CBA (Other exams): Merger Capability Heat Map Under a 45-Day Deadline

The team should not heat-map either existing model directly. A heat map compares capabilities on common criteria, so inconsistent definitions would make ratings uninterpretable. The practical first step is to establish a thin common reference model at level 2, using the vendor model only as a reference rather than a replacement. Map each bank's capabilities to that reference through definition-based workshops, not name matching. For each apparent overlap, test whether the capability is the same 'what' independent of organization and process; if fraud detection means transaction monitoring in one bank and application screening in the other, split or clarify it. Timebox reconciliation to the capabilities that matter to the integration's first 90 days: customer onboarding, fraud controls, payments, and account servicing. Publish a decision log so unresolved definitions do not reopen. Then rate the common capabilities for customer impact, regulatory risk, cost, and migration difficulty. The reasoning is that a heat map is only decision-useful when the unit of analysis is stable and shared; otherwise the 45-day deadline produces a visually convincing but politically contestable artifact.

Value stream analysis should define the scope of the heat map rather than follow it. Build a simple value stream crossing map for customer onboarding from application to funded account, using both banks' stage models as input. Decompose the stages into value items: application data captured, identity verified, fraud risk assessed, account opened, funds available. Then overlay which capabilities enable each stage and where the two banks perform the same stage differently. This exposes whether duplication matters: two fraud-detection capabilities may be harmless redundancy if they sit at different stages, but dangerous if both must operate during migration and neither has clear ownership. Prioritize stages where customer disruption and regulatory exposure intersect, especially fraud controls and account activation. Use the heat map to compare capability health at those stages, not across the entire 220-capability inventory. The trade-off is breadth versus decision quality: a narrow, value-stream-anchored heat map will support the 45-day investment decision; a bank-wide map will not be trusted in time.

Establish a small architecture decision forum with named decision rights, not a consensus body. The forum should include the chief architect, one business representative from each bank, and the integration PMO lead. It owns the common capability reference model and the heat-map criteria; it does not own every definition. Set a rule that unresolved definitions are logged, assigned an owner, and default to the broader capability until evidence supports splitting. Use timeboxed workshops with pre-circulated definitions. Require each disputed capability to be argued with a value stream example, not organizational preference. Escalate only decisions that change investment priority or regulatory control. Publish decisions and their rationale in a lightweight decision register so the PMO can trace them. The reasoning is that taxonomy conflicts are usually authority conflicts in disguise; a forum with explicit rights and a default rule converts them into time-bound decisions. The risk is that the forum becomes a debating society, so the PMO must enforce dates and the chief architect must be able to call a decision.