Content Maturity Framework

Our comprehensive framework describes content capabilities across 5 key areas, containing 29 aspects that define content maturity.

Within those aspects we've detailed 93 indicators of maturity. These drill down into the detail of all the aspects of content maturity.

Strategy

Strategy provides the direction, underpinnings and framework for all content activities. Maturity in this area depends on whether organisations have a comprehensive content strategy that connects to business objectives, employ evidence-based decision-making, invest in a strategic way, utilise effective storytelling approaches, and implement coherent, holistic channel strategies. Strong content strategy aligns all content efforts with organisational goals and ensures systematic approaches to content success.

Channels

Effective channel strategy ensures content reaches audiences through the right platforms and touchpoints. Content maturity depends on whether there's a clear, joined-up approach to channels that prioritises content over platform and creates coherent multi-channel user experiences.

Core strategy

A clear, comprehensive content strategy provides direction and alignment across the organisation. Content maturity depends on whether a robust content strategy exists that is aspirational and motivational, flexible in scope and application, graspable and memorable, developed inclusively and well-socialised, and directly connected to organisational goals. This strategy is the line that connects content to the organisation's purpose – what it exists to do – not just its near-term goals.

Evidence and research

Strategic intelligence and evidence-based research inform robust content strategy development. Content maturity depends on whether comprehensive market intelligence is gathered about content landscapes and opportunities, user research informs strategic decisions, and content strategies are developed using organisation-specific evidence rather than assumptions. This is how what the organisation knows – its data, evidence and understanding – flows into content decisions rather than sitting unused.

Investment

Strategic investment in content capabilities demonstrates organisational commitment and enables growth. Content maturity depends on whether adequate budget is allocated to content activities, resources scale with content ambitions and investment decisions align with quality and strategic content priorities.

Storytelling

Strategic storytelling transforms content from information delivery to engaging narrative experiences that carry the organisation's point of view. Content maturity depends on whether storytelling approaches using human-interest hooks and narrative structures are widely understood, used throughout the organisation, and integrated into content strategy – and on whether content expresses the organisation's distinctive frames, beliefs and point of view rather than staying neutral.

Culture

Culture encompasses the organisational mindset: behaviours and attitudes that shape how content is valued and approached. This foundational area covers whether content is seen as strategically important, whether leadership supports content excellence, and whether the organisation fosters innovation, sustainability and audience-centricity. A mature content culture creates the conditions for effective content work across all other areas.

Audience

Understanding and responding to audience needs – and the shifting ways in which they use your content – is fundamental to effective content. Content maturity depends on whether there’s widespread understanding of the organisation’s users, audience and advocates. And on whether content decisions, structures and substance are based on the needs and wants of those people.

Innovation

Innovation in content approaches drives better outcomes and competitive advantage. Content maturity depends on whether the organisation encourages experimentation with content and the content operating model, incorporates AI, fosters a test-and-learn culture, and provides space for creative content solutions.

Leadership

Strong content leadership drives strategic thinking and elevates content's organisational importance. Content maturity depends on whether content leadership exists, is respected, and operates at a strategic rather than just tactical level within the organisation.

Sustainability

Sustainable content practices ensure long-term value and organisational resilience. Content maturity depends on whether content and content systems are designed for longevity, with evergreen content maintained and flexible, adaptable systems that support ongoing success.

Understanding and attitudes

Organisational mindset and awareness about content's strategic value affects how content is prioritised and resourced. Content maturity depends on whether staff understand content's broad definition and strategic importance across all organisational levels.

Operations

Operations covers the day-to-day practices, processes, and capabilities that enable consistent content delivery. Maturity in this area depends on whether organisations have skilled content professionals, effective workflows and planning processes, robust training and development programmes, appropriate skills, sustainable maintenance practices, and strong collaboration across teams. Effective content operations ensure content work is efficient, sustainable, and continuously improving.

Collaboration

Effective collaboration across teams and departments, and between humans and AI, maximises content impact and efficiency. Content maturity depends on whether content work involves appropriate stakeholders, collaboration processes are clear and effective, and cross-functional teamwork enhances rather than hinders content outcomes.

Maintenance and habits

Sustainable content maintenance practices ensure long-term effectiveness and prevent content decay. Content maturity depends on whether regular content review and updating processes exist, AI-powered systems make them consistent, maintenance responsibilities are clearly assigned, and organisational habits support ongoing content health.

Process, planning and workflow

Efficient content processes and workflows ensure consistent delivery and quality. Content maturity depends on whether clear content planning processes exist, workflows are documented and followed, and systems enable smooth collaboration and content production from concept to publication.

Skills and people

Skilled content professionals and clear role definitions enable effective content operations. Content maturity depends on whether organisations have appropriate content expertise, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and team members with the right skills to execute content strategy successfully.

Training and development

Ongoing professional development ensures content teams stay current and effective in a fast-changing content world. Content maturity depends on whether content professionals receive regular training, have access to skill development opportunities, and are supported in staying current with content best practices and emerging trends.

Substance

Substance focuses on the quality, effectiveness, and characteristics of content itself. Maturity in this area depends on whether content demonstrates creativity, maintains high quality standards, ensures accessibility and readability, employs diverse formats strategically, expresses brand consistently, and is discoverable by intended audiences. Content substance determines whether content achieves its intended impact and serves users effectively.

Accessibility and readability

Accessible and readable content ensures inclusion and broad comprehension. Content maturity depends on whether content is designed for diverse contexts, abilities and reading levels, follows accessibility standards, uses clear language, and removes barriers to understanding for all potential users.

Brand, style and consistency

Consistent brand expression through content builds recognition and trust. Content maturity depends on whether a distinctive organisational voice exists, content is integrated with brand strategy, editorial style connects to brand values, and voice and tone guidelines are clearly defined and consistently applied by all staff and all AI agents. This is how content expresses the organisation's character – who it is – and not merely a consistent surface style.

Creativity

Creative content approaches enhance engagement and differentiate organisations from competitors. Content maturity depends on whether content demonstrates original thinking, uses innovative formats and approaches, balances creativity with strategic objectives, and inspires audience action or response.

Findability

Discoverable content maximises the reach and impact of content. Content maturity depends on whether content is optimised for search and discovery by humans and AI agents, uses appropriate metadata and tagging, follows SEO and agentic search best practices, and can be easily located by intended audiences across all channels.

Formats

Diverse content formats enable effective communication across different contexts and audiences. Content maturity depends on whether organisations strategically use and integrate varied content types including data visualisations, conversational AI interfaces, photos, videos, animations, and written content to optimise engagement and comprehension.

Quality

High content quality ensures effectiveness and reflects organisational professionalism. Content maturity depends on whether content meets established quality standards, undergoes appropriate review processes, and consistently delivers value to intended audiences while maintaining accuracy and relevance.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure encompasses the systems, frameworks, knowledge and foundations that enable effective, efficient content operations. This area covers content governance, information architecture, technology systems, content models and the resources necessary to support content work. Robust content infrastructure ensures consistency, efficiency and scalability whilst providing the technical and organisational backbone for content excellence.

Agentic AI

Smart use of AI enables high quality, consistent content, from conception through to publishing and maintenance. AI used in an orchestrated, agentic way improves all aspects of the content operating model. Content maturity depends on whether AI is used systemically to increase quality and not to churn out content faster.

Content model

Structured content models enable efficient creation, management, and reuse of content across platforms. The content model allows AI agents to usefully consume and act on an organisation's content. Content maturity depends on whether content is structured atomically and whether content is separate from presentation layers. Mature content ecosystems support content reuse through smart, bespoke content models.

