Capability Design with CDD

  • Martin HenkelEmail author
  • Jelena Zdravkovic
  • Francisco Valverde
  • Oscar Pastor


One of the key tasks of the CDD methodology concerns designing capabilities starting from existing business requirements, enterprise models, and other kinds of organizational designs. As described in this chapter, the CDD methodology contains three complementary strategies for the design of capabilities: goal-first, process-first, and concept-first strategies. The view of the goal-first strategy is that capabilities exist as means to fulfill an organization’s long-term business objectives. The process-first strategy considers that capabilities are delivered through the execution of well-established business processes and therefore should be designed based on such processes. The concept-first strategy views stable information structures as the primary means for capability design. All three strategies for capability design shares four generic phases: scoping, identification, interlinking, and contextualizing and adapting. Each phase involves the use of some of the main CDD concepts in the capability design, such as goals, processes, context elements, or delivery patterns, as well as their relationships, with the final aim to obtain a well-defined model of one or several capabilities. Documentation of capabilities designed by the strategies is supported by the CDD environment, in particular the CDT tool support, a model-driven design.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    España, S., Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Koç, H., Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Zdravkovic, J.: Strategies for capability modelling: analysis based on initial experiences. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops (CAiSE’15), Springer LNBIP, 215 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henkel, M., Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Capability-based business model transformation. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops, (CAiSE 2014). LNBIP, vol. 178. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stirna, J., Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Zdravkovic, J.: Capability driven development – an approach to support evolving organizations. In: Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2012. LNBIP, vol. 134. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beimborn, D., Martin, S.F., Homann, U.: Capability-oriented modeling of the firm. IPSI Conference, Amalfi (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ulrich, W., Rosen, M.: The business capability map: the “Rosetta Stone” of business/IT Alignment. In: Enterprise Architecture, vol. 14, no. 2. Cutter Consortium (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harmon, P.: Capabilities and processes. In: Business Process Trends Advisor, vol. 9, no. 13 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danesh, M.H., Yu, E.: Modeling enterprise capabilities with i*: reasoning on alternatives. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops (CAiSE’14). LNBIP, vol. 178. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, J., Tsou, H.: Performance effects of 5IT6 capability, service process innovation, and the mediating role of customer service. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 29(1), 71–94 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eriksson, T.: Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities. Scand. J. Manag. 30(1), 65–82 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bravos, G., Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Jokste, L., Kampars, J.: Supporting evolving organizations: IS development methodology goals. In: Perspectives in Business Informatics Research (BIR’14). LNBIP, vol. 194. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henkel, M., Stratigaki, C., Stirna, J., Loucopoulos, P., Zorgios, Y., Migiakis, A.: Combining tools to design and develop software support for capabilities. J. Complex Syste. Inform. Model. Quart. (CSIMQ), Issue 10. RTU Press, ISSN 2255–9922 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dey, A.: Understanding and using context. Pers. Ubiquot. Comp. 5, 4 (2001). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sandkuhl, K., Koç, H., Stirna, J.: Context-aware business services: technological support for business and IT-alignment. In: Business Information Systems Workshops, 22 May 2014. LNBIP, vol. 183. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG: BMM, business motivation model. Version 1.3. Document Number: formal/2015–05-19. The Object Management Group (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milani, F., Dumas, M., Ahmed, N., Matulevičius, R.: Modelling families of business process variants: a decomposition driven method. Inf. Syst. 56, 55–72 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hruby, P.: Model-Driven Design Using Business Patterns. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC 15944-1: 2011 Information technology – Business operational view – Part 1: Operational Aspects of Open-edi for Implementation, 2nd edn. (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henkel, M., Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Capability-based business model transformation. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops (CAiSE’14). LNBIP, vol. 178. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Henkel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jelena Zdravkovic
    • 1
  • Francisco Valverde
    • 2
  • Oscar Pastor
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityKistaSweden
  2. 2.PROS Center, Universitat Politèchnica de ValènciaValènciaSpain

Personalised recommendations