Development of Capability Driven Development Methodology: Experiences and Recommendations

  • Janis StirnaEmail author
  • Jelena Zdravkovic
  • Jānis Grabis
  • Kurt Sandkuhl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 305)


The field of Information Systems (IS) and Enterprise Modeling (EM) is continuously striving to address the challenges of the practice by developing new methods and tools. This paper presents experiences and lessons learned from the Method Engineering of the Capability Driven Development (CDD) methodology. The CDD methodology supports organizations operating in dynamic environments and integrates EM with information system (IS) development taking into account changes as the application context. The main focus is on presenting the CDD meta-model and the associated development activities as well as sharing the experience and recommendations for developing similar methods and tools.


Enterprise modeling Meta-modeling Method engineering Capability Driven Development 


  1. 1.
    EU FP7 CaaS Project: Capability as a Service for digital enterprises, proj. no. 611351.
  2. 2.
    Ulrich, W., Rosen, M.: The business capability map: building a foundation for business/IT alignment. In: Cutter Consortium for Business and Enterprise Architecture (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OPENGROUP TOGAF - enterprise architecture methodology, version 9.1 (2012).
  4. 4.
    UK Ministry of Defence: NATO Architecture Framework v4.0 Documentation (2013).
  5. 5.
    Bērziša, S., et al.: Deliverable D1.4: Requirements specification for CDD, FP7 proj. 611351 CaaS (2014).
  6. 6.
    Bērziša, S., et al.: Deliverable 5.2: The initial version of capability driven development methodology, FP7 proj. 611351 CaaS (2015). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2399.4965
  7. 7.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling – Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43725-4. ISBN 978-3-662-43724-7SGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inf. Softw. Tech. 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smolander, K.: OPRR: a model for modelling systems development methods. In: Lyytinen, K., Tahvanainen, V.-P. (eds.) Next Generation CASE Tools. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bergsten, P., Bubenko, J., Dahl, R., Gustafsson, M.R., Johansson, L.A.: RAMATIC - A CASE Shell for Implementation of Specific CASE Tools. SISU, Stockholm (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marttiin, P., Harmsen, F., Rossi, M.: A functional framework for evaluating method engineering environments: the case of Maestro II/Decamerone and MetaEdit+. University of Jyväskylä (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kelly, S.: Towards a comprehensive MetaCASE and CAME environment: conceptual, architectural, functional and usability advances in MetaEdit+. Ph.D. thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Finland (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., Harmsen, F.: Meta-modelling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 209–228 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P.J., Rossi, M.: Situational Method Engineering, pp. 1–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1. ISBN 978-3-642-41466-4Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ralyté, J., Backlund, P., Kühn, H., Jeusfeld, M.A.: Method chunks for interoperability. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 339–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11901181_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., Seigerroth, U.: Method integration: the need for a learning perspective. IEEE Proc. Softw. 145(4), 113–118 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG: OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, Ver. 2.5 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Kampars, J., Koç, H., Sandkuhl, K., Stamer, D., Stirna, J., Valverde, F., Zdravkovic, J.: D5.3 The final version of Capability driven development methodology, FP7 proj. 611351 CaaS. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35862.34889
  20. 20.
    Zdravkovic, J., Stirna, J., Grabis, J.: A comparative analysis of using the Capability notion for congruent business and information systems engineering. CSIMQ (10), 1–20 (2017).
  21. 21.
    Stirna, J., Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Zdravkovic, J.: Capability driven development – an approach to support evolving organizations. In: Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2012. LNBIP, vol. 134, pp. 117–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-34549-4_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grabis, J., Kampars, J.: Design of capability delivery adjustments. In: Krogstie, J., Mouratidis, H., Su, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2016. LNBIP, vol. 249, pp. 52–62. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39564-7_5 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janis Stirna
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jelena Zdravkovic
    • 1
  • Jānis Grabis
    • 2
  • Kurt Sandkuhl
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityKistaSweden
  2. 2.Institute of Information TechnologyRiga Technical UniversityRigaLatvia
  3. 3.Institute of Computer ScienceRostock UniversityRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations