Advertisement

Capability Thinking

  • Kurt SandkuhlEmail author
  • Janis Stirna
Chapter

Abstract

Capability thinking characterizes an organizational mindset. It puts capabilities in focus of the business model and information systems development. Capability thinking is expected to help organizations and in particular digital enterprises increase flexibility and agility in adapting to changes in their economic and regulatory environments. Capability management denotes the principles and organizational means of how capability thinking should be implemented in an organization. This book is devoted to capability management in digital enterprises, and the capability-driven development (CDD) methodology in particular. This chapter introduces the basic principles of capability thinking, such as the business needs for context-dependent and adaptable business solutions, key aspects of capability thinking, capability management life cycle, and the principle of method component used to structure the CDD methodology. The chapter is rounded up with a presentation of the rest of chapters in this book.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berzisa, S., Bravos, G., Gonzalez, T., Czubayko, U., España, S., Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Jokste, L., Kampars, J., Koç, H., Kuhr, J., Llorca, C., Loucopoulos, P., Juanes, R., Pastor, O., Sandkuhl, K., Simic, H., Stirna, J., Valverde, F., Zdravkovic, J.: Capability driven development: an approach to designing digital enterprises. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 57(1), 15–25 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haki, K., Aier, S., Winter, R.: A stakeholder perspective to study enterprise-wide IS initiatives. In: 24th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Association for Information Systems (AIS) Electronic Library (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seigerroth, U.: Enterprise modeling and enterprise architecture: the constituents of transformation and alignment of Business and IT. Int. J. IT/Bus. Align. Govern. (IJITBAG) 2(1), 16–34 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashkenas, R., Siegal, W., Spiegel, M.: Mastering organizational complexity: a core competence for 21st century leaders. In: Shani, A., Pasmore, W., Woodman, R., Noumair, D. (eds.) Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 21, pp. 29–58. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zimmermann, A., Schmidt, R., Sandkuhl, K., Wißotzki, M., Jugel, D., Möhring, M.: Digital enterprise architecture-transformation for the internet of things. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW) 2015, pp. 130–138. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henning, K.: The Digital Enterprise. Random House, London (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hüttermann, M.: DevOps for Developers. Apress, Berkeley, CA (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winter, R.: Architectural thinking. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6(6), 361–364 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ross, J., Quaadgras, A.: Enterprise Architecture Is Not Just for Architects. Center for Information Systems Research Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method (The Enterprise Engineering Series). Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yu, E.: Models for supporting the redesign of organizational work. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems (COCS 1995). ACM Press, New York, pp. 226–236 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osterwalder, A.: The business model ontology – a proposition in a design science approach. PhD thesis, University of Lausanne (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pijpers, V., Gordijn, J.: e3forces: understanding strategies of networked e3value constellations by analyzing environmental forces. In: 19th International Conference on Advanced IS Engineering (CAiSE), LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9.1. The Open Group Online. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.html
  16. 16.
    UK Ministry of Defence: Proposed NAF v4 Meta-Model (MODEM). NATO Architecture Framework v4.0 Documentation (2013). http://nafdocs.org/modem
  17. 17.
    Brézillon, P., Cavalcanti, M.: Modeling and using context. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 13(2), 185–194 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koç, H., Hennig, E., Jastram, S., Starke, C.: State of the art in context modelling – a systematic literature review. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2014) Workshops, LNBIP, vol. 178, pp. 53–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strang, T., Linnhoff-Popien, C.: A context modeling survey. In: Workshop on Advanced Context Modelling, Reasoning and Management, UbiComp 2004 – The Sixth International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 31–41. DLR Electronic Library (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Dell, C., Grayson Jr., J., Essaides, N.: If only we knew what we know: the transfer of internal knowledge and best practice. The Free Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A., Aggestam, L.: Building knowledge repositories with enterprise modelling and patterns – from theory to practice. In: 14th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Association for Information Systems (AIS) Electronic Library (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Döhring, M., Reijers, H.A., Smirnov, S.: Configuration vs. adaptation for business process variant maintenance: an empirical study. Inf. Syst. 39, 108–133 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Capturing variability in business process models: the Provop approach. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. 22, 519–546 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Santos, E., Pimentel, J., Castro, J., Finkelstein, A.: On the dynamic configuration of business process models. In: Proceedings EMMSAD 2012 and BPMDS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 331–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alférez, G.H., Pelechano, V., Mazo, R., Salinesi, C., Diaz, D.: Dynamic adaptation of service compositions with variability models. J. Syst. Softw. 91, 24–47 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vandewoude, Y., Berbers, Y.: Run-time evolution for embedded component-oriented systems. In: Werner, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, Canada, pp. 242–245. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wils, A., Gorinsek, J., Van Baelen, S., Berbers, Y., De Vlaminck, K.: Flexible component contracts for local resource awareness. In: Bryce, C., Czajkowski, G. (eds.) ECOOP 2003 Workshop on Resource Aware Computing (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Preuveneers, D., Berbers, Y.: Adaptive context management using a component-based approach. In: Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems. DAIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3543. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deming, W.: Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA (1986)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bērziša S., Bravos, G., Gonzalez, T., Czubayko, U., España, S., Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Jokste, L., Kampars, J., Koç, H., Kuhr, J.-C., Llorca, C., Loucopoulos, P., Juanes Pascual, R., Sandkuhl, K., Simic, H., Stirna, J., Zdravkovic, J.: Deliverable D1.4: Requirements Specification for CDD. CaaS – Capability as a Service for Digital Enterprises, FP7 Proj. 611351, p. 123. Riga Technical University, Riga (2014). http://caas-project.eu/deliverables/
  31. 31.
    Bravos, G., Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Jokste, L., Kampars, J.: Supporting evolving organizations: IS development methodology goals. In: 13th International Conference on Perspectives in Business Informatics Research, BIR 2014, Lund, Sweden, September 22–24. LNBIP vol. 104, pp. 158–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., Seigerroth, U.: Method integration: the need for a learning perspective. IEEE Proc. Softw. 145(4), 113–118 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Business Information Systems, Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations