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 indicator (1–5 stars) measuring the health and readiness of each User Group and its marketplaces (a User Group has at least one marketplace, possibly several). It averages 7 sub-scores: active users, dissatisfaction reports, appreciated improvement proposals, critical bugs, degree of deployment, interconnection with other tools, and usage trajectory. Scores are reviewed quarterly by the Living Lab, displayed publicly in each marketplace portal infobox, and guide resource allocation: low-maturity User Groups receive maximum support, mature ones become self-sustaining. In Open Calls, the score can also inform the release of a second tranche of a reward, for example by checking real deployment one year later.
User Group Maturity Assessment
Maturity Score at a Glance
| 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 |
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.
See also: User Groups Open Call Living Labs