Skip to content

03 — Visual Memory Map & Framework Atlas

Source: Chapter 15, pp. 503–520.
These are text-first study reconstructions. Cover the interpretation and answer check, redraw the recall line, then compare.

Quick Visual Preview

  1. Operating spine: DRIVER → OBJECTIVE/SCOPE → FRAMEWORK → EVIDENCE → RATING/CONSENSUS → INTERPRET GAP → TARGET → ROADMAP → RE-ASSESS
  2. Maturity ladder: L0 NONE → L1 AD HOC → L2 REPEATABLE → L3 DEFINED → L4 MANAGED → L5 OPTIMIZED
  3. Level selector: PERSON-DEPENDENT? → L1 | REPEATABLE? → L2 | STANDARD/SCALABLE? → L3 | METRICS/CONTROL/RISK? → L4 | CONTINUOUS OPTIMIZATION? → L5
  4. Assessment dimensions: ACTIVITY | TOOLS | STANDARDS | PEOPLE/RESOURCES → CRITERIA → EVIDENCE → RATING
  5. Current/desired gap: DESIRED CAPABILITY – CURRENT CAPABILITY → GAP → RISK/PRIORITY
  6. Scope selector: OBJECTIVE → LOCAL (deep/fast/bounded) OR ENTERPRISE (broad/complex) → DEFINE OUT OF SCOPE
  7. Evidence ladder: OPINION → FORMAL RATING → ARTIFACT/BEHAVIOR EVIDENCE → RECONCILIATION → CONSENSUS CURRENT STATE
  8. Reporting stack: RAW RATINGS → BUSINESS MEANING → ASSESSMENT REPORT → EXECUTIVE BRIEFING → DECISION
  9. Roadmap conversion: GAP → ACTION → SEQUENCE → TIMELINE → EXPECTED RATING CHANGE → OVERSIGHT → MEASURE PACE
  10. Reassessment loop: BASELINE → IMPROVE → RE-ASSESS COMPARABLE PARAMETERS → TREND → NEW RECOMMENDATIONS → IMPROVE
  11. Framework filter: OBJECTIVES → ACCESSIBLE/COMPREHENSIVE → FLEXIBLE/FIT → NON-PRESCRIPTIVE → REPEATABLE → NEUTRAL/TECH-NEUTRAL → TRAINING
  12. Readiness risks: BUY-IN | EXPERTISE | COMMUNICATION | STALE ASSETS | NARROW SCOPE | ACCESS | SURPRISES → MITIGATION
  13. Governance/metric loop: OVERSIGHT + SPONSOR → RATINGS | RESOURCE | RISK | SPEND/VALUE | INPUT COVERAGE | RATE OF CHANGE → ROADMAP → RE-ASSESS

Canonical Atlas

Map 1 — DMMA Operating Spine

Recall: DRIVER → OBJECTIVE/SCOPE → FRAMEWORK → EVIDENCE → RATING/CONSENSUS → INTERPRET GAP → TARGET → ROADMAP → RE-ASSESS
Interpretation: Chapter 15 is a governed learning-and-improvement cycle.
Rebuild: draw nine boxes; visually separate evidence/rating assessment from later improvement.
Answer check: begins with business driver, preserves assessment/improvement boundary, ends in reassessment.
Source: pp. 503–505, 510–516.

Map 2 — Maturity Ladder

Recall: L0 NONE → L1 AD HOC → L2 REPEATABLE → L3 DEFINED → L4 MANAGED → L5 OPTIMIZED
Interpretation: each level adds capability characteristics; progression is ordered.
Rebuild: put one deciding clue under L1–L5.
Answer check: hero/silo; repeatable; institutionalized/scalable; measured/control/risk; continuous optimization.
Source: pp. 503, 506–508.

Map 3 — Level Selector

Recall: PERSON-DEPENDENT? → L1 | REPEATABLE DISCIPLINE? → L2 | STANDARD/SCALABLE? → L3 | METRICS/CONTROL/RISK? → L4 | CONTINUOUS OPTIMIZATION? → L5
Interpretation: classify from observable characteristics, not organizational self-label.
Rebuild: use a yes/no decision tree.
Answer check: branches distinguish repeatability, standardization, measurement/control, optimization.
Source: pp. 506–508.

Map 4 — Assessment Dimensions

Recall: ACTIVITY | TOOLS | STANDARDS | PEOPLE/RESOURCES → CRITERIA → EVIDENCE → RATING
Interpretation: maturity is multidimensional; tools alone cannot prove capability.
Rebuild: add one evidence example under each dimension.
Answer check: process/output; tool/training/config; documented/enforced rule; staffing/skills/roles.
Source: p. 508.

Map 5 — Current/Desired Gap

Recall: DESIRED CAPABILITY – CURRENT CAPABILITY → GAP → RISK/PRIORITY
Interpretation: gap shows capability the business needs but lacks.
Rebuild: draw four capability spokes with current and desired marks.
Answer check: strategic importance controls priority; low current score alone does not.
Source: pp. 508–509.

Map 6 — Scope Selector

Recall: OBJECTIVE → LOCAL (deep/fast/bounded) OR ENTERPRISE (broad/complex) → DEFINE OUT OF SCOPE
Interpretation: scope follows purpose and feasibility.
Rebuild: add one condition favoring local and one favoring enterprise.
Answer check: first pilot/time limits favor local; broad comparison + adequate resources can favor enterprise.
Source: pp. 511–512.

Map 7 — Evidence Ladder

Recall: OPINION → FORMAL RATING → ARTIFACT/BEHAVIOR EVIDENCE → RECONCILIATION → CONSENSUS CURRENT STATE
Interpretation: perception starts; evidence makes current state defensible.
Rebuild: put policies, process docs, logs, repositories, workflows, approvals under evidence.
Answer check: disagreement is resolved through criteria/evidence/reconciliation, not simple average.
Source: pp. 510, 513–514.

Map 8 — Reporting Stack

Recall: RAW RATINGS → INTERPRET BUSINESS MEANING → ASSESSMENT REPORT → TAILORED EXECUTIVE BRIEFING → DECISION
Interpretation: reporting is not number publishing; interpretation creates decision support.
Rebuild: mark detailed evidence layer vs executive layer.
Answer check: report is comprehensive; briefing synthesizes impacts/recommendations/targets/timing.
Source: pp. 514–515.

Map 9 — Roadmap Conversion

Recall: GAP → ACTION → SEQUENCE → TIMELINE → EXPECTED RATING CHANGE → OVERSIGHT → MEASURE PACE
Interpretation: a roadmap operationalizes findings.
Rebuild: mark where projects adopt stronger practices.
Answer check: sequence + timing + expected change + governance + measurement must appear.
Source: p. 515.

Map 10 — Reassessment Loop

Recall: BASELINE → IMPROVE → RE-ASSESS SAME DEFINED PARAMETERS → TREND → NEW RECOMMENDATIONS → IMPROVE
Interpretation: maturity is a trend, not a one-time label.
Rebuild: mark where casual scope/method change damages comparability.
Answer check: schedule and defined parameters protect trend meaning.
Source: pp. 515–516.

Map 11 — Framework Selection Filter

Recall: OBJECTIVES → ACCESSIBLE/COMPREHENSIVE → FLEXIBLE/FIT → NON-PRESCRIPTIVE → REPEATABLE → NEUTRAL/TECH-NEUTRAL → TRAINING SUPPORT
Interpretation: framework must fit content and preserve assessment integrity.
Rebuild: draw as a funnel; reject a vendor-biased model.
Answer check: selected model supports usable, neutral, consistent improvement assessment.
Source: pp. 516–517.

Map 12 — Readiness Risk Map

Recall: BUY-IN | EXPERTISE | COMMUNICATION/DATA LANGUAGE | STALE ASSETS | NARROW SCOPE | INACCESSIBLE STAFF/SYSTEMS | SURPRISES → MITIGATION
Interpretation: the assessment process itself can be unready.
Rebuild: put one mitigation under each risk family.
Answer check: sponsor/socialize; specialists/training; orientation; flag stale evidence; pilot/show boundaries; reduce scope; build flexibility.
Source: p. 518.

Map 13 — Governance & Metric Loop

Recall: DG/STEERING OVERSIGHT + EXEC SPONSOR → RATINGS | RESOURCE | RISK | SPEND/VALUE | INPUT COVERAGE | RATE OF CHANGE → ROADMAP GOVERNANCE → RE-ASSESS
Interpretation: the maturity lifecycle itself is governed and measured.
Rebuild: governance as outer ring, metrics as feedback arrows.
Answer check: normal DG oversight, steering fallback, sponsor linkage; all six metric families appear.
Source: pp. 519–520.

Final Blank-Page Challenge

Without looking, make one page connecting:

maturity ladder → assessment dimensions → Plan/Assess/Interpret/Improve/Re-assess → evidence/consensus → current/target gap → roadmap → governance/metrics → reassessment.

Your reconstruction is incomplete if you cannot explain why assessment and improvement stay separate and why a score change is not trusted when reassessment coverage changes.

← Exam Map · Battle Cards →