Capstera defines business capability modeling as an art and science to encapsulate an enterprise’s essence through elemental building blocks – the business capabilities. A business capability map is a comprehensive and cohesive set of business abilities of an enterprise. Each capability is a manifestation of what a business does and can do. The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive set of business capabilities is an abstraction of the underlying functions and may include current and target capabilities. An enterprise capability model is a powerful tool in conducting a current state assessment and facilitating future state envisioning and crafting a transformation roadmap with an incremental maturity of capabilities to achieve the desired target state.
A purpose-built enterprise business capability model is an essential tool in business architecture. It helps to align business and technology and translates strategic intent into operational and IT enablement parameters.
While a business capability model can be a Swiss army knife regarding its utility and value, several firms make the following mistakes:
If you are trying to solve these BHAGs (Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals), then there will be a support for not only crafting an enterprise business capabilities map but other components of the business architecture as well.
These are fatal flaws and can severely impede the value of a business capabilities map. Here are some do’s and don’ts that could help your enterprise business architecture team build a business capabilities model that extends beyond the necessary boxes and arrows diagram.
The following is a Level 1 representation of an enterprise business capability model.
If business architecture and building a capability model were to become “another thing,” it would diminish the value of the endeavor. Instead, look at specific strategic lacunae in the enterprise. For example, is there a gap between strategic intent and operational execution? Is there a general dissatisfaction about the IT enablement efforts in that they do not solve the business need and are a day late and a dollar too expensive? Alternatively, is there a proliferation of applications causing redundancy and replication – in perhaps more than ten ways to enable a simple business need? Is there a constant accumulation of technical debt, making the IT operation burdensome? Suppose you are trying to solve these BHAGs (Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals). In that case, there will be support for crafting an enterprise business capabilities map and other business architecture components.
One of the cardinal sins committed by business and enterprise architects is to do a capability model on behalf of the business. As a result, it becomes an IT deliverable and never really resonates with the business teams. Instead, collaborating with the business is better, and business teams leading the development of a capability map are even better. If the goal is for the company to speak the same language and embrace the terminology and the structure of the model, it is imperative that they participate, if not lead.
A simple but effective tool is to engage the business with a business capability model template instead of whiteboard elicitation.
A pet peeve of us at Capstera is that many a time, capability maps are at level 1 or level 2, which are an essential strategic artifact but not sufficient for some of the operational and IT purposes. For example, a “Human Capital Management” box is correct but does not show what human resources function does, what services it fulfills, and what features it provides. This approach makes it a deliverable that immediately makes good Wall Art but is not necessarily helpful daily.
(A sample Gartner business capability model or a Forrester Capability Model are meant as a starting point and hence are typically at a high level. While they are helpful for strategic conversations and having a holistic snapshot of the enterprise, they are not in-depth enough for operational and technology enablement use cases.)
If you ask a business architect, they may say, “We build a capability model,” “We map Value Streams,” and “We develop Heat Maps.” Instead, a strategic business architect will say, “We are building a digital capability map and a transformation roadmap with business capabilities as an anchor” or “We are analyzing the footprint of capabilities and systems to analyze the need for an application portfolio rationalization.” Whether it is linking strategy to execution, strengthening the operating model, assisting in the digital transformation, or optimizing the speed, usability, and utility of IT enablement – all of these focus on outcomes, not just artifacts. The deliverables are a means to an end, not an in themselves. One can create a simple business capabilities model Wiki with nothing but a nested list of capabilities and achieve significant benefits.
If the company is in the middle of a transformation, the business architecture team drawing boxes and arrows for an interminable time does not sit well. On the other hand, if the capability model is a deliverable that directly adds value and contributes to advancing a particular corporate strategic goal, then there will be a synergy with the overall organizational efforts, and the business architecture deliverable becomes an integral part of the global effort. Instead, artifact development devoid of specific value-add is always deemed an ivory tower deliverable – necessary perhaps but not invaluable.
In one of our consulting assignments, one of the reasons the company soured on capability modeling and business architecture was due to a prior attempt that took 2-years to develop and covered only a portion of the enterprise business units. In addition, much ambiguity, lack of depth, and terminology were alien to the standard lingua franca in the firm. So, no wonder the endeavor went nowhere.
To avoid focusing on artifact development, a simple capability model framework that lists essential components, critical views, and key relationship mappings will help keep the focus on moving the needle.
What elements of business architecture are the exclusive purview of a business architect, and what are other aspects where the system of the record belongs to a different team? More than one can imagine. For example, a capability model should be a business-driven endeavor facilitated by the business architecture teams. The IT systems are typically a part of the enterprise architecture team or the CIOs office. The data entities or subject areas are a part of the work by the data architecture team. The processes, which are typically a step below the value streams, are done by process architects and business analysts. The corner office defines the strategy along with the strategy development team. The C-Suite determines the operating model, and the organizational structure is an HR-driven deliverable. So, the business architecture team should consider themselves a conductor of a symphony, not a solo act. The value is integration, preparing views and viewpoints, mapping relationships, identifying patterns, and unearthing opportunities.
Any diagram or artifact does change before even the ink dries. So, business architects must be aware of the dynamic nature of enterprises today and design for constant change – minor and major. Hence, artifacts in office productivity applications such as Excel, PowerPoint, Visio, and Word are not conducive to easy maintenance. For capability models to be alive and ongoing, it is essential to use a business capability modeling tool. (Here is a pitch for using Capstera business capability mapping software for building and managing a capability model and other artifacts. Of course, in addition to the Capstera Capability Mapping tool, there are many different business architecture and capability model tools in the market.)
Suppose business architecture teams keep these best practices and the do’s and don’ts in mind. In that case, they can elevate their craft to be an integral and vital part of the organizational transformation.
