Lesson 3 — Criteria, Scores & Gaps
Maturity level is not a within-level score
Chapter 15 separates the macro maturity level from finer-grained scoring used on individual assessment criteria.
A criteria scale might use values such as:
- Not Started
- In Process
- Functional
- Effective
Those numbers show progress/effectiveness on an item. They do not automatically map to the six macro maturity levels.
Common trap
“Our standard scored 4 — Effective, therefore we are Level 4 — Managed.”
Wrong unless the framework actually defines that relationship and the full Level 4 capability characteristics are present. A high item score can coexist with an overall function that is only Repeatable.
Four assessment dimensions
Chapter 15 shows how criteria can be organized using four practical dimensions.
1. Activity
Ask whether the process/activity: - exists; - is defined; - is executed effectively and efficiently; - produces the intended work products.
Evidence: process maps, procedures, approvals, workflows, outputs, operating records.
A beautifully documented process that nobody follows has an Activity problem even if the documentation itself is strong.
2. Tools
Ask whether work is supported by appropriate common tools and whether people can actually use them.
Look for: - support/automation; - availability; - configuration; - training; - consistent use; - future technology planning.
Buying an expensive platform is not maturity by itself.
3. Standards
Ask whether standards are: - documented; - used; - enforced; - governed; - changed through controlled processes.
Evidence: policies, standards, exception records, governance minutes, version history.
4. People and Resources
Ask whether sufficient capability exists in: - staffing; - skills; - knowledge; - training; - roles; - responsibilities.
A technically sound Data Quality process with no defined owner, inadequate staffing, and no training path has a People/Resources weakness.
Current state, target state, and gap
Current state = the evidence-supported capability today.
Target/desired state = the capability the organization needs or aspires to reach.
Gap = the difference between them.
The gap matters because it translates maturity from a descriptive score into a management decision.
But gap size alone is not priority.
Example
- Capability A: current L1, target L2 → gap 1.
- Capability B: current L2, target L4 due to regulation → gap 2.
Capability B may be the stronger priority because the business requirement and risk are greater.
Similarly, a very low score in a low-value area does not automatically outrank a moderate score in a mission-critical area.
Decision sequence
CURRENT STATE + BUSINESS STRATEGY/RISK → TARGET STATE → GAP → PRIORITY → ROADMAP
This is why “raise everything to Level 5” is poor maturity planning. Different capabilities can legitimately require different target levels.
Stop-and-check
A criterion scores 4/4, but the broader function has only repeatable local processes and no enterprise standards. What does the evidence support?
Answer: The criterion may be Effective on its item scale, while the overall capability can still be around Level 2. Level and score are different constructs.
Source: pp. 508–509.