A gap matrix at the single-standard level — not a generic report describing the state in flowery prose. Every gap ties back to a specific reference standard from the 89.
This site uses cookies to improve your experience and analyze visits.
A gap for every standard, effort priced in person-days, and priorities ranked by impact instead of gut feel.
Almost everyone confuses maturity assessment with gap analysis. The difference is simple and it matters: maturity gives you a score, gap analysis gives you a plan. In our service, each of the 89 standards gets broken into four questions: what exists, what is missing, what closing it costs, and where it ranks. The output is a document you read on Monday and start executing on Tuesday — not a report that goes into a drawer.
We sit with leadership and lock three numbers: what maturity level, by when, with what budget. Everything else is detail.
We open every document, report, and system tied to each of the 89 standards, and we talk to the people doing the work, not the ones signing the documents. This is where the gap between what is written and what is done shows up.
For each standard: in place, missing, or needs update. Each with a person-day effort estimate and a severity rating from critical to low.
We score each gap's impact on the final index and rank by impact-over-effort. The cheapest, highest-impact items go first.
Execution waves with named owners, timelines, and review checkpoints. No open-ended planning.
A gap matrix at the single-standard level — not a generic report describing the state in flowery prose. Every gap ties back to a specific reference standard from the 89.
Priority is calculated on impact-over-effort. The cheapest, highest-impact gap goes first — not the one whose owner shouts loudest, or the one that looks good in the leadership deck.
A wave-based remediation plan with named owners, timelines, and review checkpoints. A library of evidence templates you fill in directly — no open-ended recommendations.
Maturity answers "Where do we stand?" Gap analysis answers "What does it take to close the distance to the target?" Gaps come after maturity and produce an actionable plan, not a report.
Technically yes, but the output will be less accurate. The maturity assessment is what gives us the baseline the gap is measured against. My honest advice: bundle the two. Saves time and budget.
A medium-sized entity: 4 to 6 weeks. A large one: 8 to 10. We run a parallel methodology, meaning several phases happen at the same time instead of queuing.
Three factors: impact on the index, required effort, and gap interdependencies. A structural gap — like the absence of an approved strategy — moves several variables and jumps to the front.
We recommend solutions, but implementation is a separate engagement. We don't push a specific product, with the one exception of declared partnerships like Avolution ABACUS.
Yes. Three layers: a 5-7 page executive summary for leadership, a 50-80 page detailed report for the team, and evidence appendices. All bilingual.
Welcome and expected. Every gap gets discussed with its work owner with their internal context applied. The final report comes out by consensus, not as a consultant's unilateral call.
Waiting for the formal Qiyas cycle to surface your gaps costs months you don't get back. Run the analysis early, walk away with an execution plan, and enter the cycle knowing your result in advance.
Back to all services