A depiction of how the value of the various types of analytics relate on value and difficulty scales can be hardly considered as a maturity model, no matter how it is called. It’s true that the difficulty of achieving a target can be associated with the maturity of an organization or team, respectively the effort involved to achieve it, though the association is only contextual and metaphorical.

Independently from where it comes, a maturity model needs to identify clearly the stages considered and the capabilities associated with each stage, and typically there’s a list of capabilities under each stage, which may or may not apply to a specific organization. Maturity models allow to depict what is possible in a certain area and with a well-defined framework allow benchmarking organizations against the model, respectively against each other.

A model doesn’t supposes that you start at the bottom, but allows you to identify where you are situated and what can be achieved. It also doesn’t assume it brings more value, as value is relative, often dependent on the investments made and the skillset available, respectively the type of problems and data available, on whether prediction is or not possible. The maturity of managing things is a totally different extrinsic capability, and the two types of maturities shouldn’t be confounded.

Except sales pitches presentations I’m not sure how the considered model can be used for better data-driven decisions. If you start from a false model, it’s hard to believe that the whole edifice still holds. I think you need to reconsider the dependency between decision, models, data, noise, value, skillset and understanding.