Maturity Assessment
Anyone who wants to go beyond the tip of the iceberg needs a way to capture where the organization truly stands — not just what was shown in the demo. This page describes how that measurement runs in the tool, from intake to re-measurement.
The intake starts with a concise set of questions about the organization: size, sector, and which process chains are included in the data management component. That is enough to tailor the plotting round — not to generate advice, since that only comes after the measurement itself.
The intake is not tied to a single person. Because workforce planning and AI strategy usually sit in different meetings, the input can be spread across multiple participants: one person fills in the governance component, another the data management or decision-making component. The tool merges that into a single dataset. That requires no extra session — it runs through separate, shareable forms that each person fills in at their own moment.
This is where the actual work happens. Seven dimensions are worked through one by one, each with level descriptions against which an answer is measured. With multiple participants, a spread emerges: where the organization agrees, and where the views diverge. That difference is itself information — it is exactly the kind of tension that board and management often cannot articulate without a shared picture.
Within data management, a partial score is calculated per process chain, so that a single overall figure does not obscure that one process is already far along while another has not yet begun.
The input is not interpreted or rewritten by a language model. Each answer is linked to a fixed level description per dimension, and the score follows directly from that link. As a result, every outcome can be traced back to a concrete answer to a concrete question — no black box, no black-box advice. Anyone who wants to know why a dimension lands at a particular level can read this back in the underlying rationale.
This step takes the most time, simply because there are seven dimensions and because spread between participants calls for careful completion, not speed.
The report bundles the outcome of the plotting round into a score per dimension with supporting rationale, plus the partial scores per process chain. On top of that is an approach sequence that follows the fundamentals-first rule: dimensions that carry other dimensions come first, regardless of where the organization would get the quickest applause. Two scenarios show what a calmer and a faster pace mean, so that the pace discussion between board and management has a shared starting point instead of a gut feeling.
The report is delivered as a document with the scores, the rationale, and the scenarios side by side, supplemented with two follow-up modules: a decisions inventory and a set of agent rules. Both are structured work that stays within the tool — the heavier design of the operating model and governance itself belongs to route 2 or 3, not to this report.
What the report does not do: it does not predict an outcome and it does not claim a proven result. There are no completed engagements to refer back to — the report structures what exists, it guarantees nothing about what follows.
A year later, the same plotting round can be run again. That does not produce a new starting point, but a comparison: has the technology moved forward, has the level per dimension changed, has the spread between participants narrowed? For an organization that got to work on its own after the first measurement via the roadmap, this is the moment to see whether the pilot rules have been honored and whether scaling up is actually warranted.
The re-measurement requires the same intake effort as the first round — not a shorter version, because every dimension must be honestly worked through again to remain comparable.
The intake and plotting round are work for the people within the organization who can assess the dimensions — often a combination of management, HR, and IT. There is no interviewer, no workshop facilitator, and no advisor looking over anyone's shoulder while filling it in: that is deliberate, the tool is self-service. Human guidance only comes into play if the organization itself chooses that, after the report, via route 2 or 3.
More on exactly what is measured can be found on What it is, and the different follow-up paths are worked out on Outcomes. For those who first want to delve into what lies beneath the chat window, there is the knowledge base.
The button for this measurement is currently in waitlist mode: the tool has not yet been built, and this page honestly describes how it will work once it is.
A maturity level indicates whether the organization is ready for it — it does not yet say which tasks specifically shift and how many FTE that affects. That translation into tasks, hours, and systems is what the work scan from FTE TO AI provides, as a logical follow-up to this measurement.
Vraag maar wat er moet staan voordat AI in uw organisatie kan landen.
Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.