The Open Group Guide

Capability-Based Planning

Supporting Project/Portfolio and Digital Capabilities Mapping

Using the TOGAF® and ArchiMate® Standards
Copyright © 2019, The Open Group
The Open Group hereby authorizes you to use this document for any purpose, PROVIDED THAT any copy of this document, or any
part thereof, which you make shall retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained herein.
This document may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any patent
or trademark of The Open Group or any third party. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed
as conferring any license or right under any copyright of The Open Group.
Note that any product, process, or technology in this document may be the subject of other intellectual property rights reserved by The
Open Group, and may not be licensed hereunder.
This document is provided “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the
above exclusion may not apply to you.
Any publication of The Open Group may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes may be periodically made to
these publications; these changes will be incorporated in new editions of these publications. The Open Group may make
improvements and/or changes in the products and/or the programs described in these publications at any time without notice.
Should any viewer of this document respond with information including feedback data, such as questions, comments, suggestions, or
the like regarding the content of this document, such information shall be deemed to be non-confidential and The Open Group shall
have no obligation of any kind with respect to such information and shall be free to reproduce, use, disclose, and distribute the
information to others without limitation. Further, The Open Group shall be free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques
contained in such information for any purpose whatsoever including but not limited to developing, manufacturing, and marketing
products incorporating such information.
If you did not obtain this copy through The Open Group, it may not be the latest version. For your convenience, the latest version of
this publication may be downloaded at www.opengroup.org/library.

The Open Group Guide

Capability-Based Planning
ISBN: 1-947754-34-8
Document Number: G193

Published by The Open Group, July 2019.

Comments relating to the material contained in this document may be submitted to:
The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 1AX, United Kingdom
or by electronic mail to:
[email protected]

ii The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................... 1
1.2 How to Use this Document ............................................................................. 1

2 What is Capability-Based Planning? ......................................................................... 2

2.1 What is a Business Capability? ....................................................................... 2

3 The Generic Steps of Capability-Based Planning ..................................................... 3

4 Capability-Based Planning as Part of an Enterprise Architecture............................. 5

4.1 Mapping Metamodel Entities.......................................................................... 6
4.2 Mapping to TOGAF ADM Phases ................................................................. 6
4.3 Mapping TOGAF Metamodel Entities to ArchiMate Metamodel
Entities ............................................................................................................ 8
4.4 TOGAF ADM Artifacts (Phases A to G) ....................................................... 9
4.4.1 Phase A: Architecture Vision .......................................................... 9
4.4.2 Phase B: Business Architecture ..................................................... 10
4.4.3 Phase C: Information Systems Architectures and Phase
D: Technology Architecture .......................................................... 11
4.4.4 Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions and Phase F:
Migration Planning ........................................................................ 11
4.4.5 Phase G: Implementation Governance .......................................... 12

5 Capability-Based Planning Example Using the ArchiMate Language ................... 14

5.1.1 Step 1: Map ................................................................................... 14
5.1.2 Step 2: Assess ................................................................................ 16
5.1.3 Step 3: Plan.................................................................................... 19
5.1.4 Step 4: Control............................................................................... 21

6 Assessing Capabilities Using Metrics ..................................................................... 23

6.1 Metric Types ................................................................................................. 23
6.2 Defining Metrics ........................................................................................... 24
6.3 Identifying Capability Gaps .......................................................................... 24
6.4 Techniques and Analysis .............................................................................. 25
6.4.1 Heat Map ....................................................................................... 25
6.4.2 Performance Analysis.................................................................... 25
6.4.3 Cost Analysis................................................................................. 25
6.4.4 Spider Chart................................................................................... 27
6.4.5 Global, Regional, and Local View of Capabilities ........................ 28

7 Applying Capability-Based Planning for Digital Transformation .......................... 30

7.1 Digital Capability.......................................................................................... 30
7.2 Mapping and Prioritizing Capabilities .......................................................... 31

Capability-Based Planning iii

 7.2.1 Digital Capability Map .................................................................. 31
7.2.2 Guidance on Iterative Capability-Based Planning......................... 31
7.3 Digital Transformation Modeling ................................................................. 32
7.3.1 ArchiMate Digital Notation........................................................... 32
7.3.2 Digital Strategy.............................................................................. 33
7.3.3 Business, Data, Application, and Technology
Architecture Capabilities ............................................................... 33
7.3.4 Capability Increments and Deliverables ........................................ 34

8 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 36

iv The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Table of Figures
Figure 1: Capability-Based Planning: Generic Steps Overview .................................................... 3
Figure 2: Relationship between Strategy, Capability-Based Planning, Enterprise
Architecture, and PPM............................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Capability Roadmap with Heat Maps ........................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Incremental Capability Roadmap using the ArchiMate Specification .......................... 12
Figure 5: Example of a Motivation View ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Evaluation of Goals and their Influence on Drivers ..................................................... 15
Figure 7: Example of a Level 1-2 Capability Map ....................................................................... 15
Figure 8: Linking Capability to Outcomes in Realizing Goals .................................................... 16
Figure 9: Business Value versus Annual Investment Matrix ....................................................... 17
Figure 10: Capability Assessment Using Heat Maps Incorporating Investment
Priority Metrics ........................................................................................................ 17
Figure 11: Capability Gaps Assessment Using Heat Maps .......................................................... 18
Figure 12: Capability Target State Maturity View ....................................................................... 19
Figure 13: Capability Increment Implementation Phase View..................................................... 20
Figure 14: Work Packages Realization of Capabilities Per Phase ............................................... 20
Figure 15: Tracking Capability Delivery Progress in June, Shown Using Heat Maps ................ 21
Figure 16: Capability Maturity as at June, Relative to the Degree of Realization for
Each Goal at that Point In Time ............................................................................... 22
Figure 17: Goal Realization Assessment ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 18: Example of a Heat Map for Capability Performance Using the ArchiMate
Specification ............................................................................................................ 25
Figure 19: Example of Cost Analysis Visualized with a Heat Map Using the ArchiMate
Specification ............................................................................................................ 26
Figure 20: Example of a Capability Cost Analysis Based on the Underlying
Architectural Costs Using the ArchiMate Specification .......................................... 27
Figure 21: Example of a Capability Assessment Using a Spider Chart ....................................... 28
Figure 22: Capability Consistency versus Execution Heat Map Diagram ................................... 28
Figure 23: Business Capability Portfolio Levels of Consistency and Consolidation ................... 29
Figure 24: Digital Capability Map ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 25: Iterative Enterprise Architecture Approach for Digital Transformation..................... 32
Figure 26: Closed Loop Capability-Based Planning .................................................................... 32
Figure 27: Digital Capability and Digital Strategy ....................................................................... 33
Figure 28: Enterprise Digital Strategy .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 29: Enterprise Digital Capability Map .............................................................................. 34
Figure 30: Enterprise Digital Transition Plan .............................................................................. 35

Capability-Based Planning v
 Preface
The Open Group

The Open Group is a global consortium that enables the achievement of business objectives
through technology standards. Our diverse membership of more than 600 organizations includes
customers, systems and solutions suppliers, tools vendors, integrators, academics, and
consultants across multiple industries.

The mission of The Open Group is to drive the creation of Boundaryless Information Flow™
achieved by:
 Working with customers to capture, understand, and address current and emerging
requirements, establish policies, and share best practices
 Working with suppliers, consortia, and standards bodies to develop consensus and
facilitate interoperability, to evolve and integrate specifications and open source
technologies
 Offering a comprehensive set of services to enhance the operational efficiency of
consortia
 Developing and operating the industry’s premier certification service and encouraging
procurement of certified products

Further information on The Open Group is available at www.opengroup.org.

The Open Group publishes a wide range of technical documentation, most of which is focused
on development of Standards and Guides, but which also includes white papers, technical
studies, certification and testing documentation, and business titles. Full details and a catalog are
available at www.opengroup.org/library.

This Document

This document is The Open Group Guide to Capability-Based Planning. It has been developed
and approved by The Open Group.

This document builds upon the Capability-Based Planning White Paper, published by The Open
Group [4].

This document is structured as follows:

 Chapter 1 (Introduction) outlines the aims of this document; to focus on the use of
capabilities in planning and assessing the pace of progress towards meeting goals and
objectives, identifying gaps and enabling sustainability through Capability-Based
Planning, a process that can be used alone or in conjunction with the TOGAF® standard
and/or the ArchiMate® specification
 Chapter 2 (What is Capability-Based Planning?) provides a definition of business
capabilities and their roles

vi The Open Group Guide (2019)

  Chapter 3 (The Generic Steps of Capability-Based Planning) presents a summary of the
generic steps that form the Capability-Based Planning process
 Chapter 4 (Capability-Based Planning ) demonstrates how the functions of each of the
Capability-Based Planning generic steps can be applied to each of the ADM phases of the
TOGAF standard
 Chapter 5 (Capability-Based Planning Example Using the ArchiMate Language) uses a
Case Study to show how Capability-Based Planning can be modeled using the ArchiMate
language
 Chapter 6 (Assessing Capabilities Using Metrics) focuses on the monitoring and
assessment of business capabilities, showing how to measure progress, determine maturity
levels, and identify gaps through the application of a variety of maps, charts and matrices
 Chapter 7 (Applying Capability-Based Planning for Digital Transformation) seeks to
strengthen Capability-Based Planning in its application to Digital Transformation by
encouraging a bottom-up approach in addition to its top-down formula to create a closed
loop approach, thus enabling the incorporation of new and innovative digital strategies

Capability-Based Planning vii

 Trademarks
ArchiMate®, DirecNet®, Making Standards Work®, Open O® logo, Open O and Check®
Certification logo, OpenPegasus®, Platform 3.0®, The Open Group®, TOGAF®, UNIX®,
UNIXWARE®, and the Open Brand X® logo are registered trademarks and Boundaryless
Information Flow™, Build with Integrity Buy with Confidence™, Dependability Through
Assuredness™, Digital Practitioner Body of Knowledge™, DPBoK™, EMMM™, FACE™, the
FACE™ logo, IT4IT™, the IT4IT™ logo, O-DEF™, O-HERA™, O-PAS™, Open FAIR™,
Open Platform 3.0™, Open Process Automation™, Open Subsurface Data Universe™, Open
Trusted Technology Provider™, O-SDU™, Sensor Integration Simplified™, SOSA™, and the
SOSA™ logo are trademarks of The Open Group.

All other brands, company, and product names are used for identification purposes only and may
be trademarks that are the sole property of their respective owners.

viii The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Acknowledgements
The Open Group gratefully acknowledges the authors of this document:
 Adina Aldea, University of Twente
 Iyad Hindi, CC&C Solutions, America
 Eugene Moses, Oracle
 Paul Prout, Sinag Solutions
 Gururaman Subramanian, Oracle
 Francis Uy, Sinag Solutions

In turn, the authors would like to thank and acknowledge the following contributors to this
document:
 Stuart McGregor
 Bill Wimsatt

Capability-Based Planning ix
 Referenced Documents
The following documents are referenced in this Guide.

(Please note that the links below are good at the time of writing but cannot be guaranteed for the
future.)

[1] TOGAF® Series Guide: Business Capabilities (G189), June 2018, published by The
Open Group; refer to: www.opengroup.org/library/g189

[2] TOGAF® Series Guide: Value Streams (G178), October 2017, published by The
Open Group; refer to: www.opengroup.org/library/g178

[3] The TOGAF® Standard, Version 9.2, a standard of The Open Group (C182),
published by The Open Group, April 2018; refer to:
www.opengroup.org/library/c182

[4] Capability-Based Planning, White Paper (W16C), November 2016, published by

The Open Group; refer to: www.opengroup.org/library/w16c

[5] ArchiSurance Case Study, Version 2 (Y163), September 2017, published by The
Open Group; refer to: www.opengroup.org/library/y163

[6] Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution,

Jeanne W. Ross, Peter Weil, David C. Robertson, August 2006, published by
Harvard Business Review Press

[7] ArchiMate® 3.0.1 Specification, a standard of The Open Group (C179), August
2017, published by The Open Group; refer to: www.opengroup.org/library/c179

x The Open Group Guide (2019)

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this Document

This document describes Capability-Based Planning, a way of creating a line of sight between
your objectives and goals, and your organization’s capability, as well as change initiatives.

It allows for a way to measure not just program and project results achieved in the organization
but also a way to measure the uplift in maturity of various aspects of the organization’s
capabilities. In this way the organization using the concepts in the Capability-Based Planning
White Paper and this document will be able to sustain organization change and maturity over
time.

Planning driven by capability performance means that you look at those aspects important for
your company to meet and exceed short, mid, or long-term goals whilst driving for sustainability
and operational excellence.

This also allows you to have a continuous improvement process that builds on foundational
improvements from previous iterations.

1.2 How to Use this Document

This document starts by introducing Capability-Based Planning, and then explains it in terms of
generic steps [4]. There are two modeling techniques used in this document as follows:
 Capability-Based Planning using the TOGAF® metamodel with artifacts (architectural
models) using ArchiMate® notation, as shown in Chapter 4
 Capability-Based Planning using ArchiMate modeling, shown in Chapter 4

For the latter approach, while you still need to follow the guidance referred to in the previous
point to understand the mapping to the Architecture Development Method (ADM) phases, the
modeling language used for creating and maintaining the architecture description is per the
ArchiMate specification.

Therefore, the reader has a choice of which metamodel and artifacts to use; the TOGAF
Standard, Version 9.2 or the ArchiMate 3.0.1 Specification.

Capability-Based Planning 1
2 What is Capability-Based Planning?

Capability-Based Planning is an approach which focuses on the planning, engineering, and

delivery of capabilities to the enterprise [3]. As such, it can be used to focus the investments an
organization makes on the development of the capabilities which are crucial for achieving their
strategic intent.

It requires the organization to focus on aligning interventions (projects and programs) to the
specific capabilities the organization is creating, engineering, or improving. This leverages the
process of focusing initiatives to deliver business benefits, and directly links those initiatives
with the value delivered.

