# Tiger AI Methodology Alignment with Industry Frameworks

> 🌐 Language: [繁體中文](INDUSTRY_FRAMEWORK_ALIGNMENT.md) ｜ English ｜ [Deutsch](INDUSTRY_FRAMEWORK_ALIGNMENT_DE.md) ｜ [Français](INDUSTRY_FRAMEWORK_ALIGNMENT_FR.md) ｜ [Español](INDUSTRY_FRAMEWORK_ALIGNMENT_ES.md) ｜ [日本語](INDUSTRY_FRAMEWORK_ALIGNMENT_JA.md) ｜ [한국어](INDUSTRY_FRAMEWORK_ALIGNMENT_KR.md)
>
> Apache License 2.0 · Author: Morris Lu · Tiger AI

Last updated: 2026-05-15

---

> **What this answers**: How does Tiger AI methodology relate to mainstream consulting firms (McKinsey / BCG / Bain / Deloitte / Accenture / PwC), academic schools (Rosemann BPM / CMMI / APQC / SCOR / TOGAF / Dragon1), and AI maturity frameworks (Gartner / MIT / MMC / Forrester)? What do we duplicate, complete, or innovate?
>
> **Core stance**: Tiger AI is not reinventing the wheel but **integrating mainstream tools, completing the industry closed loop, and adding GenAI-era essentials**. All cited frameworks are detailed in [`../03_Consulting_Report/CONSULTING_FRAMEWORKS_LIBRARY_EN.md`](../03_Consulting_Report/CONSULTING_FRAMEWORKS_LIBRARY_EN.md); this doc maps across firms.

---

## 1. Why This Alignment Matters

| Audience | What they get |
| --- | --- |
| Large enterprise IT/CIO | "This methodology is compatible with our existing TOGAF / ITIL / APQC" |
| Consultants from other firms | "I came from BCG/Deloitte — I see which tools I keep using and which are Tiger AI specific" |
| Academic reviewers | "Tiger AI isn't fringe science — it stands on Rosemann/CMMI/APQC schools' shoulders" |
| Regulators | "Cited standards are internationally recognized; AI governance maps to existing GRC frameworks" |
| Client executives | "What we pay for is industry best + GenAI-era completion, not any single firm's proprietary method" |

---

## 2. Eight Stages vs. Mainstream Consulting Firms

### 2.1 Cross-Firm Alignment Table

| Stage | Tiger AI | McKinsey | BCG | Bain | Deloitte | Accenture | PwC |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **1 As-Is Snapshot** | 40-Q interview + Inventory + Swimlane | 7-Step Step 1: Define Problem | Diagnostic Survey | Customer / Process Diagnostics | Business Architecture Discovery | Living Business Diagnostic | Value Creation Diagnostic |
| **2 Reference Model** | APQC + Tiger AI L1-L5 + 4-layer | (rarely done) | Capability Maturity Map | (non-core) | TOGAF Capability Assessment | Industry Reference Architecture | Capability Framework |
| **3 Best Practice → Ideal** | Benchmark + Ideal Practice Workshop | Best Practice Research | Strategic Position vs Industry | NPS / Customer Loyalty | Industry Pulse | Industry Benchmarking | Industry Outlook |
| **4 Gap Analysis** | M/B/R + Impact×Effort | Issue Tree + MECE | Importance-Performance Map | Pareto + Lean | Capability Gap Heatmap | Maturity Gap Analysis | Gap Map |
| **5 Problem Definition** | 80/20 + 5 Whys + EPS | Day-1 + SCQ + Pyramid | Strategic Diagnosis | Bain Question Pyramid | Hypothesis-Driven | Outcome-Driven | Issue-Tree Synthesis |
| **6 Phased Goals** | Phased + Absorption | Workplan + Critical Path | Phased Transformation | Bain Way Multi-phase | Imagine-Deliver-Run | Wave Planning | Transformation Wave |
| **7 To-Be Design** | Phased To-Be + Human-AI | To-Be Operating Model | Operating Model Design | Bain Way (Org) | Target Operating Model | Future-State Blueprint | Future Operating Model |
| **8 Implementation & Change** | Roadmap + Change + Value Tracking | Influence Model + 7S | Smart Simplicity | Bain Results Delivery | Diamond Performance | Wired for Change | Project Delivery |

### 2.2 What Each Firm Contributes

- **McKinsey** MECE / Pyramid / Issue Tree **are sources for Tiger AI Stage 4-5 tools** (in Frameworks Library)
- **BCG** Capability Maturity thinking **inspires Tiger AI Stage 2 RM scoring**
- **Bain** Customer / Process Diagnostics **complement Tiger AI Stage 1 interview bank**
- **Deloitte** Imagine-Deliver-Run **highly aligns with Tiger AI Stage 6 three-phase**
- **Accenture** Wave Planning **consistent with Tiger AI Phase 1/2/3**
- **PwC** Value Creation Diagnostic **maps to Tiger AI Stage 8 value tracking**

> **Conclusion**: None of the 8 stages is a Tiger AI "invention." **Innovation lies in integrating these scattered tools into a complete reasoning chain with data dependencies, client signatures, and closed-loop falsification**.

