The detailed metamodel for the Capability Based Planning (CBP) solution.
Ardoq's Capability Based Planning solution enables organizations to systematically assess business capability quality across four critical dimensions, People, Process, Technology, and Data (PPTD), to identify quality gaps, prioritize improvement areas, and drive targeted capability enhancements.
The Capability Based Planning provides a structured framework for evaluating business capabilities through collaborative workshops that assess both the importance of quality requirements and the level of concern about current performance. By quantifying exposure scores (Importance × Level of Concern), organizations can objectively prioritize improvement efforts and create actionable capability deltas that drive measurable improvement. This follows the same pattern as the Solution Health Check.
This metamodel article discusses the component types, reference types, and fields used by the Capability Based Planning solution.
To learn more and to better understand the foundation for the method, please refer to the Capability Based Planning - (CBP): Purpose, Scope, and Rationale
Content
Capability Based Planning - Metamodel Overview
Capability Based Planning Metamodel showing Capability Health Check component connected to Business Capability and Quality Model Requirements.
The Capability Based Planning metamodel is built around five core component types that work together to enable systematic capability assessment:
Quality Model Requirement: Represents the 16 predefined quality requirements organized across the PPTD dimensions ( described here)
Capability Health Check: The assessment component that captures evaluation data for a specific capability at a point in time
Business Capability: The target capability being assessed
Capability Delta: Improvement opportunities identified through assessment
Person: Experts who participate in the assessment process
The assessment process creates a structured evaluation that connects quality requirements to capabilities through scored references, enabling exposure-based prioritization and the creation of targeted improvement initiatives.
Prerequisites
To apply Capability Based Planning there are some prerequisites. It is assumed, for example, that you have modelled your Business Capabilities from the Business Capability Realization or Foundation solutions. Also required is the Capability Delta component type from the Strategy To Execution solution.
Quality Models Workspace
The Quality Models workspace contains the standardized quality requirements used across all capability assessments. The Solution Health Check provides the foundation for consistent, comparable evaluations.
Key Components of PPTD Quality Requirements
The Full Capability Health Check assesses 16 specific quality requirements organized across four dimensions. Each dimension contains 4-5 specific requirements that collectively determine quality within that dimension.
For Lite assessments, stakeholders evaluate overall dimensional quality without breaking down into specific requirements. For Full assessments, stakeholders evaluate each of the 16 specific requirements listed below:
Dimension | Description | Requirement |
People | Emphasizes the roles, skills, and competencies necessary for achieving quality in processes and deliverables. Central to this is the effective management, development, and engagement of personnel resources to optimize performance and output. This requirement covers aspects such as leadership, training, collaboration, and communication strategies within teams. Ensuring alignment of personnel capabilities with organizational objectives is crucial for fostering a culture of continuous improvement and quality enhancement.
| Diversity: Focuses on ensuring a diverse workforce encompassing various characteristics such as age, gender, and background. Diversity is critical for delivering consistent and high-quality services and processes, as it brings different perspectives and ideas to the organization. Implementing diversity initiatives helps to prevent groupthink, encourages innovation, and contributes to adaptability in dynamic environments. Assessing diversity metrics is essential for understanding and improving the impact on service quality. |
|
| Skills: Assesses the competency level and adequacy of skills within the workforce to accomplish designated tasks effectively. It involves evaluating the alignment of employees' skills with organizational goals and ensuring continuous skill development through training programs. Measurement of this requirement includes analyzing skill gaps, training effectiveness, and workforce adaptability to evolving job demands. Success is indicated by a well-equipped workforce capable of meeting operational expectations and driving business growth. |
|
| Availability: Pertains to ensuring that suitably skilled personnel are accessible to carry out business activities efficiently. The availability of these resources is essential for maintaining operational productivity and meeting business objectives. It involves strategic planning around staffing, training, and scheduling to align resources with organizational needs. Proper management of people availability is crucial for optimizing resource allocation and minimizing downtime. |
Process | Refers to the structured set of activities designed to achieve specific objectives efficiently and effectively. It encompasses methodologies that streamline tasks, enhance productivity, and ensure consistency in outcomes. The approach involves the optimization of workflow, alignment with organizational goals, and adherence to best practice standards. | Effectiveness: Focuses on ensuring that business processes achieve their intended results efficiently and consistently. Key performance metrics include time, quality, and cost measures, aiming for optimal resource utilization and minimal waste. Effective processes should be adaptable to changes and capable of continuous improvement, thus contributing to overall organizational agility and competitiveness. Evaluation criteria include achieving predefined benchmarks and demonstrating measurable improvements over time. |
|
| Efficiency: Refers to a process's capability to optimize the use of resources while ensuring timely completion. Efficient processes minimize waste and maximize output, which contributes to overall operational performance. Assessing efficiency involves evaluating resource allocation, time management, and the achievement of desired outcomes. The requirement prioritizes streamlined operations that achieve goals with minimal resource expenditure. |
|
| Reliability: Focuses on ensuring processes are executed consistently, minimizing failures and delays. This requirement emphasizes robustness in execution, aiming for high dependability in all operations. Reliable processes seek to achieve predictable outcomes and effective risk management. Key aspects include adherence to standards, accurate execution, and timely completion of tasks. |
