TBM Framework & Taxonomy

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.

I was recently asked about how the TBM Taxonomy compares to ServiceNow's Common Service Data Model (CSDM). I am sharing my response here. It is a limited response, but should provide a high-level understanding of how the two relate.

Note that ServiceNow defines CDSM as "is a standard and consistent set of terms and definitions that span and can be used with all ServiceNow® products on the Now Platform®." As such, it is specific to ServiceNow's products and they do not propose it to be an industry standard, which is how we describe the TBM Taxonomy. (Obviously, Apptio incorporates the TBM Taxonomy into the Apptio TBM Unified Model, or ATUM™, which includes additional proprietary elements such as data definitions, report definitions and allocation logic, among others. But TBM Taxonomy is also used by the US Federal Government, state governments in various countries, and other entities who may not be using Apptio's products.)

There is a lot in common between TBM Taxonomy and CSDM.  Specifically, Taxonomy v4.0 includes and describes the following elements that are included in CSDM 3.0: 

• Business Capability, which would be synonymous with our Business Capability under Business Architecture (along with Business Process).

• Business Application, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Application, which comes in Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Applications" per CSDM

• Business Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Business, Workplace, and Shared & Corporate, all of which could be considered "Business Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Business Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

• Technical Service, synonymous to what we refer to via Solution Class of Service, which comes in a Types for Delivery, Infrastructure, and Platform, all of which could be considered "Technical Services" per CSDM

• Note: CSDM Technical Service Offering would be synonymous to our Offering layer underneath Solutions (which include a type for Service)

The TBM Taxonomy does not specifically include:

• Configuration Item (CI), which does not appear anywhere in the TBM Taxonomy but would be used in TBM models where appropriate.

• Service Portfolio, which is not defined in the TBM Taxonomy but which we define in our framework/book/education as including the service pipeline (services in development), catalog (those available for consumption today) and retired (end of life, but often owned and maintained for compliance, archival or other reasons). We also recognize that portfolios come in various flavors, including product portfolios, project portfolios, portfolios of value streams, and more.

Finally, note that CSDM does not define a taxonomy of specific categories or examples and is not designed for TBM or service costing purposes. While it shows the data relationships of the aforementioned objects, it does not appear to support a consumptive model, like we have with TBM models in Apptio (and supported by the TBM Taxonomy and ATUM).

We believe that CSDM and TBM Taxonomy are complementary but designed to support different outcomes. If you use both, we'd love to hear how the two are working together and/or where there is conflict or a lack of clarity.