This is the third time I am writing a post titled “What is wrong with this picture?”. Sadly, I only have this picture and not the explanation that comes with it, but I found it funny enough to put it up for comments.Without much ado, here it is (redrawn in Mastering ArchiMate style):
The most entertaining and precise reply wins a free full PDF download for Mastering ArchiMate – Edition II.
Much has already been said below by the people who have commented. I’ll make a summary that includes their points and my own:
- The use of Business Activity. Business Activity was part of ArchiMate before 1.0, before it became an TOG standard. It was meant to represent an ‘indivisible activity’, which means it was like Business Function or Business Process, but without the possibility to Aggregate or Composite anything in it. The official standard still shows this in Chapter 9, page 115, figure 60 in the top-left corner under the heading ‘Specialization of Concepts and Relationships’. Interestingly enough, the actual example from pre-1.0 ArchiMate in figure 60 is an inverse Specialisation and it doesn’t really fit. Rather sloppy. We can replace in the picture the Business Activities with Business Process (Bill Customer) and Business Function (Manage Customer Interaction) and move on.
- The Assignment relations from the Application Components to the (now) Business Process and Business Function. Assignment from an Application Component to business behaviour signifies in ArchiMate performing that behaviour in an automated fashion. My guess is that the modeller wanted to express that these applications are used, so a Used-By should have been used. After all, it is hard to image that the Accounting System performs Manage Customer Interaction automatically. I would not want to be that customer. So, we change the Assignments to Used-By relations.
- Of course, what is strange is that the Web Developer is performs billing the customer instead of (or at least also) the software development.
- The Customer Business Actor uses the Professional Services Product of which the Software Development Business Service is a part. We can assume that this means that the Customer uses the Software Development Business Service, and the use of the Product is a derived relation of that.
- So, what does it mean that the Software Development Business Service is Used-By the Manage Customer Interaction Business Function and the Bill Customer Business Process? My guess is that the modeller wanted to show that in order to Manage Customer Interaction and in order to Bill the Customer, you need to get information from the Software Development process. A question is: what else than what is coming out of the (now) used applications? Reporting about what happens in the Software Development is essential for billing and customer interaction, but it stretches it a bit to say that, for instance, Bill Customer uses Software Development. Customer billing does not require any software development. If the modeller had wanted to show the relation, I suppose a Flow relation would have been more appropriate.
- Finally we can look at what happens between infrastructure layer and application layer. Realisation from Node to Application Component is a derived relation that means that the software resides on that Node. It is not necessary it is also executed there (e.g. the software could reside on a network server and be executed on another server). Technically, we do not know where the applications run, but we can assume that the Realisation relations were meant as ‘runs on’. This is only modelled for two of the four applications. But what is meant by the Used-By relations from Node to Application Component? My guess is that the modeller wanted to show that the applications use each other. I.e., the CRM application runs on the Windows server but uses the RHEL server where the Time Management application runs. We can imagine that some applications directly make use of services of other applications. In that case, Used-By relations from application to application would have been clearer.
We will not know unless the person who modelled this (and published it on the internet so it came to my attention) comes forward and explains 😉
That leaves choosing the winners: There were many good contributions, than you all. The content winner is Patrick M. with his extended analysis and remodelling. As far as entertainment, I think Philippus nailed it with his first comment.