| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
...
Initiatives and Strategies that require explanation
Policies, Capabilities, and Value Streams being introduced or adjusted
Performance goals or KPIs in the Performance domain
Relationship to
...
strategic response model
Each rationale bridges the gap between a trigger event and organizational action. While triggers explain what happened to prompt a response, rationales explain why we're responding in this specific way.
Rationale
...
classification framework
Rationales in the Orthogramic Metamodel follow a structured classification system that supports analytics, reuse, and auditability. Each rationale is categorized according to:
...
Trace patterns in decision-making across similar situations
Evaluate the distribution of rationales by type, evidence base, and strategic alignment
Establish a rationale library that can be referenced for similar future decisions
Support knowledge management and organizational learning
Distinguishing
...
reactive and
...
proactive rationales
The Orthogramic Metamodel now explicitly distinguishes between reactive and proactive rationales:
...
Anticipated outcomes that justify the proactive approach
Alternatives that were considered but not selected
Competitive positioning benefits expected
Key
...
distinctions between triggers and rationales
It's important to understand the relationship between Triggers and Rationales:
...
Preventative: "Implementing these changes will prevent future incidents"
Compliance-focused: "We must implement to meet regulatory requirements"
Opportunistic: "This gives us a competitive advantage in safety reputation"
Implementation
...
guidance
Clarity: Each rationale should clearly articulate the reasoning that connects the trigger to the chosen response
Traceability: Rationales should link to the relevant trigger, strategic objective, and affected domains
Consistency: Use the defined rationale types to ensure consistent classification
Evidence: Document the evidence base that supports each rationale
Strategic Alignment: Always connect rationales to strategic objectives to maintain alignment
Alternatives: Document alternative approaches considered and reasons for their rejection
Orientation: Clearly classify rationales as reactive or proactive
Competitive Context: For market-facing rationales, document competitive positioning impact
Relationship with
...
domains
Rationales bridge between Triggers and organizational responses across multiple domains:
Strategy: Rationales explain strategic adjustments based on triggers
Capabilities: Rationales describe why capabilities need to be developed or modified
Initiatives: Rationales provide the foundation for launching initiatives
Policy: Rationales explain policy changes in response to triggers
Performance: Rationales describe modifications to performance metrics
Schema properties
Field | Type | Required | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| string (uuid) | Yes | Unique identifier for the rationale |
|
| string | Yes | Title or summary of the rationale |
|
| string | Yes | Detailed explanation supporting a strategic response |
|
| string (uuid) | Yes | Primary trigger this rationale responds to |
|
| array of uuid | No | Optional multiple triggers this rationale addresses |
|
| array of enum | No | Business architecture domains influenced or justified by this rationale |
|
| string (enum) | Yes | The justification type for this rationale |
|
| string (enum) | Yes | Whether the rationale is responding to existing conditions or anticipating future conditions |
|
| array of string | No | For proactive rationales, the expected benefits or outcomes |
|
| array of objects | No | Other strategic options that were evaluated but not selected | See example below |
| string (enum) | No | The logical structure of the rationale |
|
| string (enum) | No | The foundation for the rationale |
|
| string (uuid) | No | Reference to the strategic objective this rationale supports |
|
| string (enum) | No | The nature of value creation or preservation |
|
| object | No | How this rationale advances competitive stance | See example below |
| string (date) | No | The date the rationale was first recorded |
|
| string (date) | No | The most recent date of rationale review |
|
| integer (1–5) | No | Optional evaluation of rationale effectiveness |
|
| string | No | The person or team who documented the rationale |
|
| string | No | The organisational unit that owns or authored the rationale |
|
| array of uuid | No | References to other related rationales |
|
| array of enum | No | Type of relationship with each related rationale |
|
...