ArchiMate 3 is setup with 5-6 layers (Strategy, Business, Application, Technology/Physical, Implementation) and 4 aspects: (Passive and Active) Structure, Behaviour and Motivation. Quoting the standard:
A (concluding) piece about the licensing issues surrounding ArchiMate has been published over on Chess and the Art of Enterprise Architecture. Published there, because it is not so much about ArchiMate modelling or the language, but about legal issues and questions about ‘openness’. Just mentioning it here for those that are interested in such matters.
The previous article was Is ArchiMate Open? Not Really.
On June 14, the 3.0 version of the ArchiMate standard was unveiled during the Enterprise Architecture Conference Europe 2016. Time for a review.
I’ve divided it up in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, with The Good standing for changes I like (even if I might also have critical remarks later on), The Bad standing for fundamental issues I have with the language or the direction it is going, and The Ugly for a list of small issues, inconsistencies, etc.
It’s taken me a while, but, hey, it’s over 6000 words and there is a reward at the end (don’t peek!). Warning: this article is meant for enterprise architecture modelling / ArchiMate geeks, and the insatiably curious.
Enjoy. Continue reading
A short while ago I wrote about using ArchiMate to model processes instead of the (agreed, vastly superiour) BPMN language. What I did was change the visuals on ArchiMate elements to support this and I also did a few things that are not (strictly) ArchiMate 2.1 compliant. But it is practical if your demands do not require the power of a real process modelling language such as BPMN. Continue reading
A short post, because it is only here to point you to the real story over on enterprisechess.com. The reason it’s been published there is that it is not so much about the language itself and how to model in it, but it is about the concept of ‘open standards’ and how The Open Group operates, with the focus on ArchiMate (as an important EA standard, but the story would probably be true for other TOG standards as well).
PS. I’ll be giving the opening EA keynote for the Enterprise Architecture Conference Europe 2016 on 14 June 2016 in London. I’d love to discuss EA with you. So: meet me there?
ArchiMate is not a process modelling language. It has only limited support for process modelling. That is why I personally prefer to combine BPMN with ArchiMate, but that is not trivial (as explained here and here). In the book there is a proposed way to link these and my configuration for one of the tools supports that synchronisation. But, if you forego the richness and niceties of a real process modelling language, you might do something that is close enough for most organisations, even if it is technically not 100% valid ArchiMate. Continue reading
I hope this letter finds you well.
As shepherd of the ArchiMate standard, you are currently working on its next iteration. As I am not part of the ArchiMate Forum, I am going to send you a few open letters with suggestions for improvement of the language and what to do an not to do. I will be voicing some stern/harsh criticisms on ArchiMate in these letters, please don’t take it personal, I’m only interested in strengthening the language which I already find useful as it is. And I apologise beforehand for my language here and there.
This is the sixth of such a letter. The previous ones: sixth, fifth, fourth, third, second, and first.
Today, I’d like to talk to you about the Composition and Aggregation relations and how they play a role in ArchiMate’s derivation mechanism. Continue reading