Maturity Models Questionnaire

Maturity models are not a single model, so this questionnaire has two parts.

Part A is a generic capability self-assessment you can apply to any capability you care about, scoring current level from 0 to 5.

Part B is a critical appraisal of a maturity model you have been handed or are considering adopting, scoring from 1 (badly flawed) to 5 (sound). Given how weak the evidence for maturity models is, Part B matters at least as much as Part A.

See maturity-models.

Evidence: Weak. Maturity models are descriptive conventions. Level progression rarely predicts outcomes, and the levels are usually authored by advocates or vendors. Use them as a shared vocabulary for a capability conversation, never as a scorecard tied to funding.

Part A: Capability self-assessment

Name the capability being assessed: ____________________________________

Assess against the levels below. Score the level you are consistently at, not the level you have reached once.

• Level 0 — None. The capability does not exist and is not recognized as needed.
• Level 1 — Initiate. Ad hoc, individual, undocumented. It works because a specific person makes it work.
• Level 2 — Develop. Described and repeatable within one team. Departmental, not organizational.
• Level 3 — Standardize. Defined, documented, and used consistently across units. A new person can follow it.
• Level 4 — Manage. Measured. Performance is known quantitatively, and deviations are detected.
• Level 5 — Orchestrate. Continuously improved, and coordinated with partners and the wider system.

A1. People and culture

• Question: How consistently do people across the organization have the knowledge, habits, and shared expectations this capability requires?
  • Level (0–5): [ ]
  • Evidence for this rating:

A2. Process and structure

• Question: How consistently is the way of working defined, followed, and owned?
  • Level (0–5): [ ]
  • Evidence for this rating:

A3. Technology and tooling

• Question: How well do our tools, systems, and automation support this capability rather than obstruct it?
  • Level (0–5): [ ]
  • Evidence for this rating:

A4. Measurement

• Question: Do we know quantitatively how this capability is performing, and would we notice if it degraded?
  • Level (0–5): [ ]
  • Evidence for this rating:

A5. Improvement

• Question: Is there a working mechanism by which this capability gets better over time without a special initiative?
  • Level (0–5): [ ]
  • Evidence for this rating:

A6. The honest checks

• Question: What is our actual level on a bad week, with the usual staffing and the usual interruptions?

  • Level (0–5): [ ]

• Question: Is our current level a problem? Some capabilities are correctly left at level 2, and moving them costs more than it returns.

  • Rating (1–5, where 5 = definitely a problem): [ ]

• Question: What is the next level worth, in concrete terms, and to whom?

  • Answer:

Part B: Appraising a maturity model

Use this before adopting any published or vendor maturity model.

B1. Provenance

• Question: Who wrote this model, and what do they sell? A model authored by a vendor whose product moves you up the levels is marketing.
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

B2. Evidence

• Question: Is there any evidence that organizations at higher levels achieve better outcomes, as opposed to merely conforming more?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

B3. Falsifiability

• Question: Are the levels described in terms observable enough that two independent assessors would score us the same?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

B4. Fit

• Question: Does the model's implied "better" match what we actually need? A model built for large regulated manufacturers may prescribe the opposite of what a small clinical team needs.
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

B5. Linearity

• Question: Does the model assume a single path from worse to better, and is that assumption defensible here?
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

B6. Consequence

• Question: What happens to a unit that scores low? If the answer involves funding, headcount, or reputation, the scores will be gamed and the data will become worthless.
  • Rating (1–5): [ ]

Analysis

• Part A: intervene where the gap between A1–A3 and A4 is largest. A capability at level 3 on process and level 1 on measurement is being run on faith. You will not know when it degrades.

• Level 1 capabilities that depend on one person are a risk register item, not a maturity item. Name the person and the exposure.

• Do not target level 5 by default. A model's top level is an author's aspiration, not an obligation. The right target is the level at which the capability stops causing you problems.

• Part B: a total below 18 out of 30 means write your own. Build it bottom-up from characteristics your own people recognize, then cluster them into levels. A model that fits your context and was written by your own practitioners will be used; a model imported wholesale will be filled in and filed.

• A low B6 score is disqualifying. If low scores carry consequences, you will measure compliance and reporting behavior rather than capability. See measurement-and-metrics.

• For delivery capability specifically, prefer outcome measures to maturity levels. See dora-metrics, which measures what a team achieves rather than which practices it conforms to.