Your own assessment results now tell you what to do first.
A short week, and one change worth leading with. If you have ever completed one of our assessments and found the results page told you how you scored without telling you what to do about it, this is the week that changed.
Your results page now ranks what to work on, and it works if you are the only person who took the assessment.
Until now, an individual finished an assessment and got a spider chart, a list of strengths, and a flat table of two dozen process areas in the order they were asked. Everything that turned those answers into a priority order lived on the company dashboard, and the company dashboard needs a group of respondents before it will show anything.
That left a specific person with nothing: the one manager at a small manufacturer who took the assessment on their own. No privacy threshold ever reaches them, because one person cannot form a group at any setting. They were being shown a suppressed screen to protect their own answers from themselves.
That was the wrong model, and it is fixed. Anonymity exists to keep your answers from other people. On your own results page there are no other people, so nothing is withheld.
My Maturity Profile replaces the old Cross-Assessment Overview, reachable from your dashboard. It opens with a single completed assessment rather than requiring two, and it has two views:
Profile is what was there before: your scores, assessment by assessment.
Priorities is new, and it is the same analysis the company dashboard runs, over your own answers. You can group your results four ways. By use-case family, by CESMII Smart Manufacturing area, by which assessment the answers came from, or as one flat ranked list of every use case you have been assessed on. Each row shows your maturity and your stated importance drawn as two overlapping profiles, a gap score, and where the individual use cases inside that row actually fall. So a family averaging 8 out of 20 no longer hides one sitting at 19. Click any row to open what is inside it.
The grouping is the part that makes this work at one respondent, and the reason is worth stating. Grouping by department splits your people into buckets, so every bucket shrinks as the company shrinks. Grouping by what the questions are about keeps every answer in play and only changes which of them count toward each row. One assessment covers four to seventeen families, so the view has something to say even if you have taken exactly one.
A gap was being defined two different ways, and one of them was quietly costing you your list.
This is the part we would rather report than not.
Our company analysis ranks a gap by a weighted score: how much a practice matters, multiplied by how far short of doing it consistently you are. Your personal results page used an older, blunter rule, a simple pair of cutoffs. The two agree at exactly one point and diverge everywhere else, and the divergence was not in your favour.
A process area you rated Critical, sitting at maturity 2.56, missed the old cutoff by six hundredths and disappeared. Across every completed assessment on the platform, 1,190 of 5,462 responses showed no gaps at all while holding at least one that the company rule would have flagged. And because the shared "Priority Gaps" list is only built when that set is not empty, those people never received a list, or the link through to the matching use cases, at all.
Both surfaces now use the same number. Your top gaps are also ordered by it, where they used to be ordered by maturity alone, so something merely important but undeveloped no longer outranks something critical you had half-built.
If you already have a Priority Gaps list, it may have grown. Every share link that was already sent still works and still points at the same list.
Two corrections on the value side.
A corporate employee could not open their own plant. Anyone opening a plant's page from the parent company was told they had no consultant link into it, which is a strange thing to tell a company about a site it owns. The check was asking whether the company was a different one from yours, when the right question is whether it sits in your own organisation.
Inventory was being priced twice, and one measure had its direction backwards. Inventory Turnover improves when turns go up, but the model was reading its direction from the cost of goods sold underneath it, which improves going down. That inversion also decided which half of the ratio carried the money, so better turns were valued against a cut in material spend instead of against the cost of holding stock. Turnover and Days Inventory Outstanding describe the same economics and were coming out 8.8 times apart. They now agree exactly. Separately, the carrying-cost assumption was being applied once to the inventory balance and then charged again as its individual parts, so what a dollar of stock cost to hold ranged from 15% to 25.9% depending on which measure you opened. It is 15% everywhere now, which is what the assumption says on screen.
See it without signing up
The worked example is open to anyone: mfgvalueplatform.com/demo/exampleco. If you would rather start with a single number, the value calculator needs no account either. The individual reporting above is on mfg-surveys.com and takes one completed assessment to see.
What we would like back
Two questions, and the first is the one we care about.
If you have taken an assessment on your own, without the rest of your team, does the new Priorities view tell you something you can act on Monday? It is built on the theory that a single honest read of your own function is worth ranking, even before anybody else answers. We would like to know whether that holds up.
And if you keep a priority list of your own, we would be interested in how you rank it. We weight the shortfall by how much the practice matters. That is a defensible choice rather than an obvious one, and if your plant orders the same work differently, the reasoning is worth more to us than the agreement.