Advertisement

Capability Consideration in Business and Enterprise Architecture Frameworks

  • Jelena ZdravkovicEmail author
  • Janis Stirna
  • Janis Grabis
Chapter

Abstract

The notion of capability has gained growing attention over the last few years due to a number of factors, namely, it directs business investment focus, it can be used as a baseline for business planning, and it leads to service specification and design. It is however unexplored to what extent capability is considered in different modeling approaches, how it is defined, integrated with other concepts, and what purpose it fulfills. This chapter presents how the notion of capability is included in the current Business Architecture (BA) and Enterprise Architecture (EA) frameworks. It shows that capability has a considerable role in the frameworks and that they share a largely similar conceptual meaning of capability while the intentions and the mechanisms of its use differ, which raises stimulating opportunities for new contributions and improvements in the field.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Collis, J.D.: Research note: how valuable are organizational capabilities? Strateg. Manag. J. 15, 143–152 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A.: Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 18(7), 509–533 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
  3. 3.
    Ulrich, W., Rosen, M.: The business capability map: building a foundation for business/IT alignment. In: Cutter Consortium for Business and Enterprise Architecture. http://www.cutter.com/content-and-analysis/resource-centers/enterprise-architecture/sample-our-research/ea110504.html (2011). Accessed 28 Feb 2016
  4. 4.
    OMG Business Architecture Special Interest Group & Guild: A Guide to Business Architecture of Body Knowledge (BIZBOK) 5.5. (available to members) (2017). http://www.businessarchitectureguild.org/?page=BIZ
  5. 5.
    The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9.1, an Open Group Standard. The Open Group (2011). http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/index.html
  6. 6.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 3.0 Specification. The Open Group (2016). http://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/jsp/publications/PublicationDetails.jsp?catalogno=I162
  7. 7.
    US Department of Defense: DoDAF Architecture Framework, Version 2.02 (2009). http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/DODAF/DoDAF_v2-02_web.pdf
  8. 8.
    UK Ministry of Defence: MOD Architecture Framework (2012). https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mod-architecture-framework
  9. 9.
    UK Ministry of Defence: Proposed NAF v4 Meta-Model (MODEM). NATO Architecture Framework v4.0 Documentation (2013). http://nafdocs.org/modem
  10. 10.
    OASIS: Reference Architecture Foundation for Service Oriented Architecture Version 1.0 Committee Specification, pp. 118. http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/soa-ra/v1.0/cs01/soa-ra-v1.0-cs01.pdf (2012). Accessed 2 Mar 2016
  11. 11.
    Zachman, J.: The official concise definition (2009). https://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework
  12. 12.
    Federal CIO Council: Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Framework v2 (2013). https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/fea_v2.pdf
  13. 13.
    Stirna, J.: A comparative analysis of concepts for capability design used in capability driven development and the NATO architecture framework. In: Proceedings Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops, CAiSE 2017. LNBIP, vol. 286. Springer, Heidelberg (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knaster, R., Leffingwell, D.: SAFe 4.0 Distilled: Applying the Scaled Agile Framework for Lean Software and Systems Engineering, 1st edn, p. 384. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hyder, E.B., Heston, K.M., Paulk, M.C.: eSourcing capability model for service provider. Practice Details, ITSqc Series, Carnegie Mellon (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.: Capability maturity model SM for software, version 1.1. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-024, ESC-TR-93-177 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Institute of Information Technology, Faculty of Computer Science and Information TechnologyRiga Technical UniversityRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations