In addition, all certified tools (and Archi) support the ArchiMate Model Exchange File Format which provides interoperability between tools. Most tools have their pros and cons, so there is no good or bad choices per se. Most of these support also other standards (often UML and BPMN) in addition to ArchiMate. On the other hand, there are tools primarily designed to support an Enterprise Architecture capability. However, this can lead to a poor user experience, making them hard to use by people with little to no technical ability. Most of these are designed primarily for UML and implement other meta-models through UML profiles. On the one hand, there are generic modelling tools that support many meta-models (more than 100 in some cases). These tools can be classified into two groups: Generic (software) modelling tools So we are left with a relatively small list of potential tools (as of writing): 6 commercial tools and Archi. Furthermore, I contribute to the internal ArchiMate Forum inside The Open Group and am therefore able to help Phil Beauvoir with the required changes each time a new version of the standard is published. However, Archi does fulfil all requirements of ArchiMate tool certification. So where does this leave Archi, as it is not on the official register of tools? Because Archi is open source and is not backed by a company with a necessary legal framework, it is not possible to pay the certification fees and it is therefore not listed in this register. A tool that claims to support the language but is not certified should generally be double-checked as some features might not be present, or poorly implemented, and there may be no guarantee that the tool vendor will support future versions of the language. Fortunately, The Open Group maintain an official register of certified tools. This limits the choices we have. Tools that claim to support the ArchiMate language should really be certified by The Open Group. This leads us to my “number one” requirement: find a tool that supports the ArchiMate language. Such a standard language already exists: ArchiMate. My personal opinion on this is that as soon as we work in the field of Enterprise Architecture, we need a language that covers a wide scope (encompassing strategy, business, application, technology…) and is a recognised standard (trust me, you don’t want to reinvent the wheel). The first question concerns the underlying “language” that will support architecture descriptions, and by “language” I don’t mean a technical language, but language as a set of words that will be used for day to day architecture activities. This choice is not an easy one, and I would maintain that this is not the right question to answer. When setting up an Enterprise Architecture capability, we will, at some point, have to choose a tool to write and maintain architecture descriptions. Before moving on with “ How to quickly create value with ArchiMate?“, I’d like to provide some guidance on modelling tools. In a previous post I explained why we should use ArchiMate in an Enterprise Architecture practice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |