Counter-Arguments to Merging ArchiMate Behavior Elements

Counter-Arguments to Merging ArchiMate Behavior Elements

1. Loss of Architectural Clarity and Separation of Concerns

The layered structure is fundamental to enterprise architecture thinking. The current three-layer distinction (Business, Application, Technology) reflects decades of established enterprise architecture practice and directly supports the separation of concerns principle. Each layer represents a different abstraction level with distinct stakeholders, lifecycles, and governance approaches:

• Business Layer: Represents organizational capabilities and processes independent of implementation

• Application Layer: Represents logical software functions and services

• Technology Layer: Represents physical infrastructure and technical services

Collapsing these into generic concepts eliminates this crucial architectural separation and would make ArchiMate less effective as an enterprise architecture modeling language.

2. Weakens Stakeholder Communication

Different stakeholders need different views. Business stakeholders don't want to see technology implementation details when discussing business processes. Similarly, infrastructure teams don't need business context when planning technology deployments. The current layer separation enables:

• Clean stakeholder-specific viewpoints

• Appropriate level of abstraction for different audiences

• Clear responsibility boundaries across organizational roles

A generic process concept forces all stakeholders to work with the same overly complex models, reducing communication effectiveness.

3. Governance and Lifecycle Management Issues

Business and technology elements have fundamentally different lifecycles and governance. Business processes might remain stable for years while underlying applications change frequently. Technology infrastructure might be replaced without affecting business processes. The current structure supports:

• Independent evolution of different architectural layers

• Layer-specific governance processes and approval chains

• Clear traceability between business requirements and technical implementations

• Impact analysis when changes occur at specific layers

Generic elements would make it much harder to manage these different lifecycles and governance requirements.

4. BPMN Comparison is Inappropriate

ArchiMate and BPMN serve different purposes. The author's comparison to BPMN is fundamentally flawed:

• BPMN is a detailed process modeling notation focused on executable workflows

• ArchiMate is an enterprise architecture modeling language designed for high-level architectural analysis across multiple domains

The "simplification" that works for BPMN's narrow scope would be harmful to ArchiMate's broader enterprise architecture mission. The complexity exists because enterprise architecture IS complex.

5. Implementation Details vs. Architectural Intent

The current structure properly separates 'what' from 'how'. Business processes represent organizational capabilities and intentions, while application and technology processes represent implementation approaches. This separation is architecturally valuable because:

• It allows modeling business requirements before technical decisions

• It supports technology-agnostic business architecture

• It enables proper requirements traceability

• It facilitates impact analysis and change management

The proposed change conflates architectural intent with implementation details, weakening the model's analytical value.

6. Tool Complexity and Modeling Overhead

The proposed solution actually increases complexity. Rather than simplifying modeling, this change would:

• Force users to manually track which "domain" each element belongs to

• Require complex specialization profiles to maintain information

• Create ambiguity about element semantics without clear type distinctions

• Make tool development more complex due to flexible assignment rules

The current "triplication" provides clear, unambiguous semantics that both humans and tools can easily process.

7. Breaks Established Modeling Patterns

Existing ArchiMate practitioners have developed sophisticated modeling patterns based on the current structure. These patterns support:

• Consistent model interpretation across organizations

• Standardized model analysis and reporting

• Tool interoperability and model exchange

• Training and certification programs

Changing the fundamental metamodel would invalidate years of accumulated modeling expertise and organizational investment.

8. Collaborative Execution Can Be Modeled Today

The "limitation" around collaborative execution is already solvable using existing ArchiMate concepts:

• Use Collaboration elements within appropriate layers

• Model interactions between layers using interface and trigger relationships

• Use composite elements to show integrated behavior

• Apply junction elements to show decision points between manual and automated paths

The current language provides sufficient expressiveness without sacrificing architectural clarity.

9. "Conceptual" Business Processes Are Valid

The author dismisses the "conceptual" use of business processes, but this is actually valuable. Business processes that represent high-level organizational capabilities independent of implementation are crucial for:

• Strategic business architecture

• Business capability mapping

• Organizational design

• Requirements analysis before technical decisions

This usage shouldn't be discouraged but rather embraced as a strength of the current model.

10. Conversion Complexity Indicates Poor Design

If the proposed change requires complex conversion strategies and specialization profiles to avoid information loss, this suggests the change is fundamentally problematic. Good architectural changes should simplify models, not require elaborate workarounds to preserve existing information.

11. Oversimplistic Behavioral Metamodel Destroys Service Composition Capabilities

The proposed metamodel fundamentally misrepresents behavioral modeling by making functions, processes, and events "internal" specializations of services. This architectural decision eliminates critical capabilities for modeling complex behavioral patterns:

Loss of Service Orchestration and Choreography:

• Service Orchestration requires the ability to model how one service coordinates and controls multiple other services through explicit behavioral sequences

• Service Choreography requires modeling peer-to-peer interactions where services collaborate through defined interaction patterns

• The proposed structure prevents these patterns by making behavioral elements internal to services rather than composable across services

Elimination of Interaction Modeling:

By removing interaction as a first-class concept, the proposed metamodel cannot properly represent:

• Message exchanges between services

• Protocol specifications for service communication

• Behavioral contracts between service providers and consumers

• Complex collaboration patterns involving multiple services

Behavioral Composition Patterns Are Essential:

Real-world systems require sophisticated behavioral modeling capabilities:

• Process chains that span multiple services

• Event-driven architectures where events trigger behaviors across service boundaries

• Composite services built from orchestrated simpler services

• Dynamic service binding based on behavioral contracts

The Proposed Model Breaks Fundamental SOA/Microservices Patterns:

Modern service-oriented and microservices architectures depend on:

• External behavioral interfaces that define how services can be composed

• Behavioral contracts separate from service implementation

• Interaction protocols for reliable service integration

• Event-driven communication patterns

Making behaviors "internal" to services eliminates the ability to model these essential architectural patterns.

Comparison with Industry Standards:

This overly simplistic approach contradicts established service modeling standards:

• BPMN explicitly supports service orchestration and choreography

• SoaML (Service oriented architecture Modeling Language) treats behaviors and interactions as first-class composable elements

• Microservices patterns rely heavily on external behavioral specifications

Why This Matters for Enterprise Architecture:

Enterprise architectures increasingly depend on service composition patterns:

• Business process automation often involves orchestrating multiple application services

• Digital transformation initiatives require modeling complex service ecosystems

• Cloud architectures are fundamentally based on composable services with external behavioral contracts

The proposed metamodel would make ArchiMate unsuitable for modeling modern enterprise architectures that depend on these service composition patterns.

13. Misaligns ArchiMate's Purpose: Architecture vs. Design

The proposed change fundamentally misunderstands ArchiMate's purpose by focusing on design decisions rather than architectural blueprinting. The motivation centers on making it easier to decide whether tasks should be assigned to humans or automated systems - but this is a design concern, not an architectural one.

ArchiMate's True Purpose is Strategic Blueprinting:

ArchiMate was created for architectural analysis and evolution planning, not detailed design decisions:

• Enterprise transformation roadmaps - showing how the organization will evolve over time

• Impact analysis - understanding how changes in one area affect others

• Strategic alignment - ensuring business, application, and technology strategies work together

• Investment planning - identifying architectural gaps and improvement opportunities

• Stakeholder communication - providing different views for different organizational levels

Design vs. Architecture: Different Time Horizons and Purposes:

• Architecture operates at strategic time horizons (months to years) and focuses on structural relationships and evolution paths

• Design operates at tactical time horizons (days to weeks) and focuses on implementation decisions and assignment choices

The current layered structure perfectly supports architectural thinking by maintaining strategic abstractions that remain stable even as design decisions change.

The Proposed Change Conflates Levels of Abstraction:

By trying to solve the "assignment problem" (human vs. automated), the proposal:

• Reduces ArchiMate to a design tool rather than an architectural modeling language

• Forces premature design decisions into architectural models where they don't belong

• Eliminates the abstraction levels that allow architects to reason about systems independently of implementation choices

• Confuses tactical flexibility with architectural clarity

Why Architectural Abstraction Matters for Evolution:

Enterprise architecture is fundamentally about managing change over time:

• Business processes may remain conceptually stable while their implementation approaches evolve from manual → semi-automated → fully automated

• Application services may be re-implemented using different technologies while maintaining the same functional role

• Technology platforms may be completely replaced while supporting the same application services

The current structure enables this evolution thinking by providing stable architectural abstractions that persist through implementation changes.

Evolution Scenarios Require Layered Thinking:

Consider common enterprise transformation scenarios:

• Digital transformation: Business capabilities gradually become more automated, but the fundamental business architecture remains stable

• Technology modernization: Applications are re-platformed or re-architected while maintaining business functionality

• Organizational restructuring: Business processes are redesigned while leveraging existing application investments

These scenarios require the ability to reason about each layer independently - exactly what the current ArchiMate structure provides and the proposed change would eliminate.

Blueprint vs. Implementation Specification:

ArchiMate should function like an architectural blueprint that:

• Shows the overall structure and relationships

• Remains stable across multiple implementation approaches

• Guides but doesn't constrain detailed design decisions

• Supports long-term evolution planning

The proposed change would turn ArchiMate into an implementation specification that:

• Forces detailed assignment decisions too early

• Becomes obsolete whenever implementation approaches change

• Confuses architectural strategy with tactical implementation

• Reduces its value for long-term planning

14. The "ArchiMate Manifesto" Argument Misrepresents User Needs and Evidence

The appeal to the "ArchiMate Manifesto" and "80% of users" is fundamentally flawed because it lacks empirical evidence and misrepresents what actually constitutes simplicity for enterprise architects.

No Evidence for the "80%" Claim:

The argument assumes that:

• Advanced users are a minority who want unnecessary complexity

• Average users are hindered by the current structure

• The proposed changes serve the majority

But where is the evidence? The document provides no:

• User surveys demonstrating confusion with current concepts

• Adoption metrics showing that layered structure impedes learning

• Comparative studies of modeling effectiveness

• Analysis of actual ArchiMate usage patterns in practice

The Manifesto Principles Actually Support the Current Structure:

"Simplicity over Comprehensiveness":

• Current structure IS simple: Three clear layers with consistent behavior concepts

• Proposed structure IS comprehensive: Requires complex specialization profiles, flexible assignment rules, and domain tracking

• The layers provide cognitive simplicity by organizing concepts into understandable categories

"People over Tools":

• Current structure enhances human communication by providing clear stakeholder-specific views

• Proposed structure confuses human communication by mixing abstraction levels and requiring technical specialization profiles to preserve meaning

• Business users understand business processes; technical users understand technology processes - this natural mapping supports human comprehension

"Architects over Other Users":

• Enterprise architects think in terms of layers and separation of concerns - this is fundamental to architectural thinking

• The proposed change optimizes for designers and implementers, not architects

• Strategic enterprise architects need stable abstractions for evolution planning - exactly what the current structure provides

What Actually Constitutes "Advanced" vs. "Basic" Usage:

The Current Structure Supports Basic Usage:

• Beginners can start with single-layer models and add complexity gradually

• Each layer has clear, consistent semantics that are easy to learn

• The pattern is repeatable - once you understand one layer, you understand them all

The Proposed Structure Requires Advanced Knowledge:

• Domain tracking across generic elements

• Specialization profiles for meaningful models

• Complex assignment rules for cross-layer collaboration

• Manual maintenance of semantic distinctions that are currently built into the language

Misunderstanding of User Needs:

Who Are the Real "80%" Users?

The argument assumes "average users" want less structure, but:

• Corporate enterprise architects need layered thinking for stakeholder communication

• Government architects need clear separation for compliance and governance

• Consulting architects need consistent patterns that work across different organizations

• Academic users need principled foundations, not ad hoc simplifications

What Do These Users Actually Need?

• Better guidance on when to use concepts, not fewer concepts

• Improved tooling for managing complexity, not elimination of useful abstractions

• Clearer training materials that explain the value of layered thinking

• Consistent patterns they can apply reliably across different contexts

The False Choice Fallacy:

The argument presents a false choice between "expert complexity" and "user simplicity," but:

• Good architecture is about managing complexity, not avoiding it

• The current structure manages complexity through organized abstraction

• Removing structure doesn't eliminate complexity - it just makes it harder to manage

Evidence of Current Success:

Instead of theoretical arguments about "80% of users," consider actual evidence:

• ArchiMate adoption has grown consistently with the current structure

• Major organizations have built substantial modeling practices around layered thinking

• Tool vendors have invested heavily in supporting the current metamodel

• Professional certification programs teach the layered approach successfully

The Real Problem Isn't Complexity - It's Guidance:

If users struggle with ArchiMate, the solution isn't to eliminate useful concepts but to:

• Provide better entry-level guidance and examples

• Create learning paths that introduce concepts gradually

• Develop better tooling that supports modeling workflows

• Establish clearer best practices for different use cases

Representativity Question:

Who exactly are these "80%" of users that supposedly want this change? The document provides no evidence of broad user demand for eliminating layers. In fact, the extensive conversion mechanisms required suggest that existing users have invested heavily in the current structure and would lose significant value from this change.

The burden of proof should be on those proposing disruptive changes to demonstrate actual user demand and measurable benefits, not on those defending established, successful practices.

The proposed change directly contradicts proven practices in Model-Based Systems Engineering, where layered architectures are fundamental to managing complex systems. The MBSE community has converged on similar layering patterns precisely because they work:

MBSE Architectural Layers Mirror ArchiMate Structure:

• Concept of Operations (ConOps) Layer ≈ ArchiMate Business Layer: Defines stakeholder needs, operational scenarios, and mission objectives independent of solution approaches

• Logical/Functional Layer ≈ ArchiMate Application Layer: Specifies WHAT the system does and HOW functions relate, without constraining physical implementation

• Physical/Realization Layer ≈ ArchiMate Technology Layer: Defines HOW capabilities are physically implemented

The Logical Layer is Critical for Complexity Management:

In MBSE, the logical layer serves as the crucial abstraction buffer between requirements (ConOps) and implementation (Physical). This layer:

• Explains what capabilities exist without mixing concerns about business purpose or technical constraints

• Defines functional interfaces and behaviors that remain stable even when business needs evolve or technology changes

• Enables solution flexibility by separating logical design from physical constraints

• Supports systematic decomposition of complex problems into manageable functional units

Why This Layering Persists Across Disciplines:

The fact that both ArchiMate (enterprise architecture) and MBSE (systems engineering) independently evolved similar layered approaches proves this isn't arbitrary complexity—it's a fundamental pattern for managing complexity in any non-trivial system.

Systems engineering has learned through decades of experience that:

• Mixing abstraction levels leads to design confusion and poor outcomes

• Each layer serves distinct analytical and communication purposes

• The logical layer is essential for managing the translation between business intent and technical reality

The False Simplification Problem:

The proposed ArchiMate change commits the classic error of confusing complexity reduction with complexity management. True complexity management doesn't eliminate necessary distinctions—it organizes them systematically. The current ArchiMate structure provides this systematic organization, just like successful MBSE frameworks.

Removing the logical (application) layer would force architects to constantly navigate between high-level business concepts and low-level technical details without the essential semantic bridge that the application layer provides. This cognitive burden actually increases overall modeling complexity while destroying analytical capability.

Alternative Recommendations

Instead of this disruptive change, consider:

1. Enhanced guidance on when to use each process type

2. Better tool support for managing relationships between layers

3. Improved patterns for modeling automation decisions

4. Clearer training on the value of layered thinking, drawing from MBSE success stories

5. Cross-pollination with MBSE community to strengthen the theoretical foundation of layered approaches

6. Optional simplifications for specific use cases while preserving the core metamodel

The current ArchiMate structure reflects decades of enterprise architecture best practice AND aligns with proven systems engineering principles. It should be preserved and strengthened, not abandoned for the sake of perceived simplicity that contradicts fundamental complexity management principles.