Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making Use of the Capability and Process Concepts – A Structured Comparison Method

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Perspectives in Business Informatics Research (BIR 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 398))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 734 Accesses

Abstract

There are discussions in the business architecture, enterprise architecture, process management, and IT communities regarding the relation between the concepts of capability and processes, their similarities and differences. Some practitioners claim that capability and processes are the same concept while other emphasize the differences. In this paper, we present a method that generates an explanatory model of the similarities and differences between the two concepts. To demonstrate the method, we apply the method to well-known definitions of both concepts. The aim of this paper is to present a pragmatic method that enables explanations of differences between the two concepts of process and capability and thereby support comparative discussions by business modelers, enterprise analysts and architecture framework designers. Besides explaining the differences between the two concepts the explanatory model highlights the particular benefits of using the capability concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. APQC: APQC’s Process Classification Framework. https://www.apqc.org/process-performance-management/process-frameworks

  2. Smith, B., Grenon, P.: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/bfo

  3. Javidan, M.: Core competence: what does it mean in practice? Long Range Plann. 31, 60–71 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grabis, J., et al.: D5.3 The final version of Capability Driven Development methodology, pp. 1–267 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dugan, L.: Business Architecture and BPM - Differentiation and Reconciliation. Business Architecture Guild (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. ISO/IEC, IEEE: ISO/IEC 42010:2011 Systems and software engineering — Architecture description (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9.1 - The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dowty, D.: Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sowa, J.F.: Theories, Models, Reasoning, Language, and Truth. http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/theories.htm

  10. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Logic of Belief Revision. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-belief-revision/

  12. Gruninger, M., Hahmann, T., Hashemi, A., Ong, D., Ozgovde, A.: Modular first-order ontologies via repositories. Appl. Ontol. 7, 169–209 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Object Management Group: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) v1.3. https://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.3

  14. ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 24707:2007 Common Logic (CL): a framework for a family of logic based languages (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inf. Syst. 3, 217–237 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith, B., Ceusters, W.: Ontological realism: a methodology for coordinated evolution of scientific ontologies. Appl. Ontol. 5, 139–188 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tell, A.W., Henkel, M., Perjons, E.: A method for situating capability viewpoints. In: Řepa, V., Bruckner, T. (eds.) BIR 2016. LNBIP, vol. 261, pp. 278–293. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45321-7_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Tell, A.W.: What capability is not. In: Johansson, B., Andersson, B., Holmberg, N. (eds.) BIR 2014. LNBIP, vol. 194, pp. 128–142. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11370-8_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Tell, A.W.: Designing Situated Capability Viewpoints: adapting the general concept of capability to work practices (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Harmon, P.: Harmon on BPM: Processes and Capabilities. https://www.bptrends.com/processes-and-capabilities/

  21. Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation. Harper Collins, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Helfat, C.E., Peteraf, M.A.: The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg. Manag. J. 24, 997–1010 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Serra, C.E.M., Kunc, M.: Benefits Realisation Management and its influence on project success and on the execution of business strategies. Int. J. Project Manage. 33, 53–66 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Smither, J.W., London, M. (eds.): Performance Management. Jossey-Bass, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Anders W. Tell & Martin Henkel

Authors
  1. Anders W. Tell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Henkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders W. Tell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca, Romania

    Robert Andrei Buchmann

  2. University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy

    Andrea Polini

  3. Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Björn Johansson

  4. University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Dimitris Karagiannis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Tell, A.W., Henkel, M. (2020). Making Use of the Capability and Process Concepts – A Structured Comparison Method. In: Buchmann, R.A., Polini, A., Johansson, B., Karagiannis, D. (eds) Perspectives in Business Informatics Research. BIR 2020. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 398. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61140-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61140-8_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-61139-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-61140-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation