“What does the business do, and what does each capability cost?”
Every BIZBOK domain — capabilities, value streams, information and organization, plus strategies, initiatives, products, policies, stakeholders and metrics — and the full APQC Process Classification Framework, from category down to task. Dotwork makes the capability map the spine of the model, so applications, teams, initiatives and cost all hang off it and cost by capability comes straight from the ledger. Start from your own map and names. When the Guild or APQC publishes a new release, the changes arrive as proposals, not a re-import. And TOGAF, TBM and the portfolio all read the same map.
The pressure
The capability map was built in a workshop and lives on a slide. Applications, projects, people and cost are tagged to it in different tools, if at all. The process framework sits in a spreadsheet the process team owns. So the questions the map was built to answer — what does this capability cost, who runs it, and is it getting better — still take weeks.
What it looks like today
Full coverage
Domains, cross-maps and process levels are records, not slide content — linked to the strategy, cost and work that change them.
Built for BIZBOK Guide v15 and APQC PCF 8.0
The four domains every business architecture starts from.
What the business does with its capabilities.
Where the map earns its keep.
Category to task, with the IDs kept.
What makes a process framework more than a list.
How business architects put the map to work.
What changes
A capability map on a slide
The capability map as the spine every record hangs on
Capabilities and processes in separate camps
BIZBOK capabilities and APQC processes crosswalked on one model
Cost by capability as a project
Cost by capability read from the same ledger every month
Heat maps from a workshop
Maturity, cost, sprawl and strategic importance read from the records
The map between strategy and execution
Strategies and objectives map down to the capabilities and value stream stages they need to change. Applications, teams, initiatives and processes map up to the capabilities they realize. Cost runs underneath from the same ledger finance closes on. Decisions travel down the map; evidence travels back up it — so a heat map shows what the records say, not what the workshop remembered.
Where other tools stop
A business architecture tool can draw the map and a process tool can list the processes, but what a capability costs and which funded initiative is moving it sit somewhere else.
Flexed to how you run
Neither BIZBOK nor APQC expects you to copy it. Start from the standard, reshape the map around your business and keep the link back for comparison.
Start from a reference, or your own
Begin from the common or an industry reference model, or bring the map you already have. Either way the standard stays linked underneath.
Matches stated honestly
Every link between your model and BIZBOK or APQC is labeled exact, broader, narrower, partial or no equivalent, so a loose match never passes for a close one.
Depth where it matters
Go three levels deep where you make decisions and stay at level one elsewhere. Map processes down to tasks only where you manage them.
Your names, PCF IDs attached
Rename capabilities and processes to match your business, while PCF IDs and BIZBOK definitions stay attached for comparison and benchmarking.
When the Guild publishes
The BIZBOK Guide is revised annually, and APQC republishes the PCF on its own cycle. Each new release is compared with your map, and the differences come to you as proposed moves. Nothing changes until you approve, prior periods keep the version they were reported on, and two versions can sit side by side while you move.
BIZBOK v15 tightened capability and value mapping terminology and cross-mapping
Relabeled where the terms changed — your maps and cross-maps untouched
Product mapping guidance updated for capability-based products and services
Products already on the model, mapped to the capabilities they rely on
Industry reference models updated, from the common model to financial services, government and more
Changes to the model you started from proposed as a change set, your extensions kept
Application portfolio management revised around outcomes, cost and technical debt
Applications already carry their cost from the ledger and their debt priced in Fund the Debt
APQC republished the cross-industry PCF as version 8.0
Elements re-matched by PCF ID; anything renumbered, moved or new proposed for approval
Every framework, one model
A capability map is only worth keeping if the rest of the business uses it. On Dotwork, architecture, finance, the portfolio and strategy all hang their records on the same map.
ADM · TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition
Architects working the ADM start Phase B from this map instead of drawing their own.
Explore TOGAFIT spend taxonomy
Cost by capability comes from TBM’s allocation, not a separate estimate.
Explore TBMTIME model · 7 Rs
Applications per capability show sprawl and single points of failure before anything is retired.
Explore App RationalizationFunding value streams, not projects
Value streams and epics funded against the capabilities they move.
Explore Lean Portfolio ManagementGoals tied to funded work
Objectives name the capabilities they depend on, so a stalled key result points to one.
Explore OKRsTeams funded around products
Product teams mapped to the capabilities they own and the value streams they serve.
Explore Product Operating ModelAI-native business architecture
Tagging, re-tagging, chasing owners and rebuilding heat maps are what wear a business architecture practice down. Dot proposes the links and flags the gaps; an owner confirms each one, and any change can be undone.
Maps initiatives, applications, labor and spend to the capabilities they serve, and shows what reaches no capability at all.
Proposes the APQC elements and BIZBOK capabilities each new record matches, with how close each match is.
Reads cost from the reconciled ledger and rolls it up by capability, keeping cost no capability claims as a row of its own.
Shows where a capability is served by several overlapping applications — or by only one.
Flags capabilities and processes with no accountable team, and teams accountable for nothing on the map.
Matches the new release to your map by PCF ID and BIZBOK definition, and proposes renames, remaps and new elements.
Answers questions about capabilities, value streams and processes, and shows which records each answer came from.
Where it runs in Dotwork
Dotwork does not ask you to adopt a new method. The framework becomes a view over the same model these solutions already read and write.
Govern & Deliver
“What does this capability cost to run — and what depends on it?”
ExploreSteer
“Is our strategy still true — and what do we do when it isn’t?”
ExploreSteer
“Is the transformation paying off — and can we prove it?”
ExploreSteer
“Where is the money made in our industry — and what would change it?”
ExploreFund & Optimize
“Do we have the people we funded?”
ExploreGovern & Deliver
“Is the work we are doing still the work we meant to fund?”
ExploreGovern & Deliver
“Are we building what customers need — and is it paying off?”
ExploreHow it compares
Business architecture tools model the map. Process mining and modeling tools model the processes. BIZBOK & APQC on Dotwork covers both frameworks and makes the map the backbone of cost, strategy and the portfolio.
| Capability | EA & business architecture tools | Process modeling & mining tools | BIZBOK & APQC on Dotwork |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability maps with levels and tiers | Partly | ||
| Value streams and stages | Partly | ||
| The APQC PCF from category to task | Partly | ||
| Capabilities and processes crosswalked, with stated fidelity | Partly | Partly | |
| Your own map, linked to the reference models | Partly | ||
| Cost by capability from the general ledger | Partly | ||
| Initiatives, teams and applications mapped by capability | Partly | ||
| New BIZBOK and PCF releases proposed as changes, extensions kept | Partly | Partly | |
| One map read by TOGAF, TBM and the portfolio | Partly | ||
| Wired to strategy, budgets, the portfolio and cost |
Who it is for
“Can every team use the same capability map — and actually map to it?
“Which capabilities do our processes serve, and who owns each one?
“What does each capability cost in technology, people and AI?
“Which capabilities does the strategy depend on, and are they ready?
“Which value streams is the program changing, and how far has it moved?
“Where are we paying for the same capability twice?
Before you buy
How to get a number instead of a pitch.
1
Good answer · One total from the ledger, split by application, team and business unit.
Bad answer · An allocation someone built in a spreadsheet last year.
2
Good answer · An explicit crosswalk, with how close each match is stated.
Bad answer · A free-text tag, or two separate hierarchies.
3
Good answer · Nothing by hand. Changes are proposed for approval, with your extensions and history kept.
Bad answer · Re-import the framework and re-tag everything.
More in Architecture
Architecture
The maps of what the business does and the technology that supports it.
The model underneath
Steer, Fund & Optimize and Govern & Deliver all read and write the same Enterprise Operating Model. The first module you license builds the model. Every module after it adds context instead of another silo — and Dotwork AI reads all of it, stopping where the decision is yours.
See the Enterprise Operating Model© 2025-2026 Dotwork, Inc. All rights reserved.