Tag Archives: EA

Value of Technical Capability Models

01 Thursday Nov 2018

Posted by in Enterprise architecture, General, Technology, TOGAF

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The use of Technical Capability models is not something I have seen a lot of use of, which is a little unfortunate as they can provide tremendous insight into an organizations IT needs.

Typically you want to use the Technical capability model to be used in conjunction with a business capability model, and this is where things can get tricky as developing the business views can take time.  I came across this short video which focuses on the more business aspect but helps explain the ideas behind the models:

Note how the model is largely groups of capabilities that happen in the business. Underlying this kind of diagram you would have a brief explanation of each capability.  If you want to go all out on EA modelling then you can link the capabilities to the documented associated processes etc.

Independently, the ideal is to then identify the technical capabilities that are likely to be needed. This will provide a similar looking model. The technical capabilities are probably best drawn from industry best practices, and specific business needs. The model should be completely product agnostic. The real value comes in by then mapping the technical capabilities to which business capabilities use.

capability model

This will now help inform a number of decisions identity areas of focus.  The technical capabilities should have mappings or fall into one of the following states, with the associated reasons:

  • Maps To Business Capabilities
    • This is healthy
  • Technology is Being Used but no Business Mapping
    • Gap in the business capability model?
    • Nuance of the business model not understood by IT?
    • Redundant processes being performed?
  • Business Process with no Technology
    • Opportunity for business improvement?
    • Genuinely no value in applying technology e.g. Business Value is something is hand made?
    • Capability delivered by Shadow IT?
  • Doesn’t Map to Any Business Capabilities
    • Capability isn’t needed and therefore jettisoned OR
    • Potential capability that the business are unaware or haven’t understood what can be offered

With the exception of the 1st condition, the other scenarios things should be examined more closely and adjust the models accordingly.

With the capability models linked and the miss matches addressed.  The Technical Capability model can really deliver value by linking the capabilities to the actual technologies being used.  Very quickly it is possible to see details such as:

  • Technology weaknesses (i.e. a key business area is not well supported by IT e.g. products being mapped are End of Life, not got the level of support). Whilst some of these will be ‘no brainers’ it is more than likely a free surprises will show up
  • Technology duplication – sometimes we’ll see multiple products in one area, can the product list be rationalized to maximize license investment? Would it be more cost effective to invest 1 one high-end product and eliminate lots of smaller niche pieces?
  • Where IT investment will likely improve key capabilities vs investment on niche capabilities
  • How technology change can impact the business, for example replacing a Content Management System may impact an organizations online presence, but it may also show to impact how we deliver support services to customers.
  • If the business prioritize a specific area, how does that map onto IT systems and processes?

Whilst a lot of this will seem pretty obvious, it will uncover unexpected details and most importantly provide a relatively simple set of visualizations as cross references that help understand the business and explain the impact of IT related decisions to the business in their terms.

The following deck provides a presentation on the value of Technical Capability Models:

 

 

 

Using Business Capability Models to inform Tech Training Requirements

11 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by in General, Oracle

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

We have been going through a slow process of reviewing and refreshing our skills and capabilities within our Architectural team both in terms of what skills exist, and the necessary skill sets that need to be cultivated.

The EA capabilities views such as the Oracle one below which has been drawn from Oracle’s reference model (ITSO) can be used to aide determining what technical capabilities are needed in the solution space. But could also be used to support the determination of skills needs within an organisation in both breadth and to an extent depth.

Where the breadth equates to skills for all the tools mapped onto the technical capability model (ideally validated by mapping the technical capabilities to business capability model to establish utilisation). That mapping also informs the skills depth based on the number of times anyone technical capability is mapped to the business model.

OracleIntegrationRA-capabilities

This can be taken further through the use of value chains in the business domain you can determine which capabilities need to be focused on, therefore what technical capabilities and potential skills development are of most value to your organisation.

So what starts out as an abstract business activity, quickly delivers technical domain value. What is ‘fun’ is that as a Technical EA I can use the work from my business colleagues to make a compelling argument for training budget.

Useful links:

More TOGAF Training Tips

20 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in General, TOGAF

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Open Group TOGAF

That magical logo you can use once TOGAF Certified

A couple of my colleagues are preparing to TOGAF exams (and training). As is the case with these things the subject of tips, tricks and helpful resources come up.  I’ve blogged in the past on this, and now made those blog entries easier to find with a TOGAF category on my blog (https://mp3muncher.wordpress.com/category/technology/togaf/). But I also came across a couple of useful resources through the TOGAF for Architecture Linkedin Group. Particuarly a free Massively Open Only Course (MOOC) provided by an Australian University – https://www.open2study.com/courses/introduction-to-enterprise-architecture.  The MOOC contains almost 4.5 hours of video material – so it will give a solid picture (where as a Architecting the Enterprise training is 4 days) (note Architecting the Enterprise appear to have tweaked their branding now to AtE). In addition to this a couple of other sites / books that came recommended in recent LinkedIn discussions are:

Update: It is worth registering with Orbus Software‘s website (registration is free) as they provide a substantial number of resources on TOGAF like postes of each of the key phases which can be downloaded once registered.  In addition they have a number of blogs regarding EA, ITIL etc.

Enterprise Architect Cloud

18 Thursday Dec 2014

Posted by in General, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

With version 11 of Sparx‘ Enterprise Architect tool a new cloud feature was introduced to support team working, which previously had been achieved using a shared Database.

When we heard about EA Cloud, both myself and my colleagues got rather excited, thinking that this would be the opportunity to offload the effort of looking after a central DB (making sure backups happened, fine tuning the DB settings and so on) plus maintaining the platform’s patching for security etc. Not only that through the cloud capability we could host the repository that made it very easy for the team to access the repository on the move without needing to have another whole in our corporate firewall etc.

Unfortunately, EA Cloud provides all the software to establish a cloud based repository – which can be used through firewalls etc – HTTPS traffic rather than DB connectors on unusual ports but not the hosting.  This seems to a bit of a missed opportunity for Sparx who already have to deal with all of these points to host 3 demo cloud servers.  So the next step of instantiating a server for a regular on going fee doesn’t seem too challenging, not to mention promotes customer tie in, plus the ability to capture some potentially interesting metrics about its users (e.g. which modelling techniques are most popular etc).  Having looked at Sparx partners they don’t offer the capability either which is a shame.