Profiles of digital TV adopters in the switchover context in Portugal

In order to conduct a successful transition from analogue terrestrial television to full digital terrestrial television it is essential to identify what are the most significant drivers and barriers for adoption among the impacted population. Also importantly, it is to segment the population according with their attitudes towards digital TV, their awareness about the switchover process and intention of adopting digital TV, among other relevant topics. The tradition of profiles definition based on the adoption and rejection of innovations can be traced back to Beal & Bohlen, who proposed five categories of innovation adopters based on the time of adoption, with significant differences in selected personal and social characteristics: the innovators, the early adopters, the early majority, the majority and non-adopters. Later, Rogers would propose similar categories of adopters that became the standard for years to come: the innovators, the early adopters, the early majority, the late majority and the laggards. While helpful, these traditional innovation adopters’ profiles do not totally grasp the complexities of the adoption of an innovation such as digital TV, particularly in mandatory settings. In this paper we will propose a classification of adopters of digital TV in Portugal, based on the results of one of the four empirical studies of the research project ADOPT-DTV, namely, the quantitative inquiry administered to a representative sample of the Portuguese population. The paper will be concluded with a brief discussion of results and the enumeration of the next steps of the research project.

Museums and quality, from the concept of the museum that carries out functions to the museum that provides services

Quality management Self-evaluation of the organisation Citizens/customers satisfaction Impact on society evaluation Key performance evaluation Good practices comparison (Benchmarking) Continuous improvement In professional environments, when quality assessment of museums is discussed, one immediately thinks of the honourableness of the directors and curators, the erudition and specialisation of knowledge, the diversity of the gathered material and study of the collections, the collections conservation methods and environmental control, the regularity and notoriety of the exhibitions and artists, the building’s architecture and site, the recreation of environments, the museographic equipment design. We admit that the roles and attributes listed above can contribute to the definition of a specificity of museological good practice within a hierarchised functional perspective (the museum functions) and for the classification of museums according to a scale, validated between peers, based on “installed” appreciation criteria, enforced from above downwards, according to the “prestige” of the products and of those who conceive them, but that say nothing about the effective satisfaction of the citizen/customers and the real impact on society. There is a lack of evaluation instruments that would give us a return of all that the museum is and represents in contemporary society, focused on being and on the relation with the other, in detriment of the ostentatious possession and of the doing in order to meet one’s duties. But it is only possible to evaluate something by measurement and comparison, on the basis of well defined criteria, from a common grid, implicating all of the actors in the self-evaluation, in the definition of the aims to fulfil and in the obtaining of results.