How Our Maturity Models Are Built

Original work, written in plain language

All 74 maturity models on this site are original. They are not copies, summaries or derivatives of commercial or standards-body frameworks. Where established frameworks exist in a field, each model page lists them under How this model relates to other frameworks so you can go deeper, but none of their questions, scales or structures are reproduced.

Every model is written in plain language for people doing the work, not just specialists. If a question needs jargon to make sense, we rewrite it.

Three maturity levels, named for the field

Each model uses exactly three maturity levels:

1. A starting point, where practice depends on individuals and is informal, inconsistent or reactive.
2. A structured level, where defined processes, ownership and routines make the capability reliable and repeatable.
3. An embedded level, where the capability is part of how the organisation works, is measured, and improves over time.

Three levels are quicker to assess and easier to tell apart than the five used by many traditional frameworks, and they leave less room for wishful rounding-up. Each model names its levels in language that fits its field. Change management moves from Ad-hoc to Structured to Embedded, for example, rather than every model using the same generic labels.

Areas and questions

Each model splits its topic into six or seven areas: the distinct capabilities that together make up maturity in that field. Each area has around four questions, giving roughly 24–28 questions per model. That's enough to cover the topic properly while keeping the assessment to about 10–15 minutes.

Every question follows the same rules:

• Three answer options, one per level, each describing concrete, observable behaviour, such as what people do, what exists, and what happens when things go wrong.
• A hint that explains what the question is really asking, to reduce ambiguity.
• Practice over policy. Answers describe what actually happens, not what's documented.
• Outcomes over tools. Higher levels describe better results and habits, not simply more automation or more expensive technology.

Scoring

Scoring is deliberately simple and transparent:

• Each answer scores 1, 2 or 3 according to the level you choose.
• An area score is the average of the answered questions in that area.
• The overall score is the average of the area scores, so every area carries equal weight regardless of how many questions it has.
• All scores range from 1.0 to 3.0. Unanswered questions are excluded rather than counted as zero.

The Focus Areas panel lists every question below Level 3, starting with those at Level 1, and shows the description of the next level up as a concrete target. It's a starting point for prioritisation, not a substitute for your judgement about value, effort and risk.

Limitations

Please keep these in mind when using the results:

• These are self-assessments. Results reflect the honesty and knowledge of the person answering. Comparing answers from several people gives a more reliable picture.
• They are not certifications or audits. A score on this site doesn't demonstrate compliance with any law, regulation or standard.
• Level 3 isn't always the right target. For smaller organisations or lower-risk areas, a solid Level 2 can be exactly right.
• Equal weighting is a simplification. In your context some areas may matter far more than others, so use the area scores rather than relying only on the overall number.

Open source and feedback

Every model is published under the MIT licence on GitHub, including the question data in JSON format. You're free to use, adapt and build on the models, commercially or otherwise. If you spot an error, an ambiguous question or a gap in coverage, please open an issue.