Dr. Raj Vayyavur, Senior, IEEE

 rvayyavur@gmail.com

 Abstract— Capability and process modeling are critical techniques in enterprise architecture (EA) that help align business strategies with IT infrastructure. These methods offer structured approaches for organizations to visualize, assess, and optimize their competencies, processes, and dependencies. This paper explores several key modeling techniques, including business capability modeling, process mapping, and dependency mapping, using real-world use cases from industries such as telecommunications, healthcare, banking, and broadcasting. These case studies illustrate how organizations can improve alignment between operations and business objectives, enhancing overall efficiency and decision-making.

Keywords— Capability Modeling, Process Mapping, Dependency Mapping, Business-IT Alignment, Enterprise Architecture, Telecommunications, Healthcare, Banking, TOGAF, Gartner, Operational Efficiency, Strategic Decision-Making

I. INTRODUCTION

    In today’s fast-paced and technology-driven environment, organizations across industries are continuously challenged to optimize their operations and stay competitive. The convergence of business and IT strategies has become more critical than ever, as companies seek to leverage technology not only to streamline processes but also to achieve their broader strategic goals. Enterprise Architecture (EA) frameworks, particularly those centered on capability and process modeling, play a pivotal role in ensuring that businesses can adapt and thrive in such complex landscapes.

Capability and process modeling have emerged as fundamental tools within enterprise architecture, enabling organizations to capture and visualize their core competencies, workflows, and the relationships between different systems and processes. These modeling techniques allow businesses to gain deeper insights into their operations, identify inefficiencies, and make informed decisions that improve both operational efficiency and alignment between business and IT [1]. As organizations become more dependent on technology to drive innovation and growth, the importance of these models in managing complexity and enabling transformation cannot be overstated.

One of the significant challenges faced by enterprises today is the growing need to ensure that IT systems and business processes are not only aligned but also flexible enough to support rapid change. Organizations are increasingly turning to capability models to assess their current competencies and identify gaps that may hinder their ability to respond to evolving market conditions [2]. These models provide a structured approach to assessing an organization’s readiness to meet future demands, offering a roadmap for where to invest in technology or process improvements.

Process modeling, on the other hand, provides a lens through which organizations can examine their operational workflows in detail. By mapping out the flow of work and decision points, organizations can better understand how activities are carried out and where inefficiencies or bottlenecks occur. This enables businesses to implement targeted solutions, such as process automation or system upgrades, that drive greater efficiency and reduce operational costs [3]. Dependency mapping further complements this by offering insights into the interconnections between systems and processes, allowing organizations to anticipate the impact of changes across their operations [4].

The need for capability and process modeling is evident in numerous sectors, including telecommunications, healthcare, banking, and broadcasting, where organizations must manage highly complex environments. For instance, in the telecommunications industry, organizations rely on capability models to assess and manage the growing demand for digital services. In healthcare, process modeling helps streamline patient data management, while in banking, dependency mapping ensures that front-end and backend systems remain in sync as institutions pursue digital transformation strategies [7].

While frameworks such as TOGAF provide guidance on defining capabilities and processes, the application of these models in real-world contexts highlights their tangible benefits. The ability to visualize, assess, and optimize capabilities allows organizations not only to align their operations with their strategic goals but also to remain agile in the face of uncertainty and change [5].

This paper explores the key techniques of capability modeling, process mapping, and dependency mapping, examining their practical applications across various industries. Through real-world use cases, we will demonstrate how these models can be leveraged to enhance organizational efficiency, improve decision-making, and better align business strategies with IT capabilities.

Fig.1. Key Concepts of Capability & Process Modeling

II. GENERAL CONCEPTS OF CAPABILITY & PROCESS MODELING

A. Business Capability Modeling

Business capability modeling captures the abilities required by an organization to achieve its objectives. Capabilities encompass people, processes, technology, and information. A well-defined capability model aligns business strategies with operational execution, providing a holistic view of the organization’s abilities. Capabilities can be mapped and evaluated based on maturity, guiding decision-making for process improvements or IT investments.

B. Process Mapping

Process mapping visually represents workflows, decisions, and information flows across an organization. By creating visual models of processes, organizations can gain insight into how work is carried out, where inefficiencies exist, and how IT systems can support workflows. Process mapping is vital for identifying bottlenecks, improving coordination, and streamlining operations.

C. Dependency Mapping

Dependency mapping identifies relationships between business capabilities, processes, and IT systems. This technique helps organizations understand how changes in one area impact others. Dependency mapping ensures that organizations make informed decisions about process changes or technology upgrades without disrupting critical business operations.

III. DEFINING CAPABILITIES: TOGAF Vs. GARTNER APPROACHES

    Different frameworks offer distinct methods for defining capabilities. Two commonly used frameworks are TOGAF and Gartner, each providing unique advantages.

A. TOGAF’s Noun-Based Approach

TOGAF defines capabilities using nouns, emphasizing what the organization can do. Examples include:

·         Resource Management

·         Customer Service

·         Product Development

This approach provides a structured, high-level view of the organization’s capabilities, focusing on outcomes and categories [5].

