I am exploring the options I have for modelling business capabilities. Mega has this concept, but I was expecting relationships to other objects such as Application, but I dont see those. I wanted to create a simple model along the lines of this Business Capability - eg Manage Finance needs these applications, these databases and these processes and these org units. Anyone attempted anything similar?
I hope you're well.
For you "Capability" is not the correct object to use. Instead, you're looking at a skill or ability within the organisation so you should use Business Function. If you then wish to describe how that skill or ability matures or has an incresed "delivery level" then you use Capability.
The MEGA definition of "Capability" is very specific and based strongly on the military definition (as defined by DoDAF/MODAF/NAF) and its defining feature is its ability to have a lifecycle. You can therefore model statements such as "We will provide Ability A to Service Level1 until June 2016" , "We will provide Ability A to transitionary Service Level 1.1 from June 2016 until September 2016" and "we will provide Ability A to Service Level 2 from September 2016 onwards" where "Ability A" is your Business Function.
Naturally, Sue can help you with this in more detail.
Hope that helps,
Thanks Alan, that is useful and certainly looking at the 'Connect' menu, I can connect the kinds of things I would want to. What I am a bit confused about is that it appears that Business Function can also be used as though it were an Actor in a Functional Process diagram by virtue of you being able to place it a the head of a swimlane?
Sorry for the late reply but I feel strongly that Capability modelling is an area in which Mega is quite weak and has over complicated matters (too many objects that are quite cryptically and indirectly connected); don't worry it is probably due to the fact that there are so many differing opinions as to the meaning of Capability in the World at large.
In the examples given, you couple an "ability to do something" with a date or time period. The "ability to do something" is effectively a business service (a promise to deliver or achieve something to an agreed contract) plus a means to achieve that something. The business service is achieved using a process (which naturally may interact with other processes) and application(s), depending upon how much of the delivery is automated.The business service is effectively an interface into the organisational system (not IT application!!) internals, an endpoint if you will. The functionality represents a change to a representation of the information behind the service (formally linked to a change in the system's information model if you want to get that strict).
A capability is therefore a relationship between (or grouping of) business service, process, application and functionality.
The date / lifecycle aspect then naturally captures the improvement of the set of services in a capability over a planned transformation. E.g. a capability transformation corresponds to either the improvement of a currently offered service (enhancement of its contract - e.g. quicker, more reliable, fewer faults etc.) or introduction of a new service. Rarely (as most organisations have a fairly static capability landscape, although their service levels are under continuous improvement) we see a new capability being introduced, which is effectively equivalent to offering additional services and the means to deliver them. Capabilities exist whether or not a project exists to change them.
This description is very simple, requiring few concepts that work at any level granularity. I claim it requires more concepts and relationships in Mega to model the same thing.
Ps. this is not TOGAF or Archimate, which also get it wrong.
Hi Simon Bates,
Did you succeed to map your Business Capabilities using Mega?
We are also looking at the Business Capability Modeling concept (more specifically the way Gartner Group explains it). I also noticed that Mega Capabilities does not lead to the same concept, so what did you use at the end? Business functions, processes?
We don't want to map the whole process at this point, so we would like to be able to document things like:
- Capability Level 1
- Capability Level 2
Then be able to link applications or other element to the capabilities.
Here are Examples of Capacity in Gartner Group way of explaining it:
-Procure Raw Material
- Manage Suppliers
- Determine Demand
- Manage Inventory
- Process Material
- Determine Demand
- Develop Product
- Determine Capacity
I know these capacity would explode into a Process, but for now, we just want a higher level information.
Thanks for your input.
We are still looking. But this is becoming a higher priority for us this year, so I would hope that I can navigate a way through with Mega help. Will report back.
Thanks Simon for the tip about Capability vs. Business Function. However, when modeling using Hopex for TOGAF, the TOGAF Businees Footprint Diagram does not allows to place BF, only C. This seams to contradict your recomendation. What am I missing?
Hi Simon Bureau,
please tell me if you finally succeded modeling Business Capabilities using Mega. For me, besides the Capability hierarchy, I also need to represent within the diagrman the relations the Capabilities had with it Objectives, Requirements, Risk, etc. Do you know how to do this. Here I attach an example diagram from another EA tool.