 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Adding history section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agilearchitecting ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The TOGAF view of capability-based planning ( http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap32.html), while flawed and not universally accepted, is a lot more authoritative and better-known than most of the material in this article. I believe the article should lead with the TOGAF view, and then present some critiques, alternative views and extensions. -- Cat4567nip ( talk) 08:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Except that is not true. TOGAF may be better known it is not more authoritative and certainly not a lot more authoritative. Capability-based frameworks have a history in DoDAF and MODAF that preceded TOGAF by many years. Also the business management literature - like David Teece's and Dorothy Leonard's stuff - also has precedent and is a lot more authoritative than TOGAF. From this perspective TOGAF is a derivative re-statement and not authoritative.
I believe this article should present the fuller picture of Capability Management in the business context, reference its origins in the military world and then present TOGAF as an IT-specific and prescriptive implementation and adaptation of the more general approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.149.139 ( talk) 12:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Whoever wrote the TOGAF article that infects IT architecture since it was written, hasn't read the source material they are referring to or didn't actually understand it. Combined with the mistranslation from noun-verb to verb-noun for naming (or vice versa) they made a hash of Ulrich Homans original article which was shorter, better and comprehensible. And thus you get the things you see in the article that refer to capabilities as if they are also some sort of business function (the reference to [4] in the article). I finished some research into capabilities recently for a large organisation, I'll see when I get time that I improve this article. As it stands it's better than the TOGAF abomination, but not as helpful as it could be. References to relevant business literature in this section will be much appreciated, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.245.24 ( talk) 12:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
By the way, this refers to the Enterprise Architecture section more than anything, and given the relevance of that section to the whole article (tiny), it's a bit strange that this is the main talk topic. But I guess EA has a bigger need than most for clarity on this topic, given that most EA methods are not very clear on what capabilities are, exactly, but they are very important if you want to relate to the business on a strategic level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.245.24 ( talk) 12:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
| This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Adding history section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agilearchitecting ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The TOGAF view of capability-based planning ( http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap32.html), while flawed and not universally accepted, is a lot more authoritative and better-known than most of the material in this article. I believe the article should lead with the TOGAF view, and then present some critiques, alternative views and extensions. -- Cat4567nip ( talk) 08:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Except that is not true. TOGAF may be better known it is not more authoritative and certainly not a lot more authoritative. Capability-based frameworks have a history in DoDAF and MODAF that preceded TOGAF by many years. Also the business management literature - like David Teece's and Dorothy Leonard's stuff - also has precedent and is a lot more authoritative than TOGAF. From this perspective TOGAF is a derivative re-statement and not authoritative.
I believe this article should present the fuller picture of Capability Management in the business context, reference its origins in the military world and then present TOGAF as an IT-specific and prescriptive implementation and adaptation of the more general approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.149.139 ( talk) 12:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Whoever wrote the TOGAF article that infects IT architecture since it was written, hasn't read the source material they are referring to or didn't actually understand it. Combined with the mistranslation from noun-verb to verb-noun for naming (or vice versa) they made a hash of Ulrich Homans original article which was shorter, better and comprehensible. And thus you get the things you see in the article that refer to capabilities as if they are also some sort of business function (the reference to [4] in the article). I finished some research into capabilities recently for a large organisation, I'll see when I get time that I improve this article. As it stands it's better than the TOGAF abomination, but not as helpful as it could be. References to relevant business literature in this section will be much appreciated, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.245.24 ( talk) 12:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
By the way, this refers to the Enterprise Architecture section more than anything, and given the relevance of that section to the whole article (tiny), it's a bit strange that this is the main talk topic. But I guess EA has a bigger need than most for clarity on this topic, given that most EA methods are not very clear on what capabilities are, exactly, but they are very important if you want to relate to the business on a strategic level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.245.24 ( talk) 12:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)