Business architecture mode coverage

Introduction

Business architecture practitioners operate in a variety of modes—from modelling an organisation’s structure and capabilities to enabling strategic responses, transformation planning, and oversight. This page evaluates the extent to which two frameworks—BIZBOK, as defined by the Business Architecture Guild, and the Orthogramic Metamodel—support this full spectrum of professional practice. Each mode is assessed for its coverage within the respective framework, with clear indications of limitations and gaps. Importantly, this comparison recognises that BIZBOK is a static standard not expected to evolve, while the Orthogramic Metamodel is an extensible, implementation-ready metamodel designed to address contemporary demands, including strategic responsiveness, portfolio rationalisation, and operating model composition. This analysis is intended to support decision-makers and business architects in selecting or supplementing frameworks to meet their organisational needs.

BIZBOK mode comparison

This evaluation assesses the extent to which the BIZBOK framework, as defined by the Business Architecture Guild, supports the full spectrum of business architecture modes of operation commonly undertaken by experienced practitioners. Given that BIZBOK is a static standard with no expectation of future extension, the table outlines both the strengths of the framework and the structural limitations that users must work around. Where gaps exist, practitioners are advised to use supplementary tools, frameworks, or bespoke approaches to achieve complete coverage of contemporary business architecture practice.

Mode	Support Level	BIZBOK Implementation	Notes (no further updates expected)

Mode	Support Level	BIZBOK Implementation	Notes (no further updates expected)
Creating an organisational perspective	✅ Fully supported	The Organisation Mapping and Capability Mapping techniques offer solid coverage of business unit structure and alignment.	BIZBOK remains reliable for foundational organisational modelling in stable environments.
Driving a strategic intention	⚠️ Partially supported	Strategy mapping is defined but not deeply integrated with initiative planning.	Users must supplement BIZBOK with custom methods or external tools to model and execute strategic intentions.
Creating strategic response models	❌ Not supported	No constructs for triggers, rationale, or strategic response chains.	Architects will need to adopt complementary frameworks for dynamic response modelling.
Providing an oversight perspective	⚠️ Partially supported	Basic stakeholder definitions exist, but oversight roles and compliance enforcement are not structured.	Users will need to document oversight relationships and policy enforcement outside the BIZBOK structure.
Capability maturity and gap analysis	⚠️ Partially supported	Visual heatmaps are referenced, but structured maturity comparisons are not embedded.	Practitioners must maintain current vs. target state and prioritisation logic in external artefacts or tools.
Portfolio rationalisation and alignment	❌ Not supported	Portfolio-level analysis is not a concept in BIZBOK.	Architects should expect to use portfolio frameworks (e.g. PfMP, MoP) in parallel with BIZBOK.
Reference model tailoring and governance setup	❌ Not supported	BIZBOK provides generic templates but no explicit support for tailoring or enforcement structures.	Governance design and adaptation must be independently established beyond BIZBOK guidance.
Transformation roadmap development	⚠️ Partially supported	Time-based planning is implied but lacks structural support.	Roadmapping will require external project or programme planning tools to supplement BIZBOK models.
Stakeholder influence and communication enablement	✅ Fully supported	Stakeholder mapping, personas, and journeys are covered.	Suitable for communicating business architecture to stakeholders where static engagement is acceptable.
Design and validation of operating models	⚠️ Partially supported	Operating model concepts are addressed indirectly.	Architects must build operating model views by manually integrating multiple BIZBOK domains.

Orthogramic mode comparison

The Orthogramic Metamodel has been designed as a comprehensive foundation for modelling an organisation's business architecture. It already supports core domains and structured relationships enabling strategic alignment, performance monitoring, and stakeholder engagement. This document evaluates whether the current metamodel requires extension to support the full spectrum of business architecture modes of operation, as practised by experienced business architects.

Mode	Support Level	Current Implementation	Recommendations & Additional Details

Mode	Support Level	Current Implementation	Recommendations & Additional Details
Creating an organisational perspective	Fully Supported	Organisation domain, Organisation Units, and inter-unit relationships	None needed
Driving a strategic intention	Fully Supported	Strategy, Initiatives (Programs and Projects), and their traceability to Capabilities, Stakeholders, and Performance	None needed
Creating strategic response models	Fully Supported	Strategic Response Model, including Triggers, Rationales, and Responses	None needed
Providing an oversight perspective	Fully Supported	Stakeholder extensions (oversight roles), `accountable_to` and `oversight_of` relationships, and links to Policy and Performance domains	None needed
Capability maturity and gap analysis	Partially Supported	Capabilities domain includes `maturityLevel`, but lacks structured representation of current vs. target state comparisons	Add fields for `targetMaturityLevel` and `deltaAnalysis` to Capability schema
Portfolio rationalisation and alignment	Partially Supported	Initiatives and their links to Capabilities and Strategy are modelled, but no explicit domain for portfolios or value scoring	Add Portfolio as a new domain or sub-element of Initiatives, including scoring and prioritisation attributes. Use the Finance and Performance domains for cost-benefit inputs
Reference model tailoring and governance setup	Limited Support	Policy and Organisation domains can capture governance rules, but no structured way to define architectural standards, compliance frameworks, or principle hierarchies	Extend Policy domain with sub-elements for `architecturePrinciples`, `complianceFrameworks`, and `governanceStructures`. Link with Risk Management and Sustainability where applicable
Transformation roadmap development	Partially Supported	Initiatives and Programs imply time-based change, but no native timeline, milestone, or sequencing model	Add `timeSequence`, `milestone`, and dependencies to Initiatives and Capabilities for roadmap creation. Use the Technology and Innovation domains for transformation-enabling factors
Stakeholder influence and communication enablement	Fully Supported	Stakeholder domain includes `engagementStrategies`, `interestLevels`, and `performanceIndicators`, which allow modelling of influence and communication	Additional enrichment: Incorporate the Customer, Channel, and Market domains where external stakeholder expectations shape decisions
Design and validation of operating models	Partially Supported	Organisation, Capability, and Value Stream domains offer some structure, but no consolidated Operating Model entity	Introduce `OperatingModel` as a composite view or virtual entity, linking Organisation, Capabilities, Value Streams, People, Technology, and Performance domains