adding relations to the data model

Was wondering if anyone has added new relations between the different fact sheet types.  We usually use Requires / Required by, but sometimes we want to make official / standard by adding a new relationship to the data model via customization.  As an example, we have already added a relationship between Data Object and Business Capability to specify what types of data are important to which capabilities.  We are considering requesting Interface to User Group.



  • 0
    James Candy

    We've not done so yet as we want to stay as out of the box as possible - and as a general principle we don't customise commercial software - but i'd be keen to hear others' experiences of any drawbacks in going beyond self-config. One relation we find limiting is not being able to link IT Components to Capabilities - for SaaS products (like LeanIX) and 'productivity' tools such as M365) there is a lot of duplication needed to model as both ITCs and Apps (not to mention that with the current license model, we're incentivised not to add Apps!). This leads to challenges in cost modelling and duplication of Technical Categories and Business Capabilities - e.g. we have significant spend in our security and monitoring infrastructure components which aren't really consumed as 'Business Apps' but we would have to model them as such to show costs against the Capability they provide (when it would be more intuitive, simpler and more appropriate to how we recharge the costs - to show them as costs against Technical Categories that support all Capabilities).

  • 0
    Stephen Gates

    Like James, I'm very keen to not customise but I'm very keen to have a relationship between Business Capabilities and User Groups.

    My thinking is with the new Value Stream factsheet, you could have a Business Capability Matrix report with:

    • Value Stages on the x-axis
    • User Group on the y-axis
    • Business Capabilities in the matrix cell.

    This presents a "Who does What" view for the Value Stream. 

  • 0
    Sagar D

    Hi Francis, James, Stephen - we ended up adding custom relation between UG and BC, if we don't we could not have enabled a strategic use case for the business. we use UG for Location/Country and the maturity of our BC is unique to each location.

    our journey was not simple with the change though - we end up creating a custom report to change the color of BC heat map based on the UG.

    However, now that we have the ability to create reports for each FS (with new reports) I think it makes sense to fully exploit the data model. 

    Edited by Sagar D
  • 0
    Peter Roome

    I have also wondered why there is no relationship between a business capability and user groups. It would also be nice to be able to define the role of the user group in the relationship data between the two factsheets.  Having roles also helps get folks out of the trap of thinking that business capabilities are the same thing as organizational structures.  That would be very useful.

  • 0
    Jonas Demey

    Hi all,

    It is possible now to add your own relations to the metamodel.

    Peter Roome: you can add fields on the relation e.g. 'usage type' is a default one on the relation APP - BC. In addition you can add constraints, for the above you could specify that this only applies to certain UG 

    Best regards


  • 0
    Thomas Schreiner

    One of the classics is to create a relation between Application and Provider, at least for smaller workspaces. It creates a potential inconsistency (as with all other triangular relations), but it helps to quickly see who is the provider of the main software component for a Business Application.

Please sign in to leave a comment.