Although this approach has a rich history in the defense sector, it has seen less application in
industry. One of the most well-known examples of a Capability-Based Planning implementation
comes from the US Department of Defense (DoD). In this case, it is used as a means to plan for
providing certain capabilities in situations of uncertainty, based on certain goals and
requirements [3]. However, this approach, while suitable for the defense sector, is not directly
applicable in industry. Nonetheless, the core aspect of Capability-Based Planning, as the name
also suggests, is the capability.

Using Capability-Based Planning to help drive the focus of a business planning effort is
important as it ensures that Enterprise Architects have a common ground to initiate discussions
with business leaders in terms of business outcomes, while having a link between what an
organization can do with how it does it [4]. This is especially useful as more frequent
transformations happen in organizations today.

This document aims to share process, methods, and examples on how to implement a capability-
based plan for your organization.

2.1 What is a Business Capability?

A business capability is a particular ability or capacity that a business may possess or exchange
to achieve a specific purpose or outcome. It describes what a business is required to do to create
value for its customers and stakeholders but defines no detail about how to achieve it. A business
capability encapsulates people, process, technology, and information.

For a more detailed definition of a business capability, its components, and examples, please
refer to the TOGAF Series Guide: Business Capabilities [1].

2 The Open Group Guide (2019)

3 The Generic Steps of Capability-Based Planning

Building on the Capability-Based Planning White Paper [4], there are four generic steps that can
be applied for Capability-Based Planning, and which any framework and process needs to
include. Chapter 4 specifies how to apply the generic steps specifically into the TOGAF ADM
process in support of project/portfolio management, as wells as how this is done using
ArchiMate modeling examples.

Figure 1 depicts the four generic steps.

Capability map
Capability architecture
Capability motivation

Map

Capability realization Capability metrics

Capability monitoring Control Assess Capability heat maps
Capability evaluation Capability gaps

Plan

Planning scenarios
Capability increments
Capability roadmaps

Figure 1: Capability-Based Planning: Generic Steps Overview

In summary, the four generic steps are described below:

1. Map:
— Define, group, and relate the capabilities of an organization, at different levels of
aggregation/decomposition
— Link capabilities to their motivation (strategic goals) and their implementation
(resources, competencies, information, processes, etc. as represented by Enterprise
Architecture models)
2. Assess:
— Define relevant performance metrics for assessing capabilities; these metrics can be
derived from the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of the organization

Capability-Based Planning 3
 — Identify under/over-performing or missing capabilities based on the defined metrics
and their contribution to realizing the strategic intent of the organization
3. Plan:
— Develop a maturity roadmap for every capability that will guide definition of capability
increments
— Define the development of the capabilities over time with the help of capability
increments (by referencing the maturity roadmap)
— Allocate the necessary resources to realize this transformation
— Group the interventions into programs or projects to maximize resources and later
management control
4. Control:
— Monitor the development of the capabilities and compare to planning
— Review and assess the capability transformation with respect to the resource usage and
procedural steps
— Measure the impact of improvements while work is being performed
— Update the relevant performance metrics and review the strategic intent of the
organization realized
— Update the capability increment based on what has been achieved

4 The Open Group Guide (2019)

4 Capability-Based Planning as Part of an Enterprise
Architecture

Capability-Based Planning can be used as a stand-alone technique to align with both business
strategy as well as with project/portfolio management. The stand-alone steps are described in
Chapter 3.

It can also be used as part of an Enterprise Architecture by applying the TOGAF standard and
the ArchiMate standard for modeling, leading to defining portfolios and projects – Project
Portfolio Management (PPM). In this chapter, we will highlight how to apply Capability-Based
Planning through the TOGAF ADM with an emphasis on ArchiMate modeling. In the next
chapter we provide an end-to-end example of Capability-Based Planning using the ArchiMate
specification.

The TOGAF standard defines Capability-Based Planning as focusing on:

“… the planning, engineering, and delivery of strategic business capabilities to the enterprise. It
is business-driven and business-led and combines the requisite efforts of all lines of business to
achieve the desired capability.” (TOGAF Standard, Version. 9.2, Chapter 28, Section 28.1 [3])

As such, it impacts the whole approach to Enterprise Architecture, where the focal point is
delivery of capability, which is measured in value delivered (refer to Chapter 6 for further
information about assessing capabilities using metrics).

The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Section 28.4 [3] outlines the relationship between Strategy,
Capability-Based Planning, Enterprise Architecture, and PPM, and summarizes it in Figure 28-4
(copied below for clarity).

Figure 2: Relationship between Strategy, Capability-Based Planning, Enterprise Architecture, and

PPM

Capability-Based Planning 5
 Consequently, and as Chapter 3 outlines in more detail, and is summarized here, the Capability-
Based Planning technique is implemented by executing the following four generic steps:
1. Map
2. Assess
3. Plan
4. Control

It is important to note that as the strategic objectives of the organization are considered,
capabilities are to be reviewed and assessed to map them to the operational side of the
organization for implementation. Architecture description (per the TOGAF or ArchiMate
standards) serves to depict and clarify this linkage from strategy to implementation. In planning
for this capability implementation, different scenarios may present themselves, as listed below.
1. Creating/delivering a new capability
2. Updating an existing capability in terms of maturity, performance, etc.
3. Capabilities that are no longer needed and should be removed

The discussion in the remainder of this chapter may highlight one or more of the use-
cases/scenarios outlined above, while adding notes that are relevant to the other scenarios, as
appropriate.

Please note that this document does not differentiate between scenarios of a “general” business
capability and a “capability instance” (implementing a specific business capability for a specific
area of business).

4.1 Mapping Metamodel Entities

In this section we will show how the generic steps (explained in Chapter 3) can be mapped to the
TOGAF ADM. Considering that other TOGAF Library documents detail how to use the
different TOGAF metamodel entities and suggested artifacts that relate to business capabilities,
this section presents a list of references to those metamodel entities and artifacts. The reader
interested in learning more can refer back to those documents. However, we will expand our
discussion here more on showing how ArchiMate modeling can be used to map those TOGAF
metamodel entities and artifacts using its own modeling techniques, to support Capability-Based
Planning, and to define portfolios and projects that deliver the needed capabilities (or changes to
capabilities).

4.2 Mapping to TOGAF ADM Phases

The generic four steps of the Capability-Based Planning process can be mapped from the
corporate strategy to the Enterprise Architecture (using the TOGAF ADM), and into
project/portfolio management, as summarized in Table 1. This outline expands on Figure 28-4 of
the TOGAF standard [3] (shown above in Figure 2) and will be further explained below. The
guidance provided below is consistent for both IT and non-IT initiatives and contexts.