Governance

Strong content governance ensures consistency, quality, and efficiency across all content activities. Content maturity depends on whether comprehensive rules, standards, and conventions exist, are well-documented and accessible, are digital-first, machine-readable by AI agents. are openly accessible and are actively maintained.

Information architecture

Effective information architecture ensures content can be found, understood, and used by audiences and is also well structured for AI traversal and answer generation. Content maturity depends on whether a coherent, flexible information architecture supports content organisation and discovery, tells clear stories, provides effective wayfinding, and is based on external rather than internal perspectives.

Monitoring, evaluation and learning

Regular, systematic monitoring, evaluation and learning drives continuous content improvement and demonstrates value. Content maturity depends on whether content quality and performance are systematically monitored against established criteria, and whether insights from this monitoring are acted upon to improve content outcomes.

Resources

Adequate budget, staffing and external support ensure effective content operations and outcomes. Content maturity depends on whether sufficient budget, time and capabilities are allocated to content activities to enable the organisation produces and maintains high-quality, strategic content consistently.

Technology and systems

Modern technology and systems, including AI, enable efficient content creation, management, and optimisation. Content maturity depends on whether the best available tools are used for content work, systems are regularly evaluated and improved, and emerging technologies are leveraged to enhance content effectiveness.

User research

Understanding users and audiences through research drives effective content decisions. Content maturity depends on whether user research is regularly conducted using appropriate methods, findings are systematically captured and made accessible, and insights are actively used to inform content strategy and decisions.

The Content Maturity Framework in full

Strategy

Channels

Cross-channel user experience

low: Cross-channel user experience is seldom considered, with channels operating independently.
medium-low: Cross-channel user experiences are occasionally planned but channels often operate independently with limited coordination.
medium: Cross-channel user experiences are sometimes considered but the experience does not always join up effectively.
medium-high: User journeys are mostly mapped across channels creating generally smooth experiences, though some touchpoints could be better integrated. AI is used to help ensure consistency of messaging and smooth, multi-levelled experiences.
high: User journeys are mapped and designed across all channels to create seamless experiences regardless of where users first engage. AI is used to help ensure consistency of messaging and smooth, multi-levelled experiences.

Multi-channel content approach

low: Different content is created for different channels without systematic planning or consistent messaging.
medium-low: Content is occasionally adapted for different channels but planning lacks systematic approach and messaging consistency varies significantly.
medium: Some content is adapted for different channels but the approach is not always systematic or consistent. AI is sometimes used for adaptation across channels.
medium-high: Content is systematically planned and adapted across most channels with generally consistent messaging, though some channels may not fully respect unique characteristics. AI assists adaptation across channels.
high: Content is planned and adapted systematically across multiple channels with consistent messaging while respecting each channel's unique characteristics. AI systems assist adaptation across channels.

Channel strategy and planning

low: Channel decisions are made ad-hoc without clear strategic planning or consideration of content priorities. AI channels aren’t yet considered.
medium-low: Basic channel planning exists but decisions are often made without comprehensive strategic consideration of content needs or user experience. AI channels are seldom considered.
medium: Some channel planning exists but strategy is not always holistic. Content and the user experience isn’t always prioritised over platform considerations. AI channels may or may not be considered.
medium-high: Clear channel strategy exists that mostly prioritises content needs, though some platform limitations occasionally override strategic content considerations. AI channels are usually considered.
high: A clear, holistic channel strategy is established that prioritises content needs over platform capabilities and ensures strategic alignment across all touchpoints, including AI channels.

Core strategy

Graspable and memorable

low: The core content strategy is complex, hard to explain, and people need to refer to documents to remember what it says.
medium-low: The core content strategy exists but is somewhat complex or difficult to explain clearly to others without reference materials.
medium: The core content strategy is fairly understandable but it can be difficult to explain clearly or to remember all the details.
medium-high: The core content strategy is mostly simple to understand and explain, though some aspects may require clarification or documentation.
high: The core content strategy is simple to understand, easy to explain to others, and memorable enough that people can recall and apply it without documentation.

Aspirational and motivational

low: Content strategy describes what the organisation already does rather than pushing toward what it could become, and feels routine rather than inspiring.
medium-low: Content strategy includes some aspirational language but primarily describes current activities with limited motivational impact.
medium: Content strategy has some aspirational elements but is mostly grounded in current capabilities and provides moderate inspiration.
medium-high: Content strategy is clearly aspirational and motivates most people, though it doesn't always push the organisation toward transformational change.
high: Content strategy is clearly aspirational, pushing the organisation toward what it wants to become, and genuinely energizes and motivates people across the organisation.

Flexible scope and application

low: Content strategy is limited to marketing activities and cannot accommodate different tactics or broader organisational content needs.
medium-low: Content strategy has limited scope beyond marketing but can occasionally be adapted for other purposes with some difficulty.
medium: Content strategy mostly focuses on marketing but can sometimes be applied to other areas and different tactics.
medium-high: Content strategy has flexible scope covering most organisational content needs and easily accommodates different tactics and team configurations.
high: Content strategy encompasses all organisational content including marketing, reporting, and informational content, and easily accommodates various channels, tactics and team configurations.

Inclusive development and socialisation

low: Content strategy was developed in isolation and is poorly understood outside the content team, with little cross-organisational input or buy-in.
medium-low: Content strategy development involved limited collaboration and understanding varies significantly across the organisation.
medium: Content strategy involved some collaboration in development and is known within content and related teams but not consistently understood organisation-wide.
medium-high: Content strategy was developed collaboratively and is well-understood by most stakeholders, though some areas may lack full buy-in or understanding.
high: Content strategy was developed with input from across the organisation, is well-understood by all relevant stakeholders, and consistently considered in planning.

Ladder from content to aims

low: Content lacks strategic direction. There is no defined role for content as a strategic tool.
medium-low: Content strategy lacks a clear connection to organisational aims. Content serves primarily tactical purposes with limited strategic direction.
medium: Content strategy partially aligns with organisational priorities. Some strategic direction exists but content is sometimes seen as primarily tactical.
medium-high: The content strategy has connections to strategic organisational aims but they could be more clearly defined.
high: A core content strategy clearly defines how content serves as a powerful strategic tool with clear connections to organisational aims.

Evidence and research

Strategic content intelligence

low: Content strategy decisions are made without systematic research into market context, competitor approaches, or strategic opportunities.
medium-low: Limited strategic research is conducted about content opportunities with intelligence gathering being informal and sporadic. AI is seldom used to enhance this intelligence.
medium: Some strategic research is conducted about content opportunities but intelligence gathering is not systematic or comprehensive. AI is used here and there to enhance this intelligence.
medium-high: Good strategic intelligence is mostly gathered about content landscape and opportunities, though research could be more systematic or comprehensive in some areas. AI is used to enhance this intelligence.
high: Comprehensive strategic intelligence is gathered about content landscape, competitor approaches, and market opportunities to inform content strategy decisions. AI is used effectively to continually enhance and update this intelligence.

Evidence-based strategy development

low: Content strategy development relies primarily on assumptions or best practices rather than organisation-specific evidence and research.
medium-low: Limited evidence is gathered to inform content strategy, with decisions often based on incomplete research or assumptions.
medium: Some evidence informs content strategy development but research is not always comprehensive or systematically applied.
medium-high: Content strategy is mostly informed by robust evidence including research and analysis, though some decisions may still rely on incomplete data.
high: Content strategy is developed and refined based on robust evidence including user research, content audits, and performance analysis from strategic initiatives.

Investment

Strategic investment commitment

low: There’s limited strategic commitment to content investment with content treated as a cost centre rather than strategic asset.
medium-low: Limited strategic commitment to content investment exists with inconsistent funding that doesn't always reflect content's strategic importance.
medium: Some strategic commitment to content investment exists but it is inconsistent or not clearly communicated.
medium-high: Leadership demonstrates good strategic commitment to content investment, though allocation could be more sustained or clearly linked to strategic importance. There’s some understanding of the difference between investing in AI productivity tools and investing in content capability.
high: Leadership demonstrates clear strategic commitment to content through sustained investment that reflects content's importance to organisational success. There’s clear understanding of the difference between investing in AI productivity tools and investing in content capability.

Investment scaling with ambitions

low: Investment does not scale with content ambitions, constraining growth and limiting strategic content potential.
medium-low: Investment in content activities exists but doesn't consistently scale with ambitions, occasionally constraining strategic content potential.
medium: Some alignment exists between investment and content ambitions but scaling is not always appropriate or timely.
medium-high: Content investment mostly scales appropriately with ambitions enabling growth, though timing or allocation could sometimes be better optimised.
high: Content investment scales appropriately with content ambitions and strategic objectives, enabling growth and expanded capabilities.

ROI awareness and justification

low: Limited consideration of content investment returns with decisions made without clear ROI justification.
medium-low: Basic consideration is given to content investment returns but evaluation methods are informal and ROI justification is inconsistent.
medium: Some consideration is given to content investment returns but evaluation is not systematic or comprehensive.
medium-high: Content investment decisions are mostly made with clear understanding of expected returns, though systematic evaluation of effectiveness could be improved.
high: Content investment decisions are made with clear understanding of expected returns and value, with systematic evaluation of investment effectiveness.

Storytelling

Strategic storytelling integration

low: No storytelling strategy exists and narrative approaches are not systematically integrated into content planning.
medium-low: Limited consideration is given to storytelling in content strategy with narrative approaches occasionally used but not systematically planned.
medium: Some consideration is given to storytelling in content strategy, but integration is not systematic or comprehensive.
medium-high: Storytelling is mostly integrated into content planning and strategy, though systematic integration could be enhanced in some content development areas.
high: Storytelling is strategically integrated into content planning and strategy, with narrative approaches considered from the outset of content development. Systems, including AI systems, are in place that make sure this happens consistently and regularly.

Storytelling application scope

low: Storytelling is seldom used and is not seen as relevant to most organisational content.
medium-low: Storytelling is used occasionally in marketing content but is rarely applied to other organisational content types.
medium: Storytelling is used in some content areas such as marketing or blogs, but is not seen as relevant to all content types.
medium-high: Storytelling approaches are applied across most organisational content types, though some areas may not consistently use narrative techniques.
high: Storytelling approaches are applied across all organisational content types, not limited to marketing. These approaches are built into AI content systems as well as used by all staff.

Storytelling capability and understanding

low: Storytelling principles are poorly understood with limited knowledge of narrative structures or engagement techniques.
medium-low: Basic understanding of storytelling exists but application is inconsistent and narrative structures aren't systematically used across teams or by AI.
medium: Some understanding of storytelling principles exists but application is inconsistent across different teams, AI systems or content types.
medium-high: Good understanding of storytelling principles exists with mostly consistent application, though some teams and AI agents may need enhanced narrative technique development.
high: Storytelling principles including narrative structures and human-interest hooks are well understood and applied consistently across the organisation. AI agents and systems also understand these principles.

Point of view and conviction

low: Content avoids taking a position. It relays information and other people's views without expressing the organisation's own frames, beliefs or point of view.
medium-low: A point of view surfaces occasionally, but most content stays neutral and the organisation's distinctive beliefs rarely come through.
medium: The organisation's perspective comes through in some content, but it is inconsistent and its frames and beliefs are not reliably expressed across topics or channels.
medium-high: Content mostly carries a clear, distinctive point of view grounded in what the organisation knows and believes, though conviction can fade in some formats or where AI-assisted content is not well guided.
high: Content consistently expresses the organisation's distinctive frames, beliefs and point of view, turning what it knows and believes into a recognisable perspective. This conviction is briefed into AI systems so generated content carries it too, rather than defaulting to generic neutrality.

Culture

Audience

Clarity and user focus

low: Language relies heavily on internal jargon and organisational terminology, and messaging primarily describes organisational activities rather than user value.
medium-low: Language occasionally uses audience-friendly terminology but still relies on some internal jargon, with messaging inconsistently focused on user value.
medium: Language is mostly audience-friendly with occasional internal jargon, and messaging sometimes focuses on user value but often describes what the organisation does.
medium-high: Language consistently uses terminology audiences understand and messaging mostly articulates user benefits, though occasional organisational focus remains.
high: Language and messaging use terminology that audiences naturally understand and clearly articulate user benefits rather than organisational activities.

Design and user experience

low: Structure reflects internal team hierarchy and is created without considering user context or journey.
medium-low: Structure occasionally reflects users’ mental models but is often influenced by internal considerations and lacks systematic user focus.
medium: Structure partially reflects users’ mental models and some consideration is given to user context but not systematically across all touchpoints.
medium-high: Structure mostly reflects users’ mental models and considers user contexts, though some areas still show internal organisational thinking.
high: Structure is organised around users’ mental models and designed for specific user contexts and journeys.

Content decisions and audience needs

low: Content decisions are based on internal preferences, organisational structures, and internal language rather than audience needs and wants.
medium-low: Content decisions occasionally consider audience needs but are often influenced by internal convenience or organisational preferences.
medium: Content decisions are often shaped by audience needs but are also influenced by internal convenience or organisational preferences.
medium-high: Content decisions are mostly informed by audience needs and wants, though internal considerations sometimes override audience priorities.
high: Content decisions are always informed by audience needs and wants.

Innovation

Capture and application of innovation learning

low: Content innovation experiments are rarely documented or evaluated. Little systematic learning occurs from content trials and new approaches.
medium-low: Content innovation experiments are occasionally documented but evaluation is informal and learning rarely influences future decisions systematically.
medium: Some content innovation results are captured and shared, but this happens inconsistently. Learning from experiments sometimes influences future work.
medium-high: Most content innovation results are systematically documented and evaluated, with successful approaches usually shared, though application of learning could be more consistent.
high: Innovation experiments and trials are systematically documented and evaluated. Successful approaches are captured and shared across the organisation. Learning from both successes and failures informs future content decisions.

Innovative activity in the content space

low: Little or no content innovation happens. There’s a blanket resistance to AI. The organisation tends to keep doing the same thing and doesn’t learn much from successes or failures.
medium-low: Limited content innovation occurs with occasional experiments but little systematic learning or encouragement for trying new approaches.
medium: Some content innovation happens but it tends to not be very systematised
medium-high: Regular content innovation happens with good experiment-and-learn culture, though systematic documentation and iteration could be improved.
high: There is an established experiment-and-learn culture. Staff are encouraged to try new ways of doing content, using the best of technology and AI. There’s a positive loop of test, learn and iterate.

Leadership

Influence and respect of content leadership

low: Content leadership is not seen as strategic: it’s considered a tactical role.
medium-low: Content leadership exists but is often seen as primarily tactical with limited strategic influence or respect at senior levels.
medium: Content leadership is not always seen as strategic.
medium-high: Content leadership is mostly respected and seen as strategic, though occasional decisions may override content expertise inappropriately.
high: Content leadership and expertise is respected and taken into consideration at all levels. The role is widely seen as strategic.

