Network Automation Maturity Assessment — Executive Summary
Network Automation Maturity Assessment — Executive Summary
Section titled “Network Automation Maturity Assessment — Executive Summary”Organisation: Date: Prepared by: Reviewed by:
Purpose
Section titled “Purpose”This document summarises the findings of the NetDevOps maturity assessment conducted on [date]. It is written for senior leadership who were not present in the assessment workshop and require a business-language view of current capability, the implications for the organisation, and recommended next steps.
Where We Are Today
Section titled “Where We Are Today”[Replace this paragraph with a 2–4 sentence description of the overall maturity level. Write in business terms, not technical terms. Describe what this means for the organisation’s operational capability, not which tools are or are not in place.]
Example: “ACME Investments’ network operations are currently in the early stages of automation maturity. The majority of network changes are executed manually by a small team of experienced engineers, with limited shared tooling or documented process. The organisation’s ability to deliver connectivity changes reliably and at speed is constrained by this operating model, and operational risk is disproportionately concentrated in a small number of individuals.”
What This Means for the Business
Section titled “What This Means for the Business”[Connect the maturity gaps directly to business outcomes. Be specific and quantified where possible. This section is the commercial case for investment.]
| Business Area | Current Position | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| [e.g., Trading platform resilience] | [e.g., Incident response is manual; no automated detection or triage] | [e.g., Average MTTR for P1 incidents is X hours, with significant variance] |
| [e.g., Regulatory compliance] | [e.g., Change evidence is compiled manually before each audit] | [e.g., Approximately X days of engineering effort consumed per regulatory review] |
| [e.g., Business agility] | [e.g., Connectivity requests take an average of X days from request to delivery] | [e.g., New trading venue onboarding is a multi-week engineering project rather than a business decision] |
| [e.g., Operational cost] | [e.g., Senior engineer time dominated by routine execution rather than strategic work] | [e.g., Estimated X% of engineering capacity consumed by tasks that could be automated] |
What Good Looks Like
Section titled “What Good Looks Like”[Describe the target state in business terms. What will be different? What will be possible that is not possible today? Do not use tool names.]
Example: “In an organisation operating at higher maturity, connectivity changes that currently take weeks are delivered in under an hour through automated pipelines with built-in validation. Compliance evidence is generated automatically as a by-product of normal operations, eliminating the manual effort currently invested before regulatory reviews. Engineers are freed from routine execution to focus on network design, resilience improvement, and strategic capability development.”
Key Findings
Section titled “Key Findings”Strengths identified:
- [e.g., A motivated engineering team with emerging automation skills]
- [e.g., A clear understanding within the team of what needs to change]
- [e.g., An existing change management process that provides a foundation to build on]
Gaps requiring investment:
- [e.g., No single source of truth for network state — knowledge is fragmented across individuals and systems]
- [e.g., No automated testing before production deployment — changes are validated in production]
- [e.g., Compliance evidence requires significant manual effort to compile]
Recommended Next Steps
Section titled “Recommended Next Steps”[3–5 prioritised recommendations. Frame as investments with expected outcomes. This should connect to the transformation roadmap.]
1. [Initiative name]
- What: [Brief description]
- Why now: [The business case for prioritising this first]
- Expected outcome: [Specific, measurable change in business or operational capability]
2. [Initiative name]
- What:
- Why now:
- Expected outcome:
3. [Initiative name]
- What:
- Why now:
- Expected outcome:
Investment Indication
Section titled “Investment Indication”[A high-level indication of investment required. This is a directional view, not a detailed business case — that follows in the transformation roadmap.]
| Category | Indicative Scale | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| People (skills, hiring, training) | ||
| Tooling and platform | ||
| Programme management | ||
| Total (indicative) |
How This Assessment Was Conducted
Section titled “How This Assessment Was Conducted”The assessment was conducted as a structured cross-functional workshop on [date], facilitated by [name]. Participants included representatives from [list stakeholder groups].
Scoring was based on evidence from current operations, not aspirational capability. Where scores were contested, the more conservative view was adopted. The assessment reflects the organisation’s current state, not the capability of any individual team or engineer.
Next Step
Section titled “Next Step”The findings from this assessment will be carried into a transformation roadmap session with [sponsor name] on [date]. The roadmap will translate these gaps into a phased programme of investment, with defined outcomes, dependencies, and measures of progress.
Full assessment detail available in: [link to current state profile and gap analysis]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license.
You are free to use and adapt this material within your organisation for internal purposes. Republishing, selling, or distributing this content (in whole or in part) as a book, course, or other commercial product is not permitted without explicit permission.