Abstract:
A high-performance capability assessment model helps a capital markets business meet the challenges of the global marketplace. As a result, the capital markets business can achieve the clarity, consistency, and well-defined execution of core processes that reduce inefficiencies and waste that result from unnecessary process complexity and exceptions. In addition, the high-performance capability assessment model helps the capital markets business to identify specific areas in which improvements may be made, to understand how to make said improvements, and to establish levels of capability along the way to reaching an ultimate capability goal.

Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     1. Technical Field 
     This disclosure concerns a system and method to identify the performance of an organization on a scale of mastery across representative capabilities of the organization&#39;s industry. In particular, this disclosure relates to an efficient and cost effective way to assess the performance level of key capability areas within the processes of a capital markets organization. 
     2. Background Information 
     Modern capital markets organizations operate in an increasingly challenging environment. To survive, capital markets organizations must adapt to this environment and execute in a clear, consistent, and efficient manner. Furthermore, the competitive nature, regulatory requirements, low profit margins, and competitive challenges of capital markets businesses greatly increase the complexity and difficulty of surviving on a day-to-day basis. 
     Despite the need for a capital markets organization to meet the challenges of the global marketplace, it is still often the case that the business lacks clarity, consistency, and well-defined execution of its core processes. These shortcomings severely constrain the business, and lead directly to inefficiencies and waste due to unnecessary complexity, process exceptions, and customer dissatisfaction. At the same time, it can be very difficult to identify specific processes to which improvements may be made, either because the business itself does not have the expertise to identify the processes or because the complexities of the business frustrate attempts to clearly delineate the processes to be improved. 
     Even if the capital markets business, on its own, could identify one of the many processes that it needs to improve, the business would not necessarily know how to improve the process or be able to identify a concrete and measurable improvement goal. Another difficulty exists in determining whether there are any intermediate goals that should be reached along the way. As capital markets businesses struggle to meet the demands of the modern economic landscape, they fail to identify opportunities for maximizing sales and margin improvement, category expansion, multi-channel execution, customer satisfaction improvement, and to reach other important goals. 
     Therefore, a need exists for an efficient and effective system and method to assess the performance level of key assessment areas within the processes of an organization. 
     SUMMARY 
     A high-performance capability assessment (HPCA) model helps capital markets businesses meet the challenges of the global marketplace by defining a scale of performance mastery along which the current practices of the business may be located. The HPCA model accelerates the discovery of process and performance gaps within business operations. In addition, the HPCA model also helps the business to identify specific areas in which improvements may be made, how to make the improvements, and how to establish performance measures during the course of attempting to achieve an ultimate goal. As a result, the business can achieve the clarity, consistency, and well-defined execution of core processes that maximize the operating budget for optimum outcomes. 
     The HPCA model includes a key factor dimension and a performance mastery scale dimension. The performance mastery scale dimension defines multiple mastery levels. The performance mastery levels form a scale of increasing organizational performance. The scale includes a ‘Basic’ mastery level, a ‘Competitive’ mastery level, and a ‘Market Leading’ mastery level along a horizontal axis, and each of the three mastery levels in some capability areas may be further defined with three additional aspects, namely, processes, technology, and people. Each performance mastery level includes criteria specific to a corresponding key assessment area. Each key assessment area identifies some aspect of a capability of a capital markets business. 
     A business capability can be defined as a bundle of closely integrated skills, knowledge, technologies, and cumulative learning that is exercised through a set of processes and that collectively represents an organization&#39;s ability to create value by producing outcomes and results. Capability areas do not represent a delineation of organizational responsibilities as the business outcomes of a capability may be the result of a number of cross-functional teams. Capabilities of a business may be grouped into areas and/or platforms, including high-level platforms, platforms, and sub-platforms, depending on the organizational structure of the business. 
     For example, the HPCA model groups the capabilities of the capital markets industry into three main areas or high-level platforms, which may also be thought of as “business divisions,” namely an asset management high-level platform, an investment banking high-level platform, and a market infrastructure high-level platform. Each high-level platform includes multiple platforms. For example, the asset management high-level platform may include four platforms, namely a strategy platform, a deliver client service platform, a core asset management platform, and a corporate core platform. The investment banking high-level platform may include four platforms, namely a strategy platform, a deliver client service platform, a core investment bank platform, and a corporate core platform. Similarly, the market infrastructure high-level platform may include four platforms, namely a strategy platform, a deliver client service platform, a core market infrastructure platform, and a corporate core platform. Some of the platforms may include sub-platforms, while others may not. Examples of capabilities within the core asset management platform (corresponding to the asset management high-level platform), include for example, research and products, investment management, fund/portfolio services, core investment bank, and cross product processing. 
     The key factor dimension establishes a set of key assessment areas in which to analyze the capabilities of a business. Key assessment areas include performance capability criteria. Performance capability criteria populate the performance capability assessment model. The performance capability criteria may be specific to any one of many different business capabilities. Any number of performance capability assessment models and performance capability criteria may be defined and stored in a capability detail pool for subsequent retrieval and application to a business under examination. Accordingly, the HPCA model provides a flexible and adaptive scale of performance capability against which business practices may be compared to ascertain where the capabilities of a business under examination fall along the scale. 
     Other systems, methods, features, and advantages will be, or will become, apparent to one with skill in the art upon examination of the following figures and detailed description. All such additional systems, methods, features, and advantages are included within this description, are within the scope of the invention, and are protected by the following claims. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The capital markets industry high-performance capability assessment model and system may be better understood with reference to the following drawings and description. The elements in the figures are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon illustrating the principles of the capability assessment techniques. In the figures, like-referenced numerals designate corresponding parts throughout the different views. 
         FIG. 1  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with a performance scale of mastery and performance criteria shown for different capabilities showing high-level platforms for asset management, investment banking, and market infrastructure. 
         FIG. 2  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for platforms including strategy, deliver client service, core asset management, and corporate core corresponding to the asset management high-level platform. 
         FIG. 3  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for sub-platforms including research and products, investment management, fund services, client portfolio services, and cross product processing. 
         FIG. 4  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for sub-platforms including asset liability management, finance, risk management, regulatory, technology, resource management, and human resources. 
         FIG. 5  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for platforms including strategy, delivery client service, core investment bank, and corporate core corresponding to the investment banking high-level platform. 
         FIG. 6  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for sub-platforms including research, trading, corporate finance, and cross product processing. 
         FIG. 7  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for sub-platforms including asset management, finance, risk management, regulatory, technology, resource management, and human resources. 
         FIG. 8  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for platforms including strategy, deliver client service, core market infrastructure, and corporate core corresponding to the market infrastructure high-level platform. 
         FIG. 9  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for sub-platforms including market offerings, clearing and settlement, custodian services, and cross platform processing. 
         FIG. 10  shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for sub-platforms including treasury, finance, risk management, regulatory, technology, resource management, and human resources. 
         FIG. 11  shows a capability detail pool providing a multidimensional capital markets industry performance reference set where multiple key assessment performance reference tables are collected and stored. 
         FIG. 12  shows a capability assessment system. 
         FIG. 13  shows a flow diagram for establishing high-performance capability assessment models. 
         FIG. 14  shows a flow diagram for retrieving and applying high-performance capability assessment models. 
         FIG. 15  shows a flow diagram for analyzing representative practice data to determine a capital markets industry and a capital markets key assessment area to which the representative practice data applies. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
       FIG. 1  shows a high-performance capability assessment (HPCA) model  100 . The HPCA model  100  specifies three high-level platforms, including an asset management high-level platform  102 , an investment banking high-level platform  104 , and a market infrastructure high-level platform  106 . Each high-level platform  102 ,  104 , and  106  includes multiple platforms, and some of the multiple platforms further include multiple sub-platforms. The HPCA model  100  is not limited to the form shown in  FIG. 1 . Instead, the HPCA model  100  may be adapted and modified to fill a wide variety of analysis roles. Additional, different, or fewer platforms may be used in other implementations, with each platform defining additional, different, or fewer capabilities. Each platform and/or sub-platform includes one or more multiple &lt;platform/sub-platform name&gt; capabilities  130 . 
     The HPCA model  100  establishes a multidimensional capital markets industry performance reference set that includes multiple key assessment performance levels  138 , further described below in reference Tables 1-3. The performance levels  138  establish a scale of increasing effectiveness in delivery of each capability. The key assessment performance reference tables include a ‘Basic’  140  delivery level, a ‘Competitive’  142  delivery level and a ‘Market Leading’  144  delivery level. The performance levels establish a scale of mastery  146  along which current business practices may be located and identified with respect to any platform and capability within a platform according to an analysis of performance capability criteria (PCC). The capability under evaluation may be assigned the performance level  138  based on a delivery effectiveness position  158  along the scale of mastery  146 . 
     The ‘Basic’ delivery level  140  specifies ‘Basic’ performance assessment criteria, the ‘Competitive’ delivery level  142  specifies ‘Competitive’ performance assessment criteria, and the ‘Market Leading’ delivery level  144  specifies ‘Market Leading’ performance assessment criteria. The HPCA model  100  receives input data that specifies a capital markets business platform (e.g., a capital markets industry area) and a capital markets industry key assessment area for analysis. The HPCA model  100  searches the multidimensional capital markets industry performance reference set for a matching key assessment performance reference table that matches the capital markets industry platform and corresponding industry capability within the platform and the capital markets industry key assessment area, and retrieves the matching key assessment performance reference table. The HPCA model  100  initiates analysis of the matching key assessment performance reference table to obtain a resultant performance assessment level for the capital markets industry key assessment area. 
     Tables 1-3 below provide an explanation of each of the capability levels  140 ,  142 , and  144 . 
     
       
         
               
             
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 1 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 ‘Basic’ Delivery Level 
               
               
                   
               
             
             
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 Description: 
                 Capability mastery at the basic level is competitive on 
               
               
                   
                 a domestic or local level and selectively on a global basis. 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
     
       
         
               
             
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 2 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 ‘Competitive’ Delivery Level 
               
               
                   
               
             
             
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 Description: 
                 Capability mastery at a competitive level is in the top 
               
               
                   
                 50% of performers when compared to domestic and 
               
               
                   
                 international peer groups. 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
     
       
         
               
             
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 3 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 ‘Market Leading’ Delivery Level 
               
               
                   
               
             
             
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 Description: 
                 Capability mastery at a market leading level implies that  
               
               
                   
                 few companies globally are performing at this level, and 
               
               
                   
                 can include emerging capabilities where companies have 
               
               
                   
                 committed significant levels of investment and resources. 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
     For  FIGS. 2-10  the capability under evaluation may be assigned a level of mastery  138  based on the business&#39; position along the scale of mastery  146  (e.g., the ‘basic,’ ‘competitive,’ or ‘market leading’ delivery level). Performance criteria corresponding to the basic  140 , competitive  142 , and market leading  144  performance levels populate the HPCA model  100 . The performance criteria capture characteristics, and/or other features of the delivery of a capability at a particular performance level. Examples below illustrate performance criteria that provide analysis and benchmarking for capital markets organizations. The HPCA model  100  performance criteria provide a tool for determining where a platform and capability under examination falls along the scale of mastery  146 . 
     For example, business consultants and business process engineers may interview a business or receive data about the business to determine, measure, or otherwise ascertain the characteristics, criteria, and other features of a particular capability implemented within the business. The consultants and engineers may compare the characteristics of the business to the performance criteria in the HPCA model  100  and arrive at an assessment level  138  for the capability under examination. In doing so, for example, the consultants and engineers may identify where the capability under examination falls in terms of the performance level for each key assessment area of a capability and determine an overall position on the scale of mastery  146  for the capability under examination. Performance criteria may populate the HPCA model  100  in whole or in part. Multiple high-performance capability assessments may be collected and stored with the performance criteria for future retrieval and possible modification in a capability detail pool, discussed below. 
       FIG. 2  shows the asset management high-level platform  102  divided into respective capability areas  202 . The asset management high-level platform  102  includes a strategy capability  220 , a deliver client service capability  222 , a core asset management capability  224 , and a corporate core capability  226 . 
       FIG. 3  shows the core asset management platform  224  (corresponding to the asset management high-level platform  102 ) divided into respective capability areas  302 . The core asset management platform  224  includes a research and products capability  320 , an investment management capability  322 , a fund/portfolio services capability  324 , a core investment bank capability  326 , and a cross-product processing capability  328 . 
       FIG. 4  shows the corporate core platform  226  (corresponding to the asset management high-level platform  102 ) divided into respective capability areas  402 . The corporate core platform  226  includes an asset liability management capability  420 , a finance capability  422 , a risk management capability  424 , a regulatory capability  426 , a technology capability  428 , a resource management capability  430 , and a human resources capability  432 . 
       FIG. 5  shows the investment banking high-level platform  104  divided into respective capability areas  502 . The investment banking high-level platform  104  includes a strategy capability  520 , a deliver client service capability  522 , a core investment bank capability  524 , and a corporate core capability  526 . 
       FIG. 6  shows the core investment bank platform  524  (corresponding to the investment banking high-level platform  104 ) divided into respective capability areas  602 . The core investment bank platform  524  includes a research capability  620 , a trading capability  622 , a corporate finance capability  624 , and a cross product processing capability  626 . 
       FIG. 7  shows the corporate platform  526  (corresponding to the investment banking high-level platform  104 ) divided into respective capability areas  702 . The corporate core platform  526  includes an asset liability management capability  720 , a finance capability  722 , a risk management capability  724 , a regulatory capability  726 , a technology capability  728 , a resource management capability  730 , and a human resources capability  732 . 
       FIG. 8  shows the market infrastructure high-level platform  106  divided into respective capability areas  802 . The market infrastructure high-level platform  106  includes a strategy capability  820 , a deliver client service capability  822 , a core market infrastructure capability  824 , and a corporate core capability  826 . 
       FIG. 9  shows the core market infrastructure platform  824  (corresponding to the market infrastructure high-level platform  106 ) divided into respective capability areas  902 . The core market infrastructure platform  824  includes a market offerings capability  920 , a clearing and settlement capability  922 , a custodian services capability  924 , and a cross platform processing capability  926 . 
       FIG. 10  shows the corporate core platform  826  (corresponding to the market infrastructure high-level platform  106 ) divided into respective capability areas  1002 . The corporate core platform  826  includes a treasury capability  1020 , a finance capability  1022 , a risk management capability  1024 , a regulatory capability  1026 , a technology capability  1028 , a resource management capability  1030 , and a human resources capability  1032 . 
     The tables provided in the appendix immediately following the abstract, which form part of this disclosure, provide an explanation of the capabilities and corresponding key assessment areas and performance criteria for each capability within the respective high-level platforms, platforms, and sub-platforms. Each capability may include one or more key assessment areas. Each key assessment area may include one or more additional key assessment areas. In other words, a business capability may include sub-capabilities, and therefore, key assessment areas corresponding to the multiple sub-capabilities. The tables in the appendix show specific criteria used to analyze each capability. 
       FIG. 11  shows a multidimensional capital markets industry performance reference set  1100  (“reference set  1100 ”) that provides a capability detail pool from which the system described below may obtain benchmarking tables for a capital markets business. The reference set  1100  includes multiple key assessment performance reference tables (“reference tables”), two of which are labeled  1102  and  1104 . Each reference table may provide the benchmarking criteria for a specific capability, such as those noted above with respect to  FIGS. 2-10 . 
     One dimension of each table may establish the ‘Basic’ performance level  140  specifying ‘Basic’ performance assessment criteria, the ‘Competitive’ performance level  142  specifying ‘Competitive’ performance assessment criteria, and the ‘Market Leading’ performance level  144  specifying ‘Market Leading’ performance assessment criteria. Another dimension of each table may specify one or more key assessment areas (KAAs), several of which are labeled  1106 ,  1108 , and  1110 . As noted above, performance criteria, e.g., the PCC  1112 , populates each key assessment performance reference table to provide benchmark criteria for ‘Basic,’ ‘Competitive,’ and ‘Market Leading’ characteristics. 
     The reference set  1100  represents the HPCA model  100 . Consistent with the HPCA model  100 , the reference set  1100  may organize multiple reference tables into a hierarchical structure defining discrete changes in granularity. In one implementation, the hierarchical structure includes reference tables, high-level platforms, platforms, sub-platforms, and models.  FIG. 11  labels three sub-platforms  1114 ,  1116 , and  1118 . The reference set  1100  may further organize the platforms into sub-platforms, two of which are labeled  1120  and  1122 . Platforms aggregate into the HPCA model  100  and corresponding reference set  1100 . Additional, different, or fewer levels of granularity may be defined in the HPCA model  100 . 
     The reference set  1100  may dynamically populate the reference tables with the most up-to-date performance criteria, for example upon retrieval and presentation by a business analysis consultant. The performance criteria may be retrieved from a performance capability criteria database or other information source. 
       FIG. 11  also shows an example of a database implementation  1124  of a portion of a reference table. In particular, the database implementation  1124  includes records (e.g., the records  1126 ,  1128 ,  1130 ) that establish each PCC  1112 . In the example shown, each record includes a PCC field  1132 , a category specifier field  1134 , and a KAA specifier field  1136 . Other fields may be provided, such as a reference table assignment field or reference set assignment field. The records categorize each PCC into a specific category (e.g., ‘Basic’), into a specific KAA, and, optionally, into a specific reference table in a specific reference set for any particular HPCA model. 
       FIG. 12  shows a high-performance capability assessment system (“system”)  1200 . The system  1200  includes a processor  1202  and a memory  1204 . Several databases support the operation of the system  1200 , including a performance capability database  1206 , a performance measured database  1208 , a capability detail pool database  1210 , and an assessment results database  1226 . The system  1200  may include a local display  1212  and input/output interfaces  1217  (e.g., including a keyboard, mouse, microphone, speakers, or other device), and, through the communication interface  1214  and networks  1216 , may communicate with remote devices  1218  and remote displays  1220 . The networks  1216  may be any combination of external networks (e.g., the Internet) and internal networks (e.g., corporate LANs). The displays  1212  and  1220  may, for example, present performance capability assessment models  1222  that the system  1200  retrieves from the capability detail pool database  1210  for review, modification, and application by process engineers or other individuals. With regard to local access or access by the remote devices  1218 , the system  1200  may include a login processing program  1224  to authenticate and/or authorize access to the system  1200 . To that end, the login processing program  1224  may include username/password verification, private/public key encryption, or other validation and data protection capabilities. 
     In one implementation, the capability performance database  1206  stores performance criteria. As will be described in more detail below, the system  1200  may populate performance capability assessment models with performance capability criteria suited to any particular platform (e.g., an asset management platform  102 , an investment banking platform  104 , and a market infrastructure platform  106 ) and business capability at one or more capability levels across one or more key assessment areas. The performance measured database  1208  may store the determined, measured, or otherwise ascertained characteristics, criteria, and other measured data of a particular key assessment area as representative practice data  1248 . The representative practice data  1248  may be obtained through interviews with business consultants and industrial engineers, through online questionnaires, through manual or automated analysis of business data (e.g., year-end operating reports), or in other manners. The capability detail pool database  1210  stores the capability detail pool  1100 , which includes pre-defined performance capability assessment models  1222 . The assessment results database  1226  stores determined capability levels for specific capabilities that have been analyzed. 
     The system  1200  facilitates the review, modification, creation, and application of performance capability assessment models. In that role, performance capability assessment model manipulation logic (“manipulation logic”)  1246  within the system  1200  creates, retrieves, and stores capability assessment data  1228  in the memory  1204 . The manipulation logic  1246  may establish capability assessment data  1228  in the memory  1204 , including a capability assessment data structure  1230  with multiple capability levels (“CL”)  1232  organized along a scale of mastery dimension, multiple key assessment areas (“KAA”)  1234  organized along a key factor dimension, and performance criteria (“PCC”)  1236  that populates the performance capability assessment model  1230 . The manipulation logic  1246  may vary widely in implementation, and, as one example, may include data storage logic  1252  that saves data in memory and user interface logic that accepts capability level specifications, key assessment area specifications, and performance capability criteria inputs to create new performance capability assessment models, to modify existing performance capability assessment models, to delete performance capability assessment models, or to retrieve performance capability assessment models for review. 
     In one implementation, the manipulation logic  1246  establishes the capability assessment data structure  1230  to include a multidimensional capital markets industry performance reference set that includes multiple key assessment performance reference tables in which the key assessment performance reference tables include a ‘Basic’ capability performance level, a ‘Competitive’ capability performance level, and a ‘Market Leading’ capability performance level. 
     The capability assessment data  1228  may also include a capability position specifier  1238 . The capability position specifier  1238  may record the capability level along the scale of mastery  146 , as determined for any particular capability. Thus, the system  1200  may store the performance level in the assessment results database  1226  or elsewhere for future retrieval and review. 
     In one implementation, the data population logic  1240  may be a data population program executed by the processor  1202  that populates template performance capability assessment models. For example, the data population logic  1240  may include input logic  1250  that accepts input specifying a capability of interest that indicates a particular performance capability assessment model. The data population logic  1240  may include query logic  1245  that executes database queries and prompts a user for input to obtain the corresponding performance capability criteria for the capability of interest. 
     In another implementation, for example, the query logic  1245  may receive an input specifying a capital markets industry area and a capital markets industry key assessment area with the capital markets industry area for analysis. The query logic  1245  searches the multidimensional capital markets industry performance reference set for a matching key assessment performance reference table that matches the capital markets industry area and the capital markets industry key assessment area, and retrieves the matching key assessment performance reference table. 
     The data population logic  1240  may further include storage logic that adds the retrieved performance capability criteria to the template performance capability assessment model. The data population logic  1240  produces populated performance capability assessment structures  1242  that may be stored in the capability detail pool database  1210 . 
     In addition to the analysis process described above, the system  1200  may provide an automated analysis of representative practice data  1248  that identifies relevant performance capability criteria and determines the position on the scale of mastery  146  of each key assessment area corresponding to the performance capability criteria for the representative practice data  1248 . As one example, the system  1200  may implement capability assessment logic  1244  that includes comparison and/or matching logic that analyzes the representative practice data  1248  with respect to performance capability criteria to locate key assessment areas for which the system  1200  can determine capability levels to obtain a resultant performance level for each key assessment area. 
     Furthermore, the capability assessment logic  1244  may determine an overall position on the scale of mastery  146  as the capability position specifier  1238  for a capability under examination given the knowledge of where the key assessment areas corresponding to the capability under examination fall in each capability level. Thus, for example, the capability assessment logic  1244  may determine an overall capability level for a capability corresponding to the capability level for the majority of the key assessment areas, or it may apply a weighted analysis technique to give more emphasis to some key assessment areas than others in determining the overall position on the scale of mastery  146  for a capability. As another example, the capability assessment logic  1244  may implement an expert system (e.g., based on a neural network trained on prior determinations) that analyzes the determined characteristics with respect to the performance capability criteria and ascertains where the capability under examination falls along the scale of mastery  146  for each of the key assessment areas, or overall on the scale of mastery. 
       FIG. 13  shows a flow diagram  1300  for creating performance capability assessment models. The performance capability assessment model creator (e.g., the manipulation logic  1246 ) establishes a key factor dimension for the performance capability assessment model ( 1302 ). The performance capability assessment model creator also establishes a capability scale dimension for the performance capability assessment model ( 1304 ). The capability scale dimension may define a scale of increasing organizational capability. For example, the structure creator may create the ‘Basic’ level  140 , the ‘Competitive’ level  142 , and the ‘Market Leading’ level  144 . The performance capability assessment model creator also populates the performance capability assessment model with capability performance criteria ( 1306 ). A capability detail pool  1100  may be formed to hold multiple tailored key assessment performance reference tables ( 1308 ). The performance capability assessment model creator may store the populated assessment structure in the capability detail pool for subsequent retrieval and analysis ( 1310 ). 
       FIG. 14  shows a flow diagram  1400  for retrieving and applying performance capability assessment models. A selection of a capability to be analyzed is obtained ( 1402 ). In one implementation, the system  1200  receives input data that specifies a capital markets industry area and a capital markets industry key assessment area for analysis. For example, the system  1200  may accept input from a business consultant that specifies a capability for analysis. The system  1200  may query the capability detail pool  1100  for a corresponding performance capability assessment model ( 1404 ). The corresponding performance capability assessment model may be pre-defined in the capability detail pool  1100 , or the data population logic  1240  (or other actor) may populate a performance capability assessment model template that the system  1200  newly creates, or that the system  1200  retrieves from a data store, such as the capability detail pool database  1210 . 
     In another example, the system  1200  searches the multidimensional capital markets industry performance reference set in the capability detail pool  1100  for a matching key assessment performance reference table based on the input data that specifies a capital markets industry platform and a capital markets industry key assessment area. The system  1200  retrieves the matching key assessment performance reference table and initiates analysis of the matching key assessment performance reference table to obtain a resultant performance level for the capital markets industry key assessment area. 
     The system  1200  obtains representative practice data  1248  for the capability under examination in the specific business under review ( 1406 ). For example, a business consultant may interview the business to determine how the business currently executes the capability under review. As another example, a representative from the business may complete a questionnaire, submit business data for analysis and parameter extraction, or otherwise provide the characteristics of their current capability execution. As a further example, the system  1200  may retrieve the representative practice data  1248  from a database of previously obtained representative practice data. 
     The system  1200  compares the representative practice data  1248  to the performance criteria in the performance capability assessment model ( 1408 ). For example, a business consultant may use his or her expertise to arrive at a determination of level for the business and the capability under examination ( 1410 ). Alternatively or additionally, the capability assessment logic  1244  may perform an automated analysis of the assessment results data in the assessment results database  1226  and ascertain the performance level on the scale of mastery  146 . The system  1200  may store the assessment results, including the determined performance level, for future reference in the assessment results database  1226  or other location ( 1412 ). 
       FIG. 15  shows a flow diagram  1500  for analyzing representative practice data  1248  to determine a capital markets industry and a capital markets key assessment area to which the representative practice data applies. The system  1200  receives representative practice data  1248  as input data ( 1502 ). The system  1200  may receive the representative practice data  1248  from a database query performed by the query logic  1245  that the query logic executes periodically, when instructed by an operator, and/or automatically against any number of available database sources that store representative practice data  1248 . The capability assessment logic  1244  analyzes the representative practice data  1248  to identify performance capability criteria in the capability detail pool  1100  that the capability assessment logic  1244  determines relevant to the representative practice data  1248  ( 1504 ). For example, the capability assessment logic  1244  may compare and/or match the content of the representative practice data  1248  with the performance capability criteria using natural language processing (NLP), text string, and/or substring matching, by comparing tags linked to the representative practice data  1248  and that specify that any portion of the representative practice data  1248  is applicable to a specific PCC, by querying for a manual classification of the representative practice data  1248  to a PCC, or other matching technique. The capability assessment logic  1244  may score and/or weight a performance capability criteria and compare the score and/or weight to a user specified relevance threshold to rank the relevance of the performance capability criteria to the representative practice data  1248  ( 1506 ). The user may specify particular terms and/or phrases to search and match between the performance capability criteria and the representative practice data  1248 , in order to score the performance capability criteria. 
     The capability assessment logic  1244  may determine, based on the number of performance capability criteria that meet or exceed the relevance threshold, that the capability assessment logic  1244  has identified a sufficient number of performance capability criteria for a specific key assessment area in order to determine a performance level for the capability as a whole or any key assessment area within the capability ( 1508 ). As one example, where at least 51% of the performance capability criteria for a particular key assessment area meet or exceed the relevance threshold, the capability assessment logic  1244  applies the performance capability criteria to the representative practice data  1248 . In another example, the performance capability criteria for a particular key assessment area may be ranked in importance and/or designated as mandatory in order to assess the key assessment area. In the event the capability assessment logic  1244  identifies the mandatory performance capability criteria for a key assessment area, the capability assessment logic  1244  applies the performance capability criteria to the representative practice data  1248 . 
     The capability assessment logic  1244  may apply the performance capability criteria meeting or exceeding the relevance threshold to the representative practice data  1248  to determine whether any particular PCC is met. Accordingly, as the capability assessment logic  1244  analyzes the PCC, the system  1200  tracks the best fit of the representative practice data  1248  to the PCCs in the key assessment performance reference tables. In other words, the system  1200  determines how the representative practice data  1248  meets (or does not meet) each PCC, thereby gaining insight into whether the representative practice data  1248  is indicative of ‘Basic,’ ‘Competitive,’ or ‘Market Leading’ practices. 
     The system  1200  may also gauge the position on the scale of mastery  146  of each key assessment area corresponding to the performance capability criteria ( 1510 ). The capability assessment logic  1244  may further determine an overall position on the scale of mastery  146  for a capability ( 1512 ). The capability assessment logic  1244  may establish that a desired number and/or designated mandatory performance capability criteria for the key assessment areas have been identified as relevant to a capability and sufficient to determine the position on the scale of mastery  146  for the capability. For example, the capability assessment logic  1244  may determine an overall performance level for the capability based on the performance level determined for the majority of the key assessment areas. The capability assessment logic  1244  may apply a weighted analysis technique to give more emphasis to some key assessment areas than others in determining the overall position on the scale of mastery  146  for the capability. Although selected aspects, features, or components of the implementations are depicted as being stored in computer-readable memories (e.g., as computer-executable instructions or performance capability assessment models), all or part of the systems and structures may be stored on, distributed across, or read from other computer-readable media. The computer-readable media may include, for example, secondary storage devices such as hard disks, floppy disks, and CD-ROMs; a signal, such as a signal received from a network or received at an antenna; or other forms of memory, including ROM or RAM, either currently known or later developed. 
     Various implementations of the system  1200  may include additional or different components. A processor may be implemented as a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a DSP, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), discrete logic, or a combination of other types of circuits or logic. Similarly, memories may be DRAM, SRAM, Flash or any other type of memory. The processing capability of the system may be distributed among multiple system components, such as among multiple processors and memories, optionally including multiple distributed processing systems. Parameters, databases, and other data structures may be separately stored and managed, may be incorporated into a single memory or database, may be logically and physically organized in many different ways, and may be implemented in many ways, including data structures such as linked lists, hash tables, or implicit storage mechanisms. Programs may be combined or split among multiple programs, or distributed across several memories and processors. 
     The HPCA  100  model provides unexpectedly good results for a performance capability assessment model, particularly in the capital markets industry. In particular, the combinations of key assessment areas and particular assessment criteria of the HPCA model, including the criteria noted in the Appendix of Tables, provide significant advantages over other assessment models. The unexpectedly good results include clearly identifying and delineating from among multiple related complex processes the specific processes to improve, how to improve the process, and identifying concrete and measurable improvement goals. 
     While various embodiments of the invention have been described, it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that many more embodiments and implementations are possible within the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not to be restricted except in light of the attached claims and their equivalents.