Existence of strategic content leadership

low: Content work is largely seen as a production function. There isn’t really content leadership.
medium-low: Content leadership exists but is primarily tactical, focusing on execution rather than strategy and lacking organisational influence.
medium: Content leadership exists in the organisation but it’s not at an appropriate senior or strategic level.
medium-high: Strategic content leadership exists at appropriate seniority but doesn't always have the authority or resources to fully execute strategic vision.
high: Clear content leadership exists in the organisation at appropriate seniority. This leadership is strategic and not just tactical.

AI literacy and accountability

low: No one in leadership owns how AI fits into the content operating model, and senior people lack the AI literacy to judge content decisions that involve it. AI choices are made ad hoc, delegated wholesale or avoided.
medium-low: Responsibility for AI's role in content is loosely held, if at all, and leaders' AI literacy is limited, so decisions about AI and content are often deferred to vendors or junior staff without informed oversight.
medium: Someone in leadership takes some responsibility for AI and content, but accountability is unclear or partial, and leaders' AI literacy is patchy enough that some decisions involving AI are made without a good grasp of the trade-offs.
medium-high: Leadership ownership of AI's role in the content operating model is reasonably clear and senior people have decent AI literacy, though authority, depth of understanding or follow-through could be stronger.
high: A senior leader is clearly accountable for how AI fits into the content operating model, and content leadership has the AI literacy to make and steer sensible content decisions – understanding the opportunities, the limits and the risks, and where humans must stay in the loop.

Sustainability

Evergreen content maintenance

low: Limited attention is given to maintaining evergreen content once it is published.
medium-low: Evergreen content is occasionally reviewed but maintenance is reactive and not systematically planned or executed.
medium: Some evergreen content is maintained but processes are not systematic or comprehensive.
medium-high: Most evergreen content is systematically maintained with regular review processes, though some content areas may still be overlooked.
high: Evergreen content is systematically identified, maintained, and updated to ensure ongoing accuracy and relevance.

System flexibility and adaptability

low: Content systems are rigid with limited adaptability to changing organisational needs or AI developments.
medium-low: Content systems have limited flexibility with some adaptability but changes often require significant effort or workarounds.
medium: Some systems are flexible but adaptability is inconsistent across the content infrastructure.
medium-high: Most content systems are designed flexibly to support changing needs and AI evolution, though some legacy systems may limit full adaptability.
high: Content systems are designed to be flexible and adaptable, supporting changing needs and long-term organisational growth as well as changes to the technology and AI landscape.

Long-term content planning

low: Content planning focuses primarily on short-term needs with limited consideration of long-term sustainability.
medium-low: Content planning occasionally considers long-term needs but mostly focuses on short-term requirements with limited sustainability planning.
medium: Some content planning considers long-term sustainability but approach is inconsistent across content types.
medium-high: Most content planning incorporates long-term sustainability and maintenance considerations, though some content types may still focus primarily on short-term needs.
high: Content is planned and created with long-term sustainability in mind, considering ongoing relevance and maintenance requirements.

Understanding and attitudes

Content definition understanding

low: Content is understood narrowly, typically limited to marketing materials or website copy.
medium-low: Content is understood to include some formats beyond text but definition is inconsistent and often limited to marketing-focused materials.
medium: Content is understood to include multiple formats but definition varies across different teams.
medium-high: Content is understood broadly to include most words, images, and media across channels, though some teams still have narrower definitions.
high: Content is understood to encompass all words, images, and media produced by the organisation across all channels and formats.

Strategic importance awareness

low: Content is viewed primarily as a marketing function with limited strategic recognition.
medium-low: Content's strategic importance is recognised by some staff but many still view it primarily as a marketing function rather than a strategic tool.
medium: Content's strategic importance is recognised by some staff but understanding is inconsistent across the organisation.
medium-high: Content is mostly viewed as strategically important to achieving business objectives, though some areas may still see it primarily as marketing support.
high: Content is viewed across the organisation as strategically important to achieving business objectives.

AI and content understanding

low: AI is not connected with content. It is treated as an IT or productivity matter, if it is considered at all, with little grasp of how it changes the way content is made, found or consumed.
medium-low: A few individuals grasp the AI–content relationship, but understanding is patchy and mostly limited to using AI to produce content faster rather than how it reshapes content itself.
medium: There is some shared sense that AI matters for content, but it is uneven across teams and tends to focus on production speed rather than the wider shifts in how content is created, governed and consumed – including by AI.
medium-high: Most of the organisation understands that AI changes how content is made, found and consumed, and that this carries implications for quality, governance and trust, though the understanding is not always deep or consistent.
high: There is broad, shared understanding of the AI–content relationship: how AI changes the way content is produced, governed, discovered and consumed by people and machines, and what that means for the organisation's content. This understanding shapes attitudes and decisions across teams, not just in specialist roles.

Operations

Collaboration

Collaboration process clarity

low: Collaboration processes are ad-hoc or unclear, leading to confusion about roles and responsibilities in content work.
medium-low: Basic collaboration processes exist but documentation is incomplete and roles aren't always clearly defined for content work.
medium: Some collaboration processes exist but they are not always clear, documented, or consistently followed.
medium-high: Well-documented collaboration processes exist with mostly clear roles and responsibilities, though some workflows need refinement for optimal effectiveness.
high: Clear, documented collaboration processes exist that define roles, responsibilities, and workflows for effective cross-team content work.

Stakeholder identification and involvement

low: Limited stakeholder involvement in content work, often working in isolation or with inappropriate participants.
medium-low: Limited stakeholder involvement in content work with identification often ad-hoc and engagement not always at appropriate stages.
medium: Some stakeholders are involved in content work but identification and involvement is not always systematic or comprehensive.
medium-high: Appropriate stakeholders are mostly identified and involved at suitable stages, though some content work may miss relevant expertise or buy-in.
high: Appropriate stakeholders are systematically identified and involved in content work at the right stages, ensuring relevant expertise and buy-in.

Cross-functional effectiveness

low: Cross-functional and human-AI collaboration often hinders content outcomes due to poor coordination, communication barriers, or conflicting priorities.
medium-low: Cross-functional and human-AI collaboration exists but communication barriers and coordination issues sometimes hinder content outcomes.
medium: Cross-functional and human-AI teamwork sometimes enhances content outcomes but effectiveness is inconsistent.
medium-high: Cross-functional and human-AI collaboration generally enhances content outcomes through good communication and coordination, though some teams work more effectively than others.
high: Cross-functional and human-AI collaboration actively enhances content outcomes through effective communication, shared understanding, and coordinated effort.

Maintenance and habits

Maintenance responsibility assignment

low: Content maintenance responsibilities are unclear or unassigned, leading to neglected content.
medium-low: Some content maintenance responsibilities are assigned but roles often lack clarity and coverage is incomplete across content areas.
medium: Some content maintenance responsibilities are assigned but roles are not always clear or comprehensive.
medium-high: Most content maintenance responsibilities are clearly assigned and understood, though some content areas may lack designated ownership.
high: Content maintenance responsibilities are clearly assigned and understood, with accountable individuals or teams for different content areas.

Content review and updating processes

low: Limited or ad-hoc content review processes exist, with content often left to decay after publication.
medium-low: Content review happens occasionally but processes are informal and updating is reactive rather than proactive.
medium: Some content review and updating processes exist but they are not systematic or applied consistently across all content.
medium-high: Systematic content review and updating processes exist for most content, though coverage isn't comprehensive and some content still decays after publication.
high: Regular, systematic content review and updating processes, using the best of AI, are established to ensure ongoing accuracy, relevance, and effectiveness.

Organisational maintenance habits

low: Poor organisational habits around content maintenance, with maintenance seen as optional or afterthought.
medium-low: Limited organisational habits support content maintenance with maintenance often seen as secondary to content creation.
medium: Some organisational habits support content maintenance but they are not consistently embedded across the organisation.
medium-high: Good organisational habits mostly support ongoing content maintenance as part of regular operations, though consistency could be improved across all teams.
high: Strong organisational habits and culture support ongoing content maintenance as a routine part of content operations.

Process, planning and workflow

Production pipeline efficiency

low: Content production pipeline is inefficient with frequent bottlenecks, unclear handoffs, or unpredictable timelines.
medium-low: Content production pipeline has basic structure but frequent bottlenecks and unclear handoffs create inefficiencies and unpredictable timelines.
medium: Content production pipeline works reasonably well but has some bottlenecks or inefficiencies.
medium-high: Content production pipeline flows well with clear processes and mostly predictable timelines, though some bottlenecks or inefficiencies remain.
high: Content production pipeline flows efficiently with minimal bottlenecks, clear handoffs, and predictable timelines.

Content planning methodology

low: Content planning is ad-hoc with limited systematic methodology for moving from concept to publication.
medium-low: Basic content planning exists but methodology is informal and processes for moving from concept to publication are inconsistent.
medium: Some content planning methodology exists but processes are not always systematic or consistently applied.
medium-high: Systematic content planning methodology is mostly established with clear processes, though some aspects of ideation or prioritisation could be improved.
high: Systematic content planning methodology is used with clear processes for ideation, prioritisation, and scheduling from concept to publication.

Workflow documentation and standardisation

low: Content workflows are poorly documented with limited standardisation, leading to inefficient production.
medium-low: Basic workflow documentation exists but standardisation is limited and adherence is inconsistent, leading to some production inefficiencies.
medium: Some workflow documentation exists but standardisation is incomplete or inconsistently followed.
medium-high: Content workflows are mostly well-documented and standardised with generally consistent adherence, though some areas may need refinement for optimal efficiency.
high: Content workflows are clearly documented, standardised, and consistently followed to ensure efficient production and quality.

Skills and people

Skill-strategy alignment

low: Poor alignment between team skills and strategic content requirements, constraining strategy execution.
medium-low: Limited alignment exists between team skills and content strategy with skill gaps occasionally constraining strategic execution.
medium: Some alignment exists between team skills and strategy requirements but gaps limit full strategic execution.
medium-high: Good alignment exists between team skills and strategy requirements enabling most strategic objectives, though some capability gaps may limit full execution.
high: Team skills and capabilities are well-aligned with content strategy requirements, enabling effective execution of strategic content objectives.

Role clarity and responsibility definition

low: Content roles and responsibilities are poorly defined, leading to confusion about who does what in content operations.
medium-low: Content roles exist but definitions are incomplete with unclear responsibilities leading to occasional confusion about accountability.
medium: Some content roles are defined but responsibilities are not always clear or may have gaps and overlaps.
medium-high: Content roles and responsibilities are mostly clearly defined and understood, though some areas may have minor gaps or overlaps.
high: Content roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood, with explicit job descriptions and accountability structures for different aspects of content work, including handoffs between people and AI.

Content expertise and competencies

low: Limited content expertise exists within the team, with significant skill gaps that hinder effective content operations.
medium-low: Basic content skills exist within the team but significant gaps remain in specialised areas like strategy or technical content management.
medium: Some team members have relevant content expertise but skill gaps exist in certain areas or competencies are inconsistently distributed.
medium-high: Good content expertise exists across most required areas, though some specialised competencies could be strengthened or better distributed.
high: Team members possess appropriate content expertise and competencies required for strategic content work, including specialised skills in areas like writing, design, strategy, AI agent orchestration and technical content management.

Training and development

Training and skill development access

low: Minimal training and skill development opportunities are provided, with limited investment in professional development.
medium-low: Basic training and skill development opportunities are available occasionally but access is limited and often depends on individual initiative rather than systematic provision.
medium: Some training and skill development opportunities are available but access is limited or inconsistent across team members.
medium-high: Good training and skill development opportunities are regularly available to most team members, though some areas may lack comprehensive or structured learning programmes.
high: Content professionals have regular access to comprehensive training and skill development opportunities including workshops, mentoring, conferences, and structured learning programmes.

Currency with best practices and trends

low: Limited support for staying current with content best practices and trends and AI literacy, with professionals left to manage their own professional updating.
medium-low: Limited informal support exists for staying current with content best practices and trends and AI literacy, with professionals mostly managing their own learning inconsistently.
medium: Some support exists for staying current with content best practices and trends and AI literacy but it is not systematic or comprehensive.
medium-high: Good support systems exist for staying current with content best practices and trends and AI literacy, though coverage could be more systematic across all team members.
high: Content professionals are systematically supported to stay current with evolving best practices, emerging trends, AI literacy and industry developments in content.

Substance

Accessibility and readability

Digital accessibility compliance

low: Limited attention is given to accessibility standards with content barriers remaining for users with disabilities.
medium-low: Basic accessibility considerations are occasionally applied but standards compliance is informal and inconsistent.
medium: Some accessibility considerations are applied but compliance with standards is inconsistent across content types. Checks aren’t systemic.
medium-high: Accessibility standards are systematically applied to most content, though some content types or areas don't yet meet full compliance. AI is used to enhance compliance but it’s not as systematic as it could be.
high: Content consistently meets established accessibility standards (such as WCAG) with automated, systematic, AI-enhanced consideration of users with diverse abilities and assistive technologies. There’s a good, wide understanding of what accessibility means, and of the full range of contexts in which a user may be accessing your content.

Inclusive content design

low: Content design does not systematically consider diverse user needs or inclusive design principles.
medium-low: Basic inclusive design principles are occasionally considered but application is inconsistent and not systematic.
medium: Some inclusive design principles are applied but consideration of diverse needs is not systematic.
medium-high: Content is mostly designed with inclusive principles considering diverse needs, though some content areas may not fully address all user contexts. Staff and AI systems have some understanding of what this looks like for your organisation.
high: Content is designed from the outset to be inclusive, considering diverse cultural contexts, abilities, and user needs in structure and presentation. Staff and AI systems have a good understanding of what this looks like for your organisation.

Language clarity and readability

low: Content often uses complex language, jargon, or assumes high reading levels without consideration for diverse audiences.
medium-low: Some attention is given to language clarity but jargon occasionally appears and readability isn't systematically considered for diverse audiences.
medium: Some attention is given to language clarity but readability is not consistently optimised across all content.
medium-high: Content is mostly written at appropriate reading levels using clear language, though occasional complex terminology may not be fully accessible.
high: Content is written at appropriate reading levels using clear, jargon-free language that is accessible to diverse audiences.

Brand, style and consistency

Tone flexibility framework

low: No distinction is made between voice and tone, or no documented voice guidance exists at all.
medium-low: Basic distinction exists between voice and tone but guidance is limited and application is inconsistent across different contexts.
medium: A distinction exists between voice and tone but it is poorly understood and documented.
medium-high: Good distinction exists between voice and tone with documented guidance, though examples or context-specific applications could be enhanced.
high: Tone is distinguished from voice with clear documentation and examples showing how to adapt tone flexibly based on context and audience.

Organisational voice definition

low: No documented organisational voice exists. Certain content traits exist only in people's heads.
medium-low: Some voice characteristics are documented but guidance is basic and doesn't provide clear direction for different contexts.
medium: An organisational voice exists but it is fairly generic, not well documented, nor well understood by staff or AI agents.
medium-high: A distinctive organisational voice is documented and understood by most content creators, though application isn't always consistent across all content types or AI agents.
high: A distinctive organisational voice is clearly defined and documented, firmly rooted in brand identity. It’s as clearly defined for AI agents as it is for staff. Guidance exists in a machine-readable form.

Content-brand integration

low: Brand is understood to mean primarily visual identity with limited consideration of content.
medium-low: Content is sometimes considered in brand discussions but is often secondary to visual identity and not systematically integrated.
medium: Content is always considered in brand discussions but tends to take a back seat to visual identity.
medium-high: Content is recognised as important to brand practice and usually considered in strategic discussions, though visual identity still tends to take precedence.
high: Content is recognised as an equal partner to visual identity in brand practice and strategic consideration.

Voice application consistency

low: Organisational voice is seldom or never applied to content.
medium-low: Organisational voice is applied to some content types and by some staff but application is sporadic and inconsistent across different content areas.
medium: An organisational voice exists but is inconsistently applied across different content types and by different staff members.
medium-high: Organisational voice is applied consistently to most content types, though application isn’t systemic and some content areas don’t always reflect the distinctive voice.
high: Organisational voice is applied consistently and systemically across all content types and by all staff and AI agents, making the organisation's content instantly recognisable.

Brand-aligned editorial standards

low: No brand-specific style rules exist. External style guides are followed when style rules are used at all.
medium-low: Basic editorial style rules exist but connections to brand values are informal and not consistently understood across teams.
medium: Some connections exist between editorial style and brand, but they are not well-documented or well understood.
medium-high: Editorial style rules are mostly aligned with brand values with documented rationale, though understanding isn't consistently applied across all content creators.
high: Editorial style rules are clearly linked to brand values with rationale widely understood across the organisation.

Creativity

Content originality and distinctiveness

low: Content relies primarily on generic approaches with limited original perspectives or distinctive character.
medium-low: Content occasionally demonstrates original perspectives but mostly follows conventional approaches with limited distinctive character.
medium: Some content shows original perspectives but distinctiveness is not consistent across all content types. Originality mostly happens organically.
medium-high: Most content shows original insights and distinctive approaches that reflect organisational character, though some content areas remain generic. Some tools are in place to make sure this happens.
high: Content demonstrates unique perspectives, original insights, and distinctive approaches that reflect the organisation's individual character and voice. Systems and processes, including AI, are in place to make sure this happens.

Creative format experimentation

low: Content consistently uses standard formats with little experimentation or creative presentation.
medium-low: Occasional experimentation with creative formats occurs but most content uses standard presentation methods with limited innovation.
medium: Some experimentation with creative formats occurs but most content uses conventional presentation methods.
medium-high: Regular experimentation with diverse formats enhances engagement in most content areas, though some content types remain conventionally presented.
high: Content uses diverse and innovative formats and presentation methods to enhance engagement and effectiveness. Systems ensure this happens consistently.

Strategic creativity balance

low: Creativity and strategic objectives are poorly aligned, with creative approaches sometimes undermining business goals.
medium-low: Limited balance exists between creativity and strategic objectives with creative approaches occasionally conflicting with business goals.
medium: Some balance exists between creativity and strategy but alignment is not always clear or effective.
medium-high: Good balance exists between creative approaches and strategic objectives, though alignment could be clearer or more effective in some areas.
high: Creative approaches are balanced effectively with strategic objectives, ensuring innovation serves business goals and inspires audience action.

Findability

Cross-channel discoverability

low: Content discoverability is not systematically considered across different channels and platforms.
medium-low: Content is occasionally optimised for discovery but approach is inconsistent and doesn't consider most channels where audiences search.
medium: Content is optimised for discovery on some channels but approach is not systematic across all platforms.
medium-high: Content is systematically optimised for discovery across most relevant channels and platforms, though some channels receive less attention.
high: Content is systematically optimised for discovery across all relevant channels, LLMs and platforms where audiences search.

Metadata and content tagging

low: Minimal or no systematic metadata and tagging is applied to content.
medium-low: Basic metadata and tagging is applied inconsistently with limited systematic approach to content discovery and categorisation.
medium: Some metadata and tagging is used but systems are not comprehensive or consistently applied.
medium-high: Good metadata and tagging systems are mostly applied consistently, though some content areas may have incomplete or inconsistent categorisation.
high: Comprehensive metadata and tagging systems are consistently applied to enable effective content discovery and categorisation.

Search and AI optimisation

low: Limited attention is given to search or AI optimisation with content rarely optimised for discoverability through these channels.
medium-low: Search and AI optimisation is applied inconsistently with basic SEO practices occasionally used but limited systematic approach to AI-powered search.
medium: Some optimisation is applied for search engines and AI systems but implementation is inconsistent across content types or platforms.
medium-high: Content is systematically optimised for most search engines and AI systems with good structured data and clear answers, though some platforms may receive less attention.
high: Content is systematically optimised for both traditional search engines and AI-powered search experiences, including structured data, clear answers to common questions, and optimisation for generative AI responses.

Formats

Format integration

low: Formats are often siloed with poor integration, limiting their effectiveness within broader content experiences.
medium-low: Some formats are integrated into content experiences but integration is often poor with formats used in isolation.
medium: Some formats are well integrated but integration is inconsistent, with some formats confined to specific contexts.
medium-high: Most formats are well integrated within broader content experiences, though some formats could be more seamlessly embedded.
high: Content formats are seamlessly integrated within broader content experiences, with video, audio, and visual elements effectively embedded across different content contexts.

Strategic format selection

low: Format selection is made based on convenience or habit rather than strategic consideration of audience and purpose.
medium-low: Format selection occasionally considers audience needs but decisions are often made based on convenience rather than strategic planning.
medium: Some consideration is given to format selection but choices are not always strategic or audience-focused.
medium-high: Content formats are mostly selected strategically based on audience needs and communication objectives, though some format choices may still rely on convenience or habit.
high: Content formats are strategically selected based on audience needs, content purpose, and communication objectives to optimise effectiveness.

Format diversity and range

low: Content relies primarily on a single format (typically text) with minimal use of diverse presentation methods.
medium-low: Limited variety in content formats is used beyond text, with occasional use of visuals or other formats but not systematically.
medium: Some variety in content formats is used but range is limited or not systematic across all content types.
medium-high: A good range of content formats is systematically used across most content types, though some formats are underutilised.
high: A wide range of content formats including text, conversational interfaces, dynamically assembled content, visuals, video, audio, data visualisations, and interactive elements are systematically used and considered across the organisation.

Quality

Content accuracy and factual integrity

low: Limited attention is given to content accuracy with frequent errors or unverified information. AI-generated content isn’t generally checked for accuracy.
medium-low: Content accuracy receives some attention but fact-checking is informal and errors occasionally appear in published content. AI-generated content is seldom checked for accuracy.
medium: Most content is accurate but fact-checking is not always systematic or comprehensive. Some AI-generated content is checked for accuracy.
medium-high: Content accuracy is systematically addressed with established fact-checking processes, though verification isn't yet comprehensive across all content types. Most AI-generated content is checked for accuracy.
high: Content is consistently accurate, factually verified, and free from errors, with systematic fact-checking processes applied. Humans-in-the-machine are used to check all AI-generated content.

Audience value and effectiveness

low: Content often fails to deliver clear value or meet audience needs effectively.
medium-low: Content occasionally delivers clear value to audiences, but effectiveness varies significantly and isn't systematically measured.
medium: Content sometimes delivers value to audiences but effectiveness is inconsistent across different content types.
medium-high: Content consistently delivers value to most intended audiences, though some content types or audience segments receive less effective content.
high: Content consistently delivers clear value to intended audiences, meeting their needs and achieving intended outcomes.

Editorial quality and polish

low: Content often lacks editorial polish with poor presentation, unclear writing, or attention to detail.
medium-low: Content quality varies significantly with some pieces meeting good editorial standards while others lack professional polish.
medium: Most content meets reasonable editorial standards but quality is inconsistent. AI-isms sometimes slip through the net.
medium-high: Most content meets high editorial standards with professional presentation, though occasional pieces may lack full attention to detail. AI content is mostly given a human touch, most human-generated content is checked by AI-powered systems.
high: Content consistently meets high editorial standards with professional presentation, clear writing, and attention to detail. All AI-generated content is polished by humans and vice versa.

Infrastructure

Agentic AI

AI integration and capabilities

low: AI tools are used ad-hoc by individuals without systematic integration, limited to basic content generation or simple editing assistance.
medium-low: AI tools are used regularly by individuals across teams but integration remains manual and inconsistent between different content workflows.
medium: AI is used in some content workflows and for several functions, but integration remains inconsistent and largely manual.
medium-high: AI is systematically integrated into most content workflows with consistent processes, though some functions still rely on manual integration.
high: Agentic AI is systematically integrated into content workflows across multiple functions including ideation, research, editing, personalisation, and content health monitoring. AI is an orchestrated layer and not just tools.

AI strategy and governance

low: AI is used in content creation without clear strategy, guidelines, or consideration of quality implications.
medium-low: Basic guidelines for AI use in content exist but are informal, not widely communicated, and inconsistently followed.
medium: Some guidelines exist for AI use in content, but they are not comprehensive or consistently applied across teams.
medium-high: Comprehensive guidelines for AI use are documented and mostly followed, though enforcement and monitoring could be more systematic.
high: AI use in content is guided by clear policies that prioritise quality enhancement over quantity. Defined ethical guidelines and quality standards are consistently applied.

AI quality assurance and human oversight

low: AI-generated content is used with minimal human oversight or quality verification.
medium-low: Basic human review processes are established for AI-assisted content, but standards are informal and applied inconsistently.
medium: Some human review processes exist for AI-assisted content, but they are not comprehensive or consistent.
medium-high: Systematic human review processes exist for most AI-assisted content with documented standards, though coverage isn't yet comprehensive across all content types.
high: All AI-generated or AI-assisted content undergoes systematic human review with clear standards for accuracy, brand consistency, and quality.

Content model

Content model customisation

low: The content model consists of basic page and post types without customisation for organisational requirements.
medium-low: A basic content model exists with some customisation but it relies heavily on generic templates that don't fully meet organisational needs.
medium: A content model exists but it’s not as customised for specific needs as it could be.
medium-high: A well developed content model is customised for most organisational needs and covers most content types.
high: A bespoke content model is designed specifically for the organisation's needs, covering all content types and enabling efficient workflows.

Content and presentation separation

low: Content is tightly coupled with presentation layers, limiting flexibility and reuse across different contexts.
medium-low: Basic separation exists between some content and presentation elements, but much content remains tied to specific formats or platforms.
medium: Some separation exists between content and presentation, but content is still partially tied to specific output formats.
medium-high: Good separation exists between content and presentation layers enabling flexibility, though some legacy content or systems still limit reusability.
high: Content is completely separated from presentation layers through headless CMS architecture, enabling flexible content delivery across multiple channels and reuse by AI.

Content structure and atomicity

low: Content exists primarily as complete pages, posts, or documents without structured, reusable elements.
medium-low: Some content elements are structured for reuse but most content remains in complete documents with limited componentisation.
medium: Some content is structured into reusable elements, but much content remains locked in pages or documents.
medium-high: Much content is structured into reusable elements and components, though some legacy content remains locked in pages or documents.
high: Content is structured atomically into reusable elements and components that can be maintained in one place and used across multiple contexts by humans and Ai agents.

Governance

Documentation and resources

low: There’s little or no content guidance, no single source of accepted truth about content.
medium-low: Basic content guidance exists but it's incomplete, difficult to find, or not user-friendly.
medium: There’s some content guidance but it has gaps and isn’t easy to use.
medium-high: Comprehensive content guidance exists and is mostly easy to use, though some gaps remain or usability could be improved.
high: There’s a comprehensive, easy-to-use single source of truth for all practical aspects of, and rules around, content.

Digital accessibility

low: Content governance exists primarily in documents or PDFs with limited accessibility and discoverability.
medium-low: Content governance is delivered digitally but access is limited to internal staff and discovery isn't always easy.
medium: Content governance is delivered digitally and accessible to all internal staff, but external accessibility is limited.
medium-high: Content governance is delivered through accessible digital platforms with good internal access, though external accessibility could be improved.
high: Content governance is delivered through natively digital platforms that are openly accessible to everyone and all AI agents, internally and externally. They’re easily discoverable and easily usable.

Rules, standards and conventions

low: Few rules or conventions exist. Content practice differs across the organisation and people follow their own rules, or no rules at all.
medium-low: Basic rules and conventions exist but coverage is incomplete and they're not always suitable for all content situations.
medium: Rules and conventions exist but they are not always flexible or fit for purpose.
medium-high: Comprehensive rules, standards and conventions exist that address most content situations, though adaptability or coverage could be enhanced in some areas.
high: A comprehensive, adaptable set of rules, standards and conventions is maintained that addresses virtually all content situations. These include how and when to use AI, and when not to.

Decision making

low: Little or no system exists for making content decisions. Content happens or does not happen due to the demands of various people around the organisation.
medium-low: Basic content decision-making processes exist but they're not always clear and decision makers don't always have appropriate authority.
medium: A system for making content decisions exists but it is sometimes overridden by people for suboptimal reasons.
medium-high: Clear content decision-making processes are mostly established and understood, though some decisions still get overridden inappropriately.
high: Clear decision-making processes for content are established and understood across the organisation. Decision makers possess appropriate skills, experience and authority.

Maintenance

low: Content rules are seldom reviewed or changed.
medium-low: Content rules are occasionally reviewed but changes happen reactively without systematic processes for updates or user feedback.
medium: Content rules are reviewed every once in a while. It tends to be an organic process.
medium-high: Content rules are regularly reviewed with mostly systematic processes for updates, though user feedback mechanisms could be more comprehensive.
high: Rules are regularly reviewed and tweaked when necessary, to make sure they keep pace with a changing world. There’s a system for users to request changes and clarifications. Someone is responsible for maintaining content governance.

Strategic alignment

low: Content rules are based primarily on generic editorial best practice without clear links to organisational foundations.
medium-low: Content rules have limited connections to organisational strategy and brand, often relying on generic best practices.
medium: Content rules have some connections to organisational strategy and brand, but these links are not always explicit or comprehensive.
medium-high: Content rules are mostly derived from organisational strategy and brand identity, though some areas may still rely on generic practices rather than bespoke governance.
high: Content rules and conventions are directly derived from organisational strategy and brand identity, creating bespoke governance suited to the organisation's unique context.

Information architecture

Structural consistency and precedence

low: IA decisions are made ad-hoc without consideration of precedents, leading to inconsistent content organisation.
medium-low: Limited structural precedents exist for IA decisions with inconsistent application leading to some organisational confusion.
medium: Some structural precedents exist but they are not always consistently applied or scalable.
medium-high: Good structural precedents exist and are mostly consistently applied, though some areas of the content ecosystem may lack clear scalable precedents.
high: IA decisions establish clear, scalable precedents that can be consistently applied across the entire content ecosystem.

Label clarity and appropriateness

low: Labels often misrepresent content, with poor concept-label fit and confusion about what different categories include.
medium-low: Labels are generally appropriate but some content categories have unclear boundaries or don't fully represent their concepts.
medium: Most labels are appropriate but some concepts are obscured by label choices or have unclear boundaries.
medium-high: Most labels accurately represent content and concepts with clear boundaries, though occasional labels may need refinement for better clarity.
high: Labels accurately represent their content and concepts, with clear boundaries and mutual understanding across teams about what each label encompasses.

Wayfinding and navigation

low: Information architecture does a poor job of helping the organisation manage content or users find their way around the content.
medium-low: Basic information architecture exists but is often inflexible with limited consideration of content discovery and user wayfinding needs.
medium: Information architecture is used consistently but it is inflexible and is not always a good fit for the organisation's content. Wayfinding for users could be improved.
medium-high: Good information architecture enables effective content organisation and discovery, though some areas may lack full coherence or flexibility for optimal user wayfinding.
high: A coherent, flexible, consistent, simple, adaptable information architecture allows all content to be effectively organised and discovered. The IA covers tagging and URL structures as well as web navigation.

Brand storytelling

low: Information architecture does not help users understand what the organisation does or who they are.
medium-low: Information architecture reflects some organisational identity but structures are inconsistent and don't clearly communicate what the organisation does.
medium: Information architecture partially reflects the organisation's identity but labels and structures do not always align well with the brand.
medium-high: Information architecture mostly tells a coherent story about the organisation with structures and labels that generally align with brand identity, though some areas lack clarity.
high: Information architecture tells a story about the organisation through structures and labels that fit seamlessly with the brand identity and communicate what the organisation does.

User-centred perspective

low: Content is largely organised around internal structures and ways of thinking. Internal labels are used.
medium-low: Content structures and labels occasionally reflect external user perspectives but internal organisational thinking frequently influences content organisation.
medium: Some internal structures and ways of thinking leak into the way that content is organised.
medium-high: Content structures and labels are mostly based on external user perspectives, though some areas may still show internal organisational influence.
high: Content structures and labels are based on an external view of the organisation, not an internal viewpoint.

Monitoring, evaluation and learning

Quality evaluation and improvement

low: Quality evaluation is informal or limited, with minimal systematic implementation of improvements.
medium-low: Quality evaluation happens occasionally but criteria are informal and improvements are implemented inconsistently.
medium: Some quality evaluation occurs with occasional improvements implemented, but processes are not always systematic or comprehensive.
medium-high: Quality is mostly evaluated against established criteria with regular improvements implemented, though processes could be more comprehensive or systematic.
high: Quality is systematically and automatically evaluated against comprehensive criteria, with findings consistently implemented through structured improvement processes.

Content performance monitoring

low: Content performance monitoring is minimal or ad-hoc with limited systematic measurement.
medium-low: Basic content performance metrics are tracked occasionally, but analysis is superficial and doesn't inform strategic decisions.
medium: Content performance is monitored periodically but tracking is not always systematic or comprehensive.
medium-high: Content performance is systematically monitored with established metrics, though reporting cycles could be more frequent and business objective alignment stronger.
high: Content performance is systematically monitored using established metrics and regular reporting cycles that track effectiveness against business objectives.

Resources

Budget allocation and planning

low: Budget allocation for content activities is minimal, ad-hoc, or primarily reactive rather than planned.
medium-low: Limited budget is allocated to content activities with basic planning, but allocation often remains reactive rather than strategic.
medium: Some budget is allocated to content activities but planning processes are not comprehensive or consistently strategic.
medium-high: Good budget is allocated to content activities with systematic planning processes, though alignment with strategic objectives could be more comprehensive.
high: Sufficient budget is systematically allocated to content activities with clear planning processes that align resource allocation to strategic content objectives.

Time and capacity management

low: Time allocation for content is insufficient, with rushed timelines that compromise content planning, quality, or strategic alignment.
medium-low: Limited time is allocated to content activities with scheduling pressures frequently compromising content quality or strategic alignment.
medium: Some time is allocated to content activities but scheduling pressures occasionally compromise content quality or strategic focus.
medium-high: Good time allocation exists for most content activities with realistic scheduling, though occasional pressures may still impact quality or strategic focus.
high: Adequate time is consistently allocated to content activities with realistic scheduling that enables thorough planning, creation, and maintenance.

External support and partnerships

low: Limited or no external support is utilised, with missed opportunities to enhance content capabilities through partnerships.
medium-low: Basic external support is used occasionally but partnerships lack strategic planning and integration with internal capabilities.
medium: Some external support is used but partnerships are not always strategic or well-integrated with internal capabilities.
medium-high: External support and partnerships are mostly strategic and well-integrated, though some opportunities for enhanced collaboration may be missed.
high: External support and partnerships are strategically leveraged to enhance content capabilities and fill skill gaps effectively.

Staffing and capabilities

low: Content staffing is insufficient or lacks the necessary skills to deliver strategic content effectively.
medium-low: Content team is basically staffed but skill gaps or capacity constraints frequently limit the ability to deliver strategic content consistently.
medium: Content staffing exists but skill gaps or capacity constraints limit the ability to consistently deliver strategic content.
medium-high: Content team is well-staffed with good skills and experience for most strategic content needs, though some areas may need additional capability.
high: The content team is appropriately staffed with personnel who possess the necessary skills and experience to deliver high-quality strategic content consistently.

Technology and systems

System integration and workflow

low: Content tools and AI solutions operate in silos with limited integration, creating inefficient workflows and collaboration barriers.
medium-low: Basic integration exists between some content tools and AI solutions but workflows are often inefficient with manual processes and collaboration barriers.
medium: Some integration exists between content tools and AI solutions but workflows are not always seamless or efficient.
medium-high: Good integration exists between most content tools and AI solutions, enabling efficient workflows, though some systems may still operate in silos.
high: Content tools and systems are well-integrated with seamless workflows that enable efficient collaboration and content operations. These collaborations involve AI as well as humans.

Technology evaluation and improvement

low: Technology evaluation and improvement happens rarely or reactively, missing opportunities for better solutions.
medium-low: Technology evaluation happens occasionally but processes are informal and improvements are implemented reactively rather than systematically.
medium: Some evaluation of technology occurs but improvement processes are not always systematic or timely.
medium-high: Technology is regularly evaluated with mostly systematic processes for improvement, though some opportunities for better solutions may be missed.
high: Technology and systems are regularly evaluated and improved, with systematic processes for identifying and implementing better solutions.

Tool selection and quality

low: Tools and systems are barely fit for purpose or selected without strategic consideration.
medium-low: Adequate tools are used for most content activities but selection isn't always strategic and some tools may not be optimal for their purpose.
medium: Good tools are used for some content activities but selection is not always systematic or comprehensive.
medium-high: Good quality tools are systematically selected for most content activities, though some areas may not have best-in-class solutions.
high: Best-in-class tools and systems are systematically selected and used for content creation, management, and monitoring across all content activities.

User research

Research activity and quality

low: User research is seldom conducted or relies on limited methods that provide superficial insights.
medium-low: User research is conducted occasionally using basic methods but frequency is limited and insights may lack depth or reliability.
medium: User research happens periodically with generally sound methods, but frequency or rigour could be improved.
medium-high: User research is conducted regularly using mostly robust methods generating reliable insights, though frequency or methodological rigour could be enhanced.
high: User research is regularly conducted using robust qualitative and quantitative methods that generate reliable insights.

Research accessibility and application

low: Research findings are rarely accessible beyond the research team and seldom influence organisational decisions.
medium-low: Research findings are available to some teams but access is limited and influence on decisions is sporadic rather than systematic.
medium: Research findings are available to some teams and occasionally influence decisions, but usage is not systematic.
medium-high: Research findings are widely accessible and usually inform decisions and strategy, though application could be more systematic across all areas.
high: Research findings are widely accessible across the organisation and systematically used to inform decisions and strategy.