Across government agencies in the United States, many rulemaking teams still rely on email chains, spreadsheets, and untracked review cycles. 

You’ve likely noticed that many of these agencies (including your own) find it difficult to track progress, ensure accountability, or adapt quickly to changing federal regulations and policy mandates. That is where readiness scoring and an action plan come into place.

This guide shows you what readiness scores are, how to score readiness, what insights you’ll gain, and how to turn those insights into action.

What is Department Score Readiness?

Department score readiness is a measurable assessment of how prepared your agency is to modernize its rulemaking operations. Through a regulatory process analysis, your department receives a numerical score (0-100) across four key dimensions: governance and transparency, staff engagement, technology integration, and compliance practices.

This score pinpoints exactly where outdated processes are slowing you down and where modernization will deliver the biggest impact.

Why readiness scoring matters

The Challenge

Agencies can’t continue with business as usual. Outdated rulemaking processes cause:

• Missed statutory deadlines from unclear ownership and version control issues
• Duplicate reviews and inconsistent public comments from siloed feedback
• Compliance exposure when documentation becomes hard to track or verify

State open records laws and audit requirements are raising the bar for documentation and transparency in rulemaking.

The Solution: Readiness Scoring

Readiness scoring answers one critical question: Where will modernization have the most impact?

It provides measurable insights into:

• Where bottlenecks occur and why rules stall in review
• Which steps rely on outdated tools or manual interventions
• How staff, systems, and documentation align across departments

With these insights, you can strategically focus its modernization efforts, invest where the need is greatest or where the potential impact will be strongest. 

Tennessee is a perfect example of how agencies can use regulatory process analysis and readiness scoring to transform rulemaking. Specifically, the Tennessee Executive Branch used process analysis to pinpoint redundant approval loops and streamline its rulemaking cycle, achieving a 25% reduction in turnaround time.

Readiness scoring can give any agency that kind of benefit. It provides precise data that helps identify inefficiencies, justify the implementation of modernization efforts, and demonstrate measurable progress toward more responsive, transparent governance.

Modern rulemaking workflow

In readiness scoring, the scores are not made up out of thin air. They are the output of a rigorous process that examines every stage of the rulemaking process to uncover inefficiencies, manual dependencies, and compliance risks that slow progress.

Here’s the step-by-step process for producing a rulemaking readiness score and modernization plan.

Step 1: Map current workflows from drafting to publication

The place to start is to document every step of the existing rulemaking workflow. Map out how rules and regulations move from initial drafting through internal reviews and approval, and onto publication in the Federal Register.

This visualization will help you see where information stalls. For example, it surfaces hidden dependencies and points that cause delays (such as when rules pause for weeks awaiting executive sign-off or when edits circulate through multiple offices without clear ownership). 

Step 2: Interview staff to surface informal or redundant steps

While workflow mapping shows how a rule moves from drafting of proposed regulations to final publication, it cannot reveal workarounds and manual interventions that staff rely on to keep things moving on a day-to-day basis (such as emailing drafts back and forth to bypass slow internal systems or redoing reviews because of outdated templates).

Identifying these informal fixes is important not only because they form part of daily operations, but also because they create delays and confusion. For this reason, workflow mapping should be followed by staff interviews.

Step 3: Measure cycle times, routing paths, and handoffs

After mapping workflow and understanding informal fixes at each step of the rule development process, the next step in regulatory analysis is to measure how long a rule takes in each step of development (and by extension, how long it takes from drafting to final publication). The analysis should also assess the number of approval handoffs (or how often a document changes hands).

This data forms a baseline for measuring future efficiency gains and guiding interdepartmental collaboration to improve throughput across the rulemaking process.

Step 4: Review public comments handling

Examine how interested members of the public submit comments, as well as how comments received are categorized, analyzed, and stored. 

In this step, you should evaluate whether tools and workflow ensure transparency and proper documentation throughout the comment process (such as efficient tagging of substantive comments, grouping of duplicate submissions, and archiving when the public comment period closes).  

Step 5: Assess integration between existing (often legacy) systems and newer tools

Many agencies use a mix of older document systems and newer digital tools. But these don’t always communicate with each other, creating data silos, duplicate work, and gaps in visibility across the rulemaking process. 

Thus, an evaluation of legacy system integration is an important part of regulatory process analysis.

Evaluate how well existing systems connect with newer platforms used in the rulemaking process, and in particular, identify where data silos or technical gaps limit visibility and coordination.

Step 6: Assign a readiness score across core dimensions 

The next step is to rate the agency’s current performance across dimensions such as transparency, staff engagement, technology, and compliance.

For each dimension, establish measurable indicators of performance, gather objective data for each indicator, and assign numerical values for each indicator that reflect reality, not perception. 

• For the transparency dimension, score accessibility of rules, clarity of documentation, and visibility of decision-making.
• For the staff engagement dimension, score the level of employee awareness, training, and participation in modernization initiatives.
• For the technology use dimension, score the extent of automation, integration, and digital workflow adoption.
• For the compliance dimension, score adherence to legal, procedural, and data management standards.

These scores establish the baseline for modernization and make it easy to track improvement over time.

Step 7: Deliver a modernization plan with clear next steps

The final step in regulatory process analysis is to translate readiness scores across core dimensions into a modernization roadmap, with low-scoring areas being targets for immediate improvement, while high-scoring areas can serve as models or pilots for broader modernization.

In each focus area, present actionable recommendations. Outline specific upgrades, training needs, and process redesigns that will deliver the greatest value and impact. 

This could include automating repetitive rule-tracking tasks, improving document version control, or introducing centralized digital repositories. 

Since a strong modernization plan not only charts the path forward but also helps secure leadership commitment, funding, and cross-team alignment, it’s also important to define timelines, ownership, and performance indicators for each initiative.

You may also like: County Policy Management: Reduce Compliance Risk and Modernize Before Your Next Audit.

What “modern rulemaking workflows” look like

A modern rulemaking workflow means that every rule (from draft to publication) is traceable, transparent, and auditable in a single shared digital system. Modernization replaces fragmented communication and manual tracking with integrated, automated, and collaborative processes that meet today’s expectations for accountability and efficiency.

Before modernization, agencies were plagued with common problems. These are the ones we see the most:

Version confusion across shared drives

Multiple staff members edit different copies of the same document, creating version mismatches and uncertainty about which draft is current.

Manual tracking of comments and deadlines

Analysts track deadlines in spreadsheets or email threads, increasing the risk of missed submissions or late responses.

Limited visibility for leadership and legal reviewers

Managers often lack real-time insight into where a rule stands, forcing them to rely on updates from staff or disconnected reports.

Disjointed publication and notice processes

Final regulations must be manually reformatted or re-entered for publication, creating redundant data entry and opportunities for error.

Modernization changes everything

Modern rulemaking systems directly address these pain points by creating a unified digital environment where every step of the process is connected, automated, and visible to the right people at the right time.

One system of record

All drafts, edits, and versions of guidance documents are maintained in a single, secure repository, ensuring everyone works from the same source of truth.

Automated public comment management

Public input is automatically sorted, tagged, and routed to the right reviewers, accelerating the analysis stage.

Integrated publication and access portals

Approved rules flow directly to publication systems or citizen-facing portals, ensuring timely updates and public transparency.

Digital audit trails

Every edit, approval, and notification is timestamped, creating a complete, easily retrievable record of compliance.

Role-based approvals

Access and permissions are managed automatically, ensuring the right people can edit or approve without delays or security risks.

Taking on modern rulemaking workflows

Agencies that have implemented modern rulemaking workflows report:

• Improved regulatory review process, leading to faster adoption of major rules, with cycle times shortened by weeks or even months
• Improved collaboration, as policy, legal, and communications teams work from one environment
• Enhanced compliance and audit readiness, with every step logged and retrievable
• Greater alignment with executive orders on transparency and accountability
• Greater public trust, through consistent publication and accessible rule histories

Thus, modern workflows transform rulemaking from a reactive, manual process into a data-driven, transparent, and responsive system of governance.

Scoring readiness: The framework

Each department’s score reflects performance across four key dimensions:

1. Governance & transparency: This aspect looks at how well the agency’s processes meet public access, accountability, and audit standards. 

Specifics to examine include whether rulemaking records are centralized, how easily stakeholders can trace a rule’s progress, and how well it aligns with federal initiatives that promote open data and transparent policy processes. A strong score here indicates that the department has clear audit trails, consistent publication practices, and public portals that make rules easily discoverable and reviewable.

2. Staff engagement & workflow clarity: This aspect assesses the human side of rulemaking (specifically, how clearly roles are defined, how handoffs are managed, and whether training supports efficient collaboration). 

A high score means roles are well-defined, procedures are properly documented, and communication channels are effective. Lower scores show unclear ownership of tasks, limited staff awareness of modernization objectives, or overreliance on “institutional memory” rather than documented procedures.

3. Technology & system integration: This aspect examines how well legacy tools and modern platforms communicate with each other. 

A high score here indicates that the agency uses integrated platforms that link the drafting, comment management, approval, and publication stages into a single digital workflow. 

In contrast, low scores may indicate siloed databases, manual workarounds, or limited interoperability between systems.

4. Compliance & documentation practices: This dimension measures an agency’s level of adherence to legal and procedural requirements, as well as how easily it can respond to legal/ judicial reviews and prepare for audits. 

A high score shows audit-ready workflows and strong documentation practices (such as automated version control, secure storage, and standardized templates for notices and responses). Low scores often reveal gaps in documentation or manual compliance tracking that increase audit risk.

Readiness scoring example output

Overall Readiness Score: 68 / 100. Moderate readiness

Key Gaps Identified:

• Heavy reliance on email-based approvals
• Manual comment tracking without standardized tagging
• Lack of a unified publication and records system

Recommended Next Step:

Prioritize workflow digitization and deploy collaboration and integration tools to link rulemaking, review, and publication functions within one transparent system.

From score to action

A readiness score is not just some fanciful metric, and should not be treated as one. Instead, it should be seen as a modernization roadmap.

After readiness scoring surfaces areas for rulemaking modernization, the next step is to use the insight to drive improvement. Here are some common next steps to help make the readiness score a modernization roadmap. 

Creating a modernization roadmap:

• Share findings with leadership or oversight bodies: Immediately share modernization results with agency leadership and oversight bodies. This creates shared awareness of the challenges and helps leadership align on priorities. 
• Use the score to justify modernization funding or pilot projects: Use low readiness scores in specific dimensions as data-driven evidence in modernization proposals and budget requests. Quantified inefficiencies make a stronger case for funding because measurable performance gaps help agency leadership better appreciate the challenges than vague descriptions.
• Plan for change management: Treat readiness improvement as a change management initiative, as modernization is about people as much as it is about technology. This means preparing for how agency personnel will adapt to the new systems, workflows, and expectations. Consider establishing clear role definitions (to foster ownership), implementing training programs (to help staff adapt to the new digital tools), and strengthening internal communications (to promote shared understanding and improve collaboration).
• Partner for implementation: You should also partner with experts in policy workflow management and regulatory affairs to guide transitions. These partners bring specialized knowledge in process design, compliance standards, and technology adoption, which helps the agency accelerate implementation and avoid common pitfalls in rulemaking automation/ modernization. Strategic partnerships ensure that new systems align with existing infrastructure and are practical. And when partners include regulatory agencies, you can be sure new systems also meet regulatory best practices.

Kansas is another example of that kind of transformation. The Secretary of State’s Office is implementing Esper’s digital rulemaking platform to replace a 60-year-old, paper-based process. This eliminated manual handoffs and gave 130+ rulemaking bodies a single, transparent system of record for all regulations.

Start small, then scale

Modernization may introduce operational and compliance risks if implemented too quickly. That’s why we recommend you begin with targeted automation projects before scaling to full modernization.

Each improvement builds momentum, delivering quick wins that demonstrate the value of readiness-driven reform. Over time, these incremental changes evolve into a fully digital, collaborative rulemaking ecosystem.

How Esper supports this work

Modern rulemaking requires visibility, structure, and the right digital foundation.

The right digital foundation refers to digital rulemaking and policy management software, and this is where Esper comes in. Esper is built specifically for government agencies to help departments keep policies and regulations organized, audit-ready, and accessible, without adding to staff burden. 

The platform supports the full policy lifecycle, enabling teams to draft, review, approve, and publish regulations in one secure, collaborative environment. 

Beyond daily operations, Esper’s Regulatory Process Analysis service gives agencies a strategic view of where they stand today and how to modernize for the future.

It delivers a customized readiness score and a modernization plan tailored to your agency’s rulemaking environment, along with practical guidance to align staff roles, governance structures, and technology for long-term success. 

Your agency can then use these insights to eliminate process bottlenecks, justify modernization funding, and prepare for system-wide policy management upgrades that meet evolving federal and state transparency requirements.

Discover how Esper can help your agency score readiness, streamline collaboration, and modernize every stage of the rulemaking lifecycle. Let’s Talk!

Readiness scores and rulemaking FAQs

Here are answers to common questions about scoring readiness for modern rulemaking: 

How do we measure our current rulemaking performance?

The most effective way to measure rulemaking performance is through a Regulatory Process Analysis, which maps every step from drafting to publication. 

Assess how well your current process performs across four dimensions (governance, staff engagement, technology integration, and compliance). Define measurable indicators for each focus area and assign scores that reflect performance. Then combine these metrics into a readiness score to provide a clear, data-driven picture of performance.

What makes a rulemaking workflow “modern”?

A rulemaking workflow is “modern” if it is digital, transparent, and data-driven. For example, a modern workflow replaces email chains and disconnected spreadsheets with a centralized system where every draft, review, and approval is tracked automatically. 

Modern rulemaking systems include features like automated comment management, role-based approvals, digital audit trails, and integrated publication tools, ensuring full visibility from draft to final rule.

How do we integrate legacy systems?

Esper works alongside your existing systems. It does not replace them overnight. To integrate legacy systems, we start by mapping how current document repositories, tracking tools, and publication platforms connect within your workflow. 

Then, using APIs and secure data connectors, Esper pulls and synchronizes information from legacy databases, creating a unified, searchable environment (all without disrupting established operations). 

Over time, you can phase out outdated tools as confidence grows. This way, modernization happens incrementally and with minimal risk.

How does readiness scoring support funding requests?

Readiness scoring provides quantifiable evidence of operational inefficiencies, such as excessive review cycles, manual tracking, or audit risks. These findings help agencies build data-backed business cases for modernization funding or pilot initiatives. When presented to leadership or oversight bodies, readiness results show real impact in numbers, which strengthens the case for budget approvals.

How do we handle thousands of duplicate public comments?

Modern digital rulemaking systems use automated comment deduplication and tagging to sort and categorize submissions. With this approach, analysts spend less time on repetitive entries and more time on evaluating unique public insights, improving both efficiency and transparency.

What are the most common gaps agencies find?

The Congressional Research Service notes that, across federal and state departments, the most frequent gaps include manual approval and tracking processes that slow reviews, siloed systems (with poor integration between drafting, review, and publication tools), limited version control leading to confusion over “official” rule drafts, and inconsistent documentation and audit readiness.