B. Gartner’s Verb-Based Approach

Gartner’s model uses verbs to define capabilities, making them more action-oriented and focused on processes. For example:

·         Plan and Manage Resources instead of Resource Management

·         Deliver Customer Service instead of Customer Service

·         Design and Develop Products instead of Product Development

By defining capabilities with verbs, organizations can focus on processes and actions that drive outcomes, making the model more dynamic and actionable [6].

C. TOGAF vs.  Gartner Approach

TOGAF (Noun-Based)	Gartner (Verb-Based)
Resource Management	Plan and Manage Resources
Customer Service	Deliver Customer Service
Product Development	Design and Develop Products
Risk Assessment	Assess and Mitigate Risks
Financial Planning	Plan and Execute Financial Strategy

Table 1. TOGAF vs. Gartner Approaches

TOGAF offers a high-level structure, while Gartner’s approach focuses more on the processes that drive results. Both methods are valuable, depending on the organization’s goals and context.

IV. KEY TECHNIQUES & REAL USE CASES

A. Business Capability Modeling: Telecom Industry

A telecommunications company applied business capability modeling to manage rising demand for DSL services. The company mapped key capabilities, including network planning, demand forecasting, and customer service management, identifying inefficiencies in resource allocation. By assessing the maturity of each capability, the company prioritized investments in areas that were critical but underdeveloped. For instance, the customer service management capability was identified as a low-maturity, high-priority area, leading to investments in automation and employee training [1].

Capability	Description	Maturity Level	Priority for Investment
Network Planning	Ability to manage infrastructure for service delivery	Medium	High
Customer Service Management	Handling customer inquiries and technical issues	Low	High
Demand Forecasting	Predicting future customer demand for DSL services	High	Low

Table 2. Telecommunications Capability Model

This approach enabled the telecommunications company to align its IT infrastructure with business needs, ensuring that investments were made in areas that had the greatest impact on service delivery and customer satisfaction.

B. Process Mapping: Healthcare Industry

A healthcare organization used process mapping to streamline patient data management and billing workflows. The initial process maps revealed inefficiencies such as repetitive data entry and manual handoffs between departments, leading to delays in billing and patient care. By visualizing these processes, the organization introduced automated systems to integrate patient records across departments, reducing errors and improving the speed and accuracy of billing [2].

Fig.2. Process Mapping in Healthcare

Process mapping allowed the healthcare provider to automate repetitive tasks, improve information flow, and enhance overall service efficiency.

C. Dependency Mapping: Banking Industry

A banking institution used dependency mapping to assess relationships between its digital banking systems and backend legacy systems. The bank aimed to enhance its online and mobile banking services but found that upgrading the front-end systems would overwhelm the backend legacy infrastructure. Through dependency mapping, the bank identified dependencies that required simultaneous upgrades to the backend systems to avoid bottlenecks [3].

Front-End System	Dependent Backend Systems	Upgrade Needed
Mobile Banking App	Core Banking, Fraud Detection	Yes
Web-Based Banking Platform	Core Banking, Customer Data Systems	Yes
ATM Network	Legacy Systems, Customer Records	No

Table 3. Inter-organizational Capability Sharing in Broadcasting

Dependency mapping enabled the bank to prioritize system upgrades, ensuring smooth integration between front-end and backend operations.

Fig.3. Dependency Mapping for Banking Digital Services

D. Inter-organizational Collaboration: Broadcasting Industry

In the broadcasting industry, inter-organizational collaboration is increasingly important as companies seek to pool resources and share capabilities. Several broadcasting companies used business capability maps to align their operations for joint ventures in content distribution and technology sharing. By developing a shared capability map, the companies identified areas of synergy and reduced costs through resource sharing [4].

Capability	Company A Contribution	Company B Contribution
Content Distribution	Infrastructure for video streaming	Licensing agreements for content
Customer Relationship Management	Call center services	CRM software and data analytics
Advertising and Sponsorships	Partner relationships with advertisers	Programmatic ad-buying systems

Table 4. Inter-organizational Capability Sharing in Broadcasting

The use of business capability maps allowed the broadcasting companies to leverage each other’s strengths, reducing operational costs and improving service delivery.

V. CONCLUSION

    Capability and process modeling are vital techniques for aligning business strategies with operational execution. By using methods like business capability modeling, process mapping, and dependency mapping, organizations can visualize their competencies, streamline workflows, and optimize resources.

Real-world examples from telecommunications, healthcare, banking, and broadcasting industries demonstrate how these modeling techniques help organizations improve business-IT alignment, enhance operational efficiency, and make informed strategic decisions. Depending on their needs, organizations can choose between TOGAF’s noun-based approach and Gartner’s verb-based approach for defining capabilities.

Acknowledgment

    I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the researchers, scholars, practitioners, and experts whose invaluable contributions have laid the foundation for this research. Your dedication, insights, and pioneering work have been instrumental in shaping the understanding and knowledge within this field. Without your relentless pursuit of excellence, this research would not have been possible. Thank you for your commitment to advancing the boundaries of knowledge, which continues to inspire and guide future endeavors.

