Consulting Assessment and Scoring Rubric
Four documents and four sheets built on a rubric that keeps its scale between clients, so your third assessment is worth more than your first.
Free download · No account needed
Scoring Rubric · D1 Demand planning · rubric v3
One dimension, four anchors, no adjectives
| Level | Anchor | Weakest evidence that satisfies it |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A forecast exists for the next period and one named person produced it | Artifact |
| 2 | It is produced on a stated cadence from a stated input set, and the last three exist | Artifact |
| 3 | Forecast error is calculated each period against actuals and reviewed by a named forum | Record |
| 4 | A method change in the last four periods traces to a recorded error analysis | Record |
Every anchor passes three tests. Somebody who was not in the room could go and look. The verdict is met or not met. And two different assessors reading the same evidence reach the same answer. That third test is the one the adjectives fail.
Three forecasts, not one. One well made forecast is a person. Three consecutive ones with the same structure is a process, and the difference is the whole content of level 2.
Level 3 will not take a statement. A planning manager describing a monthly accuracy review is evidence that a review is believed to happen. The error calculation and the forum's minutes are evidence that it does.
Level 0 is simply that the level 1 anchor is not met. It is not the same cell as not assessed, and the report says which.
Search this and you get five columns of adjectives. Basic, developing, defined, managed, optimised. Two competent assessors put the same client two levels apart and neither one is wrong, because there was never anything there to be wrong about. The template that ranks is either a consultancy grading its own practice or a slide deck of level descriptions with no rule about what evidence a level requires. Neither answers the two questions that decide whether an assessment holds up.
An anchor replaces the adjective with a sentence somebody else could check. Level 2 on demand planning is not developing, it is that the forecast comes out on a stated cadence from a stated input set and the last three exist. Three, not one, because one good forecast is a person and three is a process. Every anchor is observable, binary, and gives two different assessors the same verdict. That third property is the one the adjectives fail.
Levels are cumulative and dimensions score independently, which is how published models actually work. C2M2 requires every practice at a level and below it, and CMMC Level 2 requires a met result on all 110 requirements with no partial credit. So the deliverable is a profile with a named blocking anchor per dimension, never one number. Score it from what the client's data room and an interview programme produced, or take the Word documents and CSV sheets blank.
What's in the pack
Scoring Rubric
One row per dimension per level, each carrying an observable anchor and the weakest evidence kind that satisfies it.
Evidence Log
Four evidence kinds in strength order, a source reference that resolves, and insufficient recorded as a filled row rather than a blank.
Level by Dimension
The highest level fully met, what is met above the block, and the single blocking anchor with what would clear it.
Benchmark Comparison
Your own prior clients on the same rubric version, with cross-version rows excluded rather than quietly averaged in.
Rubric Anchors and Scoring Guide
The three tests an anchor has to pass, why levels are cumulative, and the rule that a level 3 never rests on a statement.
Assessment Questionnaire
Requests that name a document, an export at a stated grain or a walkthrough, including where the written procedure and the real one diverge.
Score Report
Six sections, scope before any level appears, and the blocking anchors led by the cheap ones. No total anywhere in it.
Scope Note for Follow-on Work
Blocking anchors grouped by what clears them, the cheap half handed back free, and a re-score offer against the same rubric version. Running that re-score so its movement holds up is the maturity model pack.
How to use it
- 1
Open in River, or take it blank
Open the pack in River and send whatever you already assess with, or download the Word documents and CSV sheets and build the rubric yourself.
- 2
Turn adjectives into anchors
Six to nine dimensions, four levels each. Every anchor names a countable artifact, a stated cadence, a named forum or a date inside a window.
- 3
Score from evidence, not impressions
Work up the ladder and keep testing past the block. Every level gets a log row saying what it rests on, including the rows where the evidence did not reach.
- 4
Report the profile and the block
A level and a target per dimension, one blocking anchor each, and the cheap ones first. Then group them into a follow-on that is two workstreams rather than six.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes. The zip is Word documents and CSV sheets, no account and no card. Edit with AI is the optional half: the agent turns whatever you assess with into anchors, then scores a real client from the evidence you send. The rest sit in the template library.
What format are the downloaded files?
Word (.docx) for the four documents and CSV (.csv) for the four sheets, zipped together. Excel, Numbers and Google Sheets open the rubric, the evidence log, the profile and the comparison straight off the download.
Why is there no overall maturity score?
Because dimensions score independently, and a single blended figure cannot say where to start or be compared to anything without a weighting nobody will agree to. You get a level per dimension plus the one anchor capping each, which fits on the same page and is actionable. For money rather than a level, a diagnostic that prices each finding is the companion.
Can I reuse the rubric on the next client?
That is the point of it. Every score records the rubric version it was made against, so client three is graded on the same scale as client one and the median of your own book becomes a benchmark no template can sell you.
What happens when I tighten an anchor?
The version bumps, and you get two honest options: re-score the affected prior clients from their own evidence logs, or leave them out of the comparison and say why. Comparing a v2 score against v3 reprices your back catalogue invisibly.
The client already did a self-assessment. Is that usable?
As an artifact about what they believe, yes, and the gap between their rating and the anchored score is often the most interesting page in the report. It is not evidence for a level. Levels come from documents, system records and walkthroughs. The same gap appears when a client self-rates change readiness; the change readiness assessment scores that from its last few initiatives instead.
Two systems report the same measure differently. What then?
The definition anchor is not met and the divergence is the finding. Where you need the difference explained row by row rather than just flagged, reconciling two exports that disagree is the run for it.
Score a client on anchors
Take the Word documents and CSV sheets blank, or send River the spreadsheet you assess with today and get the anchors back to argue with.
Edit with AI