The score is not the point
The argument you have getting to it is. When one person rates contracts at a 4 and another at a 2, that gap is more useful than any number either of them would have produced alone. It means the team does not share a picture of how its own function works.
So the method matters more than the scale: everyone scores all six dimensions independently first, before any discussion. Group scoring converges on whoever speaks first and most confidently, which is exactly the input you do not want.
Take the lowest two, not the average
Maturity is limited by its weakest dimension, the way a process is limited by its bottleneck. A function averaging 3.2 with a 4 in sourcing and a 1 in value measurement is not a 3.2. It is a team that negotiates well and cannot prove what it delivered, and the second fact will eventually cost it the first.
The Excel version turns anything scored 2 or below red, and names your two weakest dimensions with room to write what you will do about each.
Evidence every score
“We are a 3 on contracts” means nothing. “We are a 3 because we know where the top twenty contracts are and nothing below that” is a finding, and it is already half a workplan. Every score on the sheet has a space for the evidence behind it, and a score without evidence should not be recorded.
How this differs from the online assessment
This is for scoring as a group, in a room, with the disagreements visible. Our Compass Lite assessment scores the same six dimensions question by question and returns a level with recommendations in about two minutes. Faster, more structured, and answered by one person.
Use the assessment to get a read. Use this sheet when you need the team to agree on one. The procurement maturity model guide explains the levels in more depth.