Maturity Model¶

01.030.031.010 v20260803.002

Purpose and Authority¶

This document defines the canonical Value Realization maturity continuum used to characterize the sufficiently evidenced operating condition of a Capability, Competency, or other explicitly qualified Maturity Subject.

The model provides a portable semantic normalization layer for interpreting conventional maturity models that use numeric scales, zero-to-five or one-to-five levels, broad metaphors such as crawl-walk-run, or domain-specific terminology.

It does not replace every specialized maturity model. It provides controlled anchor states, evidence rules, continuum logic, external-model mapping guidance, and a basis for governed Maturity Progressions.

This document is subordinate to the Value Realization Principles and is a child of Capability Models. The related Maturity Progressions define movement between adjacent anchors.

Maturity Model. An ordered, evidence-based continuum of defined anchor states used to characterize the extent to which a Capability, Competency, or other qualified Maturity Subject is conceptualized, operating, repeatable, coherent, systematically improved, and integrated within its stated operating and value-realization context.

Canonical Anchor States¶

Anchor	State	Semantic emphasis
M0	Conceptualized	Sufficiently defined to support purposeful establishment, but not yet evidenced as operating.
M1	Improvised	Operating primarily through informal, experience-dependent execution.
M2	Normalized	Operating through a defined, transferable, and consistently applied baseline.
M3	Rationalized	Simplified, reconciled, proportionate, and coherent.
M4	Optimized	Systematically improved against explicit and balanced objectives using evidence and feedback.
M5	Harmonized	Compatible, coordinated, and adaptive across material organizational and system boundaries.

Each anchor describes an observable condition. It is not an aspiration, Project phase, age, Investment amount, activity count, or arbitrary score.

Maturity Level, Position, and Profile¶

Maturity Level¶

Maturity Level. The highest canonical anchor state sufficiently evidenced within the declared assessment scope and basis.

Maturity Position¶

Maturity Position. A governed decimal representation of sufficiently evidenced advancement through the active adjacent Maturity Progression while preserving the highest sufficiently evidenced anchor as the canonical Maturity Level.

[ \text{Maturity Position} = L + P ]

where:

(L) is the highest sufficiently evidenced Maturity Level;
(P) is the Progression Position through the immediately next Maturity Progression;
(0.00 \leq P < 1.00).

A position of 2.3 means that M2 Normalized is the canonical Maturity Level and that the subject has made sufficiently evidenced progress through the Rationalizing Progression toward M3 Rationalized.

A subject at 2.9 remains M2 until M3 is sufficiently evidenced.

Maturity Profile¶

Maturity Profile. A multi-dimensional representation of maturity across relevant dimensions, constituent subjects, operating units, scopes, or evidence categories.

A Profile should be used where one overall designation would conceal material unevenness. Aggregate reporting must preserve foundational weaknesses, constraining dimensions, exclusions, and confidence limitations.

Anchored Continuum¶

The model is a continuum with named anchor states, not six disconnected boxes.

The anchors provide semantic stability. Decimal positions provide governed latitude to represent movement between anchors.

The scale remains ordinal:

M4 is higher than M2 within the same valid assessment basis;
M4 is not twice as mature as M2;
the distance between M1 and M2 is not assumed to equal the distance between M4 and M5;
decimal precision must not exceed the evidence and Progression rubric.

Scope of Application¶

The model is principally intended for:

organizational Capabilities;
Player-level Competencies where criteria and evidence are adapted to the unit of analysis;
Practices, Platforms, Products, or other subjects only where the subject and evidence model are explicitly qualified;
current-state and target-state assessment;
external-model crosswalks;
Progression design and Investment governance;
reporting of maturity advancement and regression.

The model must not be applied indiscriminately to objects that cannot be meaningfully bounded, observed, evidenced, advanced, or sustained.

Capability and Competency Distinction¶

A Capability is an organizational ability to reliably produce, enable, govern, protect, or sustain an outcome through coordinated Players, Competencies, Practices, Patterns, Platforms, Products, Partners, information, assets, and decision rights.

A Competency is a Player-level observable Proficiency.

The same anchor vocabulary may be applied to both, but the evidence differs:

Capability maturity concerns the coordinated organizational system.
Competency maturity concerns the demonstrated, transferable, repeatable, improving, and contextually integrated expression of a Player-level Proficiency.

Strong individual Competencies do not independently establish a mature Capability. A mature Capability does not require every Player to possess identical Competencies or Proficiency levels.