---

## 3. Reference Model School Alignment

### 3.1 Tiger AI 4 Layers vs. Major EA Frameworks

| Layer | Tiger AI | Dragon1 EA | TOGAF ADM | Zachman | ArchiMate |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **L1 Governance** | AI Governance | Enterprise Governance | (Architecture Vision) | Scope | Motivation + Strategy |
| **L2 Business** | AI Business (L1-L5 here) | Business(es) | Business Architecture (B) | Business | Business Layer |
| **L3 Information** | AI Information | Information Facilities & Systems | Data + Application (C+D) | System | Application + Information |
| **L4 Technical** | AI Technical | IT Infrastructure(s) | Technology (E) | Technology | Technology + Implementation |

**Why this alignment**: all mainstream EA frameworks converge on "**4 abstraction layers**" — not coincidence but a necessary result of the "abstraction × volatility" scientific axis (see [`METHODOLOGY_SCIENTIFIC_LOGIC_EN.md`](METHODOLOGY_SCIENTIFIC_LOGIC_EN.md) §5).

### 3.2 Process Reference Model Alignment

| Use case | Tiger AI recommends | APQC PCF | SCOR | eTOM | ITIL | CMMI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Cross-industry processes** | APQC PCF (default) | ✓ 13 Cat | — | — | — | — |
| **Supply chain / mfg** | SCOR | — | ✓ 6 sections | — | — | — |
| **Telecom / subscription** | eTOM | — | — | ✓ 3 levels | — | — |
| **IT service mgmt** | ITIL | — | — | — | ✓ 5 phases | — |
| **Software maturity** | CMMI | — | — | — | — | ✓ 5 levels |
| **AI adoption maturity** | **Tiger AI L1-L5 (DIY, fills industry gap)** | — | — | — | — | — |

> **No existing industry RM covers AI adoption** — hence the necessity of Tiger AI L1-L5, self-qualified at Tool 2.5 score 9/10.

### 3.3 BPM Maturity School Roots

| Concept | Source | Tiger AI mapping |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability Maturity Levels (5-tier scale) | **Rosemann BPM Maturity** (QUT) + CMMI | Stage 2 0-4 scoring, Tiger AI L1-L5 |
| Process Excellence Characteristics | Rosemann + APQC | Stage 3 Excellence Capability Profile |
| Stage Gates | CMMI + Rosemann | Stage 6 acceptance gates |
| Organizational Absorption | Rosemann (emerging research) | Tool 6.3 Absorption Assessment |

> **Acknowledgment**: Prof. Michael Rosemann (QUT) is the author's master's advisor; this methodology's BPM school roots come directly from his long-term mentorship.

---

## 4. AI Maturity Framework Alignment

### 4.1 Major AI Maturity Frameworks Mapped

| Framework | Levels | Tiger AI L1-L5 mapping |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Gartner AI Maturity Model** | Awareness / Active / Operational / Systemic / Transformational | L1 / L1+L2 / L3 / L4 / L5 |
| **MIT Sloan AI Capability** | Experimenters / Investigators / Pioneers / Empowerment | L1-L2 / L2-L3 / L3-L4 / L5 |
| **McKinsey AI Quotient (AIQ)** | (continuous scale, 4 drivers) | Maps to Tiger AI six-dimension radar |
| **Capgemini DELTA Maturity** | Data / Enterprise / Leadership / Targets / Analysts | Maps to governance + deployment axis |
| **Forrester AI Pulse Index** | (3 rings: People / Process / Tech) | Maps to Tiger AI 4-layer architecture |
| **Tiger AI L1-L5** | L1 Chat / L2 Skill / L3 Workflow / L4 Auto Agent / L5 Agent Team | (**Scale axis L1-L3 + AI-autonomy axis L4-L5**) |

### 4.2 Tiger AI L1-L5's Additions to Mainstream

| Addition | Why industry lacks it | Tiger AI fills it |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Explicit tool mapping** | Gartner/MIT describe levels abstractly, no tool landing | L1=OpenWebUI, L2=Antigravity, L3=n8n, L4=Hermes, L5=ClawTeam |
| **Scale axis separated from autonomy axis** | Industry mixes them, blurring L4-L5 | Scale (human-led) vs Autonomy (AI-led), critical boundary L3→L4 |
| **GenAI specific (not traditional ML)** | Most frameworks stuck on traditional ML / predictive models | Fully focused on LLM / Agent / Workflow paradigm |
| **Verifiable stage acceptance** | Industry frameworks mostly self-assessment scales | Every level has Stage Gate Criteria, independently verifiable |
| **Cross-RM dual coordinates** | Industry frameworks single-axis | Tiger AI orthogonal to industry RM (APQC/SCOR), dual radar |

---

## 5. Classic Analytical Tools Alignment

Detailed in [`../03_Consulting_Report/CONSULTING_FRAMEWORKS_LIBRARY_EN.md`](../03_Consulting_Report/CONSULTING_FRAMEWORKS_LIBRARY_EN.md). Summary:

### 5.1 Strategy Tools

Porter's 5 Forces (Stage 3), PESTEL (Stage 3), BCG Growth-Share (Stage 3), SWOT (Stage 3/4), Blue Ocean (Stage 7), Wardley Map (Stage 6/7).

### 5.2 Problem Analysis Tools

MECE (Stage 2/4), Issue Tree (Stage 4/5), Pyramid Principle (Stage 5), SCQ (Stage 5), 5 Whys (Stage 5), Fishbone (Stage 4/5), Hypothesis-Driven (Stage 1-5), 80/20 (Stage 5).

### 5.3 Change Management Tools

Kotter 8 Steps (Stage 8), ADKAR (Stage 8), Stakeholder Map (Stage 8), RACI (Stage 8), Influence Model (Stage 8), 7S (Stage 2/8).

### 5.4 Financial / ROI Tools

NPV/IRR (Stage 8), Payback (Stage 8), Break-Even (Stage 8), Sensitivity Analysis (Stage 8), Balanced Scorecard (Stage 8), OKR (Stage 6/8).

---

## 6. Tiger AI Unique / Innovative Elements

Most tools come from industry, but Tiger AI has these **unique integrations or innovations**:

| Innovation | Why industry lacks it | Tiger AI design |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Tiger AI L1-L5 GenAI Adoption RM** | Industry RMs still on IT / traditional ML | First RM designed specifically for LLM/Agent/Workflow, meets Tool 2.5 10 conditions 9/10 |
| **Client Ideal Practice Co-Creation Workshop** | Industry does Best Practice benchmarking but rarely client-signed Ideal | Tool 3.6: client **signs themselves**, cannot deny later reasoning |
| **Cases-as-Benchmarks 9-Field Format** | Industry cases mostly narrative, no gap computation | Tool 3.5: cases mandatorily have 9 fields, client self-computes gap in 30 min |
| **Quarterly Stage 2 Radar Loopback** | Industry Roadmaps mostly linear, no self-falsification mechanism | Phase C every quarter Gate C must revisit radar, verify structure actually rounder |
| **3-Phase Contract Model + Gate A/B/C Exits** | Industry mostly fixed-scope large contracts | Phase A diagnostic / Phase B strategy / Phase C implementation, client phases decisions |
| **Scale axis vs AI-autonomy axis orthogonal** | Industry mixes on one axis | L1-L3 scale + L4-L5 autonomy, critical L3→L4 boundary |
| **4-Layer RM × L1-L5 dual coordinates** | Industry single-axis (either RM or maturity) | Tiger AI mandates dual-axis cross mapping |
| **HITL nodes explicit per Process** | Industry talks governance, rarely specifies HITL location | Tool 7.2 every process explicitly marked with HITL node + acceptance criteria |

---

## 7. Common Client Question: Does This Conflict with Our Methodology?

### 7.1 Client uses TOGAF / Zachman

**No conflict**. Tiger AI 4 layers **align directly with TOGAF BDAT** (Business/Data/Application/Technology). Say: "We build on your existing TOGAF architecture, adding the GenAI adoption dimension (L1-L5) and quarterly radar closed loop."

### 7.2 Client uses ITIL

**No conflict**. Tiger AI Stage 8 Audit Log / Permission Matrix / Risk Register connects directly to ITIL Service Operation. Say: "We supplement GenAI-specific LLM call logs, Reviewer simulation, Skill version governance."

### 7.3 Client uses CMMI

**No conflict**. Tiger AI L1-L5 and CMMI 5 levels **are kin** — both maturity capability school extensions. Say: "CMMI for AI is an emerging direction; Tiger AI L1-L5 is one landing version."

### 7.4 Client uses BCG / McKinsey / Bain internal frameworks

**No conflict, mutual reinforcement**. Tiger AI cites these firms' core tools (Issue Tree, MECE, Pyramid, Bain Way). Say: "We don't replace your strategic consulting methodology; we add the GenAI adoption closed loop and 4-layer Reference Model."

### 7.5 Client uses Gartner / Forrester AI Maturity

**No conflict, more concrete**. Tiger AI L1-L5 has **more concrete landing tools** than Gartner's 5 levels (L1=OpenWebUI, etc.). Say: "Gartner says 'Operational AI'; we say 'n8n Workflow 3 live + Reviewer sign-off rate 95%'."

---

## 8. Academic Citation Alignment

Citations in respective file References. Selected:

### 8.1 BPM / Maturity School

- Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T. (2005). *Towards a Business Process Management Maturity Model*. QUT. **(Core theoretical root)**
- Paulk, M. et al. (1993). *Capability Maturity Model for Software*. CMU/SEI.
- Curtis, B. et al. (2009). *People CMM*.

### 8.2 Reference Model / Enterprise Architecture

- APQC (2024). *Process Classification Framework Version 7.3*.
- APICS / ASCM. *SCOR Reference Model*.
- TM Forum. *eTOM Business Process Framework*.
- ISACA. *COBIT / ITIL Framework*.
- The Open Group. *TOGAF Standard 9.2*.
- Zachman, J. *Zachman Framework*.
- Dragon1. *Enterprise Architecture Reference Model*.

### 8.3 Consulting Methodologies

- Minto, B. (2009). *The Pyramid Principle*.
- Rasiel, E. (1999). *The McKinsey Way*.
- Bain & Company. *Bain Way / Results Delivery*.
- Iansiti, M., Lakhani, K. (2020). *Competing in the Age of AI*.

### 8.4 Change Management

- Kotter, J. (1996). *Leading Change*.
- Hiatt, J. (2006). *ADKAR*. Prosci.
- Mendelow, A. (1991). *Stakeholder Mapping*.

### 8.5 GenAI Strategy

- Gartner. *AI Maturity Model*.
- Davenport, T., Mittal, N. (2022). *All-in on AI*.
- Brynjolfsson, E., McAfee, A. (2014). *The Second Machine Age*.

---

## 9. Closing: Standing on Giants' Shoulders + Completing the Industry Closed Loop

Tiger AI methodology design philosophy:

1. **No reinventing wheels**: strategy analysis (McKinsey), change mgmt (Kotter), financial tools (NPV/IRR), EA frameworks (TOGAF/Dragon1) — use the best of industry
2. **Integration + closed loop**: tie scattered tools into a complete reasoning chain with data dependencies, client signatures, and falsification mechanisms
3. **Fill GenAI gaps**: industry frameworks haven't caught up with LLM/Agent/Workflow era → Tiger AI L1-L5 + 4-layer + Cases-as-Benchmarks + HITL design fills it
4. **Reproducible by others**: Apache 2.0 + GitHub + clear academic citations → not any firm's private asset

> **This is the meaning of "standing on giants' shoulders + completing the industry closed loop"** — what clients buy is industry-best integration + GenAI-era completion, not any single firm's proprietary method.

---

## 10. Related Documents

| Document | Relationship |
| --- | --- |
| [`METHODOLOGY_SCIENTIFIC_LOGIC_EN.md`](METHODOLOGY_SCIENTIFIC_LOGIC_EN.md) §8 | Compact version of this doc §2 (vs McKinsey/BCG/Gartner/MIT) |
| [`EIGHT_STAGE_FLOW_STORY_EN.md`](EIGHT_STAGE_FLOW_STORY_EN.md) | How the 8 stages actually run in a real engagement |
| [`../03_Consulting_Report/CONSULTING_FRAMEWORKS_LIBRARY_EN.md`](../03_Consulting_Report/CONSULTING_FRAMEWORKS_LIBRARY_EN.md) | 50+ frameworks detailed (this doc = alignment map; that file = framework dictionary) |
| [`../03_Consulting_Report/CONSULTING_TOOLKIT_TEMPLATES_EN.md`](../03_Consulting_Report/CONSULTING_TOOLKIT_TEMPLATES_EN.md) | Per-stage tool tables |

---

License & Citation

This document is Apache License 2.0; may be used, modified, commercialized, provided the [`../NOTICE`](../NOTICE) attribution is preserved.
