How the score is produced.
Three decisions separate Podataka from a questionnaire. Who is asked, how much each answer counts, and what the answer is measured against. All three are explicit, editable, and visible in the report.
Nothing here is inferred after the fact. The weights are set before the assessment opens, the participants answer against published maturity-level descriptions, and the arithmetic is reproducible from the raw inputs.
Who is asked
Roles are first-class in the data model, not labels on an answer. Every question carries an applicability flag per role: a question about pipeline architecture is not put to a business analyst, and a question about decision rights is not put to a platform engineer. Participants see a survey filtered to their role — and, where a question is genuinely shared, several roles answer it, each on their own score.
Custom roles are supported, which matters for governance structures that do not look like a corporate hierarchy — public sector, joint ventures, federated groups.
How much each answer counts
Two weights multiply every answer.
Impact factor — set per role and per question on a 0–2 scale (default 1). This is the instrument's statement of how much that role's view should count on that subject. It is edited in the weight matrix before the assessment opens, and every cell of that matrix is part of the report's record.
Experience factor — derived from the participant's SFIA level, on the ladder below. Seniority is not treated as authority over the answer, but as a stated multiplier on it.
| SFIA | Level | Experience factor |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Follow | 0.70 |
| 2 | Assist | 0.85 |
| 3 | Apply | 1.00 |
| 4 | Enable | 1.15 |
| 5 | Ensure / Advise | 1.30 |
| 6 | Initiate / Influence | 1.45 |
| 7 | Set Strategy / Inspire | 1.60 |
The weighted score
÷ Σ (impact × experience)
Summed over every answered, applicable question and participant in that dimension. The denominator is why coverage is reported alongside every score: a dimension answered by three of its four roles is a weaker reading than one answered by all four, and the report says so rather than hiding it in a single number.
What the answer is measured against
Each question is scored twice on a five-level maturity scale: as-is, where the organisation is today, and to-be, where it intends to be. Every level carries a written description — what level 1 looks like, what level 5 requires — so two participants scoring the same question are at least arguing about the same thing.
The difference is the gap. Gaps are what the engagement is scoped against: a dimension at 3.05 today and 4.51 as a target is a different piece of work from one already at 4.2, even when both have the same score today.
The eight dimensions
- STRData Strategy
- How the organisation defines its data strategy and translates strategic enterprise data goals into measurable domain value, priorities, and investment decisions.
- GOVData Governance
- How data ownership, policies, access controls, and compliance are defined, enforced, and monitored across the organisation's data assets.
- ARCArchitecture
- How the organisation's data models, schemas, integration standards, and storage placements conform to defined architecture standards and support interoperability.
- DQTData Quality
- How data quality rules, issue detection, remediation, and measurement ensure the organisation's data is accurate, complete, consistent, and timely.
- MDTMetadata
- How business and technical metadata, definitions, classifications, and lineage are documented, standardised, and kept discoverable and accurate.
- DSTAnalysis
- How dashboards, reports, and analytical outputs accurately and consistently represent the organisation's data through agreed definitions and calculations.
- INTIntelligence
- How the organisation's data supports predictive analytics, AI, and machine learning, including transparency, bias mitigation, and model governance.
- CULData Culture
- How data literacy, evidence-backed decision-making, collaboration, and continuous learning are embedded in the organisation's culture.
Repeating it
The instrument is designed to be run on the same scope at a cadence — half-yearly, annually — with the same weights unless the organisation deliberately changes them. Because the question bank, the impact matrix and the scoring arithmetic are versioned with the assessment, a second run is comparable to the first. That is the point: the first assessment establishes a position, the second measures movement.