Explain maturity-rating differences before combining them
Crisis preparedness · Resilience assessment · Workshops · Assessment disagreement
2 min read (estimate)
A resilience workshop should record the assumptions behind different ratings before agreeing a consolidated finding.
Two departments give different ratings to the same disruption scenario in a resilience workshop. One expects to cope; the other anticipates substantial limitations. This hypothetical situation does not yet justify taking an average. The first task is to establish what each judgment assumes.
The published working paper “Bewertung von organisationaler Krisen-Resilienz anhand des Resilienzrisikoreifegrades” by Rico Kerstan and André Röhl (Northern Business School, 1/2025) describes a qualitative, context-dependent assessment approach. The title means assessing organizational crisis resilience through resilience risk maturity: a qualitative appraisal of preparedness for the crises considered, not a universal performance measurement. Workshop findings require consolidation and plausibility checking. They are not objective measurements that can be pooled independently of who participated and what was considered. That limitation has a direct consequence for facilitation.
I recommend treating divergent ratings initially as a question about assumptions. One participant may expect spare capacity to remain available. Another may assume that the same resource will also be affected. Until those premises are visible, the group is negotiating numbers while assessing different situations.
For each substantial disagreement, the facilitator should record the process concerned and the resource assumed to be available. The group then checks whether both ratings refer to the same event and time period. Only after that clarification should it formulate a consolidated finding. An unresolved premise belongs in the output as a specific question to investigate.
Wide variation therefore need not mean that a workshop has failed. It may reveal an actionable gap in understanding. Conversely, quick agreement does not establish reliable preparedness. Participants can share the same mistaken assumption. What matters is the reasoning supporting the finding, not the visual neatness of the resulting chart.
The next resilience workshop can test this recommendation on a limited basis. Select one disputed rating and document its underlying assumptions. Assign an owner to verify the decisive resource question. A follow-up meeting then reassesses that specific issue using the clarified information. This is not evidence of a general increase in maturity. Even an unchanged rating may reflect useful progress if the organization can now identify the particular dependency it still needs to secure.