One of my art teachers regularly commented that making the first brush mark on an empty canvas should not be rushed and that it requires consideration as it will form the foundational reference for any subsequent brush marks. Analogous to this is where to place the first process symbol on the empty ‘process canvas’. Some start with all the stakeholders in a room and after a number of iterations (and some heated arguments), believe they have found the common ground and proceed from there with the process development effort. After a lot of effort and stakeholder time spent on its development it is found that these processes are incomplete, do not fully address the particular business area and cross multiple capability boundaries.
However, starting with an empty ‘process canvas’ is not as daunting as it sounds. Simply use a Capability model to determine where to place the first process symbol. It is advisable to follow a few basic principles when developing a Capability model. Some of the principles are:
- A capability should be defined only once (e.g. Project Management should exist only once in the model).
- It should not have any organisational structure bias.
- It is independent of business processes, product offerings, and Information Technology assets.
A well-structured and stratified Capability model provides the scope, context and high level content required for business process development.
A recent example was for the development of Portfolio, Programme, and Project management processes for a major power utility in Africa. By developing the Portfolio Capability model upfront (prior to the definition of processes) a clear scope can be created that can form the ‘hanger’ for the subsequent business processes workshops. Although usually focussed enterprise wide, a Capability model can be made specific to a particular capability area and include various best practice principles and components (in this case PMBOK, PRINCE2, etc.). Now that a solid foundation has been created the development of the business processes can begin. Spending some time upfront in defining the scope certainly has its benefits and a lot less effort and time is spent in subsequent workshops trying to get all participants to agree.
The processes developed from these well-defined foundational capabilities have a number of other benefits:
- It provides structure to the workshop participants and avoids the usual arguments over scope.
- They are singular in nature in that they only refer to the specific capability and there is a clear boundary or separation from other capabilities in the same domain and other domain processes.
- Re-useability of business processes leading to an agile business that can adapt to changing market conditions.
The importance of establishing a solid foundational Capability model is the core for any further architecture model development and should not be understated. By following such a recipe of first developing the Capability model (the hanger for the business processes) one can reduce process development effort by as much as 50%.
Hi Johan,
This is a very good post and I fully agree with the point that it is really difficult to start with an empty box. That’s why we developed http://www.cabusi.com a platform to create and share capability models. Creating a capability model is not copy & paste but it’s easier to have some examples at hand. Plus a tool which is free and let’s you quickly develop something graphically.
I would be honoured if you could have a look at http://www.cabusi.com.
Best,
Thomas
Hi Johan,
If you’re looking for ways to model capabilities and a means of understanding the many ways in which an Enterprise Capability Models can help Architects and enterprises, you might be interested in IF4IT Enterprise Capability Modeling Framework. The framework goes into everything you discuss and much more, in greater detail.
I hope this helps.
I have proiposed a Business Capability model for my organisation based on a similar business’ existing model. What is a good way of going through and modifying this model? It seems it is a step further than even the blank canvas. Is there a place such as the Process Classsification Framework (http://www.apqc.org/process-classification-framework) that has business capability models available for reuse to get you off to a running start?
I beleive the an Enterprise Reference Model is the sound foundation for all architecture work. The Capability model fits within the Enterprise Reference model. A sound Enterprise Reference Model will allow you to link link capabilities to processes as described ANS it will also ensure proper alignment to business strategy, market models, service functions, operational scenerios, systems etc.
Hi Johan
Hi I use a different approach, I’ve developed software that uses a standard business architecture in throughput form (herein lies the challenge) that modelsforecasts a business by appropriate segments into the future and develops an activity driven value heat map. This map can be attributed at its meta or detailed level to reflect end to end enterprise services that support products like bank accounts or which are stand alone fee for service or contract based. AS well it can model capacity complexity and resources.
I’ve reviewed your Togaf material and found while comprehensive it needs a better starting approach and is too static. A business needs to see where it is, what it does for the customer and how it does it to understand it’s overarching positioning ie relative efficiency and effectiveness constraints and complexitiesand value for what it does for the customer (this is an alignment challenge)
.
I would approach enterprises with the following.
1. activity heat map in throughput form, model/forecast the now and project what if
2. Change capability analysis and recommended model
3 Brand the change for business buy in
4 Implement the Togaf model/approach
At this point I would pause and be careful as the industry templates are not throughput based but static operational and functional models These are usually what I start with as organisations have used them in ABC/M implementations and I import them as part of the cost base. If an ABC/M models doesn’t exists I use the static P&L responsibility structures which are averages of the past year or an out of date plan. However I usually have to re-arrange them to align with a throughput approach that can then be forecast/modelled.based on specific drivers not evident within the non throughput bus. architecture.
The other potential issue with Togaf is the heat maps seek to identify a specific value pocket, usually cost though and driven by existing P&L allocated into an industry template. This then is chosen as the basis for a deep dive and further process analysis etc when the issue or heat is often down stream of the problem which may not even be financially visible, like complexity or unmeasured capacity constraint. These are also issues associated with six sigma approaches and other lean methodologies which fail to see the big picture. (Enterprise benefit)
In a recent analysis of a major Australian bank they were spending 2-3% within operational centres on productivity improvement as well another 3% at the “head office” level implementing lean methodologies with little of no buy in from departmental cost centres. Combining this with productivity and inflation at about 4% they needed 10% in savings to breakeven. Clearly they were not achieving this and going backwards.
Overlaying this was IT trying to implement a technical architecture when the business architecture or model was not appropriately designed/implemented/known or understood.
I have no issue with the Togaf approach at all just that organisations don’t see how their business creates or destroys value in the first place. My models actually form the basis of a performance management framework that is activity driven and captures product and customer lifecycles which I banking wealth and Telco’s span multiple financial periods. The P&L is just a static average of activities for last year or if a plan is used to heat map then it’s usually out of date by the time you get to use it as well as being based on last year’s MIX and some allowances for expected revenue/cost change.
I’d be happy to discuss further. I did speak to craig Martin some time ago when enquiring about a contract/consulting role but we never progressed our discussion.
Ray sans