Isn’t the Orthogramic Metamodel too complicated?

Introduction

It’s a common question—particularly from seasoned BIZBOK practitioners: "Isn’t this all too much?" The Orthogramic Metamodel is undeniably broader, deeper, and more structured than traditional approaches. But complexity, in this case, is not indulgent—it’s necessary. What some see as "too complicated" is, in fact, an accurate reflection of how modern organisations operate and what senior leaders require from business architecture.

The real complexity lies in the organisation, not the model

Modern organisations operate in overlapping regulatory, technological, economic, and stakeholder environments. Strategic objectives compete with operational constraints. Services are delivered across multiple channels. Capabilities are enabled by interdependent systems, governed by shifting policies, and evaluated against dynamic KPIs.

Simplified models may offer clarity—but at the cost of relevance. They fail to capture the multidimensional context decision-makers must navigate. The Orthogramic Metamodel doesn’t introduce complexity—it acknowledges it and structures it in a way that makes it manageable, traceable, and actionable.

BIZBOK simplifies the model—but sidelines the impact

BIZBOK practitioners often focus on capability maps, stakeholder catalogues, or value stream diagrams. These are useful—but frequently become peripheral exercises. They rarely influence actual governance decisions, digital investments, or regulatory strategies.

By contrast, the Orthogramic Metamodel integrates business architecture into the heart of decision-making:

• Initiatives are tied to strategic outcomes and performance thresholds.

• Policies link directly to services, stakeholders, and compliance indicators.

• External disruptions trigger response models tied to internal capability actions.

This isn’t peripheral work—it’s embedded in the operational and strategic flow of the enterprise.

You can’t solve enterprise problems with whiteboard tools

Some pushback stems from familiarity with informal, visual techniques. But diagrams and sticky notes do not scale to multi-billion dollar enterprises. They don’t integrate with planning tools. They don’t support federated architecture teams. They don’t produce audit trails, performance metrics, or real-time alignment checks.

The Orthogramic Metamodel is schema-first and automation-ready by design. Its perceived complexity reflects the level of rigour needed to:

• Deliver structured insight across business units

• Align stakeholders, policies, and investments

• Sustain digital governance across regulatory ecosystems

Most senior leaders aren’t asking for elegance—they’re asking for answers

Executives are not asking for perfect diagrams. They want to know:

• Where is our strategy at risk?

• Which capabilities need investment?

• Are our policies and services aligned with stakeholder needs?

• What changes do we need to make, and why?

These are not questions you can answer with five boxes and some arrows. The Orthogramic Metamodel exists to support structured, evidence-based answers. Its scope is a reflection of the questions it is built to answer.

Conclusion

Yes, the Orthogramic Metamodel is more extensive than BIZBOK. That’s the point. It treats business architecture not as a support activity but as a core enterprise function. For those accustomed to simplified models, this shift can feel uncomfortable—but it is necessary. The real world is complicated. Business architecture must be equipped to match it—if it’s to make an impact where it truly matters.