Analyzing The Impact of UML, BPMN, and ArchiMate Integration from User Perspective (Category Architecture)

Funny. whitepaper It's about modeling notations that I've had a special love for since I was a student. The authors decided to combine different notations of modeling for the benefit of collaboration within corporations. The authors proceed from the premises

1. In corporations, there are many diagrams of different levels created with the help of ArchiMate, BPMN and UML And these diagrams contain a lot of knowledge.
2. There are many people in corporations who know how to use these notations for design. BPMN to describe business logic and business processes Archimate to describe the nuances of corporate architecture UML to describe different applications and their interactions
3. In corporations, you can get a significant boost from combining these notations with each other. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to assess the satisfaction of users and the usability of combined notation.

I think that most of the preconditions on which the ideas of the authors were based are not fulfilled.

1. There aren't a lot of companies. topical diagrams with these notations and from them it is impossible to form a general picture
2. In most companies, there are no people who easily use these notations. (Except for the caste of corporate architects, which exists in some large corporations in the form of hundreds of representatives of the department of corporate architecture.)
3. The supposed boost is achieved by using the advantages of each notation, but those who know all three notations are usually not very many - I present here the Euler-Venn diagram with the intersection of multiplicity circles and a central small part, which is negligible.

Interestingly, I have an experience from the past that is similar to that described in the article – in my master’s degree, I described reengineering business processes in one organization using custom notation that I was asked to collect. There we used a mix. eEPC and IDEF0 I was asked to cross-breed my then supervisor and use them to model change. In general, almost no one understood this combined notation except for me, since most of the participants did not know either eEPC or IDEF0, and frankly they were interested only in the results of the changes in the processes themselves. Since then, I've decided that experimenting in modeling notations isn't the best idea.

As a result, the very idea of the authors of the article is questionable, but ok ... let’s go to what and how they assessed.

1. Guys took FUEML framework (Framework for Usability Evaluation of Modeling Langueges) Usability evaluation of modeling languages: An empirical research study.
2. From this framework, they chose lernability, memorability, user satisfaction, according to which they decided to compare separately diagrams in Architmate and combo diagrams with a mix of three notations. Learnability is an assessment of how easy it is to learn to use a new notation and how quickly it is possible to complete tasks, what level of errors, etc. Memorability - how persistently the information about notation, syntax and semantics is remembered User satisfaction is user feedback about how satisfied they are with the use of the language, its completeness, quality and convenience.
3. The authors studied How quickly the respondents dealt with the two diagrams: the basic A extended B (By the way, the diagram with a combination of notations I could not open - the authors, apparently, canceled the rights to Sharing) How quickly authors perform tasks using models How many mistakes in the learning process

• Fidbeck users

As a result, the authors received approximately the following:

Overall, respondents thought that the integration of BPMN, ArchiMate, and UML was ”easy”. Modeling complicated systems is another ”very useful” application of this combination. However, their respondents mostly knew all three notations of modeling:)

#Software #Architecture #Engineering #UML #SystemDesign #Whitepaper