The reference blogpost is http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2013/03/bizarch-artefacts-definition-again.html I use the following definition of capability from that blogpost.
the proven possession of characteristics required to perform a particular service (to produce a particular result) with the required performance.
Version 1 - no processes
- This version is deliberately simplified by removing the process concept
- Showing that output from one service may become input for another - what is the best way?
- Some services are implemented via coordination of other services - to be added later
- Definition of service and its implementation are in the same concept yet - maybe to separate design-time and run-time concept maps later
- Role and people (and other related) concepts are not shown yet
- Service has only one operation
Version 2 - processes are addedServices and process have a recursive relationship:
- all processes are services,
- some operations (or a very detailed function wrapped by a service) of a service can be implemented as a process, and
- a process includes services in its implementation.
Version 3 - roles and some other concepts are added; input/output, outcome, mission are removed
Version 4 - design-time and run-time concepts