Knowledge
Management maturity self-assessment
Fifteen statements about how your company decides, executes and protects itself. Answer based on what happens today, not on what is in the plan. It takes about five minutes.
An indicative self-assessment, not a technical evaluation. On the website, the calculation runs in your browser: your answers are not stored or sent to OMNA.
Your result
Simple average of the answered statements in each dimension (1 to 5), rounded to one decimal; the band is set by the rounded average. There is no overall score: the reading is by dimension.
Strategy and execution
— ·
This usually points to an approved strategy that never became a management routine: too many priorities, unclear owners and follow-up only when something goes wrong. The cost tends to show up as delays and rework, rarely in the report.
A question for our next meeting: Which three decisions from last year have not yet reached operations, and who is accountable for each?
There is a method, but it depends on key people and loses strength between decision and execution. This is where the monthly review often turns into a formality.
A question for our next meeting: What changed in operations because of the last review meeting?
Priorities, owners and indicators seem connected. The challenge becomes keeping this discipline when conditions change fast.
A question for our next meeting: How quickly is the plan revised when a key assumption no longer holds?
Operations and productivity
— ·
This usually points to losses that exist but are not measured the same way across areas, and improvements that slip back within a few months.
A question for our next meeting: What was the latest improvement that is still holding a year later, and why?
Losses are known, but gains depend on extra effort and a few people. Without a day-to-day management routine in operations, results tend to fluctuate.
A question for our next meeting: Who in operations notices first when productivity drops, and what can that person decide?
Measurement and routine seem stable. The next step is usually linking productivity to cost and capital to prioritize where to invest.
A question for our next meeting: Which loss, if eliminated, would free up capacity without new investment?
Projects and capital
— ·
This usually points to investment decisions approved on untested assumptions and no tracking of benefits after delivery. Deviations are found late, when few options remain.
A question for our next meeting: Which assumption of your main ongoing project, if it fails, would change the investment decision?
Schedule and budget are controlled, but the promised benefit is rarely measured afterwards. Without that, the next investment repeats the same assumptions.
A question for our next meeting: Who is accountable for the project's benefit after it is delivered?
Projects and benefits seem tracked. The challenge is usually the portfolio: choosing what not to do when capital and execution capacity are scarce.
A question for our next meeting: If the cost of capital rises, which project leaves the portfolio first?
Costs and procurement
— ·
This usually points to costs tracked in total, with no view of what drives them, and reliance on suppliers nobody has measured. External shocks reach the bottom line before they reach the agenda.
A question for our next meeting: Which five items explain most of last year's cost increase?
The main cost drivers are known, but responses rely on one-off negotiations. Exposure to critical suppliers still lacks a tested plan.
A question for our next meeting: Which part of your cost tracks exchange rates or commodities, and which part of your revenue tracks the same factors?
Costs and suppliers seem well mapped. The next step is usually turning that map into risk-adjusted contracts and inventories.
A question for our next meeting: Do contracts with critical suppliers reflect the risk you have already measured?
Data and AI
— ·
This usually points to meetings that start by debating which number is right, and technology initiatives driven by the tool rather than the problem. At this stage, AI tends to speed up the confusion.
A question for our next meeting: Which decision in the last meeting relied on a figure someone had to reconcile by hand?
There is reliable data in part of the operation and pilots under way, but few reach scale with a measured benefit.
A question for our next meeting: Which pilot, if scaled tomorrow, would have a measurable effect on results?
Data and initiatives seem tied to results. The challenge is usually governance: who decides what gets in, under which rules, and how the effect is measured over time.
A question for our next meeting: Who can say no to an AI initiative, and on what grounds?
Risk and resilience
— ·
This usually points to risks known informally, discussed after the event, and continuity plans that were never tested. The real recovery time is unknown.
A question for our next meeting: What was the last significant disruption, and how much did it cost beyond what shows in the accounts?
There is a risk register and plans, but they live outside the decision routine. Risk shows up in reports, not in investment or supplier choices.
A question for our next meeting: Which recent decision would have been different if the risk had been discussed earlier?
Risk and testing seem part of management. The next step is usually rehearsing the response with leadership, not only with technical teams.
A question for our next meeting: When was the last crisis exercise with the executive team, and what did it change?
The result is a starting point for a conversation, not a diagnosis. If any dimension caught your attention, we can look together at what lies behind it.
30 minutes, online, with Augusto Oliveira.