Still very much relevant and most EA do not get it right. Thank You Glenn for even sharing where to apply this - Business Strategy with Overlay of Tech Spend and second areas of Technology Architecture to avoid technical debt, dual technology in use for a particular capability
A Business Capability Model is NOT a model of "what" an organisation does. It is a model of the capabilities it requires, the ability to do X. The ability to write a best selling novel is not the same as the activity of writing a best selling novel. Business Capability Architecture has come from outside the IT world and they have largely mis-understood it!
Hello, Tim. In "Business Model Canvas" terms, I would have described it as a model of the capabilities a business has (As Is), or needs (To Be), to be able to deliver its Value Proposition to its Customer Segments. How does that sound to you?
Yes, it can be used alongside the Business Model Canvas, replacing the "Key Activities" and "Key Resources" sections; and covering Business Capabilities, Core Competences and Resources, as per the Resource-based View (RBV) of the firm. BTW - sorry about the late reply!
The 'ability to do', is not the same as the 'doing'. What the organisation does, is its activities. A given activity will require one or more capabilities. The distinction I'm making is between RBV-based Business Capability Modelling and the Capability Planning approach being described here: design4services.com/methods/business-capability-modelling/
@@timmanning9757 Tim, I appreciate the difference in semantics you're highlighting, and indeed that's the difference described in the video between a capability model and a process model of the business. I actually think you and Glenn are in violent agreement on this, and what he is saying is the same as you do in your linked post/article: “Business Capabilities are about the ‘what’, not the ‘how’.” The video contrasts the “what” and “how” in exactly the same fashion (and for pretty much the same reasons) that you do. I think Michel had it right in the comment above, when he suggests that in your phrase “the ability to do X”, “X” is the “what” under discussion
Hi @John, we agree, the broader concept of capability modelling hasn't progressed much in the business world. We have significantly advanced our own internal BCM development process over the years. We will be releasing a video this year that articulates those developments. Keep an eye out for that!
Interesting point at 2:41 about orgs abandoning design principles in lieu of advances in the Internet and Java and the like. We know how well that's going nowadays
Great explanation Glenn, good input on the value of capability models to the business.
Still very much relevant and most EA do not get it right. Thank You Glenn for even sharing where to apply this - Business Strategy with Overlay of Tech Spend and second areas of Technology Architecture to avoid technical debt, dual technology in use for a particular capability
Glad you enjoyed it @ksbobby. You might be interested in some of our articles on LinkedIn as well if you haven't checked those out.
good explanation, and your examples of where and how a capability model is used is a good start. Many more uses.
Can you please share the slides displayed as part of the video.
where is the rest of this lecture?
ua-cam.com/video/hKLpB5DF1GI/v-deo.html
A Business Capability Model is NOT a model of "what" an organisation does. It is a model of the capabilities it requires, the ability to do X. The ability to write a best selling novel is not the same as the activity of writing a best selling novel. Business Capability Architecture has come from outside the IT world and they have largely mis-understood it!
Hello, Tim. In "Business Model Canvas" terms, I would have described it as a model of the capabilities a business has (As Is), or needs (To Be), to be able to deliver its Value Proposition to its Customer Segments. How does that sound to you?
Yes, it can be used alongside the Business Model Canvas, replacing the "Key Activities" and "Key Resources" sections; and covering Business Capabilities, Core Competences and Resources, as per the Resource-based View (RBV) of the firm. BTW - sorry about the late reply!
What you mentioning to be the "X" is actually the "what" but you are right about the capabilities and abilities.
The 'ability to do', is not the same as the 'doing'. What the organisation does, is its activities. A given activity will require one or more capabilities. The distinction I'm making is between RBV-based Business Capability Modelling and the Capability Planning approach being described here: design4services.com/methods/business-capability-modelling/
@@timmanning9757 Tim, I appreciate the difference in semantics you're highlighting, and indeed that's the difference described in the video between a capability model and a process model of the business. I actually think you and Glenn are in violent agreement on this, and what he is saying is the same as you do in your linked post/article: “Business Capabilities are about the ‘what’, not the ‘how’.” The video contrasts the “what” and “how” in exactly the same fashion (and for pretty much the same reasons) that you do. I think Michel had it right in the comment above, when he suggests that in your phrase “the ability to do X”, “X” is the “what” under discussion
For a video 9yrs old this is still relevant and kinda sad that EA hasn’t evolved too much from this BCM approach
Hi @John, we agree, the broader concept of capability modelling hasn't progressed much in the business world. We have significantly advanced our own internal BCM development process over the years. We will be releasing a video this year that articulates those developments. Keep an eye out for that!
@@FragiletoAgile will keep an eye for it. Thanks
Interesting point at 2:41 about orgs abandoning design principles in lieu of advances in the Internet and Java and the like. We know how well that's going nowadays