#bizarch artefacts concept map

This blogpost accumulates my contribution (it is work in progress) into LinkedIn discussion " Business capability concepts map" http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=245602764&gid=84758&commentID=144209821&trk=view_disc&ut=0BMR0Vl690JBM1

The reference blogpost is http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2013/03/bizarch-artefacts-definition-again.html  I use the following definition of capability from that blogpost.

capability (noun)
the proven possession of characteristics required to perform a particular service (to produce a particular result) with the required performance.

Version 1 - no processes

  1. This version is deliberately simplified by removing the process concept 
  2. Showing that output from one service may become input for another - what is the best way? 
  3. Some services are implemented via coordination of other services - to be added later 
  4. Definition of service and its implementation are in the same concept yet - maybe to separate design-time and run-time concept maps later 
  5. Role and people (and other related) concepts are not shown yet
  6. Service has only one operation

Version 2 - processes are added

Services and process have a recursive relationship:
  • all processes are services,
  • some operations (or a very detailed function wrapped by a service) of a service can be implemented as a process, and
  • a process includes services in its implementation.

Version 3 - roles and some other concepts are added; input/output, outcome, mission are removed

Version 4 - design-time and run-time concepts

A service provides one or many operation(s). 


No comments: