Maturity Assessment
There was a demo. There was applause. Two people are still enthusiastic about it, and the rest of the organization has gone back to business as usual. The board thinks it can move faster, management thinks it is risky, and neither of them can point to what that assessment is based on. Meanwhile, workforce planning sits in a different meeting than the AI agenda, with a different agenda owner and a different timeline. What most people have seen of AI is the chat window — the tip of what is possible within an organization. The rest of the iceberg remains undiscussed, let alone planned.
This is not a request for another demo. It is a request for a shared picture: where the organization stands now, on which dimensions, and what sequence follows from that — not as a promise.
The assessment consists of a plotting round: multiple participants score seven dimensions, each with its own level description. Where process chains touch data management, a separate sub-score is added there, because maturity on that front rarely runs parallel with the rest.
The result is not a single number but a spread pattern: where participants agree, and where they do not. That spread is information in itself — an organization where the board and the work floor are two levels apart needs a different conversation than an organization that already agrees.
From that follows a report with a score per dimension including substantiation, an approach sequence based on the rule that the fundamental comes first — there is no point building an agent layer on a data structure that cannot support it — and two scenarios to make the pace conversation concrete rather than open-ended.
The iceberg module shows what lies beneath the chat window, tailored to the organization's context, built up as a knowledge sequence with examples. For the board and management, there is a block that translates the pace conversation into: where the organization stands now, what is achievable within twelve months, and what it costs to go faster — without that cost becoming a guarantee.
The tool also contains structured modules for operating model, decision-making, and governance: a decision inventory and a set of agent rules. The heavier design questions — what the operating model should actually look like — fall outside this; how it works shows how these modules relate to each other, and outcomes shows what a report from this assessment looks like.
Intake. Start of the assessment: who takes part, which process chains count toward the data management sub-score.
Plotting round. Seven dimensions, multiple participants, with a spread pattern and the sub-scores per process chain.
Report. Score per dimension with substantiation, two scenarios, the approach sequence, plus the decision inventory and agent rules as follow-up modules.
Re-assessment. Repeated annually, to see whether technology and level have shifted — or not.
Every score in the report can be traced back to an answer from the plotting round, from a named participant, on a specific dimension. Nothing is estimated on top and nothing is supplemented with an average from another sector. What has not been filled in is listed as missing in the report, not as an estimated figure. That is also why there is no percentage on this page: a score without source data is a guess with a number attached, and that is not what is delivered here.
Not a ready-made AI strategy. The tool measures and structures the conversation; designing the operating model itself — who decides, which layer changes, how governance shifts — is part of route 2 or 3, not something that rolls out of a questionnaire.
Not a proven track record. There are no completed engagements to point to. The tool structures a picture; it does not prove a result and does not guarantee an outcome.
Not a standalone instrument. The maturity assessment belongs together with ftetoai's work scan: maturity indicates whether the organization is ready for it, the work scan indicates which tasks it affects and how many FTEs are involved. Without that second step, it remains a level, not a plan.
Route 1 — do it yourself. A roadmap per dimension, fundamentals first, with pilot rules that establish in advance what needs to be shown, what happens if it is not, and what scaling up concretely requires.
Route 2 — partially guided. A partner for redesigning the operating model and setting up governance, while the assessment and the record remain in the tool.
Route 3 — outsourced. A full human+machine engagement with the partner, with this assessment as the baseline measurement — not as a replacement for it.
More background on each dimension is available in the knowledge base.
This assessment shows whether an organization is ready to move. What that movement concretely means in terms of tasks, hours, and systems becomes visible in FTE to AI's work scan.
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.