BIZBOK comparison

Introduction

The Orthogramic Metamodel and the legacy BIZBOK model represent two distinct approaches to structuring and applying business architecture. While both aim to provide clarity and alignment across enterprise functions, they differ significantly in their foundational philosophies, modelling approaches, and accessibility.

This comparison highlights how the Orthogramic Metamodel builds upon industry practice, extending key concepts through a schema-first, open-source model designed for traceability, interoperability, and strategic responsiveness. It introduces additional formal domains—such as Policy and Performance—and provides structured support for inter-unit relationships and strategic response modelling. These features enable a more dynamic, machine-readable, and integrable approach that supports real-time alignment across complex organisational environments.

The comparison is presented in four parts: a detailed comparison examining structure and domain coverage, a summary comparison highlighting key points of differentiation, a comparison BIZBOK coverage of the modes of operation of business architects and a licensing comparison outlining the practical and strategic implications of each model’s openness, accessibility, and adaptability.

By contrasting the design choices, domain breadth, and governance models of each, this analysis provides strategic decision-makers, business architects, and analysts with a grounded understanding of how each metamodel can support modern enterprise transformation initiatives.

Experienced BIZBOK practitioners are also likely to have other questions:

Relationship with BIZBOK

While influenced by established business architecture practices, the Orthogramic Metamodel is an original work and does not incorporate or reproduce any copyrighted content from the BIZBOK Guide.