Collaboration and Interaction are now reserved for the case that you really want to stress the concurrence of both roles and their behaviour. This is a good change because almost all real processes in enterprises are collaborations as they are performed by multiple roles working together. It is called (4.2 p15) ‘implicit collaboration’. ArchiMate now allows the ‘informal collaboration’ I’ve proposed in the book and on this blog.I think this is a wise restriction and in improvement on my original proposal. I have been suggesting this also since 2012 (Edition I of the book), but the designers decided to exclude the new subset of ‘dependency’ relations. Nesting has been extended as a visualisation mechanism to be allowed for all structural relations.This opens up the possibility to be a lot more clear about the structure and dependencies of your modelled landscape. Also good is the extension of the use of junctions for more than just the dynamic relations as I’ve been suggesting since 2012.It also opens up a better way to define derivations in the future (Marc Lankhorst suggested during his presentation that a change of the derivation mechanism would probably be part of the ArchiMate 3.1 discussions). The separation of structural and dependency relations, though adding another distinction creates additional complexity in the language, is a good thing.Not of too much relevance to the average user of the language, but the fact that a meta-metamodel has been put in place makes the language much more robust.Having said that, here are some explicit ‘good’ points I’d like to mention (leaving the sub-criticisms out for now): And if something has been implemented in a different way than what I would have done, choices are often well made and thus often it is a matter of taste, nothing else. Even the stuff I don’t like, generally doesn’t get in the way. And this is true for most of the language. One should read this review by and large as ‘no news is good news’: if I don’t pay attention to something, I don’t have any problems with it. Much of this post will be about things I don’t like, or issues I have found, but let me state this beforehand: the usability of ArchiMate is still fine, though that does not mean you need to use every bit of it. Warning: this article is meant for enterprise architecture modelling / ArchiMate geeks, and the insatiably curious.ĪrchiMate is still very useful to model Business-IT landscapes in a holistic way. It’s taken me a while, but, hey, it’s over 6000 words and there is a reward at the end (don’t peek!). 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. On June 14, the 3.0 version of the ArchiMate standard was unveiled during the Enterprise Architecture Conference Europe 2016.
0 kommentar(er)
