DIGICHer Project
Measure your co-creation maturity across six dimensions of inclusive heritage digitisation
This self-assessment tool measures how inclusive your heritage digitisation initiative is. It evaluates co-creation maturity across six dimensions and 21 indicators, helping you identify strengths and areas for improvement. For more details about the instrument and its methodology, see the About the Instrument tab.
Choose a digitisation initiative you are familiar with and assess it using 21 indicators grouped in 6 dimensions, plus 1 cross-cutting CARE Principles indicator. For each indicator, select the maturity level that best matches the current state of your initiative. The Results tab will show your co-creation maturity profile with tailored recommendations.
Your digitisation initiative's maturity profile across the six dimensions and CARE Principles
This monitoring instrument was developed by the DIGICHer project (Digitisation of Cultural Heritage of Minority Communities for Equity and Renewed Engagement), a European Union Horizon Europe research project (Grant Agreement No. 101132481). It is part of Deliverable 6.2: "Monitoring methodology for inclusive digitisation of minority cultural heritage."
The instrument measures co-creation maturity: the degree to which heritage digitisation is a genuinely shared process between cultural heritage institutions and the minority communities whose heritage is being digitised. It provides a structured diagnostic framework for identifying strengths, gaps, and areas for improvement.
Most cultural heritage institutions that digitise minority heritage lack structured tools for assessing whether their processes are inclusive, ethically governed, or co-created with the communities whose heritage is at stake. A review of 32 existing evaluation frameworks in the cultural heritage digitisation field confirmed three substantive gaps: structured participatory indicators, minority-centred assessment perspectives, and ethical governance measures. This instrument was designed to address those gaps.
The instrument builds on the Digital Co-Creation Index (DCI), a multidimensional analytical framework developed in earlier European research on digital social innovation. The monitoring dimensions were derived from a Theory of Change developed in DIGICHer Work Package 4, drawing on 47 coded criteria from systematic analysis of socio-economic and end-user requirements.
The 20 scored indicators were translated from this criteria corpus following principles of conceptual relevance to co-creation, operational measurability, and cross-domain representativeness. Each indicator uses a rubric-based maturity scale with observable, evidence-based level descriptions rather than subjective agreement ratings.
The instrument was validated through two rounds of expert assessment: a consortium workshop at the KB National Library of the Netherlands in The Hague (March 2026), and an external specialist review covering geographic and disciplinary diversity across the cultural heritage sector.
The 20 indicators are organised across six dimensions that correspond to three diagnostic stages (enabling conditions, processes, and outputs) plus cross-cutting elements. When these stages reinforce one another, digitisation approaches co-creation maturity: a state of alignment among social, legal-ethical, and technological conditions.
Dimension 1: Inclusive Resourcing and Sustainability. Assesses whether the financial, governance, and stewardship foundations for inclusive digitisation are in place. Inclusive practice depends on dedicated resources, clearly assigned responsibilities, and formal partnerships that ensure the initiative is sustainable beyond the initial project period.
Dimension 2: Minority Capacity and Empowerment. Assesses whether minority communities and their representatives have the capacity and authority to participate meaningfully in the digitisation process. Participation without the skills, support, or decision-making authority to shape outcomes risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
Dimension 3: Social Inclusion and Participation. Assesses whether the people involved in the digitisation initiative reflect the diversity of the community whose heritage is being digitised, and whether the institution actively enables broad and sustained engagement beyond already-connected stakeholders.
Dimension 4: Equitable Access and Technology. Assesses whether the digital tools, platforms, and technical quality of the initiative are designed to serve the communities whose heritage is at stake, not only institutional or research users. Technology is not neutral: choices about platforms, formats, languages, and interface design shape who can access and benefit from digitised heritage.
Dimension 5: Minority Heritage Value and Engagement. Assesses whether the digitisation initiative reflects the values, meanings, and priorities of the minority community rather than exclusively institutional or research agendas. What gets digitised, how it is described and contextualised, and whether community knowledge is treated as authoritative all shape whose heritage narrative prevails.
Dimension 6: Cultural Integrity and Authenticity. Assesses whether the digitisation process protects the cultural integrity of minority heritage through formal validation, ethical preservation planning, and operational safeguards for consent and rights. Cultural integrity requires more than good intentions: it depends on enforceable protocols for consent, access restrictions, and rights management.
The instrument includes one cross-cutting CARE Principles indicator, assessed on the same three-level maturity scale as the 20 dimension indicators and displayed separately in the results dashboard. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) provide the normative framework that runs across all six dimensions.
Unlike the six dimensions, which measure specific operational and structural conditions, the CARE indicator assesses whether the digitisation initiative as a whole respects indigenous and minority data sovereignty. The 20 scored indicators make the four CARE principles observable across the instrument: Collective Benefit through community benefits and co-selection indicators, Authority to Control through governance and ownership indicators, Responsibility through consent and access restriction indicators, and Ethics through validation and rights management indicators.
The CARE indicator score is displayed alongside the six dimension scores but is excluded from the overall co-creation maturity score, ensuring that the overall score reflects process quality while the CARE score provides a distinct ethical accountability check.
All 21 items are assessed on a three-point maturity scale representing the degree to which each condition is present at the moment of assessment:
Not yet in place (0) The condition described by the indicator is absent or only informally acknowledged. There is no documented evidence of implementation.
Emerging (1) Initial steps have been taken. Some elements are present but implementation is partial, inconsistent, or not yet formalised.
Established (2) The condition is systematically implemented, documented, and embedded in institutional practice.
Dimension scores are calculated as the arithmetic mean of individual indicator scores, producing a value between 0 and 2. The overall co-creation maturity score is the mean of all six dimension scores.
Start by providing context through the Case Profile (optional but recommended for cross-case analysis). Then assess your initiative using the 21 indicators. For each, read the rubric descriptions and select the level that best matches the current state. Use the notes fields to document evidence, current practices, or planned actions. When finished, the Results tab will display your co-creation maturity profile with dimension scores, an overall assessment, and tailored recommendations with links to relevant resources.
For more details about the DIGICHer project, the full methodology, the review of 32 existing evaluation frameworks, the validation process, and supporting resources, visit www.digicher-project.eu.
If a museum, archive, library, or research project is digitising your community's cultural heritage, this page is written for you. It does not matter whether you are formally involved in the project or just learning about it. You do not need to fill in the institutional assessment on the other tabs. This guide will help you understand what inclusive digitisation should look like, what you can reasonably expect from institutions, and how to start a conversation about it.
When an institution digitises your community's heritage, you should be part of the process, not just an audience for the results. That means being consulted about which materials are selected, having the opportunity to review how your heritage is described and presented, and being able to set conditions on who can access sensitive or sacred content. It means knowing who will look after the digital collection in ten or twenty years, and knowing that consent can be revisited at any stage. It also means receiving real support -- training, resources, and accessible tools -- so that participation is meaningful rather than symbolic.
Below are questions you can bring to a meeting with the institution, send in a letter, or use to frame your own community discussion. Tap any topic to see the questions.
How will this project be funded long-term? Will community members be compensated for their time and knowledge? Who will be responsible for maintaining the digitised collection after the project ends? What happens to the digital materials if the funding runs out?
What role will community members have in decision-making -- advisory, or with real authority? What training or support will be provided so that community members can participate fully? Will community representatives hold formal positions in the project governance, or is this informal?
How will the project ensure that all parts of the community are represented, including elders, youth, and speakers of minority languages? How will outreach reach people who are not already connected to the institution? What about community members who live in rural areas or have limited internet access?
Will the digital tools and platforms be available in your language? Can they be used on mobile devices or with limited internet connectivity? Will community members be able to test the tools and provide feedback before they are finalised?
How will the institution ensure that your heritage is presented accurately and in a way that reflects your community's understanding, not just an academic perspective? Can you review and approve materials before they are made public? How will the digitised materials be useful to your community, not just to researchers?
Who will own the digitised materials? How will the institution handle content that is sensitive, sacred, or restricted? What consent processes will be used, and can consent be withdrawn later? Will Traditional Knowledge labels or other cultural protocols be applied? What safeguards prevent your heritage from being used in ways you did not agree to?