Across industries and sectors, there’s no shortage of frameworks, diagnostics, and best practices. Yet, some of the most valuable insights come from recent research—often buried in academic journals or technical papers—that reveal how performance maturity unfolds in real contexts (i.e., education systems, national strategies, sectoral programs, or reform initiatives).

This new series from the GPA Unit is here to unpack that research.

In each article, we’ll spotlight a recently published study on performance management maturity or closely connected areas, and we’ll extract the core ideas to explore what they mean for real-world practitioners and systems in transition.

Our goal is to bridge the gap between insight and action, helping you decode complex models, recognize familiar patterns, and apply relevant lessons to your own context. Whether you’re in an education authority, a nonprofit, a partnership initiative, or a fast-evolving strategy office, we want to answer the question:

What does it really take for an organization to grow more mature in how it manages performance?

It turns out, some systems are just more complex to manage than others.

These complex systems involve multiple layers, distributed actors, and shifting expectations. And while performance management frameworks are easy to write about, they’re much harder to apply when the system itself lacks coordination.

Education is one of those systems.

That’s why a recent research study by Hind Benlhabib and Abdelaziz Berrado stands out. Instead of focusing on isolated tools or school-level reforms, the authors designed a full-scale maturity model for performance management in education systems—then tested it in the Moroccan context.

The model is designed to assess how well an education system develops and sustains performance. It maps out 6 core dimensions, 15 capability areas, and 42 best practices, offering a structured way to understand what performance maturity looks like across a complex, fragmented environment.

In this article, we explore how the model works and what its application reveals about designing performance maturity frameworks that can handle real-world complexity.

Key Insights

• Performance management maturity requires systemic coherence. It’s less about adopting tools and more about aligning vision, structures, processes, and behaviors across the education system.
• Complex systems benefit from structured maturity models that offer a shared language and practical staging for capacity development, especially where reforms have been fragmented or uneven.
• Evaluation and learning are foundational to maturity beyond being accountability mechanisms. They must also function as feedback loops that shape strategic and operational decision-making.
• Cultural and institutional contexts shape how maturity evolves. This underscores the importance of adaptability, pacing, and stakeholder participation in model design and implementation.
• Dimensions of maturity often cut across traditional reform categories. This highlights the value of integrated frameworks that link planning, management, improvement, and policy at every level.
• Academic research can directly inform real-world maturity efforts, especially when translated with an eye toward systems in a transitional phase.

Why Are Education Systems a Good Litmus Test for Maturity?

When we assess maturity, we’re not asking whether a system uses performance management tools. Instead, we want to know whether it can integrate, sustain, and evolve those tools into something systemic. That’s why education systems are especially revealing. They bring to the surface the real complexity of building maturity in environments that are layered, long-term, and often politically charged.

Take timing, for example. Education outcomes often unfold over years or even decades. This long-term duration makes it difficult to link strategic intent to measurable impact, especially in systems where data is not always timely or trusted. A maturity model must therefore assess whether the system is designed to manage over time.

Then there’s structure. Most education systems are highly decentralized, with responsibilities split across ministries, regional authorities, and thousands of schools. While decentralization is often framed as a reform success, it introduces real challenges for alignment. Maturity in this context requires mechanisms that connect institutional layers through shared strategy, coherent processes, and clear performance logic.

Culture also plays a role. Schools are not just delivery units—they are deeply symbolic institutions, tied to identity, equity, and public trust. That means performance systems are often perceived through a social and political lens. Building maturity here goes beyond being merely technical to relational. Systems must invest in transparency, participation, and communication to foster legitimacy.

Finally, there’s reform fatigue. Many education systems have experienced wave after wave of change (new plans, new frameworks, and new expectations). In these environments, even well-intentioned performance reforms can be met with skepticism. A maturity model can help reset the narrative by offering a structured path for capability development based on evidence, pacing, and learning.

All of these dynamics were present in the Moroccan case study, and that’s precisely what made it such a robust test environment for a newly developed maturity model. Rather than targeting a single institution or policy, the researchers asked: 

What does it take to assess and improve performance capability across the entire education system?

Performance Management System Maturity in an Educational Context

The aforementioned case study of Morocco’s education maturity model is best understood as a structured research effort to explore how performance management maturity can be defined and assessed in a complex sector.

Led by Hind Benlhabib and Abdelaziz Berrado, the project set out to develop a conceptual model, offering a structured way to analyze the organizational capacity of education systems in managing performance. It’s one of several academic initiatives in recent years that aim to make maturity thinking more concrete and tailored to real-world systems.

To build the model, the researchers used an approach known as Design Science Research (DSR). This methodology is focused on building practical tools that can be tested and iteratively improved. It is particularly useful in fields where systems are large and interdependent. Drawing on international case studies, education policy benchmarks, and performance management literature, the researchers identified common capability patterns in high-performing systems and translated them into an initial maturity framework.

The researchers conducted a trial assessment in Morocco to test how well the framework could identify maturity levels across the national education system. The goal of this pilot was to validate the model’s logic, not to evaluate Morocco’s performance or prescribe solutions.

The result is a useful academic contribution that offers one way to think about maturity in sector-wide performance management. For practitioners and maturity model developers, it provides a reference point both in terms of design structure and in the types of capability areas that such models might consider.

What Do We Mean by Performance Management System Maturity?

A mature performance management system isn’t defined by how many tools it uses but by how well those tools, processes, and behaviors come together into a coherent, sustained whole.

In mature systems, performance management is deeply embedded into how the organization thinks, plans, and acts. You’ll often see:

• A clear strategic direction, where performance goals guide long-term priorities and align actors across the system
• Integrated processes and routines that turn plans into action, supported by timely data and clear responsibilities
• A learning-driven approach, where feedback and evidence shape continuous improvement across policies and programs
• Investments in people with the right capabilities, roles, and incentives to lead and manage for performance at all levels
• A performance-oriented culture, where improvement is normalized, participation is valued, and results are part of the system’s identity

This is how we understand maturity at the GPA Unit: a system’s ability to sustain, adapt, and improve its performance logic over time.

Six Dimensions of Maturity in Education Performance Management 

The maturity model tested in Morocco organizes performance management into six interconnected dimensions, each reflecting a key domain where education systems must build capacity to manage for results. These dimensions offer a structured way to assess how mature a system is in embedding performance management through deep integration into how education is governed, delivered, and improved.

D1: Strategy

This dimension focuses on how education systems develop and implement strategic plans that integrate performance management principles. It considers whether strategies are formulated clearly, executed coherently, and aligned across institutional levels—from national authorities to schools.

The researchers broke down this dimension into two core capability areas:

• Strategy Development:
  This area explores how national education strategies are created, including whether performance objectives are clearly defined and whether long-term goals reflect stakeholder needs. It also considers how visions are articulated for the system as a whole and how strategic priorities are framed in relation to student learning and institutional performance.
   
• Strategy Implementation:
  This area assesses the extent to which strategic plans are operationalized across all levels of the education system. This includes how well objectives are cascaded, whether planning and performance processes are aligned, and if mechanisms exist to monitor progress and adjust course as needed.

A mature education system under this dimension demonstrates coherence between vision and execution. This means strategic intent translates into structured, measurable, and widely supported performance goals.

D2: Organization

This dimension focuses on how education systems are institutionally structured to support performance management. It looks at the way responsibilities are distributed, the degree of autonomy that exists, and how accountability is encouraged through incentives and oversight mechanisms.

Maturity in this area is assessed across three capability areas:

• Institutional Design:
  This evaluates whether roles and responsibilities are clearly allocated across national ministries, regional authorities, and schools. It includes whether legal frameworks exist to support performance management, and whether decision-making structures enable coordination rather than fragmentation.
   
• School-Based Management:
  This examines how much autonomy schools have in managing their own operations, including control over budgets, personnel, and instructional planning. It also considers whether this autonomy is supported at the local level.
   
• Incentives and Accountability Mechanisms:
  This assesses whether systems use performance-linked incentives to motivate improvement, and whether accountability frameworks promote transparency and trust. In mature systems, performance expectations are clear, constructive, and balanced with developmental support.

In combination, these elements determine whether the education system can balance centralized coherence with decentralized flexibility.

D3: Processes and Information Technology (IT)

This dimension examines how education systems operationalize performance management and whether digital tools are in place to support those processes. It focuses on whether performance routines are consistent and embedded and whether information systems enable those routines to function effectively.

There are two capability areas in this dimension:

• Performance Management Processes and Quality of Metrics:
  This evaluates whether systems have structured processes for setting objectives, monitoring performance, delivering feedback, and conducting formal reviews. It also considers the quality and appropriateness of performance indicators, particularly whether they reflect educational priorities and are adapted to different levels (e.g., schools, districts, national, etc.). Maturity here means that performance routines are standardized, understood by practitioners, and integrated into regular school and system operations.
   
• IT Platform for Performance Management:
  This assesses the existence and functionality of the digital tools and information systems used to support performance management. It covers legal adoption, data quality, coverage, and the platform’s ability to generate timely insights. In mature systems, technology acts as an enabler, supporting school leaders, policymakers, and administrators in planning, tracking, and decision-making based on real-time data.

Together, these capabilities determine whether an education system can move beyond ad-hoc performance tracking and toward a structured, technology-enabled performance cycle.

D4: Building Performance Management Knowledge and Capabilities

This dimension addresses how education systems build the knowledge, skills, and institutional learning needed to support performance management over time. It focuses not just on individual competencies, but on the collective capacity of the system to professionalize performance thinking and embed it across roles and functions.

The model breaks this into three capability areas:

• Performance Management Curriculum and Initial Education:
  This assesses whether performance management principles are included in the initial training of teachers, principals, and education officials. Maturity here involves recognizing performance management as a foundational discipline within the professional preparation of those who will lead, plan, or teach within the system.
   
• Professional Development Programs:
  This examines the existence and quality of in-service training and ongoing support related to performance management. This includes structured programs for teachers, principals, and education officials that build the competencies needed to plan, measure, evaluate, and improve performance. Mature systems ensure that performance development is not a one-time event but an ongoing feature of professional growth.
   
• Performance Management Research and Innovation:
  This looks at the extent to which education systems invest in research, experimentation, and innovation related to performance management. This includes local studies, pilot programs, and national initiatives aimed at contextualizing and adapting performance approaches. Maturity in this area means research is used to drive reform, shape practice, and continuously improve the system’s capacity to manage performance.

Education systems that perform well in this dimension treat capacity development as a strategic priority, building a workforce that is equipped, supported, and informed in how to manage for results.

D5: Evaluation Supports Performance Management 

This dimension examines how education systems integrate evaluation as a key support function within performance management. It focuses on the education system’s capacity to conduct and use evaluations at different levels, ensuring evaluation informs decision-making, fosters learning, and supports continuous improvement.

The model breaks this down into two capability areas:

• Capacity to Conduct Evaluation: 

This capability assesses whether education systems have the mechanisms in place to perform effective evaluations. It examines the robustness and reliability of evaluation methods, ensuring they provide meaningful insights into educational performance. In a mature system, evaluation is an embedded process, one that is consistently used to assess various aspects of the education system, from teaching quality to student outcomes.

• Capacity to Use Evaluation: 

This capability focuses on how well the education system can apply the results of evaluations to improve performance. It examines whether evaluation findings are used to inform decisions, adjust policies, and guide reforms. Maturity in this area means that evaluations are not merely an isolated activity but serve as a continuous feedback loop, supporting both immediate improvements and long-term strategic goals.

Education systems that excel in this dimension treat evaluation as an essential tool for learning, growth, and accountability, integrating it seamlessly into their broader performance management strategies.

D6: Education Policy 

This dimension addresses how education systems develop and implement policies that support performance management goals. It focuses on the ability of education systems to formulate and enact policies that align with performance management principles and improve overall student achievement and system effectiveness.

The model breaks this down into three capability areas:

• Education Policy Development
  This assesses the performance management system’s capacity to design policies that reflect the strategic objectives of the education system. It ensures that performance management principles are integrated into national education policies. Maturity in this area involves policies that are aligned with national development plans and educational goals, addressing the needs of all stakeholders.
   
• Education Policy Implementation
  This evaluates how effectively education policies are put into action across all levels of the education system. This includes the processes and structures that ensure policies are enacted and supported in schools. Maturity in this area means that policies are not just created but are understood, communicated, and executed with the necessary resources to achieve their goals.
   
• Overcoming Social and Political Hurdles in Education Policy Implementation
  This focuses on the system's ability to address social, political, and economic challenges that may hinder policy implementation. Maturity in this area involves mechanisms to navigate resistance, build support, and adapt policies to local contexts. It ensures policies are flexible and resilient in the face of ever-changing circumstances while still supporting performance management objectives.

Education systems that perform well in this dimension are capable of developing, implementing, and adapting policies that foster sustainable improvements in performance management, ensuring alignment with global best practices while addressing local needs.

From Insight to Systemic Capability

This study goes beyond introducing a new model; it helps clarify what performance management system maturity really looks like in complex, real-world environments. It reminds us that while systems differ in shape and context, the underlying building blocks of maturity are surprisingly consistent: alignment between strategy and operations, the ability to learn and adapt, and a culture that treats performance as an integral part of how institutions work.

At the GPA Unit, this is exactly the space we operate in.

We work with institutions and sectors to translate performance ambition into system capability, connecting strategy, management, improvement, people, and culture. What this research offers is a complementary way of structuring that effort: a model that echoes the same dimensions we support as seen through the lens of the education sector.

It reinforces a core message we share with our partners: maturity is not a destination. It’s a pattern of behavior—one that is measured by how consistently a system can plan, act, and improve.

By surfacing and translating research like this, we aim to make that journey more visible and more feasible. Because, whether in education, finance, health, or beyond, the same principles hold: better-aligned systems deliver better results.