Skip to calculator
Data and AI capability assessment

Measure data maturity and focus the next 90 days

Assess nine organisational dimensions using a transparent, weighted scoring model. The calculator produces an executive summary, dimension-level gaps, and a prioritised improvement roadmap.

No information is sent to an external service. Results depend on the completeness and judgement of the people completing the assessment.

How it works

Complete the assessment with a cross-functional group where possible. Use evidence from current practice, not intended future-state plans.

1. Score current practice

Rate 45 statements from 1 (Initial) to 5 (Optimised) based on observable evidence.

2. Apply transparent weights

Adjust bounded dimension weights to reflect organisational priorities. The total must equal 100%.

3. Use the result

Review maturity, gaps, strongest and weakest areas, then export or print the recommended 90-day roadmap.

Data maturity assessment

All questions are required. Scoring is deterministic: identical inputs and weights produce identical results.

0 of 45 questions answered
Used to calculate the gap for each dimension. A target of Managed is a practical default for many organisations.

Dimension weights

Each weight must be 5%–25%; the combined total must equal 100%.

Percentage contribution to the overall score.
Percentage contribution to the overall score.
Percentage contribution to the overall score.
Percentage contribution to the overall score.
Percentage contribution to the overall score.
Percentage contribution to the overall score.
Percentage contribution to the overall score.
Percentage contribution to the overall score.
Percentage contribution to the overall score.
Total: 100%
Data strategy

1. Our data priorities are explicitly linked to business goals.

InitialOptimised

2. Senior leaders actively sponsor the data agenda.

InitialOptimised

3. We maintain a documented, funded data roadmap.

InitialOptimised

4. Data investment decisions use defined value and risk criteria.

InitialOptimised

5. Progress against data objectives is reviewed on a regular cadence.

InitialOptimised
Governance

1. Data ownership and stewardship responsibilities are formally assigned.

InitialOptimised

2. Critical data policies and standards are documented and accessible.

InitialOptimised

3. Business terms and key data elements have agreed definitions.

InitialOptimised

4. Governance decisions follow a clear escalation and approval process.

InitialOptimised

5. Compliance obligations are mapped to data controls and evidence.

InitialOptimised
Architecture

1. Our target data architecture is documented and aligned to business needs.

InitialOptimised

2. Core data flows, interfaces, and dependencies are understood.

InitialOptimised

3. Integration patterns reduce duplication and manual reconciliation.

InitialOptimised

4. Platforms are scalable, supportable, and governed through lifecycle standards.

InitialOptimised

5. Metadata and lineage are captured for priority data products.

InitialOptimised
Data quality

1. Critical data has measurable quality rules and thresholds.

InitialOptimised

2. Quality issues are logged, owned, prioritised, and resolved systematically.

InitialOptimised

3. Root-cause analysis is used instead of repeated manual correction.

InitialOptimised

4. Quality performance is monitored and reported to accountable owners.

InitialOptimised

5. Preventive controls are embedded at key data capture and processing points.

InitialOptimised
Analytics and AI

1. Teams can access trusted reporting without excessive manual effort.

InitialOptimised

2. Metrics and KPIs have consistent definitions across functions.

InitialOptimised

3. Advanced analytics or AI use cases follow a repeatable delivery process.

InitialOptimised

4. Models and analytical products are monitored after deployment.

InitialOptimised

5. Self-service analytics is supported by governed datasets and guidance.

InitialOptimised
People and skills

1. Data roles, skills, and capacity needs are understood.

InitialOptimised

2. Staff receive role-appropriate data literacy and technical development.

InitialOptimised

3. Communities of practice share methods, standards, and reusable assets.

InitialOptimised

4. Recruitment and workforce plans address critical data capability gaps.

InitialOptimised

5. Leaders reinforce evidence-based decision making and responsible data use.

InitialOptimised
Operating model

1. The division of responsibilities between central and domain teams is clear.

InitialOptimised

2. Data work is prioritised through a transparent portfolio process.

InitialOptimised

3. Delivery teams use repeatable product, project, or service management practices.

InitialOptimised

4. Service levels and operational responsibilities are defined for key data products.

InitialOptimised

5. Dependencies, decisions, risks, and benefits are governed across functions.

InitialOptimised
Security and privacy

1. Data is classified according to sensitivity and business criticality.

InitialOptimised

2. Access is granted on least-privilege principles and reviewed regularly.

InitialOptimised

3. Privacy requirements are designed into data processes and analytical use cases.

InitialOptimised

4. Retention, deletion, backup, and recovery controls are consistently applied.

InitialOptimised

5. Security and privacy incidents are detected, investigated, and learned from.

InitialOptimised
Value realisation

1. Data initiatives have named outcomes, baselines, targets, and accountable owners.

InitialOptimised

2. Benefits are measured after delivery rather than only forecast beforehand.

InitialOptimised

3. Adoption and behavioural change are tracked for data products and insights.

InitialOptimised

4. Low-value or duplicative data activities are stopped or redesigned.

InitialOptimised

5. Lessons from realised benefits inform future investment decisions.

InitialOptimised

Privacy: calculation is processed on this page. No data is transmitted to external services. Server-side storage is not implemented in this file.

Methodology and responsible use

This tool translates structured self-assessment responses into a comparable maturity profile. It is most useful when respondents discuss evidence and record differing views.

Weighted-average model

Each dimension is the arithmetic mean of five responses. The overall score is the sum of dimension scores multiplied by their chosen percentage weights.

Use evidence, not aspiration

Choose the level demonstrated consistently today. Planned projects, isolated pilots, or undocumented practices should not be scored as established capability.

Repeat to track movement

Retake the assessment after a defined improvement period using the same participants, weights, evidence standard, and target to support meaningful comparison.

Frequently asked questions

Practical guidance for completing and interpreting the assessment.

Who should complete the assessment?

A cross-functional group usually produces the most balanced view. Include business leadership, data owners, technology, security, privacy, analytics, operations, and representatives of important data-consuming teams.

How long should the assessment take?

A single respondent may complete it in 15–25 minutes. A facilitated evidence-based workshop may take 60–90 minutes because participants compare examples, resolve differences, and record actions.

What does a score of 3 mean?

A score of 3 is Defined. Relevant practices are documented and used across important areas, although measurement, automation, consistency, and continuous improvement may still be limited.

Why are dimension weights editable?

Organisations have different priorities and risk profiles. Editable weights allow the overall score to reflect strategic importance while bounded ranges prevent one dimension from dominating the result.

Why must the weights total 100%?

A 100% total keeps the weighted-average calculation transparent and comparable. It ensures every percentage point of importance is allocated exactly once.

Is Optimised always the right target?

No. The cost and control required for Optimised maturity may not be justified in every dimension. Select a target that fits business value, risk, regulation, scale, and operating complexity.

Can this calculator be used as an audit?

No. It is a planning and discussion tool based on user-supplied responses. An audit requires defined criteria, evidence testing, independence, sampling, and documented assurance procedures.

How should disagreements be handled?

Record the evidence supporting each view, select the level demonstrated consistently across the organisation, and capture local exceptions separately. Large disagreements often indicate inconsistent adoption or limited visibility.

How often should maturity be reassessed?

Quarterly or twice yearly is usually sufficient for structured improvement programmes. Reassessing too frequently can create noise before changes have had time to become operational.

What should happen after the 90-day roadmap?

Review completed actions, measure whether controls and behaviours changed, update the evidence base, reassess priority dimensions, and create the next roadmap based on remaining gaps and realised value.

Is any assessment data stored or transmitted?

This page does not send data to external APIs. Standard form submission is processed by the hosting server to support non-JavaScript calculation, but this file does not implement persistent storage.

Can results be compared across business units?

Yes, provided units use the same questions, evidence standard, target, and weighting. Interpret differences carefully because operating context, regulation, scale, and data criticality may vary.