previously I suggested that capability and colour have the same logical structure, in that there is :

• a property level ( level 2 )
• a determinable level ( level 1 )
• a component level ( level 0.5 )
• and an instance level ( level 0 )

the component level is really a factoring of the object at the determinable level so I have labelled that as 0.5 to indicate that it is between level 1 and level 0, but that it is still above 0. In a sense, the distance between 0 and the first non zero determinable is infinite….

but anyway, this discussion is really in the interest of exploring the property-likeness of capability. From an Aristotelian perspective the property is abstracted form the instances, so arriving at a concept of capability requires that we consider the concrete instances and what they are able to do, and to progressively abstract this ability away from these instances until it shines as a stable concept capable of intelligible application in a modal ( ie possible/ hypothetical ) context. this exercise will produce a stack of interlocking concepts. That of capability itself, which will be property like and can be applied to objects either predictively  or attributively, a set of determinables which are discrete but ordered, and ( hopefully ) a set of factors that yield a metric space that explains the structure of the ordering of the determinables. so with colour, RGB allows the proximity of colours to be asserted. the equivalent factoring of business capabilities into people, processes and technology yields a similar metrical space that explains how two distinct capabilities can be close to each other.

There is some vagueness in this mapping however because I nthe RGB – colour example, any colour has exactly 3 values – one in each of the RGB dimensions. this is not so obviously the case for business capabilities, so that being composed of three factors doesn’t mean that you must take only one item from each of these categories. so perhaps a capability could be composed of 2 technologies, 3 processes and 2 persons… or even just 1 person. – this would seem to make the analogy a bit forced, but I still think that it is worth following through a bit further because it may be possible to salvage at least the basic logical structure of this approach.

So the root of the capability concept is that of ” being able to”. It seems to conform to the relationship frame

Y is able to Z     or      Y has capability Z      <Y,Z>

• where Y is the instance such as a business unit
• and Z is the capability.

any Y might have multiple capabiltiies, any capability might be had by multiple Y so this frame simply presents a set of objects and a set of determinables. nothing suprising so far.

factoring this using the people, processes and technology rubric might yield a finer grained frame such as  :

X uses A to achieve B by Cing.       <x,a,b,c>

• X is an agent
• A is an instrument
• B is an outcome
• C is a method or activity

this more detailed frame explains why Y is able to Z

X in frame 2 is an agent, while Y in frame 1 leaves the agency of the capability unspecified. presumably, the X’s whose Cing yields B are the constituents of Y. – so Y is made up of several Xs. Y is a compound entity.

similarly, the achievement of B would seem to be something that could come about in different ways. It is, so to speak, subject to multiple realisations. this suggests that a functionalist perspecitve is warranted here. It suggests that the achieving of B is the function and that the notion of capability should be framed using A and C only. this means that the capability model should specify A ( the technology ) and C ( the processes ) as the abstracted factors and treat the people factor as the instance. So merging the two frames we zero in on

• the agent ( the Xs which collectively constitute Y ( the business unit )
• the function ( which is B, the outcome to be achieved  )
• the capability  ( using of an instrument A to perform an activity C )

so conceptually, the frame is beginning to take form

agent exercises capability to perform function

the corresponding relational frame is

< Y , < C , A > , B >

implementation – corrollory of this analysis

• the constitution of the business unit Y is not dependent on the identity of the consitutent agents X[ ]. The business unit supervenes on the agents that make it up so they are distinct. How ? because the notion of business unit probably also contains the notion of function. This will be explored in the next post. Changes to the underlying agents does not effect the unit itself. If the unit was merely the sum of the agents then it would effect it. I surmise that it is the latent functional orientation of the business unit that warrants this distinction, so having a function permits the accounting department to remain so, even under conditions of high staff turnover.

 

• two agents working towards the same outcome are performing the same function. Unintented or accidental outcomes are not functions but by products. This will be explored in a later post. how to distinguish them. Again, I believe this works by considering the notion of function as being, in a sense baked into the idea of a business unit. It is not just a set of agents with unrelated goals. It is a joint-working towards. this is an entire new theme – something along the lines of social ontology and the notion of collective beings… but this is for a future post.

the components of capability are now an instrument and an activity. the activity has primacy, and the instrument could, at least conceptually be absent, or at least unspecified. two activities that use the same instrument are still different capabiltiies. one activity that could be performed in two ways would accordingly determine two capabilities. Not sure if this is quite what we want ….

Example 1 –  John travelling to work.

• travelling is the activity
• by bus or by car might be two technologies, two instruments that would enable the travelling to occur
• to work would be the outcome, the objective
• John is the agent

. now travelling by car, and travelling by bus would be two distinct capabilities.

Example 2 – hammering and removing nails.

• hammering and removing are two distinct activities.
• the hammer( and possibly the nail ) are the instrument(s)
• fastening and separating are the two outcomes / functions

you could imagine the activities being performed without the hammer ( teeth !!? – but perhaps this is not without an instrument… ) You could also imagine a failure in the instrument making it impossible to perform the activity.  This would constitute a reduction in capability – so this feels natural….

an alternative mechanism ( say using screws and a drill ) to achieve the fastening might improve the quality of the fastening…. and is perhaps a distinct capability… but does it constitute an uplift in capability. the notion of capability maturity appears to me to also require the notion of function to be coherent. Is this example an increase in capability ( an uplift ) or is it to a completely new capability ? This is I think an ambiguity in the notion of capability. In a sense, it is not an object as it is being presented here, but a measure. You have more or less of it, not many or few of them.

anyway, enough for now. next post will expand on a few of the unresolved issues mentioned here.