it is important to combine different indicators. Usage data is a starting point, but it gains value when related to engagement metrics, observation of visitor behaviour, qualitative feedback and operational indicators.

Why usage counts are not enough

The easiest indicator to obtain, and therefore the most widely used, is the number of interactions recorded by a multimedia application. It is relevant data, but on its own it says very little about the solution's real value.

An application can be heavily used and still not contribute significantly to visitor understanding, for example if the interaction is brief and superficial, without the content being genuinely absorbed. At the same time, a solution with fewer uses can have a deeper impact if the visitors who use it spend more time and leave with a richer understanding of what they saw. For this reason, usage numbers should be read together with other indicators.

The opposite can also happen. A solution with fewer uses may offer longer, more in-depth interactions, in which visitors explore different content and build a more meaningful relationship with the information presented. For this reason, usage numbers should be interpreted alongside other indicators and, above all, in light of the objective defined for the solution.

An indicator only makes sense when there is an objective

Before deciding what to measure, it is necessary to understand what the multimedia solution is expected to do.

Is it meant to make a particular topic easier to understand? To allow visitors to explore information that could not be presented physically? To increase engagement with a collection? To make certain content more accessible? To encourage independent exploration? The answers determine which indicators are truly relevant.

For example, a high average interaction time is not necessarily positive. If an application was designed to convey simple information in a few minutes, very long use may even indicate navigation difficulties. Likewise, a short interaction does not necessarily mean a lack of interest if the visitor quickly found the information they needed.

This is why indicators should be defined, whenever possible, during project planning. Without an objective and a reference for the expected behaviour, the data exists, but becomes harder to interpret.

Engagement indicators: beyond counting clicks

The first group of indicators relates to how visitors interact with the solution, and not just how often that interaction happens.

Average interaction time helps to understand how much time visitors devote to the experience. However, it should be analysed in light of the expected duration and the amount of content available.

Navigation depth shows how many areas or content levels are explored. In an application designed to offer different layers of information, this indicator can reveal whether visitors go beyond the first content presented.

The early abandonment rate, meaning interactions that are started and quickly interrupted, can also be particularly useful. When it is high, it may justify a review of interface usability, content length, equipment location or the clarity of instructions.

None of these metrics should be interpreted in isolation, as their value lies in reading them together and comparing them with what the experience was designed to deliver.

Comprehension and retention indicators

Understanding whether visitors have grasped or retained the information is harder than measuring an interaction on a screen, but there are ways to gather it.

Direct methods can include brief questionnaires at the exit of the exhibition, interviews carried out by the space's team, or small activities built into the experience itself that show whether the main concepts have been understood.

There are also relevant qualitative signs. Observation can reveal whether visitors discuss what they have just discovered, return to certain content, connect the digital information to objects present in the space, or ask the team more in-depth questions. These indicators require more human involvement and are harder to collect continuously. Even so, they add a dimension that automatic usage data cannot capture: what the interaction actually meant to the visitor.

Accessibility and inclusion should also be assessed

A multimedia solution can show good usage numbers and, at the same time, create difficulties for certain audiences. For this reason, the evaluation should also consider the accessibility of the experience.

Frequent requests for help, reading difficulties, interactive elements that are not easily understood or barriers to accessing content can reveal problems that do not appear in usage data.

Observing different visitor profiles is particularly important in this context. Children, older people, visitors with different levels of digital literacy or people with specific needs can relate in very different ways to the same interface.

Assessing these differences helps to understand whether the solution is actually prepared for its intended audiences, and can identify improvements to the interface, the content or the alternative ways of accessing information.

Indicators of integration with the overall visit experience

A multimedia application is part of a route that includes the physical space, the objects, the exhibition content and other moments of the visit. It is therefore also important to understand how the solution fits into that broader experience.

Average dwell time in a given area, for example, can help identify changes in visitor behaviour, although it cannot, by itself, attribute those changes to the presence of the multimedia solution.

The same applies to feedback. Comments in questionnaires, visitor books, reviews or other channels can reveal whether the multimedia experience is spontaneously identified as a valued part of the visit.

Observing the visitor route can also be relevant. A solution that is heavily used but creates congestion, interrupts circulation or draws attention away from essential elements of the exhibition may need adjustments, even if interaction numbers are high. The aim is not to prove that the whole experience depends on technology, but to understand whether it is playing its role appropriately within the whole.

Operational indicators: robustness and sustainability

The impact of a multimedia solution does not depend only on visitor reaction. An experience can be interesting and well received, but become difficult to sustain if it requires constant technical intervention or if the content is too complex to update.

The frequency of breakdowns, freezes or restarts helps to understand whether the equipment and software are prepared for the context of use. Downtime is also relevant: a solution that is frequently out of service inevitably compromises the experience it was designed for.

The effort and costs associated with maintenance should also be considered, as well as content updates, because if every change requires a complex technical intervention, the solution can become progressively outdated.

The ease with which the responsible team can manage content, when that autonomy is part of the project requirements, is therefore another important indicator of the solution's sustainability.

As we explored in the article "How to plan an interactive multimedia project for a cultural space", many of these questions should be considered before installation. Defining in advance how maintenance will be carried out, who will update the content and what the operating requirements are creates a more solid basis for assessing performance later on.

Which indicators can be tracked?

There is no universal set of metrics suited to every project. Indicators should result from the solution's objectives, the type of experience and the audience it is intended for.

More important than tracking a large number of metrics is choosing the ones that actually help answer the initial question: is the solution fulfilling what it was created for?

How to organise a continuous evaluation process

Evaluating the impact of a multimedia solution should not be a one-off exercise carried out only after installation. Evaluation becomes more useful when there is continuity and the possibility of comparing results over time.

For example, analysis points can be set after the first few months of operation, at the end of the first year and thereafter at a frequency suited to the reality of the space.

This process can combine data collected automatically by the solution, periods of direct observation and qualitative visitor feedback. It is not necessary to measure everything all the time: some metrics can be tracked continuously, while others can be analysed through sampling periods.

Over time, this information makes it possible to understand whether usage patterns have changed, whether certain content has lost relevance, whether recurring problems have emerged and which aspects can be improved.

Evaluation thus stops serving only to determine whether the initial investment was successful and also begins to support the evolution of the experience itself.

What to do when the indicators reveal something is not working

Not every multimedia project produces the expected results immediately, and that is precisely why measuring matters.

When the evaluation reveals low engagement, usability difficulties or recurring operational problems, the first step should be to understand the origin of the problem.

In some cases, there may be relatively simple things to fix: content that is too long, unclear instructions, an interface that makes navigation difficult, or a location that does not follow the visitor's natural route. Small adjustments can make a significant difference.

In other cases, the indicators may reveal a more structural problem. The chosen technology may not suit the audience, the objective may have been unclear from the start, or the solution may not be properly integrated into the narrative and the space.

In these situations, insisting on superficial changes may not solve the problem. Evaluation makes it possible to recognise earlier when aspects of the project's very design need to be reviewed.

Evaluation is part of a well-planned multimedia project

A multimedia solution should not be assessed only by the quality of the equipment, the visual appearance of the interface or the number of people who touched it. Its value depends on its ability to fulfil a concrete function within the experience of the space.

For this reason, evaluation should begin during planning. Defining what is to be achieved, who will use the solution, which behaviours are important to observe and which indicators can be collected creates a reference for analysing its performance later.

At InovaDigital, this relationship between objectives, content, technology and experience is part of our approach to developing multimedia applications. Thinking about the evolution and evaluation of the solution from the start makes it possible to create experiences that do not end at the moment of installation, but can be monitored, adjusted and kept relevant over time.

More than asking how many people used a solution, what matters is being able to answer a more useful question: is the experience fulfilling the objective it was created for?