Through decades of research and consulting with teams across industries at NNGroup, we’ve studied what UX looks like in real life. The result is our UX-maturity model — a framework designed to help organizations understand how UX is practiced, supported, and measured. The model includes six stages and centers on four key UX-maturity factors: strategy, culture, process, and outcomes.

While this model is a powerful tool, it’s not a linear checklist. Too often, teams treat UX maturity like a ladder — a one-way climb to a final stage, rather than a living system that needs ongoing care and adaptation.

The Problem with Ladder Thinking

The ladder metaphor makes sense at first. Most maturity models (ours included) are presented in ordered stages, and that structure is useful. It gives teams a shared language to align on, a way to spot patterns, and a framework for assessing where they are and what maturity can look like in different contexts.

But models aren’t meant to capture every nuance of how growth happens. They don’t reflect all the shifts, tradeoffs, or transitions teams experience along the way — nor are they supposed to. The NNGroup UX Maturity Model supports objective assessment and shared understanding, but the real progress comes through the conversations, reflections, and decisions teams make as they apply it in their own context.

Still, it’s easy to misinterpret what the model is meant to do. Many teams assume it describes a fixed path with a set of sequential steps to complete. This mindset — called “ladder thinking” — assumes that UX maturity is a linear journey with a clear end point, where each stage builds directly on the last and progress means climbing upward without interruption.

When teams adopt a ladder mindset, several things happen:

• They assume progress should always be linear and upward.
• They overfocus on “reaching” the next stage and lose sight of reinforcing what’s already working.
• They become discouraged or defensive when regression occurs.

But the reality is that UX maturity isn’t a straight race to the top. It’s complex and organic, more like a living system than a ladder to climb. Different parts of the system develop at different rates. Progress in one maturity factor or on one team doesn’t always mean progress everywhere.

UX Maturity as a Living System

The UX maturity of an organization is a living system. Unlike ladders, living systems adapt to respond to changes in their environment. They require care, not just effort.

When you view UX maturity with a living-system mindset, you’ll see it as a set of evolving conditions to support, not just a finish line to reach. This mindset assumes that:

• Growth is nonlinear.
• Different areas may develop at different speeds.
• Progress depends on how well the environment is nurtured over time

Crucially, a living-systems mindset also acknowledges that effort and desire from the UX team alone aren’t enough. UX maturity must be supported at a systems level — integrated into strategy, culture, and operations across the organization.

No matter what stage of UX maturity your organization has reached, sustaining it requires active attention to the system itself, including:

• Regular tending: Without attention and regular maintenance, processes, crossfunctional alignment, collaboration, and UX awareness can gradually erode.
• Context-aware care: What works for one team, product, or moment in time might not work for another. Teams need to adapt and evolve their approaches based on context and constraints.
• Resilience-building: Healthy systems can weather disruptions such as leadership turnover, budget cuts, reorgs, or shifting priorities. Fragile ones fall apart when those changes hit.

This framing makes it easier to embrace the reality that maturity isn’t stable by default. It’s cultivated through small, ongoing actions such as updating rituals when they lose impact, revisiting assumptions when the environment changes, or reengaging partners when alignment slips.

Case Studies: Maturity Mindsets in Practice

The following fictionalized case studies (based on patterns we’ve seen repeatedly in our research and consulting work) illustrate how teams grow, stall out, or regress depending on which mindset they use to interpret and apply the UX-maturity model.

Case Study #1: Regression Due to Leadership Turnover

A financial-services company had reached what looked like stage 4 (structured) UX maturity: UX was embedded early in product cycles, designers participated in planning meetings, and regular research sprints were part of every release cadence.

Then, a leadership transition shifted organizational priorities. A new executive team, focused on time-to-deliver and cost-cutting, deprioritized investment in early research. Design lost visibility in roadmap planning. Over time, retrospectives were skipped, and UX involvement became reactive.

UX maturity regressed, not because of lack of knowledge or skill, but because the system supporting UX lacked resilience. When leadership changed, there were no broader structures in place to reinforce UX expectations and practices.

The lesson:

Ladder thinking leads to fragile maturity. Sustained progress requires shared responsibility and reinforcement across the organization and across all UX-maturity factors.

Case Study #2: Plateau Disguised as Stability

A healthcare company had strong UX infrastructure: There was a budding centralized research-ops team, a design system, and UX roles embedded on product teams. On paper, its UX maturity looked like a stage 3 (Emergent) approaching stage 4 (Structured).

But in reality, momentum had stalled. Regular research activities were happening, but mostly out of habit. User insights were collected, but assumptions were rarely challenged. Practices were technically “in place,” but nobody was asking whether they still worked or whether the team was still learning.

The organization had mistaken structure for evolution. The ladder mindset led it to assume that progress would continue automatically once a certain level had been reached.

The lesson:

Maturity doesn’t sustain itself. Even stable systems drift without reflection. Teams need ongoing feedback loops to renew and evolve their practices.

Case Study #3: Obsessing over Stage Advancement

A global B2B SaaS company had recently invested in formal UX-maturity benchmarking and was assessed at stage 2 (Limited). Leadership was eager to demonstrate progress to the board, so teams were tasked with “moving up a stage” in under 12 months.

The focus turned to the score: coming up with “user-centric” vanity campaigns, revamping decks, and adopting surface-level rituals that looked mature on paper. But in the day-to-day work, collaboration felt forced, improvements weren’t sticking, and long-term progression was being sacrificed for optics.

The lesson:

When teams focus only on reaching the next stage, they risk performing maturity instead of practicing it. Real growth comes from nurturing the system, not chasing the score.

Case Study #4: Grassroots Growth Without Formal Support

A logistics tech company was stuck in stage 2 (Limited): research was often skipped, designers worked in silos, and UX wasn’t part of company goals.

But one UX lead began using the four UX maturity factors to guide lightweight reflections in team retrospectives and reviews. Over time, those conversations sparked broader shifts: A shared playbook with an initial set of design guidelines emerged, and nonUX roles began proactively raising user concerns.

There was no top-down push or formal investment, but UX maturity started advancing, because someone invited the conversation and cultivated conditions for it to grow.

The lesson:

A systems mindset doesn’t require full organizational buy-in to make an impact. Using the model as a reflection tool can help cultivate conditions for meaningful, sustained UX maturity.

Signs of a Healthy UX Maturity Ecosystem

When companies treat UX maturity as a checklist to complete or a ladder to climb, they tend to chase stage numbers, perform rituals out of habit, or regress under pressure from change. When teams adopt a living-system mindset, even modest conditions — like reflection and intentional collaboration — can enable progress.

The case studies above illustrate a common thread: UX maturity isn’t something you check off once — it’s something you tend to continuously. Whether teams regressed, plateaued, or advanced, the underlying driver was how they approached maturity: as a fixed destination or a living system.

It’s easy to get caught up in advancing to the next stage. But focusing solely on stage progression can distract from the more meaningful work of reinforcing what’s working, addressing friction, and adapting to change. Maturity is not a fixed status; it’s a dynamic state that benefits from regular observation, reflection, and support.

Assessing UX Maturity

Conducting a formal UX maturity assessment is valuable, especially for teams with the leadership backing and resources to act on the findings. But a formal assessment isn’t always feasible. And even for teams who have completed a formal assessment, the real value comes from what happens next.

If You’re Not Ready for a Formal UX-Maturity Assessment

If you don’t yet have the time, budget, or leadership buy-in for a full maturity study, you can still use the model to drive insight and momentum. Instead of focusing on formal placement, start with reflection.

• Spot signals: What patterns, both positive and negative, are emerging in your day-to-day work?
• Create space for conversation: How could the four maturity factors guide conversations in retrospectives, standups, or one-to-one meetings?
• Monitor change over time: Where is energy or focus building or fading?

If You’ve Already Done a Formal UX-Maturity Assessment

The ecosystems of any UX practice can shift due to any number of things: teams reorganize, leadership priorities evolve, and product roadmaps evolve. Without continued care, even high-maturity systems can start to drift, and often without obvious warning.

Here’s how to stay proactive:

• Check for drift: What’s slipping or showing signs of stress since your last assessment?
• Look for complacency: What used to be a strength but now feels automatic or underexamined?
• Monitor environmental shifts: What organization-wide changes (e.g., new leadership, strategic pivots, team restructures) might be affecting how UX is practiced or perceived?

Whether you’re just getting started or already well along in your maturity journey, tending to the system — not just measuring it — is what sustains progress.

Pitfalls to Avoid and Practices to Embrace

Understanding UX maturity as a living system means shifting both mindset and behavior. That shift requires teams to let go of unhelpful patterns rooted in ladder thinking — and instead adopt habits that reinforce adaptability, resilience, and ongoing reflection.

Don’t Succumb to Common Pitfalls of Ladder Thinking

Ladder thinking can cause teams to stall out or focus on the wrong things. These are some of the most common traps:

• Chasing stage numbers: Fixating on advancement can cause teams to perform maturity instead of practicing it. (Common at stage 2)
• Mistaking visibility for integration: Just because UX is “present” doesn’t mean it’s well-supported or influential. (Common at stage 3)
• Equating tooling with maturity: Design systems, research repositories, and shared libraries are useful, but they’re not a substitute for strategy or cultural alignment. (Common at stage 3 and stage 4)
• Assuming maturity is permanent: Even high-functioning teams can regress if they stop investing in the conditions that support UX. (Common at stage 5 and stage 6)
• Over-assessing progress: Formal evaluation done too often can burn out teams, especially when done without adequate time to act on findings or show meaningful change. (Common at stage 2, stage 3, and stage 4)

Do Support a Living UX-Maturity System

A living-system mindset requires different habits. These practices help teams sustain growth, even in the face of change:

• Think in rhythms, not milestones: Build regular UX maturity checkins into your cadence, not just one-off assessments. Balance formal reviews with informal reflection practices like team retrospectives, crossfunctional huddles, or monthly UX-health reviews.
• Normalize drift and change: Regression isn’t failure; it’s part of the system. Plan for variability and avoid assigning blame when maturity ebbs.
• Use the model to reflect, not just to rank: Let the four maturity factors surface friction and opportunity. Are outcomes improving? Is process breaking down? Are cultural signals mixed? Is strategy aligned?
• Celebrate sustainability, not just advancement: Reinforce what’s working. Highlight habits that have stuck, relationships that have deepened, or processes that now run more smoothly. Sustained progress is worth recognizing not just when you “level up.”

Conclusion

Teams who stop viewing UX maturity as something to merely achieve and start treating it as something to sustain are more likely to build and deliver great user experiences. That’s because they stay focused on cultivating strengths, not just chasing status.

Like any living system, UX maturity doesn’t thrive on big, one-time efforts. It requires continuous care: honest reflection, steady attention, and a willingness to evolve. Growth won’t always be obvious or linear, but when the right conditions are in place, UX can take root, gain resilience, and continually deliver value over time.