Focus: Banking and financial services
Key concepts: Service Domains, Control Records, Functional Patterns
Adjacency: Aligns well with Orthogramic’s Capabilities, Services, and Value Streams
Used by: Banks, core banking vendors, financial regulators
Focus: General business architecture
Key concepts: Capabilities, Value Streams, Information, Stakeholders
Adjacency: Orthogramic is structurally richer and schema-first; BIZBOK is more narrative
Used by: Business architects across industries
Focus: Enterprise architecture (holistic)
Key concepts: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Business/Data/Application/Technology architecture
Adjacency: TOGAF provides method; Orthogramic can provide structure and content
Used by: Enterprise architects, CIO offices
Focus: Visual modelling for enterprise architecture
Key concepts: Layers (Business, Application, Technology), relationships between elements
Adjacency: Orthogramic data can be rendered into ArchiMate views
Used by: Modellers, architects, solution designers
Focus: Semantic definition of financial concepts
Key concepts: Legal entities, contracts, financial instruments (OWL-based)
Adjacency: Aligns with Orthogramic's Information and Policy domains
Used by: Data modellers, compliance officers, banks
Focus: Process mapping across industries
Key concepts: Universal hierarchy of processes (e.g. 1.0 Develop Vision and Strategy)
Adjacency: Can inform Orthogramic Value Streams and Capability Processes
Used by: Operational excellence teams, BPM professionals
Focus: Classification schema for enterprise architecture
Key concepts: Who, What, Where, When, Why, How × Stakeholder roles
Adjacency: Conceptual guidance; less useful for schema-based or machine-readable modelling
Used by: Strategic planners, EA consultants
Focus: Business rules and decision logic
Key concepts: Decision Tables, Input Data, Knowledge Sources
Adjacency: Can plug into Orthogramic Policy or Capability Processes
Used by: Process designers, rule engines, regulatory modelling
Focus: Systems-of-systems (e.g. defence, aerospace)
Key concepts: Capability, Operational, Resource, and Strategic views
Adjacency: Some overlap with Orthogramic domains like Capabilities and Strategy
Used by: Defence and aerospace architecture teams
Focus: US government enterprise architecture
Key concepts: Performance Reference Model, Business Reference Model, Service and Data Models
Adjacency: Strong alignment with Orthogramic's domains — especially Capabilities, Performance, Services, and Information
Comparison: Orthogramic offers finer granularity and is schema-first, while FEAF offers government-wide standardisation
Used by: U.S. federal agencies, public sector EA teams
Focus: Capturing why an enterprise does what it does
Key concepts: Ends (goals, objectives), Means (strategies, tactics), Influencers, Assessments
Adjacency: Complements Orthogramic’s Strategic Response Model — especially Trigger, Rationale, and StrategicResponse
Comparison: BMM is more narrowly focused on motivation and influence, while Orthogramic incorporates motivation as one dimension within a broader operational model
Used by: Business modellers, strategic planners
Focus: Structuring enterprise architecture in SAP-centric environments
Key concepts: Business Capability Map, Reference Architectures, Value Maps
Adjacency: Orthogramic’s Capabilities, Value Streams, and Initiatives are directly applicable for SAP-aligned transformation programs
Comparison: SAP’s metamodel is more vendor-specific; Orthogramic is open and technology-neutral but mappable
Used by: SAP clients and consultants, enterprise architects in transformation programs
Focus: Enterprise data governance and management
Key concepts: Data Governance, Data Quality, Metadata, Reference and Master Data
Adjacency: Orthogramic’s Information and Policy domains can be extended to cover DMBOK principles
Comparison: DMBOK is deeper in data operations, Orthogramic focuses more on how information supports business architecture
Used by: Data governance teams, CDOs, enterprise data stewards
Focus: Military systems architecture and interoperability
Key concepts: Capability, Performer, Activity, Resource Flow, Standards
Adjacency: Orthogramic’s Capabilities, Stakeholders, Initiatives, and Value Streams map well conceptually
Comparison: DoDAF is highly formal, based on mission assurance and traceability; Orthogramic is lighter, more flexible
Used by: Defence agencies, system-of-systems architects, NATO/coalition partners
Framework / Metamodel | Focus Area | Orthogramic Mapping Strength | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
BIAN | Banking services architecture | High | Service domains map to Orthogramic Services and Capabilities |
BIZBOK | Business architecture | High | Shared domains (Capabilities, Value Streams, etc.) |
TOGAF | EA methodology and governance | High (method), Medium (metamodel) | Orthogramic can provide structural content for TOGAF ADM phases |
ArchiMate | EA modelling language | Medium–High | Orthogramic data can generate or map to ArchiMate views |
FIBO | Financial industry semantics | Medium | Complements Information and Policy domains |
APQC PCF | Process classification framework | Medium | Aligns with Value Streams and Capability Processes |
Zachman | EA classification schema | Medium | Orthogramic offers structured data where Zachman provides classification |
DMN | Business decision modelling | Medium | Maps to Policy and Process domains for business rule integration |
UAF | Systems-of-systems architecture | Medium | Partial mapping to Capabilities, Initiatives, Strategy |
FEAF | Federal EA framework (US gov) | High | Strong alignment with Capabilities, Performance, Information |
BMM (OMG) | Business motivation model | Very High | Orthogramic’s Strategic Response Model is a superset |
SAP EA Framework | Enterprise architecture for SAP | Medium–High | Mappable via Value Streams and Capabilities |
DMBOK (DAMA) | Data governance and management | Medium | Extends Information and Policy domains for stewardship and lineage |
DoDAF DM2 | Defence systems architecture metamodel | Medium–High | Maps to Capabilities, Stakeholders, Initiatives; Orthogramic is more agile |
The Banking Industry Architecture Network (BIAN) provides a standardized framework for defining and organizing banking services, aiming to enhance interoperability and reduce integration costs within the financial sector. Its Service Landscape comprises discrete, non-overlapping service domains that encapsulate specific business capabilities, facilitating a modular approach to banking operations.
The Orthogramic Metamodel, on the other hand, offers an open-source business architecture metamodel designed to provide a structured framework for aligning business strategy, capabilities, value streams, policies, stakeholders, information, and performance. This metamodel enables organizations to dynamically map their business structures and operations, supporting real-time strategic alignment.
Integrating BIAN's service-oriented architecture with The Orthogramic Metamodel’s comprehensive business architecture allows for a unified approach to modeling and aligning banking services with overarching business strategies. This interoperability facilitates:
Semantic Alignment: Ensuring consistent definitions and understanding of business capabilities and services across both frameworks.
Enhanced Modularity: Leveraging BIAN's discrete service domains within Orthogramic's structured metamodel to promote modularity and reusability.
Strategic Coherence: Aligning operational services with strategic objectives, enabling more effective governance and decision-making.
By bridging these two frameworks, organizations can achieve a more cohesive and agile enterprise architecture, better equipped to respond to the dynamic demands of the banking industry.