Assessment

Knowledge Retention Scorecard

An interactive, short assessment to score repositories on discoverability, freshness, accuracy, reuse, and ownership clarity. Stores responses, suggests remediation by score band, and captures next steps and cadence to prioritize curation work.

Interactive Tool

Knowledge Retention Scorecard

Use this short assessment to quickly score a repository, document, or content collection on five practical dimensions. Enter scores from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Each dimension includes concise remediation guidance by score band so you can decide next steps and a suggested cadence for follow-up. Save the assessment to record priorities and trigger follow-up workflows.

Give a short descriptive name so assessments can be tracked and compared. Include location or URL when helpful.
Who is completing this assessment? Use a role or person so follow-up is clear.
YYYY-MM-DD (or free-text).
Score how easily people find the content. 1 = hidden, no metadata or search hits; 5 = clearly named, well-tagged, appears in search and navigation. Remediation guidance: 1–2: add metadata, canonical title, breadcrumbs, and surface links in common team spaces; 3: improve tags and search terms, add summary; 4–5: keep monitoring and document where it's referenced.
1.0 10.0
Score how up-to-date the content is. 1 = obsolete, contains outdated instructions or data; 5 = regularly reviewed and current. Remediation guidance: 1–2: flag as stale, schedule immediate review or archive; 3: schedule refresh and note assumptions; 4–5: document next review cadence.
1.0 10.0
Score confidence that the content is factually correct and complete. 1 = known errors or missing steps; 5 = validated, verified by SMEs. Remediation guidance: 1–2: escalate to owner/SME for correction; 3: identify gaps and plan validation; 4–5: maintain verification notes and sources.
1.0 10.0
Score how often the content is reused or referenced. 1 = rarely or never used; 5 = frequently used and central to workflows. Remediation guidance: 1–2: consider consolidation, retirement, or promotion; 3: improve visibility and demonstrate use-cases; 4–5: capture best-practice notes and link to related assets.
1.0 10.0
Score how clear it is who owns, maintains, and is accountable for the content. 1 = no owner or people unsure; 5 = documented owner, handoff and review process defined. Remediation guidance: 1–2: assign a temporary owner and document responsibilities; 3: define owner and handoff process; 4–5: automate reminders and link owner role to huddles.
1.0 10.0
Choose how often this item should be reviewed or curated going forward. Use 'Immediate' when action is required now.
Quick triage priority for curation work.
Name, role, or team who will take responsibility for follow-up.
Capture a few bullet points on what to do first, who to contact, or where the biggest gaps are.
Optional: extra context for those who will act on this assessment.
You can explore this tool now. Sign in or create an account to save your responses and return to them later.
Sign In to Save Create an Account
Make this tool part of your work

Save a personal copy, bring it to your team, or tailor the questions and workflow to fit what you are hungry to improve.

Member customization and team collaboration are coming soon.
Discuss Ask the Librarian

Discussion

Comments and conversation will live here.