# Technical Solution Maturity Assessment Tool

## Technical Solution Maturity Assessment Tool

---

## 1. Toolkit Overview

This tool assesses the technical completeness of a transportation technology solution, helping solution designers self-check completeness and depth before submission, and enabling reviewers to evaluate the quality of external proposals. It covers six assessment domains, 36 check items, and outputs a maturity level with improvement recommendations.

### Applicable Scenarios
- Internal self-check before solution submission
- Technical review of vendor proposals
- Phase-gate review of solution architecture
- Technical-feasibility gate before investment decision

---

## 2. Six-Dimension Maturity Framework

### 2.1 Dimensions & Weights

| Dimension | Code | Weight | Core Question |
|-----------|:---:|:---:|--------------|
| Requirements Understanding | R | 20% | Does the solution accurately and deeply understand the business pain and technical needs? |
| Architecture Completeness | A | 25% | Are logical / physical / data / security architectures clear and sound? |
| Key Technology Selection | T | 20% | Is the core tech selection justified? Are better alternatives considered? |
| Implementation Feasibility | I | 15% | Is the plan realistic? Are resources clear? Are risks identified? |
| Operational Sustainability | O | 12% | Are O&M, SLA, DR, and scalability well considered? |
| Reference-Case Support | E | 8% | Are there enough comparable cases? Is the causal link clear? |

### 2.2 Maturity Levels

| Level | Score | Name | Definition | Recommendation |
|:---:|:---:|------|------|----------------|
| L5 | 90–100 | Industry Benchmark | Exceeds best practice on multiple dimensions | Proceed to implementation |
| L4 | 80–89 | Production-Ready | Complete and rigorous; usable for delivery | Confirm via architecture review |
| L3 | 65–79 | Substantially Complete | Core dimensions met; some details to add | Complete then submit |
| L2 | 50–64 | Framework-Level | Overall direction but key details missing | Needs deep refinement |
| L1 | <50 | Concept-Level | Still at ideation stage | Not recommended for review |

---

## 3. Detailed Checklist

### 3.1 Requirements Understanding (R — 20%)

| ID | Check Item | Scoring | Score (1–5) |
|:---:|-----------|---------|:---:|
| R1 | Pain-point identification | 5=≥3 core pains pinpointed with data; 3=vague but correct direction; 1=no pain identified | |
| R2 | Mode-specific fit | 5=deep grasp of mode-specific constraints (e.g., signal control needs green-wave / transit priority); 1=generic template | |
| R3 | User-need coverage | 5=covers manager / operator / traveler / maintainer; 1=single role only | |
| R4 | Quantified targets | 5=all core KPIs have baseline & target (e.g., "throughput X→Y"); 1=no quantified target | |
| R5 | Constraint identification | 5=lists technical / budget / time / compliance / org constraints; 1=no constraints considered | |
| **R subtotal** | | | **/25** |

### 3.2 Architecture Completeness (A — 25%)

| ID | Check Item | Scoring | Score (1–5) |
|:---:|-----------|---------|:---:|
| A1 | Logical clarity | 5=clear layers / low coupling; 1=no / unclear architecture diagram | |
| A2 | Physical architecture | 5=servers / network / storage topology with redundancy & HA; 1=no deployment arch | |
| A3 | Data architecture | 5=model / flow / storage / lifecycle defined; 1=no data arch | |
| A4 | Security architecture | 5=boundary / comms / data / app / identity, clear tiers; 1=no security design | |
| A5 | Integration architecture | 5=all external interfaces / protocols / formats / methods listed; 1=no integration considered | |
| A6 | Scalability design | 5=clear horizontal scaling / elasticity / modularity; 1=monolithic tight coupling | |
| **A subtotal** | | | **/30** |

### 3.3 Key Technology Selection (T — 20%)

| ID | Check Item | Scoring | Score (1–5) |
|:---:|-----------|---------|:---:|
| T1 | Justification | 5=comparison & rationale for each choice; 1=no rationale | |
| T2 | Alternatives assessed | 5=alternatives + comparison per key tech; 1=single option only | |
| T3 | Stack compatibility | 5=compatible with existing systems / standards / ecosystem; 1=none considered | |
| T4 | Tech-risk identification | 5=flags legacy / lock-in / community / talent risks; 1=no risk awareness | |
| T5 | Openness | 5=open standards / OSS-friendly / no lock-in; 1=closed proprietary | |
| **T subtotal** | | | **/25** |

### 3.4 Implementation Feasibility (I — 15%)

| ID | Check Item | Scoring | Score (1–5) |
|:---:|-----------|---------|:---:|
| I1 | Phased strategy | 5=clear phases with per-phase value; 1=no phasing | |
| I2 | Resource clarity | 5=staff / HW / SW / data / budget detailed; 1=not stated | |
| I3 | Risk & contingency | 5=≥5 risks each with probability / impact / mitigation; 1=no risk mgmt | |
| I4 | Data migration | 5=legacy migration / validation / rollback plan; 1=not considered | |
| I5 | Acceptance criteria | 5=each functional / non-functional need has criteria; 1=none | |
| **I subtotal** | | | **/25** |

### 3.5 Operational Sustainability (O — 12%)

| ID | Check Item | Scoring | Score (1–5) |
|:---:|-----------|---------|:---:|
| O1 | SLA definition | 5=availability / response / RTO / RPO defined; 1=no SLA | |
| O2 | Ops toolchain | 5=monitoring / alerting / logging / backup / inspection complete; 1=no ops | |
| O3 | DR & continuity | 5=RTO/RPO defined, clear DR arch; 1=no DR | |
| O4 | Upgrade & evolution | 5=clear version & tech-evolution roadmap; 1=no plan | |
| O5 | Knowledge transfer | 5=docs / training / on-site / certification complete; 1=none | |
| **O subtotal** | | | **/25** |

### 3.6 Reference-Case Support (E — 8%)

| ID | Check Item | Scoring | Score (1–5) |
|:---:|-----------|---------|:---:|
| E1 | Case count | 5=≥5 comparable projects; 3=2–4; 1=none | |
| E2 | Case similarity | 5=high similarity in mode / scale / complexity; 1=irrelevant | |
| E3 | Outcome credibility | 5=third-party / verifiable data; 1=claims only | |
| **E subtotal** | | | **/15** |

---

## 4. Composite Assessment

### 4.1 Score Calculation

| Dimension | Raw | Max | % | Weighted (×weight) |
|-----------|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| R Requirements | | 25 | % | (×20%) |
| A Architecture | | 30 | % | (×25%) |
| T Technology | | 25 | % | (×20%) |
| I Implementation | | 25 | % | (×15%) |
| O Operations | | 25 | % | (×12%) |
| E Cases | | 15 | % | (×8%) |
| **Total** | | | | **/100** |

### 4.2 Maturity Radar Interpretation

```
         R (Requirements)
           /\
          /  \
    E (Cases)    A (Architecture)
         \    /
          \  /
    O (Ops)--T (Tech)
           |
        I (Implementation)
```

### 4.3 Improvement-Priority Recommendations

| Priority | Improvement Item | Expected Gain | Effort | Owner |
|:---:|------|:---:|:---:|------|
| P0 | [lowest-dimension key item] | [+X] | [person-days] | |
| P1 | | | | |
| P2 | | | | |

---

> **Usage note:** This tool can be used by the solution author for self-assessment or by a technical review panel. It is recommended that the lead author complete a self-assessment and produce improvement items before formal review. For solutions scoring <65, refine before entering the formal review process.
