Gov/en/Portal:R&D/User-Group-Maturity

💡 In simple words: This page shows how ready and healthy each User Group and its marketplaces are.

🎯 In 20 seconds (scientific summary): The Maturity Score is a composite 1–5 star indicator of each User Group's health, averaging 7 sub-scores (active users, dissatisfaction, proposals, bugs, deployment, interconnection, trajectory). Reviewed quarterly by the Living Lab, displayed publicly, it guides resource allocation and can inform second-tranche reward decisions in Open Calls.

Applies to	User Groups and their marketplaces
Indicators	7 dimensions
Scale	1–5 stars (⭐ to ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)
Review cycle	Quarterly (seasonal)
Effect	Guides resource allocation
Display	Infobox of each marketplace portal
Governance	Living Lab + Community

Communities grow at different speeds, and that is normal. A brand-new babysitting group in one town and a five-year-old taxi cooperative cannot need the same support. Without a shared measure, help tends to go to whoever asks loudest. The Maturity Score aims to give users and coordinators a transparent compass, so community energy flows where it genuinely changes outcomes.

The Maturity Score is a composite indicator measuring the health and readiness of each WikiDeal User Group and its marketplaces. A User Group has at least one marketplace, and may have several. The score determines how many resources (development attention, community contribution, support) should be directed toward a given User Group. A high-maturity User Group needs less external support; a low-maturity one needs more.

What is the Maturity Score?

Each WikiDeal User Group and its marketplaces (babysitting, taxi cooperative, microcredit, etc.) evolve through phases of development. In early stages, the model needs refinement, users need onboarding, bugs need fixing, and governance rules need testing. In mature stages, the community largely self-governs, complaints are low, and the User Group has proven its viability.

The Maturity Score provides a standardized, publicly visible measure of where each User Group sits on this spectrum. It is not a ranking of which User Groups are "better"; it is a resource allocation tool.

The 7 Indicators

Each indicator generates a sub-score from 1 to 5. The composite maturity note is the weighted average of all seven.

#	Indicator	Description	Low Score (1)	High Score (5)
M1	Number of Active Users	Monthly active users in the past 90 days	<10 users	>500 users
M2	Dissatisfaction Reports	Rate of negative feedback, unresolved complaints, arbitration requests	>15% dissatisfied	<2% dissatisfied
M3	Improvement Proposals Appreciated	Number of community proposals received and positively evaluated by users	0–1 proposals/quarter	5+ well-rated proposals
M4	Degree of Urgency (Bugs)	Outstanding critical bugs or blocking issues in the current deployment	>5 critical bugs	0 critical bugs
M5	Degree of Deployment	How widely deployed: single city vs. multiple regions vs. cross-border	Concept only	Multi-country deployment
M6	Interconnection with Other Tools	Integration with Rings of Trust, Wikidata, shared contracts, other portals	Isolated silo	Full Ring participation
M7	Usage Decline Prevention	Trajectory: growing, stable, or declining user base and Transaction volume	Declining (>20%/quarter)	Growing (>10%/quarter)

Composite Score Calculation

The composite maturity note is calculated as the simple average of the 7 indicator sub-scores, rounded to the nearest half-star:

Maturity = (M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 + M5 + M6 + M7) / 7

Result displayed as ⭐ (1.0–1.9) to ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4.5–5.0)

The Living Lab team reviews scores quarterly. Community members can challenge scores by submitting documented counter-evidence through the Open Call process. Final scores are published in each marketplace portal's infobox and in the quarterly Participatory Observatory report.

Resource Allocation Based on Maturity

The maturity score directly influences how community resources and support are allocated each quarter:

Maturity Level	Stars	Support Priority	Support Level	Rationale
Early Stage	⭐☆☆☆☆	Very High	Maximum support	The User Group needs maximum community contribution to survive and grow
Developing	⭐⭐☆☆☆	High	High support	Key improvements needed; active contributor incentivization required
Consolidating	⭐⭐⭐☆☆	Medium	Standard support	Stable but still benefits from focused improvement proposals
Mature	⭐⭐⭐⭐☆	Low	Reduced support	Self-sustaining; community handles most improvements organically
Exemplary	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	Very Low	Maintenance only	Model case; resources redirected to newer, lower-maturity User Groups

This mechanism prevents the "winner's curse" where already-successful User Groups absorb disproportionate community contribution. Resources flow toward what needs them most.

Use in Open Calls: Second-Tranche Distribution

The Maturity Score can also be used as a criterion in Open Calls, for one specific purpose: the distribution of a second tranche of a reward. When part of the money of an attributed reward is retained, the maturity of the concerned User Group (for example, whether real deployment has taken place one year later) can serve as an indicator to decide the release of that second tranche. See the Open Call FAQ for details.

Display in Marketplace Portal Infoboxes

Every marketplace portal infobox displays the current maturity score as a star rating, alongside the review date and a link to the full scoring breakdown. Example:

Maturity: ⭐⭐☆☆☆ | Developing | Reviewed: Apr 2026 | Methodology

Stars are purely illustrative in the current mockup phase. Real scores will be calculated by the Living Lab based on actual deployment data.

Evolution Over Time

As WikiDeal matures, the scoring system itself will evolve. The 7 indicators were defined in Prototype 1; they may be revised through Open Calls. A User Group may also "regress" in maturity if a major disruption occurs (new competitor, legal change, community conflict): the score reflects current reality, not historical achievement.

Who does what

• User Group members generate the signals through everyday use and feedback.
• The Living Lab team reviews and publishes scores quarterly.
• Community members can challenge a score with documented counter-evidence via the Open Call process, keeping the whole mechanism transparent and participative.

See also: User Groups · Open Call · Living Labs