Capability

ArchiMate misuses “capability.” For this section, any text on Wittgenstein or semiotics would be useful. Do not confuse the meaning with the label. GB Richardson (see page 231 of his book "Information and Investment"), Edith Penrose and other economists used the idea of the (economic) capability to explain why firms can continue to exist in the market when basic economic theory says that “efficiency” would cause entrants to come into their market and take profit away. I suspect the existing placement of capability as part of the strategy layer is correct, I suspect by accident, but the definition and use are poor. This view of “capability” is very different from a military capability, which is defined as the capability to act under specific circumstances to achieve a defined result. In this context, capability includes all the logical other services, equipment, resources, and doctrine needed to operate. In this context, a “capability” to operate in the high Arctic is not the same as a “capability” to operate in a desert. The fact that businesses only have one context (an office, where they get to assume that if they plug something into the wall, they will get power or turn on a tap and get water is somehow the same thing). You will undoubtedly receive suggestions to add a business capability element to the business layer. In this perspective, “capability” is reasonably a specialisation of “business function” and is unnecessary. A Business Function, which by business definition, is likely best defined by Elliot Jaques in Requisite Organization as “A cluster of accountability to be discharged in the form of outputs by carrying out specified processes” (pp 43) as described by Gartner, Bizbok, and TOG, a capability is about a result independent of how the result is achieved, this element can be expressed solely by correctly name it. i.e. the result of the Business Function “Information Management” requires the capability “Information Sharing (which is what is wanted independent of how it is obtained); thus, realising the business service “Information Provision.” The bottom line is to leave the existing business and strategy elements related to functions, service and capability alone. Following the logic of the current use of capability, it would be reasonable to eliminate the distinction between application service business service, and technical service, as well as application interface, business interface, and technical interface and so on. If they are to be used correctly these elements have different relationships and are used in different ways in different contexts