Achimate, definition vs use

[natvig]

I'm trying to understand how to best use EA for Archimate modeling. Having a solid understanding of SysML, and appreciating the difference between definition and use, I find the Archimate implementation in EA lacks som important features. Say for example that you need to model a business process where one of the business functions appear more the once. This presents a problem in EA since more than one instance of an element on the same diagram is not allowed. This makes perfect sense when modeling SysML since you use call behaviour actions to modell process flows in activity diagrams. However, in the Archimate 3 profile that comes with EA 13 you are supposed to model all diagrams types using "Class diagrams" which is a diagram that is supposed to have elements of definition on them.

My guess is that other Archimate tools allows more than one instance of the same business function on the same diagram. In order to make EA more usable as an Archimate platform should't business processes be modeled in activity diagrams using call behaviour actions?

/Hans (Archimate beginner)

[Glassboy]

I've stopped using Archimate or suggesting its use.  I find that its inherent inconsistency and the inconsistency of its use is more damaging than enlightening.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Natvig,

Your problem is that EA doesn't normally allow two instances of the same item on the one diagram.  Look at vIrtualized connector ends.  That's a mechanism to allow more than one apparent item shape on the diagram.

We use them in our architectural diagrams based on a more consistent (than standard) form of ArchiMate.
 

HTH,
Paolo