A level from 1 to 5
Read against the DAMA maturity bands, with a description of what an organization at that level does and does not yet do.
Data maturity assessment
Fifteen minutes, a DAMA-based scorecard, and a written read of where you actually are: level, five-axis radar, and three quick wins on your weakest pillar.
Most organizations know their data situation is not good. Very few can say where in a way that survives a conversation with a sponsor — and "we're quite immature" is not a plan. It doesn't tell you what to fix first, and it gives a skeptical executive nothing to agree with.
This scorecard produces the specific version. It asks about behavior rather than aspiration: not "do you have a data policy?" but "when someone breaks it, what happens?". Fifteen questions, about fifteen minutes, and the result lands in your inbox rather than in mine.
Free · 15 minutes · automatic result
Discover your data maturity level
Fifteen questions about what actually happens in your organization, not about what the policy says. At the end you get a level, a radar and three things you can start on Monday.
Start the assessmentOpens in Google Forms, in a new tab. The report is emailed as soon as you finish.
A five-axis radar
Almost nobody is uniformly immature. The radar shows the asymmetry a single score hides.
Three quick wins
Chosen against your weakest axis and scoped to need no new budget. This is the part sponsors read.
Reading the result
Read it in order — level, then radar, then quick wins — because the quick wins only make sense once you accept the axis they came from.
The level. The number matters less than the description attached to it, which is written in terms of what an organization at that level actually does on a Tuesday. Check it against your own week. If it doesn't land, the interesting question is which of the fifteen answers was more generous than it should have been.
The radar. This is the part people screenshot. Almost nobody is uniformly immature, and the most common shape by a distance is respectable tooling and metadata sitting alongside no decision rights at all — a catalog nobody argues with because nobody has to. A single headline score hides exactly that asymmetry. The radar puts it on one page.
The quick wins. Three of them, chosen against your weakest axis and scoped to need no new budget and no new headcount, because "hire a team" is not a first move. This is the part sponsors read, so it is written to be forwarded.
What it is not
It is not a benchmark. There is no claim that you are in the 40th percentile of your industry, because a comparison against organizations you can't inspect tells you nothing you can act on and invites an argument about the sample instead of a decision about the work.
It is also not a lead qualification form wearing a diagnostic costume. The result is the deliverable. If it tells you your governance foundations are solid and your real problem is data literacy, that's a genuinely useful answer and it doesn't point at me.
What to do next week
If the weakest axis is ownership or decision rights, the playbooks and the articles at the foot of this page are the next step, in that order.
If it's quality, put a number on it with the cost of bad data calculator before you propose anything. A quality problem with a figure attached gets funded; the same problem described as "poor data quality" gets noted.
If it's literacy, the constraint is almost never a training budget. It's that nobody has ever been told which number is the official one.
And if you want the assessment run properly — interviews instead of a form, the disagreements between functions surfaced instead of quietly averaged away — that's the governance diagnostic, which is where most of my longer work starts.