Marketing maturity: authorising decisions by demonstrated capability.
Key distinctions
Three conditions before calculating.
Observable capability
Each level must correspond to verifiable artefacts and behaviours: data dictionary, decision register, experiment protocol, contribution account, independent validation or evidence of use.
Non-compensable threshold
Excellent governance does not repair insufficient data reconciliation; a precise model does not create adoption. Critical capabilities are gates, not points that other dimensions can offset.
Maturity by decision
The level required depends on exposure and reversibility. An exploratory diagnostic tolerates more uncertainty than a reallocation of several million or a daily automation.
Method
Turning self-assessment into decision rights
- 01Define the decisions
List the real uses — describe, compare, experiment, forecast, allocate or automate; for each use, state the amount exposed, the frequency and the ability to go back.
- 02Collect the evidence
Assess five capabilities on observable and recent elements; a declaration without a document, a log or a reproducible result is classed as intention, not capability.
- 03Apply the gates
Define the minimum thresholds specific to each use; the authorised level is the one whose critical gates are all passed, while the other capabilities guide the progression plan.
- 04Prioritise the next control
Address the capability that limits the highest-value decision; set an owner, a deliverable, a date and an acceptance test rather than a general ambition to transform.
The five gates of decision capability
The grid shows the level reached in governance, data, experimentation, economics and adoption, then the maximum decision authorised.
An average of 3 out of 5 does not authorise optimisation
An organisation scores governance 4, data 2, experimentation 3, economics 4 and adoption 2. The average is 3. Yet only 72% of exposures join up with sales and 40% of documented recommendations are used.
The descriptive diagnostic requires at least 2 everywhere: it is authorised. Allocation requires data 3, economics 3 and adoption 3: two gates fail. Automated optimisation requires 4 on data, governance and control: it is also blocked despite the average.
The priority plan repairs the reconciliation keys and institutes a decision register. The models remain used to compare scenarios and design tests, not to move the budget automatically.
Acceptance conditions
What must be true to act.
- 01
Levels rest on recent and verifiable evidence.
- 02
Each type of decision has its own minimum thresholds.
- 03
A weak critical capability cannot be offset by an average.
- 04
The progress plan targets the next useful decision, with an acceptance test.
Limits
What this analysis does not prove.
- A generic grid must be adapted to the risk and the size of the organisation.
- The presence of a process does not guarantee the quality of its execution.
- A maturity score does not directly measure marketing performance.
References
Works cited.
- ISO 9004:2018, Quality management — Quality of an organization — Guidance to achieve sustained success.
- Davenport, T. H. & Harris, J. G. (2007), Competing on Analytics.
- Keeney, R. L. (1992), Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking.