Describe the team, framework, and practices you want to examine. Makeform turns your brief into a structured assessment with behavior-based rating scales, evidence prompts, section scores, and improvement priorities.
Send responses to Google Sheets, Slack, and Zapier.
Sample prompts for the builder
Choose a starting point, adapt the language to the team, and send the prompt into the Makeform builder.
Audience
One delivery team completing a facilitated baseline
Format
Six-section survey with a five-stage scale
Prompt size
258 chars
Example assessment structure
Six-section survey with a five-stage scale
Team and assessment date
How consistently does work meet a shared definition of done?
What evidence supports this rating?
Choose two improvement priorities
Suggested routing tags
Baseline complete
Facilitator review
Action plan due
Ask about observable routines rather than whether a team feels agile. Evidence makes repeat assessments comparable.
Step 1
Define
choose dimensions and observable behaviors
Step 2
Assess
collect ratings plus supporting evidence
Step 3
Discuss
compare patterns without ranking people
Step 4
Improve
select experiments and reassess later
A useful maturity baseline
A score matters when the team can explain it and decide what to try next. Build the survey around observable work practices.
Describe each scale point with observable behavior so respondents use a shared frame.
Pair ratings with examples such as aging work, defects, review decisions, or completed actions.
End with a small set of experiments, an owner, and a review date instead of producing a maturity number that nobody uses.
Views that belong together
Use consistent dimensions, then tailor wording to people who can observe each practice.
Let delivery roles rate work and add examples before a facilitated conversation.
Ask partners about visibility, usable delivery, feedback loops, and confidence in decisions.
Capture observations, contradictions, risks, and recommended experiments in a separate section.
Keep core questions stable while recording team or product context changes.
Assessment workflow
Generate, calibrate, collect independent responses, and turn the discussion into a dated experiment.
Name the framework, team, purpose, dimensions, respondents, and cadence.
Replace abstract labels with behaviors the team recognizes. Add not observed where respondents may lack enough context.
Share one link before the workshop. Segment carefully without identifying anonymous respondents.
Review score spread and evidence, select one or two experiments, assign owners, and set the next assessment date.
Assessment approaches
The best format depends on whether you need a quick signal, a repeatable baseline, or an externally facilitated diagnosis.
Field guide
Adapt these dimensions to context. Each combines a rating topic with useful evidence.
Direction and backlog
Assess whether goals guide ordering and items become ready through ongoing discovery.
Flow and planning
Look beyond velocity to work in progress, blockers, slicing, predictability, and aging work.
Quality and delivery
Measure whether quality is shared and usable increments avoid a separate stabilization phase.
Collaboration
Assess decisions, early specialist collaboration, and recurring external handoffs.
Customer feedback
Ask how the team observes users, tests assumptions, and changes direction.
Continuous improvement
Improvement appears in completed actions and measured effects, not merely scheduled retrospectives.
Related tools
Pair the maturity baseline with focused feedback, retrospectives, engagement checks, and multi-rater reviews.
Collect feedback from several working relationships around a shared set of behaviors.
Open toolExplore engagement signals that may affect participation, ownership, and improvement.
Open toolAsk employees about work experience without mixing those answers into maturity scores.
Open toolBuild a broader internal survey for organizational questions beyond delivery practices.
Open toolCollect focused feedback on collaboration, communication, and team working agreements.
Open toolTurn an assessment priority into a retrospective discussion and a concrete experiment.
Open toolFAQ
Practical answers for coaches and consultants designing a credible team assessment.
It examines how consistently a team applies practices related to direction, flow, quality, collaboration, feedback, and improvement. Useful assessments pair behavior-anchored ratings with evidence and a facilitated conversation. The score is a learning baseline, not a certification or team ranking.
A practical core includes product direction, backlog health, flow, built-in quality, collaboration, customer feedback, and improvement. Add context-specific areas only when the team can observe them. Service teams may emphasize arrival patterns; product teams may emphasize discovery and outcomes.
Use four or five stages with observable anchors, such as reactive assignment progressing to collaborative planning with work-in-progress control and regular adaptation. Avoid labels such as bad or world class. Include not observed so respondents do not guess.
Anonymity can improve candor, while role or team tags help interpret patterns. Explain collected metadata. Do not promise anonymity when comments or demographics could reveal someone. Discuss themes rather than tracing answers.
Assign anchored responses numeric values, calculate dimension averages, and inspect the distribution. Wide spreads signal different experiences worth discussing. Exclude not-observed responses. Avoid one combined number when it would hide a serious gap.
Repeat after the team can run and review improvement experiments, often quarterly or at a planning boundary. Keep core wording stable and record context changes. A short pulse can track one experiment between full assessments.
Yes. Makeform provides unlimited free forms and responses, so you can generate, edit, publish, and repeat assessments without a response cap. The paid tier removes the Makeform badge. Review generated questions and anchors before collecting a baseline.
Share patterns and evidence in a facilitated session. Explore differing perspectives, select one or two improvements, define the expected signal, name an owner, and set a review date. Preserve context so reassessment tests behavior change, not just score movement.
Turn maturity scores into a team conversation.