6 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Table 1: Summary Mapping of Strategy to Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise Architecture

Generic
Capability-Based Approach to Creation of Deliverables Project/Portfolio
Corporate Planning Process in Different ADM Phases to Support Management
Strategy Function ADM Phase Step Capability-Based Planning Capability (PPO)

Corporate strategy A Step 1: Map Top-level documentation of business Basis for

is input to capabilities corporate portfolio
Enterprise planning
Architecture

Capabilities B Step 2: Assess Creation of more detailed architectural Basis for

definition is models depicting business capabilities, corporate projects
deliverable from based on assessments and metrics
Enterprise Also linking capabilities to strategies,
Architecture organizational units, and value streams

Capabilities C and D Step 2: Assess Creation of data, application, and Basis for
definition is technology views aligning changes to corporate projects
deliverable from capabilities (adding new, improving
Enterprise performance of existing, etc.) that can be
Architecture realized using IT components

Capability E and F Step 3: Plan Roadmaps, Implementation, and Corporate project

increments are Migration Plan that may include increments
deliverable from Transition Architectures that map into
Enterprise incremental capabilities
Architecture

Delivery of G Step 4: Control Compliance review of the implemented Delivery of

solutions that map architecture solutions
from capability increments
increments

H Step 4: Control Analyze compliance reviews to assess the

impact of change on capabilities

Requirements Include all requirements relevant to the

Management building blocks identified throughout the
ADM cycle

Note that even though the Preliminary Phase of the ADM doesn’t appear in the above table, it is
worth discussing – in summary – its relationship to Capability-Based Planning. The Preliminary
Phase creates the foundation for establishing an Enterprise Architecture practice (and evolving
it) in an enterprise. As such, when an enterprise incorporates Capability-Based Planning as part
of its planning for creating and maturing capabilities, the following can be recommended as part
of the steps in the Preliminary Phase:
 When tailoring the TOGAF framework – and the ADM in particular – incorporate the
Capability-Based Planning technique as part of that tailoring

Capability-Based Planning 7
  Tailoring of the Content Metamodel can be defined in such a way as to make sure all
building blocks necessary to represent capabilities are part of it
Tailoring can be extended to the terminology to standardize how capabilities are described
and referred to. This terminology tailoring should be informed by the context of the
enterprise.
 The governance process can also include an assessment of the capability created as one
compliance factor to be assessed in the “Compliance Review Meeting” in Phase G, as well
as an assessment of the impact on capabilities that are affected by the implemented
solutions; however, in the Preliminary Phase, we establish the mechanism to address
capability assessment as one of the checklist items that are included in the compliance
review process
 When considering the tool strategy (Step 6 of the Preliminary Phase, Section 5.3.6 [3]),
consideration can be given to the choice of modeling tools (for example) that can
adequately represent capability assessment, maturity, heat mapping, etc.

4.3 Mapping TOGAF Metamodel Entities to ArchiMate Metamodel

Entities
Phase A models the overall capabilities of the enterprise, with emphasis on the specific
capability to deliver (or mature), and their linkage to strategy elements, whereas Phase B further
elaborates the definition of capabilities and establishes a more detailed description (modeling) of
those capabilities in relation to other Business Architecture entities. Hence, there is an overlap of
the use of specific metamodel entities shared between Phases A and B.

The following is a catalog of building blocks that are useful in describing and modeling the
capabilities needed. The relationships between the building blocks show how to establish the
linkage between business capabilities, strategy, and other Business Architecture elements.

These metamodel entities are shown from the TOGAF standard and mapped into the ArchiMate
specification. Please note that the focus here is on Phases A and B of the TOGAF ADM, and
other mapping between the TOGAF and ArchiMate standards in the rest of the Phases (C
through G) is not listed. Also please note that if you are interested in the topic of mapping
metamodel entities (and artifacts) between the TOGAF and ArchiMate standards, there is an
ongoing harmonization effort that is expected to result in additional publications (White Papers
and Guides) in the TOGAF Library.
Table 2: Metamodel Entities Mapping between the TOGAF and ArchiMate Standards

TOGAF
Metamodel Entity TOGAF Description ArchiMate Metamodel Entity

Strategy A general description of strategy is: “A Strategy in the ArchiMate language is a

(represented by plan of action designed to achieve a long- whole layer, containing three metamodel
metamodel entities: term or overall aim”. concepts: capability, course of action,
driver, goal, and and resource.
objective)

8 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 TOGAF
Metamodel Entity TOGAF Description ArchiMate Metamodel Entity

Goal A high-level statement of intent or Goal in the motivation layer.

direction for an organization. Typically
used to measure the success of an
organization.

Business A particular ability that a business may Capability in the strategy layer; can
Capability possess or exchange to achieve a specific consider business capability a
purpose. specialization of capability.

Course of Action Direction and focus provided by strategic Course of action in the strategy layer.
goals and objectives, often to deliver the
value proposition characterized in the
business model.

Value Stream A representation of an end-to-end Business process.

collection of value-adding activities that
create an overall result for a customer,
stakeholder, or end user.

Value Stage Value-adding activities that aggregate a Business process.

value stream. Value stages are not part of
the TOGAF metamodel but will be very
useful to use in modeling capabilities in
the Business Architecture.

4.4 TOGAF ADM Artifacts (Phases A to G)

4.4.1 Phase A: Architecture Vision
Phase A is an important phase within the ADM process as it establishes the context, scope, and
constraints of the architecture project that will deliver the capability change that is currently
requested, depending on the scenario of Capability-Based Planning (such as establishing a new
capability or maturing an existing one). A “Request for Architecture Work” typically triggers the
entry into Phase A to start this architecture effort.

In carrying out Capability-Based Planning, Phase A establishes the link between strategy and
identification of the capabilities needed; and Phase B elaborates the assessment of those
capabilities required as part of the overall Business Architecture to be defined (the Target
Business Architecture).

In Phase A, the TOGAF standard specifies a step (Step 4) that considers capabilities. It is called
“evaluate capabilities”. This step’s description states, in part:

“… to identify the required business capabilities the enterprise must possess to act on the
strategic priorities.” (The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 6, Section 6.3.4 [3])

This is the step that establishes the linkage between the strategy of an enterprise and the required
capabilities that will achieve that strategy.

Capability-Based Planning 9
 In terms of the generic Capability-Based Planning process outlined above, Step 4 in Phase A
maps onto Step 1 (Map).

When considering capabilities in Phase A, we need to start with the corporate strategic plan as
an important input to modeling capabilities. The strategic plan defines “strategy” elements that
are related to capabilities. In general, when considering existing or new strategies, we need to
consider which capabilities are required to support which strategies.

As we consider new strategies that impact capabilities (creating new ones, or maturing existing
ones), an assessment of the impact of these strategies on existing capabilities needs to be
established to make sure that no sudden and high-impact change is being planned in response to
strategies that could be more short-term, and that do not consider the long-term impact on
existing capabilities.

The aim in Phase A is to come up with a high-level capability map (business capabilities), or to
update the capability map, if one exists, showing the relationship with the strategic plan. There
are three general activities that can be carried out to implement this modeling of capabilities as
follows:
 Gather/document strategies
 Map capabilities (or update existing capabilities)
 Define capability gaps

We would like to refer the reader to the TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 [3] and the TOGAF
Series Guide: Business Capabilities [1] for details on how to create the following TOGAF ADM
artifacts in Phase A:
 Value chain diagram
 Business capability map
 Business capability catalog

4.4.2 Phase B: Business Architecture

Phase B is where we model the current state (Baseline) of the Business Architecture, as well as
the future state (Target) of the Business Architecture. In this phase we take the findings,
descriptions, and models created in Phase A that relate to capabilities and further detail them and
link them with other Business Architecture elements that will later be mapped to the Data and
Application Architecture (Phase C).

When applying Capability-Based Planning in an ADM cycle, Phase B represents Step 2 of the
generic Capability-Based Planning steps, namely “assessing capabilities”. As in Phase A, there
are a number of activities we can define that relate to the assessment of capabilities, as follows:
 Capability decomposition
 Capability assessment and metrics
 Define value stream and value stages
 Link capabilities to organizational units

10 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Again, we would like to refer the reader to the TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 [3] and the two
TOGAF Series Guides: Business Capabilities [1] and Value Streams [3] for details on how to
create the following TOGAF ADM artifacts in Phase B:
 Business capability catalog
 Value stream stages catalog
 Strategy/capability matrix
 Capability/organization matrix
 Value stream/capability matrix
 Business capability map diagram (detailed and includes levels)
 Value stream map diagram

4.4.3 Phase C: Information Systems Architectures and Phase D: Technology

Architecture
Phases C and D can be summarized – in terms of applying Capability-Based Planning – by
modeling the baseline, target, gaps, etc. that relate to the applications, data, and technology of
those capabilities specified in Phase B. In other words, the Business Architecture (Phase B) that
focused on capabilities will be linked to the three layers below it (Data, Application, and
Technology Architectures) showing which building blocks of those three layers contribute to
realizing the capabilities defined in Phase A, and further refined in Phase B.

4.4.4 Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions and Phase F: Migration Planning

Phases E and F represent the transition from defining what needs to be built (as specified by
Phases B, C, and D) into how this architecture will be implemented to deliver the required
capabilities.

Phases E and F represent transitioning – in Capability-Based Planning generic steps – from

assessment (Step 2) to planning (Step 3) for portfolios and projects.

The main task in Phases E and F is to build the roadmap that will implement the changes, which
in turn will deliver the required capabilities (or changes to capabilities).

The following shows an example of such a roadmap from taken from the Capability-Based
Planning White Paper [4]. Note the use of heat mapping that adds useful metrics to the roadmap.

Capability-Based Planning 11
 Figure 3: Capability Roadmap with Heat Maps

Additionally, Phases E and F plan for an incremental approach; i.e., creating a Transition
Architecture that will bridge the gap from Baseline to Target. Figure 4 provides an example.

The mapping of capabilities to Transition Architecture to projects is provided in detail in the

ArchiMate model (see Section 5.1.3.1).

Figure 4: Incremental Capability Roadmap using the ArchiMate Specification

The next phase, Phase G, discusses the fourth generic Capability-Based Planning step of
“Control”, as explained in the next section.

4.4.5 Phase G: Implementation Governance

As we transition into Phase G, we are also transitioning into the fourth and last step of the
generic Capability-Based Planning process; i.e., step control. Controlling the implementation of
the new capabilities is carried through this phase.

12 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 The usual steps of review – during toll gates and similar milestones – and by carrying out the
Architecture Compliance review process ensures that the Architecture Principles, Architecture
Requirements, the Architecture Roadmap (including the use of an incremental approach), the
required standards, security requirements, and so on are adhered to by the implementation teams.
Refer to the TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Section 42.3 (Architecture Compliance Reviews)
[3].

Capability-Based Planning 13
5 Capability-Based Planning Example Using the
ArchiMate Language

This chapter provides an end-to-end example of Capability-Based Planning using the ArchiMate
language following the generic steps as described in Chapter 3 and mapping into the ADM
phases described in Chapter 4. For this purpose, we will use the example from the ArchiSurance
Case Study [5] supplemented with additional scenarios to complete the steps. It is assumed that
the reader already has some knowledge of the ArchiMate language; otherwise, we request you to
refer to The Open Group ArchiMate 3.0.1 Specification [7] and the ArchiSurance Case Study [5]
for background.

The ArchiMate language, as described in the ArchiMate specification, complements the TOGAF
framework [3] in that it provides a vendor-independent set of concepts and relationships,
including a graphical representation that helps to create a consistent, integrated model, which
can be depicted in the form of views. While the ArchiMate language defines its own example
viewpoints that serve as templates for a broad range of views, the language can also be used to
construct the diagrams defined in the TOGAF Architecture Content Framework [7].

5.1.1 Step 1: Map

Mapping refers to defining, grouping, and relating capabilities of an organization. This step
maps to Phase A of the TOGAF ADM, as outlined above.

We will start by understanding the goals and strategies in our example with ArchiSurance [5].
The stakeholders’ viewpoint, shown in Figure 5, shows the concerns of two key stakeholders –
the Board and the Customer.

This is further driven down to other drivers.

Figure 5: Example of a Motivation View

Figure 6 further breaks down the desired driver for profitability and the associated business
goals.

14 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Figure 6: Evaluation of Goals and their Influence on Drivers

Recall that a capability is a particular ability or capacity that a business may possess or exchange
to achieve a specific purpose or outcome [1]. Our example also contains capabilities at Level 0.

Each of these capabilities at Level 0 can go down further to Levels 3 or 4, and the Enterprise
Architect must strike the right balance as to which level will drive the right level of decision-
making for programs and projects to implement the capability increment.

For our purpose, we will do the assessment at Level 1, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Example of a Level 1-2 Capability Map

Furthermore, it is important to relate these capabilities to the strategic intent of the organization.

Capability-Based Planning 15
 Figure 8 further details what influences profitability using an ArchiMate model. In this model,
the driver for Profitability is positively influenced by the goal of an Increase in Revenue which
in turn is positively influenced by a goal of Increase in Market Share. To increase market share it
was noted that a strategic goal of Competitive Premium Selling must be achieved and to realize
that we must be able to have Detailed Insights in Consumer Behavior.

Looking at the existing capability, we need to have a Data-driven Insurance capability [5].

Figure 8: Linking Capability to Outcomes in Realizing Goals

5.1.2 Step 2: Assess

In this step, which maps to Phases B, C, and D of the TOGAF ADM, we will use the appropriate
methods highlighted in Chapter 6 to appropriately assess the state of the capabilities vis a vis the
corresponding goals. For example, in driving profitability we need to drive the reduction of
personnel costs. In this way a combination of a cost analysis heat map with business value can
provide a view to support decision-making.

5.1.2.1 Using Investment Priority Metrics

We will use the Investment Priority matrix as first described in the Capability-Based Planning
White Paper [4] where we look at the areas of business value versus annual investment.

16 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Investment Priority

High
Business Value
Optimized Capability
Priority Focus
or Investment Opp.

Low Priority Over-investing

Low
Low High
Annual Investment

Figure 9: Business Value versus Annual Investment Matrix

5.1.2.2 Capability Model Using Investment Priority and Heat Map Example

In this example, as shown in Figure 9, we created an assessment of the baseline vis a vis business
value and annual investment. This is an assessment of investment priorities across the baseline.

At this point we have not yet identified what the gaps are.

Next, we need to overlay a baseline capability map with the investment priorities, as defined in
Figure 9, and present the result in a heat map, such as that shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Capability Assessment Using Heat Maps Incorporating Investment Priority Metrics

Once this model is created, we would have our baseline metrics and gain an understanding of
where the investment priorities are with our current capabilities, but we don’t know yet what
capabilities are needed to reach our goal.

Capability-Based Planning 17
5.1.2.3 Modeling Capability Gaps Using Metrics

Based on an evaluation of the needed capabilities, and in this particular example, we discovered
two additional capabilities that do not exist today. Using heat maps they are greyed-out. These
are target state capabilities that need to be brought in.

We have room for improvement in our current capabilities because we are over-investing, but
also we have areas where we are not investing at all and we need to bring them in. We can create
an ArchiMate model to represent this scenario, as Figure 11 shows.

Figure 11: Capability Gaps Assessment Using Heat Maps

The next step is to define that gap and to ensure that we are not over-investing.

Measuring the baseline maturity level of a capability is critical, since it provides a clear
understanding of the business weaknesses and needs for each capability in order to realize the
target state, which in and of itself also has a maturity level.

Capabilities that require a higher target maturity level are ones that have been prioritized higher
through the different classification techniques. For example, prioritizing capabilities that enable
value streams as they support revenue generation or customer interface points.

Also, we use the previous view where we identify the gap and we say that we are Level 0
because they are new capabilities and we need to do a large amount of work in order to move the
data-driven insurance up to a Level 5.

18 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Figure 12: Capability Target State Maturity View

Please note that, in reality, moving from a capability that doesn’t exist to a higher-level maturity
will take several increments.

5.1.3 Step 3: Plan

This step maps to the TOGAF ADM Phases E and F. In the next example we will focus on the
data-driven insurance capability. (Note that in this document we are focusing on the data-driven
insurance capability and not assessing digital customer management as it is not relevant to this
particular example/goal.)

The next question now is, over what period of time and what logical segmentation might we do
this. The next diagram, Figure 13, is a capability increment diagram showing a re-use of color.
This particular diagram assigns red for Phase 1 and green for Phase 2. (Note that the colors used
in Figure 11 are not related to those used in Figure 12.)

In planning for capability delivery, we align the capability uplift with the specific increments.

We are assuming here that whatever the increment is it will take us from Level 0 to Level 5
gradually over time.

5.1.3.1 Capability Increments and Roadmaps

Figure 13 is an ArchiMate 3.0.1 model of a capability map in which heat mapping is used to
denote implementation phases that will deliver the missing capabilities.

Capability-Based Planning 19
 Figure 13: Capability Increment Implementation Phase View

Another ArchiMate modeling technique that can represent the third step of the generic
Capability-Based Planning steps utilizes the modeling transformation by showing
Implementation and Migration Strategy layer concepts [7], as depicted in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Work Packages Realization of Capabilities Per Phase

In this model, we focus on four capabilities (Accounts Management, Distribution Channel

Management, Customer Data Management, and Data-driven Insurance) and group them into two
logical groupings: Phase 1 and Phase 2. From January to May we will start up a project for

20 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System Integration which will help realize two of
the four capabilities. The Data Warehousing and Business Intelligence (BI) project will help
realize two of the four capabilities in Phase 2 from March to December.

The internal people that will be working on delivery of these will predominantly be our back-
office team and shared service center team.

The shared service center is accountable for customer data management and data-driven
insurance and has shared responsibility for all four capabilities.

5.1.4 Step 4: Control

In this step, which maps to the TOGAF ADM Phase G, we take a snapshot in time to monitor
the progress of fulfilling this capability. Fulfillment of the capability is done through
implementations and work packages. This snapshot in time is what we refer to in ArchiMate
language as a “plateau”. From progress tracking, it shows where are we and how much we have
realized throughout the project. Are we on track? Are we behind?

We can create a review heat map to track where we are. This model can be created on a monthly
basis. This model can also change according to the delivery phase of the project and the phase of
the projects you are achieving.

This does not relate to the capability maturity phase – it merely reflects the delivery of the
project as compared to the capability.

We created the four project delivery phases – plan, design, build, and implement (you can
choose relevant delivery phases for your organization).

Figure 15: Tracking Capability Delivery Progress in June, Shown Using Heat Maps

Now we ask what phase we are in and how does that now relate to the capability maturity at that
point in time in June. This ArchiMate model shows we are running behind and we need to
accelerate. Usually a project needs to blend with a traditional Project Management Office (PMO)
deliverable like a Gantt chart in order to show how to accelerate.

Capability-Based Planning 21
 We know we need to reach Level 4 or 5 in June but as we see, we are still not realizing this. The
message here is that Phase 1 is running behind schedule because we wanted to finish this in the
month of May.

Figure 16: Capability Maturity as at June, Relative to the Degree of Realization for Each Goal at
that Point In Time

At the capability evaluation, we are evaluating where the goals are vis a vis where we are on the
capability. So, by June, we have partially, fully, or somewhat realized the goals based on the
project work behind the uplift of the capability.

Figure 17: Goal Realization Assessment

22 The Open Group Guide (2019)

6 Assessing Capabilities Using Metrics

In the previous step, the capabilities which can help an organization with realizing its goals and
strategies were identified. This information is used to identify on which capabilities to focus
when determining where investments need to be made in order to achieve the goals and
strategies of the organization. Measuring and assessing the strategic capabilities of an
organization can help with determining how large an investment needs to be for each capability.

The size of this investment depends on the gap between the current performance or maturity of a
capability and the level it needs to be in order to help realize the goals and strategies of an
organization.

This is also a good way to set expectations in terms of what is a realistic goal for a given
capability. Generally, you would expect that a certain level of improvement requires time in the
order of 12 or more months.

The performance and maturity of an organization are examples of assessments which can be
performed for capabilities. One way to perform these assessments is with the help of metrics.

6.1 Metric Types

A metric can be defined as the extent, quantity, amount, or degree of something, as determined
by measurement or calculation. Metrics can be both qualitative and quantitative in nature, and
can be used to assess, monitor, and evaluate the changes in the performance or maturity of
capabilities [4].

In the case of qualitative metrics, it is common to use scales, which signify a ranking of values,
from the lowest to the highest value. An example of this is the scale used for creating high-level
qualitative assessments of the maturity of capabilities. The metric in this case can be named
“Maturity”, and its five values can include (from low to high): Initial; Managed; Defined;
Quantitative or Quantitatively Managed; and Optimized.

Another popular example of using qualitative metrics is high-level performance assessments of

capabilities. For this purpose, several five-point or three-point scales can be used. A few
examples of these include:
 Low, medium, high
 Very low, low, medium, high, very high
 Below average, average, above average (for benchmarking)
 Unacceptable, below average, average, above average, outstanding
 Poor, fair, average, good, excellent

In the case of a quantitative assessment of capabilities, the metric values are obtained through
the calculation or measurement of the quantity or amount of some criteria. A commonly used

Capability-Based Planning 23
 quantitative metric is cost and can be in terms of people; e.g., the number of Full-Time
Equivalents (FTEs), a dollar value, or the number of steps needed to perform it. In this case, the
value of the metric can be any integer or real number. The calculation of the cost of a metric can
be done based on estimations or based on the costs of the underlying architectural elements
which help realize the capability. In many cases, the cost of the capability can be calculated as
the sum of the costs of the elements which realize it. In the case in which the same architectural
element contributes to the realization of multiple capabilities, the costs of this element can be
distributed between the two capabilities.

6.2 Defining Metrics

Choosing the right metrics for assessing capabilities is a crucial aspect of determining where an
organization should make investments. The wrong metrics can cause organizations to spend their
limited resources on improving aspects of capabilities which are not relevant to achieving their
goals and strategies.

As an example, if the goal of an organization is to “improve customer satisfaction”, a good

metric for measuring the customer management capability would be “customer complaints”,
measured by the “number of customer complaints”. In this situation, a metric which would be
less relevant, and perhaps even have a negative impact, would be “cost”. The main reason for
this is that improving customer satisfaction might require a high monetary investment in many
aspects related to the customer management capability.

Using Business Performance Metrics you can define a more generic method for collecting
metrics so that they are comparable internally and via external benchmarks. For example, if you
would like to know the capability productivity in terms of FTE as your data point, measuring the
FTE metamodel with “number of people” and “skills of people” in delivering the work to show
the number of proficient people with subject matter expertise will help with assessing people
readiness in the capabilities.

For example, looking at the skills of people in delivering the work subject to the Business
Performance Metrics, if today the skills of the people are monitored ad hoc then the maturity of
that capability on this aspect will be Level 2. If the skills of the people are regularly tracked and
improved, you could say that the maturity of that capability is Level 4.

6.3 Identifying Capability Gaps

Capability gaps are a function of the target state needed by the organization based on its goals.

You can choose to start measuring the current state and then define the target state goals or the
other way around. While the current state is based on the existing performance of the capability
and the other subsets of that capability, the target state is generally based on the level of
performance needed by the organization in order for it to deliver on its mission, vision, and
goals.

After measuring the current state and identifying the target state, the capability gaps derived by
looking at the difference between the target and current state will provide a prioritization of the
capabilities needing the most intervention to improve.

24 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 As mentioned in Section 5.1.2.3, there are several ways that capability gaps can be assessed. The
identified gaps have to be assessed using techniques similar to the ones that follow in the next
section to prioritize which of those gaps need to be urgently addressed; for example, due to their
bigger impact. The assessment of those priorities has to consider the context of the enterprise,
including its business environment, drivers, and its vision, goals, and strategies.

6.4 Techniques and Analysis

6.4.1 Heat Map
The heat map can be used to represent visually the results of assessing a capability. It is a
suitable technique for visualizing both qualitative and quantitative assessments. A common use
for the heat map is to represent the performance or maturity of a capability based on a high-level
qualitative assessment. In this case, each level of the performance or maturity of the capability is
represented with a different color.

6.4.2 Performance Analysis

In assessing the performance of capabilities a simple five-step scale can be used, which includes
values ranging from very low to very high. Each of these values can be represented by using a
standard color scheme from red (for very low) to dark green (for very high). Figure 18 illustrates
what a heat map for assessing the performance of capabilities can look like.

Figure 18: Example of a Heat Map for Capability Performance Using the ArchiMate Specification

This five-step scale can also be attached to a metric, named “performance”. In this case, the five
values, from very low to very high, are the only ones a metric can have for assessing a
capability.

6.4.3 Cost Analysis

Similarly, in the case of using quantitative metrics, such as “cost”, the result of the calculation
can be visualized with the help of a heat map. In order to simplify the color scheme used for the
heat map, the results of the cost calculation can be grouped into ranges. Figure 19 illustrates how
a cost analysis can be visualized with the help of a heat map. In this example, the colors
represent the cost ranges, as follows: Low cost – between 0 and 30,000; Average – between
30,001 and 70,000; Expensive – 70,001 and 100,000. The actual cost values can be seen above
each capability.

Capability-Based Planning 25
 Figure 19: Example of Cost Analysis Visualized with a Heat Map Using the ArchiMate Specification

The costs for each capability can be determined based on the underlying costs of the
architectural elements which help realize the capability. As an example, the cost of the
“Customer billing and collection management” capability, as shown in Figure 20, is determined
by the business processes, application services, and technology functions which help realize it.
The total cost of the capability is calculated as a sum of all the costs of the architectural elements
which help realize it.

26 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Figure 20: Example of a Capability Cost Analysis Based on the Underlying Architectural Costs
Using the ArchiMate Specification

6.4.4 Spider Chart

Another useful technique which can be used to analyze a capability is the spider chart. The main
benefit of using a spider chart is that instead of assessing a capability based on only one metric,
as is the case of a heat map, a spider chart allows for multiple metrics to be used.

However, unlike the heat map, the spider chart should not be used for analyzing all the
capabilities of an organization in one chart. Instead, a better use of a spider chart would be to
analyze the current performance of a single capability, with the use of at least three metrics.
Additionally, the planned performance of the capability can be overlapped to the current
capability performance in order to highlight the current gap between the planned and realized
performance.

Figure 21 illustrates an example of a spider chart used to analyze the performance of the
“Customer billing and collection management” capability from the perspective of five metrics,
namely accuracy, cost, reliability, task time, and uniformity.

Capability-Based Planning 27
 Figure 21: Example of a Capability Assessment Using a Spider Chart

6.4.5 Global, Regional, and Local View of Capabilities

Figure 22 gives another example of how to use heat maps that provide a view on capabilities
executed at different levels of the organization (local, regional, or global).

Figure 22: Capability Consistency versus Execution Heat Map Diagram

Figure 23 shows a business capability map that provides a definition of the reference set of
business capabilities that exist in the organization. It enables the organization to analyze its
ability to deliver successful business outcomes based on the reference business capabilities.

28 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Figure 23: Business Capability Portfolio Levels of Consistency and Consolidation

Capability-Based Planning 29
7 Applying Capability-Based Planning for Digital
Transformation

This chapter is about defining the business capabilities for Digital Transformation and proposes
an Enterprise Architecture approach that enables an enterprise to respond to digital disruption by
realizing a Digital Transformation strategy.

New innovations in Social, Mobile, Analytics, Cloud, and Internet of Things (SMACIT) [6], big
data, blockchains, and artificial intelligence have brought digital disruption which brings the
need for enterprises to adopt a digital strategy. These technological innovations have resulted in
the creation of new business models, new sales channels, and readily available technological
digital capabilities.

From an Enterprise Architecture and IT perspective, Capability-Based Planning is a powerful

mechanism to ensure that the strategic business plan drives the enterprise from a top-down
approach. It is also adaptable, with capability engineering able to leverage emerging bottom-up
innovations [3].

This chapter gives guidance on how to adapt the technique of Capability-Based Planning from
its default approach of a top-down application to one that incorporates a Digital Transformation
capability by applying an iterative approach.

The proposal is to have a closed-loop Capability-Based Planning approach where IT strategy

enables the Enterprise Architecture program by considering innovative strategic digital
capabilities and integrating business-IT capabilities using a digital platform.

A digital platform organizes the “palette of digital capabilities” into categories and puts non-
functional capabilities around them, such as security and governance. One such categorization of
a platform services capability is: information and big data management, integration and service
management, and innovation environment. This approach strengthens the foundation of
Capability-Based Planning by detailing how to incorporate a bottom-up approach and is in line
with the above definition [3].

7.1 Digital Capability

Digital strategies are inspired by the capabilities of powerful readily available technologies
including SMACIT [6]. Though the technology capabilities are readily available, competitive
advantage today requires the execution of integrated capabilities.

Digital capability is the strategic capability that provides a competitive advantage for the
business to realize a digital strategy through independent technological developments and
successful technology transfer. This grossly differs from the traditional IT capability that
supports the business by mobilizing and deploying IT-related resources, including skills and
knowledge.

30 The Open Group Guide (2019)

7.2 Mapping and Prioritizing Capabilities
7.2.1 Digital Capability Map
Since technological innovations have resulted in the creation of new business models, it is
evident that these strategic capabilities are missing when IT capabilities are derived through
business strategy. Hence, it is essential to prepare a digital capability map to realize the Digital
Transformation strategy. Figure 24 shows the main capabilities needed to support digital projects
across different industries and different sizes of organizations.

Figure 24: Digital Capability Map

7.2.2 Guidance on Iterative Capability-Based Planning

It is better to have a phased approach starting with the “minimum viable capabilities” required to
support a particular customer touchpoint along the digital journey.

A digital capability map is achieved by applying the approach of iterations to the traditional top-
down Capability-Based Planning to an iterative top-down and bottom-up Capability-Based
Planning to identify strategic capabilities required to support both deliberate business strategy
and the emergent IT strategy. This enables an organization to model the Enterprise Architecture
for a Digital Transformation strategy to achieve a competitive advantage using integrated
business-IT capabilities, as explained in Figure 25.

Capability-Based Planning 31
 IT Business
Strategy Strategy

Strategic Strategic
Digital Business
Capability Capability

Figure 25: Iterative Enterprise Architecture Approach for Digital Transformation

Figure 26 illustrates the relationships between Capability-Based Planning, Enterprise

Architecture, and project/portfolio management. On the left-hand side, capability is aligned with
Enterprise Architecture. The key is that all the architectures will be expressed in terms of
business outcomes and value rather than in IT terms to ensure IT alignment with the business.

Figure 26: Closed Loop Capability-Based Planning

The proposed approach is an iterative top-down combined with bottom-up Capability-Based

Planning approach where the digital strategy enables an Enterprise Architecture program using
innovative strategic digital capabilities, such as building blocks.

7.3 Digital Transformation Modeling

7.3.1 ArchiMate Digital Notation
The ArchiMate language customization mechanism has been used to model the digital concepts.
This enables alignment between strategy, Enterprise Architecture, planning, and realization. The
models provide traceability to support decision-making.

32 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Figure 27: Digital Capability and Digital Strategy

7.3.2 Digital Strategy

The suggested approach to arrive at a digital strategy is to start with Phase A (Architecture
Vision) before iterating through top-down and bottom-up Capability-Based Planning to capture
strategic capabilities and emergent digital strategy by identifying business value and priorities. A
combined IT and business strategy is enabled by a technology capabilities block, which is the
foundation for technically implementing the Digital Transformation.

When applying the TOGAF framework, digital strategy and the iterative Capability-Based
Planning approach can probably be applied more when engaged in an “enterprise/strategic” (and
to a lesser degree when engaged in a “segment”) level of architecture defined as two of the three
levels of depth that define a comprehensive Architecture Landscape, see Chapter 19 of the
TOGAF standard [3].

Figure 28: Enterprise Digital Strategy

7.3.3 Business, Data, Application, and Technology Architecture Capabilities

Baseline capabilities within each architecture domain (Business, Data, Application, and
Technology) take a “minimum viable solution” approach to delivering new products and
services as quickly as possible so value can be realized as soon as possible both to the
organization and the customer.

Capability-Based Planning 33
 The next step is to create the artifacts in each domain that will realize the “digital platform” to
integrate the capability with inherited security and governance to build the conceptual blueprint
architecture for digital enterprise along with an analysis of the gap between “as is” and “to be”
capabilities.

Figure 29: Enterprise Digital Capability Map

The digital platform architecture not only provides the breadth of functionality needed to support
a digital strategy but also the depth of stack, from business applications, platform services, and
infrastructure. The platform enables end-to-end business processes and plug-and-pay business
and technology components.

7.3.4 Capability Increments and Deliverables

The final step is to break the capability into digital capability increments that deliver discrete,
visible, and quantifiable outcomes as well as providing the focus for Transition Architectures
and the deliverables from numerous inter-dependent projects.

The capability increment needs to provide real business value to stakeholders in the near term
and maintain momentum to achieve the Target Architecture as well as the associated executive
support and corporate funding.

34 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 The step is crucial for a smooth Digital Transformation program without disrupting the business
and also to prioritize the capability increments within the digital programs.

Refer to Section 5.1.3.1 of this document for more information on Step 3 of the Capability-
Based Planning that details the planning of incremental capabilities.

Figure 30: Enterprise Digital Transition Plan

Capability-Based Planning 35
8 Conclusion

Capability-Based Planning is a powerful approach that connects an organization’s strategic

direction with its Enterprise Architecture and project/portfolio management in order to fulfill the
missing capabilities needed.

Capability-Based Planning’s four generic steps can be used in conjunction with the TOGAF
ADM by itself, or through modeling in the ArchiMate language alone, or by using both the
TOGAF standard and the ArchiMate specification as the chapters above outline.

With Capability-Based Planning, a consistent assessment of the maturity and uplift of various
aspects of the organization’s capabilities are measured and governed. The impact of program and
project results achieved is likewise measured and tracked. The traceability it provides will be
powerful in understanding which initiatives made the biggest improvement to the business and
which ones did not. In this way organization maturity cam be sustained over time.

Communication with stakeholders throughout the implementation of Capability-Based Planning

is a primary activity, and the use of the ArchiMate modeling language makes this
communication much more expressive and precise.

36 The Open Group Guide (2019)

 Acronyms
ADM Architecture Development Method

BI Business Intelligence

CRM Customer Relationship Management

FTE Full-Time Equivalents

KPI Key Performance Indicator

PMO Project Management Office

PPM Project Portfolio Management

PPO Project Portfolio Office

SMACIT Social, Mobile, Analytics, Cloud, and Internet of Things

Capability-Based Planning 37
 Index
business capability...................... 2 Digital Transformation ............. 30
capabilities ................................ 23 heat map ................................... 25
capability .............................. 2, 15 KPIs ............................................ 3
capability gaps .......................... 24 mapping .................................... 14
capability increment ................. 34 metric ....................................... 23
capability instance ...................... 6 metrics ...................................... 24
capability map .......................... 10 PPM............................................ 5
corporate strategic plan ............ 10 spider chart ............................... 27
digital capability ....................... 30 TOGAF ADM ............................ 6
digital capability map ............... 31 US DoD ...................................... 2
digital platform ......................... 30

38 The Open Group Guide (2019)