The Connected GRC Maturity Model: From Siloed Programs to Decision-Ready Risk Management

Most GRC programs do not fail because teams are ignoring risk.

They fail because the work is disconnected.

Risk registers exist.
Controls exist.
Policies exist.
Evidence exists.
Issues exist.
Audit findings exist.
Vendor reviews exist.
Incidents exist.
Regulatory change logs exist.
Privacy assessments exist.
Cyber dashboards exist.
Business continuity plans exist.
AI governance reviews exist.

But they do not always connect.

A control failure does not update the risk view.
An audit finding does not update the control library.
A vendor issue does not affect the renewal decision.
An incident does not change the resilience map.
A privacy assessment does not create remediation.
A regulatory change does not update policies and controls.
A dashboard shows status but not decisions.
Executives see activity but not risk intelligence.

That is why a Connected GRC maturity model is useful.

It gives leaders a practical way to understand where the program is today, where the gaps are, and what the next stage of maturity should look like.

The goal is not to reach “perfect GRC.”

The goal is to move from disconnected activity to decision-ready risk management.

In a mature Connected GRC program, teams can answer:

• What risks matter most?
• Which controls reduce those risks?
• What evidence proves those controls operate?
• Which issues remain open?
• Which remediation has been validated?
• Which vendors create material exposure?
• Which incidents changed the risk view?
• Which obligations are not fully covered?
• Which critical services are not ready?
• Which AI use cases need review?
• Which decisions need leadership attention?

That is the difference between a GRC program that reports work and a GRC program that helps the business make better decisions.

What is a Connected GRC maturity model?

A Connected GRC maturity model is a structured way to assess how well an organization links governance, risk, compliance, controls, evidence, issues, vendors, incidents, audits, policies, obligations, resilience, privacy, AI governance, ESG, and reporting into decision-ready workflows.

It helps answer:

• Are we working in silos?
• Are our records connected?
• Are our workflows connected?
• Are issues remediated and validated?
• Is evidence audit-ready?
• Are dashboards decision-ready?
• Do risk owners have useful information?
• Can executives see what matters?
• Can the board understand risk movement?
• Are we using GRC to improve decisions or only to satisfy tasks?

A maturity model is not a scorecard for its own sake.

It is a roadmap.

It shows what needs to improve next.

The five stages of Connected GRC maturity

A practical Connected GRC maturity model has five stages:

The maturity journey is not about adding complexity.

It is about increasing connection.

The higher the maturity level, the easier it becomes to see risk in context, prove what is working, fix what is broken, and make better decisions.

Level 1: Siloed and Reactive

At Level 1, the organization is doing GRC work, but most of it is disconnected.

Teams are working hard.

But they are working in separate systems, spreadsheets, documents, emails, and meetings.

Risk, compliance, audit, cyber, privacy, procurement, legal, finance, resilience, and business teams each maintain their own trackers.

The organization may be able to answer local questions, but not connected questions.

It can answer:

• Did this team complete its assessment?
• Did this audit issue get assigned?
• Did this policy get reviewed?
• Did this vendor submit a questionnaire?
• Did this control owner upload evidence?

But it struggles to answer:

• Which enterprise risk does this issue affect?
• Which controls failed across multiple frameworks?
• Which evidence can be reused?
• Which vendors support critical services?
• Which incidents changed the risk profile?
• Which remediation items are still unvalidated?
• Which decisions need escalation?

That is the defining feature of Level 1.

The work exists.

The connection does not.

Signs you are at Level 1

Common signs include:

• risks tracked in spreadsheets
• controls maintained by separate teams
• evidence stored in folders
• issues tracked in disconnected lists
• audit findings not linked to risks or controls
• vendors managed separately from risk reviews
• regulatory changes tracked manually
• policies not linked to controls
• incident lessons not linked to remediation
• dashboards created manually
• business owners receiving duplicate evidence requests
• executives asking for clarification after every report

The organization may pass audits and complete assessments.

But the effort is high and confidence is uneven.

Common Level 1 risks

Level 1 creates several risks:

• duplicate work
• missed obligations
• weak evidence
• inconsistent risk ratings
• late remediation
• repeat findings
• poor issue visibility
• slow regulatory response
• vendor risk surprises
• control-owner fatigue
• executive dashboards that lack trust
• decisions made from incomplete information

The biggest risk is not that no one is doing GRC.

The biggest risk is that no one can see the full picture.

How to move from Level 1 to Level 2

The move from Level 1 to Level 2 is about standardization.

Focus on:

• common risk categories
• common issue severity
• common evidence standards
• common control owner expectations
• common policy review process
• common vendor intake process
• common dashboard definitions
• common remediation statuses

Do not try to connect everything immediately.

First, make the basics consistent.

A practical first step is to standardize the records that create the most pain:

• issues
• controls
• evidence
• vendors
• risks
• audit findings

Standardization is not maturity by itself.

But it is the foundation for connection.

Level 2: Standardized but Functional

At Level 2, the organization has more structure.

Teams have templates, defined processes, and repeatable workflows.

There may be:

• a risk assessment template
• a control library
• an evidence request process
• an issue management process
• an audit finding tracker
• a vendor risk questionnaire
• a policy review calendar
• a regulatory change log
• a business continuity plan template
• a cyber risk dashboard

This is better than Level 1.

But the work is still mostly function-specific.

Risk has its process.
Compliance has its process.
Audit has its process.
Cyber has its process.
Privacy has its process.
Third-party risk has its process.
Resilience has its process.
AI governance has its process.

The records may be more consistent, but they are not fully connected.

That is the defining feature of Level 2.

The program is organized.

But still siloed.

Signs you are at Level 2

Common signs include:

• documented GRC processes
• common templates
• defined owners for some records
• recurring assessments
• recurring evidence requests
• dashboards for individual teams
• formal issue management process
• audit finding follow-up process
• vendor risk intake process
• policy review cadence
• control testing schedule
• some framework mapping

The organization can operate more predictably than Level 1.

But cross-functional questions still require manual reconciliation.

Common Level 2 risks

Level 2 risks include:

• standardized silos
• duplicate controls across frameworks
• multiple evidence calendars
• issue records not linked to risks
• dashboards not aligned across teams
• vendor risk not linked to contracts
• incidents not linked to controls
• audit findings not linked to risk appetite
• privacy and AI reviews disconnected from vendor and cyber reviews
• operational resilience disconnected from assets and vendors

Level 2 can create a false sense of maturity.

Because the processes are documented, the organization may assume the program is mature.

But documentation is not connection.

How to move from Level 2 to Level 3

The move from Level 2 to Level 3 is about connecting records.

Start by linking:

• risks to controls
• controls to evidence
• tests to evidence
• issues to failed controls
• issues to remediation plans
• audit findings to issues
• vendors to contracts
• vendors to evidence
• incidents to root cause
• assets to services
• policies to controls
• obligations to controls

This is where the Connected GRC data model becomes important.

OCEG’s GRC definition emphasizes integrated capabilities that help organizations achieve objectives, address uncertainty, and act with integrity. At Level 3, the program begins to operationalize that integration through connected records, not only documented processes.  

Level 3: Connected Records

At Level 3, the organization starts connecting the core GRC records.

This is where Connected GRC becomes real.

A control is no longer just a line in a matrix.

It connects to:

• risk
• obligation
• policy
• evidence
• test result
• issue
• remediation
• audit finding
• dashboard

A vendor is no longer just a supplier profile.

It connects to:

• contract
• risk tier
• business owner
• data access
• system access
• evidence
• issues
• incidents
• renewals
• critical services

An incident is no longer just a ticket.

It connects to:

• affected asset
• affected service
• vendor
• data
• control failure
• root cause
• issue
• remediation
• lessons learned

The defining feature of Level 3 is traceability.

The organization can start answering connected questions.

Signs you are at Level 3

Common signs include:

• risks linked to controls
• controls linked to evidence
• evidence linked to tests
• failed tests linked to issues
• audit findings linked to remediation
• vendors linked to risk assessments and contracts
• incidents linked to issues
• policies linked to controls
• regulatory obligations linked to evidence
• dashboards built from source records
• ownership visible across records
• some evidence reuse across frameworks
• issue remediation visible by risk or control

This is a major step forward.

The program no longer depends entirely on manual context gathering.

What Level 3 improves

Level 3 improves:

• evidence traceability
• issue ownership
• control visibility
• audit readiness
• vendor risk context
• risk reporting quality
• dashboard trust
• regulatory response
• duplicate evidence reduction
• control-owner experience

Level 3 helps teams see relationships.

But workflows may still require manual handoffs.

That is the next maturity step.

Common Level 3 risks

At Level 3, risks include:

• connected records but manual workflows
• dashboards showing relationships but not decisions
• evidence connected but not reused consistently
• issues connected but not validated before closure
• vendor records connected but renewal workflow not governed
• incidents connected but lessons not always embedded
• controls mapped but testing calendars still fragmented
• data quality problems across owner, status, and priority fields

Connected records are necessary.

But they are not the final goal.

The goal is connected execution.

How to move from Level 3 to Level 4

The move from Level 3 to Level 4 is about workflow integration.

Focus on:

• evidence request and review workflows
• issue remediation and validation workflows
• vendor intake and renewal workflows
• regulatory change impact workflows
• incident-to-issue workflows
• policy-to-attestation workflows
• audit finding remediation workflows
• AI intake and review workflows
• resilience scenario test-to-remediation workflows

SmartSuite’s Compliance Management page describes connected workflows for evidence collection, control testing, policies, obligations, issues, remediation, and dashboards. That is the type of workflow integration organizations need to reach Level 4.  

Level 4: Connected Workflows

At Level 4, records are not only linked.

Work moves through connected workflows.

Evidence requests route to owners.
Evidence gets reviewed.
Rejected evidence creates follow-up.
Failed tests create issues.
Issues require remediation evidence.
Remediation requires validation.
Vendor intake routes cyber, privacy, contract, resilience, and AI reviews.
Incidents create issues and update risks.
Audit findings update control and issue records.
Regulatory changes update obligations, policies, and controls.
Dashboards update from live source records.

This is where the organization starts seeing meaningful efficiency gains.

Teams do not need to manually chase every handoff.

The workflow creates accountability.

Signs you are at Level 4

Common signs include:

• evidence requests are automated or workflow-driven
• evidence status is visible
• issue escalation rules are defined
• remediation validation is tracked
• vendor intake routes by risk tier
• contract and risk review are connected
• incident root causes create issues
• audit findings flow into issue management
• regulatory change creates implementation tasks
• policies connect to attestations and controls
• dashboards show exceptions and decisions needed
• duplicate evidence requests decline
• control owners have one action view
• executives receive connected risk dashboards

Level 4 is where Connected GRC becomes operationally useful.

The organization starts to reduce friction.

What Level 4 improves

Level 4 improves:

• control-owner workload
• audit readiness
• issue follow-through
• remediation validation
• vendor onboarding
• regulatory response
• policy governance
• incident learning
• dashboard quality
• cross-functional accountability
• executive decision-making

The organization can see not only what exists, but what is moving, what is late, what is blocked, and what needs a decision.

Common Level 4 risks

Level 4 can still have issues.

Common risks include:

• too many workflows
• over-automation of poor processes
• dashboards that grow noisy
• unclear decision rights
• too many approvals
• weak prioritization
• poor data hygiene
• inconsistent adoption across teams
• workflows that do not reflect how people actually work
• decisions made outside the system
• automation without governance

Level 4 needs disciplined governance.

This is where the Connected GRC Operating Committee becomes important.

How to move from Level 4 to Level 5

The move from Level 4 to Level 5 is about decision readiness.

Focus on:

• risk appetite and tolerance integration
• prioritization rules
• executive decision dashboards
• board-ready reporting
• issue validation quality
• trend analysis
• root-cause intelligence
• continuous improvement
• risk-informed investment decisions
• cross-domain risk intelligence

COSO’s ERM framework emphasizes integration of risk with strategy and performance. Level 5 is where Connected GRC supports that goal because the operating data can inform strategic and executive decisions.  

Level 5: Decision-Ready Risk Management

At Level 5, Connected GRC becomes decision-ready.

The program does not only track work.

It helps leaders decide.

Executives can see:

• which risks are outside appetite
• which controls are failing
• which evidence is missing
• which issues are overdue
• which remediation is unvalidated
• which vendors create material exposure
• which incidents changed risk posture
• which critical services are not ready
• which regulatory changes require action
• which AI use cases need approval
• which investments are needed
• which decisions are blocked

At this level, the organization is not asking:

“Did we complete the GRC activity?”

It is asking:

“What does the GRC activity tell us about risk, performance, accountability, and decisions?”

That is the defining feature of Level 5.

Signs you are at Level 5

Common signs include:

• executive dashboards show decisions needed
• risk appetite is connected to issues and KRIs
• control failures update risk views
• audit findings feed risk intelligence
• incident lessons update controls and remediation
• vendor risk affects renewal decisions
• evidence is reused responsibly
• remediation closure requires validation
• critical services connect to assets, vendors, incidents, and issues
• AI governance connects to privacy, cyber, vendor, and policy workflows
• board reporting is built from connected source records
• GRC Operating Committee resolves cross-functional decisions
• teams use the system because it makes work easier
• risk reporting supports strategy and performance decisions

At Level 5, GRC becomes a management system.

Not a reporting obligation.

What Level 5 improves

Level 5 improves:

• executive confidence
• board oversight
• audit and regulatory readiness
• risk prioritization
• investment decisions
• remediation quality
• cross-functional alignment
• assurance quality
• resilience readiness
• vendor governance
• cyber-to-business-risk translation
• privacy and AI governance
• operational efficiency

The organization becomes better at knowing what matters and acting before risk becomes harm.

Level 5 does not mean perfect

Level 5 does not mean:

• no issues
• no audit findings
• no incidents
• no regulatory questions
• no control failures
• no evidence gaps
• no vendor problems
• no remediation delays

Mature programs still have problems.

The difference is that mature programs see problems earlier, understand them better, assign owners faster, remediate with evidence, validate closure, and update decisions.

Maturity is not the absence of risk.

Maturity is the ability to manage risk with clarity.

The Connected GRC maturity model by capability

The five-level model is useful, but organizations also need to assess maturity by capability.

A program may be mature in one area and immature in another.

For example:

• SOX evidence may be mature.
• Vendor risk may be fragmented.
• ERM dashboards may be manual.
• Privacy assessments may be structured but not connected.
• AI governance may be early.
• Operational resilience may have service maps but weak issue validation.

That is normal.

Assess maturity across the capabilities that matter.

Capability 1: Risk Management

At Level 5, risk management is not a periodic assessment.

It is an operating view of uncertainty, control condition, and decisions.

Capability 2: Controls and Evidence

This capability is often the best place to start because evidence pain is visible and measurable.

Capability 3: Issues and Remediation

At Level 5, issue management becomes one of the strongest sources of risk intelligence.

Capability 4: Audit and Assurance

At higher maturity, audit findings do not disappear after closure.

They improve the risk and control environment.

Capability 5: Third-Party Risk

At Level 5, vendor risk is not only an onboarding task.

It is part of ongoing business risk management.

Capability 6: Operational Resilience

At Level 5, resilience reporting shows readiness, not just plan completion.

Capability 7: Cyber and IT Risk

NIST CSF 2.0's structure around Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover reinforces why cyber maturity should connect governance, assets, suppliers, incident response, and recovery rather than sit as a technical-only workflow.  

Capability 8: Privacy and AI Governance

At Level 5, privacy and AI governance are not side processes.

They are part of the connected risk operating model.

Capability 9: Dashboards and Reporting

At Level 5, dashboards do not create noise.

They create direction.

The maturity assessment questions

A Connected GRC maturity assessment should ask practical questions.

Risk and strategy

• Are risks connected to business objectives?
• Are risks connected to controls, incidents, issues, and KRIs?
• Is risk appetite used in decisions?
• Do executives see risk movement?
• Do dashboards show decisions needed?

Controls and evidence

• Are controls mapped across frameworks?
• Are controls connected to obligations and policies?
• Is evidence linked to controls and periods?
• Is evidence reviewed and accepted?
• Can evidence be reused responsibly?
• Are evidence gaps linked to issues?

Issues and remediation

• Are issues linked to source records?
• Is root cause captured?
• Is remediation evidence required?
• Is validation tracked separately from completion?
• Are repeat issues visible?
• Do issues affect residual risk?

Vendors and external dependencies

• Are vendors risk-tiered?
• Are vendors linked to contracts?
• Are vendor issues linked to renewals?
• Are vendors linked to critical services?
• Is vendor evidence current and reviewed?
• Are vendor incidents linked to risk?

Incidents and resilience

• Are incidents linked to assets, vendors, services, controls, and issues?
• Are critical services mapped to dependencies?
• Are BIAs connected to continuity plans?
• Are scenario tests linked to issues?
• Are crisis decisions documented?
• Are resilience gaps visible to leadership?

Governance and dashboards

• Is there a Connected GRC Operating Committee?
• Are decision rights clear?
• Are dashboards role-specific?
• Do dashboards show exceptions and decisions?
• Are actions linked to source records?
• Are executive and board reports built from connected data?

These questions reveal maturity more effectively than broad scoring alone.

How to use the maturity model

The maturity model should be used to guide improvement, not judge teams.

A practical approach:

1. Assess current maturity by capability.
2. Identify the biggest gaps.
3. Choose one or two priority workflows.
4. Define what the next maturity level looks like.
5. Build the required records and relationships.
6. Launch the workflow.
7. Measure adoption and improvement.
8. Expand to adjacent capabilities.

Do not try to move every capability from Level 1 to Level 5 at once.

That is how programs stall.

Pick the capability where connection creates the most value.

Then expand.

What to do if you are at Level 1

Focus on standardization.

Start with:

• common issue process
• common control owner expectations
• evidence standards
• risk categories
• vendor intake
• policy review cadence
• basic dashboard definitions

Do not start with advanced automation.

You need consistency first.

What to do if you are at Level 2

Focus on connecting records.

Start with:

• controls to risks
• controls to evidence
• tests to issues
• vendors to contracts
• audit findings to remediation
• incidents to issues
• policies to controls
• obligations to controls

This is where the Connected GRC data model becomes the roadmap.

What to do if you are at Level 3

Focus on workflow.

Start with:

• evidence request workflow
• issue remediation workflow
• vendor review workflow
• regulatory change workflow
• audit finding validation workflow
• incident-to-remediation workflow
• AI intake workflow
• resilience test-to-issue workflow

Connected records become much more valuable when work flows through them.

What to do if you are at Level 4

Focus on decision readiness.

Start with:

• risk appetite integration
• prioritization dashboards
• decision-needed views
• root-cause analytics
• repeat issue analysis
• executive escalation logic
• board reporting
• operating committee governance

At this stage, the question changes from:

“Can we track the work?”

to:

“Can we make better decisions from the work?”

What to do if you are at Level 5

Focus on continuous improvement.

At Level 5, the program should continue improving through:

• trend analysis
• predictive indicators
• workflow optimization
• audit finding intelligence
• issue root-cause analysis
• automated evidence collection where appropriate
• continuous control monitoring where appropriate
• better risk appetite reporting
• more useful board reporting
• ongoing data hygiene
• periodic maturity reassessment

Level 5 is not the end.

It is the point where GRC becomes an adaptable management system.

The maturity roadmap

A practical roadmap might look like this:

This is only an example.

The right roadmap depends on current pain, regulatory pressure, business strategy, and available resources.

But the sequencing principle is consistent:

Start with one painful workflow.
Connect the records.
Launch the workflow.
Build dashboards.
Scale to adjacent workflows.

How to measure maturity progress

Maturity progress should be measurable.

Useful metrics include:

Connection metrics

• percentage of risks linked to controls
• percentage of controls linked to evidence
• percentage of issues linked to source records
• percentage of vendors linked to contracts
• percentage of incidents linked to issues
• percentage of policies linked to controls
• percentage of critical services linked to dependencies

Workflow metrics

• evidence accepted on first submission
• issue remediation on time
• remediation validation rate
• duplicate evidence request reduction
• vendor onboarding cycle time
• audit finding closure time
• regulatory response cycle time
• policy review completion
• AI review cycle time

Risk intelligence metrics

• risks outside appetite
• high-severity issues overdue
• repeat findings
• failed controls tied to top risks
• incidents changing risk ratings
• critical vendors with open issues
• critical services with resilience gaps
• decisions needed by executive team

Adoption metrics

• active users
• control owner participation
• evidence owner response rate
• dashboard usage
• issue owner completion rate
• committee action closure rate

Maturity should not be measured only by how many features are enabled.

It should be measured by whether the program is more connected, more accountable, and more decision-ready.

Common maturity-model mistakes to avoid

Mistake 1: Treating maturity as a vanity score

A maturity score is only useful if it leads to action.

Do not assess maturity just to produce a slide.

Mistake 2: Trying to reach Level 5 everywhere

Some areas may not need Level 5 immediately.

Focus on the capabilities that matter most.

Mistake 3: Confusing documentation with maturity

Documented processes are helpful, but maturity depends on connection, execution, evidence, and decisions.

Mistake 4: Automating before standardizing

Automation can accelerate bad processes if the process is unclear.

Standardize first.

Mistake 5: Connecting records without workflow

Connected records are useful, but maturity increases when workflows move through those records.

Mistake 6: Building dashboards before data quality

Dashboards built on weak data create false confidence.

Fix ownership, status, and relationship data first.

Mistake 7: Ignoring governance

A mature Connected GRC program needs an operating committee, decision rights, data ownership, and escalation logic.

A practical maturity self-assessment

Use this quick assessment.

For each statement, score 1 to 5.

A Connected GRC Operating Committee reviews cross-functional decisions and actions

Then interpret the score:

The score is not the point.

The gaps are the point.

Use the score to decide what to improve next.

How Connected GRC changes the maturity conversation

A disconnected maturity conversation sounds like this:

“We have risk assessments, control testing, audit follow-up, vendor reviews, policy management, incident response, and dashboards. Each team has its own process.”

A connected maturity conversation sounds like this:

“Our controls and evidence are at Level 4 because evidence requests, reviews, issues, and remediation are workflow-driven. Our vendor risk program is at Level 3 because vendors are linked to contracts and issues, but renewals are not yet risk-driven. Our operational resilience program is at Level 2 because BIAs and continuity plans are standardized but not connected to assets, vendors, incidents, and critical services. Our next maturity investment should focus on service dependency mapping and resilience issue remediation.”

The second conversation is more useful.

It shows where the organization is mature, where it is not, and what to do next.

That is the value of a Connected GRC maturity model.

Where to start improving maturity

Start where connection creates immediate value.

Start with evidence if audit pain is high

Connect controls, evidence, tests, issues, and remediation.

Relevant links:

• Evidence Management in GRC
• Control Owner Evidence Guide
• How to Reduce Duplicate Evidence Requests
• Compliance Assessments & Testing

Start with issues if remediation is weak

Connect findings, evidence gaps, incidents, vendors, root causes, remediation, validation, and dashboards.

Relevant links:

• Issue Remediation and Validation
• How to Turn Audit Findings Into Risk Intelligence
• Issues Management
• GRC Dashboards

Start with ERM if executive reporting is weak

Connect risks, controls, KRIs, issues, incidents, appetite, and decisions.

Relevant links:

• Enterprise Risk Management
• Risk Appetite vs Risk Tolerance vs Impact Tolerance
• How to Prioritize GRC Work
• GRC Dashboards

Start with third-party risk if vendor exposure is hidden

Connect vendors, contracts, assessments, evidence, issues, incidents, renewals, and critical services.

Relevant links:

• Third-Party Risk Management
• Vendor Portal
• Contract Lifecycle Management
• Operational Resilience

Start with operational resilience if service readiness is hard to prove

Connect critical services, BIAs, assets, vendors, incidents, continuity plans, scenario tests, and issues.

Relevant links:

• Operational Resilience
• Business Impact Analysis
• Incident Management
• Crisis Management

Start with AI governance if adoption is moving fast

Connect AI use cases, data, vendors, privacy, cyber, controls, evidence, issues, monitoring, and approvals.

Relevant links:

• AI Governance
• CRI AI RMF
• Privacy Risk Management
• Third Party Risk

The best starting point is the area where the organization currently has the most risk, friction, and executive concern.

Final thought

GRC maturity is not about having more documentation.

It is about having better connection.

A siloed program can complete many activities and still struggle to make decisions.

A mature Connected GRC program links the activities that matter:

• risks to objectives
• obligations to policies
• policies to controls
• controls to evidence
• evidence to tests
• tests to issues
• issues to remediation
• remediation to validation
• incidents to root cause
• vendors to contracts
• assets to services
• audit findings to risk intelligence
• dashboards to decisions

That is the maturity journey.

From siloed activity.
To standardized processes.
To connected records.
To connected workflows.
To decision-ready risk management.

Connected GRC does not eliminate risk.

It helps the organization see risk clearly, act faster, prove what happened, and make better decisions.

That is what maturity should mean.

Not a score.

A better way to manage the business.