Blog Post
The Resilience Maturity Trap – Part 2 | Capability vs. Maturity – Why the Wrong Metric Can Cost A Lot
The problem with measuring maturity
Senior Director,
FTI Consulting
For years, organizational resilience has been benchmarked through maturity models. They serve a purpose: helping organizations understand where they stand relative to leading practices and identifying areas for improvement.
But maturity models were never designed to measure performance under pressure. They focus on documentation, governance and alignment with standards. Important components, but incomplete indicators of readiness.
A program can be assessed as mature and still fail during a real disruption. The challenge lies in what these models actually measure. When progress is evaluated solely through maturity, organizations reward structure over substance, the presence of plans, not the proof of performance.
The evolution of maturity measurements
Maturity models originated in process and software engineering during the late 1980s, most notably through the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). Their intent was to help organizations standardize and continuously improve complex development processes.
That structure worked because software engineering follows defined, repeatable patterns. Resilience, however, does not.
Disruptions are inherently unpredictable and context dependent. Applying a static maturity framework to a dynamic discipline can create misleading conclusions. Today, a “Level 4” rating in documentation quality does not guarantee a “Level 4” in operational performance.
This disconnect is one of the primary reasons organizations continue to experience major disruptions despite maintaining highly mature programs on paper.
While maturity measures the completeness of a process, capability measures the effectiveness of the outcome.
Maturity asks: Is the process documented and governed?
Capability asks: Can we perform it under real conditions, within tolerance?
Maturity evaluates design intent. Capability evaluates demonstrated performance.
The most resilient organizations measure both, but prioritize capability because it directly correlates to operational, financial and reputational outcomes.
The risks of the wrong metric
When organizations define progress solely by maturity, the risk is not just theoretical, it’s strategic. A focus on maturity can mask operational weaknesses and lead to three critical failures:
- False assurance: Leadership receives reports that suggest preparedness, but those scores reflect documentation and process, not performance under stress.
- Investment misallocation: Budgets are directed toward improving audit artifacts and maturity scores rather than strengthening recovery infrastructure or decision-making capability.
- Reputational and regulatory exposure: When disruption occurs, a record of maturity offers little protection if recovery objectives are missed or stakeholders are impacted.
Over time, these failures can erode confidence. Regulators, customers and investors increasingly expect evidence of operational capability, proof that the organization can maintain continuity and trust through disruption.
Measuring what matters
A capability-based approach redefines how resilience is measured. It focuses on objective, verifiable evidence that recovery functions work as intended.
Organizations that emphasize capability focus on:
- Actual performance data from recovery tests and real incidents.
- Adherence to recovery time and recovery point objectives.
- Readiness of leadership and decision structures during crisis response.
- Dependability of critical systems, processes and third-party relationships under stress.
This approach replaces subjective self-assessment with measurable performance outcomes. It gives leadership visibility into the organization’s true recovery readiness and provides a basis for continuous improvement.
FTI Technology provides clients with a framework that embeds capability measurement directly into the resilience lifecycle. Through structured validation, simulation, and performance tracking, this framework evaluates whether recovery objectives are realistic, achievable and consistently met.
By integrating resilience metrics with broader business performance indicators, FTI Technology helps clients make informed investment and risk management decisions. The outcome is operational assurance that can be demonstrated, not merely described.
The takeaway
Maturity demonstrates structure. Capability demonstrates strength.
Both are important, but they serve different purposes. A mature program provides the foundation, while a capable program delivers the result.
As disruptions become more complex and interconnected, organizations must ensure their measurement models evolve accordingly. The cost of measuring the wrong thing is no longer limited to inefficiency. It now extends to operational continuity, market confidence and brand integrity.
The next article in this series will explore how to turn frameworks such as ISO 22301 and NIST into action, translating governance into measurable performance.
Related topics:
The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of FTI Consulting, its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals.