Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conceptual analysis demonstrates a sociotechnical capability framework across three organizations, highlighting that post-quantum migration requires governance beyond technical agility.
The standardization of post-quantum cryptography has shifted the central question of migration from which algorithms to adopt toward whether organizations can change cryptography at all. Prevailing treatments describe crypto-agility as a technical property of protocols and software, an abstraction layer that lets algorithms be swapped; that framing explains part of the problem and understates the rest. Drawing on organizational-capability theory, information-technology governance scholarship, and sociotechnical systems thinking, this paper reframes crypto-agility as a sociotechnical organizational capability: the coordinated capacity of people, process, architecture, and governance to detect cryptographic change, decide on a response, and reconfigure cryptographic mechanisms across the estate while preserving security and operations. The paper specifies the capability construct and its four dimensions and proposes a five-level maturity model that folds the standardization, agility, and hybridization pillars into its indicators. A preliminary application to three organizations that document their migration publicly shows the model can be applied and discriminates among them, while revealing that public evidence under-observes the people and governance dimensions. The model is presented as a theoretically grounded artifact for future validation, not as observed data; implications for governance, procurement, and assurance are developed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simon Baradziej (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: