Detailed Comparison: Orthogramic and BIZBOK

This page provides a comprehensive technical comparison between the Orthogramic Metamodel and BIZBOK across key dimensions. The comparison is intended to help practitioners understand the differences and make informed choices for their organizations.

Comparison by Dimension

Purpose and Philosophy

Dimension	Orthogramic Metamodel	BIZBOK
Primary Intent	Enable structured, schema-defined representation of business architecture with clarity, traceability, and automation	Establish a comprehensive reference framework to guide business architecture practices
Foundation	Schema-first, integration-focused approach	Practice-oriented guide developed by certified professionals
Design Philosophy	Machine-readable definitions for tooling	Human-readable guidance for practitioners

Domain Coverage

Domain Area	Orthogramic Metamodel	BIZBOK
Organization	Detailed structure including units, roles, dependencies, governance, history, strategic alignment	Addressed through capability mapping and value streams
Stakeholders	Extensive metadata including role, engagement, inputs/outputs, alignment tracking	Considered primarily in relation to value streams
Strategy	Modeled with objectives, KPIs, timelines, dependencies, sub-strategies	Key anchor concept linked to capabilities and value streams
Capabilities	Includes functions, components, processes, ownership, maturity, technology, risks	Core element mapped hierarchically to value, strategy, stakeholders
Services	Defined as discrete deliverables, distinct from products	Included under Products & Services
Products	Standalone value-delivering entities with lifecycle and outcomes	Part of Products & Services domain
Value Streams	Stages defined, linked to capabilities, stakeholders, outcomes	Core element with cross-mappings
Information	Metadata-rich, tied to policies, custodians, domains	Core element focused on data entities
Initiatives	Lifecycle stages, dependencies, resourcing, outcomes	Change initiatives linked to capabilities
Policy	Formally modeled with compliance attributes	Governance addressed conceptually
Performance	KPIs with predictive indicators, targets, thresholds	Measurement primarily retrospective
Technology	Explicit domain with component and integration modeling	Technology addressed contextually
Risk Management	Dedicated domain with risk taxonomy and controls	Risk addressed within other domains
Finance	Cost, revenue, budget modeling	Not explicit in core framework
Customer	Detailed customer/segment modeling	Part of stakeholder considerations
Market	Market analysis and competitive positioning	Addressed contextually
Channel	Distribution and access channel modeling	Part of value stream considerations
Supply Chain	Supplier and logistics modeling	Not explicit in core framework
Manufacturing	Production process modeling	Not explicit in core framework
People	Workforce, skills, competencies	Part of organizational considerations
Innovation	Innovation pipeline and portfolio	Not explicit in core framework
Sustainability	ESG and environmental objectives	Not explicit in core framework
Intelligence	Business intelligence and analytics	Part of information considerations
Social Change	Social impact modeling	Not in core framework

Modeling Approach

Aspect	Orthogramic Metamodel	BIZBOK
Schema Definition	Explicit JSON Schema for all domains	Conceptual models in narrative form
Attribute Specification	Detailed attributes with types and enumerations	Attributes described in guidance
Relationship Modeling	Formal cross-domain relationship types with directionality	Relationships implied through mappings
Element Structure	Domain elements with defined schemas	Elements described conceptually
Extension Model	Schema augmentation with validation	Interpretive extension by practitioners

Strategic Response Framework

Capability	Orthogramic Metamodel	BIZBOK
Trigger Management	Formal trigger schema with categorization and lifecycle	Environmental scanning and scenario planning
Rationale Capture	Structured rationale objects with evidence and alternatives	Strategic alignment documentation
Response Tracing	End-to-end trace from trigger to response to outcome	Initiative tracking through capability impact
Performance Indicators	Typed indicators with targets, thresholds, measurement frequency	KPIs linked to strategic objectives
Monitoring Cadence	Configurable review cycles with adjustment tracking	Periodic review practices

Integration and Interoperability

Aspect	Orthogramic Metamodel	BIZBOK
API Readiness	Schema-based, API-first design	Tool-agnostic guidance
Data Platform Integration	OpenMetadata, data catalog alignment	Requires custom implementation
Industry Standards	BIAN, FIBO, SAP EAF mappings included	TOGAF alignment referenced
External Organization Support	Formal schemas for cross-enterprise modeling	Partnership guidance
Well-Architected Alignment	AWS, Azure, GCP framework mappings	Not explicit

Domain-by-Domain Comparison

Capability Domain

Attribute	Orthogramic	BIZBOK
Hierarchy Levels	Configurable depth with L1/L2/L3+ modeling	Typically 3-4 levels
Components	Explicit component schema (functions, processes)	Components implied
Maturity Model	Formal maturity attributes	Maturity assessment guidance
Technology Link	Direct technology domain linkage	Technology mapping
Performance Indicators	Capability-level KPIs	Performance through measurement
Ownership	Multi-unit ownership with relationship types	Single ownership typical

Value Stream Domain

Attribute	Orthogramic	BIZBOK
Stage Definition	Formal stage schema with entry/exit criteria	Stage identification guidance
Stakeholder Mapping	Per-stage stakeholder involvement	Value stream stakeholder mapping
Capability Enabling	Direct stage-to-capability linkage	Capability cross-mapping
Performance	Stage-level metrics with targets	Value stream measurement
Information Flow	Explicit information inputs/outputs	Information mapping
Handoffs	Formal handoff modeling	Implied through stages

Information Domain

Attribute	Orthogramic	BIZBOK
Entity Modeling	Detailed entity schema with attributes	Information concepts guidance
Data Governance	Formal ownership, stewardship, custodianship	Governance conceptually
Quality Metrics	Explicit quality attributes	Quality addressed contextually
Lineage	Cross-domain lineage support	Lineage through mapping
Classification	Security and sensitivity classification	Classification guidance
Lifecycle	Information lifecycle management	Lifecycle conceptually

Organization Domain

Attribute	Orthogramic	BIZBOK
Structure Modeling	Hierarchical with multiple relationship types	Organizational mapping
Role Definition	Formal role schema with responsibilities	Roles through capability
Governance	Explicit governance attributes	Governance guidance
Inter-Unit Relations	Providing, consuming, owning, benefiting relationships	Relationships implied
History Tracking	Temporal organization changes	Point-in-time modeling
Federation	Cross-enterprise organization modeling	Single enterprise focus

Technical Implementation Comparison

Schema Structure

Orthogramic Example:

{
  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
  "title": "Capability",
  "type": "object",
  "required": ["title", "description", "owner"],
  "properties": {
    "title": {"type": "string"},
    "description": {"type": "string"},
    "owner": {"type": "string"},
    "capabilityLevel": {"type": "integer", "minimum": 1},
    "maturityLevel": {
      "type": "string",
      "enum": ["initial", "developing", "defined", "managed", "optimizing"]
    },
    "performanceIndicators": {
      "type": "array",
      "items": {"$ref": "#/definitions/kpi"}
    }
  }
}

BIZBOK Approach:

BIZBOK provides narrative guidance on capability attributes, allowing practitioners to define their own implementation structures based on organizational needs.

Cross-Domain Relationships

Orthogramic Approach:

Formal relationship types with defined semantics:

Relationship	Direction	Example
enables	Source → Target	Capability enables Value Stream Stage
owns	Source → Target	Org Unit owns Capability
funds	Source → Target	Budget funds Initiative
measures	Source → Target	KPI measures Capability

BIZBOK Approach:

Cross-mappings between core domains (capabilities, value streams, information, organization) with practitioner-defined relationships.

Summary Assessment

Category	Orthogramic Metamodel	BIZBOK
Modeling Rigor	High (formal schemas, detailed attributes)	Moderate (narrative guidance, best practices)
Interoperability	Schema-based, tool-friendly	Tool-independent, requires implementation
Domain Coverage	Broader with finer granularity	Focused on core domains with conceptual alignment
Practical Utility	Designed for structured implementation	Designed for guidance and interpretation
Governance Traceability	Explicitly modeled	Advised in practice
Strategic Response	Comprehensive structured framework	Conceptual through scenarios
Performance Management	Forward-looking with predictive indicators	Primarily retrospective measurement
Learning Curve	Schema familiarity helpful	Conceptually accessible

Choosing the Right Approach

Both frameworks offer value depending on organizational context:

• Choose BIZBOK when establishing foundational business architecture practices with flexibility in implementation
• Choose Orthogramic when building automated tools, integrating with data platforms, or requiring formal schema validation
• Use both when you want BIZBOK's conceptual guidance with Orthogramic's implementation rigor

Related Documentation

• Summary Comparison — High-level overview
• What Orthogramic Adds — Extended capabilities
• Domain Coverage Explained — Why 24 domains