1. Score current practice
Rate 45 statements from 1 (Initial) to 5 (Optimised) based on observable evidence.
Assess nine organisational dimensions using a transparent, weighted scoring model. The calculator produces an executive summary, dimension-level gaps, and a prioritised improvement roadmap.
Complete the assessment with a cross-functional group where possible. Use evidence from current practice, not intended future-state plans.
Rate 45 statements from 1 (Initial) to 5 (Optimised) based on observable evidence.
Adjust bounded dimension weights to reflect organisational priorities. The total must equal 100%.
Review maturity, gaps, strongest and weakest areas, then export or print the recommended 90-day roadmap.
This tool translates structured self-assessment responses into a comparable maturity profile. It is most useful when respondents discuss evidence and record differing views.
Each dimension is the arithmetic mean of five responses. The overall score is the sum of dimension scores multiplied by their chosen percentage weights.
Choose the level demonstrated consistently today. Planned projects, isolated pilots, or undocumented practices should not be scored as established capability.
Retake the assessment after a defined improvement period using the same participants, weights, evidence standard, and target to support meaningful comparison.
Continue from assessment to prioritisation, governance, and execution.
Practical guidance for completing and interpreting 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.
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.
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.
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.
A 100% total keeps the weighted-average calculation transparent and comparable. It ensures every percentage point of importance is allocated exactly once.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.