ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Capability

To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 05:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <1363696760.1768.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Andres,

A Capability is a description of an ability to do something in terms of expertise and capacity to that meets the  needs of the  organizational mission.

A Capability is used as the unit of change in strategic portfolios and Capability Increments (TOGAF9) are used in programme and project portfolios.
Open Group  addresses Capability-Based Planning here -  http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap32.html

A business process begins with a mission objective and ends with achievement of the business objective..

Hope that helps,
Pavithra

From: Anders Tell <opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Capability

Hi,

Capability or ability is an interesting concept to study these days. Its an old concept but a new kid on the block when it comes to design of frameworks for various purposes. Unfortunately most authors use different definitions. Rather often without including a discussion of assumption and uses.

Is (cap-)ability  "is the ability to do something", "what an organization does to deliver value to its stakeholders", or related to a feature" or  a " function" or a "service", yes it can be, but other 'specific' definitions are possible.

In Financials Times one can find the following sentences:
- "Athens' ability to stay course in doubt"
- "This EU move has the ability to take the City down"
- "Apple believes it has the management talent and capability to do a big deal, he says."

Here it becomes obvious that many kinds of abilities are of interest to many, in many different perspectives, other than in IS/IT, Military, and some strategic planning approaches.

A common problem voiced in literature and by practitioners is how to differentiate (cap-)ability from "process" and "function". This confusion may be related to that many use process or functional analys & design techniques when creating (cap-)ability structures. These kinds of capabilities falls in the "performing" category of (cap-)abilities, i.e. the result/outcome is "performing/executing" some process/function.

However other kinds of (cap-)abilities are of interest, that are a couple of steps removed from features, and performing. e.g. "ability to fulfill some goals", "ability to set right price", "ability to create a confortable home that customers desire to live in", are all abilities of interest (in some work perspectives).

Are all (cap-)abilities designed - No.
Some abilities may emerge over time. Maybe a chain of bakeries discover that several employees are good at playing football so that they can start team in division 3. Or that some employees are excellent at designing windows display, and that this (cap-)ability can be sold to neighboring shops.

Do strategist always want to "design" their organisation? - No. Not all strategist believe fully in the design school.

Is there always a intention associated with all abilities? A short answer would be No.
>From a design perspective some unintentional abilities may emerge.
>From a complexity point of view, a subject that possess an ability may be too complex to analyse or understand, e.g. country or large organisation.
>From human point of view and larger scale systems it may be impossible to identify who's intention that have an impact on an ability.
The results /outcome from an ability can be observed without explicit knowledge, understanding about what processes brings about the results/outcome.
On the other hand some (cap-)abilities may be identified, defined, desired and intentionally build, acquired, leverage. etc.

Can an ability be sold, bought or acquired?  Yes and no, some abilities are specified in simple terms, as being able to use a word processor or write a letter. Some may be organisationally embedded, distributed and difficult to remove or replaced with a better realization, e.g. Set Right Price. In knowledge intensive processes people and teams play an important role and may not be so easy to break up.

All in all (cap-)ability may seem as simple concept but its use complicates the picture.


Regards
/anders

_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013 
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/



_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>