---
title: Contextualize, don't transform — map first, evolve second
pageKind: stance
status: published
abstract: Standards adoption that frames itself as transformation gets rejected. Frame it as contextualization — "how is our operating model the same or different from the standard?" — and adoption follows.
sources:
  - articles/open-group-2017-managing-business-of-it
---

## The position

When introducing `[[entities/it4it]]`, TOGAF, ArchiMate, `[[entities/csdm]]`, or any other standard to an organisation that already runs, **frame the work as contextualization, not transformation**. The question is: *"How is our current operating model the same or different from the standard?"*

Adoption follows mapping. Transformation follows adoption. Skip the first step and the second never lands.

## Why

Executives reach their position by experience with what works. Introducing a "new framework" feels like a threat to that experience — it implies the current operating model is wrong, which implicates the people who built it. Resistance is rational.

Contextualization side-steps the threat. It says: your operating model exists; it works; let&#39;s name it in the standard&#39;s vocabulary so we can compare. Where the standard adds value, you adopt it deliberately. Where your current model is already strong, you keep it. The standard becomes a tool, not a verdict.

This was the lesson that landed in the 2017 IT4IT executive-adoption work. The phrase: *"I like to use the word &#39;contextualize,&#39; and the way I view the challenge is that if I contextualize our current operating model against IT4IT, how are we the same or different?"*

The same framing applies to every cross-framework adoption I&#39;ve led since.

## When this applies

- Introducing any standard (IT4IT, TOGAF, CSDM, ArchiMate, BIAN) to an operating organisation.
- Cross-framework reconciliation work (e.g., mapping existing ITIL processes onto IT4IT value streams).
- Strategic planning where you want executives to engage with a model they didn&#39;t design.

## When it doesn&#39;t

- Greenfield. There&#39;s nothing to contextualize *against*; pick a standard and build to it.
- Compliance-driven adoption where the standard is mandatory. Contextualization is still useful internally, but the framing externally is different.

## Heuristics derived from this stance

- `[[heuristics/contextualize-before-transforming]]` — the mechanic.
- `[[heuristics/find-at-least-one-champion]]` — without a champion, the contextualization conversation doesn&#39;t start.
- `[[heuristics/pitch-simple-adjust-per-audience]]` — language matters; pick the right framing per audience.

## See also

- Stance: `[[stances/it4it-is-substrate]]` — the standard most often being contextualized.
- Entity: `[[entities/it4it]]`
- Raw source: `[raw-sources/articles/open-group-2017-managing-business-of-it](../../raw-sources/articles/open-group-2017-managing-business-of-it.md)`
