I can see why you might want to drop stakeholder as the examples like CIO, CFO given could simply be actors. Stakeholder could also be replaced by role. After all its just a specific type of role. However, I can't really see the value of creating yet another relationship called 'stakeholding'. May be you could elaborate with an example of how that would work better than just an association called 'stakeholder'?The current Stakeholder item is NOT a relationship it is an element. The Stakeholder "CIO" would need to be created in addition to the (for example) "CIO" Actor - so we have two items for the same real world object.
What you're actually articulating is the whole Motivational layer is poorly thought out and semantically barren and is really just a sop to the TOGAF folks.Yes, that is exactly what I'm articulating. :(
I do not agree tho' that you should replace it with a relationship. The relationship isn't "stakeholding", it is instead one of the choices in what ever responsibility matric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix) your organisation has chosen to use.
For example
<marketing:stakeholder> -- accountable --> <drive better brand recognition:goal> <-- realize -- <all web sites will use our brand colours:principle>
I would prefer to preserve the Stakeholder element and how it is used on ArchiMate diagrams. Instead I would define one or more relationship types to explicitly relate the stakeholder and the actor whose interest it represents.Where things make sense, we do. But when they don't, we don't.
This means that anyone familiar with ArchiMate but new to your models will still understand your model. You still have a clear place to document the exact interest the stakeholder explains, and the existing element can still be extended to add properties etc.
However, while I accept that we'll need the RACI (or RASCI) style relationships, I think the Stakeholding relationship is not quite the same semantics (unless ALL actors having a RASCI relationships are to be considered Stakeholders, perhaps - which is what you're saying yes?). Until I sort it out, I've found that, in modelling, it's better to initially "go overboard" and consolidate afterwards that to try and separate incorrectly conflated concepts later.
but you know, if you want to build chaos and inconsistency into your model do it! :-)Spent just about all of my professional life NOT doing that... Not going to start now... ;)