Standardizing naming of Business Capabilities and (Business) Services

[Daniel Carvalho]

Hi Folks,

I have been on and on regarding naming conventions for those two tables Business Capabilities and (Business) Services; from Design and Consume domains of CSDM.

I could use your good criticism on this approach, where I am proposing using language semantics and form to drive a standard on defining Capabilities vs. Services names.

Assumption for Business Capability (from google): A business capability defines “what” a business does at its core. This differs from “how” things are done or where they are done.

Proposal for Business Capability syntax: Something that the company needs TO DO (infinitive form). As in: having the Capability TO “Broadcast FM radio signal” or TO “Process Interconnection Billing (Telco industry)”.

Assumption for (Business) Service (from CSDM 3.0 whitepaper, which is not that verbose on this topic): A Business Service is a service type that is published to business users and it typically underpins one or more users capabilities. It is ONE LEVEL not a hierarchy. Should be focused on Consumer/Sell.

Proposal for (Business) Service syntax: the -ing form (the present participle). Something that can be happenING because the Service (provided by IT) enables it: Printing (Services); Email Marketing Delivering (Services); Onboarding, Checking In etc.

In a few words: (to) "Print” as a capability syntax and “Printing” as service syntax.

So, do all this make sense to you?

Cordial

Daniel

[Mary Vanatta]

Yes, this is correct. 
Capabilities: What you do
Services: What you are doing to meet that capability

The Service Portfolio is the highest level and would if you haven't already activate the FREE SPM Foundational plugin.  This will help design your taxonomy.  

Service Portfolio - End User Services
Service - Printing Service 
Service Offering - Copier - Managed   or Service Offering#2 - Copier - Executive (different SLA and Support group)

Request Item - Order Copier toner 

[Jeff Ernst1]

For Business Capability, I would try to use something already developed. There are Capability Models that you can reuse and make your own. For instance, I work for an insurance company and we use the ACORD Capability Model as the top of our CMDB that we've made minor adjustments to because the language doesn't match what we are use to calling things. The ACORD Capability Model refers to Financial Services Agreement Management, but we call it Policy Management. Once you load your Business Capabilities into ServiceNow, you shouldn't really have to create too many more because Business Capabilities for a company (the what) typically don't change.

If you want to publish a naming standard, Capabilities are typically non-active nouns and are usually, but not always, accompanied by 'Management' at the end. The names of these describe 'what' a company does and standup overtime. Business Capability Models are using Level 0-2 with Level 0 being the parent with levels underneath it.

The Proposal that you have above about "Broadcast FM radio signal” or “Process Interconnection Billing (Telco industry), those are 'Hows' not 'Whats'. Those are not capabilities that don't stand up overtime. These seem like services your company provides. I'm not sure what the purpose of Broadcast FM radio signal but it could be related to 'How' a company does 'Promotion Management' which would be a level 2 Business Capability under level 1 Marketing Execution, which is also under level 0 Marketing. Process Interconnection Billing maybe related to level 0 Finance, level 1 Billing and Payment, and level 2 Payment Management and the one way we (Business Service) process payments is through (Business Service Offering) Interconnection. 

These are just suggestions but I figured I'd through my 2 cents in :).