Process assessment rating calculator
Rate process attributes on the N, P, L, F scale from indicator scores and derive each process's capability level against a target profile, Automotive SPICE style.
Quality statisticsFree to useHow it worksSourcesWhere it helps
Fills the inputs below with typical figures. Replace any of them with your own.
- Targets met
- 14 of 16
- 87.5% of the processes with a target
- Level the scope can claim
- Level 1 (Performed)
- The lowest level among processes with a target
- Average level
- 1.88
- 16 processes rated
- Processes with a gap
- 2
- Most often held back by PA 1.1
- Highest level reached
- Level 2 (Managed)
Check these
- SWE.1: PA 3.1 is rated F, but PA 2.1 is rated L, needs F. A level counts only when every attribute below it is fully achieved, so the process stays at level 2.
- SUP.10: PA 2.1 is rated L, but PA 1.1 is rated L, needs F. A level counts only when every attribute below it is fully achieved, so the process stays at level 1.
Bars run from level 0 to level 5. The note beside each bar gives the target and the gap.
- ACQ.4Level 2target 2, met
- SYS.2Level 2target 2, met
- SYS.3Level 2target 2, met
- SYS.4Level 2target 2, met
- SYS.5Level 2target 2, met
- SWE.1Level 2target 2, met
- SWE.2Level 2target 2, met
- SWE.3Level 2target 2, met
- SWE.4Level 2target 2, met
- SWE.5Level 2target 2, met
- SWE.6Level 2target 2, met
- SUP.1Level 2target 2, met
- SUP.8Level 1target 2, gap 1
- SUP.9Level 2target 2, met
- SUP.10Level 1target 2, gap 1
- MAN.3Level 2target 2, met
Show the data as a table
| Item | Capability level |
|---|---|
| ACQ.4 | Level 2 |
| SYS.2 | Level 2 |
| SYS.3 | Level 2 |
| SYS.4 | Level 2 |
| SYS.5 | Level 2 |
| SWE.1 | Level 2 |
| SWE.2 | Level 2 |
| SWE.3 | Level 2 |
| SWE.4 | Level 2 |
| SWE.5 | Level 2 |
| SWE.6 | Level 2 |
| SUP.1 | Level 2 |
| SUP.8 | Level 1 |
| SUP.9 | Level 2 |
| SUP.10 | Level 1 |
| MAN.3 | Level 2 |
- Level 0 incomplete0
- Level 1 performed2
- Level 2 managed14
- Level 3 established0
Show the data as a table
| Item | Processes |
|---|---|
| Level 0 incomplete | 0 |
| Level 1 performed | 2 |
| Level 2 managed | 14 |
| Level 3 established | 0 |
Sign in to save your inputs and come back to them later.
| Process | Name | PA 1.1 | PA 2.1 | PA 2.2 | PA 3.1 | PA 3.2 | Level reached | Target | Gap (levels) | Status | What blocks the next level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACQ.4 | Supplier monitoring | F (92%) | F (88%) | F (90%) | P (35%) | P (30%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SYS.2 | System requirements analysis | F (95%) | F (90%) | F (86%) | P (40%) | P (35%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SYS.3 | System architectural design | F (93%) | F (87%) | F (88%) | P (38%) | P (30%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SYS.4 | System integration and integration verification | F (90%) | F (86%) | F (88%) | P (30%) | P (28%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SYS.5 | System verification | F (94%) | F (89%) | F (91%) | P (42%) | P (36%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SWE.1 | Software requirements analysis | F (96%) | L (82%) | F (90%) | F (88%) | F (86%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 2.1 is rated L, needs F |
| SWE.2 | Software architectural design | F (94%) | F (88%) | F (87%) | P (45%) | P (40%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SWE.3 | Software detailed design and unit construction | F (96%) | F (91%) | F (89%) | P (40%) | P (38%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SWE.4 | Software unit verification | F (93%) | F (87%) | F (90%) | P (44%) | P (40%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SWE.5 | Software component verification and integration verification | F (92%) | F (86%) | F (88%) | P (35%) | P (32%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SWE.6 | Software verification | F (95%) | F (90%) | F (92%) | P (50%) | P (45%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SUP.1 | Quality assurance | F (91%) | F (88%) | F (86%) | P (30%) | P (25%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SUP.8 | Configuration management | F (90%) | F (88%) | P (42%) | P (25%) | P (20%) | 1 performed | 2 | 1 | Below target | PA 2.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SUP.9 | Problem resolution management | F (92%) | F (87%) | F (88%) | P (35%) | P (30%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| SUP.10 | Change request management | L (80%) | L (70%) | L (65%) | P (20%) | N (15%) | 1 performed | 2 | 1 | Below target | PA 1.1 is rated L, needs F |
| MAN.3 | Project management | F (93%) | F (89%) | F (90%) | P (40%) | P (38%) | 2 managed | 2 | 0 | Meets target | PA 3.1 is rated P, needs L or F; PA 3.2 is rated P, needs L or F |
| Scenario | Targets met | Share of targets |
|---|---|---|
| As rated | 14 of 16 | 87.5% |
| Every L rating raised to F | 15 of 16 | 93.8% |
| Every N, P or unrated attribute up to the target level raised to L | 15 of 16 | 93.8% |
| Attribute | Name | Processes held back |
|---|---|---|
| PA 1.1 | Process performance | 1 |
| PA 2.2 | Work product management | 1 |
| Process | Group | Purpose in short |
|---|---|---|
| ACQ.4 | Acquisition | Keep track of how a supplier is doing against what was agreed, and act when it drifts. |
| SYS.2 | System engineering | Turn stakeholder needs into a checked set of system requirements that can be tested. |
| SYS.3 | System engineering | Define the system structure, split the requirements across its elements and describe how they interact. |
| SYS.4 | System engineering | Build the system up from its elements in a planned order and show the elements work together as the architecture says. |
| SYS.5 | System engineering | Show the integrated system meets the system requirements. |
| SWE.1 | Software engineering | Derive software requirements from the system level and keep them traceable and testable. |
| SWE.2 | Software engineering | Define the software structure and how its components share the requirements and interact. |
| SWE.3 | Software engineering | Describe each software unit in enough detail to build it, then build it. |
| SWE.4 | Software engineering | Check each built unit against its design, with evidence of how thoroughly it was exercised. |
| SWE.5 | Software engineering | Combine units into components and the software, and show they behave as the architecture and component requirements say. |
| SWE.6 | Software engineering | Show the integrated software meets the software requirements. |
| SUP.1 | Supporting | Independently check that work products and processes follow the plan, and make sure problems are escalated and closed. |
| SUP.8 | Supporting | Identify, version and control the items a product is made from, and record what each baseline holds. |
| SUP.9 | Supporting | Record problems, analyse them, fix them and track each to closure. |
| SUP.10 | Supporting | Handle requests for change in a controlled way, from analysis and approval to implementation and tracking. |
| MAN.3 | Management | Plan, run and monitor a project so that its goals are reached within the agreed scope, effort and time. |
| Attribute | Belongs to level | Name | What it asks |
|---|---|---|---|
| PA 1.1 | 1 | Process performance | The process produces the outcomes and work products its purpose calls for. |
| PA 2.1 | 2 | Performance management | The work is planned, monitored and adjusted, with roles, resources and interfaces settled. |
| PA 2.2 | 2 | Work product management | Work products are specified, reviewed, versioned and controlled. |
| PA 3.1 | 3 | Process definition | A standard process exists, with the tailoring rules a project needs to use it. |
| PA 3.2 | 3 | Process deployment | The defined process is in use, with trained people and a working infrastructure behind it. |
| PA 4.1 | 4 | Quantitative analysis | Measures are chosen, collected and analysed so process performance is understood in numbers. |
| PA 4.2 | 4 | Quantitative control | The process is steered with those measures, and causes of variation are corrected. |
| PA 5.1 | 5 | Process innovation | Improvement goals follow from business goals, and ideas are checked against them. |
| PA 5.2 | 5 | Process innovation implementation | Approved changes are put into use in a managed way and their effect is evaluated. |
| Rating | Meaning | Share of achievement | Refined scale |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | Not achieved | 0 to 15% | N |
| P | Partially achieved | over 15 to 50% | P- up to 32.5%; P+ over 32.5% |
| L | Largely achieved | over 50 to 85% | L- up to 67.5%; L+ over 67.5% |
| F | Fully achieved | over 85 to 100% | F |
How it works
Process capability assessments rate how well each process achieves its attributes, then turn the ratings into a capability level for each process. This tool takes the rating of each attribute, as a percentage or as N, P, L or F, applies the capability level rule of the Automotive SPICE version 4.0 measurement framework, and compares each process with a target level to show the gap and the attribute that blocks it.
- Rate each attribute on the ordinal scale. Every process attribute is rated for how fully it is achieved. A percentage from the assessor's evidence maps to four ratings: not achieved, partially achieved, largely achieved and fully achieved. The boundary value belongs to the lower rating, so exactly 85% is largely achieved and anything above it is fully achieved. You can type the letter directly instead of a percentage.
N: 0 to 15%; P: over 15 to 50%; L: over 50 to 85%; F: over 85 to 100% - Refine the partial and large ratings. The refined scale splits partially and largely achieved at their midpoints, which helps to show progress between assessments. The refinement never changes the level: P- and P+ both count as P, and L- and L+ both count as L.
P−: over 15 to 32.5%; P+: over 32.5 to 50%; L−: over 50 to 67.5%; L+: over 67.5 to 85% - Derive the capability level. A level is achieved when the attributes of that level are largely or fully achieved and every attribute of the levels below is fully achieved. Level 1 needs only PA 1.1 largely or fully achieved. The level of the process is the highest level whose rule is met, checked upward from level 1. An attribute that is not rated counts as not achieved. This is why a process can have level 3 attributes rated F and still sit at level 2: if PA 2.1 is only L, level 3 is not reached.
level 1: PA 1.1 in {L, F}; level n (2 to 5): every attribute of level n in {L, F} and every attribute of levels 1 to n − 1 = F; capability level = highest n whose rule is met (0 if none) - Compare with the target and find the gap. Each process has a target level: an OEM-style scope at one level, one level for every row, or a target you set for each row. The gap is how many levels the process is short of its target, never below zero. The blockers are the attributes that fail the rule for the next level, so they show what to improve first.
gap = max(0, target level − achieved level); blockers = attributes of level (achieved + 1) rated below L, plus attributes of lower levels rated below F - Roll up the assessment. The summary counts the processes that meet their target, takes the share of those that have a target, averages the achieved levels and reports the lowest level in the scope, which is the level the scope as a whole can claim. Two what-if rows show how many targets would be met if every L were raised to F, and if every weak attribute up to the target level were raised to L.
share meeting target = processes with level ≥ target / processes with a target; scope level = lowest achieved level among processes with a target; average level = sum of levels / processes
Assumptions
- Ratings are final assessor judgments. The tool does not turn indicators, work products or evidence into a rating; it applies the scale and the level rule to the ratings you enter.
- Each row is one assessed process instance with one rating per attribute. Aggregating several projects or instances into one rating (the aggregation methods of the framework) is done before entry.
- A percentage on the boundary takes the lower rating: 15% is N, 50% is P and 85% is L, matching the ranges in the measurement framework.
- Process attribute ratings for levels 4 and 5 are used only when the assessment covers them; with the assessed level set to 3 those cells are ignored.
- The OEM-style target profile is an editorial starting point based on the long-used selection of processes. The scope and target level in a real programme are set in the contract.
- The process list, names and attribute numbering follow version 4.0 of the model; the purposes and attribute descriptions are the Hub's own plain-words summaries, not the model's text.
Limits and warnings
- This tool derives levels from ratings. A formal assessment also needs a trained assessor, an agreed scope and plan, and evidence for every rating, and the result belongs to the assessor, not to this tool.
- Version 4.0 of the model is used here. VDA QMC has since published version 4.1 material; check the process list and any scope rules against the version your assessor and customer use.
- Some customers add rules of their own, for example a minimum rating for a given attribute or a rule that a lowest-rated process caps the whole scope. Only the standard capability level rule is applied here.
- The refined scale is shown for information and for tracking progress. It does not change any level.
- Process purposes are short summaries for orientation. They do not replace reading the model for the outcomes and indicators an assessor must see.
Sources
The methods and default figures rest on these public sources. The wording here is our own; read the source for its full text.
- Automotive SPICE Process Assessment / Reference Model, Version 4.0 (opens in a new tab), VDA Quality Management Center (VDA QMC), Working Group 13, 29 Nov 2023. The process list, the capability levels and process attributes, the rating scale with its percentage ranges, the refined scale and the capability level model (read from the free download).
- ISO/IEC 33020:2019 Information technology, Process assessment, Process measurement framework for assessment of process capability, ISO/IEC, 2019. The measurement framework the model adapts: the ordinal rating scale, the refined scale and the process capability level model. Cited by name; the clause numbers were not confirmed here, and none of its text is copied.
- Automotive SPICE Guideline, Edition 2023 (opens in a new tab), VDA Quality Management Center (VDA QMC), VDA webshop, Nov 2023. The VDA guidance on applying the model and rating. Paid publication: the listing was confirmed, the guideline itself was not read.
Where it helps
The lifecycle stages this tool serves: 3 stages in 1 lifecycle.
More quality statistics tools
- Process capability (Cpk) calculator
- Gauge repeatability and reproducibility calculator
- Statistical process control chart
- Test limit and guard band calculator
- Outlier screening (PAT) limit calculator
- Yield learning curve projector
- Bin and grade mix planner
- Sensor calibration fit tool
- Sensor error budget builder
Method notev1Formula, ranges, sources and limits
Turns attribute ratings (N, P, L, F or percentages) into a capability level for each process under the Automotive SPICE 4.0 measurement framework, compares each with a target level, and counts the processes that meet it.
Formula
N: 0 to 15%; P: over 15 to 50%; L: over 50 to 85%; F: over 85 to 100%; P−: over 15 to 32.5%; P+: over 32.5 to 50%; L−: over 50 to 67.5%; L+: over 67.5 to 85%; level 1: PA 1.1 in {L, F}; level n (2 to 5): every attribute of level n in {L, F} and every attribute of levels 1 to n − 1 = F; capability level = highest n whose rule is met (0 if none); gap = max(0, target level − achieved level); blockers = attributes of level (achieved + 1) rated below L, plus attributes of lower levels rated below F; share meeting target = processes with level ≥ target / processes with a target; scope level = lowest achieved level among processes with a target; average level = sum of levels / processes
| Input | Unit | Range it holds for | Comes from |
|---|---|---|---|
| Highest level assessed | choice | 3, 5 | Your figure |
| Target profile | choice | oem, flat, custom | Your figure |
| Level for the OEM-style scope | choice | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | Your figure |
| Level for every row | choice | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | Your figure |
Outputs: Processes with a target (processes); Processes meeting their target (processes); Share of targets met (fraction); Average capability level (level); Lowest level in the scope (level).
Assumptions
- Ratings are final assessor judgments. The tool does not turn indicators, work products or evidence into a rating; it applies the scale and the level rule to the ratings you enter.
