A controversial topic
I received a lot of feedback from my presentation at the Global Summit this year – some positive, some not so positive – but I think a few listeners may have misunderstood what I was trying to say.
I used the example of some Archimate diagrams which I didn’t think were useful – i.e. need to be used with care – which some listeners understood to be an attack on the Archimate language. That was absolutely not what I intended. I have lots of examples of diagrams which need to be used with care in lots of other modeling languages and business domains too. And I’ve created many of them!
OK, so I was being a bit controversial, but only to make a point.
My main idea was that just because we use a visual modeling tool like EA does not mean that everything we model has to appear in a diagram.
And if the modeling language that we use is a complex one – such as Archimate – then we need to be especially careful about which parts of the language we choose to use.
I also suggested that there are some kinds of diagram which we should actively avoid, and use on-the-fly mechanisms to view that data, where we can be sure we’re looking at the latest, most complete set of model information.
What I was trying to say was that diagrams have a specific place in the use of modeling tools, and that they are not the only, and sometimes not the best, way of viewing model information.
(Whilst diagrams are the primary modeling interface in Enterprise Architect, it also provides list, traceability and tree views which are helpful for various types of data.)