Assessing Digital Maturity and the Current State
5 min read
Lesson objectives
- Build a multidimensional current-state assessment based on evidence rather than impressions alone.
- Use an educational maturity rating cautiously and explain its limits without converting it into a false percentage.
- Formulate gaps linking current state, target state, impact, and the decision question.
1. Assess the current state before choosing the solution
Digital maturity assessment is not a contest to obtain a high score. Its purpose is to build a shared, evidence-based view of the current state: Where is there a strong capability to build on? Where do handoffs or re-entry repeatedly break? Which decisions are delayed by weak data? Which gaps prevent a target value from being reached? Assessment starts with scope and questions, then evidence, and only then—if useful—a rating as a summary device rather than a substitute for understanding.
Multiple digital maturity frameworks exist, and no single framework automatically fits every organization. For example, Open DMAT includes dimensions such as Digital Business Strategy, Digital Readiness, Human-centric Digitalisation, Data Governance, Automation and AI, and Green Digitalisation. These dimensions remind us that maturity is broader than “having systems.” For a practical assessment, dimensions can be adapted to the decision scope, provided definitions are documented and scores from different scales are not compared as if they were equivalent.
| Practical learning dimension | What to look for | Example evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy and value | Clarity of outcomes, priorities, and links between initiatives and value | Stated goals, initiative portfolio, funding decisions. |
| Process and stakeholders | Workflow, handoff failures, and beneficiary experience | Journey maps, cycle times, exception logs. |
| Data | Quality, ownership, definitions, and responsible access | Data dictionary, quality samples, conflicting sources. |
| Technology and integration | Platform fit, integration, and adaptability | Interfaces, system maps, outages or manual bridges. |
| People and capabilities | Skills, behavior, and ability to perform the new work | Observed performance, practical tasks, role gaps. |
| Governance and decision | Decision rights, accountability, and standards | Decision forums, policies, responsibilities, decision logs. |
| Risk and resilience | Continuity, privacy, security, and critical dependencies | Recovery tests, risk logs, single points of failure. |
A strong assessment combines several kinds of evidence. Interviews explain why people believe a process works or fails, observation shows what actually happens, system logs reveal volumes and times, documents show formal rules, and samples test data or output quality. If a team describes a process as “fully digital” but a sample of 100 cases shows 40 were printed and manually re-entered, the evidence does not establish the cause, but it does establish a break that deserves investigation.
A useful gap statement has four parts: evidence-supported current state, target state, likely impact of the gap, and the unresolved decision question or cause. Example: “35% of requests are manually re-entered between two systems in a one-month sample; the target is trusted one-time entry; re-entry increases time and error opportunity; we need to understand exception causes and define the data-definition owner before choosing an integration.” This is stronger than “the systems are old and we need a modern platform.”
Assessment scope and time period should be explicit. “The organization’s digital maturity” is too broad if we are actually examining one service for one month. A better statement is: “Current-state assessment of the service-request journey from receipt to closure, based on the last eight weeks of data and interviews with key roles.” Observations should be separated from assumed causes and recommendations. This makes the assessment reviewable and updateable.
Lesson summary
Current-state assessment comes before solution selection. Define scope, combine evidence from more than one source, separate observation from assumed cause, and use ratings—if used—as summaries rather than absolute facts. The practical value of the assessment appears when evidence becomes specific gaps linking the current state to the target, impact, and decision question.