How Smart Can Museums Be? The Role of Cutting-Edge Technologies in Making Modern Museums Smarter

Introduction

In our rapidly transforming 21st-century society, the image and role of the museum as we knew it until now are gradually changing, thanks, mainly, to the exploitation of the potential of new emerging technologies. The catalytic experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, which dealt a significant blow to museums by threatening their very viability (UNESCO report 2021), drastically changed the pace and intensity of the digitization of museum collections and the exploitation of the Web 2.0 (Corona 2021), especially social media (SM), consolidating online marketing strategies and unleashing the enormous “potential of digital engagement” (Crooke 2020).

While technological developments accelerate at a frenetic pace towards Web 3.0 and 4.0, heralding the completion and expansion of social transformation through symbiotic human-machine interaction, the cultural managers of this traditionally conservative institution are increasingly convinced of the necessity for them to find new forms of “intelligent” or “smart” management, using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (Trunfio et al. 2021). Thus, they hope to optimise museum operation and visitor experience, increase sustainability and competitiveness, and contribute to social welfare and development.

In this context, numerous studies of the last decades and especially after 2017, mostly pilot ones, focus on a variety of new technologies that find application in museums attempting to upgrade them to smarter ones, while others concentrate on the multifarious and constantly evolving types of technology themselves (Shah, Fathihin and Ghazali 2018, Ch’ng et al. 2019, Lu et al. 2023). However, although there has been extensive research on technology-mediated visitor experience in recent decades, the issue of a holistic approach to the smart museum has attracted only limited attention (Lu et al. 2023, Pérez 2023).

Thus, it was deemed appropriate and largely necessary to theoretically and holistically explore the concept of the smart museum, the new generation of museums that succeeds the traditional and the digital, in its entire diverse spectrum, viewing it through the cultural lens. Based on the above purpose, we have defined the following main research objectives:

The objectives of our study encompass its key parameters, which also serve as research questions. To address these questions, we explored two main topics: the museum’s transformation over the past 50 years, shaping its current identity, and the adoption of cutting-edge technologies that define its future profile in the 21st century. Specifically, to understand the modern museum’s identity in the third decade of the 21st century, we examined the socio-economic developments that influenced the institution in the post-war era, particularly from the 1980s onward. We also analyzed the digital transformation and integration of new technologies in museum management, through which we could further delineate the concept of the emerging smart museum of the 21st century, tracing its overall profile in its ideal future version.

Background research

As a constantly evolving social institution and structure, the museum is continually changing, in direct relation to the surrounding reality. A milestone in its development, after the war, was the emergence of New Museology in the 1980s, a time when the focus of interest in modern museum studies began to shift from collections to the public and society, while the museum from object-centered and curator-centered began to become more and more visitor-centered (Chen, Ho and Ho 2006).

The cultural shift of this era and the emphasis on the study of visual culture through the development of interdisciplinary disciplines such as “visual semiotics” seriously shook the - dominant until the 1960s-1970s – bourgeois view of the museum, according to which museum objects and art objects, par excellence, possessed an intrinsic value, eloquent for a select elite (Sifaki 2015). At the same time, it marked the transition from the search for inherent universal principles based on the aesthetic concepts of the Enlightenment to the inclusion of aesthetic aspects in the context of cultural functioning and their correlation to power structures (Cagliostro 2020).

Museums were then seen as representatives of an aesthetic attitude that encouraged inequality, betraying their “real function”, which, as Bourdieu observed, was to enhance “for some the feeling of belonging and for others the feeling of exclusion” (Bourdieu, Darbel, and Schnapper 1991, 112). Faced with a multi-layered criticism and the “existential crisis” it triggered, cultural managers felt the need to rethink how they manage and promote museum collections, orienting more than ever to all kinds of potential audiences (Cagliostro 2020).

The transformation of the perception of the museum’s role in society was similarly facilitated by the gradual collapse of the notion of mass culture as a uniformly passive, easily manipulated consumer public. This idea, largely established by prominent figures of the Frankfurt School (Adorno 2000, Arendt 1994), has increasingly been challenged (Paschalidis 2002a).

The development and spread of Cultural Studies, particularly through the University of Birmingham and the influence of Marxist sociologists and other intellectuals like Stuart Hall, Raymond Williams, Umberto Eco, and Herbert Gans, played a crucial role in shifting cultural mentality. This movement challenged the notion of passive consumers, emphasised the significance of popular culture, and promoted the view of cultures as dynamic, reconfigurable systems in which cultural consumers can interpret messages in diverse ways (Williams 1989, Gans 1974, Paschalidis 2002a).

The pressing economic imperatives that followed the reduction of government support for state-subsidised museums from the 1980s onwards, decisively contributed to this shift toward the public (Chabouri-Ioannidou 2003, 28), which was also in response to demographic and generational change in the society of the time (Lu et al. 2023). Since then, public museums have increasingly adopted extroversion and the “consumer model” of management by expanding and enriching their activities, competing, thus, with other “leisure industries” (Desvallées and Mairesse 2014, 22, 28).

In addition, the evolution of educational theories and the transition from a linear-didactic and teacher-centered to a two-way learning model, or in other words, from a positivist-behaviorist to a constructivist approach, were gradually imprinted on the form of the modern museum institution (Hooper-Greenhill 1999). The constructivist learning model focuses on both the transmitter and the receiver of the message, since knowledge does not arise as a result of the transmission of a pre-existing intrinsic meaning but as a result of a fluid and non-finite “participatory process”, in the construction of which the viewer actively participates (ibid). The so-called cultural approach, which has found appeal and tends to be widely adopted by the postmodern museum, focuses on how interpretation varies according to visitors’ gender, ethnicity, social class, educational level, personal knowledge, and culture (Hooper-Greenhill 2000).

Furthermore, the recognition of the dominant role culture plays in development – another important socio-economic factor – has influenced the transformation of the museum into a critical space that encourages dialogue around values and questions directly related to the community it represents. After the failure of the economic-centric model of industrialised Western societies and the collapse of the “myth of development” – most noticeable in the 1970s and 1980s – the human community realised that technological and economic development must be in harmony with social welfare and respect nature, the diversity of human existence and the heterogeneity of cultural traditions, values, and identities (Morin 1998, 534-545, Paschalidis 2002b). This awareness was reinforced by the unprecedented expansion of the very concept of culture, which in 1982 was recognised within the international community as a multifaceted and complex phenomenon, extending from biodiversity and landscape to living experience and all the varied, contradictory and heterogeneous aspects of life (Mexico City Declaration 1982). Within the same community, a culture-centered approach that places the human community at the center of the development process was adopted and crystallised in a series of normative texts in the early decades of the 21st century, particularly after the catalytic events of 9/11. These documents formulate the framework of a new ethic of safeguarding and promoting intercultural dialogue and sustainable development, as defined based on the UN’s 2030 Agenda for joint social, environmental, and economic action (United Nations 2015).

As the transformation of the museum institution is reflected in the evolution of its definitions of the period 1946-2022, the most recent of them indicates the new pluralistic, and complex - compared to the traditional - role of the modern museum in society (Lehmannová 2020). According to it, museum “researches, collects, conserves, interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible heritage”, is “open” to the public, “accessible and inclusive”, fosters “diversity and sustainability”, operates and communicates “ethically, professionally and with the participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection and knowledge sharing” (ICOM 2022).

In this context, museum functions combine the traditional functions of acquisition, conservation, and research with management and the more visible function of communication (which includes education-mediation, entertainment, and exhibition). Communication, not traditionally included in the main museum functions, gradually evolved during the late 20th century into the main focus and driving force of its operation (Desvallées and Mairesse 2014, 21, 60-61). Admittedly, in this new, multifunctional and broad-oriented modern museum, where the complexity of contemporary postmodern society is reflected, the role of technology is catalytic.

In more detail, the digital revolution is the last but far from insignificant socio-economic development that contributed drastically – and still contributes - to shaping the identity of the modern museum. Indeed, the emergence of the new trend of using ICT to promote user interaction, in the late 90s, found full expression in the participatory online cultures of Web 2.0 and especially SM (Refae 2022). Thus, the cultural recycling of material available on the internet was mixed with people’s daily lives and creative elements, which effortlessly led to a new democratised form of participatory popular culture consumption and production, which included everything as common property and heritage of humanity-audience and educated an audience whose perception was multiplying and expanding relentlessly and feverishly thanks to the internet (Beer and Burrows 2010, 7, 10-11).

Notwithstanding, the museum sector has indeed been until recently more hesitant and relatively reluctant to follow the digital transformation process compared to other sectors, such as the tourism industry (Pérez 2023). However, the technological development and innovations of the first decades of the 21st century, such as the emergence of smart mobile phones, developments in computer graphics or software and hardware developments in extended technologies, combined with the aforementioned socio-economic developments and lessons learned since the recent pandemic that has accelerated the digitization processes of the museum, have significantly contributed to the gradual adoption of new technologies by cultural managers (Margetis et al. 2020, Avlonitou and Papadaki 2024a).

Thus, recently, especially in the last decade (with exponential progress from 2017 onwards), many studies have come to light, where researchers propose innovative designs or applications and smart solutions applicable in one or even more museums (Lu et al. 2023). Scholars investigate “smart learning environments” (Kasperiuniene and Tandzegolskiene 2020, Pan, Zhang, and Yang 2022), and “intelligent cultural spaces” (Chianese, Piccialli, and Valente 2015), the utilization of a fusion of technologies towards a specific type of a “smart museum” (Siountri, Skondras, and Vergados 2019), the digital design of a “smart museum based on AI” (Wang 2021), IoT-based smart museums (Mighali et al. 2015, Korzun et al. 2016, Spachos and Plataniotis 2020), cognitive robots for smart museums (Saggese, Vento, and Vigilante 2019), “smart things” (Bessaa, Levillain, and Tijus 2020), “smart objects” (López-Martínez, Carrera, and Iglesias 2020) and “smart showcases” (Bhattacharya 2019), the “engineering of smart museum ontology” (Zachila et al. 2021), “smart navigations systems” (Khan et al. 2021), issues of satisfaction and loyalty in the smart museum (Zhang and Abd Rahman 2022) and many other options.

Actually, scholars examine aspects of the smart museum mainly in terms of technology and equipment, as an information service, or in terms of their impact on visitor experience and behavior, while even evaluation criteria for smart museums have been proposed exclusively related to the satisfaction of visitors (Liu and Guo 2023). At the same time, the label of “smart” is currently indiscriminately applied to any integration of new technologies in the museum space, betraying ambiguity and heterogeneity in its use (Pérez 2023).

Surprisingly, there is a scarcity or lack of holistic models regarding the concept of a smart museum through a cultural lens. Furthermore, there is not a one-size-fits-all definition of the smart museum and the latter is usually integrated into the more general view of intelligent space or simply associated with smart technology. As an exception, Liu and Guo (2023) correlate the smart museum with three aspects, namely protection, management, and service, while Pérez (2023) adopts a more holistic view proposing a model of smart management, which is inspired by and depends on the Spanish model of tourism development SEGITTUR.

According to Pérez’s model for museums, a smart museum is a museum “that makes a transversal incorporation of inclusive strategies and Information and Communication Technologies in all functional levels to obtain an efficient and sustainable management” (Pérez 2023). The model is namely based on functions related to “the visitor experience”, “conservation and management”, and “marketing and communication strategies”, including Technology, Sustainability, Governance, Accessibility, and Innovation and thus incorporating the five smart axes currently applied to the management of smart destinations as adopted by the above-mentioned tourism management model (ibid).

Adopting a new approach, this article examines the contemporary physiognomy of the museum as shaped by recent institutional developments and an extended literature review on the integration of emerging technologies in modern museology. Within this framework, the concept of the smart museum is articulated through the following definition:

A smart museum is a museum that optimises all its operations and functions through the appropriate use of digital technologies, staying aligned with the digital age, its mission and the needs of a widened, diverse and inclusive audience, while mobilizing their intelligence, encouraging their interaction with the museum, with each other and with other communities, and focusing on both museum exhibits and on broader social issues.

The above definition becomes more readable in the diagram below (Figure 1), which visualises and distributes the attributes of the smart museum identity into four foundational categories or pillars, the last two of which refer, characteristically, to the function of communication: alignment with museum mission (mission-oriented, sustainable), the digital age (modern-innovative), and the visitors’ needs (accessible, relevant, and attractive to an extensive audience), as well as mobilizing of individual and collective intelligence (of people and local communities). The attributes comprising these four pillars (mission-driven, technological, visitor-centered, socio-cultural) will be analyzed in detail below.

Figure 1. Smart museum concept definition diagram.

Methods

Our investigation was based on an extensive literature review, secondary data classification, and analysis, interpretation, and synthesis methods. The research synthesis method, defined as “a tool for understanding a body of literature and characteristics that enhance or diminish relationships of interest” (Steingut, Patall, and Fong 2022), was employed to capture the global state of research on the smart museum concept. This method focused on the integration of cutting-edge technologies in contemporary museums and aimed to provide a clear overview of the smart museum’s profile through a cultural lens.

More specifically, the definition of the three main research objectives described above was followed by a comprehensive literature search, involving multiple and complex queries across various available databases, specifically Google Scholar, Scopus, Emerald Insight, ScienceDirect, Springer Link, and ResearchGate. In addition, the MuseWeb database, an annual global conference where advanced research studies and applications of digital practice and innovation in museums are published, was explored and papers relevant to the research topic were gleaned. References from the international EVA (Electronic Visualisation and the Arts) conferences were also considered.

The collected materials were systematically organized into study groups by type and thematic focus. These comprised publications on specific technologies, theoretical and analytical studies, and institutional documents providing conceptual frameworks for analyzing the contemporary museum as a 21st-century smart museum—integrating technological, organizational, and experiential dimensions. Technology-oriented studies were further subdivided by focus area, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), Extended Reality (XR), Blockchain, Fusion Technologies, Digital Technologies (spanning emerging and social media forms), and Analog Modes of Intervention. All data were systematically processed and analyzed through a combination of inductive and deductive approaches, serving explanatory, descriptive, and exploratory aims. Comparative methods were employed to identify recurrent themes, conceptual trends, and evolving patterns in the discourse on the smart museum.

The study focused on both academic research, institutional documents, and museum practices related to the integration of smart solutions in museum environments worldwide (Europe, Asia, America). A general, non-exhaustive, and non-systematic approach was adopted to capture the diversity of practices and perspectives shaping the field. A broad spectrum of implementations within contemporary museums was examined, emphasizing both the tangible benefits for the museum community and the inherent challenges associated with technological transformation.

Within this framework, academic literature—including 120 peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, and peer-reviewed or editorially reviewed academic monographs or book chapters—constituted the core body of research, primarily examining the adoption of novel technologies and their impact on the physiognomy of the 21st-century museum. These were complemented by 23 additional institutional and professional sources issued by internationally recognized organizations, including major museum websites showcasing current applications of emerging technologies not yet represented in academic publications, annual reports, policy papers, and non-regulatory frameworks from international and intergovernmental bodies such as ICOM, UNESCO, OECD, and the European Union.

These complementary materials served to contextualize the evolution of digital technologies within broader ethical, cultural, and strategic frameworks, particularly in relation to challenges posed by emerging technologies such as AI. The study of the collected material—especially case studies involving emerging technologies—was embedded within a broader theoretical framework informed by conceptual models of the “experience economy” and by theories of “flow,” “value co-creation,” and “digital humanism.” Theoretical and empirical references spanning the period from 1989 to 2025 thus provided a comprehensive basis for interpreting the ongoing transformation of the museum in the digital and smart era.

At the analytical level, the main categories of sources employed were identified and classified. The analysis also examined the frequency of references to specific technologies, the distribution of focus within the XR spectrum, and the chronological and geographical distribution of peer-reviewed publications (journal articles and conference papers) by year and country. The results were visualized through corresponding charts, including pie, line, and bar/column graphs.

Two additional heatmaps were generated to elucidate the conceptual landscape of the smart museum field. The first presents a correlation matrix illustrating associations between individual publications and the identified attributes of the smart museum, encompassing both works focused on specific technological domains (e.g., IoT, XR, AI) and studies derived from the broader theoretical and institutional corpus addressing general aspects of contemporary or smart museums (Figure 6). The second heatmap visualizes the temporal distribution of the same publications, tracing the evolution of conceptualizations related to smart museum attributes over time (Figure 7). Together, these visualizations map thematic and temporal co-occurrences, revealing prevailing conceptual emphases within the literature. Although based on an extensive rather than systematic review, the identified patterns reflect the exploratory and qualitative nature of the analysis, providing an interpretive perspective on the material examined.

At the synthesis level, a conceptual model of the smart museum was developed, defining its principal categories and characteristics that approximate its ideal form. The findings were visualized using two diagrams (Figures 1, 8)—a definition diagram and a conceptual diagram of the smart museum concept—and further elaborated through three tables, which present, categorize, and detail the core attributes shaping its profile (Tables 1-3). In total, fifteen attributes were identified and synthesized into a conceptual framework portraying the smart museum through a cultural lens, providing a foundation for guiding future smart museum practices.

Findings

The analysis of the collected material first enabled the identification of the typological differentiation of the examined publications. A detailed pie chart (Figure 2) illustrates the proportional distribution of sources by publication type, encompassing academic journal articles, conference papers, academic books and book chapters, and other authoritative publications. The distribution reveals a clear methodological preference for primary, peer-reviewed research outputs. This tendency is particularly evident in the predominance of academic journal articles (82 occurrences), which, together with conference papers (27) and academic books (11), collectively account for 83.92% of all sources examined.

Figure 2. Types of publications studied.

Subsequently, the temporal and geographical distribution of academic journal articles and conference papers was analyzed (Figures 3–4). As shown in Figure 3, scholarly interest in the smart museum has exhibited a marked upward trend since 2017–2018. Between 2022 and 2025 alone, 60 publications were produced—representing 60% of the total corpus—indicating a significant surge in research activity. This progression demonstrates that the study of smart museums has evolved into a sustained and expanding field of inquiry rather than a sporadic or fragmented research phenomenon.

Figure 3. Temporal distribution of peer-reviewed articles.

Geographically, the distribution of publications reveals a notable concentration in specific regions. Italy (20 publications), China (13), and the United States (12) lead in output, followed by the United Kingdom (11) and Greece (10). Countries with moderate levels of production contributed between three and five publications, while lower-volume contributors accounted for two each (Figure 4). A diverse “long tail” of twenty countries—including Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey, and Vietnam—each produced a single publication. This pattern indicates a globally distributed yet uneven research landscape, characterized by a few dominant hubs of production and numerous emerging contributors.

Figure 4. Geographical distribution of peer-reviewed articles.

The literature review further identified seven principal technology categories. Among these, 33 research outputs broadly addressed digital technologies, complemented by more specific focuses on XR (30), Fusion Technologies (22), AI (18), IoT (8), Robotics (6), and Blockchain (1). A small subset concerned analog or non-digital technologies (3), while 22 additional publications and institutional sources constituted the theoretical-institutional corpus. Within the 30 XR-related studies, research predominantly focused on Augmented Reality (AR) applications (11), underscoring its growing importance in enhancing museum engagement, interaction, and interpretation (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Publications across the XR Spectrum.

Based on the established study categories, the analysis correlated the frequency of research references with fifteen proposed smart museum attributes (Figure 6), enabling the identification of patterns and interconnections between them. Although the overall review demonstrated that these attributes are deeply interdependent and mutually reinforcing, for analytical clarity and interpretive depth, each attribute was examined individually to facilitate a critical understanding of its nature, function, and contribution to the overarching concept of the smart museum.

Figure 6. References to smart museum attributes by publication type.

The Correlation Matrix (Figure 6) revealed several noteworthy associations. Technologies under the XR spectrum show strong correlations with the attributes of immersiveness (22 references) and educational–entertaining character (20), underscoring XR’s role in enriching visitor engagement and learning. Digital technologies display the highest association with the visitor-centered–interactive attribute (18), and moderate to high correlations with inclusivity–democratization (10) and social connectedness–relational support (9). Artificial Intelligence (AI) exhibits its strongest linkage with the upgraded attribute (8), reflecting its transformative role in optimizing museum operations and visitor interaction.

More broadly, the sources collectively associate the smart museum most prominently with visitor service enhancement (60 references), followed by the educational and entertaining role of the museum (45). High frequencies were also recorded for immersiveness (39), overall functional upgrading (34), inclusivity and democratization of cultural content (32), and social connectedness (27). Other frequently cited attributes include strategic management (24), sustainability (22), attractiveness (22), human-centered orientation (19), and interdisciplinary collaboration (16). These findings depict the smart museum as an institution increasingly defined by its dynamic engagement with visitors, its educational and participatory mission, and its responsiveness to societal needs.

A complementary correlation matrix (Figure 7) visualizes the temporal distribution of references to the identified smart museum attributes, quantifying their evolution from 1989 to 2025. Beyond the evident intensification of references after 2018—consistent with the trends observed in Figure 3—the matrix traces the introduction of “sustainability” around 2015 and its maturation between 2022 and 2025. It also highlights the stability of visitor-centered, educational, and immersive attributes across the examined period, as well as the relatively limited yet conceptually significant and consistent emphasis on the museum’s social connectedness with its wider community.

Figure 7. Temporal trends in smart museum attributes.

The findings, visualised in Table 1, provide a consolidated representation of what the smart museum of the future might be. They illuminate how the digital transformation of the museum reshapes its structure, rendering it hybrid, innovative, and technologically upgraded, while ephasizing the necessity of collaboration and interdisciplinarity to keep up with the digital age.

They also demonstrate the positive impact of technology on the visitor experience, as it provides personalization, interactivity, and participation opportunities, and its power to create immersive and engaging worlds that transform the traditional museum into a new, relevant, and engaging one for visitors, especially the youth, provided it stays in touch with their needs and ensures an unobstructed and discreet technological mediation.

The study also indicates that the integration of new and emerging technologies leads to a new type of educational-entertainment museum character, capable of facilitating visitors’ critical reflection and personal understanding of cultural heritage (CH) and at the same time socializing their experience and contributing to knowledge sharing and public awareness. Finally, they identify a challenge that technology-mediated experiences in museums can pose, namely the risk of altering or losing the sense of authenticity and neglecting the museum’s objectives, underscoring the need for smart museums to adopt a strategic-calculated approach and ensure both their sustainability and their catalytic role in the democratization of culture.

Ultimately, the findings demonstrate that the attributes of the smart museum are not discrete but interconnected, co-dependent, and mutually reinforcing. They interact dynamically within the conceptual pillars defined earlier (technological, visitor-centered, mission-driven, socio-cultural), forming a coherent, integrative framework—a “puzzle-like” structure in which each element contributes critically to shaping the comprehensive and integrative vision of the future smart museum, viewed through a cultural lens (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Smart museum conceptual diagram.

Discussion

Conclusions

The rapid technological developments in computer science that have escalated over the past 20-25 years, along with the deliberate and growing adoption of smart technologies by museum policymakers worldwide, underscore the necessity of studying the smart museum. This paper employs an extensive literature review and key theoretical tools to explore the smart museum concept, addressing three core research questions: its origins, definition, and profile. The study details its attributes based on the application of emerging technologies in 21st-century museums.

Investigating the first research question revealed that the origins of the smart museum are rooted in the extension of socio-economic developments affecting this century-old institution in the digital age. Key factors include the emergence of New Museology and cultural shifts, reduced state support, the decline of mass culture as a model of passive consumption, the development and adoption of a constructivist, interactive learning model, the recognition of a culture-centric development model, and the digital revolution. These changes are reflected in the museum’s current definition and its evolving institutional role in post-war society.

Secondly, the study identified the variety and fragmentation in the use of the term “smart” within the museum field. Efforts were made to establish a clear and comprehensive definition through a cultural lens, demonstrating that smart technologies are valuable tools for achieving the humanitarian goals of the museum rather than ends in themselves. The smart museum is thus approached holistically, extending not only within the museum through its mission and visitor experience, but also beyond, as it is shaped by the digital age and influences the intelligence of individuals and communities interacting with it.

Finally, tracing the museum of the future, an attempt was made to identify its key characteristics as study parameters and design components of a holistically smart museum, shaped through the utilization of new and emerging technologies. Potential limitations, risks, and future prospects were also addressed.

The smart museum profile was depicted through 15 attributes, grouped into four general categories that correlate the museum with the digital age, its mission, visitors’ needs, and the activation of individual and collective intelligence.

In examining the attributes of the ideal smart museum of the future, the cultural lens remains the primary and defining perspective. This lens acts as a qualitative differentiator, positioning the smart museum not merely as an aggregation of technologically enhanced functions, but as an institution whose true value lies in interpreting, contextualizing, and evaluating its cultural impact and broader societal role.

Ultimately, the smart museum concept achieves completeness and coherence only when its four foundational pillars are fully integrated and balanced, aligning technological advancement and visitor needs with the museum’s human-centered and social mission, and with its evolving role in fostering awareness and mobilizing collective intelligence within the complex and demanding context of globalization. Future case studies that adopt these attributes as analytical parameters or design principles will be instrumental for assessing this framework’s validity and advancing the conceptual evolution of the smart museum.