Guide

Understanding your content team’s capability: a benchmarking framework

A practical framework for content leaders who want to understand their capability and make clearer decisions about where to focus next.

Content leadershipContent strategyOperations and governance

When you lead a content team, there will be times where you feel stuck. Where the step forward you want to make in your team’s development just isn’t happening. And often in those times, it can be really hard to step back and see the full picture of what’s holding you back or what your team needs.

Capability benchmarking can help in those moments.

This guide introduces the concept and gives you a framework and prompts to use to assess your team’s capability across five key areas. It’ll help you get clarity on where things are, and understand what you need to focus on to get unstuck and make progress.

What content capability benchmarking is

Capability benchmarking is a way of understanding where your content team is right now, and what progress might look like from that point.

Unlike measuring outputs (what you made) or outcomes (what changed as a result), capability benchmarking looks at the underlying conditions that make good content work possible: how the team is structured, how decisions get made, how work flows, and how impact is understood and communicated.

Used honestly, it gives you a clear picture of your strengths and your gaps. And used regularly – once a year, or before and after a significant change – it can show you how far you’ve come.

It’s often called content maturity benchmarking. I’ve chosen to use the word ‘capability’ very deliberately. Implicitly telling people that their approach was immature always felt patronising and uncomfortable to me. This kind of benchmarking isn’t about judging whether a team is good or bad, mature or immature. It’s about understanding what you’re currently set up to do well, and what you could build in order to grow or strengthen.

What the content capability framework covers

The framework covers five different areas:

1. Team and structure: Where content sits in the organisation, the roles that exist, the seniority of the people leading the work, and how responsibility is divided and owned.
2. Strategy and planning: How content decisions are made, how far ahead the team plans, and how well the work maps to organisational goals and audience needs.
3. Content operations: The practical mechanics of getting work done. How requests come in, how work is tracked and managed, how governance is structured, and how content is maintained over time.
4. Production and quality: What gets made. The range of formats, the consistency of quality, and how well the team considers accessibility and efficiency in everything it produces.
5. Measurement: How the team understands and communicates the impact of its work, from basic reach data through to frameworks that connect content activity to organisational outcomes.

Rather than give one overall score or level for capability as a whole, I prefer to break up benchmarking into these different areas and assess each one independently. This is because, in practice, content teams are rarely even across all of them. A team might produce sophisticated, beautifully crafted content while their operations are chaotic and their measurement barely exists. Another might have rigorous governance and clear processes but no real strategy guiding the work. Averaging across everything obscures that unevenness rather than helping you address it. A profile across five scales shows you where you actually are – and where focused effort would make the most difference.

The four levels of content capability

Within each area, there are four levels of capability: reactive, tactical, strategic, operationalised. The four levels are based on my experience of how capability tends to develop in practice. In most cases, the progression follows a recognisable sequence: teams build structure before strategy, and strategy before sophisticated measurement. But no two teams are identical, and the levels are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Use your judgement. The goal isn’t to reach the top level in every scale — it’s to understand where you are, decide where you need to be given what your organisation requires, and focus your energy accordingly.

Across the five areas, at overarching level, I’d characterise the different levels of capability like this:

1. Reactive: Content is ad hoc, low-status, and driven entirely by others’ requests. There’s little structure, little forward planning, and limited ability to shape the work.
2. Tactical: The team is building capability, but work is still largely request-led and campaign-driven. Some processes and standards exist, but they’re not consistent.
3. Strategic: Content has a clear strategy, senior buy-in, and strong processes. There are defined ways of working, regular planning, and good stakeholder relationships.
4. Operationalised: Content is embedded, mission-critical, and continuously improving. Everything is joined up, well-resourced, and built for the long term.

Content capability criteria: how to assess your team

The five areas are set out below. For each one, there’s a short prompt to help you reflect on where your team is, followed by a description of what capability typically looks like at each level. Use these however is most useful – as a way of thinking things through informally, as a basis for a team conversation, or as a starting point to adapt to your own context. 

If you’d like a more structured way to work through the framework, I’ve built a short survey that takes you through the framework and generates your scores. (It’s free!) Take the assessment.

1. Team and structure

Think about the people doing the work and how the team is set up. Do you have enough resource for the volume and complexity of what you’re being asked to produce? Are roles broad and generalist, or do you have people with specialist skills – in strategy, design, production, or operations? How much seniority does content have, and does it have a genuine voice at leadership level? How do stakeholders think about the content team – as a support function, or as a strategic partner? And is the team properly resourced, with the tools, budget, and investment in development it needs to do good work?

I would characterise the capability levels like this:

• Reactive: There’s no dedicated content role, or a single generalist carrying everything. Content ownership sits at a low level with no senior stakeholder. There’s no clear structure – one person, or an ad hoc arrangement with no defined ownership. Content is seen purely as a support function, called on when something needs writing. There’s no dedicated budget or tooling.
• Tactical: Dedicated content roles exist, but responsibilities are broad and generalist. A senior stakeholder is nominally in place but not consistently engaged. A centralised team takes requests and accepts most work as it arrives, without applying strategic judgement or pushing back. Some collaboration is happening, but relationships are largely reactive and transactional. Basic tools are in place; budget is limited and often confirmed at the last minute.
• Strategic: The team has some specialist roles – a content strategist, a content designer, a producer – and a senior stakeholder who is actively engaged, giving content a voice at the leadership level. There’s a hub-and-spoke or hybrid model with clear ownership. Stakeholders see content as a trusted partner in planning, and there’s regular, meaningful collaboration. Budget and tools are adequate, with some investment in training and development.
• Operationalised: A range of specialist roles exist across strategy, design, production, and operations. Senior stakeholders champion content and treat it as mission-critical. The organising structure is mature, with clear ownership at every level and strong alignment between strategy and execution. Content actively shapes organisational decisions, and there’s strong investment in tools, training, and headcount.

2. Strategy and planning

Think about what guides the work. Is there a content strategy, and does it actually influence what gets prioritised and produced? How far ahead does the team plan – are you always reacting to immediate requests, or do you have a genuine forward view? How well do you understand your audiences – are decisions based on real insight, or mostly assumption? When requests come in, is there a clear and agreed way of deciding what to take on and what to push back on? And does the team have clear standards – for tone, style, or content design – that people actually use?

I would characterise the capability levels like this:

• Reactive: There’s no strategy; content happens in response to requests. There’s no forward planning, no audience research – decisions are based on assumptions. Requests are handled in the order they arrive, or based on who applies the most pressure. There are no shared standards or guidelines of any kind.
• Tactical: No formal strategy, but a growing tactical sense of how content can be used for different purposes. An editorial calendar exists for some content. Some audience insight is used, mostly anecdotal or drawn from existing data. Ad hoc prioritisation is happening, with some sense of what matters but no shared or documented criteria. Some standards exist – a basic style guide, a few templates – but they’re inconsistently applied.
• Strategic: A content strategy is in place and actively used to guide decisions. Content is planned in advance and mapped to organisational goals and audience needs. Regular user research informs decisions; the team uses personas, needs frameworks, or similar tools. There are defined criteria for prioritisation, and resource allocation is considered and visible. The team has clear, usable standards – a style guide, tone of voice, content design principles, or equivalent – and they’re followed.
• Operationalised: A mature content strategy, regularly reviewed and embedded across the organisation. Sophisticated forward planning developed in collaboration with stakeholders. Audience insight informs all content; deep, ongoing research is embedded in how the team works. A mature prioritisation process that is transparent, documented, and agreed with stakeholders. Standards are comprehensive, well maintained, and embedded across the organisation.

3. Content operations

Think about the practical mechanics of your team’s day-to-day. How do requests come in – is there a clear, consistent process, or does work arrive through whatever channel someone happens to use? How do you track and manage work in progress? Is there a defined workflow that people follow, or does each piece of content get handled differently? Who has sign-off authority, and is that clearly understood? And what happens to content once it’s published – is there any systematic approach to reviewing, updating, or retiring it?

I would characterise the capability levels like this:

• Reactive: No formal intake process; requests arrive informally and unpredictably via any channel. There’s no system for tracking tasks or managing workflow – work is held in inboxes and memory. Each piece of content is handled differently. No governance; decisions are informal and ownership is often unclear. Content is created and forgotten, with no review, update, or retirement process.
• Tactical: Requests come in through informal channels with no consistent structure or lead times. Some informal tracking exists – a shared doc, a basic board – but it’s not consistently used. Some informal processes exist but they’re not documented or consistently followed. Ad hoc governance; sign-off is inconsistent and roles aren’t well defined. Some content is updated but there’s no systematic or scheduled approach.
• Strategic: A defined intake process is in place; stakeholders know how and when to request work. The team uses a shared work management system to track tasks, monitor progress, and manage capacity. There are defined workflows covering briefing, creation, review, sign-off, and publication. Defined governance with clear roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes. Content lifecycle is actively managed: creation, review, updates, and retirement are defined.
• Operationalised: A mature intake and triage process with agreed lead times, a service level agreement, and clear out-of-scope boundaries. Sophisticated work management with visibility across the team, clear ownership, and regular review of workload and priorities. Well-documented workflows that the team and stakeholders understand, follow, and review regularly. Mature governance structure with ownership models, content lifecycle management, and regular audits.

4. Production and quality

Think about the range and quality of what you make. Are you working across a variety of formats, or mostly producing the same types of content? Is quality consistent – does the work reliably meet a standard, or does it vary depending on who made it or how much time was available? Is accessibility something the team thinks about systematically, or does it get picked up inconsistently? Does the team reuse and repurpose content deliberately, or is most content treated as single-use? And is there a recognisable voice – something that makes the content feel like it comes from the same place?

I would characterise the capability levels like this:

• Reactive: Basic content in a limited range of formats – web pages, simple copy, basic documents. Quality and consistency are often poor, with no shared standards to work to. No consideration of accessibility in content planning or production. Content is treated as single-use; there’s no modular thinking or deliberate reuse. No consistent voice or storytelling approach; content varies widely in tone and feel.
• Tactical: A wider range of formats is emerging – longer articles, emails, campaign copy, simple video, basic service content. Quality and consistency vary; standards exist in theory but aren’t always followed in practice. Growing awareness of accessibility; some basic steps are taken but the approach isn’t systematic. Some content is repurposed but without a deliberate or documented approach. A voice is developing but inconsistently applied; the content doesn’t yet feel coherent.
• Strategic: A broad range of formats used with purpose: long-form, transactional, service content, multimedia, case studies, thought leadership. Quality and consistency are strong; the team works to clear standards and they show in the output. Accessibility is considered as standard across content planning and production. Content is planned with reuse in mind; modular or structured approaches are emerging. A clear, consistent voice and storytelling approach; content is recognisably from this organisation.
• Operationalised: A sophisticated, multi-format content ecosystem – always-on, covering everything from microcopy to research reports – continuously optimised. Excellent, consistent quality with continuous improvement built into how the team works. Accessibility is embedded in practice and the team actively advocates for it across the wider organisation. Systematic content reuse; structured content and shared assets support efficient, consistent production. A strong, well-defined voice underpin

5. Measurement

Think about how well you know whether the work is making a difference. Is there a consistent approach to measurement, or does it happen ad hoc when someone asks? Are there KPIs, and do they connect to something meaningful – organisational goals, not just content metrics? Does the team report regularly, and in a way that resonates with stakeholders? Is data used to make decisions and improve content over time, or mostly gathered and filed? And does leadership have a clear sense of what content contributes – or is that largely invisible?

I would characterise the capability levels like this:

• Reactive: No measurement, or only occasional checks on reach or traffic figures. No defined KPIs; no shared understanding of what success looks like. No reporting; results are not communicated to stakeholders. Data is not used to inform content decisions. Content’s contribution to organisational goals is invisible to leadership.
• Tactical: Ad hoc measurement focused on output metrics – views, likes, open rates — without a consistent framework. Some KPIs exist but they’re not consistently used or clearly connected to wider goals. Occasional ad hoc reporting; no regular rhythm or consistent format. Some use of data to inform decisions, but it’s inconsistent and not built into the workflow. The team can describe what it does but struggles to connect that to outcomes or make the case for investment.
• Strategic: Content is measured against defined KPIs that connect to the strategy; results are reviewed regularly. Clear KPIs defined and agreed with stakeholders; measurement connects content activity to organisational outcomes. Regular reports are shared with stakeholders; results are used to inform decisions and planning. Data is regularly used to evaluate and improve content; insight loops are established. The team can demonstrate impact through evidence and use it to make the case for resource and strategic focus.
• Operationalised: A comprehensive measurement framework tied to organisational goals; the team tracks leading and lagging indicators and optimises continuously. A layered KPI framework covering reach, engagement, quality, and impact; reviewed and updated as goals evolve. Regular, strategic reporting that tells a compelling story about content’s contribution to organisational goals. Data and insight are central to how the team works; continuous improvement is standard practice. Content’s impact is well understood at leadership level; the team uses evidence to influence organisational priorities.

What to do with your capability benchmark scores

Once you’ve assessed your team across all five areas, you’ll have a profile – not a single number – that shows where you’re strongest and where the biggest gaps are.

A few things worth considering as you look at your results:

• Where are things the most uneven? A big gap between your highest and lowest scores often points to where friction lives day-to-day. That’s usually where focused effort would make the most difference.
• What’s within your control? Some gaps are yours to close. Others — budget, headcount, senior sponsorship – will need resource, permission, or support from leadership. It’s worth being clear about which is which, so you know what to act on directly and what to make the case for.
• What would make the biggest difference? Improving everything at once isn’t realistic. Pick one or two areas (or even just criteria) to focus on, set a clear goal, and revisit in six to twelve months to track progress.

The goal isn’t to achieve the highest level across the board. It’s to understand the shape of your capability and make deliberate choices about where to invest your energy — based on what your organisation needs, what your strategy demands, and where the biggest friction is today.

In most teams, measurement and content operations tend to have the most room to grow, and improving them often unlocks value elsewhere. But the right focus depends on your situation. Use this framework to help you see it clearly.

In conclusion

If you started reading this feeling like something in your team wasn’t quite working but couldn’t put your finger on what, hopefully this has helped you see it more clearly. Knowing where the gaps are – and why they’re there – is the first step to doing something about them.