- Each row is one assessed process instance with one rating per attribute. Aggregating several projects or instances into one rating (the aggregation methods of the framework) is done before entry.
- A percentage on the boundary takes the lower rating: 15% is N, 50% is P and 85% is L, matching the ranges in the measurement framework.
- Process attribute ratings for levels 4 and 5 are used only when the assessment covers them; with the assessed level set to 3 those cells are ignored.
- The OEM-style target profile is an editorial starting point based on the long-used selection of processes. The scope and target level in a real programme are set in the contract.
- The process list, names and attribute numbering follow version 4.0 of the model; the purposes and attribute descriptions are the Hub's own plain-words summaries, not the model's text.
Uncertainty: The arithmetic is exact. A capability level is only as sound as the assessor's ratings behind it: a rating near a boundary (for example 80% to 90%) can change a level, so the result is a record of the ratings entered, not an independent measurement.
Known limits
- This tool derives levels from ratings. A formal assessment also needs a trained assessor, an agreed scope and plan, and evidence for every rating, and the result belongs to the assessor, not to this tool.
- Version 4.0 of the model is used here. VDA QMC has since published version 4.1 material; check the process list and any scope rules against the version your assessor and customer use.
- Some customers add rules of their own, for example a minimum rating for a given attribute or a rule that a lowest-rated process caps the whole scope. Only the standard capability level rule is applied here.
- The refined scale is shown for information and for tracking progress. It does not change any level.
- Process purposes are short summaries for orientation. They do not replace reading the model for the outcomes and indicators an assessor must see.
Where the method comes from
Follows Automotive SPICE Process Assessment / Reference Model, version 4.0 (VDA QMC, 2023) (opens in a new tab). The platform's version departs from it as follows.
- Ratings are entered directly per attribute; the indicators, outcomes and work products behind them are not modelled Why: The model's rating rests on assessor judgment of evidence, which a calculator cannot replace; the tool starts from the finished rating.
- Adds an OEM-style target profile, a gap measure, a blocker list and what-if counts Why: The model defines how a level is derived but not how a customer target is compared; the gap and blockers show what to improve first.
- Process purposes and attribute descriptions are short plain-words summaries Why: The model's text is protected and long; a short summary is enough to orient a reader without copying it.
Reference example, checked by test: Worked example in this method note: the level 2 preset (sixteen processes of the OEM-style scope at a level 2 target), hand-worked in the tool's unit test from the capability level rule of the model's measurement framework. Processes with a target 16; Processes meeting their target 14; Share of targets met 0.875; Average capability level 1.875; Lowest level in the scope 1.
Versions
- v1 (2026-10-25): First version, built from the tool idea.
Terms on this page
- ASPICE
- A process assessment model, derived from ISO/IEC 330xx, used by carmakers to rate a supplier's software engineering processes from requirements through design, implementation, test and support on a...
- Cpk
- A capability metric comparing the distance from the process mean to the nearer specification limit against three standard deviations of short-term variation.
- PA
- The final transmit stage that raises a modulated signal to the power level required at the antenna.
- Level 3
- Automation in which the system performs the entire dynamic driving task within its operational design domain and the driver may disengage from supervision, but must take over when the system issues...
- Level 2
- Automation in which the system controls both steering and acceleration/braking within its design limits while the driver must continuously supervise and remain responsible for object and event dete...
- OEM
- In automotive usage, the vehicle manufacturer that designs, brands, assembles and warrants the finished car, such as Toyota, Volkswagen or BYD.
- Work product
- A defined output of a development activity, such as a specification, design database, test plan, report or release package, that another team or a later stage uses.
- Level set
- To bring everyone to a common understanding of the facts, scope or definitions before a discussion starts.
- VDA
- Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA), the German Association of the Automotive Industry: it publishes quality standards widely used by automotive suppliers, such as the VDA 6.3 process audit and th...
Need help acting on this?
Tell us what you're after and leave your email: we'll connect you with the right person on the Hub.