Capabilities vs. Services: "Partitioning" Our Reference Model?

A thought just popped into my head 
(scary, I know):

 

On the distinction between 
capabilities and services...does it make sense to "partition" (using term 
loosely) our reference model? 

 

Why? Primarily for increased 
understanding, potentially efficiencies in usage.

 

What does this mean? We have the 
following concepts in our current "puzzle" figure:

 

- Service

- Capability

- Service 
Description

- Policy

- Execution 
Context

- Exchange

- Visibility

- Interaction

- Real World 
Effect

 

I believe we can group these into 
those that pertain to "capabilities", and those that pertain to "services". 
There will also be some in common (e.g. real world effect, which is discussed 
for both capabilities and services), which we may perhaps relate somehow (i.e. 
the services concept could be an extension of the capabilities concept, if it 
makes sense). Here's how I see the groupings (for now I use the term "area" 
instead of "group"):

 

CAPABILITIES 
AREA:

 

- Capability

- Visibility

- Interaction

- Real World 
Effect

 

SERVICES AREA:

 

- Service

- Service 
Description

- Policy

- Execution 
Context

- Exchange

 

We 
can also visually depict these partitions in our abstract model figure (there 
are multiple ways to do this). In the DRM, we have 3 "standardization areas" 
(Data Description, Data Context, and Data Sharing), so these would be akin to 
standardization areas for our reference model. We can also organize our spec 
around them (i.e. "Capabilities Area" would be a section, as would "Services 
Area", and each would discuss the concepts that are associated with that area). 
I hesitate to call these "tiers" or "views", as that sounds too much like 
architecture - but perhaps there are better terms to consider than 
"area".

 

This partitioning may also provide value for future uses of our reference 
model (e.g. reference architectures, process-oriented architectures, etc.) as it 
lends a bit of modularity (again using loose terminology) that may yield future 
efficiencies.

 

Is 
this at least mildly worth considering?

 

Joe

 

Joseph 
Chiusano

Associate

Booz Allen 
Hamilton

 

700 13th St. 
NW

Suite 
1100

Washington, DC 20005

O: 202-508-6514  

C: 
202-251-0731

Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com