Why Maturity Models Matter for CoEs
Maturity models are useful when they help organisations make investment decisions, not when they are used as benchmarking trophies. The purpose of a CoE maturity model is to answer two questions: where are we now, honestly, and what is the highest-value investment to reach the next stage?
The CoE maturity model described here is built around six assessment dimensions: governance, delivery capability, architectural standards, adoption management, measurement and reporting, and strategic influence. An organisation's CoE stage is determined by its position across all six dimensions — it is not enough to be advanced in one dimension if others are lagging. Organisations that have strong delivery capability but weak governance, for example, deliver well in bursts but create technical debt that compounds over time.
Most Salesforce organisations with 3+ years of deployment sit at Stage 2 (reactive) or Stage 3 (defined). Very few large enterprises reach Stage 4 (managed). Stage 5 (optimising) is rare and typically associated with Salesforce-native companies or exceptional platform governance cultures.
Stage 1 — Ad Hoc
At Stage 1, there is no formal CoE. Salesforce is maintained by one or two administrators who also handle user support, configuration changes, and release management. Governance is informal — changes are made when requested, tested inconsistently, and deployed without a structured process. Architectural decisions are made ad hoc by whoever is available. There are no formal standards for naming conventions, data model design, or automation patterns.
The signals of Stage 1: no dedicated Salesforce release cycle, direct production changes are common, no sandbox hierarchy, users go to the admin directly for everything, and the admin is the only person who understands how the org works. The typical driver of progression from Stage 1 is a crisis — a production error that caused data loss or user disruption, or a new programme that cannot be delivered within the current team structure.
Benchmark characteristics: 1-2 FTE, no documented standards, no formal release process, sandbox parity with production is poor, no adoption measurement in place.
Stage 2 — Reactive
At Stage 2, a team exists (3-6 FTE, typically including at least one developer), there is some documentation, and there is a release process — but the team is permanently in reactive mode. The backlog grows faster than the team can clear it. Architecture decisions are made under time pressure rather than with deliberation. Standards exist on paper but are not consistently applied. Governance meetings happen but do not effectively manage the backlog or architecture quality.
The signals of Stage 2: a growing backlog that the team cannot get ahead of, inconsistent code quality (some good, some very bad), technical debt accumulating, adoption problems that are acknowledged but not systematically addressed, and a team that is doing its best but feels overwhelmed. The typical driver of progression from Stage 2 is a combination of leadership investment (additional headcount, training budget) and the introduction of structured governance (a change advisory board, architecture review process).
Benchmark characteristics: 3-6 FTE, informal standards with patchy compliance, quarterly releases, partial sandbox hierarchy, adoption tracking exists but is not acted upon.
Stages 3, 4, and 5 — Defined, Managed, Optimising
Stage 3 — Defined. The CoE has documented standards that are consistently applied, a structured release cadence, a functioning change advisory process, and a team with clear roles. Architecture decisions are made through a defined process with architectural review. Adoption is measured and reported. The team is no longer in permanent reactive mode — there is capacity for proactive improvement work. Governance meetings are effective decision-making forums, not status update sessions.
Benchmark characteristics: 8-15 FTE, documented and enforced standards, monthly or fortnightly releases, full sandbox hierarchy, adoption metrics reported monthly, architecture review for all significant changes, a defined roadmap.
Stage 4 — Managed. The CoE is data-driven. Platform health is measured quantitatively (technical debt metrics, adoption scores, delivery velocity). Investment decisions are made based on evidence, not intuition. The CoE has strategic influence — it participates in business planning, advises on capability sequencing, and is consulted before new initiatives are scoped. External partners are managed within a structured governance model. The CoE has a succession plan and does not depend on a single individual's knowledge.
Benchmark characteristics: 15+ FTE, quantitative health metrics reviewed at governance, CoE involved in business planning cycles, formal partner governance, documented architecture for all integrations and key customisations, adoption above 80% Tier 2 target.
Stage 5 — Optimising. The CoE continuously improves based on measured outcomes and industry benchmarking. Processes are reviewed regularly against external benchmarks and updated when better approaches are available. The CoE contributes to the Salesforce ecosystem — thought leadership, community involvement, feedback to Salesforce on product direction. Innovation is systematic — there is a structured process for evaluating new Salesforce capabilities against business needs before general availability. The CoE is a strategic asset, not just a technology function.
Benchmark characteristics: deeply embedded in business strategy, continuous improvement cycle, external benchmarking, industry recognition, Salesforce strategic partnership-level relationship, innovation pipeline for emerging capabilities (Agentforce, Data Cloud).
Assessment and Progression Investment
Assess your CoE across the six dimensions using the following scoring: 1 (Stage 1-2), 2 (Stage 3), 3 (Stage 4), 4 (Stage 5). Your overall stage is the lowest score across any dimension — you cannot claim Stage 4 maturity if your adoption management is at Stage 2.
The six dimensions are: (1) Governance — decision-making process, change advisory, escalation paths; (2) Delivery capability — team size, skills, release cadence, environment strategy; (3) Architectural standards — documentation, compliance, review process; (4) Adoption management — measurement, intervention, stakeholder reporting; (5) Measurement and reporting — platform health metrics, investment impact measurement; (6) Strategic influence — participation in business planning, roadmap authority, executive visibility.
Progression investment should be targeted at the lowest-scoring dimension first. If governance is at Stage 2 while delivery capability is at Stage 3, invest in governance — improving delivery capability further will compound the technical debt that weak governance is already producing. Balanced progress across all dimensions produces more durable maturity than excellence in some areas alongside weakness in others.
The investment required to move between stages is roughly proportional: Stage 1 to 2 requires a headcount investment (adding 2-3 people and introducing basic governance). Stage 2 to 3 requires a capability and process investment (training, standards documentation, governance formalization). Stage 3 to 4 requires a measurement and relationship investment (analytics tooling, executive engagement, business planning integration). Stage 4 to 5 requires a culture and innovation investment — it cannot be bought with headcount alone.
Key Takeaways
- CoE maturity has five stages — Ad Hoc, Reactive, Defined, Managed, Optimising — each with distinct characteristics and benchmarks across six dimensions.
- An organisation's stage is determined by its lowest-scoring dimension — maturity is not claimed if any dimension is significantly lagging.
- Most organisations with 3+ years of Salesforce deployment sit at Stage 2 (Reactive) or Stage 3 (Defined); Stage 4 requires deliberate investment in measurement and strategic influence.
- The transition from Stage 3 to Stage 4 — the most common plateau — requires building quantitative health metrics and executive relationship investment, not just more delivery capacity.
- Progression investment should target the lowest-scoring dimension first; balanced progress is more durable than excellence in some areas alongside weakness in others.
- Stage 5 requires a culture and innovation investment that cannot be bought with headcount alone; it is the result of sustained organisational commitment to continuous improvement.
Check Your Understanding
Q1. What determines an organisation's overall CoE maturity stage?
Q2. What is the most common plateau in CoE maturity progression?
Q3. Which dimension, if weak, would most undermine a CoE with strong delivery capability?
Discussion & Feedback