Monthly Archives: January 2017

Crossing the EA Chasm: ArchiMate 3.0, fix it or re-purpose it?

COPYRIGHT © 2016-2017 by Michael Herman, Toronto, Canada. All rights reserved.

It is the end of January 2017 and, recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the LinkedIn ArchiMate group about the ArchiMate language for enterprise architecture (EA), its “idioms”, usability, adoption, etc.

In addition, in the article Crossing the EA Chasm: Reflections on the Current State of ArchiMate, I asked some questions related to ArchiMate’s purpose and whether it is adequately addressing all of enterprise architecture’s stakeholders’ needs. Crossing the EA Chasm: Re-visioning the ArchiMate Specification is a related article.

These discussions led to this short-form question, the key topic for today:

ArchiMate 3.0, fix it or re-purpose it?

Fixing ArchiMate

On the “fix it” side of the discussion, people will literally be working to fix the language forever. The Open Group is committed to supporting these kinds of efforts; it’s the foundation for why they exist.

But is there a better, compatible approach?  I think there is.

Re-purposing ArchiMate

As a starter, let’s look at the evolution of and technology hierarchy that supports high-level programming languages. Pick your favorite language. Many of you will choose Java; I’m a C# person. (It doesn’t really matter.)

Before the advent of managed, cross-platform execution environments (like the Java VM and the .NET Runtime that provide memory management and garbage collection, advanced exception management, data protection, secure execution contexts, etc.), prior languages like C and C++ followed a simple compilation model as illustrated in Figure 1.

cpp-compilation-model-1

Figure 1. C/C++ Compilation Model

This scenario is synonymous with the current lower-level language support available in ArchiMate 3.0. There’s effectively one language level and that’s all you have.

The C# (.NET) compilation model ups the ante by introducing a cross-platform intermediate language (Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL)) as shown in Figure 2.  Java achieves something similar using Java bytecode.

csharp-compilation-model1Figure 2. C# Compilation Model: Role of the Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL)

Re-purposing ArchiMate as a Lower-Level Intermediate EA Language

In an approach similar to the way the .NET  Framework uses MSIL, ArchiMate can be re-purposed as the lower-level intermediate language for creating higher-level EA languages.

The article Modeling a Company and Its Locations, Markets, Employees, Investors & Roles: Proposals, Wishes & Dreams is a small but real-life, practical example of how this can be executed to create a new EA language for describing Business Organizations (as illustrated below in Figure 3).

parallelspace_modelmate_trumpworld2

Figure 3. Business Organization EA Language, an ArchiMate 3.0 Specialization

This approach more easily and more formally supports the concept of domain-specific languages (DSLs) for enterprise architecture.

As The Open Group moves ArchiMate forward, the published higher-level EA languages can incrementally adopt the new changes – in the same way the Java JIT compilers and Microsoft JIT compilers are updated to adopt new instruction sets from Intel or AMD.

Making It Real

The Archi modeling tool can easily be adapted to serve as the reference implementation for these new EA languages. This is relatively easy to accomplish because all of the ArchiMate relationships remain the same; and, at least initially, it’s simply a matter of extending Archi’s existing ArchiMate elements with families of new elements that address the scope of each new EA DSL.  It is a SMOP.

More food for thought… Please post your comments below.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

4 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Automated Enterprise Architecture Modeling, Crossing the EA Charm, Domain Specification Languages (DSL), Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, The Open Group

Modeling a Company and Its Locations, Markets, Employees, Investors & Roles: Proposals, Wishes & Dreams

COPYRIGHT © 2016-2017 by Michael Herman, Toronto Canada. All rights reserved.

This article presents some new approaches for modeling answers to the following frequently asked question:

How do I model X in ArchiMate?

NOTE: You are encouraged to try to model these examples for yourself: to start learning how to “think in ArchiMate” as your second or third written language. Archi is a great free tool for learning the ArchiMate language. You can download the Archi .archimate file containing the model used for this article from here. You can download the latest version of the Archi 4.0 modeling tool from here (which includes full support for the ArchiMate 3.0 language).

ArchiMate 3.0 is used as the baseline enterprise architecture modeling language for this discussion; especially the new Grouping element.

The Proposals

There are 2 new proposals described in this article: one more generic and one more specific.

  1. Proposal 1: A new (general) approach for visually presenting answers to the question “How do I model X in ArchiMate?” using a metamodel-level reference model modeling strategy
  2. Proposal 2: A specific approach (reference model) for modeling a Company and its Locations, Markets, Employees, Investors, etc. and their Roles.

The second proposal is an example or use case for the former.

Proposal 1: Modeling of Best Practice Modeling Patterns

Proposal 1 is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. These figures illustrate a general approach for modeling and visually presenting answers to the question “How do I model X in ArchiMate?”.

Rather than provide simple, less-informative, textual answers such as “use Business Collaborations to model Companies” or in ArchiMate 3.0, “use Groupings to model Companies”, why not:

  • Leverage Specialization relationships to model, name, and visually illustrate, in these examples, alternative representations of a Company element
  • From a presentation perspective, place the new best practices modeling pattern on the left – side-by-side – with the portion of the applicable elements of the base-level ArchiMate metamodel on the right

as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

NOTE: Proposal 1 is illustrated with 2 examples. The merits of the individual examples are discussed below in Proposal 2. The comparison of these 2 examples is not part of Proposal 1.

parallelspace_modelmate_trumpworld1

Figure 1. Metamodel-level Reference Model for a Company using Business Collaboration

parallelspace_modelmate_trumpworld2

Figure 2. Metamodel-level Reference Model for a Company using Grouping

Proposal 2: Specific approach (reference model) for modeling a Company

Proposal 2 asks the question: Of the 2 options presented above (or any additional alternative options), which option represents a best practice reference model for modeling a Company and its Locations, Markets, Employees, Investors, etc. and their Roles.

The only tangible difference between the modeling strategy in Figure 1 vs. Figure 2 is:

  • Figure 1 derives Business Organization from Business Collaboration
  • Figure 2 derives Business Organization from Grouping (a new element introduced in ArchiMate 3.0)

These choices, in turn, have a secondary effect in terms of the valid set of relationships that can be used to compose or aggregate the elements that comprise a Business Organization.

To aid your consideration, Figure 3 provides a more concrete example using the second option: using Groupings to represent Companies (my current preferred solution).

NOTE: The goal of these models is to model the active structure of a Business Organization which excludes concepts like Business Processes and Business Services.

parallelspace_modelmate_bridgewater1

Figure 3. Proposal 2 Example: Bridgewater Associates

What do you think?

Please add your comments, thoughts, and questions below.

Best regards,

Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

5 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Automated Enterprise Architecture Modeling, Crossing the EA Charm, Definitions, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, Graphitization, ModelMate Information Architecture for ArchiMate

Crossing the EA Chasm: Re-visioning ArchiMate 3.0 Elements as Adjectives [WIP]

COPYRIGHT © 2016-2017 by Michael Herman, Toronto Canada. All rights reserved.

[NOTE: This is a work-in-progress (WIP) placeholder for an article I plan to write …likely sooner rather than later …but there’s no specific schedule.]

Basic Concepts: Nouns and Adjectives

Referring to Figure 1 below, imagine that there are only a small number of concrete concepts in the ArchiMate language:

  • Model,
  • Concept

…and the remaining concepts are simply derivations of the one of these two Nouns: Model or Concept.

figure-1-top-level-hierarchy-of-archimate-concepts

Figure 1. Top-Level Hierarchy of ArchiMate Concepts (The Open Group)

Model and Concept become new Nouns in the next to-be-updated version of the ModelMate Information Architecture for ArchiMate.

The remaining concepts in Figure 1 and Figure 2 become Adjectives (i.e. abstract or virtual concepts) that modify or specialize the behavior of the target concept. The purpose of an Adjective (and more often a collection of Adjectives) is to support specialization of a Noun.

For example, in Figure 2 below, the box entitled “Capability” is a Concept which inherits the following Adjectives (specializations):

  • Element_ModelMate30_Parallelspace
  • BehaviorElement_ModelMate30_Parallelspace

figure-4-hierarchy-of-behavior-and-structure-elements

Figure 2. Hierarchy of Behavior and Structure Elements (The Open Group)

For a more elaborate example (see Figure 3 below), Business Role, Business Actor, and Business Collaboration are Nouns which inherit the following Adjectives:

  • Element_ModelMate30_Parallelspace
  • BusinessElement_ModelMate30_Parallelspace
  • InternalActiveStructureElement_ModelMate30_Parallelspace

figure-50-business-internal-active-structure-elements

Figure 3. Business Internal Active Structure Elements (The Open Group)

Windows Server Windows Service Example

TODO

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Crossing the EA Chasm: Re-visioning ArchiMate 3.0 Relations as Verbs

COPYRIGHT © 2016-2017 by Michael Herman, Toronto Canada. All rights reserved.

[Updated: February 6, 2017]

In the article Crossing the EA Chasm: Re-visioning the ArchiMate Specification, I proposed a new architectural framework for re-visioning the current ArchiMate 3.0 Specification.

In this article, I propose using the following list of verbs to either augment or replace the existing ArchiMate relationship names in the Specification and move towards a more humane, more understandable, more usable, and more acceptable language for enterprise architecture.

modelmate-relationship-verbs-2017-02-06

Table 1. Proposed List of Verbs to Augment or Replace
the Current ArchiMate 3.0 Relationship Names

An interesting observation: Note the verbs that start with “Is*”.  They appear in either the “Source-Target” (ForwardVerb) or the “Target-Source” (ReverseVerb) columns but not both for a given relationship.  This wasn’t deliberate – this is just the way it turned out.  Does this indicate anything about which direction is the natural direction for the relationship to point to?

What do you think of this proposal?  Please post a comment below, email me, or post a reply in the LinkedIn ArchiMate group.

To learn more about the background and history of this proposal, check out:

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation

mwherman@parallelspace.net

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

3 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Business Value, Crossing the EA Charm, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, ModelMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for ArchiMate, ModelMate Information Architecture for Languages, The Open Group

#Graphitization of the Enterprise

COPYRIGHT © 2016-2017 by Michael Herman, Toronto Canada. All rights reserved.

This article is the first in a series on #Graphitization. Click here to explore the other articles in this series.

Reprinted from #Graphitization of the Enterprise on LinkedIn.

Move beyond digitalization of the enterprise to graphitization of the enterprise. Here’s a great diagram that explains this concept. (click on it to enlarge it)

graphitization-new-world-of-it
Figure 1. The New Model of IT

Graphitization of not only all of your corporate information assets across all of your constituencies and stakeholders – at the data, application entity, and business object level – but also the graphitization of all of the interconnections between every business process, application system, infrastructure component, cloud service, vendor/service provider, and business role that uses, manages, or stores corporate information (Crossing the EA Chasm: Automating Enterprise Architecture Modeling #2).

Use graphitization to make your existing corporate information more available, more usable, and more informative. Graphitization enables you to “Keep Calm and Have IT Your Way“.

What is #Graphitization?

#Graphitization is a data science and enterprise architecture framework and process model for modeling, ingesting, organizing, analyzing, and visualizing any domain of endeavor by using graphs – networks of connected objects and relationships with each object and relationship annotated with additional descriptive information (metadata).

The primary applications of #Graphitization are:

  • System optimization,
  • Systems life cycle management, and
  • Transformative Change in resulting in positive increases in business value for the system being studied.

A system is defined as any collection of strategies, system components, assets, architectures or processes.

Using #Graphitization

Use graphitization of your organization to help close both the Enterprise Architecture Chasm and the Operational Data Chasm. See below.

progressive-ea-model-1-0-11-peam4-operational-data-chasm
Figure 2. Continuous Transformation Framework: Enterprise Architecture Chasm and Operational Data Chasm

progressive-ea-model-1-0-11-peam5-1010
Figure 3. Continuous Transformation Framework: Process Groups and Activities

To learn more about other applications of graphitization, check out the following articles:

Best regards and best wishes for the New Year,

Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

4 Comments

Filed under continuous transformation, Crossing the EA Charm, Data Science, Digital Transformation, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, Graphitization, ModelMate, Operational Data Chasm, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM)