Model business processes/capabilities
under review
Tim Gaweco
marked this post as
under review
R
Richard
I think the core of IcePanel should still be on the C4 model and the underlying model. Business capabilities are very useful to know and their relation to the underlying IT artefacts from the model. For this, I would see the group feature as the simplest way to achieve this. Adding a system/app to the group and then creating a diagram of the capabilities (groups) with the elements displayed in the groups. This would require some additional features to groups to work fully
- Nested groups (to model level 1 and 2 business capabilities)
- Inheritance (so an app in L2 Accounts Receivable would be inherited in L1 Accounting)
- Group diagram (with drill down option) to allow easier visualisations.
This allows you to model/display capabilities and their realisations but also enriches the overall model with additional meta data (capabilities in this case) which you can then filter on. For instance, I can see for a capability, which systems I have in my model (and using tags I can see which market)
Jacob Shadbolt
Groups could be a nice way to achieve this, with the addition of nesting of groups.
J
Joe May
Jacob Shadbolt - I think groups is a good way to accomplish this, but it would be nice to see a sub-type somehow added so we could differentiate between L1/L2 Capabilities, Servers, Hosting Sites, etc. Ideally, these would be customizable by org.
Jacob Shadbolt
Joe May: By sub-type do you mean the group label itself? Have you tried nesting groups to do this? https://docs.icepanel.io/core-features/modelling/groups#nested-groups
J
Joe May
Jacob Shadbolt We are using nested groups to give us the hierarchy and a Group Type tag group to help us identify what is represented. I like the flexibility of groups but think it'd be more efficient to have a sub-type/stereotype as a standalone field to help understand what a group is as we use them for many purposes
Jacob Shadbolt
Joe May: That makes sense - thanks for the feedback! Same concept can be made for other "types" of groups I guess (like a deployment node)