Deep Battle Cards A–F
Deep Card A — DMMA vs Improvement Program
Definition: DMMA characterizes current capability/gaps; improvement executes change.
Purpose: diagnosis vs treatment.
Typical owners: assessment team/DG/participants vs initiative leaders/capability owners.
Inputs: business driver, scope, framework, evidence vs interpreted gaps, target, roadmap.
Outputs: baseline/ratings/report vs improved processes/tools/roles/capabilities.
When used: DMMA before selecting and sequencing capability changes.
Nearest confusion: fixing findings during evidence collection.
Deciding distinction: assessment = know where you are; improvement = move.
Scenario pair: reconciling evidence → DMMA; sequencing remediation projects → improvement.
Trap: action-taking is not proof assessment is complete.
Memory hook: Diagnose, then change.
Source: pp. 503–505, 510–516.
Deep Card B — Level 2 vs Level 3
Definition: L2 introduces repeatable discipline; L3 institutionalizes scalable defined practice.
Purpose: separate local repeatability from organizational capability.
Owners: process owners, governance, practitioners.
Inputs: documented roles/process/tool use vs coordinated policy/standards/scalable process.
Outputs: repeatable execution vs predictable standardized execution.
Nearest confusion: shared tool can exist at L2.
Deciding distinction: repeatable is not yet defined at scale.
Scenario pair: local documented process → L2; same governed/scaled enterprise-wide → L3.
Trap: any documentation = L3.
Memory hook: Repeat, then define at scale.
Source: pp. 506–508.
Deep Card C — Level 3 vs Level 4
Definition: L3 standardizes; L4 measures and controls performance/risk.
Purpose: identify when management-through-metrics enters.
Owners: governance, process owners, risk/quality leaders.
Inputs: defined standards/process vs DQ/performance/risk metrics.
Outputs: predictable standardized process vs quantified controlled performance.
When used: choose L4 only when metrics actively manage capability.
Nearest confusion: dashboard existence does not prove metrics govern the process.
Deciding distinction: defined vs measured/controlled.
Scenario pair: enforced enterprise policies → L3; plus active performance metrics/risk management → L4.
Memory hook: Standardize, then manage by evidence.
Source: pp. 507–508.
Deep Card D — Level 4 vs Level 5
Definition: L4 controls mature processes; L5 continuously optimizes them.
Purpose: separate stable management from systematic improvement.
Owners: governance, process owners, change leaders.
Inputs: stable performance data vs improvement objectives/change evidence.
Outputs: controlled predictable outcomes vs demonstrably improving optimized capability.
Nearest confusion: automation alone is not optimization.
Deciding distinction: manage vs optimize.
Scenario pair: DQ metrics keep process in control → L4; metrics drive systematic redesign → L5.
Memory hook: Control, then improve the control.
Source: pp. 507–508.
Deep Card E — Maturity Level vs Criterion Score
Definition: macro level describes overall capability characteristics; criterion score tracks effectiveness/progress on an item.
Purpose: prevent identical numbers on different scales from being treated as equivalent.
Owners: assessors, participants, executives.
Inputs: model-level criteria vs per-item scoring scale.
Outputs: capability classification vs granular ratings/visualizations.
When used: use both but interpret separately.
Nearest confusion: 4/4 Effective ≠ automatically Level 4.
Deciding distinction: level is not score.
Scenario pair: one standard 4/4; function remains L2 if capability characteristics are only repeatable.
Memory hook: Number is not the level unless the model says so.
Source: p. 508.
Deep Card F — Localized vs Enterprise Assessment
Definition: localized narrows scope for depth/speed; enterprise spans broader disconnected functions.
Purpose: choose scope from objective and feasibility.
Owners: executives, assessment lead, business leaders.
Inputs: focused business-area evidence vs pan-enterprise evidence.
Outputs: deep local baseline vs broad maturity view.
When used: local often suits first assessment; enterprise suits broad comparison with adequate resources.
Nearest confusion: local ≠ invalid; enterprise ≠ automatically better.
Deciding distinction: depth vs breadth.
Scenario pair: regulated finance pilot → local; compare R&D/manufacturing/finance on common criteria → enterprise.
Trap: over-scope a first assessment.
Memory hook: Deep slice vs broad map.
Source: pp. 511–512.