Document editing provides business users with the necessary tools to manage, analyze, and enhance their documents efficiently. There are two modes available: Edit Mode and Advanced Edit Mode. Each mode is tailored to different user needs, ensuring a comprehensive and structured approach to document management.
Hints in Orthogramic provide users with real-time, actionable guidance during document editing. Tailored to their role and the document’s alignment with key Business Architecture domains, hints help users improve relevance, quality, and quantity. By addressing these hints, users can ensure their documents are strategically aligned with organizational goals.
This mode focuses on document scoring based on the Organisation Unit goal for each business architecture domain.
Advanced Edit Mode offers a more robust set of tools for detailed analysis and prioritization of documents. This mode is designed for users who need to perform comprehensive evaluations and ensure alignment with strategic goals and industry standards. Key features include:
Content Analysis: Evaluate documents across multiple domains such as Strategy, Policy, Capability, and more. Each domain is assessed based on relevance, quality, and quantity, ensuring a thorough review.
Content Weighting: Prioritize documents by establishing criteria for importance, rating documents against these criteria, and calculating weighted and normalized scores. This helps in identifying the most critical documents that support organizational objectives.
The purpose of both Edit Mode and Advanced Edit Mode is to provide users with flexible and powerful tools to manage their documentation effectively. By leveraging these features, users can ensure their documents not only meet regulatory requirements but also drive strategic initiatives and support overall business objectives.
By using Edit Mode for quick updates and Advanced Edit Mode for detailed analysis, users can maintain high standards of document quality and relevance, contributing to the overall success and efficiency of the organization.
While editing documents in Orthogramic, users will be guided by summary hints and expanded hints based on their User Type and the document's alignment with Business Architecture domains (e.g., Strategy, Policy, Stakeholders). These hints are generated to assist users in improving their documents' relevance, quality, and quantity in relation to the organization's strategic goals.
Orthogramic will generate up to three short, actionable hints during the document editing process. These hints are tailored to the user's role and will focus on improving specific areas of the document to align with Business Architecture domains.
Example Summary Hint:
"This document’s alignment with the Strategy domain is low. Consider how it supports the organization’s strategic goals."
For each summary hint, Orthogramic provides a more detailed explanation to guide users through the improvement process. These expanded hints are written in business-friendly language and will include descriptions of the relevant Business Architecture domains (e.g., Strategy, Stakeholders) and how improving alignment will benefit the organization's objectives.
Example Expanded Hint:
"This document’s alignment with the Strategy domain is currently low. The Strategy domain focuses on how this document supports the long-term direction of the business. Strategic goals may include objectives like market expansion, operational efficiency, and innovation. To improve alignment, consider how this document reinforces these priorities. For example, does this document highlight future growth opportunities or support a strategic initiative? Aligning it with strategic objectives ensures the document adds tangible value to the organization’s success."
As users edit their documents, Orthogramic monitors changes in relevance, quality, and quantity criteria. When a hint has been sufficiently addressed, it is removed from display, and new hints may be generated based on any remaining gaps.
Document scoring provides a detailed assessment of a document’s business architecture content. This assessment helps in understanding the alignment, value, capability etc. of each document in relation to the organization's goals and objectives.
Each Business Architecture domain is rated and issues are identified to provide a comprehensive overview of the document's strengths and weaknesses.
Strategy
Policy
Capability
Value
Organisation
Stakeholders
Initiatives
Product
Information
Performance
The following criteria are used for scoring:
Relevance
Quality
Quantity
An aggregated score based on the criteria is prepared for each business architecture domain.
This aggregated score for each business architecture domain is compared to the Organisation unit goal for that business architecture domain.
Green (0 issues): Indicates that the business architecture meets or exceeds expectations.
Yellow (1-3 issues): Indicates minor issues that need to be addressed to fully align with organizational goals.
Red (4 or more issues): Indicates significant issues that need immediate attention to align with organizational goals.
Learn more
Learn in more detail: See Document weighting and criteria analysis
In advanced edit mode, content analysis evaluates business architecture data within each document domain through a structured rating process. This process ensures a thorough assessment of relevance, quality, and quantity.
Domains and Criteria:
Each of the ten Business Architecture domains are rated on relevance, quality and quantity.
Relevance Rating Scale
5 (Very High): The document directly aligns with the strategic goals and objectives of the organization.
4 (High): The document strongly supports the strategic goals but might be one step removed.
3 (Medium): The document moderately supports the strategic goals with some indirect connections.
2 (Low): The document provides limited support or relevance to the strategic goals.
1 (Very Low): The document has very minimal relevance to the strategic goals.
Incomplete: No pertinent data related to the business architecture domain.
Quality Rating Scale
5 (Very High): The document meets or exceeds ISO 9001 standards for documentation.
4 (High): The document strongly adheres to ISO 9001 standards with minor gaps.
3 (Medium): The document adequately meets ISO 9001 standards but may require some improvements.
2 (Low): The document partially meets ISO 9001 standards but has significant gaps.
1 (Very Low): The document minimally meets ISO 9001 standards, with extensive issues in adherence.
Incomplete: The document does not meet ISO 9001 standards.
Quantity Rating Scale
5 (Very High): The document provides extensive documentation, surpassing ISO 9001 requirements.
4 (High): The document contains sufficient documentation to meet ISO 9001 requirements.
3 (Medium): The document provides adequate documentation, covering all necessary details but lacks depth.
2 (Low): The document provides limited documentation, only meeting some of the requirements.
1 (Very Low): The document provides minimal documentation, barely meeting ISO 9001 standards.
Incomplete: The document lacks sufficient documentation to meet ISO 9001 standards.
This structured approach helps identify strengths and areas for improvement, aiding in more informed decision-making.
For instance, documents like a KPI list for a role may have little or no relevant data for domains such as Value Streams or Initiatives. In these cases, the relevant domain should be marked as Not Applicable (N/A) if the document does not provide sufficient information for the domain.
Content weighting determines the importance of business documents within the organization, following a structured and comprehensive approach to document prioritization.
Establish Criteria for Importance
Alignment with Organisational Goals: Evaluate support for core objectives.
Impact on Decision Making: Assess influence on key business decisions.
Scope of Influence: Determine impact on the entire organization or specific departments.
Compliance & Regulatory Requirements: Identify documents required for legal or regulatory adherence.
Stakeholder Interest: Gauge importance to key stakeholders (investors, management, employees).
Rate Each Document Against the Criteria
Use a predefined scale (1-5) for automatic weighting.
For manual validation, involve stakeholders in scoring through surveys or workshops.
Example Scale:
1: Very Low
2: Low
3: Medium
4: High
5: Very High
Assign Weights to Each Criterion
Based on relative importance to the organization’s strategy.
Example Weights:
Alignment with Organisational Goals: 30%
Impact on Decision Making: 25%
Scope of Influence: 20%
Compliance and Regulatory Requirements: 15%
Stakeholder Interest: 10%
Calculate Weighted Scores
Multiply scores by weights for each document and sum them to get a total weighted score.
Calculation Example:
Weighted Score = (Score for Alignment * Weight) + (Score for Impact * Weight) + ...
Normalize the Scores
Compare importance across documents by normalizing scores.
Normalization Example:
Normalised Score = Document Score / Highest Score
Rank the Documents
Rank based on normalised scores to determine relative importance.
Guides resource allocation, attention, and efforts among strategic documents.
This method ensures critical documents receive the attention they deserve, supporting informed decision-making and compliance with industry standards.
Learn more
Learn more about Content weighting: See Document weighting and criteria analysis