Measure & Improve ยท MON-07
Re-assessing AI maturity
The organisation re-runs this framework's assessment on a set cycle, compares results with earlier ones, and acts on the gaps it finds.
Why it matters
A single assessment gives a snapshot that soon becomes out of date as AI use and the organisation change. Repeating it on a cycle shows whether improvement actions worked and where to focus next.
Levels
| 0 Absent | Confirmed absent: the evidence shows nothing is in place. Not known is recorded as insufficient evidence, not 0. |
|---|---|
| 1 Initial | The assessment has been done once or not at all, and results were not acted on. |
| 2 Developing | The assessment is repeated irregularly, or results are produced but not turned into an improvement plan. |
| 3 Defined | A named owner re-runs the assessment on a set cycle, compares results with the previous round, and agrees an improvement plan with owners. |
| 4 Managed | Progress against the improvement plan is tracked and reported, and assessment results are checked against evidence rather than self-reported alone. |
| 5 Optimising | Target levels and the assessment cycle are adjusted from results and external change, and results are used to set priorities across the organisation. |
Level 3 criteria
Level 3 is met when every applicable criterion is met. Criteria marked with an overlay apply only to organisations with that characteristic (overlays).
- MON-07.1 The assessment is re-run on a set cycle by a named owner.
- MON-07.2 Each round's results are compared with the previous round.
- MON-07.3 An improvement plan with owners is agreed after each round.
Assessment questions
- When was the assessment last run, and when is the next one due?
- How do current results compare with the previous round?
- What improvement actions came out of the last assessment, and are they complete?
- Completed assessments from at least two rounds
- The improvement plan with owners and progress
How to reach Level 3
- Name an owner for the assessment and set a cycle for re-running it, such as yearly.
- Keep the results of each round in a form that can be compared with the next.
- Compare each new round with the previous one and record what moved and what did not.
- Agree an improvement plan with named owners for each action and get it approved by the executive sponsor.
Common pitfalls
- Running the assessment once and treating the result as permanent.
- Producing results with no improvement plan behind them.
- Changing the assessment method between rounds so results cannot be compared.
Starter artefacts
- Assessment schedule
- Round-by-round comparison sheet
- Improvement plan with owners
Ownership and sequence
- Accountable
- ai governance lead
- Contributors
- executive sponsor, risk lead
- Depends on
- GOV-02
- Roadmap step
- 2
- Lifecycle
- strategy, operate
Cross-references
| ISO/IEC 42001 | 4.4 partial; 9.2 partial; 10.1 direct |
|---|---|
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | GOVERN 1.5 partial; MEASURE 1.2 partial; MANAGE 4.2 partial |
direct: this control at Level 3 meets the item. partial: it covers part of it.