How to model "Business Product" and "Business Capability" mapping?

Post Reply
xiaoqi
Posts: 126
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 03:33

Hello,

We're the financial services company, we have modeled our business capability model into [Business_Layer]->[Buisness_Conceptual]->[Business_Capability], with hierarchy, and it's successfully published into Business Capability Dashboard.

We'd like to model our Business Products, e.g. loan, lease, etc.. and then map Business Products with Business Capabilities.

I see several classes referring to "Product" within Business layer--

- Bsuiness_Conceptual: Product_Concept
- Business_Logical: Product_Type, Product

And some relations I can read from the instance window has put into the meta-model in my understanding.

I've learnt from our university documentation and already build the left side's (green boxes) Capability to Application mapping, which can support the # of circle showed in Business Capability Dashboard.

Here I'd like to learn from you, what's the recommendation to model Business Product, which one of those 3 red boxes is good to be used? And once I can model Business Products in Essential, which views are able to show the Capability to Product mapping?

Thanks greatly and regards,
Xiaoqi
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
jasonp
Posts: 70
Joined: 01 Jul 2017, 07:05

Hi,

The links directly below are from the Essential University, and are to the meta-class definitions for Product Concept, Product Type and Product, including examples of how they should be applied. Which of these you decide to populate will depend on the questions that you are looking to answer, and to what level of granularity. To date, most of our users find Product Type as the right level of detail, but the choice is yours. More specifically, they are looking to understand the business processes, organisations and applications that support the delivery of the different "types" of Products that they offer. The views that we currently provide out-of-the-box (see links at the bottom) are also focused on gaining this understanding. As you mention, the meta-model does support other perspectives and so we would certainly be interested in understanding the specific nature of what you are looking to understand. For example, are you looking to understand which Business Capabilities are "required" to deliver each Product Type?


Meta-Class Definitions

Product Concept
https://enterprise-architecture.org/doc ... ncept.html

Product Type
https://enterprise-architecture.org/doc ... _Type.html

Product
https://enterprise-architecture.org/doc ... oduct.html


Views:

Business Function/Service Model
https://essentialviewer.com/report?XML= ... l&cl=en-gb

Business Service Summary
https://essentialviewer.com/report?XML= ... e&cl=en-gb
xiaoqi
Posts: 126
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 03:33

Thanks greatly Jason for your quick reply, I have gong through our pages in the University site, that's the input for that meta-model diagram.

From my understanding, I see the linkage between Product_Concept and Business_Capability as below

product_concept_supported_by_capability The Business Capability(ies) that supports the production of a Product Concept.

This is now what I'm interested to use "product_concept", sicne other Product classes still need to connect to Business Capability through product_concept, which making complaxity.

Also, refering to attached picture, which is our proposed modeling pattern worked in Archi tool, between "Product" (Financial Product" and "Capability", indeed it would be ideal if we go via the value chain in Strategy Layer, but as we're ramping up the pattern, we'd like to keep work feasible first, so my goal is to model "financial product" using "product_concept", then connect to "Business_Capability", in Protege, it's allowed for mapping the relation.

But in the two views (also I checked other views), I cannot have this kind of relation (product to capability) displayed. I don't have Business Service layer modeled yet.

Will you be able to guide me to some view that having this relationshiop? Or do I need to create some customized view through those own slots?

Thanks again,
Xiaoqi
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
xiaoqi
Posts: 126
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 03:33

Hello Jason and all again,

With our recent further research, we found it would be good to still link three Product classes -- Product_Concept, Product_type and Product -- altogether for one cross mapping in our repository, as attached updated mapping pattern.

The two out of box views - Business Function / Service Model, Business Service Summary - are focusing on Product_type only, and not having one hierarchy structure but just a list.

Our expected mapping is use the "Product_Concept" for top level product offering concepts, which then utilize the existing mapping to capability directly; and then break down the level 2 and 3 offerings using Product_type (for common product definition), so one hierarchy view (like Business Process Hierarchy) would be perfect, like putting Product_Concept in the top row, then Product_Type under the Product_Concept.

The understand of using "Product" itself is like the instance of Product_Type, so we can point specific market/site's product implementation using Product, then map that to Product_Type.

Is there the plan from your roadmap to add such kind of similar mapping view?

I think using "Product xxx" would be good enough as it can be easier to convey the message to stakeholder then business service.

Thanks,
Xiaoqi
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply