Do we need Archimate?

A recent, provocative, post on linkedin, posed some issues about the Archimate standard.

One of my first doubts, using introducing Archimate in our Architecture Capability, was: “why was it created as a separate graphical language and not as an UML profile?”. This doubt is still in my mind, in my previous post about this topic, I have inserted some links about this argument. The “UML profile” solution appears as natural, because a lot of classifiers from UML are available – with the same semantic and graphical notation – also in Archimate.

What are the consequences of a “separate” graphical model?

(+) dedicated modeling tools

(-) multiple skills/tools/repositories

(-) requirements for model integration

On the other side, I think that we should remember that Archimate and UML have different “meanings”:

  • Archimate is for architecture,
  • UML is for engineering.

Also if you look at building design, you will find an “Architectural” project, showing you the shape, internal space allocation, external appearance, of the building, and several specialized views (structural project, electrical plant, elevators, etc.); perhaps the potential buyer of the house is not interested in how many cables or switches are necessary to operate the elevator – and could not understand this view – but is interested in the size and number of windows of the living room.

Despite this, I believe that “Archimate as UML profile” could bear the same expressiveness, the same semantic content, and a seamless integration of architectural and technical layers.

a building under construction

Personally, I am evaluating the introduction of Archimate, and starting to represent (maybe with better results) our architecture with this language. But, in the mean time, and waiting for the similar OMG work, I am starting do develop an UML profile with the same content of Archimate. At this point, we are working on the Business Layer. The modeling tool that we use, by Sparx Systems, allows for an easy integration on different models using UML, BPMN or Archimate, so it does not force the user to a specific adoption profile. But, in the meantime, the UML-profile approach is allowing us to obtain stakeholder-oriented documentation with a better quality, and an easier transition from the previous graphical representation standards.

At the same time, the introduction of Archimate shows its usefulness in a more formalized and rigorous architectural design practice, relaying on a number of elements that fits well with the various organizational patterns that exists in our Company.

The results – at this point – are promising, I will share them later, and introduce some of them in the second edition on my book about BPMN.

Bottom line: I believe that we need archimate, as a component of our architecture capability. Maybe, representing it as an UML profile could help its adoption.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s