Evidence Sufficiency and Applicability¶

The model applies the Highest Sufficiently Evidenced State Principle rather than requiring exhaustive or mechanically complete evidence.

Sufficiently evidenced means supported to a confidence proportionate to purpose, materiality, risk, scope, and consequences.

Criteria should be classified as:

Mandatory. Required for the anchor within the applicable model and scope.
Conditional. Required when a stated condition, dependency, regulation, risk, scale, or operating characteristic applies.
Illustrative. Common evidence or characteristics that aid interpretation but are not independently required.

A criterion may be marked not applicable only where the reason, consequence, and limitation are explicit and excluding it does not remove a material requirement merely to obtain a higher designation.

Governing Principles as Applied to Maturity¶

Evidence Before Designation¶

A maturity designation follows evidence. Plans, policies, documentation, training, Platform implementation, Project completion, self-assessment, management assertion, and isolated examples may contribute evidence but do not independently establish maturity.

Highest Sufficiently Evidenced Level¶

The canonical Maturity Level is the highest anchor whose applicable mandatory and material conditional criteria are sufficiently evidenced. Partial advancement is represented by Maturity Position, Maturity Profile, active Progression, and unresolved exit criteria.

Cumulative Inheritance¶

A higher anchor ordinarily inherits the continuing purposes, controls, disciplines, and evidence requirements of lower anchors. An earlier mechanism may be replaced by a more effective mechanism, but its governing purpose must remain satisfied and the supersession must be explicit and evidenced.

Maturity Does Not Equal Value¶

Maturity is a realization condition. It may improve the probability, reliability, scalability, sustainability, or governability of value realization. It does not independently prove performance, economic justification, strategic relevance, an Effect, or realized value.

Fit-for-Value, Not Maximum Maturity¶

The appropriate target is the maturity justified by value at stake, risk, complexity, interdependence, lifecycle Investment, and operating context. M5 is not the default objective.

Contextual and Revisable Designation¶

A designation is valid only within its stated subject, scope, boundary, period, model version, comparator context, and evidence basis. It may be revised where internal conditions deteriorate or relevant market, professional, regulatory, customer, operating, economic, or state-of-the-art expectations advance.

Assessment Basis¶

A material assessment should record:

assessment_basis:
  subject: ""
  subject_type: "Capability | Competency | Qualified Other"
  scope: ""
  system_boundary: ""
  level_of_analysis: ""
  assessment_date: ""
  evidence_period: ""
  model_version: ""
  market_reference_date: ""
  comparator_context: ""
  assessor: ""
  validator: ""
  evidence_sources: []
  not_applicable_criteria: []
  exclusions: []
  limitations: []
  confidence: ""
  review_or_expiry_date: ""

M0. Conceptualized¶

Canonical Definition¶

Conceptualized. The subject is recognized and defined sufficiently to establish its intended purpose, scope, boundaries, expected outcomes, principal requirements, and value rationale, but is not yet sufficiently evidenced as operating in practice.

Dominant Operating Logic¶

Intent, design, hypothesis, and purposeful preparation precede operating evidence.

Defining Characteristics¶

The subject is named and bounded.
Its intended outcome, Consumers, and value rationale are articulated.
Preliminary ownership, dependencies, requirements, risks, and constraints are visible.
An operating concept or Competency expectation exists.
The subject has not produced sufficient operating evidence to qualify as Improvised.

Evidence Indicators¶

governed concept definition;
value hypothesis or Value Statement;
defined scope, boundary, intended outcomes, and Consumers;
preliminary accountability and dependency model;
initial requirements and decision record.

Boundary Conditions¶

Conceptualized is distinct from:

Absent, where the subject does not exist within scope;
Indeterminate or Unassessed, where evidence is insufficient to assign a position.

A detailed design does not establish operation. A Competency framework does not establish demonstrated Proficiency.

Characteristic Value Enablement¶

clarity of intent;
explicit value hypothesis;
design optionality;
earlier exposure of dependencies and constraints;
more disciplined Investment decisions.

Characteristic Value Risk¶

analysis without operation;
indefinite planning;
untested assumptions;
premature commitment;
false confidence from polished artifacts.

Illustrative Relationship to the Next Progression¶

The Improvising Progression places the governed concept into actual or sufficiently representative operation and establishes enough operating evidence for M1 Improvised.

This description is illustrative rather than comprehensive. See the Improvising Reference Progression and applicable registered Progression Patterns.

Regression Indicators¶

M0 may regress to Absent or Indeterminate where sponsorship is withdrawn, the subject is abandoned, its purpose becomes obsolete, or the evidence basis becomes insufficient.

M1. Improvised¶

Canonical Definition¶

Improvised. The subject operates primarily through unstructured, informal, and experience-dependent action. Outcomes rely materially on tacit knowledge, situational judgment, personal initiative, and key-person expertise. Repeatability, transferability, governance, and evidence are limited, and improvement occurs principally through exposure and accumulated experience.

Dominant Operating Logic¶

The subject works because particular Players know how to make it work in the circumstances encountered.

Defining Characteristics¶

work varies by Player or occurrence;
Practices are informal, incomplete, or inconsistently applied;
critical knowledge is tacit and concentrated;
outcomes may be effective but are difficult to reproduce;
results depend on judgment, workarounds, and heroics;
evidence is incomplete, manual, or retrospective;
continuity and succession risk are material.

Evidence Indicators¶

observed operating activity and outputs;
reliance on named experts;
variable methods and results;
manual workarounds and personal exception handling;
limited baseline or transfer evidence.

Boundary Conditions¶

Improvised does not mean incapable or poor-performing. Exceptional Players may produce excellent value. The limitation is fragility, transferability, scalability, governance, and sustainment.

Characteristic Value Enablement¶

adaptability;
rapid local response;
expert judgment;
ingenuity;
low initial structural burden;
learning before stable patterns are understood.

Characteristic Value Risk¶

key-person dependency;
inconsistent quality;
limited scalability and transferability;
weak succession and continuity;
weak evidence and attribution;
repeated reinvention.

Illustrative Relationship to the Next Progression¶

The Normalizing Progression establishes a common, documented, transferable, and consistently applied operating baseline.

This description is illustrative rather than comprehensive. See the Normalizing Reference Progression and applicable registered Progression Patterns.

Regression Indicators¶

M1 may regress toward M0 or become Indeterminate where operating activity ceases, critical expertise is lost, or evidence of continued operation becomes insufficient.

M2. Normalized¶

Canonical Definition¶

Normalized. The subject operates through a defined baseline of standard Practices and required Proficiencies that are documented, communicated, transferable, and consistently applied within the stated scope. Ownership, terminology, minimum controls, expected outputs, and exception handling are sufficiently common to support repeatability, onboarding, measurement, and governed execution.

Dominant Operating Logic¶

A common baseline makes execution repeatable beyond the experience of particular Players.

Defining Characteristics¶

standard Practices and required Proficiencies are explicit;
methods and controls are documented proportionately;
common terminology and information structures exist;
accountability and decision rights are sufficiently clear;
exceptions are identified and governed;
baseline measures and evidence sources exist;
onboarding and knowledge transfer are repeatable.

Evidence Indicators¶

observed consistent use of the standard Practice;
comparable outputs across Players or periods;
governed exceptions;
demonstrated Proficiencies;
repeatable onboarding;
alignment between documented and actual operation.

Boundary Conditions¶

Documentation alone does not establish Normalized maturity. Normalization may codify waste, duplication, or obsolete work and does not prove coherence or value.

Characteristic Value Enablement¶

repeatability and transferability;
improved continuity;
clearer accountability;
faster onboarding;
baseline assurance and comparable evidence;
reduced dependence on personal memory.

Characteristic Value Risk¶

standardizing waste;
procedural rigidity;
superficial compliance;
excessive documentation;
unmanaged exceptions;
divergence between documented and actual Practice.

Illustrative Relationship to the Next Progression¶

The Rationalizing Progression removes, consolidates, reconciles, or justifies material duplication, conflict, redundancy, and disproportionate complexity.

This description is illustrative rather than comprehensive. See the Rationalizing Reference Progression and applicable registered Progression Patterns.

Regression Indicators¶

M2 may regress where standard Practices are abandoned, exceptions proliferate, Proficiency coverage deteriorates, documentation no longer reflects operation, or growth recreates key-person dependency.

M3. Rationalized¶

Canonical Definition¶

Rationalized. The normalized subject is deliberately simplified and aligned by eliminating, consolidating, reconciling, or justifying unnecessary duplication, conflicting variants, redundant sources, overlapping responsibilities, avoidable handoffs, and disproportionate assets. The surviving operating model is coherent, traceable, proportionate, and aligned to intended value.

Dominant Operating Logic¶

Every material component and variant has a defensible purpose and relationship within a coherent system.

Defining Characteristics¶

material variants and dependencies are inventoried;
unnecessary duplication is removed or justified;
conflicting definitions, controls, roles, and sources are reconciled;
redundant assets and Practices are consolidated or retired where justified;
ownership aligns with the surviving model;
authoritative sources and semantics are established;
local variation is preserved where it produces justified value.

Evidence Indicators¶

reduced unjustified variants;
retired or consolidated components;
reconciled sources and terminology;
reduced handoffs, delay, rework, and support burden;
rationale for retained variation;
evidence that simplification preserved outcomes and controls.

Boundary Conditions¶

Rationalization is not indiscriminate centralization, uniformity, or cost reduction. A justified local variant may be more rational than forced standardization.

Characteristic Value Enablement¶

reduced duplication and structural debt;
simplified governance;
clearer authority and information lineage;
reduced friction and maintenance burden;
stronger foundation for improvement.

Characteristic Value Risk¶

excessive centralization;
removal of justified variation;
concentration and single-point dependency;
oversimplification;
loss of resilience or optionality;
declared consolidation without actual retirement.

Illustrative Relationship to the Next Progression¶

The Optimizing Progression establishes systematic, evidence-based improvement against explicit and balanced objectives.

This description is illustrative rather than comprehensive. See the Optimizing Reference Progression and applicable registered Progression Patterns.

Regression Indicators¶

M3 may regress where acquisitions, local workarounds, new Platforms, Products, or regulations recreate duplication and conflict, or where authoritative sources fragment.

M4. Optimized¶

Canonical Definition¶

Optimized. The rationalized subject is systematically improved against explicit value, performance, risk, capacity, quality, continuity, resilience, and economic objectives using reliable evidence, feedback, and governed learning. Automation, integration, resource allocation, controls, and improvement methods are applied where they create net value.

Dominant Operating Logic¶

Reliable evidence and feedback are used to improve a coherent system against balanced objectives.

Defining Characteristics¶

value and performance objectives are explicit;
baselines, thresholds, targets, constraints, and trade-offs are understood;
feedback changes decisions and operating behavior;
stable work is automated where net value is positive;
root causes are addressed;
improvement is governed and sustained;
capacity and Investment follow value and constraint;
lifecycle and downstream Effects are considered.

Evidence Indicators¶

sustained improvement against baseline;
traceable measure-to-decision feedback;
reduced material variation or constraint;
improved lifecycle economics or performance;
demonstrated automation effectiveness;
persistence of gains and protected Effects.

Boundary Conditions¶

Optimized does not mean maximized. Maximum utilization, minimum cost, maximum automation, or local peak performance may reduce system value.

Characteristic Value Enablement¶

evidence-based improvement;
better resource allocation;
controlled automation;
improved economics and performance;
stronger predictability;
faster learning and adjustment.

Characteristic Value Risk¶

local optimization;
metric gaming;
overautomation and brittle efficiency;
reduced resilience;
obsolete objectives;
false precision;
improvement overhead exceeding value.

Illustrative Relationship to the Next Progression¶

The Harmonizing Progression establishes compatible, coordinated, and adaptive operation across material organizational and system boundaries.

This description is illustrative rather than comprehensive. See the Harmonizing Reference Progression and applicable registered Progression Patterns.

Regression Indicators¶

M4 may regress where measures lose validity, feedback no longer changes decisions, automation becomes brittle, local optimization displaces value, or state-of-the-art expectations advance materially.

M5. Harmonized¶

Canonical Definition¶

Harmonized. The optimized subject operates as part of an integrated and adaptive value system across relevant organizational, functional, service, process, data, Platform, Product, Partner, and Player boundaries. Shared or translatable semantics, interoperable governance, coordinated decisions, end-to-end evidence, and managed dependencies enable coherent system-level value while preserving justified local variation and autonomy.

Dominant Operating Logic¶

Autonomous or specialized components operate compatibly and adapt coherently within a governed value system.

Defining Characteristics¶

material cross-boundary dependencies are continuously discovered and governed;
processes, services, data, Platforms, Products, roles, and decisions interoperate;
shared or translatable semantics support common interpretation;
end-to-end measures reveal value flow;
governance coordinates decisions without unnecessary uniformity;
local optimization is constrained where it impairs system value;
Partner and internal-provider dependencies are incorporated;
the system adapts coherently to strategic, market, professional, regulatory, and operating change.

Evidence Indicators¶

reduced cross-boundary friction and delay;
interoperable processes and information;
coordinated decision records;
shared or reconciled measures and semantics;
improved end-to-end outcomes;
reduced displacement of cost, risk, workload, or value;
integrated continuity and dependency management.

Boundary Conditions¶

Harmonization is not homogeneity, indiscriminate integration, or universal centralization. Excessive coupling may reduce resilience, autonomy, speed, and optionality.

Characteristic Value Enablement¶

interoperability and coordinated adaptation;
end-to-end evidence;
reduced cross-boundary leakage;
improved continuity and dependency management;
coordinated Partner and ecosystem value;
preservation of justified local autonomy.

Characteristic Value Risk¶

excessive governance overhead;
unnecessary integration and systemic coupling;
contagion and concentration risk;
loss of useful autonomy;
enterprise-wide propagation of flawed assumptions;
harmonization burden exceeding system value.

Sustainment and Renewal¶

M5 is not terminal or permanent. Harmonized subjects require continuing dependency discovery, evidence renewal, state-of-the-art review, fit-for-value reassessment, and controlled decoupling where integration no longer creates net value.

Regression Indicators¶

M5 may regress where semantics fragment, governance becomes ceremonial, integrations become brittle, local incentives override system value, Partner dependencies become unmanaged, or the state of the art advances beyond the system's adaptive capacity.

Relative Maturity and Regression¶

Internal Regression¶

Internal regression occurs where the subject loses conditions previously required for its designation. Causes may include loss of Proficiencies, abandonment of Practices, uncontrolled variants, deteriorating data, control erosion, organizational fragmentation, Platform degradation, Partner disruption, or growth that overwhelms established operation.

Relative Regression¶

Relative regression occurs where the subject remains materially unchanged but the relevant comparison basis advances. Causes may include:

advances in professional knowledge or management methods;
improved market and competitor Practices;
new regulatory or assurance expectations;
increased customer or Consumer expectations;
new commercial or economic models;
improved evidence standards;
more integrated ecosystem Practices;
technological advances where relevant, but not exclusively.

A subject previously assessed at 4.0 may later be assessed at 3.4 because the threshold for Optimized maturity has advanced, even where internal performance has not materially deteriorated.

Regression must be evidenced and explained. It must not be used merely to create artificial demand for improvement.

Target Maturity¶

A target Maturity Level or Position should state:

why the target is fit-for-value;
expected Effects;
required Investments;
material risks and trade-offs;
sustainment burden;
consequences of remaining at the current state;
consequences of overbuilding;
evidence required to confirm advancement and value contribution.

Mapping External Maturity Models¶

Mapping Rules¶

map semantically, not numerically;
preserve the source model, version, definition, and evidence requirements;
permit range-based or dimension-specific mappings;
record unmapped characteristics and evidence differences;
do not assume reverse equivalence;
assign mapping confidence and limitations.

Illustrative Mapping Bands¶

Source-model form	Possible canonical interpretation
Absent or not performed	Outside the scale as Absent or Indeterminate, or M0 where a governed concept exists
Planned or pre-operational	Often M0 Conceptualized
Initial, ad hoc, reactive	Often M1 Improvised
Repeatable, managed, documented	Often M2 Normalized
Defined, standardized, consolidated	M2 or M3 depending on demonstrated rationalization
Quantitatively managed or measured	M3 or M4 depending on evidence-driven improvement
Optimizing, adaptive, integrated	M4 or M5 depending on cross-boundary harmonization
Crawl	Often M1 or early M2
Walk	Often M2 or M3
Run	Often M4 and sometimes M5

These are interpretive starting points, not automatic crosswalks.

Prohibited Interpretations¶

Do not:

use maturity as proof of realized value;
assume the highest anchor is the correct target;
infer maturity from documentation, training, or Project completion alone;
average away a foundational deficiency;
use decimal precision unsupported by evidence;
treat anchor intervals as equal;
map external models by number alone;
treat M0 as Absent or Indeterminate;
treat Optimized as maximized;
treat Harmonized as uniformity;
treat illustrative Progression descriptions as comprehensive prescriptions;
use Conceptualizing or Improvizing for the M0-to-M1 Progression.

Governance¶

Material applications should identify the model version, assessment basis, evidence period, validator, confidence, fit-for-value target rationale, active Maturity Progression, and reassessment conditions.

Changes to anchor names, definitions, order, Progression relationships, or controlled crosswalk rules require canonical governance.