I am continuing to build business models using Archimate, but I am getting bogged down in functions, processes, services and interfaces,
To my mind Archimate seems to move the modeling of the Business (ie that which is not IT see Tom Graves ) only a little way on from the practice of Business Process Modeling.
Archimate still seems to have a “start with IT and from an IT perspective” feel to it. Or put another way “how can we answer the what & why IT is needed”.
This may be the result of my mind set, however it may also be a result of trying to make Archimate compatible with UML, so that for instance an existing class model can be referenced in an Archimate model.
What I am trying to imagine, is how to represent say a centralized hierarchical organization as opposed to a decentralized flat structured organization. Can a decision be represented as a function, process or an interaction?
June 6, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I tried as well to make sense of Archimate. What is it, in fact? A language? A graphical one?
We already have process and IT modelling notations, languages and tools. Should we abandon or merge them?
Archimate doesn’t look either like a textual architecture language I discovered in the academia, long ago.
I haven’t find any examples of Archimate modelling at all like yourself.
It doesn’t have much to do with TOGAF either not that tha would help too much.
I concluded Archimate is trying to provide a metamodel and based on those entities, a vocabulary rather than a language. The metamodel would grow with new entities with every new view. And the language, if any, with it.
I find that trying to model services and interfaces in an Enterprise that had grown organically without a notion of service, is missleading with the potential to alienate all stakeholders, to say the least.
Adrian
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/ea-matters/