Assessment:Costs:Toolkit

2024-11-20T19:55:07Z

Rsenese:

==Cost Assessment Toolkit==

This site is currently under development by the Cost Assessment Working Group. Please check back at the end of 2024.

==In Sourcing vs Outsourcing==

The case studies include information about what the institution is like, the collection being digitized, and the factors that affect the digitization method chosen - number of items, fragility, staffing, equipment, money, etc. The case studies explore what the initial choice was - insource, outsource, both - how digitization went, and a brief evaluation about the lessons learned about that approach. They discuss whether the project was entirely successful, proved too difficult as scoped originally, or had mixed results - some parts were completed well, but other parts of the project proved too difficult to complete. All situations are informative.

Case studies are available for review by original format and by approach/solution.

==== '''Original Format''' ====

''Audio / Video / Moving Image''
*Clemson University - AV Digitization
*Hoover case study - Audio tapes
*MIT Libraries case study - AVMI materials
*UMichigan - Super 8 film

''Still Image''
*Hoover case study - Posters
*UMichigan - Medieval Manuscripts and Scrolls
*UMichigan - Scrapbooks and Photo Albums
*University of North Texas - Yearbook Digitization

''Text''
*Hoover case study - Text-Based Archival Collection
*New York University case study - Access level (books)
*UCalgary case study - Administrative documents archival collection

==== Approach/Solution ====

''Insourced''
*Hoover case study - Text-Based Archival Collection
*UMichigan - Medieval Manuscripts and Scrolls
*UMichigan - Scrapbooks and Photo Albums

''Outsourced''
*Clemson University - AV Digitization
*Hoover Case study - Audio tapes
*MIT Libraries case study - AVMI materials
*University of North Texas - Yearbook Digitization

''Hybrid/Blended''
*Hoover Case study - Posters
*UCalgary Case study - Administrative documents archival collection

''Undecided''
*New York University case study - Access level (Books)
*UMichigan - Super 8 film

==== Institutional Information ====

Respondents were given the option to provide information about their institutions in relation to their case studies. The aim was to present this information to readers so they can see if their peers have similar circumstances and how they handled them.

Categories included: institution size, digitization experience, concerns about insourcing vs outsourcing, risk tolerance for outsourced digitization, risk tolerance for copyright, funding, IT resources, and skills available.

Hoover Institution
New York University
UMichigan

==Scans per Linear Feet==

The Cost Assessment Scans Per Linear Feet Subgroup was created to fact check current estimations published online for calculating images per linear feet. We also evaluated how differing digitization and housing practices as well as content type changed the amount of scans per linear foot. The results from this work can be used when determining the cost of a project using the cost calculator and/or other means of assessing costs like conversations with vendors.

==== Data ====

Further information about the survey, gathered data, and calculations can be found here: https://osf.io/ag9z3/

''Content Type (Min / Average / Max) Linear Feet''

*Photographs: 63 entries (658 / 1,871 / 2,515)
*Unbound pages: 120 entries (393 / 1,914 / 6,849)
*Mixed: Unbound pages, bound/folded paper documents: 15 entries (1,482 / 2,125 / 4,274)
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|-
! Content Type (Linear Feet) !! Number of Entries !! Minimum !! Average !! Maximum
|-
| Photographs || 63 || 658 || 1,871 || 2,515
|-
| Unbound Pages || 120 || 393 || 1,914 || 6,849
|-
| Mixed: Unbound Pages, Bound/Folded Documents || 15 || 1,482 || 2,125 || 4,274
|}

''Box Type (Min / Average / Max) Linear Feet''

*Full Hollinger: 168 entries (103 / 2108 / 6,849)
*Paige/Banker/Records (filed legal): 64 entries (658 / 1,994 / 4,141)
*Paige/Banker/Records (filed letter): 17 entries (1,792 / 2,469 / 3,742)

{| class="wikitable"
|+
|-
! Box Type (Linear Feet) !! Number of Entries !! Minimum !! Average !! Maximum
|-
| Full Hollinger || 168 || 103 || 2,108 || 6,849
|-
| Paige/Banker/Records (filed legal) || 64 || 658 || 1,994 || 4,141
|-
| Paige/Banker/Records (filed letter) || 17 || 1,792 || 2,469 || 3,742
|}

Images per Box Type (Not in linear feet)

*Full Hollinger: 168 entries (45 / 923 / 3,000)
*Paige/Banker/Records (filed legal): 64 entries (672 / 2,007 / 3,451)
*Paige/Banker/Records (filed letter): 17 entries (2,009 / 2,951 / 4677)
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|-
! Box Type (Not in Linear Feet) !! Number of Entries !! Minimum !! Average !! Maximum
|-
| Full Hollinger || 168 || 45 || 923 || 3,000
|-
| Paige/Banker/Records (filed legal) || 64 || 672 || 2,007 || 3,451
|-
| Paige/Banker/Records (filed letter) || 17 || 2,009 || 2,951 || 4,677
|}

==== How to Use This Data: ====

''General Use:''
The above data can be used to calculate and estimate the number of images likely to be produced by a digitization project. You can tailor your calculations based on box type, linear feet, and/or content type. Depending on your institution's processing practices, you may fall to one side of the min/average/max spectrum. Keep that in mind as you choose the number to use in your calculations.

''Using with the Cost Calculator:''
If using the cost calculator on DLF’s website, the calculator asks for a number of images. Use the appropriate chart to estimate the number of images for your project. Just a reminder, the cost calculator is no longer being maintained so use at your own risk.

''Using with the Cost Calculator Worksheet:''
The worksheet uses items and scans per item to calculate your number of estimated images. You can convert our data to fit this equation in multiple ways. Here are two examples:

Example 1: Column B represents the total amount of images you estimate using whichever chart is relevant to the data you have (boxes or linear feet). Since we’re calculating the number of images instead of items you would have a 1 to 1 ratio of images to “item”. So, column C is set to 1.

You have a 10 linear feet collection of Mixed: Unbound Pages, Bound/Folded Documents. You notice that your boxes are packed tight. In this scenario, it would be appropriate to select the max number on the scale, which is 4,274 images/linear foot. This means you would have 42,740 images. 42,740 would be the number for column B and 1 in column C.

Example 2: Column B represents the number of boxes you have. Column C represents the number of images you have selected from the chart Images per Box Type (Not in linear feet).

[Insert screenshot of spreadsheet]

You have a 10 Hollinger box collection of mixed: unbound pages, bound/folded documents. You notice that the boxes aren’t loose but aren’t packed tight. In this scenario, it would be appropriate to select the average number on the scale which is 2,951. In column B you would input 10, as the boxes will act as items, and in column C, 2,951 which is the number of images per item. Your total estimated image count would be 29,510.

==Vendor Registry==
The Vendor Registry group was created to get feedback from the library digitization community about their experiences with equipment and service digitization vendors within the cultural heritage sector. In 2023 the Vendor Registry subgroup circulated two surveys. Both surveys provided a list of vendors curated from a previous vendor registry, as well as provided an opportunity for respondents to add vendors to the list. Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they would be available to be contacted directly to answer questions.

The subgroup compiled the survey results into an overview document that listed each vendor, its
website, a description of product or services received, and overall service experience. These results were then made publicly available via [https://osf.io/6m8da/ Reformatting Service & Equipment Vendor Registry Survey Results]. The Survey Results document also included an indicator whether there were survey respondents that would be willing to share their contact information with others to provide additional details about their experiences.

Assessment:Costs:Toolkit

2024-11-20T19:29:47Z

Rsenese:

==Cost Assessment Toolkit==

This site is currently under development by the Cost Assessment Working Group. Please check back at the end of 2024.

==In Sourcing vs Outsourcing==

The case studies include information about what the institution is like, the collection being digitized, and the factors that affect the digitization method chosen - number of items, fragility, staffing, equipment, money, etc. The case studies explore what the initial choice was - insource, outsource, both - how digitization went, and a brief evaluation about the lessons learned about that approach. They discuss whether the project was entirely successful, proved too difficult as scoped originally, or had mixed results - some parts were completed well, but other parts of the project proved too difficult to complete. All situations are informative.

Case studies are available for review by original format and by approach/solution.

==== '''Original Format''' ====

''Audio / Video / Moving Image''
*Clemson University - AV Digitization
*Hoover case study - Audio tapes
*MIT Libraries case study - AVMI materials
*UMichigan - Super 8 film

''Still Image''
*Hoover case study - Posters
*UMichigan - Medieval Manuscripts and Scrolls
*UMichigan - Scrapbooks and Photo Albums
*University of North Texas - Yearbook Digitization

''Text''
*Hoover case study - Text-Based Archival Collection
*New York University case study - Access level (books)
*UCalgary case study - Administrative documents archival collection

==== Approach/Solution ====

''Insourced''
*Hoover case study - Text-Based Archival Collection
*UMichigan - Medieval Manuscripts and Scrolls
*UMichigan - Scrapbooks and Photo Albums

''Outsourced''
*Clemson University - AV Digitization
*Hoover Case study - Audio tapes
*MIT Libraries case study - AVMI materials
*University of North Texas - Yearbook Digitization

''Hybrid/Blended''
*Hoover Case study - Posters
*UCalgary Case study - Administrative documents archival collection

''Undecided''
*New York University case study - Access level (Books)
*UMichigan - Super 8 film

==== Institutional Information ====

Respondents were given the option to provide information about their institutions in relation to their case studies. The aim was to present this information to readers so they can see if their peers have similar circumstances and how they handled them.

Categories included: institution size, digitization experience, concerns about insourcing vs outsourcing, risk tolerance for outsourced digitization, risk tolerance for copyright, funding, IT resources, and skills available.

Hoover Institution
New York University
UMichigan

==Scans per Linear Feet==

The Cost Assessment Scans Per Linear Feet Subgroup was created to fact check current estimations published online for calculating images per linear feet. We also evaluated how differing digitization and housing practices as well as content type changed the amount of scans per linear foot. The results from this work can be used when determining the cost of a project using the cost calculator and/or other means of assessing costs like conversations with vendors.

==== Data ====

Further information about the survey, gathered data, and calculations can be found here: https://osf.io/ag9z3/

''Content Type (Min / Average / Max) Linear Feet''

*Photographs: 63 entries (658 / 1,871 / 2,515)
*Unbound pages: 120 entries (393 / 1,914 / 6,849)
*Mixed: Unbound pages, bound/folded paper documents: 15 entries (1,482 / 2,125 / 4,274)
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|-
! Content Type (Linear Feet) !! Number of Entries !! Minimum !! Average !! Maximum
|-
| Photographs || 63 || 658 || 1,871 || 2,515
|-
| Unbound Pages || 120 || 393 || 1,914 || 6,849
|-
| Mixed: Unbound Pages, Bound/Folded Documents || 15 || 1,482 || 2,125 || 4,274
|}

''Box Type (Min / Average / Max) Linear Feet''

*Full Hollinger: 168 entries (103 / 2108 / 6,849)
*Paige/Banker/Records (filed legal): 64 entries (658 / 1,994 / 4,141)
*Paige/Banker/Records (filed letter): 17 entries (1,792 / 2,469 / 3,742)

{| class="wikitable"
|+
|-
! Box Type (Linear Feet) !! Number of Entries !! Minimum !! Average !! Maximum
|-
| Full Hollinger || 168 || 103 || 2,108 || 6,849
|-
| Paige/Banker/Records (filed legal) || 64 || 658 || 1,994 || 4,141
|-
| Paige/Banker/Records (filed letter) || 17 || 1,792 || 2,469 || 3,742
|}

Images per Box Type (Not in linear feet)

*Full Hollinger: 168 entries (45 / 923 / 3,000)
*Paige/Banker/Records (filed legal): 64 entries (672 / 2,007 / 3,451)
*Paige/Banker/Records (filed letter): 17 entries (2,009 / 2,951 / 4677)
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|-
! Box Type (Not in Linear Feet) !! Number of Entries !! Minimum !! Average !! Maximum
|-
| Full Hollinger || 168 || 45 || 923 || 3,000
|-
| Paige/Banker/Records (filed legal) || 64 || 672 || 2,007 || 3,451
|-
| Paige/Banker/Records (filed letter) || 17 || 2,009 || 2,951 || 4,677
|}

==== How to Use This Data: ====

''General Use:''
The above data can be used to calculate and estimate the number of images likely to be produced by a digitization project. You can tailor your calculations based on box type, linear feet, and/or content type. Depending on your institution's processing practices, you may fall to one side of the min/average/max spectrum. Keep that in mind as you choose the number to use in your calculations.

''Using with the Cost Calculator:''
If using the cost calculator on DLF’s website, the calculator asks for a number of images. Use the appropriate chart to estimate the number of images for your project. Just a reminder, the cost calculator is no longer being maintained so use at your own risk.

''Using with the Cost Calculator Worksheet:''
The worksheet uses items and scans per item to calculate your number of estimated images. You can convert our data to fit this equation in multiple ways. Here are two examples:

Example 1: Column B represents the total amount of images you estimate using whichever chart is relevant to the data you have (boxes or linear feet). Since we’re calculating the number of images instead of items you would have a 1 to 1 ratio of images to “item”. So, column C is set to 1.

You have a 10 linear feet collection of Mixed: Unbound Pages, Bound/Folded Documents. You notice that your boxes are packed tight. In this scenario, it would be appropriate to select the max number on the scale, which is 4,274 images/linear foot. This means you would have 42,740 images. 42,740 would be the number for column B and 1 in column C.

Example 2: Column B represents the number of boxes you have. Column C represents the number of images you have selected from the chart Images per Box Type (Not in linear feet).

[Insert screenshot of spreadsheet]

You have a 10 Hollinger box collection of mixed: unbound pages, bound/folded documents. You notice that the boxes aren’t loose but aren’t packed tight. In this scenario, it would be appropriate to select the average number on the scale which is 2,951. In column B you would input 10, as the boxes will act as items, and in column C, 2,951 which is the number of images per item. Your total estimated image count would be 29,510.

==Vendor Registry==
The Vendor Registry group was created to get feedback from the library digitization community about their experiences with equipment and service digitization vendors within the cultural heritage sector. In 2023 the Vendor Registry subgroup circulated two surveys. Both surveys provided a list of vendors curated from a previous vendor registry, as well as provided an opportunity for respondents to add vendors to the list. Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they would be available to be contacted directly to answer questions.

The subgroup compiled the survey results into an overview document that listed each vendor, its
website, a description of product or services received, and overall service experience. These results were then made publicly available via Reformatting Service & Equipment Vendor Registry Survey Results. The Survey Results document also included an indicator whether there were survey respondents that would be willing to share their contact information with others to provide additional details about their experiences.

2023-12-11T20:47:19Z

Rsenese: /* 2023 */

=DLF Cost Working Group=
The Cost group’s primary task has traditionally been to collect, aggregate, and share data on the time (and money) it takes to perform various tasks involved in the digitization process to help with project planning and benchmarking. When the group formed at the 2014 DLF Forum, we found few practical resources geared towards helping the community determine the cost of digitization. To help address this gap, we built a Digitization Cost Calculator [http://dashboard.diglib.org/ Digitization Cost Calculator] that allows individuals to enter information about a project and get back an estimate of the staffing costs and time needed to complete it based on real data from the community.

Over the last few years, we have expanded our focus to work on broader tools and resources to create a more expansive toolkit that will serve a wider range of digitization programs. We currently have six active subgroups working on the following areas of interest: insourcing vs. outsourcing, a registry for vendors, assessing scans per linear feet, best practices, cost estimation (otherwise known as the feature of the cost calculator). And our final group is working on analyzing the results of our Still Image Digitization Costs Assessment Survey administered in 2021.

==Get Involved==

===Working Group Membership===
The Cost Assessment working group always welcomes new members. Members meet regularly to work on different projects. If you are interested in joining, please join us at one of our regular monthly meetings, or contact the co-facilitators.

====Standing working meetings====
2023 - 2024 working meetings are held on the '''second Monday''' of each month at '''3pm''' (eastern) / '''2pm''' (central) / '''1pm''' (mountain) / '''12pm''' (pacific).

See current meeting minutes at [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AGH5fb1SBO2TGYp5ZXJecE8H8aOAZnpoSWbBEIBVuhc/edit#heading=h.nvzgguw3itde Meeting & Agenda Notes 2023] and [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_ivMzIc4DPNjR86Gn7qsRZFGDF6ySotb_D9G-nTZarM/edit#heading=h.nvzgguw3itde Meeting Agendas & Notes 2022].

'''Meeting Connection Information:'''

Email DLF at info@diglib.org for call-in information.


==Group Work==
===[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AGH5fb1SBO2TGYp5ZXJecE8H8aOAZnpoSWbBEIBVuhc/edit 2023 Work]===
This year we will be focusing on analysis of the data produced by our surveys of current experiences and practices. We are looking forward to sharing our findings later this year and utilizing the provided insights to chart the next phase of our working group. 

====Take our surveys!====
[[File:Noun-survey-1450024.png|thumb|alt=Survey icon]]
If you work in the field of cultural heritage digitization, we'd appreciate your input via any or all of the following surveys. 
'''Best Practices:''' 
<nowiki>https://bit.ly/DLFbestpractices</nowiki>
* This survey is designed to gather and share experiences about digitization practices and standards adhered to at different institutions.
* Time estimate: 15-20 minutes
'''Equipment Vendors:''' 
<nowiki>https://bit.ly/DLFequipment</nowiki>
* This survey is designed to gather and share experiences working with digitization equipment vendors.
* Time estimate: 5-10 minutes

'''Images per Linear Feet (aka, how many images per box did you get):''' 
<nowiki>https://bit.ly/DLFimagesurvey</nowiki>
* This survey is designed to gather data about how many images result from different containers, material type, and capture methodology combinations. This data will be used to help institutions during project planning.
* Time estimate: 5 minutes
'''Reformatting Service Vendors:''' 
<nowiki>https://bit.ly/DLFvendorsurvey</nowiki>
* This survey is designed to gather and share experiences working with reformatting service vendors.
* Time estimate: 5-10 minutes
The data gathered through these surveys will assist us in our efforts to produce resources to inform our colleagues in their work around cost assessment of digitization in the cultural heritage field. The surveys do collect email addresses but will not be shared outside of the DLF Assessment Interest Group unless you agree to share your information.

''Thank you for your support!''

===[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_ivMzIc4DPNjR86Gn7qsRZFGDF6ySotb_D9G-nTZarM/edit 2022 Work]===
In 2022, our focus was to support the work of project subgroups. In the Fall of 2022 through January 31, 2023, short surveys were administered to assist us in our efforts to produce resources to inform our colleagues in their work around cost assessment of digitization in the cultural heritage field. The survey topics were: best practices and standards, experience working with equipment vendors, the number of image captured per linear foot for different materials and container types, and experiences working with reformatting service vendors. 

===[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LGMi2H40m0f4ijYxDEdBhgwVvLb99xKtNfA39qcTivg/edit 2021 Work]===
In 2021, building on the development of the Digitization Cost Calculator, the Cost Group is shifting directions to create a more expansive toolkit that will serve a wider range of digitization labs. Beginning with a survey in early 2021, the Cost group sought information from a variety of digitization stakeholders from across the Digital Library Federation to inform new initiatives. The data collected will be used to help create resources for calculating and assessing institutional commitments necessary for successful digitization projects or starting a digitization program. The group has since formed 6 project subgroups to work on various resources and issues: insourcing vs. outsourcing, a registry for vendors, assessing scans per linear feet, best practices, cost estimation (otherwise known as the feature of the cost calculator), and a survey subgroup to analyze the results of our Still Image Digitization Costs Assessment Survey. 

===[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bDRyFF7SLxR5rcMqpFy7WYAdAogRFNX0hiSiD7S8YYc/edit 2020 Work]===
Beginning in 2020, the DLF Cost group began to imagine different ways to assess costs. Much of the year has centered on discussions of how, in addition to the cost calculator, the group can facilitate access to useful tools to organizations who want to plan digitization projects. The group drafted a survey to seek information from a variety of digitization stakeholders from across the field to inform new cost assessment initiatives for the group. 

===[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbUz5mThnxoJKDjCk_L2_p8SKEzye4OO7fnjVCrGjks/edit 2019 Work]===
2019 was a year of reflection and transition for the Cost Working Group. Members talked about the future directions of the group and how it would continue to proceed with the cost calculator. 

===[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xl6EsWSMHRd3m-7033o2oOLvU8STj0kVLD3XssezKMY/edit?usp=sharing 2018 Work]===
The group’s initial goal for 2018 is to survey the community and conduct user interviews and user testing of the calculator. We plan to use the information captured from the community to help plan and prioritize our future work. 

===[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j4reOVgVYTsOjMz3aRqP5TLH_nMOkRjMZKAoq1NCeQk/edit?usp=sharing 2017 Work]===
2017 focused on making improvements to the Calculator. We organized the second annual [https://www.diglib.org/aig-assessments-day-of-data-ii/ Day of Data II] in July to collect additional community data. We also added a number of [calculator enhancements calculator enhancements], including the addition of new fields and new features. 

===[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eQg8VuX6zlJ4nyPrzhttRKEB1T0ApaZKvjF3aTTCaCk/edit?usp=sharing 2016 Work]===
The data definitions authored by the cost assessment working group informed a modified structure of the calculator with expanded capabilities that was completed in 2016 with the assistance of Wayne Graham, Technical Director at CLIR and DLF. We needed at least one set of data in each of the 20 categories, as well as for each type of image capture device and for each level of metadata creation and quality control to support the modified structure. We gathered 85 data submissions in summer of 2016 with a Day of Data campaign, spent the fall reviewing and normalizing submissions, and released the 2.0 version of the calculator on November 7, 2016. 

===[https://docs.google.com/a/ucsb.edu/document/d/1YZxppATnracRA9jMNJyxMTpbkXyT5SkPKcXgIWwlUPo/edit?usp=sharing 2015 Work]===
In 2014 a beta version of a [http://statelibrarync.org/plstats/digitization_calculator.php Library Digitization Cost Calculator] was developed to assist organizations in estimating the costs for digitizing collections and initiate a conversation at the 2014 DLF Forum around cost assessment in digital libraries. The original Digitization Cost Calculator was built as a proof of concept and contains data from only a handful of institutions. In spring of 2014, the Cost Assessment working group of the DLF Assessment Interest Group was subsequently founded. This group was tasked with drafting [https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jTJmCzKsa83BMdlgKj239Shqcbglq7I4EfxJIWWDQo/edit best practices and guidelines for the collection of time data for various digitization processes], which are used to standardize collection of such data in the field as well as to guide data submissions to the Digital Cost Calculator. The guidelines and definitions are organized according to some of the typical stages of a library project.

In August 2015, the group produced [https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4veUYJxzAmSUFFQYWNrS0hBLWc wire frames] showing the planned interface and functionality of the Digitization Cost Calculator 2.0, as well as [https://drive.google.com/a/ucsb.edu/file/d/0B4veUYJxzAmSN2FRaXJhdFRELTQ/view?usp=sharing wireframes of how results would appear].

In September 2015, the group released a [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s1bHzkB3SSyufaoZS0JZhbVQ1AZfRgUsZ0iOcKZ3Q0k/edit call for data submissions] using the new guidelines and a new [https://duke.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3OtqSEAbpl2QDl3 data submission form].

==Digitization Cost Calculator==
The Cost Assessment Working Group's primary project has been to build and maintain the [http://dashboard.diglib.org/ Digitization Cost Calculator]. The source code for the calculator is available via the [https://github.com/clirdlf/digitization_cost_calculator Calculator's GitHub repository]. Starting in 2020, we explored different possible outputs that move beyond the cost calculator, but with the same emphasis on helping practitioners and managers better estimate the costs of digital projects going forward.

==Publication Information==
*[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yFWNWonZXHEFagI0A4ujeCl6U7SriJbfmqAgFGLA-Os/edit?usp=sharing Cost Assessment Bibliography]
*[https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jTJmCzKsa83BMdlgKj239Shqcbglq7I4EfxJIWWDQo/edit Best practices and guidelines for the collection of time data for digitization processes]

==Project Team==
===2023===
* Julia Simic, University of Oregon (co-facilitator)
* Rachel Senese, Georgia State University (co-facilitator and coordinator of the Scans per Linear Feet subgroup)
* Christina Deane, University of Virginia
* Roberta Dupuis-Devlin, University of Illinois, Chicago
* Chrissy Huhn, University of California, Berkeley
* Deirdre Joyce, Syracuse University
* Kimberly Kennedy, Northeastern University (former coordinator of the Registry for Vendors subgroup)
* Marissa Kings, University of California, Los Angeles
* Elizabeth La Beaud, University of Southern Mississippi
* Barb Laufersweiler, University of Oklahoma (coordinator of the Cost Calculator subgroup)
* Jenn Morris, MIT
* Roel Munoz, Princeton University
* Zvi Muskal, United Nations
* Suzanne Preate, Syracuse University
* Dana Reijerkerk, Stony Brook University
* Kelly Riddle, LA County Public Library
* Kathryn Ruddock, University of Calgary
* Emma Stanford, Stanford University (coordinator of the Best Practices subgroup)
* Michael Stasiak, New York University
* Larry Wentzel, University of Michigan (coordinator of the Insourcing vs. Outsourcing subgroup)
* Shannon Willis, Clemson University
* Lisa Wright, University of Rochester
* Biz Gallo, Library of Michigan, (coordinator of the Registry for Vendors subgroup)

===2022===
* Suzanne Preate, Syracuse University (co-facilitator)
* Julia Simic, University of Oregon (co-facilitator)
* Christina Deane, University of Virginia
* Roberta Dupuis-Devlin, University of Illinois, Chicago
* Biz Gallo, Library of Michigan
* Chrissy Huhn, University of California, Berkeley
* Deirdre Joyce, Syracuse University
* Kimberly Kennedy, Northeastern University (coordinator of the Vendor Registry subgroup)
* Marissa Kings, University of California, Los Angeles
* Elizabeth La Beaud, University of Southern Mississippi
* Barb Laufersweiler, University of Oklahoma (coordinator of the Cost Calculator subgroup)
* Jenn Morris, MIT
* Roel Munoz, Princeton University
* Zvi Muskal, United Nations
* Kelly Riddle, LA County Public Library
* Kathryn Ruddock, University of Calgary
* Rachel Senese, Georgia State University (coordinator of the Linear Feet subgroup)
* Ian Song, Simon Fraser University
* Emma Stanford, Stanford University (coordinator of the Best Practices subgroup)
* Larry Wentzel, University of Michigan (coordinator of the Insourcing v. Outsourcing subgroup)
* Shannon Willis, Clemson University
* Lisa Wright, University of Rochester

===2021===
* Shannon Willis, University of North Texas (co-facilitator)
* Suzanne Preate, Syracuse University (co-facilitator)
* Christina M. Deane, University of Virginia
* Roberta Dupuis-Devlin, University of Illinois, Chicago
* Laura Gentry, University of Alabama
* Wayne Graham, CLIR (technical lead on Cost Calculator)
* Chrissy Huhn, University of California, Berkeley
* Deirdre Joyce, Syracuse University
* Marissa Kings, University of California, Los Angeles
* Elizabeth La Beaud, University of Southern Mississippi
* Barbara Laufersweiler, University of Oklahoma (coordinator of the Cost Calculator subgroup)
* Roel Munoz, Princeton University
* Zvi Muskal, United Nations
* Timothy Provenzano, University of Arizona (coordinator of the Registry for Vendors subgroup)
* Kelly Riddle, LA County Library
* Kathryn Ruddock, University of Calgary
* Rachel Senese, Georgia State University
* Julia Simic, University of Oregon
* Emma Stanford, Stanford University (coordinator of the Best Practices subgroup)
* Michael Stasiak, New York University
* Emily Weirich, University of Arizona (coordinator of the Survey subgroup)
* Larry Wentzel, University of Michigan (coordinator of the Insourcing v. Outsourcing subgroup)
* Lisa Wright, University of Rochester

===2020===
* Deirdre Joyce, Syracuse University (co-facilitator)
* Shannon Willis, University of North Texas (co-facilitator)
* Wayne Graham, CLIR (technical lead on Cost Calculator)
* Christina M. Deane, University of Virginia
* Laura Gentry, University of Alabama
* Roel Munoz, Princeton University
* Suzanne Preate, Syracuse University
* Emily Weirich, University of Arizona
* Lisa Wright, University of Rochester

===2019===
* Chrissy Rissmeyer, University of California, Santa Barbara (co-facilitator)
* Sarah Severson, University of Alberta Libraries, (co-facilitator)
* Deirdre Joyce, Syracuse University (co-facilitator)
* Wayne Graham, CLIR (technical lead on Cost Calculator)
* David Bliss, University of Texas at Austin
* Greg Davis, Iowa State University
* Shannon Willis, University of North Texas Libraries
* Gabriella Williams, University of Miami
* Dan Zellner, Northwestern University

===2018===
* Joyce Chapman, Duke University (co-coordinator)
* Chrissy Rissmeyer, University of California, Santa Barbara (co-coordinator)
* Wayne Graham, CLIR (technical lead on Cost Calculator)
* David Bliss, University of Texas at Austin
* Greg Davis, Iowa State University
* Ann Hanlon, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
* Deirdre Joyce, Syracuse University
* Sarah Severson, McGill University Library
* Gabriella Williams, University of Miami
* Dan Zellner, Northwestern University

===2017===
* Joyce Chapman, Duke University (coordinator)
* Wayne Graham, CLIR (technical lead on Cost Calculator)
* Ann Hanlon, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
* Deirdre Joyce, Syracuse University
* Genya O'Gara, VIVA
* Chrissy Rissmeyer, University of California, Santa Barbara
* Sarah Severson, McGill University Library
* Dan Zellner, Northwestern University

===2016===
* Joyce Chapman, Duke University, (coordinator)
* Wayne Graham, CLIR (technical lead on Cost Calculator)
* Jane Davis, Saint Louis Federal Reserve Bank
* Ann Hanlon, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
* Kinza Masood, University of Utah
* Genya O'Gara, VIVA
* Chrissy Rissmeyer, University of California, Santa Barbara
* Sarah Severson, McGill University Library
* Emily Shaw, Ohio State University Libraries
* Dan Zellner, Northwestern University

===2015===
* Joyce Chapman, Duke University, (coordinator)
* Kinza Masood, University of Utah
* Chrissy Rissmeyer, University of California, Santa Barbara
* Dan Zellner, Northwestern University
----

[http://wiki.diglib.org/Assessment Back to the Assessment home page]