AcmeCorp AI IQ organizational baseline scorecard: maturity distribution, dimension scores, function-level heatmap, at-risk and model teams, key findings, and 90-day recommended actions.

Baseline Feb 9, 2026

Acme Engineering: AI IQ Scorecard

Where to lean, where to intervene, and what to do in the next 30-60 days.

45 / 100
Overall AI IQ
Level 3: Defined
Maturity Level
1,000
Respondents
24
Teams profiled
Program-level takeaway

The organization has process thinking as a strength, but Results Visibility is broken: 77% say leadership probably cannot see their AI contributions. Work is happening; it just isn't being seen. Close the visibility gap and the rest of the system catches up fast.

48%
At Level 1–2
(ad hoc)
20%
At Level 4+
(measured)

Distribution at a glance

Maturity estimates — where our people are

L5 Optimizing
6
L4 Measured
191
L3 Defined
326
L2 Managed
425
L1 Initial
52
48% of the organization is at Level 1–2 (ad hoc to reactive). Only 20% are at Level 4 or above.

Five dimensions of AI enablement (avg out of 6)

Process Orientation
3.07
Effective Teaming
3.05
Social Learning
2.74
Identity & Roles
2.70
Results Visibility
1.93
Results Visibility is the #1 gap across the org. 77% say leaders probably cannot see their AI contributions.

Functions & teams

Five dimensions by function (avg out of 6)

Function Teaming Identity Process Learning Visibility Total
Engineering 4.2 3.9 4.4 3.9 3.1 19.5
Product 4.0 3.4 4.0 3.6 2.8 17.8
Finance 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.6 1.8 12.8
Sales 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.2 1.4 10.9
Marketing 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.4 10.6
Operations 2.2 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.0 8.9
Strong (4+) Adequate (2.5–3.9) Developing (1.5–2.4) Critical (<1.5)

Attention required — teams at the extremes

⚠ Teams most at risk (Level 1–2)
Business Ops · 7.3 Customer Success · 7.9 Demand Gen · 8.0 Strategic Finance · 8.4 Content & Comms · 8.9 IT & Security · 8.9
★ Model teams to learn from (Level 4)
DevOps & Infra · 21.7 Enterprise Product · 20.2 Backend Eng · 19.6 Product Analytics · 19.1
Gap alert: leadership vs. front line

Leaders (L2–L3) average 17.1 while individual contributors average 13.4 — a 3.7-point perception gap. Leaders experience a more enabled environment than the people doing the work. A common but dangerous blind spot.

Key findings

Strength

Process thinking is a strength.

Goal-orientation over technology-first thinking is the org's best dimension (3.07/6). Teams understand the "why" but may lack the systems to act on it.

Critical gap

Results Visibility is broken.

Across all six functions, visibility of AI contributions scored lowest (1.93/6). 77% say leadership probably or definitely can't see what they're achieving with AI. Good work is happening but staying invisible.

Stalled function

Operations is stuck at Level 1.

With an average of 8.9/30, the entire Operations function (Customer Success, Support, IT, and Business Ops) is operating ad hoc. No formal learning, no role clarity, no visibility.

Risk

Two-speed organization.

Engineering and Product are at Level 3–4 while Sales, Marketing, and Operations sit at Level 2 or below. Without intervention, this gap will widen, and the leading teams will outrun the rest of the business.

Recommended actions

  1. Dynamically collect AI wins. Sample unobtrusively to help teams share concrete AI outcomes. Assign an owner. This directly addresses the #1 gap: Results Visibility.
  2. Pair at-risk teams with model teams. Connect Business Ops → DevOps and Customer Success → Product Analytics for structured peer learning. Transfer practices, not just tools. Monthly check-ins for one quarter.
  3. Operations AI Sprint. Dedicate a focused 6-week enablement sprint for the Operations function. Establish regular practices in each of the five dimensions. Target: move from Level 1 to Level 2 (7 → 12 points).
  4. Mandate quarterly role-clarity conversations. Only 22% of respondents report ongoing alignment with their manager about how AI changes their role. Make this part of the existing performance/1:1 cadence; it costs nothing.