|
| Completeness: Evaluates how thoroughly a business function is fulfilled by a streamlined set of high-quality processes. It emphasizes the importance of efficiency, ensuring all necessary aspects of the function are covered without excess redundancy. Achieving Process Completeness requires identifying and optimizing the essential processes to deliver comprehensive service. This category targets maximizing operational effectiveness while minimizing complexity. |
Technology | Technology serves as a critical component within the PPTD framework, providing the tools and systems essential for achieving organizational goals and objectives. It encompasses hardware, software, infrastructure, and digital platforms that enable efficient processes and innovation. The effective integration of technology ensures data accuracy, enhances productivity, and supports decision-making. Continuous evaluation and upgrading of technology is vital to maintain competitive advantage and compliance with evolving industry standards. | Strategic Alignment: Alignment requires the technology to be consistent with the organization's IT Strategy, ensuring that it supports corporate objectives. The technology must utilize approved standard technologies and operate on platforms that are officially supported by the IT department. This alignment is essential for achieving operational efficiency and fostering innovation within the organization. Compliance ensures reduced risk and streamlined integration into existing systems. |
|
| Functionality: Demands that a technology product or system must efficiently perform its intended tasks and operations. This includes meeting specified performance metrics, enabling user-related objectives, and providing reliability in its functional capabilities. Adequate functionality ensures that the technology integrates seamlessly within a defined ecosystem and supports expected user interactions. Key measures of success involve user satisfaction, system stability, and compliance with operational standards. |
|
| Security: Assesses whether the technology complies with established security standards. It ensures that systems and applications have adequate protections against unauthorized access, data breaches, and other security vulnerabilities. Auditing and validation processes are integral to confirming adherence to security protocols. Continuous updates and monitoring are essential to maintain compliance over time. |
|
| Reliability: Refers to the consistent performance and dependability of a technology or system, ensuring it functions correctly under predefined conditions over time. This requirement involves assessing the system's ability to perform tasks without failure, accounting for factors such as fault tolerance, error handling, and uptime. Evaluating reliability includes scrutinizing the frequency and impact of failures, adherence to standards, and maintenance practices. A high reliability score indicates robust technology capable of meeting service obligations consistently. |
|
| Adaptability: Refers to the ability of a system or process to efficiently adjust or evolve with emerging technologies and industry trends. Key considerations include modular architecture, scalable infrastructure, and support for interoperability standards. Success metrics include rapid integration of new technologies, minimal disruption during updates, and sustained competitive advantage. Effective governance, continuous monitoring, and proactive change management are essential to meet this requirement. |
Data | Data within the PPTD framework refers to the structured, relevant, and comprehensive data necessary for effective decision-making and process optimization. This encompasses the accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of data inputs used in the framework. Information must support the objectives of the PPTD framework by providing insights and evidence for continuous improvement and performance measurement. Ensuring data integrity and secure management are critical components of this requirement. | Accuracy: Ensures that the data utilized in executing the value stream stage meets the necessary precision and correctness for optimal performance. Accurate information is critical for maintaining process efficiency, reducing errors, and achieving desired outcomes. This requirement involves verifying data validity, consistency, and reliability across all relevant operations. Proper adherence to accuracy standards enhances overall decision-making quality and operational efficiency. |
|
| Availability: Specifies the need for data to be accessible when required by authorized users, systems or processes within defined parameters. It emphasizes ensuring minimal downtime and includes strategies for redundancy, failover, and continuity to maintain consistent access. Benchmarks for data availability include uptime percentages and recovery time objectives. Implementing robust infrastructure and monitoring is key to achieving this requirement. |
|
| Relevance: Ensures that the data utilized within the systems meets the criteria of being pertinent to the objectives and operations. This involves validating the data's applicability, accuracy, and alignment with the current business needs and processes. Key metrics include assessing context, usability, timeliness, and accuracy to drive effective decision-making and operational efficiency. Achieving data relevance is crucial for maintaining the integrity and value of analytical insights and derived outcomes. |
|
| Completeness: Refers to ensuring that all necessary data attributes for a given process, product, or system are present and accounted for. This requirement emphasizes the importance of having comprehensive and unbroken datasets to support business operations, analytical needs, and decision-making processes. Achieving data completeness involves rigorous data collection, validation, and maintenance practices to prevent data gaps or missing information. The effectiveness of this requirement can be measured through audits and assessments of data availability and integrity. |
Quality Model Requirement Fields
Field | Field Type | Description |
Component Level | Calculated Number | Identifies the PPTD framework level. Level 1 is the parent Information artifact used in some reporting calculations. Levels 2 and 3 are the Requirements. |
Model Name | Calculated Text | The name of the quality Model (PPTD - People, Process, Technology, or Data). It is populated with the name of the Information Artifact component that is its ultimate parent. |
Description | Text Paragraph | Detailed definition of what this quality requirement means and why it matters to capability performance. |
The Component Level and Model Name fields are calculated based on the Quality Model selected and the component's position in the Quality Model hierarchy.
Capability Health Checks Workspace
The Capability Health Checks workspace contains the assessment components that capture evaluation data from collaborative workshops.
Capability Health Check Workspace showing all of the current Capability Health Checks and their subject.
Capability Health Check Component Type
The Capability Health Check component represents a single assessment of a business capability at a specific point in time. This component:
Links to the capability being assessed (via "Has Subject" reference)
Connects to the required Quality Model Requirements (via "Depends on" references)
Captures assessment metadata (date, participants, rationale)
Links to resulting capability deltas (via "Refers To" reference)
Organizations can create multiple Solution Health Check components for the same capability over time to track improvement progress.
Capability Health Check Fields
Field | Field Type | Description |
Name | Text | Choose a name that allows multiple health checks on the same Business Capability. We recommend using a data suffix such as Contact Centre Health Check 2025Q4. |
Quality Model | Text | The assessment model being used (default: "PPTD Capability Assessment"). This is auto-populated from the survey using a hidden field. “Full” or “Lite” depending on the assessment level chosen. This is discussed in the Extensions section. |
Review Date | Date | The date when this assessment should be reviewed or repeated. This is auto-populated from the survey using a hidden field. |
Concern | Text Paragraph | The specific concern that triggered the need for this assessment |
Rationale | Text Paragraph | Records the rationale behind the recommendation |
Live | Date Range | The dates when this component went Live and it's proposed end of life |
Live Status | Calculated List | Automatically sets the value to Proposed, Live, Recently Retired or Long Retired depending on the Live date range values. Long Retired is 90+ days after the Live end date. |
People Importance | Calculated Number | Calculates the average level of importance across the People sub-characteristics (or replicates the Level of Concern for People if this is a Lite Health Check) |
People Concern | Calculated Number | Calculates the average level of concern across the People sub-characteristics (or replicates the Level of Concern for People if this is a Lite Health Check) |
Process Importance | Calculated Number | Calculates the average level of importance across the Process sub-characteristics (or replicates the Level of Concern for Process if this is a Lite Health Check) |
Process Concern | Calculated Number | Calculates the average level of concern across the Process sub-characteristics (or replicates the Level of Concern for Process if this is a Lite Health Check) |
Technology Importance | Calculated Number | Calculates the average level of importance across the Technology sub-characteristics (or replicates the Level of Concern for Technology if this is a Lite Health Check) |
Technology Concern | Calculated Number | Calculates the average level of concern across the Technology sub-characteristics (or replicates the Level of Concern for Technology if this is a Lite Health Check) |
Data Importance | Calculated Number | Calculates the average level of importance across the Data sub-characteristics (or replicates the Level of Concern for Data if this is a Lite Health Check) |
Data Concern | Calculated Number | Calculates the average level of concern across the Data sub-characteristics (or replicates the Level of Concern for Data if this is a Lite Health Check) |
Average Exposure | Reactive Number | Calculates the average exposure score from the assessment |
Average Importance | Reactive Number | Calculates the average level of importance from the assessment |
Average Concern | Reactive Number | Calculates the average level of concern from the assessment |
People Exposure | Reactive Number | Calculates the average level of people exposure from the assessment |
Process Exposure | Reactive Number | Calculates the average level of process exposure from the assessment |
Data Exposure | Reactive Number | Calculates the average level of data exposure from the assessment |
Technology Exposure | Reactive Number | Calculates the average level of technology exposure from the assessment |
Assessment Timing and Review Cycles
The Review Date field enables organizations to establish regular assessment cadences. Best practices suggest:
Critical capabilities: Quarterly assessments
Important capabilities: Semi-annual assessments
Stable capabilities: Annual assessments
The Live date range tracks when the assessment was active, supporting historical analysis and trend identification.
Capability Health Check References
The Capability Health Check uses three key reference types to connect assessments to capabilities, quality requirements, and improvement initiatives:
Reference | Source | Target | Description |
Has Subject | Capability Health Check | Business Capability | Links the assessment to the specific capability being evaluated |
Depends On | Capability Health Check | Requirement | Connects the assessment to selected quality requirements, with scores captured on the reference |
Refers To | Capability Health Check | Capability Delta | Links the assessment to gaps identified in the capability during evaluation |
Depends On Reference
Links the Capability Health Check to Quality Model Requirements, capturing Importance (1-5), Level of Concern (1-5), and calculated Exposure scores that quantify priority for each quality requirement assessed.
Depends On Reference - Assessment Scoring
The "Depends On" reference between Capability Health Check and each Requirement component of the quality model contains the critical scoring fields that enable exposure-based prioritization:
Dependency map showing the Depends On References with fields populated with the Capability Health Check
Depends On Fields
Reference Field | Field Type | Description | Scale |
Importance | Number | How critical is this quality requirement to capability success? | 1-5 (1=Minimal, 5=Critical) |
Level of Concern | Number | How concerned are we about meeting this requirement? | 1-5 (1=Minimal Concern/Strong Performance, 5=Critical Concern/Severe Issues) |
Exposure | Reactive Number | Automatically calculated: Importance × Level of Concern | 1-25 |
Comments | Text Paragraph | Rationale and context for the importance and concern scores, including specific examples and evidence |
|
The Exposure score automatically prioritizes quality gaps, enabling objective, data-driven, resource allocation decisions.
These are the scores for each dimension and their rubrics that describe what they represent.
Scoring Rubrics: |
|
Importance Scale (1-5) | 5 - Critical: Absolutely essential; without it, the capability fundamentally fails |
| 4 - High: Significantly impacts effectiveness; major gaps seriously undermine capability |
| 3 - Moderate: Noticeable impact; gaps can be worked around, but affect efficiency |
| 2 - Low: Limited impact on core capability; gaps do not significantly prevent execution |
| 1 - Minimal: Negligible impact; makes little practical difference to capability delivery |
Level of Concern Scale (1-5) | 5 - Critical Concern: Severe, pervasive issues actively blocking capability performance |
| 4 - High Concern: Significant weaknesses noticeably impeding capability effectiveness |
| 3 - Moderate Concern: Noticeable issues creating some friction or inefficiency |
| 2 - Low Concern: Performing reasonably well with only minor issues |
| 1 - Minimal Concern: Performing strongly, representing a capability strength |
Exposure Score Framework (calculated) | 20-25 (Critical Priority): Immediate intervention needed; severe weaknesses in critical areas |
| 15-19 (High Priority): Significant attention required; important gaps causing substantial problems |
| 10-14 (Medium Priority): Planned improvement needed; noticeable friction warranting structured efforts |
| 5-9 (Low Priority): Monitor and opportunistic improvement; minor gaps or less critical areas |
| 1-4 (Minimal Priority): Maintain current state; strengths to preserve or minimal-impact characteristics |
As we cannot constrain responses to whole integers in the tool, the scale caters for any decimal, for example, 4.5.
Business Capability Workspace
The Business Capability workspace contains the capabilities being assessed and the improvement opportunities (capability deltas) identified through assessment.
Business Capability Component Type
Business Capabilities represent the essential functions a business performs. The Capability Health Check assesses these capabilities to understand quality gaps and prioritize improvements.
Organizations implementing the Capability Health Check should already have Business Capabilities modeled through the Business Capability Modeling solution.
For complete information about Business Capabilities, refer to the Business Capability Modeling and Realization Metamodel.
Capability Delta Component Type
A Capability Delta represents a specific improvement, gap, or change identified for a Business Capability through the assessment process.
Capability Deltas. The Capability Delta resides in the Business Capability Workspace and is created with the Strategy to Execution solution: A Capability Delta represents a change to a Capability. Usually, that is a gap or improvement for an existing capability.
Are created based on high exposure quality gaps identified in assessments
Document specific improvements needed to address quality concerns
Link to capabilities they will improve (via "Depends on" reference from capability)
Link to initiatives that will realize the improvements (via "Realizes" reference from initiatives)
Have temporal relevance tied to the initiatives that deliver them
Capability Deltas serve as the bridge between assessment findings and execution, ensuring quality concerns translate into concrete improvement actions such as Initiatives in the Strategy to Execution solution
Lifecycle of Capability Deltas:
Creation: During or after assessment, high-priority quality gaps (exposure 15+) are translated into capability deltas
Planning: Deltas are connected to initiatives through Strategy to Execution
Active: Deltas remain active while related initiatives are in progress
Completion: When initiatives complete, capability maturity is updated, and deltas are archived
Capability Delta Field
Field | Field Type | Description |
PPTD Category | List (People, Process, Technology, Data) | The quality requirement that the Capability Delta addresses |
Roadmap and Timeline Considerations
The Capability Based Planning solution does not provide a standalone roadmap capability. Roadmap visualization is delivered through the Strategy to Execution solution, where Initiative components contain the date fields (Start Date, End Date) required for timeline planning and sequencing. Checkout the Strategy to Execution Capability Delta Presesntation for examples of Capability based roadmaps.
Active Period Calculation
The Capability Delta component includes an Active Period field (Date Range type) that is calculated from the connected Initiative components with reference type Realizes. This takes the first start date and the last completion date from the referenced initiatives. This calculation requires:
A Realizes reference from an initiative to the Capability Delta
Valid date fields populated on the Initiative component
When this reference exists, the Active Period field automatically inherits timing from the strategic planning cycle, ensuring delta timelines remain synchronized with objective horizons.
Reference Requirement
Reference | Source | Target | Purpose |
Realizes | Initiative | Capability Delta | Enables Active Period calculation |
Capability Delta References
Reference | Source | Target | Description |
Is Impacted By | Business Capability | Capability Delta | Links a capability to the deltas that will improve it |
Realizes | Initiative | Capability Delta | Links an initiative to the delta(s) it will deliver (from Strategy to Execution) |
Refers To | Capability Health Check | Capability Delta | Links an assessment to the deltas created from its findings |
Depends on | Objective | Capability Delta | Links the Objective to the Capability Delta |
The Realizes reference from initiatives automatically populates the Active Period field on the Capability Delta, ensuring dates remain synchronized with execution timelines.
People Workspace
The People workspace identifies experts who participate in capability assessments and own improvement initiatives.
Person Component Type
The Person component represents individuals within the organization. For the Capability Health Check, Person components are used to identify:
Capability Experts: Individuals with expertise in specific PPTD dimensions for a capability
Assessment Participants: Stakeholders who contribute to workshop evaluations
Initiative Owners: Individuals responsible for delivering capability improvements
Initiative Assignee: Individuals who are assigned to the initiative
For complete information about modeling people, refer to Modeling People, Roles and Relationships in Ardoq.
Person References
Reference | Source | Target | Description |
Owns | Person | Initiative | Identifies the individual responsible for delivering an initiative (from Strategy to Execution) |
Extensibility and Customization
The Capability Health Check metamodel can be extended to support organization specific requirements. In this solution we have focussed on the PPTD quality model as we feel it is a good fit for a high level assessment of Business Capabilities. Other models can be used of course.
Consider Lite Assessment When: | Consider Full Assessment When: |
Assessing multiple capabilities to prioritize attention | Detailed diagnosis of specific capability needed |
Time or stakeholder availability is limited | Half-day workshop time is available |
Initial screening or regular monitoring | Preparing for significant investment or transformation |
Building assessment capability/momentum | Specific, actionable deltas are required |
Quick directional guidance is sufficient | Stakeholders need precise understanding of gaps |
Starting capability assessment practice | Mature capability management practice exists |
Adding Custom Quality Requirements
Organizations can extend beyond the standard PPTD 16 requirements:
Process:
Add new Quality Model Requirement components to the appropriate dimension
Ensure Component Level and Model Name calculations still function
Update assessment surveys to include new requirements
Document custom requirement definitions for consistency
Alternative Scoring Scales
Organizations using different maturity frameworks can adapt scoring:
Customization Options
Change Importance/Concern scales (e.g., 1-3 or 1-7)
Modify exposure calculation formula
Adjust prioritization thresholds
Add qualitative scoring dimensions
Integration with External Tools
The metamodel supports integration with external assessment tools:
Integration Patterns
Import assessment results via Excel or API
Export exposure rankings for portfolio management tools
Synchronize deltas with project management systems
Connect to balanced scorecard or OKR ( Objectives and Key results) platforms that connect organizational objectives to measurable key results, enabling strategic alignment and progress tracking across teams