How to measure management maturity: from gut feeling to 108 indicators
In the QAC model, management maturity is not judged by eye: 108 indicators break it down across six domains of the organization — with emotions as an equal, measurable domain — and three simultaneous modes of work, and the result is summed up in three integral indices. Executive AI navigation means bringing management order to AI: measure maturity first, then plan the next step.
An organization is not a machine to be repaired
Most management habits grew out of industrial logic: the organization is a mechanism you tune and repair when it breaks. While the environment was stable, that worked. With the arrival of AI and constant turbulence, the logic began to fail: there are more and more pilots, and it is harder to tell which of them actually change decisions.
According to 2025–2026 surveys, 97% of large companies report adopting AI — the technology no longer sets anyone apart. Yet 54% get no measurable impact from their pilots, and only 26% can show an AI strategy of their own, with an answer to who is responsible for the result and how it is built into processes. The gap between “we’re adopting” and “it works” is a management problem, not a technical one.
The book “The Living Digital Organization” offers a different metaphor: “An organization is not a machine to be repaired but a living organism to be helped to grow.” It is a fine metaphor, but a top executive needs an instrument, not an image — and the QAC model turns it into numbers that can be calculated, compared and presented to the board.
Six domains — with emotions on a par with processes
The first layer of the QAC grid is six management domains: Power (how decisions are made and authority is distributed), Tech&Data (technology and data), Processes, Innovations, Culture and Emotions (the emotional state of people and of the organization). The model makes a deliberate choice: Emotions is an equal, measurable domain, not “soft context” that gets a mention in words but never makes it into the numbers.
The domains are worked on differently depending on their nature. The structural ones — Power, Tech&Data, Processes, Innovations — are consulting territory: frameworks, processes, decisions. Culture and Emotions are the human half, handled by Galina Malysheva with the Quantum Coaching method (sessions in Russian). One grid — two routes of work after the diagnostic.
Power · Tech&Data · Processes
Innovations · Culture · Emotions
× Exploration · Adaptation · eXploitation
× L0 · L1 · L2 · L3 · L4 · L5
= 108 maturity indicators
Three modes at once: Exploration, Adaptation, eXploitation
The second layer is the organization’s modes of work: Exploration (searching for the new), Adaptation (reconfiguring what already exists) and eXploitation (scaling what has been proven). These are not stages you go through in turn but three states the organization is in simultaneously — only in different proportions for each domain.
This is where the impact of AI pilots is most often lost: the tool is dragged straight into eXploitation — “let’s roll it out company-wide” — skipping Adaptation, that is, reconfiguring processes and decisions around the new tool. “Adaptation is a mode in its own right, not a pause” between searching and scaling: skip it, and you lock in the old process behind a new interface. The QAC model calls its ideal “diagonal resonance” — growth in all three modes without skewing toward any one of them.
BI, CI and RMI: the organization’s ECG, MRI and blood count
On its own, the grid of domains and modes is just a structure. It gains management value through three integral indices. BI shows the balance between modes: if the whole organization is in eXploitation and Adaptation is near zero, the skew is visible at once, not after a failed rollout. CI shows how consistently the domains move together: Tech&Data can race two levels ahead while Culture stands still — then the data is there, but no one is able to make decisions based on it. RMI is the overall integral indicator, the temperature of the organization as a whole.
The book sums up the trio in one phrase: “BI, CI and RMI are the organism’s ECG, MRI and complete blood count.”
The model is registered — RCIS certificate No. 1219-167-662 (NRIS deposit No. 348-374-621), DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20143048. The 324-question questionnaire has been tested for reliability: Cronbach’s α = 0.87. You can study the model and challenge it before paying for a diagnostic.
A self-assessment is not an audit
Tools for self-assessment and for a full audit are not the same thing, and the difference matters. The QAC mini-test — 12 statements, two for each domain — takes 5 minutes right in your browser: your answers are not sent anywhere or stored. It is not a diagnosis but a compass: it shows which way to look first.
The full diagnostic — the QAC audit — works differently: 324 questions (108 cells with three questions each), BI, CI and RMI indices across all domains and modes, a report with a roadmap and a review session with the team. A self-assessment is useful as a first step, but substituting it for an audit means making decisions from a rough picture where the cost of a mistake is high.
If the picture already looks worrying after the mini-test, there is no need to wait for the perfect moment for a full audit. Usually the right moment is the one when the question has already come up.
What to know before you measure maturity
What do the 108 indicators of the QAC model mean?
The 108 indicators are the model’s grid: six management domains (Power, Tech&Data, Processes, Innovations, Culture, Emotions) crossed with three modes of work (Exploration, Adaptation, eXploitation) and broken down into measurable maturity levels. The answers to the 324-question questionnaire add up to the integral indices BI, CI and RMI.
How is the QAC mini-test different from a full audit?
The mini-test is 12 statements, two per domain: it is free, takes 5 minutes and shows the general direction, and your answers never leave the browser. A full QAC audit is 324 questions, indices across all domains and modes, a report with a roadmap and a review session with the team. A self-assessment is a pointer, not a diagnosis.
Is QAC a scientific model or a consultant’s opinion?
The model is registered: RCIS certificate No. 1219-167-662 (NRIS deposit No. 348-374-621), DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20143048; it is described in the book “The Living Digital Organization” (2026). The questionnaire has been tested for reliability — Cronbach’s α = 0.87. All of this can be studied and challenged before any work begins.
Sergey Parshakov is the author of the QAC model and a practitioner with 33 years of management experience. Personal page → (in Russian)
From reading to your own maturity profile
The QAC mini-test takes 12 statements and 5 minutes: your answers never leave the browser, and the result shows right away which domain to look at first. Then decide whether a pointer is enough or you need a full QAC audit with a partner.