OK, so let's kick it up a notch to more specific guidance. Let's assume the group engaged in this discussion understands and uses multiple frameworks and methods (TOGAF Phase B, Zachman Business Model, DoDAF/MoDAF Capabilities/Operational Views, SEI ATAM, FEAF, BPMN), holds multiple certifications, has published papers on Business Architecture concepts, and has suitably impressive IQs. Let's further posit that the skilled, experienced architect will certainly adjust standard methods and artifacts based on a business value stream, where each layer builds on the last and creates a powerful blueprint for the business that goes beyond what individual roles have ever seen before. Now let's answer some questions: 1. How much of your total effort for one full cycle through a blueprint is worth spending on broader or deeper Capability Mapping alone? 2. Can a dynamic Organizational Blueprint, with live relationships and workflow tied to roles on cross-functional processes, play a more central role than shown in the current business architecture body of knowledge and the business layer of standard frameworks? 3. Will one of these mechanisms, or some other method altogether, provide the fastest route down to that center of gravity, the integrated business process and metrics that actually make a big difference for the business, line up with culture/behavioral changes, and drive wise technology investments?

Great discussion so far, but it still hasn't quite scratched the itch on the relative merits of the artifacts and where to spend the most energy first. Tied to some of the points posted: 1. Drilling to the right business focus with an Org Map doesn't constrain you to the "As Is" any more than starting with the current state for a Capability Map or Process Model; in fact it may better describe the hardest change that has to occur for any major business initiative to succeed, which is cultural shift and required changes to the Org model. 2. The new Business Architecture text does a great job in the first two chapters of describing why businesses fail in these strategic initiatives without a blueprint (I could swear Bill was talking about my company), and I'm already using that clear description of the problem. The later chapters, however, just like the link provided, show more of the abstract theory and artifacts without providing concrete examples and hard world lessons of what is actually worth spending 80% of your effort on vs. 2%. 3. Using the Org chart with real additional relationship mapping and linkages doesn't have to include people's names, it's more valuable for roles and authority tied to ensuring a business initiative is assigned top down, leading to which roles execute which actions on a future, more collaborative and measured business process. A dynamic model would allow you to click on a role or Org. element and see who is in that role right now, but loosely coupled since the names change and the new person in that role should still be responsible for their part of a collaborative process that improves the business. Completely agree that where the rubber meets the road is when you obtain buy-in cross-functionally and then throw all the energy into modeling, deploying, and monitoring the end-to-end process with known value metrics. 4. The point about deriving a business model out of the Annual Report is very insightful, and I suppose it argues for putting more energy into the fully linked Org. Map as a means to drive collaboration and accountability down into a game-changing cross-functional business process, since you're unlikely to directly map a Business Model into a Capability Model.