References

[1] T. Barroero, G. Motta, and G. Pignatelli, “Business Capabilities Centric Enterprise Architecture,” in IFIP TC 5 International Conference on Enterprise Architecture, Integration, and Interoperability, Brisbane, Australia, 2010.

[2] F. Yilmaz, O. Schmidt, and F. Matthes, “Interorganizational Business Capability Maps: Use Cases for Horizontal Collaboration,” in Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Montreal, 2021.

[3] S. Kurnia, P. Taylor, S. Kotusev, and G. Shanks, “Artifacts, Activities, Benefits, and Blockers: Exploring Enterprise Architecture Practice in Depth,” in Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2020.

[4] F. Yilmaz et al., “Deriving a Process for Interorganizational Business Capability Modeling through Case Study Analysis,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), 2021.

[5] The Open Group, The TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition — A Pocket Guide, Van Haren Publishing, 2022.

[6] T. Barroero, G. Motta, and G. Pignatelli, “Business Capabilities Centric Enterprise Architecture,” in Proceedings of the IFIP TC 5 International Conference on Enterprise Architecture, Integration, and Interoperability, 2010.

[7] N. Rohani, “Leveraging Enterprise Architecture in Decision-Making,” University of Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2020.

[8] K. Bakhtiyari, A. R. Barros, and N. Russell, “Enterprise Architecture for Business Network Planning: A Capability-Based Approach,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 257-269.

[9] J. Fleischer, M. Herm, and J. Ude, “Business Capabilities as Configuration Elements of Value-Added Networks,” Production Engineering, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 187-192, 2007.

[10] G. Bondel, A. Faber, and F. Matthes, “Reporting from the Implementation of a Business Capability Map as a Business-IT Alignment Tool,” in Proceedings of the 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), IEEE, 2018, pp. 125-134.

[11] S. Chopra and M. S. Sodhi, “Supply-Chain Breakdown: Understanding the Risks,” MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 53-61, 2004.

[12] T. Mueller, D. Schuldt, B. Sewald, M. Morisse, and J. Petrikina, “Towards Inter-Organizational Enterprise Architecture Management: Applicability of TOGAF 9.1 for Network Organizations,” in Proceedings of the 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Chicago, IL, 2013.

[13] K. Provan and P. Kenis, “Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 229-252, 2008.

[14] A. Aleatrati Khosroshahi, M. Hauder, S. Volkert, F. Matthes, and M. Gernegroß, “Business Capability Maps: Current Practices and Use Cases for Enterprise Architecture Management,” in Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2018.

[15] G. Toppenberg, S. Henningsson, and G. Shanks, “How Cisco Systems Used Enterprise Architecture Capability to Sustain Acquisition-Based Growth,” MIS Quarterly Executive, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 151-168, 2015.

[16] F. Matthes, F. Yilmaz, and O. Schmidt, “Interorganizational Business Capability Maps: Use Cases for Horizontal Collaboration,” Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) Proceedings, 2021.

[17] The Open Group, The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2: A Pocket Guide, Van Haren Publishing, 2018.

[18] D. Ulrich and M. Rosen, “The Business Capability Map: The ‘Rosetta Stone’ of Business/IT Alignment,” Cutter Consortium Enterprise Architecture, vol. 24, no. 4, 2011.

[19] P. Runeson and M. Höst, “Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Case Study Research in Software Engineering,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 131-164, 2009.

[20] R. K. Yin, Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed., Sage Publications, 2017.

AUTHOR

Dr. Raj Vayyavur (Senior, IEEE) is a distinguished transformation expert, practitioner, and leader in the IT field with over two decades of experience. He currently serves as the Director of Enterprise Architecture at Public Consulting Group (PCG). His comprehensive expertise spans Enterprise Architecture (EA), Artificial Intelligence (AI), Project Portfolio Management, Software Engineering, IT Management & Governance, and more. Dr. Vayyavur is renowned for his strategic vision, deep technological expertise, and strong business acumen, which he uses to lead transformative initiatives that align IT strategies with business objectives, driving organizational success and delivering measurable outcomes.

A prolific author, Dr. Vayyavur has published numerous research papers on technology, enterprise architecture, and project portfolio management, solidifying his position as a thought leader in the field. His work has been featured in leading journals and conferences, offering actionable insights and bridging the gap between theory and practice. He frequently speaks at prestigious forums, including IEEE conferences, where he shares his insights on the latest trends in technology and enterprise architecture.

Holding advanced degrees in Computer Science, Business Administration, an MBA, and a Doctorate, Dr. Vayyavur is committed to continuous learning and staying at the forefront of industry developments. His active participation in the IEEE and PMI communities, where he serves as a senior member, reviewer, judge, and chair for various committees, further reflects his dedication to advancing the field.

Through his visionary leadership, Dr. Vayyavur has set new standards for technology management, earning recognition as a sought-after transformation expert known for driving innovation and excellence in every project he leads.

---