Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures Vol. 15, No. 2 (2020). DOI:10.18417/emisa.15.2 A Deep Perspective on the ArchiMate Modeling Language and Standard 1 A Deep Perspective on the ArchiMate Modeling Language and Standard Colin Atkinson*,a, Thomas Kühneb a University of Mannheim, Germany b Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Abstract. Given the scale, complexity and variety of enterprise architectures, approaches for modeling them need to be as simple and flexible as possible in order to minimize the accidental complexity within enterprise architecture models. Multi-level modeling techniques offer an effective way of achieving thisbut to date there has been little research into how they could contribute to enterprise architecture modeling. In this article we therefore explore how the former could be best leveraged within the latter by considering the modeling goals, architecture and principles of one of the most concrete and widely used enterprise architecture modeling standards: ArchiMate. More specifically, we discuss how the conceptual integrity of the ArchiMate standard and modeling experience could be enhanced using multi-level modeling principles. In our discussions, we focus on a specific variant of multi-level modeling, called deep modeling, whichis based on the notions of orthogonal classification and deep instantiation. Keywords. Enterprise Architecture Modeling • Multi-Level Modeling • Deep Visualization • ArchiMate Communicated by Ulrich Frank. Received 2017-03-01. Accepted on 2019-09-08. 1 Introduction need to have a broad scope and be able to por- tray enterprise architectures in the large variety of Enterprise Architectures play a pivotal role in forms expected by their many different stakehold- enabling companies to align their processes with ers. In other words, they need to be multi-view their IT infrastructures. With the increasing trend approaches which allow an enterprise architecture towards digitization and automation, companies and/or its parts to be described from multiple view- need effective enterprise architectures to remain points using a suite of different (sub)languages. competitive and respond rapidly to change. Poorly In addition, given the large number of different understood and/or aligned processes, information kinds of stakeholders and tasks that EA models in systems and IT infrastructures significantly reduce different companies need to support, it is impor- a company’s ability to respond agilely to change tant that EAM frameworks allow new view types and deliver services in a cost-effective way. and view-representation languages to be added by In general, the notion of “Enterprise Architec- users (Frank 2002). Defining a single language ture” (EA) encompasses all aspects of a company’s framework to support all view languages needed assets, relationships, stakeholders and processes out-of-the-box is not a realistic proposition. over its entire lifetime, from inception and design Several EAM approaches have become de to operation and retirement. Approaches for En- facto standards over recent years. Some, such as TOGAF (The Open Group 2010) and Zach- terprise Architecture Modeling (EAM) therefore mann (Zachman 1987), do not prescribe the spe- * Corresponding author. cific languages to be used to portray information in E-mail. [email protected] different kinds of views (e. g., processes, data types Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures Vol. 15, No. 2 (2020). DOI:10.18417/emisa.15.2 2 Colin Atkinson, Thomas Kühne etc.) while others, such as RM-ODP (ISO/IEC • promotes adaptability of models, and 1997) and ArchiMate (The Open Group 2017a), • helps to protect the integrity of models. define their own specialized languages to repre- sent their specific view types. However, only one In combination, the above aid the maintainability of these, ArchiMate, explicitly encourages the of models and thus lower typical maintenance definition of new viewpoints and language vari- costs, as mistakes that are often provoked by overly ants by end users through a dedicated “extension” complex models and may be costly to fix, can be mechanism. avoided in the first place. Of the well-known EAM standards, therefore, In this article we specifically aim to reinforce ArchiMate may be regarded as the most advanced the arguments for multi-level modeling in the in terms of supporting viewpoint/language engi- domain of EAM by investigating how a multi- neering. However, like most modeling environ- level framework could better support the modeling ments today, the ArchiMate approach to modeling goals and principles outlined by the ArchiMate and language engineering is rooted in modeling standard (The Open Group 2017a) and its design- infrastructure principles that go back to the first ers (Lankhorst 2013; Lankhorst et al. 2010). As generation of modeling tools. In particular, its part of this investigation we are interested in the definition and use is based on the traditional four way the ArchiMate language is defined as well level hierarchy popularized by the UML infrastruc- as used. We focus on ArchiMate for this study ture (Object Management Group 2007), where the because (a) it includes one of the most compre- bottom level is considered to be the “real world” hensive and well-defined languages and (b) it is and the top two levels are language definitions, defined as a meta-model in a publicly available i. e., a language for defining modeling languages standard. (i. e., the meta-meta model) and a language for The remainder of this article is organized as defining EA models (i. e., the ArchiMate meta follows. In the next section we provide an introduc- model). This leaves only one level to accom- tion to ArchiMate and summarize the language modate all domain modeling content, including designers’ explicitly stated goals in relation to instances, classes and potentially domain meta viewpoint language usage and definition. After classes. that we provide a general introduction to multi- Numerous authors have pointed out that multi- level modeling, followed by a description of the level modeling environments generally offer a specific variant we use in this article known as better platform for flexible, domain-specific lan- deep modeling (Atkinson and Kühne 2003). The guage engineering than two-level modeling envi- following two sections then analyze the pros and ronments (Atkinson and Kühne 2003). Frank, in cons of deep modeling approaches in terms of the particular, has specifically made this case in the requirements outlined in the ArchiMate standard context of EAM by clarifying the requirements and by its designers. Sect. 4 does so in terms EAM languages should support and developing of the underlying concepts involved in language a new prototype EAM modeling environment to definition and use (i. e., the abstract syntax) while showcase the benefits of multi-level modeling in Sect. 5 does so in terms of the presentation (or this domain (Frank 2014). visualization) of those concepts. Sect. 6 then The use of multi-level modeling holds the continues by considering how, in the context of promise of economic benefits (Frank 2016) due ArchiMate, deep modeling could provide support to reducing accidental complexity (Atkinson and for other desirable modeling features identified by Kühne 2007), which Frank and others, but not yet included as explicit • minimizes the effort involved in understanding goals of ArchiMate. Sect. 7 concludes with final and changing models, remarks and observations for future work. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures Vol. 15, No. 2 (2020). DOI:10.18417/emisa.15.2 A Deep Perspective on the ArchiMate Modeling Language and Standard 3 2 ArchiMate Language Goals Passive Behvior Active Structure Structure ArchiMate is an EAM standard managed by the Business Layer Open Group, a vendor and technology-neutral in- dustry consortium that manages a wide range of Application Layer open standards. The Open Group characterizes Layers ArchiMate as “. the standard visual language for communicating and managing change and Technology Layer complexity through architecture descriptions de- } velopment Aspects } ” (The Open Group 2017b). It is com- plemented by the TOGAF standard (The Open Figure 1: ArchiMate Core Framework (The Open Group 2010) which provides a broader picture Group 2017a) of how to create, evolve and leverage enterprise architectures in a disciplined way. This article focuses on ArchiMate version 3.0 released in June period of years based on user experience and re- 2016 (The Open Group 2017a). search. Rather the goal of this article is to critique The main value of ArchiMate is the set of the architecture of the language infrastructure and modeling concepts it provides for representing discuss whether the goals of the language de- different aspects of enterprise architectures from signers could be better satisfied using multi-level multiple viewpoints. These modeling concepts modeling. Thus, the focus is more on how the are organized in a two-dimensional “core frame- language is defined and what overall properties work”, illustrated in Fig.1. The rows of this figure, it exhibits rather than what it actually contains referred to as layers, represent the different levels in terms of abstract and concrete syntax. This of abstraction at which properties of the enterprise requires close scrutiny of the ArchiMate standard are described (business, application and technology), which constitutes the official definition