Scoring¶
The OIF maturity scoring model is experimental in version 0.1.
It is intended to support structured assessment and improvement planning. It is not a certification, standard, ranking, or public claim of conformance.
Dimension Scores¶
Each maturity dimension is scored from 0 to 5.
Scores should be based on validated evidence. Evidence may include records, artifacts, interviews, system outputs, audit findings, workflow traces, decision logs, outcome measures, or other reviewable material.
A dimension score is a weighted average of validated evidence for that dimension.
Example evidence categories:
- coverage
- consistency
- quality
- governance
- reuse
- learning impact
Assessors should document:
- evidence used
- evidence limitations
- confidence level
- assumptions
- known gaps
Overall Score¶
The overall score is a weighted average of dimension scores.
Unless a different weighting model is justified and documented, each of the ten initial dimensions should have equal weight.
The overall score should be reported to one decimal place.
Example:
Overall score: 2.7
Maturity Level¶
The maturity level is the floor of the overall score unless gating criteria fail.
Examples:
| Overall score | Initial level before gates |
|---|---|
| 0.4 | Level 0 |
| 1.8 | Level 1 |
| 2.7 | Level 2 |
| 3.2 | Level 3 |
| 4.1 | Level 4 |
| 5.0 | Level 5 |
The floor rule prevents a fractional score from being overstated as a higher maturity level.
Gating Criteria¶
Gating criteria prevent a high average score from hiding a missing foundational capability.
Level 4 Gate¶
No organization may score Level 4 or higher without evidence of feedback-driven learning.
Evidence should show that outcomes from decisions and actions are used to update future memory, reasoning, policies, workflows, models, controls, or guidance.
If this evidence is missing, the maturity level is capped at Level 3 even if the overall score is 4.0 or higher.
Level 5 Gate¶
No organization may score Level 5 without evidence of:
- enterprise-wide governance
- persistent Organizational Memory
- measurable improvement in decisions or outcomes
If any of these are missing, the maturity level is capped at Level 4 even if the overall score is 5.0.
Confidence¶
Assessments should include a confidence rating.
Suggested confidence values:
- Low: evidence is limited, self-reported, incomplete, or unverified.
- Medium: evidence covers important areas but has known gaps.
- High: evidence is broad, validated, current, and reviewable.
Confidence should not increase the score. It describes how much trust should be placed in the assessment.
Limitations¶
Every assessment should document limitations, such as:
- domains not reviewed
- unavailable evidence
- unverified claims
- time constraints
- stakeholder gaps
- tool or system access limitations
- assumptions made by assessors
Limitations should be visible wherever scores are reported.
Reporting¶
Assessment results should report:
- dimension scores
- overall score to one decimal place
- maturity level after gates
- gating criteria results
- confidence
- evidence summary
- limitations
- recommendations
Reports should avoid overstating precision. A score is a structured assessment aid, not a scientific measurement.
Non-certification Statement¶
Version 0.1 scoring is experimental and is not a certification.
Organizations may use the scoring model for internal assessment, learning, and planning. They should not claim official certification, endorsement, or formal OIF conformance based on version 0.1 scoring.
Unless otherwise noted, this document is licensed under CC BY 4.0.