An honest read on where integration stands.
Two views of the same data. The radar chart shows the shape of your maturity. The score table shows the underlying numbers. Both are diagnostic, not judgmental.
Scale: 1 (Siloed) to 5 (Composable). The IMI is intentionally a profile, not a single number. Pay attention to the gaps between dimensions, not just the average.
A self-assessment is a starting point. Our Data & AI Readiness Assessment uses this same framework with structured interviews, artifact review, and survey data to produce evidence-backed scores and a prioritized roadmap.
This is a self-assessment based on the IMI framework as published in The Integration Imperative. It produces directional insight, not certified scoring. The full Data & AI Readiness Assessment uses structured interviews and artifact review.
Most maturity models lie by averaging.
An organization that is Level 5 Technical and Level 1 Cultural is not "Level 3 overall." It's a specific pattern with specific implications, and averaging the two hides the truth instead of revealing it.
The IMI scores four independent dimensions and visualizes the result as a profile. Strong dimensions support weak ones. Gaps between dimensions tell you where investment will actually move the needle.
Research consistently shows that organizational and cultural dimensions predict integration success better than technical capability alone. Most models ignore that. The IMI doesn't.
Each one independently scored.
Each dimension is scored on a 1-5 scale, producing a four-point profile that can be visualized as a radar chart.
Technical
The maturity of integration infrastructure, architecture patterns, platform capabilities, and technical practices.
Organizational
How the organization structures ownership, governance, skills, and investment around integration.
Cultural
The behavioral norms, incentives, and mindsets that determine whether people actually share data and embrace integration.
Business Outcomes
Whether integration capability translates into measurable business results.
From Siloed to Composable.
Each dimension is assessed against five levels. The levels describe organizational states rather than numeric rankings. They're aspirational, not judgmental. Organizations typically occupy different levels across different dimensions.
- 1
Siloed
Integration is an afterthought. Connections happen out of necessity, not design.
- 2
Aware
Integration is recognized as a strategic challenge. Pain points are documented.
- 3
Intentional
Deliberate investment with defined ownership, documented standards, and measurable progress.
- 4
Orchestrated
Coordinated capability with clear roles, strong platforms, and demonstrated business impact.
- 5
Composable
Strategic capability that lets the organization rapidly assemble and reassemble business capabilities.
Most organizations look like one of these.
Once you've scored, the pattern your profile makes is often more useful than the raw numbers. The shape tells you where the leverage is.
The Technical Leader
High Technical, low-to-moderate everywhere else.
The Governance-Heavy
High Organizational, moderate Technical, low Cultural.
The Culture-First
High Cultural, moderate everywhere else.
The Balanced Achiever
Relatively even scores across all four dimensions.
The Outcomes Gap
Strong Technical, Organizational, and Cultural. Weak Outcomes.
What this framework believes.
Independence over averaging.
Each dimension matters independently. Asymmetry is diagnostic information, not noise to smooth away.
Aspiration over judgment.
"Siloed" is a starting point, not a failure. Level names describe states to grow into, not deficiencies to be ashamed of.
Context over comparison.
Your ideal profile depends on strategy, industry, and competitive context. Not every organization needs Level 5 in every dimension.
Progress over perfection.
Moving from Level 2 to Level 3 in a weak dimension often creates more value than going from Level 4 to Level 5 in a strong one.
Human factors first.
Organizational and cultural dimensions predict integration success better than technical capability alone. Invest accordingly.
The IMI assesses capability. The PAID Canvas plans initiatives.
The IMI is a diagnostic of organizational capability. The PAID Canvas (Platforms, Applications, Intelligence, Data) is a planning tool for specific initiatives. They're complementary.
Use the IMI first to understand readiness. Use the PAID Canvas to plan initiatives with awareness of which dimensions need attention. Reassess with the IMI after initiative completion to measure capability improvement.